Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/06/20 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    The youtube video was pretty garbage advert for the game, I'm shocked that we retained as many as we have.
  2. 2 points
    I mean it just needs to be said. I think this graph is unacceptable. There was something going on when the video of this game was posted by a YouTube guru. The benefits of a player base double what we have now clearly benefits everyone. I'm very upset about the slightly annoyed attitude some of the admin team had about the influx of new players. The servers didn't crash, the game did not go dark, NPO stayed gone, I just want game advertisement to be at that outstanding level again.
  3. 1 point
    Blockades currently prevent you from receiving or sending resources via trade, alliance banks, or otherwise. My suggestion is to change this to be more realistic as it would be virtually impossible to cut off a modern nation from all outside access. I have a few different ideas for how this could be done. 1. Receiving resources via trades costs twice as much PPU. The selling nation gets more money for "smuggling" rss into the blockaded nation. 2. Receiving resources via trades or alliance bank transfers or otherwise results in half of the resources being "lost at sea" AKA deleted. 3. Receiving resources via any method comes with a chance of losing a percentage of the resources to any nations with an active blockade on you. 4. Add a spy op to "smuggle" resources into a nation. So a friendly nation would need to have resources on-hand to send you (with a set amount of how much. like 1000.) and use a spy op to send the resources to you. These operations have their own separate limit from the normal defensive limit, so it can't be spammed but also can't be used to block enemy spy ops from happening.
  4. 1 point
    Hi. I know a lot of potential updates or changes to the test server do get announced. I've just noticed I usually hear about new mechanics being tested "through the grapevine." and I could be blind but I also don't see anywhere to post feedback for the changes. I feel like this can result in people being blindsided by changes when they get pushed to Live, and I also feel like this doesn't provide any appropriate avenue with which to discuss potential changes / give feedback. Feedback seems to be the most important part of the test server existing so I figured we might need a public area for it.
  5. 1 point
    so what is the game suggestion here?
  6. 1 point
    I think that just shows that even poor advertisements can work well
  7. 1 point
  8. 1 point
  9. 1 point
    @Alex It seems this has gone ignored.
  10. 1 point
    All it wouild really take to fix this problem is two check boxes. One for Alliance One for Nation The most important aspect of this being that by default neither option is selected. And then a confirmation screen, such as we have with Trades.
  11. 1 point
    Well, at least one way to get this done would be to make sure that alliances and nations stop having the same names. You already can't name a nation after an alliance, but afaik you can still name an alliance after a nation, which means this can still happen and won't over time correct itself. Still, though, come to think of it the OP is probably a better and more general way to do it since there could be some confusion between, say, "TiIapia" and "Tilapia". (Bonus points if you can actually tell the diff.)
  12. 1 point
  13. 1 point
    At least IQ isn’t around to bathe in this fantastic update. Any hate they had for Alex would be replaced with pure puppy dog eyes.
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    Additionally, a confirmation message similar to the relatively new one you get when posting a trade offer would be great. "You are sending X to Y NATION" "You are sending Z to X ALLIANCE".
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.