Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/13/20 in all areas
-
2 points
-
Pretty simple. Either separate the timers OR remove project timers all together. I'm fine with either but I think they should minimally be separate. Projects are more about enhancing your nation than growing your nation and are typically a solid multi-resource sink. They also have limited slots based on infra which is semi-limited by city count unless you spend ungodly amounts of cash for 4k infra in a city. Makes more sense to remove the timer and allow nations to freely customize themselves but we could at least separate the two timers.1 point
-
a Knightly Association: Radiant Empire Notification Preamble The Knights Radiant and The Imperium enter into this treaty of mutual defense, to be referred to as K.A.R.E.N. Article I: That’s So Fetch! The Knights Radiant and The Imperium, referred to hereafter as the Signatories, come together to proclaim that “Fetch” is made an official word of both the Empire and Roshar. All followers of the sacred slang shall be granted Pax Romana such that no hostile actions are taken. Any disagreements on how and when “Fetch” should be said will be handled through the local oathkeeper. Article II: I’ll Speak to the Manager Both Signatories agree to share all relevant information, even complaints about the feckless employees. It is agreed that no whining nor passive-aggressiveness shall be included in the exchange of gossip on the size of that gurl’s assets. The Signatories are also encouraged to share technological and monetary techniques, including but not limited to roads, winemaking, and surges of adhesion. Article III: Isn’t my Haircut Great? Should either Signatory come under attack, the other Signatory pledges to do whatever it takes to help them get their way. Yes, even if that means we have to deal with people “who are just doing their job.” A Signatory does not have to send the radiant legions if this call is due to a Signatory's other obligations towards, or actions undertaken on behalf of, a third party. Article IV: I’m No Basic B*tch Should either Signatory wish to show their true colors, the treaty may be canceled at any time with the proper displays of privilege to the other alliance, followed by 72 hours of going to successively higher levels of management. After the 72 hours have elapsed, K.A.R.E.N will no longer be an official meme. /s/ The Knights Radiant Queen of the Heralds: BennyBoop Princess of the Heralds: Revolution’s Harbinger Herald of Foreign Affairs: Boops Herald of War: ARRROOOOO Herald of Growth: Shroominator Herald of Internal Affairs: The Wise L /s/ The Imperium Emperor: Fake Boss Regent: Shopping Cart Manager Primarch of Milcom: Babysitter Primarch of Internal Affairs: Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg1 point
-
I know this has been suggested many times before in many different degrees of complexity, yet despite support everytime that I have seen, it still hasnt happened: Add another officer rank so that leaders dont have to choose between giving all in game officers bank access and giving their bank gov the all powerful Heir position. A simple problem, a simple solution. Would I prefer a more complex solution like an admin panel to control who can do what? yes, but I have given up on that dream...1 point
-
Inspired by this discussion, I'm starting this separate thread to draw more awareness to this issue. We're all aware that treasure trading via war has been banned by rules for a while now. A trading system was announced to take its place, but considering there has been no movement on this since the day treasure trading was rendered illegal a few months ago, I believe this should be put to consideration again and added to the docket for the next update. Here is my suggestion: Personal trade offers for buying and selling treasures. - Nation to nation treasure offers. One side receives the money, the other receives the treasure. Standard trade offer stuff, just like for the resources. - 5 day cooldown on treasure movement. For obvious purposes of preventing playing hot potatoes with treasures. - If the treasure bearer is blockaded, the treasure can not be traded. Self-explanatory. - Cap the amount of treasures one nation can hold to 2. Make treasure buying unavailable to nations that already hold one treasure. To prevent biggest/richest nations from hoarding all the treasures. The nation should not be able to buy a treasure if they already have one. If y'all think of something else this system would need, throw it in the comments below.1 point
-
1 point
-
More-so the attacking side... in the reason of war it makes it evident that the attacker has no plans of winning the war, and during the war he doesn't launch a single attack. I think that the defender's side is likely in the clear of this situation. The defender here of course beiging (it feels good to be able to say that again) the attacker. The attacker though declared without any intent to attack, and didn't attack... (I mostly included the defender's link just to have both parties linked, I'm not entirely sure the proper etiquette, but I assumed it as such. I have since edited out the defender's link from the initial report)1 point
-
not sure if your joking or not but it was 30vs600+ yknow only 20x our member base swamp took 3.3bil damage TCM took 7.4bil similar to TCM+GPC versus Poor Pantheon Crew which ended up 800+ vs 69 7bil taken 5.3bil dealt our most recent war was 80 Vs 24 we had a 4 man ally step in via a MDoAP 3bil taken and 2.4bil dealt all wars sides poor pantheon officially ended in white peace i ended following Goons peace terms which made Pantheon win by default technically however we reformed TCM on our Birthday and stayed together regardless of not having a solid alliance recovery is slow but we aren't gonna go anywhere anytime soon so just gonna hang on and fix some our old bots and work on recruitment1 point
-
I would echo Scarfy here. If you have suggestions for the game, you should feel free to bring them up. That is part of what makes the community great.1 point
-
Hey now, don't even worry about it. That particular suggestion isn't going to fit in this game for very important reasons, but that's no reason to feel bad about speaking your mind. Mistakes are the only way to learn after all1 point
-
IMO, your NIT project seems overpowered. I think that would just become a must-have for every nation, whereas I think projects that create more strategic trade-offs are better for gameplay. In terms of revisions to the project system, similarly I don't think we should make projects easier to get or more available for the same reason - if everyone can just have every project, there is no strategic decision making involved, no room for different and varied playstyles, etc. As for project timers, I agree they should be reduced. IMO, it would be good to separate project/city timers and reduce both to something like 7 days (1 week).1 point
-
1 point
-
We should just make them so you cant trade them while at war. Problem solved and you get the best of both mechanics1 point
-
You love to see it. Congrats you two love birds, don't let all the doom and gloomers get ya down.1 point
-
How dare you post this. The OWF is for insulting others not politics (congrats and good luck)1 point
-
Who are you to talk about failing at growing?1 point
-
1 point
-
Excuse me sir, I've been unanswered since August 31, so get in line.1 point
-
1 point
-
1 point
-
Atlas Technologies is an emerging technology conglomerate and consulting company based in Dallas, Texas, USA. The vision of Atlas Technologies is to not only provide but to create advanced technology for the betterment of the world. Portfolio of acquired and merged assets includes InGen Technologies, B.A.E. Systems, and Weyland Yutani Corporation. Atlas Technologies has publicly traded on the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation System (Nasdaq:ATLT) since the 5th of March, 2020. Atlas Technologies Department of Public Relations Announcement: Partnership Development Public Relations: Tali Corporate Contact: Max For over 180 days, Atlas Technologies has been a subsidiary of Camelot- while the company had free reign of operations to the extent given and no need for monetary investment since creation - Camelot’s Archduke of Diplomacy, Aero, helped guide Atlas Technologies to meet the goals set by company leadership and assisted in laying the foundation of what the company is today. Atlas Technologies is stepping out of the subsidiary status under Camelot. During a set bi-weekly progress report to Camelot, Azazel, Archduke of Diplomacy, approached company leadership with an offering to upgrade the current partnership. Atlas Technologies agreed to the upgrade in mutual partnership at 06:49 Central Time on the 4th of September, 2020. Camelot has been a guiding force behind Atlas Technologies. This partnership recognizes not only the strong relationship between both Camelot and Atlas Technologies but it also links trust and integrity to that relationship. Atas Technologies looks forward to walking shoulder to shoulder with Camelot on its path to a better, technologically advanced future. Publicly Signed Agreement Camelot - Atlas Technologies Preface Camelot and Atlas Technologies agree to upgrade protection and sign a Mutual Defense Optional Aggression (MDoAP) treaty. Item I - Jurisdiction in Operations Agreement signatories agree to respect each other’s right to conduct its own affairs and business without external interference. Item II - Data Securities Agreement signatories agree to share and protect data, with the understanding that close cooperation is a necessity for the security of both parties. Item III - Mutual Defense of Hostile Takeovers Agreement signatories agree to come to each other’s aid when threatened or attacked by external operatives. Item IV - Optional Aggressive Operations Agreement signatories agree that should one party make the decision to pursue an aggressive hostile takeover, the other party has the right to join or remain neutral in aggression. Item V - Termination of Partnership Agreement signatories agree to a 72-Hour written notice should the need arise to nullify the partnership. Agreement Signatories Signed for Atlas Technologies: Chairman: Mad Max Director of Strategic Investments: Jordan Director of Public Relations: Tali Director of Safety Protocols: El Loco Director of Internal Communications: Han Solo Special Signatories: Parched, Chara, Tiberius and all of our members. Without all of you, we wouldn’t be where and who we are today. Signed for Camelot: King: Arthur Morgana: Empimetheus Merlin: Uriah Lancelot: Viselli Archduke - Internal Affairs: Random Archduke - Milcom: Sweden Archduke: Economics: Alphalion Archduke - Diplomacy: Azazel & Aero1 point
-
English please wtf even is this.1 point
-
🌠. 🎀 𝒶𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝒾𝒹𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒻𝓊𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝓁❀𝓌𝓃 𝒽🌞𝓂🌺 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑔𝒶𝓎 𝒶𝓈𝒻 𝒶𝓁𝓁𝒾𝒶𝓃𝒸𝑒, 𝒾 𝓌❁𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓇 𝒦𝒯 𝓃💗𝓉 𝒶𝓅𝓅𝓇💮𝓅𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓉𝑒 💮𝓊𝓇 𝒾𝒸♡𝓃❀𝑔𝓇𝒶𝓅𝒽𝓎 𝓉💮 𝓉𝓇𝓎 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓁♡𝓌-𝓀𝑒𝓎 𝓂𝒶𝓀𝑒 𝒻𝓊𝓃 💍𝒻 ☯𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝓅𝑒💙𝓅𝓁𝑒. 𝓎😍𝓊 𝒽𝒶𝓋𝑒 𝓈𝒽💙𝓌𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓎🌞𝓊 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓃🍪𝓉 ☯𝓊𝓇 𝒶𝓁𝓁𝒾𝑒𝓈 𝓈💮 𝓀𝒾𝓃𝒹𝓁𝓎 𝒻𝓊𝑔 🏵𝒻𝒻 ~ 𝒽𝓊𝑔𝓈 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓀𝒾𝓈𝓈𝑒𝓈 𝓍♡𝓍💞 🎀 .🌠1 point
-
Considering there is already an artificial project timer in the form of the infra requirements, which require you to buy more cities over time to meet them, I don't see any reason not to remove it.1 point
-
Ground battles are savage now. Especially with their ability to rip planes apart faster than you can reliably gain AS, ground has become the equivalent of aircraft in the old meta. You can either reduce ground casualties, though this makes war overall more grindy, by alot. Alternatively one could increase air to air casualties, making at a rough parity with ground, placing the emphasis on an organized first strike and a coordinated active membership and Milcom to send counters to either maintain or take back initiative. I prefer option two, especially with new beige mechanics hopefully coming soon to make all wars end in beige (something realistic, effective and quick, before you go flowing with the long term creative juices, please) as this truly makes combined arms and absolute necessary and opens up far more strategic options with Ground and Air both being powerful enough to floor people if used properly. A slight increase in airstriking tanks wouldn't be bad either. Hopefully a change for ships (better ship to ship kills, add in a targetting option like planes have, ships are giant floating missiles silos yanno) and spend our time testing the effectiveness of those, allowing them to target units or infra or other ships or even improvements. Ships as they are are as they've always been, meh. Good for killing infra, and so in my idea above they'd only be OK at killing other units instead of the slaughter parity with ground and air.1 point
-
While in concept these seem like good ideas (atleast with some tweaks for balance and price changes), another problem this causes is that it promotes consolidation which makes the game boring. It would push Blocs and alliances with Vassals & academies to merge into single alliances, and benefits large alliances disproportionately than smaller ones. Consolidation means less wars, longer NAPs, Less raid Targets, and less micro drama to train new members & gov and promotes pixel huggery over Dynamic & fun gameplay.1 point
-
1 point
-
Baseball's just kinda there for the average player. It's profitability lies in people who sit there and spam click a hundred matches in 1 hour or botters. Make baseball a once a day home game and once a day away game feature that earns you a few extra hundred K a day if you got it maxed.0 points
-
Yeah needs to be higher too. A targeted airstrike should kill equal if not more tanks than a ground attack which simply wipes everything at the moment but for ships.0 points
-
If the word you were asking about was "Fuhrer", then yes it's one that we do not allow. I understand it's not only associated with Hitler, but I would say primarily (especially in America) it is, which is why we have prohibited it.0 points
-
This is a suggestion that has been floated previously, but I think that given the late-stage of the game it would really add something. In a nutshell, my proposal is that every turn, there is some (very small) chance that any given Nuclear Power Plant will experience an accident, causing a meltdown and resulting in the uninhabitability of the city. (I.E. The city is destroyed/removed.) Right now there are 0 mechanics that can reduce someone's city count. Because there is effectively no cap on nation growth, some players are just really far ahead of others and will always be farther ahead. Adding a meltdown mechanic will add a small limiting factor and at the least reduce the growth rate of very high-city nations. Yes, I know, you could just not use Nuclear Power Plants, and I would expect that some players would switch to Wind Power. Which, in my opinion is fine, as that does take up a lot more improvement slots and ultimately still accomplishes the same goal of reducing the growth rate of players at the high end. Here are some numbers I've calculated using a 0.0004% chance of a meltdown happening per Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) per turn. For smaller nations, the likelihood of experiencing a meltdown is lower because smaller nations either have no or significantly less NPPs. It's also important to recognize that the cost of rebuilding, say, City #10 is significantly less than rebuilding City #40. It would be a relatively insignificant change for most players, but it would up-the-ante so to speak for using Nuclear Power Plants, and IMO it's a fun mechanic - it allows a player's risk-tolerance to enter into their decision making when deciding how to build their cities. This change would of course be thoroughly tested on the Test Server for bugs, and probably wouldn't be implemented until late January at the very earliest. So, in the mean-time, I'm throwing it up here to get some feedback. The numbers could be tweaked, of course, but I think that this is a reasonable balance. Let me know what you think.0 points