Jump to content

Greene

VIP
  • Posts

    839
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Greene

  1. Untitled_design_9.png

    Neo has, for the past few weeks, been actively engaged in a plot to harm the Lazarus Order of the 770, to generally usurp any authority from the leaders of this alliance, before summarily departing and creating a new alliance with our allies. Against the wishes of our allies, he has also been attempting to foment discord and disunity within their respective ranks so as to make a forced merger easier. For these and other reasons, he has been banned from the Lazarus Order of the 770.

    The long and short of it is that a single member of our government decided he could do a better job of leading everyone. He has from the onset, been trying to force the Archs into completely changing how we operate. 770 was built on a freedom to play the game the way our members want to play, and that is incompatible with the way that Neo wanted the alliance to operate. 

    We launched the DEFCON-5 wars as a means of testing certain readiness and other things. It has been eye-opening that one person would be able to damage our abilities so soundly. Neo was instructed to help everyone learn the war system against a more competent (as in coordinated), not inactive opponent. Up until now, our members have only gone against inactive targets. He didn't do his job. Instead, he tried to force us and other alliances into a merger with him at the helm. There is documentation backing this up made public on our discord. He got the swift kick out of the monastery.

    As per Duncan Croford, of the Waffle House, they were intending to sign DEFCON-5 all along, however wanted to hold off to see how DEFCON-5 was able to defend and hold up before hand. Indeed, there is a common history and background shared between both alliances. Equally, when 770 withdrew from The Johnsons to form our own bloc, the treaty that existed between our two alliances was always merely a nominal one that was destined to be cancelled. It was purely that neither of us got around to doing so. With the Waffle House merger, it was now time. 

    There will be the deluge of individuals who doubt my representations. That is their choice. 770 is built on personal choice. With this, I shall now return my attention to the people and congregations of the Most Right and Holy Lazarus Order of the 770.

    Go in Peace,

    + Rev. Greene
    Arch and First Priest of the Order

    • Like 1
    • Haha 2
    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 27
  2. Oh holy meatballs, those walls of text are just entirely unnecessary @Firwof Kromwell. I mean dang, I went cross-eyed just looking at the monstrous amount of text I would have to read, and came to the conclusion of nope, not gonna even bother reading it. Short and sweet, no one should need to have the attention span to read that on here.

    That said, just gotta ask the Chocolatiers: Want to walk me through how one of your heirs just threw their hands up in the air and took one cruise missile and three nukes. Folks with a memory know I have a penchant for bdsm jokes, but really, four missiles? Four. That's not even a joke anymore. That's rolling over and purring.

    • Haha 2
  3. You lot asked for Taith to hit the floor. Be careful what you wish for. We submitted a solution to TOSE that would pay out folks equitably. They refused to do their job. So if you have problems, go speak to them. GNPI, MERC, SKYF, all gone. TGIF? We were going to honour it however TOSE tried to hold us hostage. They believe that they hold all of our wealth, so let them figure it out. 

    We are arranging trustees to run our Banc Cymru, and we aren’t leaving the game. Bring on the declarations. We dropped all our treaties. 
     

    I’ll edit this to add our flag shortly. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 36
  4. 7 hours ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

    Isn't this against the rules though...

    No goods or services are being traded for in-game money or other in-game currency. There is no cost, and the only requirements that are being placed on participation is the necessity that participants join the server, be verified by the Locutus bot (which costs the player nothing), and then react to the giveaway message.

    • Like 1
  5. 2 hours ago, Pascal said:

    At least, you got one of them right

    True story. 
     

    Alliance of the Year: Taith
    Most Powerful Alliance: Taith
    Most Improved Alliance: Taith
    Most Honorable Alliance: Taith
    Most Immoral Alliance: 
    Most Controversial Alliance: Taith
    Biggest Warmongers: 
    Biggest Pixel-Huggers: Taith
    Worst Fighting Alliance: 
    Best Alliance Growth: Taith
    Biggest Alliance Decline: 
    Most Likely to Succeed in 2021: Taith
    Most Likely to be Rolled in 2021: Taith
    Best Economics Department: Taith

    • Downvote 3
  6. 1 hour ago, Isjaki said:

    For future reference, any spammers in my war range earn a complimentary war declaration from me.

    Implying that’s spam is so last season. 
     

    Player of the Year: Greene
    Most Influential Player: Greene
    Most Likely to Succeed in 2021: Greene
    Best Alliance Leader: Greene
    Worst Alliance Leader: Greene
    Most Missed Player: Fraggle
    Best IC Poster: Fraggle
    Poster You Most Love to Hate: Greene
    Best Villain: Greene
    Largest E-Peen: Greene
    Most Controversial Player: Greene
    Player You’re Pretty Sure will be Playing in 2050: RobApIoan
    Player that is Worst at Responding to DMs: Greene

    • Downvote 6
  7. 1. Right now, there are two buttons (2k and 20k) that allow you to increase your players' stats. Could we have a button that would merely 100 that stat? Perhaps make it a pure 0.25x gain since the range is 0.15 to 0.35? Implementing this suggestion would reduce the number of clicking necessary to get a player to 100, which could make the game a little less cumbersome. edit: I want to be clear, that I'm not advocating the removal of the two existing buttons, but instead suggesting the inclusion of a third "max" button.

    2. Allow those who have donated for a custom baseball logo also to have a custom stadium image? Rolling out this suggestion would be along the same lines as the City Headers that are customisation through VIP but would be pegged instead of "team customisation" which comes through the logo change donation. This customisation could make donating for a more customisation team more attractive. Perhaps also allow players to upload their team jerseys or at the minimum a minimum allow them to configure customised hex colourings? 

    3. Auto-hide the blow-by-blow table that shows how the game went. While a lot of folks may find that enjoyable, some don't need to see the granular details and instead only want to know the final results. Alternatively, relocate the play next game to above that table.

    4. Change the current random challenge to instead allow players to set a random bounty on the challenge. For example, if I wanted to set a 100k wager on a random challenge, then some random challenger would be able to automatically play against me and one of us would win that money. This would make it easier to play challenge games and also make it more fun for folks who want a more random chance.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 3
  8. In connection with my suggestion regarding utilizing alliance projects to make Alex's suggestion to cap banks workable, I'd like to roll out a few more possible projects that could be used to create more specialization at an alliance level. I'll edit the OP as I come up with additional alliance projects to suggest. I also hate that I'm calling them alliance projects, so if someone can come up with a better adjective, let me know!

    Membership Soft Cap
    Right now, alliances are allowed to have unlimited members. One suggestion could be to have a soft cap on that. Let's say we set the default cap to 20 members. The first 20 members to join the alliance are free, but anyone who is accepted after the cap costs their alliance (RNG up to ncount over cap)% of the alliance's bank. So if you have 24 members and still only have the cap of 20, you would lose between 0 and 5% of your alliance's bank when you bring them in as member 25. The cap could be raised to offset that. This creates a more decision-based approach. Is it worth it to bring this new player in? Also creates something more for alliances to spend their money on. At a lower level, it would not likely be cost effective to buy a project to increase member count cap, but at a higher level, it would undoubtedly be. If combined with the suggestions to improve bank capacity, this would force alliances to consider whether it is better to diversify or centralize their members.

    Taxation Efficiency
    Right now, alliances have perfect efficiency. If they set the tax rate to 20%, it's 20%. That's what goes into the bank. My suggestion for this project is to implement a variable efficiency. So lets say that instead of guaranteeing that 100% of what you're taxing actually makes it to the bank, have it be RNG 80-100%, with the rest of the funds remaining on the nation. No money is actually lost, but it creates an incentive to check your nation more often, and gives raiders a chance to make money, especially if the suggestion to protect bank balances goes into effect. The Taxation Efficiency project would significantly reduce (but not eliminate altogether) the chance of nations inadvertently retaining a portion of their taxes. So something like (10% chance of the nation keeping 5-10% of the taxes that turn). This suggestion also helps reduce the efficacy of 100% taxation and requires alliances and nations to actually pay just a little more attention to their balances.

    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 3
  9. On 9/15/2019 at 6:32 AM, Elijah Mikaelson said:

    Well if they delete it they lose the 5%, everything but a sale will lose you the 5% even if someone tries to buy it and you do not have it on hand you will lose the 5%

    So as I understand it, your suggestion is to have [if trade is unsuccessful, charge 5%] right? If we're going for a full revamp, I'd love to also see something implemented where you could also lose an extra 10% to have the source be kept secret. So like no one knows who listed the trade, just that it's listed. And that 10% would come out time of trade creation, and be tacked on in addition to the 5% penalty for having a trade fail after n hours timer or being cancelled.

  10. On 9/16/2019 at 12:00 AM, Mandystalin said:

    Simply rename them as government ministers and it still works. If desired, rotation could be achieved be a gov reshuffle 

    Conversely, have the "Western" titles as the default, but since we all know Alex likes it when we spend donation credits for customization, let you basically utilize VIP to change the titles (and character names) to whatever you want. Position would still be, but having like 3 government positions, and each month (?) the bonuses randomly reset due to elections, but you can pay to reshuffle early, or contribute to a "re-election" fund to increase your chances of keeping them.

    • Upvote 1
  11. Seems like the lion share of complaints are directed at having a cap on the bank's balance. The issue is that any formula will inevitably be too low for some and too high for others. I have the easiest solution in the world: let alliances implement their own cap.

    Someone mentioned alliance-level projects in this thread already, and I'd like to expand on that in greater detail. Alliance projects would be significant expenditures that would yield awesome benefits to the alliance. For the purpose of this thread though, let's lay out an idea.

    Repeating Project: Bank Capacity Increase
    Banks start with a cap of 1n. Whatever Alex determines to be the final resting place for that cap is mostly irrelevant to this suggestion. Each time the alliance wants to increase their bank's "safety cap" (I'll explain why shortly why I am calling it a safety cap), they pay a exponentially increasing price (similar to city count) for +0.1n cap. So if an alliance did 5 increases, they'd have a total of 1.5n bank capacity.

    This solves the issue of larger or more affluent alliances needing to retain their larger bank balances safe, while creating a greater level of flexibility in alliance management. Alliances can decide if they want to have that money simply retained at a nation level and susceptible to wide-scale looting, or if they want to spend capital to safeguard future monies in the bank.

    But wait, there's more!
    Remember when I said "safety cap" - I have two suggestions that could either be implemented separately, or in tandem. I think these will sufficiently mollify at least a few detractors.

    • The alliance cap is just an immunity or safety cap. What that means is, up to the aforementioned capacity balance that's protected, the funds cannot be looted. Once the alliance hits that cap, anything above that cap becomes susceptible to looting. To balance out the fact that banks now have safety caps, anything above the cap is able to be looted at a factor of 10 (I support even higher factors, but again, I think x10 seems reasonable). This helps encourage alliances to stay below their cap or spend funds to increase their cap.
    • The second part is what I really like. Again, allow banks to receive monies above the cap. The difference here would be that bank efficiency or graft (we can play around with wording) applies to this mechanic. Once the bank hits their cap, any funds going in would find a random (RNG) percentage go poof. So if you were at the cap and someone deposited 100m into your alliance's bank, you might only receive 68m of that deposit, since the other 32m (RNG of 32) was stolen en-route by the Sheepanostra.

    In both add-on suggestions, the alliance cap is implemented, only as more of a soft cap with serious side effects to exceeding it.

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 3
  12. Or give the person the option to either Buy to n infra or Synchronize to n infra. If the former, it will only make infra-related changes if the infra is below that point. For the latter, it would function as it currently does. Additionally, you could upgrade the Synchronize function to allow to auto-resolve issues if that option is selected.

    • Like 1
  13. Psh, that exchange rate is insane! More like $10 for 100m in-game, at least the time I did it back in May. Which reminds me, I had a convo with Alex just yesterday, in which he confirmed for me (again) that this isn't against the rules. But go ahead and try to use the mods as a weapon against in-game politics.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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