Jump to content

Exalts

Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    France
  • Interests
    Coffee
  • Leader Name
    Exalts
  • Nation Name
    Master Brew
  • Nation ID
    195544
  • Alliance Name
    Lethean Dawn

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name: Exalts#3662

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Exalts's Achievements

Casual Member

Casual Member (2/8)

62

Reputation

  1. If you make the bonus decrease by 10% of the bonus per city after 10, then building new cities effectively makes your revenue not move, and I don't think that's a good thing. Instead, the game should further incentivize raiding. If you really want new nations to catch up, you could tweak the city cost formula instead. I'm no math genius, but here's propositions, if anything. Here's the current formula 50000*(x-1)^3+150000*x+75000 Under this formula, going from c1 to c10 costs $72,225,000, and c10 to c20 costs $1,419,750,000. Here's a proposed revised formula between cities 1 and 19 (included) (10000+x*2000)*(x-1)^3+150000*x+75000 Under this revised formula, going from c1 to c10 would cost $40,521,000, and c10 to c20 would cost $1,204,986,000. After c20, the cost would revert to the current city formula instead. For maximum ease of viewing, refer to this handy-dandy chart. (Red is current formula, green is proposed new formula) Crucially, you may notice that the city cost eventually catches up with the current formula, but getting the earlier cities is cheaper, and helps push nations to the mid-tier quicker. Now, a few things should be taken into consideration with this new formula. Not least of which being, how does this interface with the urban planning projects? Let's look at Urban Planning first ($50,000,000 discount per city, starting at c11). With this new formula, c12 would cost $33,725,000, or $32,038,750 with the Manifest Destiny domestic policy (or $31,195,625 with Government Support Agency). And now, Advanced Urban Planning ($100,000,000 discount per city, starting at c16). With this new formula, c17 would cost $144,225,000, or $137,013,750 with the Manifest Destiny domestic policy (or $133,408,125 with Government Support Agency) . We notice that in both cases, the discount is high enough that cities would hit a negative cost, which is not desirable. What I can propose to counter that is a minimum city unmodified cost of $225,000, or $213,750 with Manifest Destiny (or $208,125 with Government Support Agency), which is the cost of c2. Using Domestic Policy (boosted by Government Support Agency) and both Urban Planning projects the moment they become available, the minimum cost of getting to c20 would become $514,593,400, as opposed to the approximately $609,876,250 (Look, I did a lot of math, let me be lazy and just use the wiki's number and not recalculate for the 7.5% discount provided by GSA this time) that it does now. It would reduce the cost of going from c1 to c20 by 16%. Of course, that's only one proposed formula, it can be tweaked further, or differently if the idea is close to your heart. Anyway, enough math, more coffee. ☕
  2. Here's some ramblings of a fool. I am not justifying the behaviour of the less savoury denizens of the forums, if they act like idiots they deserve to be treated as such, but I can put some theories as to why this has become increasingly common. Now, some people will always be inflamatory in those threads, and nothing you or anyone else does will change that. 1- Lack of transparency in decision-making This one should be self-explanatory. Ideas and changes are in the hands of the dev team, and I trust in their expertise, but that doesn't mean they are infallible. How ideas come to be, and the way they should be tackled is a community thing. No ten people can make good decisions for the rest of us and expect it to fit every shoe. In my very biased, incomplete opinion, problems that you think need addressing should be brought to the community first, and you should let them think of possible solutions. Not all ideas will be good, and not all good ideas will be feasible, or be equally good for everyone, so you have the discretion to keep or discard ideas, but this should ultimately make future changes less of a surprise attack, and it should give the community time to come up with adequate (or adequate enough) solutions on their own. This will also help mitigate my second point. 2- The dev team feels out of touch I'm making no accusation here, since we don't get to hear from the rest of the team. I've no doubt that @Prefontaine is the spokesperson for the ideas of the team, and unfortunately bears the load of the ridicule when an idea is unpopular, but the facts remain that proposed changes to existing systems, such as warfare or even spies, seem really deluded, excessively grandiose, or downright bad; and it certainly does not help that Prefontaine himself has effectively retired from the game. This by itself shouldn't be a surprise, once again, not even experts are infallible, but it is happening too frequently, and provoking further distrust in the team. The first point should help partially fix this problem. Transparency is key to carrying your point across, even to people who disagree. 3- Targetted stubborness (Aren't I eloquent...) I've been playing this game for almost 3 years, and although the elders here will still call me fresh meat, I think I've gotten a good hang of the game. In those three years, however, it feels like there's been half a dozen of spy change threads with the same exact key points outlined. And every time, they get shot down. This is more of a "me" gripe than a community thing, but it doesn't look too good. It looks like the dev team is trying to either sneak the change through, or repropose it until people either get tired of saying no, or until someway somehow people reconsider. Stop reproposing changes that people have already shot down, it makes it look like you have an agenda. Now, of course, remember that I'm only one person. This is my own idea of what's wrong based on my observations of the last three years and discussions with involved people of the community and of my former alliance. I am absolutely not infallible either, and I could be wrong here and there, so other people should correct me if they disagree with one or multiple of the points I've made. Either way, it was about time I said something about it. Cheers~ ☕
  3. Counter-counter suggestion, I beat them back.
  4. Counter-suggestion, also. Allow nations to opt out of spawning treasures. I don't want my enemies to negate my damage just because I got good RNG
  5. I mean, I'm definitely not happy about it, but that doesn't mean it needs to be changed necessarily.
  6. If that is the design philosophy that you and your team are pursuing, so be it. I feel this is going to lead to rather toxic changes to the war meta where alliance wars might become endurance races to the first person to finally get tired of back and forths, or might discourage future wars that aren't guaranteed stomps because of the possible risk of taking massive losses through the opponent's spite.
  7. Would this still be a very good thing if you could do the same with tanks and aircraft too? I can't imagine the winning side in a war being very enthusiastic about their opponent printing a full army weekly without any recourse
  8. I'm saying precisely the inverse. It allows for alliances LIKE ROSE to spy blitz you every 5 days, even if it has lost the spy war.
  9. But is this truly a necessary change? 3 spy ops from 2 people with spy sat with average RNG on a target with max units will destroy approximately a single rebuy of that unit type. That's not enough to influence the direction of an alliance war on its own, requires 2 spy satellites, plus the coordination needed to make it happen, plus variables like success rates. While I'm here: Is this truly necessary? I think people on the non-Rose coalition have become acutely acquainted with the reality that, whether you win or lose the spy war, an alliance willing to dedicate time to coordinating spy ops as an alliance can still inflict damage while being spy-wiped. (For some metrics, I've been spy wiped all war and destroyed over 65k tanks this global war through spy ops alone as a c31) This is just giving more meat to already competent spy alliances, who already have an edge by virtue of understanding the mechanic more, or dedicating more manpower to it.
  10. True and untrue. A single player can get spy-slotted for 450% damage currently. Now they'll get spy slotted for 300% damage. Unless you mean to say that damage is effectively unchanged, only scaled with spy counts, which is not how your original thread makes it appear.
  11. Best of luck to everyone involved, I'll knock back a nice, warm coffee as pixels go up in flames!
  12. Looking forward to a productive future with you! 🌹
  13. Best of luck to everyone involved, make sure to bring your most creative war reasons to the table, I will praise creatiive ones among you 😄
  14. You had me on beating Aqua. You're on 😁
  15. Bestest of luck to all participants, I'm expecting creative war reasons, know that I'll silently (or not so silently) judge you if you don't
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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