Ketya

What a start for the new bloc! Just noticed the damage you guys have been delivering; great job! Good luck to both blocs; have fun!

Sad to see this all this energy spent on fixing a problem that doesn’t exist Fun to see how people rationalize choosing the option that got 30% over the option that got 50% keep going !

Good ideas. For #1, I like the essence, but wondering whether that would just make top-5 alliances even bigger. It is possible that many new players, when forced to join an alliance immediately, could just pick one of the top-5 by default. Don’t have a good alternative though maybe a new player can’t join top-20 at this early stage? Not a great solution though.

This is just an unnecessary discussion. All it does is just further polarizing the community. If you want to change the % from 50 to 40, I don’t even think you should be asking for feedback; just do it. It is immaterial change.

I prefer the current method as it introduces some surprise elements to the game. Without a little of the surprise element, the game gets solely mechanical.

I am playing the game a little over a year and this feels like the weakest CB so far; not even a CB. Why is it a punishable offense if I move from one alliance to another and message my friends in the previous one? What is next, attacking people because they chat with friends from the previous alliance? Hope both parties have fun!

Would have been an interesting twist if that nation is also given the option to buy out that bounty at 3X the value (just as another resource sink). I.e. I have $100m accumulated on my nation, I can spend $300m to remove it (unless I am already in a war).

So, each day a natural $10k (or else) bounty per city is put on every nation?

@Prefontaine can you tell a little more about the shipping routes? can players cancel these anytime or are they going to be set for a default number of turns? is it a two way relationship (I get a commodity from you and you get one from me)? Do each shipping route offer access to one or two commodities?

I suspect few of these will be used by many while others won’t be used at all. The idea above around the impact of the bonus change based on how many players are using would be an interesting edit. It could make it much more dynamic, to some extent making players more active.

@Changeup I was tracking the race between Rose and TFP on ‘most improved alliance’. Last time it was 47vs50, and now gone; any idea what happened to that one?

I agree it is an unnecessary improvement, but I don’t see a comment from Alex that says ads with higher votes will be shown more frequently. It just says ‘advertisements’ page will be ranked.

Alliance of the Year: TFPMost Powerful Alliance: RoseMost Improved Alliance: immortalsBest Rookie Alliance (must be an alliance formed in 2020): ErrorMost Missed Alliance: Best Alliance for New Players: TFPMost Honorable Alliance: TFPMost Immoral Alliance: Most Controversial Alliance: coal minesBiggest Warmongers: ErrorBiggest Pixel-Huggers: Spanish ArmadaWorst Fighting Alliance: TKRBest Alliance Growth: ErrorBiggest Alliance Decline: SchruteMost Likely to Succeed in 2021: TFPMost Likely to be Rolled in 2021: FarkBest Economics Department: TFPBest Foreign Affairs Department: TFPBest Internal A

Thanks! It feels like the whole baseball thing doesn’t add any value to the game while causing many to consume their time. I wish there was a way for the game to reward the value added activity over mindless clicking. Don’t have an idea though

Good point. If you look at the data visualization charts around the amount of raws and resources, most are reaching pre-cheating levels; and this is with a large scale global war. Adding more projects could both address the increasing amount of resources/raws and also force players to specialize instead of trying to get all projects. Was it ever the case where new city building required resources in addition to cash? That might be another method to make raws/resources more valuable.