Jump to content

Indrasi Indoril

Members
  • Posts

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Indrasi Indoril

  1. I like this idea, though id also seperate ITC and telecoms into commerce category, and the SPTP, GT, RI, CRC into civil category And when I had this idea originally I lumped AUP & UP with your "internal expansion" category as "Development"
  2. just a small QOL suggestion, it would be nice to add a setting to choose a default war type in account settings, instead of all war declare pages defaulting to ordinary. Ordinary is typically the least used war type, and a source of headaches when you have to finish a war in the wrong setting. so it would be nice to be able to choose raid for raiders or attrition for nukers & other agents of chaos by default on the declare page for their preferred war type.
  3. Im not going to jump into the ooc politics that this thread has devolved into quickly, as I dont think this is the place, but I have to agree with you completely. Not in the regard that there is too many alliances with communist policies/ideologies, I dont really have an issue with alliances being communist per se, but the ones whos names are just different combinations of the words "United, soviet, socialist, commune, nations, republics" are just bleh, They lack any form of creativity or originality. I dont have an issue with communist alliances like ASM, atleast not on their theme, but there are too many alliances where the extent of their theme is "I'm communist, my name is USN#83, I will not merge with the 82 other USNs"
  4. Thank you, not only did this fix the treaty issues it also cut down the load time for our alliance page and the rich text editor on our edit alliance panel. edit alliance panel was taking around 7 to 15 minutes to load, and I was assuming that was just from my slow internet, now it loads in less than a minute. 😅
  5. The Weak are meat and the Strong do Eat. 🍖 🥓 🥩
  6. Even if you wanted to go solo you'd still need an alliance to yourself for the bank, and a reliable offshore. No alliance means all your stuff is on hand, no offshore means all your stuff is in your bank, either of these things will attract many raiders, even if you yourself are a raider, until you are picked clean to the bone. I understand the opposition to taxes, thats why my alliance doesnt have taxes by default (and even when we do these are just direct deposits into your bank account not ours), however most alliances without taxes expect you to raid for your own money and borrow what you need against your deposits' value. If you are looking for an alliance that provides grants and aid programs they will have taxes, just be wary of who you join, if they have taxes expect to be there long term as you will be debt trapped and forced to grow out of range of the easy raid profits that could get you out of debt. If you are interested in raiding & no taxes join an alliance like mine (NukaWorld), Space Invaders or Arrgh (though arrgh is probably not the best place for newer players to learn) If you are interested in grants and more conventional style alliances go with The Knights Radiant, Chocolate Castle, Black Knights, or any top 20 that feels like a good fit (id recommend asking some third parties about anyone before you choose, not just their abilities as an alliance, but also their communities and reputation) Micros can be fun and are easier to be promoted in, so as a smaller nation you may be attracted to them over the bigs, but most dont know what they are doing and should be avoided, those freedoms they offer you come at the price of you wasting money on bad decisions and never really learning anything. Most of them also have bad banking practices and dont know how to offshore or budget things. Join these alliances only if you are interested in being raided by alliances like mine. especially avoid micros with taxes and no offshore or protector. I actually recommend joining a low tax raider alliance first even if you want to join the grants/conventional alliance later, as you can reach the 100 wars won/lost project slot and build up a sizeable personal wealth stockpile much easier at c5 than at the city counts most alliances will rush you to build to. Alliances that fund to only c10 are also worthless as far as grants go, as you could've just raided that much in less than 14 days even with just average loot targets at c3 to c5.
  7. When I click the propose new treaty button it will not open, I thought maybe it was an issue with my device or connection so I asked some of my government staff to do the same, yet it doesn't work for any of them either, had one of our gov move from a vassal who was able to do it on their control panel but even they had the same issue when in NukaWorld. Issue has been going on for a few months now, atleast for me. If anyone knows a workaround link that will send the treaty via url or something let me know.
  8. While im not the biggest fan on making taxes encoded to be opt-in (even though that works perfectly for my alliance where they are already an opt-in system ), I suppose the meta would just become that alliances with mandatory taxes would kick a nation that refuses to opt-in after a few days, so I dont oppose it and I see how it could work. though it does hurt my usage of taxes as punishment for not following raid requirements(and previously for Raid Policy violations when I had a raid policy) So I would say I neither strongly agree with nor strongly oppose it
  9. Yeah I was a little confused by the strong opposition to that one, since any alliance that isn't closed to applications would likely answer the question of tax rates if asked by a potential applicant, so it wouldn't be that hard to figure out for most. Also to any alliance that thinks those things opsec, checking your projected revenue and doing an intel op before and after a turn change would give up the secrets of tax rates.
  10. If you move from member to applicants and move them them back they used to keep their seniority, not sure if this is still the case. but I never knew about that and didn't think about that possible exploit. So i guess I understand it better now, though a 1 - 2 turn exemption instead would close that loophole. They used to be able to, but alliances would move beiged apps back to member to tax them 100 100, and some would drop out of their alliance to raid their own apps to beige them for that very purpose, so that was changed. Funnily enough my alliance doesnt actually have taxes by default, as we run a warehouse economy. Any opt-in taxes go into their deposit account. I thought about most of these suggestions mainly due to another suggestion I saw from a newer player confused about taxes.
  11. When a player opens the Join menu on an alliance, there should be an info box editable by the alliance, where requirements for application or other information they need applicants to know, like to apply on discord, can be posted (or as an alternative, a DM sent to their inbox when they click join, or both) Many new players click to apply to alliances that require them to apply on discord, this requirement is usually in the alliance description but there is no guarantees they read the whole description, especially newer players just trying to find a place to accept them and start playing. I feel like many larger alliances typically ignore applicants that don't follow their requirement to apply on discord or applicants that don't meet other requirements like city count, and this leads to new players quitting. With an infobox/message this may alleviate some of this and help players understand why they aren't being accepted, as well give alliances a place to give requirements and some general info that applicants need to know.
  12. A couple of suggestions related to alliance taxes: Show default taxes on the join screen so new players understand the tax rate (for possible security reasons alternative is a notification explaining their new tax rate when accepted) Since new players will be made aware of default taxes when joining, remove the 2 day seniority requirement for taxes to begin Give a notification when your tax bracket has been changed Currently this appears in the alliance activity but could be quickly hidden from a member and switched back before they notice, allowing abuse. End color based tax Exemptions, Replace with activity based tax exemptions Greys dont pay taxes because grey is the inactive color, Bieges were made exempt later due to abuse by alliances taxing biege inactives and moving them back and forth to applicant. Obviously the reason for tax exemptions is inactivity, so instead of doing it in this roundabout way, make greys and bieges still pay taxes if they are active, and make tax exemption based on last login instead (however long it takes to turn grey now for example) Separate Taxes for RSS Two options on how to implement: Money/Raw resource/MFG/Uranium/food Or a bracket for each individual resource to make things easier for alliances that dont want these separate and/or have many bracket if the other resource tax rates are left blank it defaults to the raw resource rate, only the money and resource rate have to be filled when making/changing brackets
  13. A few months ago the "Server under heavy load" turn change page ended at minute :02 and when it was over MAPs were granted and troops were reset. Now the "Server under heavy load" turn change page ends a few seconds after minute :01 and while MAPs have been granted, the troop buys are not reset, giving around a full Minute for someone to strike in the discrepancy that was no longer possible before. Bonus bug: after there was a fix to the bug where MAPs sometimes weren't subtracted during ground attacks, now a similar bug has arisen where instead of using 3 MAPs sometimes it consumes only 1 or 2 MAPs. I've noticed this multiple times and have seen others say this happened to them as well.
  14. id actually much rather prefer that a 10 day timer appears when your reach c5 but doesn't come up again until c10, maybe not again until c15, after that then its every city. Also I dont think this does that much for raiding, as the reason why raiding is so efficient down there is the number of inactives that only reach a few cities before quitting and newer players that join bad alliances that don't counter or offshore/bank effectively, moreso than the pressure from other c10s. there is actually about the same number of actives in c9&c10 as in c3&c4. Also considering the new meta for nations trying to grow cities indefinitely is to build a UP at 11, while many alliances have the funds to buy someone to c11, buy a UP, and then up to c15, you're talking about an expensive for an unproven new player that might quit, so all but the most rich &/or reckless alliances would still likely just tier people at 10 or below for a while. Actually, I like this better than the "maybe not again until c15" part of my suggestion
  15. In addition to this, it would also be cool to be able to attach a nation bulletin to certain categories in your fact book, to act as an expanded version or appendix with images and formatting or to switch to a rich text editor for the long form text windows to liven them up more, as adding more entries still doesn't change help that its overall look is still quite bland and outdated looking. That was always the only thing I liked more about NS than PW, the fact books, though the bulletin system easy fills that niche now, so is perfect for spicing up the Factbook
  16. As someone that has only 5 cities designed to be permanent, that have agriculture economies, as opposed to my lower land resource based temporary outposts, this would be a serious time saver if i ever wanted to mass restructure my outposts' build or changed continents without having to do 1 by 1 imports to not mess up my farmtowns. Also good for domestically sourced steel producers, since they can max iron in half and coal in half to get the production bonus. And really anyone that wants to make more than one resource type for market security.
  17. my view on revolts has always been that there should be a spy op like "instigate riots" or "ferment unrest" that adds a stackable crime factor for 12 turns that is not effected by your police factor, this would hurt commerce revenue and for really low infra, low population would also effect military output a little.
  18. Gravedigging a suggestion, instead of making it again, allows you to show precedent in previous support for it, and could easily be the only reason a suggestion is finally seen by alex and taken seriously. Having 12 of the same suggestion with likes spread out is just as spammy, if not more, than gravedigging, and someone that has liked it before might not even open, since they already liked something like it that didn't go anywhere or even may assume that its the same topic they already upvoted.
  19. I dont believe for one second that a micro needs a protector, even if they are not a raiding alliance; as long as they have good tier coverage, strong wills, dont grow too fast or spread out, and aren't profitable targets most raiders would leave them alone eventually, but there is absolutely no reason to have a full blanket ban on raiding, especially inactives in inactive alliances or unaligned when you can easily make 2 weeks to a month's worth of passive revenue per round(~2 days) in the micro & quantum tier consistently. That should make you a target, not just of raiders but of any who wish to liberate your members from your tyranny, not allowing them to scavenge the dead in the name of "Archeology". As the Roman phrase goes:
  20. You guys should make a tier list based on alliances' counter coordination skills in the c6 to c15 range ...for research purposes
  21. I meant the system itself not the programing, which by the way your system would require adding completely new scripts and checks for a whole new deposit system, since your basically creating a second trading inventory for them, which is just as likely to have bugs. Something like what you have proposed has been suggested and shot down by alex before. Also why did you skip the more important issue of my post, that your tax hurts noone but traders, and serves no purpose at all. Actual traders have to change prices on their trades all the time, because markets aren't static. It doesn't discourage abuse, People using it as a deposit system take less penalty than getting looted, and have a protected trade account they dont have to worry about. That's way more abusive than offshoring since Trading large quantities provides one of the few opportunities to blockade and loot those with secure banking networks, and this removes that opportunity. so all you are really suggesting here is Protected trade inventories, a cash sink on trades, and discouraging healthy market competition since when someone undercuts you by 1, you cant change the price without taking a loss every time. This is bad for global economics, war, raiding, and probably a dozen other reasons I don't have the foresight to see.
  22. I think the issue can be solved by instead having the system calculate the total of all of your current sell offers (or buy offers when making a buy trade, but not cross calculating them), and if the new offer when making a new trade would put you below 0 of the rss (or cash for buy offers), then you cant make it. and to cover errors from depositing into the bank or being looted, maybe run a check on turn changes, as long as that wouldn't add a noticeable amount to turn change scripts, and any excess in the offer either be removed, or the entire offer cancelled altogether. the system you are proposing is overly complicated, and making a fee when people may have to remove their offer and repost when people are undercutting only hurts traders not people that would be abusing it to hide funds, since 1% would be less than the 14% of a looting by a raid war in pirate policy, anyone not in a blockade on the final turn before beige could just drop everything in the market and pull it out for a 1% fee
  23. Im not sure if this should be a separate suggestion altogether, but I will post it here as it is connected to roles & perms. Heir Position ability to coup should be editable, where you can choose whether they can coup at will, coup after all leaders are over X days inactive, or where coups can only occur if the leader is deleted (or put into the Deletion VM)
  24. If Intel report operations were split from your other spy operations limit, then I think it would be ok to remove the >50 <50 thing and end the ability to calculate it, but as it stands now I think removing it is a bad Idea. though at the same time, if intel reports had no limit at all, we could just spam 1 spy intel gathering missions until we get it.
  25. This isnt how the bots track it, and we all used to do it manually back in 2018. All you do is go to an espionage attack page, change the op, the number of spies, and the operation, compare it against the spy calculator built in the game, and judge their spy count based on where the >50% changes to <50%, doing this manually you can get a spy count with a 1 or 2 spy margin of error. the bots just streamline this calculation. the only way to stop this from being figured out would be to remove the >50% <50% thing, which would be worse at least imo than people being able to figure it out, manually or with bots. (if you might recall, it used to say like 75-99% instead, when they changed this it really just made the margin of error like 1 or 2more at certain spy counts, but it is why they changed it I believe)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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