Deborah Kobayashi
-
Posts
115 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Deborah Kobayashi
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
On 6/5/2021 at 6:23 PM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:
It seems nowadays everyone has bots that can tell people within 1-2 spies every single person's spy count. I know our bloc can do it, I know Rose can do it, I'm pretty sure all the major players can do it. This seems like cheating to me, you shouldn't be able to know how many spies a person has it goes against the intent of spies.
Can we please make spies worth 0 NS so that the bots cant track it, I assume that is how they do it?
(man this one isn't even self serving, it probably hurts me in the long run)
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) -
This is what you deserve for defending and hoarding inactive applicants in the first place.
-
1
-
-
On 5/28/2021 at 6:15 AM, BelgiumFury said:
I might be the only one.
But I don't think alliance bank moving is a bad mechanic, it's a complexity that came from the games design that isn't necessarily bad.
Next up I don't think this will solve the issue of beiging, a properly managed (non raiding) alliance would first kill the enemies units and then beige them when they are disorganized and dead (as happend in most recent world wars). There is no advantage in immediatly going for the loot if you can do it 10 days later but wiothout the risk of your opponent rebuying and maybe flipping the war.
same, as a raider I don't care if banks can be moved constantly, I think its just all part of the game, and alliances that offshore are the equivalent of those in the real world with better banking networks and offshore wealth.
some alliances are just easier to loot than others, and it should remain that way, people with bad banking practices shouldn't be protected at the expense of those with good banking practices.
now maybe I could be talked into believing that if an alliance is deleted and a new on remade, the new one should be looted instead of the dead bank.
this would force them to move the money around their beiges, which while still allowing them to protect it from a solo raider, would make it harder to hide from a well coordinated raid campaign, unless they have a highly decentralized (in terms of multiple alliances) and coordinated bank network.-
1
-
-
I'd like to see the ban and invite functions separated from the kick and accept functions.
~ Ban Members (separated from kick)
~ Invite/Uninvite (separated from accept)
~Sign Treaty
~Propose Treaty (Could be Tied to Signing instead of its own)
~Cancel Signed Treaty
~ Cancel Unsigned Treaties (could be tied to sign or cancel, instead of its own permission)
~ Sign/Cancel Market Sharing
It would also be nice to have a separate extended audit log in the Control Panel, that works similar to the "alliance Activity" but cant have things hidden by someone spamming things that appear there, as it should show at least the last few days of activity even if the log is full on the main activity panel.
I add this to this list instead of making a topic as a separate suggestion mainly as id like to see
~ View Alliance Activity
~ View Extended Audit Log
On 5/27/2021 at 2:43 AM, Zephyr said:I'd also like to pitch the idea that the perms be broken into 3 sections to increase flexibility in use:
- Roles - Place members in Roles to determine their special alliance permissions.
- Groups - Place members in Groups to determine how they are grouped and displayed on the alliance profile.
- Titles - Place members in Titles to determine their alliance title displayed on their nation profile.
I really like this idea especially the titles, as I could title members by their Gang, Military Squad or Military Rank, without having to give them any perms.
-
3
-
it sounds good at first, but I feel like in a year after this would be implemented you'd see massive changes in the meta, with raws no longer being the main source of passive revenue for newer players, as the Whale Power Houses with the most land would produce so much raws it would likely cause the prices to drop back to levels were commerce is king, even for low infra raiders.
low raw prices also effect MFG prices, weakening their producers economically as well, so in reality would end up being a nerf to raw & mfg production for new players. this really just puts the other raws in the same situation that food is in, without the nuclear winters causing stable fluctuations in the market, & a massive overrepresentation of whales dominating the market even more than they already do now.
-
I really like this idea, though I'd prefer the points to be more category based, with all military buildings being the same improvement point cost, but MFG, Raws, & Civils different from each other. though I guess individual differences in the categories could offer a path for wind power to have more feasibility, by taking up less slot points per improvement.
-
On 5/27/2021 at 8:00 AM, BelgiumFury said:
I would actually just not allow -1500 land nations to build farms.
"Your city doesn't have enough land to house farms" seems like an adquate thing.I do also agree about changing the goal and explaining why its bad.
while this seems like a good idea, all I see coming of this is they will now buy more land than they need before someone explains why this is bad, using money they could have invested into projects and more cities. whereas the prompt would (hopefully) make atleast some of those look into it a bit more.
though one major issue with the prompt is, a farm economy requires 20 farms per city to get the max production bonus, will it prompt them every time they buy a farm, even if they choose to ignore it for whatever reason, or just the first in each city?
P.S.: There Definitely needs to be an explanation on the production bonus, which isn't really explained well in the tutorial at all.
The biggest issues I run into when guiding new players are:
Farms without land & project,
Uranium Mines without the project,
Raw Resource improvements (as well as MFGs) being haphazardly spread around their cities instead of centralizing and/or maxing one type per city.
like if you have 2 cities that have 5iron and 5coal in both, they produce less than 1 city with 10 iron and 1 city with 10 coal, despite having the same total amount of each improvement. this completely flies over the heads of many I try to explain it to.
There also doesn't seem to be much explanation on Crime & Disease in the tutorial either, which can be pretty important for newer cities when it comes to military population at low infra.-
1
-
-
I don't think its the case that it can only happen at 12MAPs
I've had this glitch happen when I had only 3 MAPs & 9 MAPs, especially during the Halloween War.
I almost never allow MAPs to go beyond 12 without reason, but have had this glitch occur on my attacks multiple times. -
I mean... any micro that raids enough doesn't need treaties, its hard to get rolled for being a micro if your always slotted for being a pirate.
-
4
-
-
6 hours ago, Leo-09 said:
I bet they'll join Oasis next. Gonna turn Oasis into new Swamp :lmfao:
Oasis is just Swamp's long term plan to ditch Farkistan
-
Similar to my suggestion a few years ago,
Army value should change according to whether or not don't equip soldiers with munitions is checked, when the amount of units is reduced, and when tanks are weakened from ground control.
I'd also like the max planes Killable by tanks with ground control to be shown as well and the army value from population that you experience in ground attacks to be shown in ground attacks (the reason you still have casualties when the enemy has no ground army, and why they are higher when a city has higher population from infra or age.)
-
7 hours ago, Ogaden said:
Alright it's possible to set different daychange, a new feature I was not aware of, so it's possible this person just did that
yeah you can change daychange/troop reset, just remember if you ever choose to do so not only do you skip a your next reset after setting,
But changing after the free reset cost 1 credit, so make sure you are counting theright timezone since the math seems backwards to some people in haste, as - negative utc timezones midnight is further away, so adds hours to default reset instead of subtracting, and positive UTC time zones subtract turns from reset.
anyone trying to change to a reset time that takes place before noon UTC should wait for default reset then switch before their new reset time, it will skip it but wont add another day without a reset like if you did before.
and since it cost credits, daychange settings should probably be discussed with alliance military leadership to make sure if you do really need a different reset time because default is just never available for you, that maybe your still coordinated in a reset time with other members on at similar times, instead of everyone having mixed match timezones, which can make double buy coordinating confusing. -
I usually just go by what ever city count grump's lowest member is + 2250 avg. infra minimum to call someone a whale.
back in the beginning of Knightfall most people I remember considered the cutoff 23 or 25, nowadays id say its at least somewhere like 28 to 34 to be a true whale, maybe a few less cities with higher infra to be called a beluga or mini-whale.
i use the term whaler/whale-hunter interchangeably to describe both nations that hunt whale tier (most common use) or anyone that habitually hunts people 8+ cities than them regardless of city count.
orca i use for militaristic smaller whales and mini whales and even the high end of upper tier if they fight whale tier
and then Albino Whales are c40+-
1
-
-
Long Live the OBSIDIAN ORDER
This post is redeemable for one war or raid campaign against the Next Alliance to "Mess With BK"
-
On 4/8/2021 at 12:14 PM, Fafnir said:
Please don't let this happen.
Co-ordination will be difficult and we'd need a fair queuing system for their defensive war slots.
That's the Global part of the war, all spheres hit each other because they blame the others for losing stats and filling slots or beiging people one side didn't want beiged.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Next global will just be KT in the middle of the battlefield vs all spheres.
-
1
-
10
-
4
-
Ad victorium, Semper invicta
-
•Cost 12 MAPS
•Requirements opponent must be inactive for over 5 days. (Open to more requirements)
Abandons The War. No loot no beige.
Reasons this is needed:
A raider declares on an inactive, the alliance counters, they agree to peace out on the inactive but the countering alliance doesn't want to accept peace right away, so they can attack if he goes back on the agreement, creating a valid reason for what can end up being in essence slotfilling if the raider has other wars or is a target for any other reason.
The raider is also technically slot filling in this scenario, preventing other raids or a blitz from touching that nation
Other reasons why & scenarios where this is beneficial:
The countering alliance can move on faster, and not have to worry
-You accidently declare an incorrect war type
-You declare on the wrong enemy
-Your alliance orders you to peace with an inactive because of raid policy or because a priority target is in your range
-
6
-
-
Arrgh!
-
My Suggestions for this
1. Bounties
blockades do not stop bounty collection, or at least add an escrow account for collected bounties until blockade is lifted
2. Treasures Rework
Increase the number of treasures and have more variety in their bonus (including having some higher then the highest now)
Make Treasure Tiers:
c15 & Below
c10 to c20
c15 & Above
3 different ways i see to do this,
easy mode: Treasures only spawn in tiers
hardcore: treasures can only exist in tier (do not receive in war and cant trade out of tier)
Middle Road: Treasures Spawn only in tier and can be sold only in tier but can always be taken through war (my Preference)
Tiers listed are just suggestions, open to change the tiers, but they must have some overlap
Treasure Tiers make it so that alliances can't just horde them in their strongest tier, if an alliance attempted to horde many treasures in different tiers, the potential of them being taken through war increases if that alliance doesn't have strong coverage in that range
3. Territories
like Treasures but provide bonus for resource production,
Each Territory only adds a bonus to 1 type of resource.
Linked to Continents, Must be on its continent to take it when winning a war.
must have a diminishing bonus when holding more than one territory of the same resource type
Changing continents forces respawn
Open to making tiers for this as well, but not my current vision for it
4. Rebuild Cost Change
Infra cost less to rebuild than to initially build.-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, zigbigadorlou said:
Looking through this whole thread, and it really seems like a lot of this drama could be avoided if y'all stopped DMing about stuff. Just talk in open channels and everyone's accountable.
This is one of the reasons I always force people trying to DM me about this game to take it to an Embassy or Inquiry Ticket.
-
the second poll should be redone if the first poll is what they are going with, everyone should agree on the change amount-
1
-
-
On 3/3/2021 at 5:29 PM, Dr James Wilson said:
Huh. Alright, sorry for that then. My other point stands however. The Iron Dome is now a waste of a project slot at 30% when its better spent on an economic or other war project.
Why would I waste a project slot on a 30% chance of stopping an attack that will destroy what, 300-500 infra and maybe an improvement?
And why did this end up being the deciding vote on implementing this? If this was going to actually change a game mechanic why wasn't that made clear when voting? Everyone that voted for no change is automatically excluded from getting to vote on what they think the change should be? If it's going to change, I don't think it should be change to 30% but I didn't get to say what I think because I voted no change.
same i would vote no change and think 30 is to low, 33 would be an understandable number, but very low and id prefer 40% or 45%
-
1
-
QoL - Custom Alliance positions.
in Game Suggestions
Posted
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)