Deborah Kobayashi
-
Posts
115 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Deborah Kobayashi
-
-
While I have to agree with Adrienne that the pace has definitely increased compared to 2018, I do think there should be more transparency when possible about projected timeframes & delays.
like why was the alliance roles update delayed so long after first being confirmed? was this ever explained and I just missed it?-
4
-
-
On 9/27/2021 at 8:00 PM, Alex said:
I re-implemented this because I was getting so many reports about people having nation descriptions that are too long. The scrollbox (which only applies if you have a nation description that exceeds 2000 pixels in height -- so pretty big) is there to eliminate that issue.
I can create a setting so that it's optional, and I'll get working on that this week. I'll leave the default to allow super long descriptions to scroll and then if you really don't want that you can turn it off in your settings. Thank you for the feedback on this, and sorry I forgot to publicly post that this change was rolled out.
Can you atleast disable it on mobile in the meantime, it is actually harder to reach the bottom of the page since I have to flick down to the bottom of the box before I can flick down to the nation information. Without the boxes its actually easier to get past long descriptions on mobile than with them..
-
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"
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
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.
-
1
-
7
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
13 hours ago, MinesomeMC said:There are way too many communist alliances
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"
-
8
-
3 hours ago, Alex said:
This would be caused by a bad image embed in your alliance description. They used to be encoded as text directly into the description, now images get uploaded directly to the server and are then linked.
To fix this, edit your alliance description and cut and paste it back in. That should fix the image embedding issue and will fix the broken javascript like proposing new treaties, and also your score graphs on your alliance page will come back again.
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. 😅
-
1
-
-
43 minutes ago, Nukey6 said:
Casually acknowledges their place in the Orbis ecosystem
The Weak are meat and the Strong do Eat.
🍖 🥓 🥩
-
1
-
-
On 7/17/2021 at 6:15 AM, Ardal Egger said:
.
Is it possible to go solo or will i be easy prey alone?
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.
-
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.
-
10 minutes ago, Zephyr said:
Alex made the change a while back after an alliance leader was moving an absurd number of inactives in and out of the alliance immediately before and after turn changes so that they could take all the benefit of fully taxing them without any of the risk of alliance bank looting ordinarily inevitable from keeping inactives.
I think a more elegant solution could be requiring that members manually accept alliance taxes each time either their tax bracket changes or their tax bracket's rates change (and the new rate is not 0/0). Add a tax rate section to the nation edit page indicating the tax rate one's alliance wishes to apply with a checkbox to fill before saving, accepting the new tax rate and commencing tax payments. Send players a notification about alliance tax changes applied to them, reminding them to accept changes via their nation edit page before their nation will resume paying taxes (under the new terms).
Problems addressed:
- The original tax abuse Alex addressed where players could move inactives in and out of their alliance for easy, full rate taxes without the risks ordinarily associated with keeping inactives in their ranks.
- Alliances can't throw inactive members into full taxes to benefit from their entire nation's income before kicking them out or in order to "protect" their member's income or mitigate loot losses when they are raided, not at least without the member returning to activity and consenting to the new tax terms.
- Alliances can't change tax rates without detection. As Deborah points out, it is currently possible for alliances to change taxes immediately before and after turn changes to secretly take more resources from members and then spam alliance actions afterwards to push the tax change events out of the alliance feed (which is the only place in which members are informed directly by the game that tax changes occurred).
- There is no 2 day delay to tax contributions from new members, only what the member's activity level determines (which is likely faster than 2 days).
- Alliances can't effectively catfish new players because they always need players to accept tax terms; there would be no point wasting the player's or alliance's time giving new players the runaround.
I think this is also more respectful to nation sovereignty, and makes more sense that the nation's treasury wouldn't dispense resources to foreign powers without direction from their supreme ruler.
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
-
12 hours ago, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:
No they don't. There is no alliance on earth aside from maybe a few dumbass micros that consider their tax rate opsec.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Adrienne said:
The reason the two day seniority requirement exists isn't to allow new players to learn the tax rate. It's because, iirc, some folks in the past had a bot to push all inactive members down to applicant so they wouldn't loot the bank and return them back up to member for each of the turn changes. So I don't see that going anywhere anytime soon lol.
I do agree with returning taxes to beiged nations. I thought it was a bad idea to make them untaxable back then and still think it is.
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.
1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:An alliance cant tax beiged nations? I had no idea. you kids and your taxes.
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.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
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.
-
8
-
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
-
1
-
4
-
-
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.
-
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.
On 6/22/2021 at 11:03 AM, Prefontaine said:I wouldn't be opposed to a middle ground of city timers becoming 5 days from cities 11-15.
Actually, I like this better than the "maybe not again until c15" part of my suggestion
-
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
-
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.
-
1
-
-
On 6/26/2021 at 8:29 PM, Suyash Adhikari said:
our cities act like our "territories" but I could see revolts be a cool idea, maybe debuffs cities commerce and production.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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:
QuoteThose who want peace, should declare so many wars that people think they are crazy and leave them alone.
-
You guys should make a tier list based on alliances' counter coordination skills in the c6 to c15 range
...for research purposes
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Shakyr said:
You say my system is overly complicated, yet you propose something that is even more complicated? Having the system adjust everything "magically" for you in the background might sound nice, but it would be a complete pain to program (I do it for a living). It would also probably introduce way more bugs, especially adding on that "turn change" script. I can just imagine it accidentally wiping out all the resources on the market and the game having to be restored from a backup
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.
-
4 hours ago, Shakyr said:
So the current market is completely broken, in that I can have 500k Food and the system will allow me to post a Sell Offer for 10 million Food, providing I can be bothered creating 20 new Sell Offers.
This means that you cannot trust what any Nation is Buying/Selling and makes it possible to manipulate the market by posting spurious offers, that shift market opinions.
My suggestion is simple.
-
When a Sell Offer is posted, the Resources are immediately withdrawn and held by the system in reserve.
- When a Sell Offer is accepted, the Resources are deposited in the Buyer's Nation and the Money (minus fee) is deposited in the Seller's Nation.
- When a Sell Offer is cancelled, the Resources (minus fee) are deposited back into the Seller's Nation.
-
When a Buy Offer is posted, the Money is immediately withdrawn and held by the system in reserve.
- When a Buy Offer is accepted, the Resources are deposited in the Buyer's Nation and the Money (minus fee) is deposited in the Seller's Nation.
- When a Buy Offer is cancelled, the Money (minus fee) is deposited back into the Buyer's Nation
- All Trade Offers will expire after a certain time period (I suggest 1 week, real time), after which the Resources/Money will be returned (minus fee).
- Whenever a Nation is Blockaded during war, all existing Trade Offers are frozen and cannot be accepted. While frozen, Trade Offers cannot expire.
The fees are to make it less feasible that people will use the Market as a bank and act as a small resource sink. I suggest 1% as a small fee.
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-
5
-
When a Sell Offer is posted, the Resources are immediately withdrawn and held by the system in reserve.
[DoW]The Fear Has Struck
in Alliance Affairs
Posted · Edited by Deborah Kobayashi
only Eukaryotes can be defined as Parasites in biology, Bacteria & Viruses are defined simply as Pathogens with a parasitic way of life.
Difference Between Parasite and Virus
Definition
Parasite: Parasite is an organism that feeds with parts or vital products from another living organism called host.
Virus: Virus is a microscopic pathogen (between 15 to 350 nm) that infects cells in living organisms.
Organization
Parasite: Parasites are eukaryotic organisms.
Virus: Viruses are not-cellular structures.
Reproduction
Parasite: Parasites are able to reproduce by sexual or asexual reproduction.
Virus: Viruses are unable to reproduce independently, they only reproduce by controlling and subordinating living cells.
Localization
Parasite: The parasites can parasitize on the surface of the host’s body or inhabit different organs and tissues. They can come in contact with the host only to feed or use it as a permanent habitat.
Virus: Viruses are active only in living cells.