Zerkium

Some profiles remind me of the MySpace days where people had very massive obnoxious custom HTML profiles. This change is for the better, although I think it would be better if the div displaying the nation's bio had a maximum height and would have a "show more" button at the bottom. https://stackoverflow.com/a/20735921

I really like this idea, it should be a stand-alone suggestion. In my opinion it would be good if after ~3 weeks 1 improvement stops working if you don't have enough infrastructure, until one is at the matching infrastructure / improvement count level.

Simple idea: on the create offer screen, have text displaying "Min. Price" as well as "Avg. Price". Bonus suggestion: I do some cryptocurrency trading irl, the graphs on cryptocurrency trading sites are pretty lit. Maybe an open-source graphing tool like this might be good: https://www.chartjs.org/chartjs-chart-financial/ This would probably be more work than it's worth to implement, though. Just felt like throwing that out there.

Idea 1 - "Strategize": Use MAP to have higher MAP maximum capacity A player can choose to sacrifice MAPs here and now, so that they can have a larger maximum of MAPs in the war. Maybe the numbers can be adjusted a bit. I'm thinking 1 MAP used to increase maximum capacity +2. I think this would add a bit more strategy to the game - a player using this action would be wasting that 1 MAP unless they go to full capacity, and their opponent could likewise gather more MAPs, or rapidly attack so that they gain an advantage before their opponent unleashes their load in a burst. Idea 2 - Two MAP "Minor Ground Skirmish" Similar to a ground battle, but the player is only able to use 50% of troops and 50% of tanks, can destroy maximum resistance of 7. This is purposely less efficient than a ground battle in terms of soldier and tank count. In most situations a player would be unwise to use this instead of waiting for 1 more MAP, but they may be willing to take the gamble in certain situations (low resistances by both sides of a war). Also, impatient players may also have to fight the urge to make a less efficient ground attack!

I think the religion/gov type change idea is great. Maybe you can add political ideology there too (communists would probably love to spread communism eh?). It doesn't change anything to the game other than text and an image, and players would be making a sacrifice in not getting more loot or destroy more infra. I can envision some alliances being dedicated to attacking (probably inactive) nations to change their religion to a custom religion.

I'm not sure I like removing infrastructure from contributing to nation score. I do like improvements contributing to nation score, though. Perhaps different improvements could have different weights (e.g. each coal mine is +5 to nation score, iron mine +7 to nation score, etc). And certain projects should have more weight to score - this guy I fought recently is ~1k nation score and has the nuke project (and is very willing to use them!)

It is legal for sweaty people to be discriminated against for the immutable trait of sweating often (e.g. during an interview, or fired for being sweaty), and current norms are generally ok with being intolerant and rude towards sweaty people (sweatophobia). I and organizations like the NAASP (National Association for the Advancement of Sweaty People) believe sweaty people should have equal rights, and if you don't think so you're a sweatophobe. Sweaty Lives Matter. Are you for or against sweaty people having equal rights, and if against why do you choose to be a sweatophobe? Serious note: I'm applying the principle of "people with immutable traits should be protected". What would stop us from applying the principle to its maximum to immutable attributes such as sweating more often, or left-handedness, or genes relating to disgust sensitivity (making a person be conservative), or genes relating to openness (making a person be more left-leaning)?

There's 4 "supremacy" situations in the game: ground control, air superiority, blockade, none. 2 nations are involved in a war. Possibilities: Nation A vs Nation B - A (none) vs B (none) - A (Air superiority) vs B (none) - A (Air superiority, Ground control) vs B (none) - A (Air superiority, Ground control, blockade) vs B (none) - A (Air superiority, blockade) vs B (none) - A (Ground control, blockade) vs B (none) - A (Blockade) vs B (none) - A (Ground control) vs B (none) - A (Air superiority) vs B (Ground control) - A (Air superiority) vs B (Ground control, blockade) - ... etc Idea: For each situation, have a small image atop the individual war panel, similar to the attached image (pls don't judge my crappy ms paint skills). The graphics work for each possibility could probably be crowd-sourced.

I think the title is pretty self-explanatory. In the current world conflict, it would be interesting to see these metrics.

Inactivate nations would be removed from the map, and prompted to take a new spot upon becoming active again The hex pieces would be very very small - e.g. Sicily would be ~20 hex pieces itself A map is a 2d projection of a sphere. As time goes by and as there's more people playing the game, you could create a fictional continent to the west or east.

Not necessarily. We could just do the things I mentioned in "Stage 1" only, and keep this whole thing as purely cosmetic. The great benefit would be that there are possible ways to develop this further, whereas with the Google-Maps style map you can't do much more with it. "There are too many nations". You'd be surprised as to what HTML5 can do. You could counteract "many nations" this by having the mechanism I mentioned: Simply remove inactive nations from the map, and have them choose a new location upon becoming active again. If this is developed as purely a cosmetic thing, it wouldn't affect much. This could be built on to later, whereas the Google-Maps-style map is a dead-end in terms of having more added to it. On continuous land holdings, continuous land holdings would stop people from simply having 20 dots randomly around. "there are just too many changes and this would change the game into something it's not" - I envision the changes I proposed simply altering the cosmetic mechanic of the maps for some time, and at a later point introducing a couple new mechanics like not being able to intersect with other nations, and bonuses for bordering alliance nations.

I'm new to the game, I used to play CyberNations 10 years ago or so. I like that the game has a better variation of the map than CyberNations did (does?), but largely it seems to be an unimpactful role-play thing. I've had the thought that a game like this could make the map / land mechanics more impactful. Stage 1 of game changes - purely cosmetic: - The world should be made of hex pieces, like the image attached. The hex pieces in the game should be much smaller than the ones in the image - The player sets where his capital city is. The player will always have at least one hex pixel. - Each city added will take up 1 additional hex pixel. Per (lets say) 5000 land purchased, another hex piece has to be occupied. - Player's land holdings have to be continuous - Land will be colored your nation's trading block color - We won't worry about players' lands intersecting in this first set of changes. Stage 2 of game changes - reset map, add intersecting and relocating mechanisms - The same mechanisms mentioned in stage 1 will apply, except for the intersecting portion - New players will be only allowed to place their nation that are (let's say) 20 hex pieces away from the nearest active nations, on all sides. - Players can relocate their nation, but this is limited to a once a month max (maybe once per 3 months?). - (Very) inactive players will have their land removed from the map, and be prompted upon next login to relocate their country and to select the new hex pieces they want to take. - New war type: If bordering a nation, you can declare a war of conquest for a selected bordering hex piece. - If you border an alliance member, you get a bonus of (some sort of bonus to incentivize alliances having continuous land - +2% increased population count, maybe?) - If the game gets many more players, the playing space can be expanded west and east, with new continents added. Stage 3 - more incentives to fight over land: - Certain hex pieces (that you cannot place your capital city on) will give benefits of producing more natural resources (e.g.: Oil hex pixel if captured by player, and if they have oil resource improvement, they will be able to have an increased production rate) I'm a programmer. I realize this would probably be a great deal of work, and I probably have not accounted for some abuse of the mechanisms to grief/troll others, but I think those can be overcome. I feel this sort of change would make the game have a cool visual component: we often think of real-world wars in terms of how land holdings changed, it would be cool to see a map of how the in-game world's territories were claimed by alliances 5 years ago, and where they are now.