Zevari
-
Posts
124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Zevari
-
-
Just out of curiosity what do the numbers look like if every sphere was at max score (max military).
I know the Oasis/mystery temp block will still hold the top spot by a decent margin but it would help make a clearer narrative for both sides. -
7 hours ago, Alex said:
Yes, the custom time you set is different than the server time which is just UTC+0. My guess is that you got the achievement very late on 10/23 server time then.
Yeah that would explain it, with it being at basically 8am which should be 10pm server time. Well rip
-
10 minutes ago, Alex said:
The database shows that your latest city, Qagabi, was built on 10/23 (server time). You may have received the achievement when someone viewed your nation page on 10/24 is most likely what occurred. However, it seems you did not actually login during the 24 hour period of 10/24 (server time).
Does the server time count differently to my custom set nation time? If so that might be the case for the records (since I set mine to UTC+11)
I can say with 100% confidence that the city was build on the day the achievement it shows. I got a grant 3 minutes prior to that achievement and I didn't have the cash to afford that city otherwise. -
My daily bonus reset despite having played and logged in on the previous day. This is clearly shown through the activity feed showing a city being built and the bonus resetting on the next day.
(also rip Vince Jenkins)
-
4 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:
Of course this impacts the game, you know how long it will take me to make 8 million dollars? about 4.8 hours! That is over 2 turns of income just thrown down the gutter. we are talking 290 mins, 17450 seconds. I could take 2 naps in that time. 2!
This makes it sound like you spend your entire day watching the revenue screen, should I be concerned?
-
1 hour ago, Vilktakis said:
But now thinking about it if you increase the amount of troops you can buy if you are being dog piled...... Hmmm?
That's actually an interesting concept to explore.
Maybe it could be a type of project or war policy that increases recruitment rates by X amount depending on how many defensive and offensive wars you are in (with defensive giving considerably more). -
40 minutes ago, Nukey6 said:
Why should I join PFU?
They will give you resources
-
Sounds interesting, but it seems like it would cause more stagnant war and dog piles.
People would never want to attack others (unless they are a pirate) and if you do want to attack someone you would want to do it with as minimal wars declared as possible, hence you would be more inclined to call in other blocs to help out. That way your alliance would be declaring less wars overall and maximizing their revenue.
Honestly I think a wartime economy system would be cool, where you get buffed (economically or production wise) the more nations have attacked you (not counting your offensive slots). This would help simulate real world wartime economies such as America and Germany which rapidly industrialized and boomed due to the ongoing wars and provide dogpiled players with crucial resources to potentially turn the tides. -
5 hours ago, Prefontaine said:
Can I get some upvotes/downvotes on this post for feedback please?
- Upvote if you think it should turn off at City Count 15.
- Downvote if you think it should always be active.
- "Haha" If you don't care.
What if you made it so you can only purchase the project once, it last X amount of days before expiring and after that you lose access to it, this serves the purpose of actually helping the new players but also prevents alliances that intentionally stay small from farming it for essentially free money.
-
To be fair a concept like this could be interesting, although a far bit would need to be fleshed out to make it more realistic. (For example changing it to be your spies - enemy spies is the chance of success, with a minimum of X%)
-
14 hours ago, Byzantine said:
I was thinking. If you are in (Russia, Scandinavia, Canada, Greenland, Antarctica) then when it is winter, if your are on the defence against someone who is not from one of those areas, you should get a +10 resistance bonus.
This idea is historically backed. Everybody knows how impossible it is to invade Russia during the winter.
Another idea would be to mark off mountainous areas. If your country is in the mountains or the enemy would have to cross mountains to get to you then you should receive a +10 resistance bonus.
This idea is also historically backed. In WWI the Italians failed to attack Austria Hungary because the Austrians controlled the Alps.
This would cause a lot of issues where people would just all be in one location to have these defensive terrain modifiers, for example moving to the Urals in Russia. Now you have a +20 to resistance and no downsides.
-
Not sure how beige can be changed, but here are some war system changes I think would be interesting
I personally think players should be able to WILLINGLY surrender a war, the consequences of this would depend on the war type.
Here are some potential options:
For attrition they would take a significant amount of infrastructure damage and the looted like normal.
For raid they would take a significantly increased loot amount, this could be in either flat resources or potentially an X turn long tax that is given to the winning nation. (Think war reps but individually instead of on an entire alliance)
For ordinary you could make it a mix of both war types combined.
To prevent people for "cheesing" surrender we could add a mechanic where they have to have ZERO military for them to be eligible for surrender, furthermore surrendering will prevent players from attacking or being attacked for X amount of turns. (shorter than what a biege would)
Losing a war without surrendering would result in a similar outcome to the surrender but the effects would be far harsher (to represent the damage done by the war and the consequences of prolonging a fight)
Also I believe that any attack on a nation that causes them to be completely zeroed (or if they are already out of military) will end the war early. This will help simulate the fact a nation with no military can offer no resistance, hence they are no longer eligible to continue this fight. The main aspect of this though would be that the damage done to the nation and the resources looted would be significantly higher since the troops would have free reign to loot the entire city and there would be a significant chance of improvements being destroyed.
Another change should be an option that allows attackers to WITHDRAW from a war. Since they are on the offensive they can at any point pre-maturely end the war (essentially in a draw), however this then gives the person they attacked the ability to declare a war on them, this new war would keep the original slots they filled (so the defender now aggressor would still be using a defensive slot while the attacker now defender would be using an offensive slot). The defensive slot the defender originally had will be registered as "full" for X turns until the opportunity for them to counter attack goes away.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, MinesomeMC said:
As a matter of fact, The people of Vagaborn do hate democracy!
-
I hate that we ended up with this crap after being offered names like "GOBstopper"
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Just now, Ramona said:No, and in fact make it top 30. Only relavent people.
Alternatively just give players the ability to filter what range of alliances are shown. So we could have only top 10 or top 69 for all we care.
-
9
-
17 hours ago, Arln said:
Not necessarily would they just completely give up manu and if an alliance feels that way or it actually happens guess what the beautiful thing about this is...
Its optional. Rge option for an alliance to choose what it taxes. Not every alliance is gonna cut off tax of raws so the market will stay in tact.If your alliance wants to keep taxing raws than so be it. Its the beauty of choice to customize your alliances economy the way you see fit.
Also would food and uranium not end up falling under these separate raw taxes? At this point you might as well break everything down into far more niche categories to allow higher tax customization for alliances.
It's not so much that more tax options are bad (I personally would enjoy a lower tax on raws since I produce them) but it's more for convenience instead of just getting a bot to run some simple maths and return the resources to the player. -
1 hour ago, Arln said:
having alliances dumping stupid high amounts of raws into the market is pretty bad for the market
Yeah but if you know you have to pay a 20% tax for one item and a 0% tax for the other, you will most likely produce the 0% taxed one. Plus raws can be sold internally for cheap prices to manufacturing players
-
6 hours ago, Arln said:
I dont really feel like writing a long philosophical essay on this so ill just put it straight.
I believe alliances should have the option to tax manufactured goods(steel, aluminum, gas, munitions, food) and leave the raw materials(coal, oil, iron, bauxite, lead) alone. Some alliances have no real use of keep fat amounts of raws but need manufactured items on hand.
Thank you that is all
That sounds like a great idea to crash the raw market (since players would focus on producing that since it's less taxed)
-
1
-
-
I've never really paid to much attention to the rules, but has "Treasure Transfer Co-ordination" always been an offense?
Seems kinda dumb to prevent alliances/players from trading relics between each other, especially when it would create more content for players in game and give the feature a bit more love.-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Thalmor said:
This is an interesting idea. On top of the lost improvement slot, make them decently expensive to build and maintain (like a drydock, subway, or nuke plant).
Opens up the playstyle of being heavily fortified, but at the cost of producing less cash and resources.
If a feature like this was added you might want something to restrict how fast people can destroy and replace slots to prevent players just changing their entire build to fortifications in literal seconds. (Maybe make it so the longer they have been built the more effective they are, up to a certain cap)
-
1
-
-
Honestly maybe change up how gaining superiority in certain areas works.
So instead of making it a blanket Nerf (like air control does) maybe make it so players have to choose whether they want to focus on weakening either the offensive or defensive capabilities of the enemy.
For example when gaining air superiority you would pick either the enemy tanks are X% less effective in attacks or X% less effective in defense, this could help with down-declaring issues and allow people who are being dog piled to heavily fortify to punish enemies.
Similarly I would say change ground superiority from the current form to something more tactical, such as increasing the operation costs of air attacks (for muni/fuel) by X% and adding a debuff to the overall effectiveness of the planes. Alternatively make it so that while someone has ground control you can only recruit half as many planes (to simulate the captured airports and delayed production lines).
Naval battles should be a lot more decisive, rarely when two fleets engaged in battle did they both come out unscathed.
Essentially I want to see the system evolve to where players need to think a little more long term/strategically rather than the immediate "Haha Tanks go BOOM" or "HaHa Planes go BRRRRRRR"-
4
-
-
35 minutes ago, Eschatos said:
Do the two of you have Discord? I'm pretty sure you can carry out your slapfight there instead of taking up the forums.
Isn't that basically all forums are for these days
-
Join an alliance if you want some quick growth for your early stages.
Most alliances (especially the top 10) will offer you sign on bonuses and grants to quickly build up to at least city 10, plus they offer training to help you understand the game better. (such as how to raid, optimal city builds etc)
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, BigGtheSlayer said:
smh my head where's the creativity Jaden. Couldve at least thought of something with a pun like "GoBstopper" or "GoBsmacked" idk
Not gonna lie, GoBstopper is pretty good.
Alternative name:
Shut your GoB-
4
-
Why we can't have nice things
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
Honestly I feel like this entire situation has been rather interesting.
For once I actually got to witness some real political movements going round, miss-communications and other situations. This actually is quite entertaining to watch from a position of non-significance (and annoying watching all the dumb shit).
My only issue with the whole situation is that it seems like people gave up on doing anything besides war after the temporary MDP was signed. We could of had some interesting results from this situation such as Oasis still being hit by BW, and Mystery being hit by those two alliances from clock that caused this whole mess.
If this had gone the way I said above you wouldn't have people as scared of openly announce their plans or make unique moves like this one and we could of see an even more balanced war between the parties.
I feel like people need to remember in a game that heavily revolves around politics and the general community, open ended diplomacy (with high transparency) is far more entertaining than watching some numbers on my nation page go up and down because people were too lazy to talk to each other.