Pax
-
Posts
514 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Pax
-
-
oh good it got moved
-
I think you posted in the wrong forum.
yes I did
oops
-
good luck have fun
o/ everybody
make sure ya'll blow shit up so the war is plenty fun
-
-
This is a quality of life suggestion I've been wanting for a long time, I've seen it suggested elsewhere but it never really got done.
If there was a checkbox where you could just set it so that any changes you make to a city are done to all cities, it would make it much easier to handle the nations with 10+ cities. Maybe it could only be allowed in cities that have identical improvement counts (to prevent bugs) or something, I don't really care - I'm just really tired of even a small change to my nation build requiring an unreasonably large time investment. -
Perhaps rather than completely removing them, we could make them soft caps that get exponentially more difficult to get more of as your nation grows? So the smaller nations would have a tangible benefit in that they have a higher resources produced : infra ratio, but you can still acquire some more slots as you go.
-
2
-
-
A change like this would really de-stabilize the market. Everyone is more or less forced to diversify atm, and I'm not sure that players react quickly enough to price shocks that they won't flood and tank markets (and their incomes) etc. I think there would be a lot more tears, but larger profits during boom cycles.
It would actually be really interesting to see a dynamic market with its own crashes and booms take place. Maybe not fun for everyone at all times (which is definitely a concern to think about), but a realistic market with huge variation based on the ingame needs and productions would certainly have an appeal of its own.
At any rate, it would probably be better than "everybody absolutely needs to max their steel production... and then other than that do whatever really"
-
2
-
-
Don't fret too much, I've got a plan to
kick all the pirate players out of the gamesolve some of the underlying war issues while preserving multiple different playstyles.
Dev team bias confirmed
-
Aw yis, illegible treaties are the best kind
Go Valdoroth! Make SK's treaties great agan! -
The playerbase pretty much self-regulates the immature players out. Most of them find themselves booted from their alliance, war decced, etc. pretty quickly, especially those leading alliances.
The only exceptions are the immature players in neutral alliances (but those kind of players aren't typically very vocal or active, though it does happen), and the trolls who are literally just there to piss people off anyways.
So, combine the fact that it shouldn't change much of anything with the absolute impossibility of implementation and the loss of players who are young but actually know how to play the game properly, and... well, you get a whole lot of nothing.
-
3
-
-
I've seen battle reports where planes have taken out thousands of tanks in a single attack, troops are obviously much, much cheaper than tanks so you could imagine what it would be like if you could attack troops, like 60,000 troops destroyed in a single attack, it would be insane. Also very unrealistic as military aircraft are good at targeting bigger targets like vehicles but not so much at small targets like groups of soldiers. Just look at Syria/Iraq, the might of the US air force has been hitting ISIS for years now and they've yet to kill more than 27,000.
That isn't even remotely related to the topic at hand, though.
He's suggesting that you can tell your soldiers to target infra, loot, etc. Not that planes could do literally anything different from what they currently do.
-
I currently still have the flag from the D'Haran Empire, but unless I change it I'm unable to edit any other nation info (including color, government type, etc.)
I don't think it's unreasonable to allow people to keep flags that are already assigned to their nation-
4
-
-
Pretty sure it was SK
Nah, last time a bunch of members got poached by Uranicus Socialitus and our remaining few went our separate ways. I was the only one to go to SK.
-
1
-
-
Thanks everybody
And it's cool Glorton, I don't take any of it personally. There's some mechanical flaws that make it a bit more difficult imo, but to be real without them there still would have been the whole issue where our lower tier was fairly sparse and yours is much more extensive, and with the offensive strike against us I don't think there's any way we could reasonably have expected a complete win there regardless of mechanics.Honestly this was probably coming regardless, I won't have a lot of free time for a long time to come. This just kind of accelerated the process because the last thing I wanted was to be an inactive leader who had to sit by while his alliance got raided.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I'm going to keep this pretty short and simple.
The D'Haran Empire has never been the biggest, the baddest, or the most recognized alliance. For most of our existence, even from the first iteration, we've always hovered around rank 20. That's never been a problem to us, and though we aimed high we were always content to be in a relaxed, enjoyable group of guys who always helped each other at every opportunity.
It's a sad day, now, that I announce the official disbandment of DHE. We've been occupied lately with reorganizing and becoming more effective, but I've got a lot of medical problems that are getting worse. Combine that with a wave of raids that are almost impossible for an alliance our size to handle due to the way score mechanics work, and I just can't find the time to keep everything going on my own.
We're going to be moving to Rose, who have helped us since we first joined the game at the start, when our biggest nation was 12 score. They've always been around for us, and we'll attempt to keep our group of guys together there.
For the duration of that move, all DHE members are officially protected by Rose.-
13
-
I have a message but can't view it
(putting here for documenting in case sheepy needs the image later)
-
- Nation sits at 10 infra
- Sells 90 infra for the $27k it cost him
- Repeat a ton
- Somebody now has crazy high infra for extremely low cost
If this happened I could take my nation from 22k infra to 100k infra within a week.
-
1
-
The mobile changes have made it impossible to see anything you would normally need to scroll left or right for - if you try to, you're forced into menus you may not want to use.
It makes many pages unusable
-
2
-
-
This is a positive change, but only if paired with some nerfs to attackers advantage imo.
Attackers advantage is, has been, and will continue to be ridiculous. I don't think there should be anything that adds to it until it's finally addressed, but once that happens then this would be a good improvement.-
2
-
-
Nukes are alright with the current state of things - there's better options in most situations but they've got their niche.
When most nations are purchasing CIAs, I believe we'll find that nukes are considerably worse. That may take a bit for bigger nations to get there, but it will happen. And when it does, it eliminates the only situations nukes are good.If you're a defender in a losing war, your spies are probably dead. And if your enemies have CIAs, you're losing 2-3 nukes a day that do no damage. Not only are you going to run out quickly, but that kind of cost isn't sustainable in a global at any size that isn't ridiculously large - and if you're that large, you should be able to field a military that is capable of putting out significantly more damage than nukes can do anyways, without the problems of beige.
IMO, the best way to improve nukes is to make the beige forced so that way if you nuke somebody, they cannot leave beige to declare wars for the full 5 days. At least then it would be a good way to reduce the effective numbers of your enemies and gain a tactical advantage -
It's just there as a reference to Independence Day, I believe
-
1
-
-
Abolishment of war slots just as NPO comes over
I can't see any way this could go badly
-
Too game changing?so you mean there should not be any big game changes since it is in stable mode?
Typically speaking, there are only a few reasons things are implemented post beta:
* To fill a gap in content where the game is boring or uneventful
* To fix a big problem or imbalance in the game
* To promote certain actions that are considered worthwhile (for example, treasures were implemented because Sheepy wanted more war. It wasn't effective, but that was the reasoning)
Adding complexity for the sake of complexity doesn't really improve the game - realism isn't the end goal, otherwise nukes would be crazy OP and everyone would pile into a few select alliances. It doesn't provide any real benefit to anyone, only a detriment to people who don't follow it - so nobody's going to be too keen on such a change.
-
2
-
-
On what? U congratulate them for showing ass, just stop.
Maybe he meant like... The treaty the thread was about?
-
1
-
Should We Vote For Moderators?
in Game Suggestions
Posted
Tfw the troll you're complaining about consistently makes more detailed and higher effort posts than you