Jump to content

ataraxis

Members
  • Posts

    313
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by ataraxis

  1. I mean, having a low score and having an disproportionately sized military.
  2. I mean, you could hide them away in some sort of "world demographics" page which (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) does. Just some fun statting for people who like them, with the main leaderboards for more general-purpose statistics. (soldiers killed? )
  3. You could get rid of the threat of being raided by simply being out of range to be raided (typically on the low end).
  4. Speaking as a heavy low-tier raider: if you don't want to be raided by me, either join my alliance or join a very well-established alliance. (I assume that if you want to focus on economic growth, you probably won't want the former, so there's always the latter.) By well-established, my personal list could be the top 7 plus a few others (tS, TEst, Arrgh, Sigma).
  5. It's a lot more data. But anyway to throw out additional data tracking, I'd suggest having the nation score tracker keep track of score to 2 decimal places first.
  6. It would be a lot more data to keep track per nation though. The global market is one thing, there are thousands of nations.
  7. So the alternative is longer lasting treasures. I would also like to see different spawn mechanics for the "generic" treasures. For instance, the low % treasures could spawn in the lower tiers (say 30 - 150 score), the medium % treasures in (100 - 400 score), and the high % treasures in (300 - 800 score). Different treasures could have different durations, and other things. The possibilities are endless.
  8. This seems to be a disturbing trend that runs in GPA people both current and former. It appears that they are incredibly engrossed in the letter K and its respective image macros.
  9. I also believe that 0.15*max is a bit too high of a lower threshold. A simple check to ensure that the nation receiving the random spawn has logged in in say, the last week should be enough.
  10. Question: do you mean 0.15*highest score instead of 0.015? Because it seems all of these nations are in the 100+ score range when 40 is the median.
  11. We have neutrals. Do you want to lead?
  12. It is not necessarily that there is a typo in the announcements. Perhaps, for instance, circumstances change.
  13. For reasonableness. (You don't want anyone who looks at your page to have to read gigabytes of gibberish.) But I guess the limit can be expanded a bit.
  14. @above: I personally don't think 15% isn't unreasonable, but compared to the individual bonus ranging from 3% to 9%, it seems a bit out of scope. The individual bonus should probably be bigger. than the alliance bonus.
  15. I would also suggest some more unique treasure bonuses for both variety and as well as being able to cater to many forms of gameplay, if the treasures were stronger. e.g. - better spy odds - more battle points (initial, passive) - faster city population growth - reduced disease/crime/pollution - ability to instapeace any war - deal more damage - take less damage - reduced military resource consumption - increased color bonus (rewards people who are on the color) - more aggressive war slots - less defensive war slots - better resource production - extended power plant coverage - shorter city/project refresh timers - free project slot (so you need 5000 less infra to get a project, but if you lose the treasure you need to buy 10000 more infra; it basically lets you get your next project sooner) - increased commerce cap - increased military production - improve all other held treasures - increase proportion of raided material etc. etc. Would you war for that?
  16. Random idea: possibly having certain multiple treasures (maybe alliance-wide) creates "combos" that amplifies the benefits of each. Also @ Sheepy: I'm confused as to why you think 15% bonus to alliances is reasonable at the same time a 9% bonus to an individual is also reasonable...
  17. This could be interesting. At the same time however, if implemented improperly, would lead to one nation just collecting all of the trophies (with the entire stack perhaps being passed around from time to time).
  18. Why would you want to give an incentive to *lose* wars more than *winning* them?
  19. The thing is, there is very little versatility with the current system; it has the finesse of a sledgehammer. There is no reason why this has to be the case; games like Tribal Wars had a more versatile system a decade ago. (You could check off some boxes relating to each permission ranging from sending mass alliance-wide PM's to moderating forums to inviting members.)
  20. We can combine the orb idea suggested in the other thread (about confidence) to get something of the following: Every turn, if you have at least 1 orb, you gain a 0.05% orb income bonus (up to 200% or 4000 orbs), but it costs, oh let's say 1% of your orbs rounded up to the nearest integer (so it takes more orbs to maintain a higher income bonus; 40 orbs / turn is almost impossible) All military actions gain 5 orbs per BP used, so 6 immense triumph ground victories = 18 BP = 90 orbs. Let's throw an additional 10 orbs in for beiging someone to round it off at 100 orbs. To avoid fake warring and such: Moderate success: -1 base orbs (so a moderate success ground victory = 12 orbs) Pyrrhic victory: -2 base orbs Utter failure: -4 base orbs If the target is inactive for >7 days: -2 base orbs (if you somehow get an utter failure on an inactive target, the base orb count is at 0, not -1) Defending gets no base orbs: you get orbs by attacking back! Either orbs can be some abstract concept like Ogaden's approval (this basically just puts some numbers to hopefully iron out some loopholes), or it could even become some tradeable commodity, which will allow people to trade in orbs to the neutrals big nations for lots of money. It could also be a currency for some kind of perk system should this ever come to light.
  21. Colors are not percentages. When changing alliance color you get a message akin to [NATION NAME] "changed the alliance color from red% to green%."
  22. Might encourage "fake" wars to keep the bonus high and up. But as long as we iron out the loopholes this is a solid idea.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.