Jump to content

Azaghul

Members
  • Posts

    712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Azaghul last won the day on June 14 2020

Azaghul had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Austin, Texas
  • Leader Name
    Azaghul
  • Nation Name
    Middle Earth
  • Nation ID
    11529
  • Alliance Name
    The Knights Radiant

Recent Profile Visitors

1783 profile views

Azaghul's Achievements

Veteran Member

Veteran Member (6/8)

800

Reputation

  1. I misread this as "paypal" and was expecting it to be something about donations. I appreciate all the work you put into this game! Don't beat yourself up about any coding mistakes people might criticize you for! Especially on the coding side, the best way to learn is to do. It's a lot easier to criticize than to actually be in the field trying to make something. If this wasn't a good game, you wouldn't have a dedicated base of thousands of players. It's super impressive that someone could make something like this in High School.
  2. I agree with everyone saying we just need to implement all wars ending in beige.
  3. Wouldn't have the first city count for score (and not allowing you to have zero cities) solve this issue?
  4. This could be interesting but would be really hard to make work in terms of balance.
  5. Would the lottery treasures be new treasures or taken from the current pool of treasures? The lottery sounds fun to me. Honestly I think admin should just go back to allowing treasures to be traded via in-game wars as long as the nation with the defending slot isn't in a separate alliance war. The infra lost from being beiged is a good balance to have to make the trade really worth it.
  6. Honestly I think bombardments as proposed are too weak, especially in the upper tiers. Even if takes 50% less gas/muni, launching a naval attack at 75% of my at 35 cities at current market prices for gas/muni costs about 2.7 mill. If each improvement slot is worth about 10-20k a day, two improvements is 20-40k lost income for a a day. Even if you take off 300k for value of the improvements (generous), that's 60-120 days for the attack to cost the target more than it what it cost me to attack.
  7. I think what he is referring to is the formula for the treasure bonus gives diminishing returns for each additional treasure.
  8. Bombardment as currently proposed is useless. Killing 1-2 resource/civic improvements is very, very small. At 35 cities @ 3200 infra I'd go into a war with about 1640 resource/civic improvements after military/power. Even a 20 city nation @ 2500 infra will go into a war with about 600 resource/civic improvements. If each improvement is worth 10-20k in profitability per day (maybe up to 30k, but we're talking averages), loosing two improvements is about 1 mill in income over a month. It would take many months to pay for the gas/munitions even with the 50% reduction. It should scale up with how many ships are used, which also serves as a good replacement for the "75% of max capacity" mechanic. 1 improvement for every 50 or 100 ships used. This has the added advantage of making it meaningful for the upper tiers without being overpowered in the lower tiers. The more cities you have, the more improvements you have, the less each improvement is worth to you, and the more the attack costs.
  9. I like all of these changes. I'm a little leery of having beige change how spies work, I kind of like the fact that the two arenas (spies vs conventional fighting) are somewhat separate. On that note, a quality of life change would be to warn/prevent someone from doing a spy attack against a unit they aren't eligible to attack. This could also be done for spying a nuke someone has bought that day.
  10. As you say, the delay isn't the main limiting factor for most people, so what I'm proposing wouldn't delay growth that much. The delays would be very short at the low level, 1-5 days between cities. 22 days total to get to city 10. 72.5 days to get from City 10 to City 20. 94.5 days to get to city 20, effectively the same as with the current timer. My main point is that I think the game is better, rewards more activity, and makes buying a city feel like more of an accomplishment when there is SOME delay between cities. It doesn't need to be a long delay, and I agree with the sentiment that 10 days is too long at lower levels. I could also go for something like a 1 day timer for cities 1-10, 5 days for cities 11-20, 10 days for 20+ cities. I just don't like the all or nothing approach of having no delay and then jumping straight to a 10 day delay.
  11. The ability to instantly buy a bunch of cities at once cheapens their value and makes their purchase feel like much less of an accomplishment. I think some kind of dynamic limit based on what city number is bought would make more sense. Something like the number of turns for the timer = city bought *6, half a day per city. City 10 would have a 5 day timer, City 10 a 10 day timer, City 30 a 15 day timer, etc. Also would give new players something to do a number of times throughout the day over their first few days.
  12. Same here. City timer says 71 turns, Project timer says 70 turns. I built a project 50 turns ago.
  13. If you don't like bounties no one is forcing you to use them. I don't use them, but I see no reason to get rid of the system for those that do use them.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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