Azaghul

We're at or near the inflection point for nations that aren't maxed on commerce where the cost to buy food on the market is higher than the extra income having that food would generate. For my upper tier nation that is about 580 PPU for food but it will be lower for most nations. This hasn't happened before that I can remember, so it'll take some getting used to. For anyone wondering what that trade off is, use this calculation to find the threshold of when you should and shouldn't buy food on the market: If you currently have food: PPU threshold = Gross income (cash) / 3 / Food - Resource Usage by Cities If you currently are out of food: PPU threshold = Gross income (cash) / 3 / Food - Resource Usage by Cities

1) Treasure sniping is a fun part of the game and I liked the continent connected ones adding a dynamic nature to it, I don't understand the reasoning behind removing these elements. I see the color swapping to try to capture a treasure as a feature, not a bug. It's been a while but I used to lead efforts to capture treasures by switching colors, it was an interesting tradeoff of every nation who switched loosing color income for a few days for a chance of getting a treasure. There was an element of cost/benefit analysis of how many treasure we had vs how many nations need to switch vs how many nations were already eligible. And it gave people something to do during peace time. Additional treasures with additional criteria is great, but I'd keep the continent specific ones. The 30 day requirement also works against people just out of a loosing war which I don't like. 2) I agree with the critique that the main thing pushing away new players isn't the difficulty of catching up with the higher tier but with the lack of things to do on a regular basis once you are past the major raiding stage. I've always thought that the city timer cap should be proportionate (say, 6 turns limit per city level) rather than all or nothing because buying a bunch of cities at once creates less engagement than buying them over a span of days or weeks. Allowing people to get past the new tier stage extremely fast could even be counterproductive because it could diminish the sense of accomplishment of growth. 3) One thing that CN did well with new player engagement was create a resource, tech, that only new players could efficiently produce, and older players relied on trading with newer players to obtain it. It also created an incentive to recruit new nations into your alliance, or if you're an elite alliance, sponsor a smaller alliance. The dynamics of trading in CN are different because they have trade slots as a cap, but I think it's worth thinking about. 4) The big gap between new and old players is always going to be tough dynamic for old games such as this, where many nations are building off years of nation growth. Structurally I think there would have to be some fundamental change to address this. One fundamental factor is that you only have one nation that all your growth is piled into. What if we did something that allowed people to create a 2nd nation that they could channel new cities into? This would allow people to "grow" without just getting larger and larger individual nations that are isolated from the younger player base. It would give older players something to do. It would create an avenue for interaction between newer and older nations. And it could add a lot of interesting strategy in terms of how you balance growth between your primary nation and 2nd nation. The cost for cities in the 2nd nation could either be equal to the cost for the next city in your "main" nation or could be significantly more expensive (say 5x cost per city). I recognize this is a radical and probably hard to code idea, but I think something of this magnitude is really needed.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1828693

Infrastructure and/or cities over a certain level (city 20? 2000 infra?) could require resources to build, instead of just cash.

This. I'd also be in favor of starting it at say, city 20. After city 20 cities stop costing more cash but starting costing raws and/or manufacturing.

Love all of these. Especially excited to see the alliance / shared market trades get merged into the global trade screen. I think it will do a lot make alliance trade offers more accessible, and used a lot more as a result.

Strongly disagree. Making early/mid tier growth too easy also reduces the sense of accomplishment of building through those levels.

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.

I agree with everyone saying we just need to implement all wars ending in beige.

This would be great!

Wouldn't have the first city count for score (and not allowing you to have zero cities) solve this issue?

This could be interesting but would be really hard to make work in terms of balance.

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.

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.

I think what he is referring to is the formula for the treasure bonus gives diminishing returns for each additional treasure.