Oppilan
-
Posts
87 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Oppilan
-
-
4 hours ago, Ukunaka said:
--snip--
only nukers and raiders will ever use this. If this is a thing, fraggle can unload all nuke without much loss to sabotage. Makes nukers very very OP
-
29 minutes ago, MoonShadow said:
I mean a farm nation would be better off to grow with the farmer in order to keep up with the for ever growing cost of cities ?
If I have a farm, I won't let it grow. I'll keep it at 10 cities and take everything to my nation. Building more cities is bad financially. Idk when it turns from good to bad, but someone keeping a farm will keep the nation small.
-
Leader shaw is selling bauxite in market, he is not the 0.25 score nation, which shifty mentioned about in first post this page. Leader shaw's score is more than 300.how does everyone conclude he is a farm? Just because he is not growing with so much wealth? Idk, plenty of alliances keep members together even if a few of them are older.
When I was in house baratheon (does not exist now), we faced a micro with wealthy and small nations. Forgot their alliance name. They were not growing for recruitment purposes.
The one with 0.25 score and with a ton of bauxite, that looks fishy.
Edit: am I missing something?
-
11 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:
for the record, rebuilding 30 cities is actually easier than rebuilding 15 cities.
If you lose equal infrastructure per city, it should be the same and not easier. 30 city nation will have age bonus, so that will make rebuilding slightly faster.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Mitsuru said:
Mate, the first time you mentioned this number here on the forum, Dr. Rush told you as a personal message from Sheepy that this number is dead wrong because you used the ingame calculator which is hopelessly bugged. ?
Lmfao
-
11 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:
This is a game, and the other point of playing a game is to win. You know what is fun? winning! you know what is not fun? Losing! especially in this game. And your fair fight talk is absolute bullshit. So I assume before you attack anyone you warn them ahead of time so they can max out and they know when your blitz is coming so that they can be ready to counter it, or even better you let them blitz you first, to be fair and all.
Get off your little fairness pedestal, because you are full of it. Wars are won before the first battle is declared, and if that is not the case, you are missing the politics part of Politics and War.
You got to play some real pc games my friend. P&W is the only game where players try their best to have uneven match ups.
-
2
-
-
Pro tip: don't merge with boc.
(to whomever it may concern in future)
-
1 hour ago, Sephiroth said:
On that first paragraph you fail to realize that if we wanted to use our wealth to buy votes we would do it regardless of the voting system being split to city count, in fact keeping it at 1 vote per player makes it cheaper for us to buy votes since in total they would have less votes to offer:
here is a little chart based on average city count of a couple of alliances to make it simpler for you to get what we mean:
With Vote/ten cities Without Vote/ten cities
NPO - 203 votes NPO - 148 votes
SK - 69 votes SK - 39
TFP - 92 votes TFP - 93 votes
Tesla - 34 Tesla - 24
Panth - 136 Panth - 152
TKR - 209 TKR - 141
BK - 198 BK - 158
TeST - 56 TeST - 25
CoS - 97 CoS - 41
BC - 71 BC - 54
Since there would have to be some kind of restriction anyway this would be the best way to motivate alliances into pushing their members into a certain size.
As for the second paragraph if the seller is the one that imposes the tariff then trading alliances would simply set it to 0 and trade the cheaper resources as always, and if the tariff is imposed by the buyer then you are just throwing another tax on top of all the tax you already give your poor players. Cut them some slack man.I've a feeling there is some sort of miscommunication, so let me stop with this last reply. Let Alex decide.
I wouldn’t put it as buying votes for money with your riches. Rather, you are rich and that gives you plenty of facilities to help small nations grow, establish friendly relations and move on from there.
With that being said, having spent time in IQ, I can say confidently that some alliances don't grow for strategic reasons. Down declares are too heavy and tiering became a norm in places which faced heavy down declares. (a different topic, but addresses your point touching motivation for alliances to push members to certain sizes)
Having 1 vote per player will improve participation from all tiers, as for the game number of cities is less important than number of active players.
There are many smaller micros at this moment in game than ever before, they can never build to same size as old nations. It practically take years for them to catch up. Having more and more mechanics favoring big nations will just make new peeps quit the game, because many will feel there is nothing significant to do. Especially the most competitive ones checking the game will.
For the last paragraph, leave it to econ peeps. They can handle it.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:
I dont really care about the vote thing, but you are assuming that there are a proportional amount of 30 city nations vs 20 city nations vs 10 city nations. My numbers are about a month old but 30-35 nations above 30, and about 400-425 nations at 20 cities and above, which means out of the 6700 nations playing this game about 6200 of them would have 1 vote. That vastly out numbers the upper tiers still. even if you get rid of the little guys that never play and haven't deleted yet, I believe that still leaves around 2500-3k people with a vote.
Stats should be nearly correct. However, I differ in the approach alone. I don't think we should group nations into various tiers and compare representation. Your alliance is big and rich, even if you don't have enough votes on your own, you can reach out to help smaller alliances, be friendly with em and get some political mileage. When I hear such suggestions from some old members, my biggest concern is the growing disconnect between new and old players. That's all.
3 hours ago, Sephiroth said:The only thing a tariff would do if its based on color would be motivate little alliance to jump onto the same color as large trading alliances, it will barely effect how the market actually works simply push people onto a single color more often.
The only positive thing a tariff would actually do is motivate more direct trades from alliance to alliance, besides that it will just screw little players because they would have to be on the same color as large traders, otherwise they have to pay even MORE money for resources they really need, while most large players have so many resources stacked up that we can literally wait a couple months and just trade with an alliance for really large stocks.
as for the votes well SRD beat me to it
I agree with you on first paragraph. A targeted tariffs, like embargo, on alliances, nations and color, should fix that problem.
If large traders have so much resources stacked up and small nations are so desperate of resources, then their respective alliances can drop tariffs. It will come down to the relations between those two alliances. This won't be the reason for a direct trade really. Imagine a situation where an alliance like TKR wants to micro manage resource exchange. With so many peeps there, it's next to impossible. At some point, alliances should talk with each other and reduce tarrifs (and set tariffs) according to their advantage. It might screw some broker though, but that will most likely due to politics and not due to the idea of tarrifs itself. Hope that gives an idea of what I had in mind while talking about tariff
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Sephiroth said:
If you add a tariff then it doesnt go to an alliance bank, making it go to the bank avoids the whole point in making it more expensive to sell since alliances can easily bypass this, the only effect this would have is making trades appear further down the list and "look" more expensive, plus it creates a mess for alliances that have controlled tax systems or have 0 tax.
Adding more votes per city limit doesnt make it easy for whales to control anything, most of the people in orbis are between 10-23 cities, whales that are 30+ are the minority.
Tariff is a tax imposed by government on movement of goods. A direct implementation is, making it as a tax on top of the market price. Mostly everyone buys the top offer, mostly everyone sells their resources based on the top offer available. Adding tariffs based on color will make the market look drastically different with different prices. It will have effect on manufacturing profit margin and affect the net revenue. It creates a huge impact of used properly. How can alliances 'easily' by-pass this? It depends on how it is implemented I say. If the tariffs are applied from one color to another, simply changing the nation color will do. If tariffs are applicable from one color to another alliance, then members need to leave the Alliance to by-pass. If the tariffs are applicable from a color to nation/alliances, much like how the current embargo mech works, then it'll be hard to by-pass. Of course, having a middle man will bypass. But that's hardly the reason to neglect the suggestion of tariffs, since embargo can be nullified with a similar move, yet we are talking about adding more embargoes into game mech.
Adding more votes based on cities, will make the game more dominated by whales. 20 city nation will have two times the voice than a 10 city nation, whereas a 30 city nation three times. Unequal votes mean, less participation from New nations.
-
On 7/31/2018 at 8:02 AM, Alex said:
You are right about that, and I did consider the multi issue as well. It seems like a ridiculous thing to me to risk getting banned for, but I'm sure people will do it. I will likely institute a minimum then yes, based on age or score or something to discourage multi abuse.
If min is instituted, say score for example. Small raiders will have 0 political voice, but still end up affected by embargoes. Else, make it like nations which cannot vote cannot be affected by color policies. On the downside, someone can create a small nation to bypass embargo. But it'll be suspicious if a small nation buys large quantity from market and players can report them. So there is that, a check is possible. Still possible to exploit.
Adding tariffs will solve the issue. 5% tariff means, $100 offer will look like $105 to the buyer. $5 will go to alliance Bank. High cost will discourage buyer and the offer will not appear on top in market.
-
15 hours ago, Sephiroth said:
Although as for the voting thing I do think there should be something like you get 1 vote for every 10 cities or so, just because that is generally how it works irl, larger nations get more influential votes, and setting it at 10 cities per vote is a high enough amount so that large alliances with a lot of 10 city nations can still out vote a small alliance of 30 city nations.
?
1 vote per player, it'll boost politics and activity, is better. We don't want a game with just old peeps dominating with their old and big nations.
14 hours ago, Cianuro said:I think it's interesting that the big tier alliances can harm their opponents by merely swaying a low tier aa to join the opponent's color, this can cause a lot of tension in the upper tiers and may result in more wars, cool implementation.
Indeed isn't it. In addition, If color embargoes are implemented based on votes, big alliances might want to control theirs and other color. This can give more wars.
-
Using the voting system to create embargo and/or tariffs would boost activity in general.
This is a good update. I'm hoping that this will evolve into something better in future.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
16 hours ago, ϟħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™??? said:Basically you can't stop the losing side from using bigger city count and diminished infra to lower score. Meaning KT/TGH mid and upper tier can now grind down TKR side's lower tier. It's why IQ keeps pushing to a draw in every war.
So yeah, prolonged raiding of TKR is the best option to gripple lower tier growth. If bigger nations try to drop down, they'll get swarmed and mauled.
TGH/KT =/= Inquisition. They don't have the lower tier support for that strategy. The 'diminished' infra score is not low enough to prevent down declares.
TKR peeps are present everywhere, low and high tier. Once TGH/KT peeps lose their beige protection, they will lose any military they hold.
7 hours ago, Kastor said:Basically this, however with KT/TGH’s city counts, we’ll be able to go a lot higher than low tier like IQ.
Despite you claiming to be a military oriented alliance, I find it funny that you peeps are dreaming. With more cities and a lot higher score, it is very easy to declare and take down TGH than otherwise.
To OP @Mad Max, they are either dreaming or bluffing.
-
1
-
6
-
you are a slow one.
hehehe
-
it's otay. dosh doesn't mean a thang because that m8 get's to infra damage you. it's the point that matters. don't raid Arrgh! or her peeps again. or a repeat of this will happen and you will probably spend the rest of this month in vacay mode ayy
hahaha
I'm going to raid again, I may start with Arrgh I love the way Ogaden came down 200 points just to attack us -
I feel like my IQ has dropped from reading this.
Take a nice nap !
-
They can't stay in vacation mode forever. Unless they delete and disband in which case, good riddance
I'm not planning to, I'll come back !
-
Lesson 3: launching missiles is never a waste of money
Cost of a missile: $150,000 + $200,000 (for aluminium taking the price as $2000ppu) + 202500 (for gasoline, taking the price as $2700ppu) + $75000 (for munitions, taking the price as $1000ppu) = $627,500 (I'm just taking the current market price, it is surely inflated but...)
Your last missile attack reduced infrastructure in Military Base I from 680 to 476 and one factory. The cost of repair? its $387,119 for infrastructure and for factory it is $25,000.
So you spent $627,500 to destroy my $387,119 with your last attack?
Your first attack when I had 1100 infrastructure in two cities were worth it, after that it is just a waste of money Ogaden, but your missile, do whatever you want to
The only lesson I'm learning from this is, to have enough stockpile !
-
ayy you got rekt'd
??
-
Lesson 2: I can still missile you even if you're in vacation mode
hahahahah I'm not that dumb
I know I'm going to lose, staying in vacation mode makes life easy. You may drag this battle for another 5 days, so I thought vacation mode can be applied 
Looks like some people didn't read through the vacation announcement fully. Now they won't be making any cash per day and are effectively defeated. Missile them to death.
I know completely about vacation mode dude. I don't make cash per day anyway. And launching missile now is just a waste of money, I hope Ogaden will realize that.
Edit: You should realize I'm ready for defeat when I decommissioned all my tanks and aircrafts
-
Lesson 1: Having a nation that's just a big army base can backfire if you run out of money and you're blockaded
lol yeah
Next time I'll pay more attention sir -
No matter how much I try, man Kastor, you are still more famous than me
-
2
-
-
I can't lower my score for getting into the war range, bcos the benefit is NO better than the cost.
With all those cities, it would be nice to have you in my war range
One Puff
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
o/ TKR
o/ Tesla