Shakyr
-
Posts
464 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Shakyr
-
-
In all seriousness, wtf?! You want to introduce a resource Project to help newer players, but then twist your brain cells in a knot trying to kneecap it so that older players get minimal benefits? I'm not sure how you decided that this was a good idea.
New players already get free money from the tutorials and I'm pretty sure they don't have City timers any more for the first few cities, how much more do you want to give them handouts?
If you're dead set on giving them more money, just outright give new nations a "Budding Nation Grant" on their Revenue page, of $x per turn, expires in x days.
At least that way you're not kneecapping new players, who should be buying a Center for Civil Engineering instead.
13 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:I could be out of the loop here, since i haven't dealt with little nations in a few years in this game, but at 3 cities, are you really in a position to actually have a project slot open? you would need 1667 infra per city to hit 5k infra.
Each nation gets a freebie Project slot, I assume they want new players to burn that up with this ... whatever it is.
9 hours ago, Zevari said:What if you made it so you can only purchase the project once, it last X amount of days before expiring and after that you lose access to it, this serves the purpose of actually helping the new players but also prevents alliances that intentionally stay small from farming it for essentially free money.
We can call it the "Self-Destructing Mining Labor Camp" and after it expires you get a "Mass Grave" Project, that gives you a bonus to your Soldier casualties.
-
Could we have these tools default to "Buy Only" and have a checkbox underneath saying "Also Sell Infra/Land if required"?
There are very few circumstances where you would ever want to sell infra/land. Yet there are plenty of times (especially in war) when you have mismatched infra and you want to bring all Cities that are under x, back up to x, but ignore those cities that are over x.
This would hopefully be a minor change and a quick win, that would make player's lives easier.
-
3
-
2
-
-
-
-
4
-
1
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Deborah Kobayashi said:
I meant the system itself not the programing, which by the way your system would require adding completely new scripts and checks for a whole new deposit system, since your basically creating a second trading inventory for them, which is just as likely to have bugs.
Something like what you have proposed has been suggested and shot down by alex before.
Sure it would require new code, but the only ongoing scheduled script would be trade expiry, which is a fairly simple check. The other code for handling market transactions is simple and I could write it in my sleep.
If he's against it, nothing I can really do, but won't stop me from posting the odd suggestion like this, that can change the game for the better, in my opinion. As opposed to some of the changes that have been made. But that's a tangent from this topic.
2 hours ago, Deborah Kobayashi said:Also why did you skip the more important issue of my post, that your tax hurts noone but traders, and serves no purpose at all. Actual traders have to change prices on their trades all the time, because markets aren't static. It doesn't discourage abuse, People using it as a deposit system take less penalty than getting looted, and have a protected trade account they dont have to worry about.
That's way more abusive than offshoring since Trading large quantities provides one of the few opportunities to blockade and loot those with secure banking networks, and this removes that opportunity.
so all you are really suggesting here is Protected trade inventories, a cash sink on trades, and discouraging healthy market competition since when someone undercuts you by 1, you cant change the price without taking a loss every time.
This is bad for global economics, war, raiding, and probably a dozen other reasons I don't have the foresight to see.
A race to the bottom is in no trader's best interests. The current market seems to mostly swing between everyone buying up the resource, then people notice the "price" has risen, so they start dumping resources and undercutting each other.
Not only that, it's very easy for "Joe" to undercut by a large amount and post a few mill of a resource that he does not have. No one will necessarily call his bluff and try to accept the offer (which would be cancelled if it couldn't be filled), so people will just blindly undercut him and the price drops even lower.
I'd say the current system hurts traders a lot more than anything I've suggested.
Sure the tax is less than a penalty of getting looted, but there is already offshoring procedures in place for quite a few alliances, which costs the nation nothing. Here they would lose money/resources every time they cancelled the trade, then put up another trade with the remainder that they do not need.
Trades are public knowledge. This means that during a war, your opponents will be able to see any trade movements you make and if you are blockaded, no access to the market.
I also did not say that other measures could not be put in place, for example:
- Cap the price, so that it can't be more than x% higher than the average, which stops people putting stuff up for $1 mill ppu.
- Put a restriction on the number of Trade Offers that can be made.
- Make Personal Trade Offers expire within 24 hours.
-
12 hours ago, Deborah Kobayashi said:
I think the issue can be solved by instead having the system calculate the total of all of your current sell offers (or buy offers when making a buy trade, but not cross calculating them), and if the new offer when making a new trade would put you below 0 of the rss (or cash for buy offers), then you cant make it.
and to cover errors from depositing into the bank or being looted, maybe run a check on turn changes, as long as that wouldn't add a noticeable amount to turn change scripts, and any excess in the offer either be removed, or the entire offer cancelled altogether.
the system you are proposing is overly complicated, and making a fee when people may have to remove their offer and repost when people are undercutting only hurts traders not people that would be abusing it to hide funds, since 1% would be less than the 14% of a looting by a raid war in pirate policy, anyone not in a blockade on the final turn before beige could just drop everything in the market and pull it out for a 1% feeYou say my system is overly complicated, yet you propose something that is even more complicated? Having the system adjust everything "magically" for you in the background might sound nice, but it would be a complete pain to program (I do it for a living). It would also probably introduce way more bugs, especially adding on that "turn change" script. I can just imagine it accidentally wiping out all the resources on the market and the game having to be restored from a backup
1 hour ago, KiWilliam said:Could the solution to fix possible abuse not just be if you lose a war all your currently standing trade offers are cancelled. Resources & funds are recalled as loot is divided up.
You could then have the mechanic where a person hides money for example using the market, but then can't use it during the fight. If the person is not blockaded they have this advantage, but once they're blockaded they're cut off from those funds/resources tied up in the market, and then can only access them if the blockade is broken, or if they lose the war and then they are automatically recalled to be divided up as loot to the winner.
So you can risk trying to stop your money being stolen in each individual ground attack, but you tie up your funds you may need to fight, and then if you lose anyway, you're not ahead of your opponent, and if you keep out of being blockaded, and then also don't lose the war, I would just consider that the superior force using its ability to protect some part of the nations coffers. Risk-reward. Any exploits there that I'm not envisioning?
Yes they can drop money on the market, but is that no different to dropping it in the alliance bank and then it getting almost instantly shifted offshore? I remember the last global war that I participated in, nations in general were pretty quick about doing that.
So in this case, why bother complaining that people will abuse a new system, when they already have a way to abuse the system?
Personally, if you don't blockade the nation and they move resources out, that's your own fault. There's no reason to twist ourselves into a pretzel, trying to think of ways to give them free loot.
-
1 hour ago, Suyash Adhikari said:
Market fees sound like a horrendous idea, no thanks.
No one likes taxes, but they serve a purpose.
In this case it reduces the incentive for people to abuse the market as a bank, while also providing a resource sink. Sure it stings to see a "1% of this transaction was paid in tax" message, but nothing stops you from raising prices.
Personally, I hate it when I get told "The Player doesn't have the Resources/Money", when I'm trying to use the current market.
-
4 minutes ago, Suyash Adhikari said:
This allows people to essentially offshore through ghost trading.
I'm sure some people still will, but it'll cost them the market fees.
For example, posting a Sell Offer of 10 million Food and then letting it expire a week later, will cost you 100,000 Food.
-
So the current market is completely broken, in that I can have 500k Food and the system will allow me to post a Sell Offer for 10 million Food, providing I can be bothered creating 20 new Sell Offers.
This means that you cannot trust what any Nation is Buying/Selling and makes it possible to manipulate the market by posting spurious offers, that shift market opinions.
My suggestion is simple.
-
When a Sell Offer is posted, the Resources are immediately withdrawn and held by the system in reserve.
- When a Sell Offer is accepted, the Resources are deposited in the Buyer's Nation and the Money (minus fee) is deposited in the Seller's Nation.
- When a Sell Offer is cancelled, the Resources (minus fee) are deposited back into the Seller's Nation.
-
When a Buy Offer is posted, the Money is immediately withdrawn and held by the system in reserve.
- When a Buy Offer is accepted, the Resources are deposited in the Buyer's Nation and the Money (minus fee) is deposited in the Seller's Nation.
- When a Buy Offer is cancelled, the Money (minus fee) is deposited back into the Buyer's Nation
- All Trade Offers will expire after a certain time period (I suggest 1 week, real time), after which the Resources/Money will be returned (minus fee).
- Whenever a Nation is Blockaded during war, all existing Trade Offers are frozen and cannot be accepted. While frozen, Trade Offers cannot expire.
The fees are to make it less feasible that people will use the Market as a bank and act as a small resource sink. I suggest 1% as a small fee.
-
1
-
2
-
When a Sell Offer is posted, the Resources are immediately withdrawn and held by the system in reserve.
-
On 12/5/2020 at 6:40 AM, Malakai said:
To me it seems this would unduly burden larger nations who have already gone through the process of building up and learning the game to get where they are.
Actually, the worst affected would be the middle tier, as they would have to choose whether to buy it now (or take loans to buy it now) or to wait.
The top tier, if they're anything like me, wouldn't care too much about the slightly higher cost. I mean I personally bought Moon Landing on a whim, cause I was bored while saving for my next city. -
Just a random thought. If a nuke happens to take out a Nuclear Power Plant, the resulting explosion should do bonus infrastructure damage
-
2
-
1
-
-
Quite simple, have the costs to purchase military (Soldiers/Tanks/Air/Naval) increase as the amount of units killed goes higher globally, over say 5 days. Have it cap out at like twice the price, with a suitably high threshold.
This means that in times of global crisis, as a particular military unit is used (and therefore casualties increase), it becomes more expensive to rebuy.
-
4
-
-
On 11/29/2020 at 11:39 PM, katashimon13 said:
i still like it tho and wish there was an easy way to do it for everything
Yeah that was my next step
Wanted to try and get the foot in the door first!
-
On 11/18/2020 at 4:43 AM, Prefontaine said:
It's not a problem. This is an idea designed at helping military based or raiding nations, being able to use more improvement slots. So often it gets shouted that every update is killing raiding so just putting an idea out there that a couple raiders I talked to liked to see how it was received.
- Add in the ability to actually select what cities you want to mass copy a template to (instead of forcing people to use a single template across all)
- Allow more military improvements per city, give each unit a cap based on population (like soldiers currently has)
- Give military improvements a bonus the more you have in a single city (like the production improvements)
This would allow military based or raiding nations with lower infra to specialise as many cities as they can support, as military cities. Any remaining cities can then be purely production based, to bring in any necessary resources.
-
28 minutes ago, Adrienne said:
There's a list of them on the wiki: https://politicsandwar.fandom.com/wiki/Achievements
Nice to know (thanks!), but the wiki is not a solution to fix broken or half-complete ingame UI.
-
It'd also be nice to have some indication of what other achievements are out there. I mean anyone who has ever played games on Steam or GoG would be able to implement a better UI. Sure there are some that should stay hidden, but it could be listed as "Secret Achievement" or "Secret Naval Achievement".
It'd nice to also have some idea on the screen as to how rare the achievement is. Are you one of only less than 100 people who has it? Maybe that's one you should be proud of and pin to your nation page.
Also, the whole three achievements to pin on your nation page, if I did something like that for work, my boss would fire me on the spot. What it really needs is 3 spots at the top of the page, with a button saying "pin" next to each achievement. If it's pinned already, the button says "unpin". Simple, efficient and a whole lot more user friendly.
-
Another random thought of mine, as Land is mostly useless except if you have Farms.
A nation should have a pool of land that is both separate to and includes the land that is currently assigned to cities. This pool of land would (as always) have an increasing cost to expand.
In your city page, you no longer buy land, you assign (or acquire) it from the nation's pool. If the nation doesn't have the land, you can potentially buy and assign it within the same action.
In order to build an improvement, you require both x infrastructure and y land free and once you build that improvement, that land cannot be unassigned and sent back into the pool, unless that improvement is sold.
In order to build some projects, you require x land from the nation pool, which would then be locked and unable to be assigned to a city. Some projects are just an evolution of existing buildings, therefore there would be no need for them to be built on any land.
Each city has at least x land that is always assigned and in order to buy a city, you need at least x land available in the pool. -
Tech usually gets cheaper the more it's in production (Apple phones don't count), so what if Projects got cheaper, the more nations that buy them (even if they destroy it afterwards).
I'm thinking like 120% of current prices initially, but once 500 nations have bought it, it's 110%, 1000 it's 100%, 2000 nations it's 90%, 3000 nations it's 80% and then it gets capped there.
It'd help become a money sink for those rich
bastnations with too much money on hand, then over time become more affordable for the rest of us plebs.-
6
-
3
-
-
22 hours ago, Adrienne said:
You had me up until the second part. There's already a discussion about changing the spy kill ratio in place and I don't think there should be any changes to Spy Satellite taken until we see how those pan out. Double nerfing spy sat straight off the bat would be a terrible idea.
Pinging @Shakyr as well, in case you weren't aware of this thread.
Thanks, I was made aware after I posted that there was discussion on changing it at some point in the future. I wasn't aware of the suggested amounts though. Why it isn't changed asap though, I have no clue.
When they actually get around to implementing those changes, I'll be quite a bit happier.21 hours ago, BelgiumFury said:
Obviously the ROI is something to take into account.
Imagine if all your other attacks only did a maximum of 700K in damage, we would all go retire and play a diffrent game.I just had a spy attack take out 3,060 tanks. That is like $8 million in Steel in a single spy attack and potentially $24 million across 3 daily spy attacks. Why the hell this ever made it past the test server, I have no idea. And don't talk to me about missing spy attacks, because the way things currently stand, you can take out a nation's spies within a day or two and then they have no chance of ever defending.
-
2 hours ago, BelgiumFury said:
I'm really not sure what people expect of the spy sat.
First of all I wish to repeat that nearly everyone who has the spy spatelite bought A missle pad, A space program and a Spy sat, this was (assuming interbellum prices) around a billion (bit less) (if they are refunded the market would be flooded etc, return wouold not be the same, demand lower supply suddenly higher..).
Now lets calculate here. (750x2000)-1M = 500K profit per op.
This would be 2000 succesfull tank spy ops, if people could only spy on tanks (which they cant because soon enough in 5-10 days youd regularly lose spy ops because spies are rebuild.) So it would take 1000 Days ROI, assuming you did a spy op every day of the war, you never failed a single spy op, you never lost spies (which well, I dont know about you but Ive been at zero all day long, so this is not the case). .
Next up you say at most 750 , this means it would in practice (following the current distribution) be 525 on average. Let us do the maths once more.
We make a profit of 50K per spy op (assuming we only spy tanks, and never fail etc..). I am not sure how I feel about that ROI. But wanna calcualte the ROI of that?
10000 Days (of war that is)
This does assume indeed that you dont make spy ops if you do not have have a satalite. If you would otherwise do them it would be a ([525-350]*2000) 700K per day profit (assuming only tanks and 100% succes). Would be around 1400 ops to pay back, imagine if you had a beautifull city (or like three) for 700 days instead.
Now let us talk about our friends without a spy satelite, because I think it is important to touch up on. Assumign you do literally everything perfect you would LOSE 350K per spy op (assumign you only spy tanks etc..)
Good next up, lets say we do nerf it. That seems like hundreds of millions in wasted money, you could invest it in cities for example. A spy sat takes 3 (!) slots, do you know what you can do with free project slots. Lets say a new spy sat will only cost 400M because of a sudden inflation of the market, the ROI is still miserable (its not even funny) so people just buy a city and ignore it.
Killing 7-9 spies per attempt is really little It would make spies completly useless.
Why?, Well assumign your opponent does nothing to stop you, and you never fail an op, you can kill (assuming you have a 3/2 ratio majority) 24 spies per day. But this leaves some very important calculations out of the maths. First of all that your opponent will fight back, you will not be able to win every spy op. This will lead to a perpetual stalemate, 100% certainly if they can also rebuild in their beige.
Next up, time: I speak from personal expierience and observation, some people quite literally put hours and hours in this sheet, even not counting the nerf of spy ops, just the nerf of units would not make that long term viable (damage too little for the time it takes). If you do include the spy kill changes it is literally not worth it, it would take hundreds of hours for very little return (over the duration of the whole war).
I feel with this that your proposal is not backed up by math or practical expierience.
Then for people who argue that spy stats are based on numbers (more people win) I wish to point out that euhm, well this is also the case in literally every other aspect of the game.
You might say "better fighting alliance will preform better in wars though!" and yes, you would be correct. The same applies to alliances who organize better. Obviously though, numbers is a very important aspect.
Footnotes::
*Indeed spy sat does cost somewhat less than 1B, but if you take into account that you will not only spy tanks, spies of you will get killed, you will fail ops, you will make human error etc this is a fair estimate in my opinion.
** I wrote this at 4AM excuse my writing.I couldn't care about maths or RoI, as quite a few people in t$ will tell you (I bought Moon Landing on a whim, just because I could). I couldn't care less about who's winning or not in the war either (for those saying that I'm only posting because I'm "losing").
What I do care about is the fact that it is absolutely shattering to see weeks of daily logins to buy spies, evaporating in an instant because the game is not properly balanced. The fact that a single spy attack can kill more tanks than is supported by a single Factory (are the spies using pocket nukes?!). The fact that for all the billions that are invested into getting a Spy Satellite, it does jack all to protect you from Spy Attacks (I was being nice and not adding that to OP). The fact that protecting Beige nations from war declarations means jack all, if they can have their money stolen and their military destroyed.
Espionage as it currently stands, is not balanced properly and needs a discussion. -
Beige Nations cannot spy or be spied upon, except for Gather Intel
Isn't the whole idea of Beige, a safe harbour for nations to rebuild? Seems really odd to me then, that you can basically destroy a nation via repeated spy attacks, while they are Beige.
Lower the cap for attacksI'm sure quite a few players have Spy Satellite now, which adds +50%. Even accounting for that, Espionage attacks do way too much damage.
- Sabotage Tranks should not be regularly killing off almost 2k tanks. At most, they should be killing off 500 tanks (base, 750 with Spy Satellite).
- Assassinate Spies should not be killing off over 1/3 of the maximum spies. This means within a single day, you can go from max spies to nothing. It should maybe be killing off at most 5-6 (base), per attempt.
- The others likely need similar changes, but as I haven't seen them myself, I can't comment (and the Battle Sim seems to be outdated).Repeated espionage per day should decayOnce an episonage attack is used, it should make subsequent espionage harder, until that nation's military reset. Put it down to the nation going into high alert. The only time this should not happen is if gather intel is used and no spies are caught. I'm not saying it should be much, maybe a +5% (for a total of +10% after 2 espionage attacks).
EDIT: It seems that that are some changes that are already under development, so I'm happy to cross out the last two points ...
-
1
-
4
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
So as things currently stand, radiation (and Food production penalties) is pretty dynamic, in a war it can literally change every second. For a game that mostly revolves around turns, I think radiation needs a little love.
What I'd first like to suggest is that radiation is updated only at turn change, as one of the first things before processing Nation income. The radiation page should also be updated to show not only the current radiation, but a table of the past 50-100 turns (and maybe some pretty graphs). This will give players an easy way to track trends in the radiation and plan accordingly.
The second change I'd like to suggest, is that radiation affects more than just Food production. High radiation levels should affect all production and nation income (a lesser version of having a city nuked). Your citizens aren't going to necessarily want to work and some of the weaker ones may end up dying. This will add another aspect to wars, as heavy nuke use will affect the entire player base (and may cause friction with alliances that heavily use nukes in war).-
11
-
13 minutes ago, Potpie99 said:
This is a pretty interesting idea with a nice graphic alongside, however can we make that graphic a separate page instead of a pop-up to be more mobile friendly?
The screenshot is of my script that I made before Bulk Import was added, just to display the functionality.
Personally I'd love it if the city list included Name/Infra/Land at a bare minimum (I'm just too lazy to scrape the extra information myself).
7 minutes ago, Divinum said:Good idea, but make it VIP only.
Yeah no. The whole point is to make it so that smaller nations can diversify their builds.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Could we please, please have an update to choose what Cities we should apply the template to? At least then I can stop having to maintain another script <.<
Given that we get resource production bonuses for specialising production within a city, the idea of having a single Econ template for all your cities is not an optimal solution. Being able to more easily utilise those production bonuses and specialise some cities for Food, others for Oil, others for Gasoline, etc might make for more varied Nation setups.
-
2
-
20
-
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=197220
Nation Name: Covid 19 Leader Name: Kung Flu
Another person with poor taste, like the one I reported a few months ago.
-
3
-
More Food, Glorious Food
in Game Suggestions
Posted
Food itself is should be a game on it's own. I mean who doesn't love trying to cook a turkey, without setting the kitchen on fire.
As such, I think we should expand the game to include the following. Note: All times are Game Time, not Real Time.
Raw Resource Improvements:
Manufacturing Improvements:
New Resources:
New Project
New Gameplay Mechanic