Shakyr
-
Posts
483 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Shakyr
-
-
Unfortunately I'm sure even if a proper inter-player banking system is in the works, it's way down the list. Quite simply because money can be transferred directly already, via an Alliance Bank or it can be done for the price of 1 Food (which at ~100 ppu, is a modest transaction fee).
-
You wouldn't be a tax farm, in that scenario. And you could just 0% your tax rate, work out how much tax each nation should be paying (under your system) and post a table to your forums for nations to reference. They can then send the money to the bank. If they fail to pay taxes for 3 weeks in a row, kick them out. It'd be alot less work for you.I feel personally offended by this.
Rose currently is working on implementing a progressive taxation system. To do this, we need to log tax data on every nation, extrapolate over a week, work out a tax return and send that out to each nation at the start of each week. Its a lot of copy and paste.
-
See here for a related discussion
https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17513-easier-infrastructure-land-purchasing/
-
For someone like me, that likes maintaining the same infra/land values across all cities, being able to specify one number on one screen and it autobuilds up to that infra/land value, would be awesome.
I'm always a fan of something that means I don't have to open up 17 tabs
-
They may be potentially talking about nations other than themselves, in which case Sheepy's answer applies.
-
Alternate solution. Anyone who is over 3 days inactive gets a 50% penalty to revenue, over 1 week inactive they get 100% penalty to revenue. But they would still get billed for 100% of any nation expenses and if they don't have the money available the citizens riot, potentially destroying improvements. You can put the reductions in revenue down to the tax collectors being lazy bastards.Ok how about this. If you are worried about "inactive farms".
Simply make it so that gray nations aren't taxed. Problem solved.
Even better, you've just made them even juicier raid targets, AND incentivised alliances to drop inactives instead of keeping them for the tax they provide. Everyone is happy.
Your move sheepy.
This way alliances cannot have "tax farms" of inactive nations.
Also, put an upper limit of 80% for taxes. That would be an instant 20% loss for any potential "tax farms".
-
Only just noticed this topic.
If your servers are getting hit, it's likely because you haven't put much effort into structuring the API properly. Restructure the API, so we don't have to request as much data, and it will likely reduce your server load.
I personally have posted topics before asking for something approaching a proper structure to the API and they've basically been ignored.
https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11365-nation-api-layout-suggestion/
https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10558-alliance-api-layout-suggestion/
If you want an idea of how to implement an API properly, go buy yourself a copy of Guild Wars 2 and look at their (freely available) API.
Other suggestions include make available historical data, from your Stat Tracker. Also include timestamps for when the data was pulled (not just date). If this was available, alot of people probably wouldn't need to fetch and store historical data anymore.
Also make available Radiation as an API also (current and historical), that way I don't have to scrape the page to get the data.
Maybe, just maybe, if all this happens, then add in paid access for high rate limits. I'm talking people who want to pull 120 requests/minute or higher. But I would still keep free access available and limited by the minute, not daily.
If you implement your current proposal, you will also have to rate limit the game itself, to stop people from simply scraping the site. Personally, I'd just give up completely and quietly semi-retire from the game (much like I have with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)). Vast majority of the fun for me, is actually experimenting and playing around with the API data, for example working out efficient ways to build nations and cities, via simulations (my current project).
-
I'm currently sitting at 59/60 spies, with the Intelligence Agency project.
On the spy purchase page, it says under "Production (Now/Total)", that I could buy 3/60 spies, which is the limit with IA (but I only have 1 available spot left). So I tried purchasing 3 spies and got the following error messages.
You can't train more than two spies per day.
You can only train two spies per day. Come back tomorrow to enlist more.
You cannot train more spies than your cap, which is 60.
Now under "Production (Now/Total)" it says that I can buy 2/60 spies (seems to also be ignoring my IA project, same with the above messages).
So I tried purchasing 2 spies and got only the following error message "You cannot train more spies than your cap, which is 60." (the other two did not reappear).
EDIT: If I then purchase 1 spy, hitting the cap, it now says I'm at 1/60 and if I reload the page, it says 2/60. Even though I can't buy any more, due to being at the cap.
-
Not really, it'll just take a while. At my current rate, I'll cap out for Food again in about 2.5 years. Paul Warburg, going by the figures on his post, will cap out in 1.3 years.Theoretically, no one should hit the new limit. If they do, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
I guess you'll just have to bank on regular wars inflating Food prices, as I (and probably a few others) will likely be dumping Food on the market, once it hits 300/400 ppu again.
But I'm also tempted to buy Food and supplement my stockpile that way. I could easily add another 20k Food daily, just by purchasing it off the market. That would bring me down to about 10 months. Less, if I continue buying cities and infra, which would increase my monetary and Food incomes.
So I guess I'll be posting something in around 9-10 months then.
-
Thank you.Resource caps are now 9,999,999.99 for all resources.
Back to what I said earlier though, could we please have some checks and balances on those limits? It's not as urgent with the increased limits, but is still something that should be done, IMO.
Added. But having it in the wiki would not properly solve the issue, compared to actually having the resource limit properly integrated into the game.in the time you guys have spent complaining about this, you could have gone onto the wiki and added it and mission accomplished.
I will agree that being on the wiki means more people may know about it (if they bother to read the wiki) and with Sheepy's announcement ingame, everyone currently playing will know about the limit. But that does not solve it for all new players, nor does it solve the issue of resources being lost when you reach the limit.
-
Theoretically, it can't be an unlimited cap.
Since players are starting to hit the (arbitrary) caps, I'll see about increasing them. Just know that it'll make the entire game very, very marginally slower.
As a web developer I'm curious about how the game is designed, that it is an issue. Especially as we're talking about values that are basically static, for each page load.
Now from a display perspective, I can see how you would have issues with higher values, since there is limited room on the top bar. But this could be alleviated by simply displaying an approximation instead (10K, 1M, etc) and having an icon on the top bar, that leads to a "Resource Summary" page, with actual values.
-
Issue being, if it isn't officially documented, how is any of our government meant to know about it? Not like anyone told us when we were starting out "Oh hey, if you want to stockpile 2 million Food, you're going to have issues."The cap as far as I knew was common knowledge. Your econ minister should have informed you of it.
Given the recent game mechanics with regards to Nuclear Weapons, stockpiling Food isn't a bad idea, either.
-
I actually did a search of the forums, just to see how widespread any mention of a resource cap, was. I found 3 mentions, the first which was before I started playing. The last was a suggestion from last week, about removing/raising the cap. Which I wouldn't have noticed, because I have a life and don't regularly visit the forums.
https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/4874-resource-cap/#entry73081... Feb 2015, cap got increased
https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/8894-some-resources-capped-at-9999999/... Oct 2015, someone else lost resources when hitting the cap (test server)
https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17406-remove-resource-cap/... Nov 2016, suggestion to remove/increase resource cap
-
Over that year and a half, I've read the majority of all ingame documentation. Nowhere was there even the hint of any hard cap on resources. Not surprised that the only mention of it is on the forums though, that was how I found the vast majority of game formulae (and rebuilt most of the city management in a spreadsheet).If you're at the stage that you could 'unwillingly and unwittingly lose potentially millions of dollars in resources' then it isn't really a big deal when you lose it. A new nation who hasn't had time to learn there is a limit is the one that needs their hands held. Your nation is over one and a half years old, if you haven't taken the time to figure out there is a limit, you shouldn't be asking the admins to take the time to change the game because you didn't pay attention when spending. This reads like a 15 year old whiny rant when the world doesn't go his way. A million isn't a lot, so suck it up and move on.
Also, it doesn't matter how old my nation is. There are nations that are way older than me and smaller. Income is purely based on nation size. Nor does it really matter how much people lose, it's the principal of the matter.
And only reason I called out Sheepy in that last post, was because he'd answered other posts and completely ignored mine.
Nowhere did I say that there shouldn't be a hard cap. All I'm trying to push for now, is that there should be an actual better implementation of the limit, ingame.Nope. I agree that there should be a hard cap. There's no reason to keep all those resources and it only keeps the resources in the top nations and not in the smaller nations. By forcing them to sell the food, it makes it so nations can't hoard millions of resources that impede the growth of smaller nations.
Look, let me put it this way. If your bank had a limit of $100,000 on all accounts, did not mention this in any official documentation and any money over that limit was lost forever, would you not want it added to official documentation and changed so that you at least could not lose money, even if the limit stayed in place? For the sake of the example, there is no other bank and you can't take them to court.
-
No comment Sheepy, on the fact that this will cause players to unwillingly and unwittingly lose potentially millions of dollars in resources?
-
Only really makes it easier, if you're willing to make your cities all basically carbon copies of each other. Wouldn't say it's exactly quick though.Are you using the improvement importer/exporter? That should make it quick and easy to manage your cities.
If you wanted it "quick", the ability to push a template to x number of cities at once, would be very useful. At least then you wouldn't have to reopen 15+ cities and reapply a new template, if you screw up how much lead or bauxite you're generating (for example).
Either way, good luck to anyone who wants to optimally build their city.
-
Whether I have a million food has no correlation to how much I should or should not want to sell it at. It's taken me a good couple of months to get this far with maximum farms, quite simply because I wanted to have a stockpile of over a million food.also, if you have 1mil food, you shouldn't need to worry about selling it at x value
Look, all I'm saying is that if there is a hard cap in place, then bloody well implement it as a "feature", so that every player knows ingame that there is a limit on resource storage. As it currently is, having no warning that your resources are just disappearing into thin air, is not very player friendly.
-
3
-
-
Even if this is the case, it's badly implemented. Resources should not be lost into the ether, without any warning.Sheepy said this was due to the server. If he was to increase the limit, he said the server would lag and take longer to load.
I've also lost money in this, because I'm having to dump Food onto the market at below rate, just to get rid of it and make room.
I'm kinda glad though it was only Food, not something like Steel or Gasoline.
-
I seem to have hit a limit at 999,999.99 Food. If I buy 1 Food off the market, the counter doesn't increase and the Food is lost somewhere in the ether. If I then sell 1 Food, the counter does decrease (even though I just bought 1 Food).
Checked my logs and it seems I hit the limit yesterday at some point. Which means I've lost at least $1,200,000 (rough market equivalent for 12,000 units of Food), because of this bug/badly implemented feature.
-
So I guess the next update, you'll be putting a cap of 100 nations on all alliances? I mean you wouldn't want alliances to get to powerful, right?There was no political motivations, other than to help topple (or at least reduce the support for) the current alliance power structure.
Or maybe you'll introduce a cap on nation income. After all, obviously (going by this change) some nations earn too much, making them (and their alliance) too powerful.
Obviously you were not paying any attention at all to Treasure Island and the implications behind it, over the past few weeks. It was immediately apparent to myself (and probably a fair few other players), that they would end up gathering alot of treasures.That was when I checked out who actually held the treasures and was shocked to see how aggregated they have become in so few alliances.
-
2
-
-
EDIT: nvm, it turned up after 1am
-
Damn, we should have requested that greatkitteh only be allowed to post once per day;~;
My posting rights.
Oh well ^^
-
1
-
-
The initial demand is never the one you're actually after, it's just meant to be a starting point. That's why it's called a negotiationGlad to have peace and I guess paying $30m in reps is better than paying $400m in reps which is what Chola and The Coalition originally demanded of Alpha for honoring an allied treaty request.
If they're going to nuke us, cause harm to every nation on Orbis (thanks to the radiation update) and drag out the war, even when it was pretty clear that they couldn't win, then yes, we will ask them to pay for it. Regardless of how or why they entered the war.You asked for reps against an alliance you declared war on... I think it's a pretty big deal.
-
See you all on the battlefield in a few months
o/ peace again
Sheepy -- Please play your game.
in Game Discussion
Posted
If Sheepy created another account, he'd have to ban himself as a multi, just saying