Malakai
-
Posts
143 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Malakai
-
-
Gameplay Mechanics:
In this game, players represent independent nations, and the goal is to discourage alliances from dominating the game through massive donations for bonuses. To achieve this, individual nations will be the only participants in the ISS project. However, alliances remain important for leaders to motivate their members and coordinate efforts for project benefits.Phase 1: Research & Development:
To begin the ISS project, players must first establish an Orbital Launch Facility. This requires players to meet prerequisites like having a space program and at least 20 cities. The facility enables nations to launch rockets and payloads into space to supply materials for construction.Phase 2: Construction:
In this phase, players can join the ISS program by allocating resources for research, development, and construction. Cooperative goals are set, demanding billions of dollars' worth of resources distributed across various aspects of the project, such as 25 million tons of steel for module construction, 10 million tons of uranium for nuclear power modules, or 20 million tons of gasoline for fuel. It's important to limit nations to three launches per week, each with realistic costs, to prevent top alliances from overwhelming the project.Phase 3: Maintenance & Research Projects:
Completed research conducted on the station benefits participating nations. These benefits are sustained by ongoing resource contributions. These contributions are more substantial than what the top three alliances would cooperate on but feasible for a few thousand individual nations. Maintenance projects, required quarterly, ensure the continued benefits from the station. They can range from upgrades to repairing attitude thrusters or addressing damage caused by space debris impacts.Additional Details and Bonuses:
Space Missions and Activities: Players can suggest and vote on space missions originating from the ISS, including satellite launches or asteroid exploration. Successful missions can result in valuable resources, scientific findings, and enhanced global prestige.
Global Space Governance:
As the ISS program evolves, an international space governance body may emerge. Players can engage in debates and negotiations about space treaties, regulations, and resource allocation in Earth's orbit.Resource Rewards:
Successful ISS missions can provide players with resource rewards, rare materials, or space-based technologies, offering a competitive advantage.International Prestige:
Leading or actively participating in the ISS program elevates a nation's global prestige, granting more influence in international affairs.Resource and Time Investments:
While dedicating significant resources and time to the ISS program can offer substantial benefits, it may divert resources from other aspects of a player's nation, potentially impacting domestic stability and the economy.This reorganization should make the proposal easier to read and understand, presenting the core mechanics and phases of the ISS feature in a clear and logical sequence.
-
If we do this, then we need to add a category under the spy ops for assassination.
-
1
-
1
-
-
@Village
I'd like to add another dimension to it when y'all do talk about it. Even though one catalyst can bring a nation together, time is usually all that's needed to fracture and splinter the resolve, even if its only slightly. So, we could make the bonus fade over time. Given that our wars are an accelerated approximation of real-life conflict, I recommend something like the image below.
-
1
-
-
-
Wars tends to be catalysts for invention, change, and adaptation. WWII has always stood out for me, specifically the unification of the country following the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the adaptation of our women to fill the industrial jobs of the men on the front lines to both take care of their families but also to increase war production.
My suggestion is that when a nation is involved in a defensive war, it provides a boost of morale or national pride, which then correlates to a 12% increase in the number of tanks, planes, ships, and soldiers they can produce over the course of that war. Furthermore, I'd suggest that the bonus increase to 16% for a second war, and 20% if all defensive slots are filled.
For me (at C40), this means with three wars I can create an additional 40k soldiers, 2000 tanks, 120 aircraft, and 24 ships per day. A well executed double buy for my nation would be 480k soldiers, 24k tanks, 1440 aircraft, and 288 ships.
After figuring these numbers, I see there is room to expand and contract to find a balance. I don't think it need to apply to missiles, BUT I absolutely think it should apply to nukes and that the same 24hour protections should extend to the second nuke as well. I think you could realistically push the bonus to near 30% if the numbers I'm running in my head are good.Its not much, but its a starting point, and frankly, greater production means more resources removed from the game so it might help with commerce as well.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Kosta said:
- Dual control systems: In Accounting this is a common practise, its called: Dual control systems. This is where one person prepares and initiates the transaction, while a second person reviews the details and approves or authorizes it. This could really help in preventing bank robbers. Alliances can appoint EAs and allow them to interact with the bank, but also have that check and balance of a second person to approve of transactions. This could also apply to other systems within the alliance.
I'm torn on this one; I do agree it provides a wonderful prevention of theft, but I also see it presenting a problem with alliances trying to offshore in wartime; now it only requires on nation to offshore to a new bank and can be done quickly. Alliances that have a diverse membership spanning multiple time zones could be faced with the issue of not having two Econ level gov members present at the same time to finish the transaction.
I would love to see this idea expanded; definitely worthy of consideration.
-
1
-
@VillageHave you considered making it so that a nation at war experiences a boost in moral or patriotism and gets a military production boost? Think of the rallying of the entire nation behind one cause after Pearl Harbor; women filled the roles of men to produce tanks, bombs, etc. for the men on the frontlines; not to mention the expansion of the workforce after the war ended. So what if a nation in a defensive war gets to enlist/build +X% more military units than they would in a normal build up process. You could take it a step further to increase the bonus X% for every defensive war they are engaged in.
Love seeing the new content train moving a bit; hope this helps.
-
We are walking with a busted leg as it is. Using the proposed beige change is like shooting yourself in the good leg and hoping it fixes the bad one.
Lets forego reinvention of the wheel in favor of minor fixes to the system we have until we can come up with a method that makes sense.
-
2.24548881868224953
-
1
-
-
On 6/19/2023 at 2:59 PM, Roberts said:
These are just my personal thoughts on a topic that is a bit controversial.
I've felt recently that there are quite a few alliances in existence that don't participate in the wider community, don't really initiate or even contribute to politics, and generally only ever fight defensive wars when their inactivity or incompetence becomes the center of someone else's war of boredom. The reason I write this is because I feel that there has become an oversaturation of these alliances and we seemingly are living in a time of change for Orbis, so maybe this writing will prompt action.
The problem with these groups is usually not their inactivity as they log in often enough to function, sometimes just barely, as an alliance. The problem also does not lie with their incompetence, as the meta and politics are both relatively easy to learn and navigate. The issue is that stubborn pride is like a glacier: Locking up fresh water, inaccessible to the world. These alliances are host to several active players usually working hard to keep the wider group afloat, locked away from the community, and usually stuck in lower government positions long enough to drive them inactive.
Cora from UPN is a good example of a potentially great player in an alliance fallen from greatness long ago, and now can only be described as insular on their best day. UPN, The Immortals and Mortals, Dark Brotherhood, TCM, USN, and Gods of Orbis -- just to name a few from the top 50 -- have over 400 nations between them.
That's almost 10% of all active nations, locked up like a glacier in insular communities that generally don't drive or even participate in politics. Food for thought.
You forgot to mention TKR.
-
19 hours ago, Village said:
I've marked down to take a look at some QoL stuff related to the note section later, however I don't want to outright remove the ability to write freeform notes so it'll likely be a select menu of defaults and an alliance setting or similar.
I think most alliances would be ecstatic with just the bare minimum change of requiring a note to submit the deposit, but I'm def on board with a compromise of freeform notes and an alliance mixture to be included in a drop down box or something.
-
1
-
-
Would it be possible to set these two note boxes to drop downs which could be populated from a list set by the alliance leadership in the alliance settings? It would help the Econ staff of most alliances (at least those of us who use some form of automation in banking tracking) to reduce the instances we need to chase down and account for errant deposits, missing notes, and misspelled notes. Even making it to where the deposit or withdrawal can't be submitted without a note would go a long way.
-
1
-
-
My proposition is two fold, first adding in a section or area of the settings that us labeled "Alliance Warchest Minimums" or something else fancy like that where a nation can enter their alliance warchest requirements. Then adding another red button to the screen shot above which says "deposit excess" at that point in time all the deposit boxes will be filled the results of the following (available resources) - (warchest minimum) = (deposit amount).
I thought at first that adding the "Warchest Minimum" to the alliance settings so the leadership could set the details (and that is still my preference), however, somehow it would need to be detailed enough to allow for each alliance to set varying amounts as it varies from alliance to alliance and city count. One way to make it simple would be to set a minimum of a resource that is multiplied by the city count to arrive at a desired total, but either way, I leave it to you to decide what is best.-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Jacob Knox said:
I'm not knocking constructive criticism. I'm just saying that stating something along the lines of "this post is too long for me to read it all and critique every part of it" is bs when there have been plenty of opportunities to voice opinions on the individual subjects of this post in their own posts and there is still opportunity to do so here. But that's just my opinion.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. I do hope this moves our economy into a better position.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Jacob Knox said:
There have been multiple posts discussing different portions of all of these changes. Players had plenty of opportunities to critique most components of this post.
And we should continue to do so; just because they've been approved for testing and eventual live deployment (minus the consumption crap) doesn't mean they are good ideas, should be treated as such, or that we should resign our objections. The implementation of the PnW Welfare System is another addition to the pile of worst ideas ever that have plagued this game.
I try to be fair and open minded and there are several aspects to this update that I hate, others I love, but as a whole, with it all considered as one unit, I'm disappointed.
-
1
-
3
-
-
On 6/12/2023 at 7:54 AM, Keegoz said:
I'd likely say this is the last one, given we were hesitant to even bring it back again this time.
Which makes zero sense unless you reinstate the city cap. For a large segment of the game we are outside of most of the fray due to our size. So short of capping our growth and reimbursing us for the lost cities that would need to be deleted, there needs to be content, goals, and interesting game play even for us. Recently I keep being told, the game is old; regardless there is still so much we can do too make it interesting before we resign ourselves to let it play out as is.
-
@Alex
I'm sorry, but I really would like some real answers or denials. if I could just ping the moderation staff I would have. The fact that nearly a month has gone by and no one in the administration of the game/forum has commented or reached out to me via private message proves my point of the indifference they tend to inflict on the general membership.
-
2
-
1
-
-
For years I've taken an interest in watching the appeals that come up on this forum, and in some cases there seems to be a level of unbiasedness but more and more I'm seeing condescension, clear partiality, and general rudeness coming from the part of the leaders representing PnW. By no means am I asking for all bans to be granted clemency without due consideration, just for some basic decency when engaging the player seeking to rejoin our little collective.
In this time I've seen identical infractions receive differing punishments; I've also seen some bans get fleshed out and other just receiving an outright denial. So outside those who receive a compounding punishment for multiple violations, I can't understand how they can be so widely varied without it resting on the moderators general demeanor; which I don't think we can't be okay with. I've read the process docs, and there is a lot of heavy handed "at moderators discretion" diatribes but very little substance as to how a ban is reviewed, what elements can help overcome the punishment, or anything to assist those seeking an appeal. I think we can and should do better.- Are there any objective standards or policies by which admins and moderators review and decided punishments and appeals?
- Can we make a more detailed post of what is considered (positive and negative) during the review process?
- Can we establish a code of behavior of the moderators to curb the sarcasm and general disrespect that has become commonplace during reviews?
- Without calling specific people out, can we enforce the no discussion rule or eliminate it? Its generally unfair to enforce one set of rules and not the others.
-
3
-
1 hour ago, WarriorSoul said:
Everything is extortion when your starting position is “everything I produce is mine; if you raise taxes I will literally quit gov”.
Just like words can be twisted to suite the needs of the moment if you omit context.
-
1
-
-
On 4/5/2023 at 7:03 AM, Boomlander said:
@FortgorWhy do you need high taxes? TKR offers everything that you mentioned and has low taxes!
Did y'all lower taxes after I left? You are remarkably high for what you offer to established nations; it borders on extortion.
-
2
-
2
-
-
I think its fair that he get a formal response; I don't know him or what he did, but he's being polite and quick to respond. I think it spits in the face of all players for anyone who is legitimately following the process and asking for reconsideration to be treated to a wall of silence. It sets a standard and a precedent that this is the norm.
If y'all won't lift the ban, then don't, but at least have the integrity to tell him.
-
5
-
-
3 hours ago, Jacob Knox said:
. You calculations for C22 and the new proposed cost for C29 are wrong (and yes, I also excluded GSA and did the same calculations as you). C22 w/ all projects and MD is $98,063,750.00 (24.32% remaining cost) and C29 (with your proposition) would be $440,253,750.00 (44.54% remaining cost). If you changed it to fit with the other projects, which would be c26 eligibility and $200m discount, then C27 would be $270,963,750.00 (34.51% remaining cost). So it's actually more beneficial to make it conform with the other projects than go with your suggestion (for reference, C29 with conformity would be 46.94% remaining cost, so not far off).
I appreciate you point out that slip. Appears I entered 21 instead of 22 in the city cost tool. I've attached the corrected sheet. The figure issue for C29 is on Alex. If you use the helpful tools and check all the boxes (except GSA), it renders a value of 654,003,750.00 instead of the $ 639,003,750.00. Additionally, thanks for the insight. I now leave it up to the development team to fine tune and enact as they see fit.
-
11 hours ago, Jacob Knox said:
My
probably unwantedinput:1. I think it should follow standard of past projects (50m -> 100m -> 150m), so it should be 200m off
2. I disapprove of the added benefit of increasing population
3. More food cost? Ugh.
4. Should totally just be named "Advanced Metropolitan Planning" lol
5. Obligatory "noooo whales get bigger and richer" comment
1. You need to take into account the exponential increase of cities at that range. The discounts are going to have to follow something similar to make them worth it otherwise they are going to go unused. I've added an image to show what a nation pays out of pocket for each city following the earliest available opportunity to purchase a specific project.
2. Why? It fits that an orbital habitat would eventually be a center for a population boom beyond the normal migration from surface to station dwellers. What I'm suggesting amounts to about $1M a day for my nation, which is also negligible.3. In the last few months the amount of food has risen from 1bn to over 3bn. We need it to keep us from choking on it.
4. I'm not really okay with that. I was going for a futuristic man leaving earth kinda feel.
5. Oh please.
-
Orbital Habitat Platform
Requirements:
Space Program
28 CitiesCost:
3,750,000 Food
25,000 Iron
15,000 Gasoline
15,000 Steel
70,000 Aluminum(03/21/23) Cost Cash Value: $693,405,000)
Effect:
Reduces future city costs by $225M (Stacks with UP, AUP, MPP) (ROI's upon building City 32)
Increases nation population by 1.5%-
1
-
Citizen Welfare & Security Program
in Game Suggestions
Posted · Edited by Malakai
Description:
The Citizen Welfare and Security Program is a nationwide endeavor committed to enhancing the welfare and safety of your nation's inhabitants. By fostering commerce, elevating citizen morale, and reducing the costs linked to infrastructure development, this initiative cultivates a more prosperous and harmonious environment for your citizens.
Build Cost:
Effects: