Malakai
-
Posts
143 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Malakai
-
-
On 2/28/2023 at 9:24 AM, Village said:
When the calls peak they do have a significant effect on the game, there's been a number of instances where the game has crashed due to massive numbers of calls. The primary reason however is the other part of that sentence, "to play on an even field." The server could continue to handle the spikes in traffic and the regular load, however there is no way for the game to provide spy odds without people using scraping to gain a competitive advantage and learn exact spy counts. As a temporary solution, spy counts are to be made public to allow everyone the ability to see and even the playing field.
I'm moderately okay with the adjustment based on the fact the game crashed as a result; the justification of evening the playing field feels more like an excuse. Additionally, nerfing the effect of having 5+ days worth of spies wiped out in one operation would go further to making this area of the game more competitive and fair than making my counts public ever will.
-
On 1/18/2023 at 9:56 AM, Prefontaine said:
- Spy Counts and Spy Odds will no longer be hidden or ambiguous. Players, through bots and API data have been able to calculate spy odds and counts with the current system. To allow all players, even those without bots, to play on an even field and reduce the API request and data scraping, this information will now be provided. Spy counts will be visible to all players. When performing a spy attack, odds will be shown rounded to the nearest percent.
Really? Are the scraping and API calls really slowing down the server that much? You'd think that if you wanted to make a meaningful contribution to this aspect of the game you would shorten the 15 day waiting game like we've been asking for. The fact that you want to reward laziness bothers me.
-
I whole heartedly agree with making sure that maxing out on raw lets you max out in production.
-
1
-
-
On 6/29/2022 at 7:17 PM, Prefontaine said:
Updates will be on hold to go live until the war settles down, however many rounds that takes. Once things are a little more stable in that regard we will work on pushing live updates that don't impact war directly, like the Naval tweaks.
Seriously, if ever you were going to listen to us, let it be on this. The banking transactions should use the only characteristic unique to a single nation or alliance, their ID. It would eliminate accidental transfers if a leaders name happens to match a nation name.
-
On 6/26/2022 at 12:24 PM, Village said:
- Make Leader name and Nation name consistent. You can have different names but all interaction (like bank trades) will go through use names.
While I realize its not your fault, I want to iterate that this one is moronic. Realistically, it needs to be based on something static that can't be used by someone else or changed. We need to change it to nation ID and Alliance ID for bank to bank.
-
3
-
I've refined the costs a bit to make the ROI a little more appealing. The original cost was almost $200M but now I've taken it to under half of that, with some variance obviously for the fluctuations driven by the market. Reducing the costs also makes it more viable for smaller nations.
Cost:
$35M
3500 Uranium
3500 Gasoline
3500 Steel
3500 Aluminum
Total Cost: $82.86M (12/21/2021) -
On 12/19/2021 at 2:41 AM, Pythonian23 said:
In-nation protection seems a bit too high (2.5k raws, 4k manu, and 6m money at just c10), and the alliance bank protection seems too small. Other than that, this sounds really nice
There has to be some benefit to the purchaser or it won't be bought. W could scale the cost and effects to make it better used by raiding nations, or we could adjust the tons it saves based on city count. 1-10 it protects 100 tons per city, 11-20 175 tons per city, and 21+ 250 tons per city? What do you think?
On 12/19/2021 at 7:15 AM, Uranato said:I'd say reduce the in-nation reserves, and remove the alliance protection.
Alternatively, what do you think about certain buildings to protect resources? You can build a limited amount per city. Each will protect X of each raw resource, Y of each manufactured resource and Z cash. That way, you could have a trade-off: to protect some resources, you need to sacrifice some production or military, or buy more infrastructure (which will cost more to replace when it gets destroyed in war).
There's also the fact that victors looting your nation don't take all of your resources - only a fraction - so you technically already have a "reserve" of sorts.
The in nation reserves are minimal. In my case it would barely be enough to cover building military units to stand up to a superior force. While they only take a percentage, the advent of slotting and cycling can and has resulted in days to weeks of attacks under total blockade, making it simple to empty the holdings in a nation. This is just a measure to add a bit of a balance back. It won't allow a nation to completely offset the damage being done, but if they wanted to make a last stand or say engage another enemy to help an alliance mate it would allow for it. It could be pie in the sky thinking, but I hope I'm making sense.
In regards to the building ideas what if banks were altered to per form that function and this project augmented that effect? Max banks in all cities gets you 50% of the protections and this project secures the other half? That would add another dynamic to warring, because if an attack took out a bank, you lose some coverage and a defeat means you could lose more than you wanted.The exception people make take with this version is in a nation with one city, each bank would be worth 20% of the 50% total. Two cities would diminish that to 10%, and less and less as more cities are built. So in the end smaller nations would have more to lose if attacked vs. larger nations, at least in percentages, larger nations would more than likely have more holdings so maybe that's a bit of balance inherently built in?
-
1
-
-
I'd like to revisit this. As the API is being more widely used, I think it might be a great idea to give alliances better control over notations to help process transactions. I think if we allowed a text box with a maximum of 15 lines (one per line maxed at 20 characters) would give alliances enough flexibility to allow banking to be streamlined and tracked more simply.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Just like the federal reserve protects the financial system of specific countries, I think we could use the same principals here in the form of a project.
Costs:
Cash: $100M
Uranium: 5000
Gas: 7500
Steel: 5000
Aluminum: 7500
Munitions: 3500
Effect: Reduces amount of resources stolen from alliance bank when your nation is defeated in war by 2%. Protects a limited amount of resources held within your nation from being stolen when defeated in war.
Limits are a maximum as follows:Raws: 250 tons per per city
Manufactured: 400 tons per city
Cash: $600k per city-
10
-
1
-
1 hour ago, KillzBob said:
TKR Sucks because they cant pull their own heads out of their butt;s
You should have put more energy into this. Lame dad jokes would have been a better fit, perhaps your the one with his head up his butt.
-
On 9/7/2021 at 5:00 PM, Mega said:
- Progressive Urban Planning
- Progressive Urban Planning is a national project that reduces the cost of building new cities by $400,000,000 per city. It requires 26 cities to build, as well as the Modern Urban Planning national project. The cost reduction provided by this national project stacks with the Modern Urban Planning national project.
I like this, however, I think it needs to require at least 32 cities to have been built.
-
On 9/22/2021 at 9:51 PM, Just John said:
No, because nations like Carthago would still get that 100%/100% & alliances right before wars would just immediately set everyones to 100%/100%
I doubt this very much. Most nations would mutiny. It would also be a flat out pain to track who owned what, who got what, and the remaining balances for all the included nations.
-
Would a fairer compromise be that once a nation is blockaded their tax rate is frozen?
-
1
-
-
If y'all come out on top, might be a good idea to make a forced rebranding of your enemies alliance part of your peace terms. As an avid King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table fan I take exception to this perversion of that image and ideals. Given their past deeds and lack of honor, I think something based off Mordred would be more fitting.
-
18 hours ago, Adrienne said:
I'd also not make it required in case of an emergency drop but I like the idea in general.
What if the default item in the text box were "emergency drop" or something like that which auto-filled with each deposit transaction?
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Many alliances rely on bots or spreadsheets to monitor and track their banking info. The bane of their existence is a lack of consistency. I'd like to suggest that the following changes be implemented as soon as possible. It will not effect the game in a grand scale, but it will enable ALL alliances to effect as much automated tracking as their leadership or skill allows.
Short Term:
Make the transaction note box a required element for both deposits and withdrawals.
Long Term:
Transition this box to a drop down menu, populated by a list of accepted transaction codes or references, defined by the alliance leadership via a text box under the alliance settings. After reviewing some of the most common notes and activities, I suggest the list be limited to 15 unique identifiers.-
11
-
On 10/28/2020 at 10:33 AM, Buck Turgidson said:
You can always change the officer in that case. It promotes giving people that experience and responsibility. It would help alliances not stagnate.
Econ staff are generally those who have earned the most respect and trust. A well targeted series of attacks would force alliances to use members they may fight with, but have not earned the trust to have a key to the treasury. This would cause internal dissention, open alliances to risk of thievery, and incite chaos in the game if it ever took root.
This idea needs to die. Either through disinterest or execution on the gallows.
-
1
-
-
I think it would be better refined as an upgrade for alliances. Pay a one time fee of 2-4 credits to allow an alliance to give specialized awards. Additionally these awards need to be given their own place, right under the game awards. I also think there needs to be limits, both in their size and quantity. All things should be equitable to those applied to the in game awards.
-
4
-
-
I got to thinking about the effect this might have on the development of nations as a whole. Does anyone feel that it will slow things down? I know most people are rolling their eyes as they click the downvote button, but hear me out. Who is going to want to make the first move to buy anything if the next guy gets it for a lower price? Large nations already pay a higher price for their development with each new city. Smaller nations already (in most alliances) get built up to a strong mid range nation with grants from taxes on those same nations.
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.
-
1
-
-
I like the notion, but I'm not sure how practical it will be.
-
1
-
-
On 11/22/2020 at 4:49 PM, Phoenyx said:
I have switched Alliances a few times, but I have always been in the Swampy Rose Hedge. I believed and continue to believe that you guys are in the right in this war. However, it saddens me that our side doesn't seem that interested in clearing things up. Today, I spoke to a HM Leader. Not #1, second in command. Anyway, they seemed skeptical that Tyrion and Kaz were being honest when they said that they had no knowledge of any plan to attack Quack first. What is particularly irritating about this is that it was a Hedge Leader who made the statement that Ronny took to mean that yes, Swamp did want to attack first, although apparently even he believes that the plan probably fizzled out quickly.
Now some know that I spoke briefly to Tyrion before he posted here and said that we hadn't said much and that was completely true. Since then, we have talked a bit more. I won't go into most of this, but one thing I felt I have to say at this point is that I brought up Ronny's HM leader source and Tyrion believes that this source may in fact have just been talking about the Swampy Rose Hedge defensive Coalition that actually happened. HM should really get on this, find out and at least talk to Tyrion about this. Because the way I see this, Tyrion and Kaz (TFP) have really not been given a fair shake here.
It's been a while since I found a good source of manure for my garden that doesn't cost a fortune. You seem to exude it on command and in vast quantities. If you live in or near a heavily agronomic community you could make a fortune.
-
The Leaky Cauldron
-
1
-
-
If possible I think it would be good to allow a custom entry of the length of the uncancelable nonaggression pact. All of those involved enter a time frame using days instead of turns, if all match, then no nation in any alliance in the agreement can violate it.
-
1
-
-
Quote
I blame TKR specifically for destroying me many times in the past, I blame TKR for attacking me personally every time I rejoin Arrgh or Political Pirates, and I blame TKR for on multiple occasions making a powerful bloc that Arrgh in their wildest dreams could never really do anything but a meager raid.
You took what wasn’t yours and received a standard punitive retaliatory measure used throughout Orbis. Your first infraction during your initial Arrgh membership can (and most likely has been) overlooked, but repeat offenses by your own admission diminishes your argument.
QuoteI raided Adrienne herself not even realizing she was milcom at the time (the only time TKR didn't completely annihilate me) and the terms of peace agreement was not to attack them again which tbqh I think I honored that agreement for a good length of time.
The ignorance of not checking your targets is a little comical, but Adrienne is well known for her mercy. The fact you rejected the terms means you were definitely not entitled to any form of leniency as you had already received and abandoned it. Your plight is self induced and your anger is misplaced.
QuoteMy time in Arrgh and my raids caused many in TKR to hold a grudge against me and they kept attacking me over the years. So I really don't see the big issue. You win some and you lose some. Or in my case, lose many. Maybe I will finally get a win.
There is more to life that sitting in the corner brooding about what may have been. Sound the horn. Sharpen the blades. Issue the orders. Perhaps if you can satisfy this blood lust so you can finally move past it and get on with your life.
The Knights Radiant
in Alliance Recruitment
Posted
After reading the bullet "generous taxes" I genuinely had to lookup the definition; much to my surprise I think I can agree with your description.
Generous:
"larger or more plentiful than is usual or necessary."