Malakai
-
Posts
143 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Malakai
-
-
22 minutes ago, Azazel said:
-
Quack’s existence as a hegemonic power, showing no signs of relenting their stranglehold of the game's politics.
Stranglehold is a bit much. Its not the greatest overstatement of the century but it certainly takes the cake as the grossest overstatement ever made about anything in this game.
-
1
-
-
On 10/26/2020 at 12:34 PM, InfinityMastered said:
Short Description
During wars it will become possible for players to steal a small percentage of land held by the other player during ground attacks.
How it would work
If a ground attack is successful then land would be taken from the city with the highest amount of land on the opposing side and be given to whichever one of your cities have the least amount of land. The amount stolen would probably be between 1-3% of a city’s land for each ground attack depending on certain criteria like troop count, war type, etc. These numbers should be a small enough amount stolen where it would be hard to abuse the mechanic effectively while still providing a reward for the victor. These numbers could change and i don’t expect them to stay the same after feedback.
Benefits
It would add a little more realism to the game as territory control shouldn’t be static in wars. It may also deter pirates or others being countered heavily from investing all of their money into land when they get blockaded.
Tldr: Steal some land in wars
Just because Alex won't do it doesn't mean its a bad idea. It just means he's not willing to do it, I personally love the idea. It adds a dynamic aspect to an otherwise static game.
-
1
-
-
Maybe rename to “Center for Disease Control” or something similar? Beyond that, I love the idea.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Baron Shubham said:
Requires:
Money - $250,000,000
Prerequisites:
1. Propaganda Bureau
2. Nuclear Research Facility
Info:-
Colonization project would allow a nation to make the defeated nation as it's temporary colony for a set number of days - 5, 10 or 15 depending which one the victor of war chooses.
What this would entail is that, out of all the resources that the defeated nation produces and the revenue it generates some amount of it would go to the victor and the amount would depend on the number of days, the victor chooses the defeated Nation to be colonized. Suppose, 50%50% if they wish to colonize for 5 days, 35%35% for 10 days and 20%20% for 15 days. And these would not be deducted from the taxes sent to alliance but whatever is left after the taxes. And a nation can't be colonized again for next 30/60 days after it has been colonized once.
I think this can add a nice flavour to the game.
Do tell me if someone wants to ask more questions, or perhaps wants to criticize my opinion. All criticisms even harsh ones are welcome with open heart.
I would definitely suggest retooling the costs, duration, and amounts. Return on investment is definitely a focus and a price tag of $300M+ is going to limit this projects uses to whales, which also severely limits the scope of who will be affected.
It might be worth considering to make this available to smaller nations at a price around $80-$125M? To make cash and resource garnishment equitable I'd suggest 4% for 3 days as a flat rate making the system simpler. Additionally I think "colonization" may be less accurate and very confusing. Maybe "International Sanctions Program" or something similar?
I like the idea of this added element to the game. Good start on an interesting idea.
-
1 hour ago, Alex said:
I'm opposed to making cities cheaper for the largest nations in the game.
I know that's not your intention, but by modifying the ^3 term, the biggest savings go to the most expensive cities, which just helps the largest nations get farther ahead.
@Alex is it possible to code a project in such a way that its effects were limited to cities in a certain range?
For example, Project X removes Y number of dollars from purchase of cities 8-15, but not 16 and above?
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, lightside said:
Numbers are still way off. Once again a project to increase efficiency shouldnt increase your cost lol.
Read the other comments. I explained that I was after an increase of energy output, thus the expansion of being able to cover 3,000 infra instead of 2,000 and the increased uranium costs.
Your overestateing the increase to 3000 infra. Most people who have a lot of infra would end up building 2 nuclear plants anyway even if they get this project as having an extra one let's you avoid having to rebuild infra if you loss it.
This logic only applies during a time of war. A mid level nation that is part of an alliance during peace time would likely only be affected by cockroaches like Arrgh and they are easy enough to squash. I've talked to nations ranging from 10 cities and up and most of them are very eager to see if this project can be streamlined and added to the server for testing because they want it.
Considering the project cost is directed at whales instead of the mid tier that fact alone will cause this project to never be built.
I'm already working on balancing it. I always over estimate the cost to allow for the natural back and forth. The attached image is my current costs analysis based on back and forth in this topic.
-
47 minutes ago, Alex said:
Did the bug stop after Wednesday? Has anyone experienced the issue since then?
I haven't. It seems to have resolved itself.
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:
Tweaking the max infra it could power would also address the problem of needing two NPP's anyways if you go above 3k infra, which is a worthwhile consideration for the target audience.
I've never seen anyone above 3k infra, mostly due to the infra costs during rebuild. Do you see this as a means to encourage builds beyond 3K?
36 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:I'd probably try to encourage getting it by having it do something unique. The idea of ura cost upfront and no upkeep is such an aspect (even though yes, long term demand would be lower and it'd have an impact on uranium's value), since it means that you don't have to about restocking uranium to remain powered. This is a fairly minor convenience factor for peacetime, though it does mean that you can't go unpowered in a war setting where you're blockaded (so long you're not being bill locked that is). Obviously ignoring native uranium production, which may either not be a possibility for the person, or simply isn't economically worthwhile to do so.
So are you suggesting doubling (maybe even tripling) the uranium cost (making it 30k-45k total) and removing the 1.9 uranium per 1k infra upkeep requirement? I can't see removing the $10,500 as viable, however, I could see a reduction, perhaps dropping it to $6,500 a day instead. Its not the greatest savings, but it would be something. Personally, it would drop my daily liabilities by a sizeable chunk.
-
2 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:
That's actually fair (I felt that something was off, but couldn't quite place my finger on it after having double checked most cells). But even after doing such, you're getting a ROI of over a year and a half. A project like Telecom (which is aimed at roughly the same audience) had a ROI of third of that. And Telecom is already considered to be a very long term project.
If you want to be generous and do 30k/slot instead, that'd be roughly 16 months before you get your money back.
There's also the issue that if a nation is doing over 3000 infra, then the project is useless because that'd require two power plants anyways, neutering the benefit from the extra slot. And if you wanted to run two NPP's in such an instance, then the project is actually losing you cash since it's using up more uranium. If you lower it to 2800 infra instead, then higher than 2800 the same issue would persist, albeit a bit sooner. Perhaps disproportionately sooner because 3k as a top for infra is fairly common for whales.
You're overstating the value this project would have for smaller people. For it's cost they could just get a new city (or several new cities) and get more improvements as a whole from them, alongside the benefit of more military. This is before we even consider the fact that it'd need them to go above 2k infra for the benefit to be relevant in the first place. Alternatively, they could get A/UP and recoup that investment far more quickly than with this project.
Basically, this project would be of most use for people who are large enough to where they can't just buy another city (or have that money contribute greatly towards their next) or set of projects, but also don't go above 3k infra ( and going above 3k isn't exactly uncommon for whales).I can agree with some of that, my question is "How would you rebalance the costs to make it worth it?" Cut the cash, steel, and aluminum by a third?
-
On 10/1/2020 at 5:17 PM, Benfro said:
I was unaware of a poll, but with 27,000 nations currently in the game, is 93 votes really statistically significant?
@Prefontaine
This is a fair point. You are moving forward with major changes with the votes of .0034% of the populous weighing in. Something of this magnitude should have been broadwaved to the entire game.Additionally
QuoteI'd rather deal with the people who care enough to find this section of the forums, even when it's out of being pissed of. People are more likely to complain when they're unhappy versus participate when their content after all.
serves only to alienate the people you are claiming to serve. In effect you are saying that only those who have the inclination to change or improve the game should be or will be given a voice. Most of the time when something is posted in this area its met with scorn, derision, or random comments calling the suggestions junk. The fact that you've gotten so much response (a lot of it positive) indicates to me you should be willing to deal with the masses instead of a specific demographic.
-
48 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:
It's a waste of cash for whoever gets it, and a waste of dev time for Alex and the rest due to the (near) 0 usage it'd see.
I think you are failing to accurately take into account what you could put into the slots, not slot. You could easily use these slots for a basic resource gathering, refining, or a revenue booster, and they would net well over the $20k you've assigned to them. Your rate of return estimates might as well be based on empty slots. Additionally, this would enable all nations (top to bottom) to streamline their future development.
Every ruler can look at their nation and do Cities*(1) = Newly Freed improvement slots and from there the possibilities are vast.
-
OK. So the project is meant to modify the current output of a nuclear reactor (which is based on fission). All fusion reactors to date have not been able to have an output greater than the electrical input to run them and I want to stay as close to authentic as possible. I think it might be better to note that I used the word efficiency loosely. Perhaps I should have use capacity, which is why there is an increase in uranium usage, because the project upgrades their shielding, foundation, and ultimately their output capacity. Alliances are having their members purchase nuclear at the earliest possible convenience, making this a far reaching application, not limited to whales as it frees up slots and makes it possible to run a high infra city on one power plant. Maybe it would be better to balance the infra it would support by reducing it to 2800?
Below is the updated version, including the description and costs.
QuoteProject Name: Upgraded Fission Reactor or Advanced Nuclear Power Generation
Description: Upgraded Fission Reactors is a national project that increases productivity of Nuclear Power Plants. Upgraded power plants use 1.9 tons (0.16/turn) of uranium per 1,000 infrastructure to power up to 3,000 infrastructure. Operational costs remain $10,500 a day ($875/turn).
Costs:Cash $120M, Steel 45K, Aluminum 45K, Uranium 15K, Gasoline 10k, Iron 5K
What does everyone think?
-
Effect: Increases the efficiency of all nuclear reactions. Nuclear power plants use 1.9 tons (0.16/turn) of uranium per 1,000 infrastructure and can power up to 3,000 infrastructure. Operational costs are $10,800 a day ($900/turn).
Cost: Cash: $85M, Steel: 45k, Aluminum: 30k, Uranium: 12k, Iron: 10k
-
1
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Alex said:
I think this just has to do with me having purged the cache in the CDN - it actually just happened to me as well this morning, but then immediately disappeared when I visited the next page.
I don't have a good explanation, but I expect it will stop happening as the cache re-settles.
Any idea how long this is going to last? It’s fairly annoying.
-
5 hours ago, Prefontaine said:
It’s fairly straight forward, if a city has more than 1k infra, this project grants an additional improvement.
You are a character. I meant from a raiding context. I haven't had to raid in years, so I want to make sure this doesn't end up being a foot on the throat of some of our up and comers.
-
4 hours ago, Prefontaine said:
It's less about people with 1k infra buying it, and more of people who buy it and then have infra destroyed and having the benefit when low infra raiding.
I don’t see a benefit of the scenario. How would you use it? Be detailed please.
-
1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:
I've made an expensive project in my day, but daym.
Considering the theme of your project, you might want to consider this project providing an improvement slot for each city above 1k Infra, it also helps work in with the cost more than maybe the population density part of it. Since you have a floating real-estate, a new place to build an improvement.
I've whittled the costs down considerably. I've also incorporated your improvement slot, however, I doubled the infra. I really don't see nations with 1k buying this, especially with a minimum of 25 cities required to purchase. Plus it feels more realistic that a nation would need to have a sizable infrastructure all around to be able to think about colonizing space in any capacity.
Effect: Reduce city cost by 8%, reduce global radiation effects by 20%, and adds one additional improvement slot to every city over 2k infrastructure.
Cost: $120M, 1.75M food, 75K steel, 50K aluminum, 35K uranium, 30K munitions.
Prerequisites: Missile Pad, Space Program, and 25 cities -
3 hours ago, Prefontaine said:
Someone give a good name for this project
- Effect: This project provides two project slots.
-
Cost:
- Cash: $50,000,000
- Food: 100,000
- Aluminum: 5,000
The cost/concept is focused on giving mid-tier nations an additional project slot. I'm highly open to the idea of changing costs to better reflect this. Whales might buy it, but whales have more project slots than the use in many cases. This one might get entirely shot down by Alex, I've not run it by him yet. Most of these other changes have the green light for Alex, but the numbers can be tweaked still. My plan is have this thread decided upon sometime around the first week of October, so please provide input during these next 10 days or so.
These changes are the results of threads like these, suggestions in the suggestion section (like treasure trading and project timers). In addition the new project is due to a desire for more project slots. Attention is being paid and other conversations are being had on discord. Please continue to provide feedback. Thank you.1. Civic Planning Commission
2. City Planning Commission
3. Urban Planning Commission
4. Industrial Fabrication Program
5. Commercial Development Program -
15 hours ago, lightside said:
I am a larger nation and I can tell you the disease from pop density is practically meanless with how small it is. A reduction of 3% wouldn’t increase my income by even 20000 per day. With the way pop density is calculated adding a 3% pop multiplyer wouldn’t increase it as it’s based on base pop not real pop.
The only 2 projects that need city requirements are the city planning projects and that’s because we don’t want city cost to be negative. Trying to add a city cost to control play style is ridiculous. The project cost and roi will control whether someone gets it or not. As such we don’t ever need hard limits there.
The project cost as you put it right now is close to 2 billion. Even if you build every city from 30 to 40 with this project you won’t break even. A more realistic number would be in the range of 500-1000mil
Orbital habitats would decrease the population on the planet, reducing the density. This modification to the mechanic is not the focus of this particular project, so even if density would be affected by a 3% instant bump, it still doesn't fit logically (to me), additionally this project isn't meant to directly drive up revenue, but cushion building costs.
Its not a matter of controlling play style, its rational deduction. UP and AUP offer reductions of city costs at cities 11 and 18. The next logical step would be around city 25-27. Maybe I'm thinking too deep into long term game play, but I'm willing to remove all other effects from my recommendation if it shifts the focus of this project to make it a scalable application, rather than a fixed unit, to adjust an element that increases exponentially.I've also reduced the cost factors, what do you think?
-
12 hours ago, lightside said:
Rather then reducing pop density it should increase population by 3%. That would be much more useful.
Also the resouce cost is excessive and there is no reason for a city requirrement.
This project is meant to target larger nations, to help reduce disease without sacrificing improvement slots for hospitals, which in turn would help population growth in the long term instead of a single 3% boost. Additionally, realistically, pulling people off the surface to live in such a habitat would reduce the population density, not increase the overall population, at least not in the beginning.
The city requirement is necessary. I wouldn't expect alliances to change their build orders for improvements, as the UP & AUP already offer lower tier nations a means to reduce city build costs. It would cut into military readiness and resource production for warchests. Besides, low costs paired with raiding, alliance accelerated build programs funded via taxes, and low yield bank loans offer an efficient means to become self-sufficient in record time. This project is not a catapult with which to launch a week old nation to whale status within a few months to a year. Its a minor reduction for exponentially increasing costs for long term players.
As for the costs, you are beginning to colonize space, its going to be expensive. The resource cost is intended to be excessive, though I went over the top to allow for room to trim it down. Honestly the cost of cash and resources to build it should exceed the cost of cities 25 & 26 (~$941,697,500) in my opinion. My next city (32) is going to cost roughly $1,136,988,750, the savings I would get is an additional $51,479,550 over the UP and AUP but as I add cities that is going to grow and grow, therefore purposeful restrictions for building and the initial investment needs to be larger on the front end to rationalize the value that will be realized with each new addition. -
Effect: Reduce population density by 3%, reduce future city cost by 4%, and reduce global radiation effects by 25%.
Cost: $275M, 3.50M food, 115K steel, 95K aluminum, 75K uranium, 60K gasoline, 20K munitions.
Prerequisites: Missile Pad, Space Program, and 25 cities-
2
-
-
On 2/20/2020 at 1:20 PM, Bartholomew Roberts said:
Players can still deposit their incomes into the bank, but capping the tax rate would explicitly remove the ability for someone to create a tax farm alliance.
Wouldn't alliances just force their members to pay for membership? Cities, infra, and improvements are visible, so it’s not hard to develop a calculator and present each nation with a bill for the revenue you are suggesting they be cut off from. Who wins a war in this game is largely determined by destruction and alliances track these numbers closely. What’s to prevent them from dividing the total loss by their membership and presenting another bill? If an alliance doesn’t have the funds to help their people, why have them at all?
Your intent has some merit, but unless you refine the method, you won’t gain any traction. It just adds an extra step to collection and most alliances take care of their people well enough to make the rates worth it and when they don’t members leave in favor of those that do.
-
Those of us who spend the time producing anything shouldn’t be penalized because we have the temerity to save what is rightfully ours and do our best to prepare for anything. I’ve never paid to play, so everything I have is earned through patience and any changes to that means my efforts are meaningless.
Sketch is definitely an apt term to describe resource expiration. Food MIGHT be the only area this could play, but again, I cite my patience, my savings habits, and my productions plans as the means by which I survived wars and rebuilt after. This is the saving grace of my nation and my alliance and I don’t see a reason to penalize anyone for it.
The only result of your changes are bankrupt alliances, nations, and constant war. Boring....
-
1
-
-
Same happened to me, rather disturbing.
[DoW]Planes go BRRRR
in Alliance Affairs
Posted · Edited by Malakai
You are arguing in favor of Arrgh? I think I’ve seen everything now. These Pirates, thieves by any rational objective point of view, deserve what they get. If they (ie. you or any member of any rogue alliance) left allied nations alone, life might have been and continue to be more pleasant.
Anyone who accepts membership to any alliance is responsible (by proxy) for the decisions of their leadership, other members, and subsequently the ensuing consequences. I submit that your argument, much like your logic, is flawed, and I encourage you to look to your past alliance leadership if you need to blame someone for your misfortune.