Keegoz
-
Posts
2196 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
56
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Keegoz
-
-
- Popular Post
Hey guys,
As some may know, the next update will primarily be an econ update focused one. The last thread was apart of that but the economics of it largely related to military. The rest of the update we do intend to be more purely econ focused. This is intended to be a large update in multiple parts, with the final part not completed.
So I'll start off with the idea I have been working on to go with the econ update:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P_xb98EV1RvH5vVeyuOdlNUN0oLWXc83Fn9U3a6Ourg/edit?pli=1&tab=t.0
I'll leave it in this document because formatting is just easier than the forums and I can edit it much more freely as feedback comes in. The main aim is to give players more to do and think about each day when they log in. I am aware it isn't a flashy mechanic, but I hope it does reward activity and different playstyles that could be further built upon. The idea would be to in the future, add different ways to gain political power and lowering logging in being the main way overall. Think potentially a pvp game where the winner receives a small amount.
The second part is brainstorming one last idea to add to the game for this update, I'd ask if you have any further ideas to pop them below. I will also link one that seems to have had a lot of thought put into it and seems to be getting some positive feedback thus far:
If people are happy with that idea, the design team is fine reviewing it and incorporating it into the final write up of the econ update but I wanted to leave room for others to have input as well.
-
15
-
1
-
6 hours ago, LoneTechWiz said:
Why arbitrarily force people to go to war why not actually give people reasons to go to war like increasing loot that can be stolen or buffing treasures so people want to steal them. This move with Idea 2 will likely lead to people leaving the game as you are forcing people to go to war too often given the cost to rebuild from a war. This is the worst idea I have seen proposed since I joined this game.
Treasures were OP and people found ways around fighting. Increasing loot just increases pirating.
At a certain point you need to accept some sort of stick is required.
2 hours ago, George Clooney said:Idea 1 - Military technology makes equipment more expensive, not less, over time. That's a simple real world historical fact. The trade off is that while soldier equipment, tanks, planes, and ships become more expensive, it also becomes more capable. So I don't see how making things even less realistic is an improvement.
Idea 2 - This is a player problem, not a mechanics issue. Maybe if alliances didn't fight such long, drawn out wars, they wouldn't require months to recover and insist on lengthy NAPs to ensure they can do so in relative peace. Also, nation growth =/= stagnation. It's entirely possible to play the game, enjoy the game, want to spend RL money on the game, and not fire a single shot in anger in a war. This isn't a first person shooter.
Idea 3 - There is not actually a problem here--or that is, not the problem you think there is. Cities *should* be a factor in the size of militaries. Urbanization and large, highly capable militaries go hand-in-hand. The consistent problem has always been nations with a significant number of cities and little to no infrastructure being allowed to have too large a military force. Example, Germany 1943 versus Germany 1945. As Germany's infrastructure was destroyed by Allied bombing, its ability to produce large numbers of tanks, planes, artillery, and even small arms was also reduced. The penalty for having your infrastructure in a given city reduced to say under 1,000 should be dramatically increased.
The game has never gone for pure realism.
-
6 hours ago, Miller said:
This isn’t really encouraging anyone to war though. It’s just punishing them if they don’t. If you want to encourage war introduce something that rewards fighting. Like a buff to production or some other positive benefit. Even pairing that with this stagnation thing would be more palatable than just a negative. Else everyone is just sitting around til the stagnation piles up, we have one massive global then it’s back to months of twiddling our thumbs again, which is pretty much status quo.
There is inherent issues in only rewarding warfare. It needs more stick than carrot to work.
-
27 minutes ago, Sval said:
Anything that adds diversity to it would be good.
Used to play another nation sim about a billion years ago which had what felt like a thousand different economic products, there were efficiency and quality upgrades that affected the running costs and output product of any one item. The quality of the resources you fed into the corporation would effect the quality of its outputs. There was mining, farming, all different kinds of manufacturing, and you could produce anything from soy beans to tactical nuclear missiles - even the upgrades themseves were a commodity you could produce and trade.
And as a nation ruler you had to concern yourself with educating citizens, making sure your population had the right quantities of workers, executives, manager, etc. It was absurdly over-engineered, but really engaging. You could even participate in the game environment as the CEO of an enterprise if you just wanted to play the econ side of the game. Having to interact with Presidents and Prime Ministers as the CEO of a business looking to set up shop was fun. Negotiating tax rates, trading stocks, etc.
I would't want our dev team to go that far overboard with it. But just adding a bit more depth to the econ side of things really opens up a nation sim. Hell, even if military units went from being magically crafted out of thin air to being something you can produce, buy and sell would be great. How much more fun and challenging war would be if planes and tanks and ships came with a production time, a quality level, an increasing obsolescence over time.
Some additional raw resources, like precious metal mines, water extraction, quarrying. Some intermediary things like oil creating plastics, quarrying materials to maintain infrastructure. Some advanced manufacturing, like electronic components needed to upgrade your military or infrastructure.
Hell, add a shelf-life to food. Add a freshness factor to it. Freshest food goes further than bad food. After X amount of in-game months, it's useless. That'll deal with the infinite farming without destroying the economic side of the game entirely.
Anything that adds depth and challenge to the econ side of the game.
30 minutes ago, Bolby Ballinger said:Honestly you could hit up both the economic AND military side with new resources.
First, make it separate from the usual resources and have all of the new ones technically available to players regardless of location. Then, make it so the player can only choose to extract x of them. As in 2 of the 5 new resources or something like that. That way big nations can't just dominate it completely.
Part two is then an update to units. We have the units branch out. Planes can have bombers and fighters. One good at hitting targets, the other good at fighting other planes. Soldiers can have something like an anti-armor unit added as an option. Good against tanks, less good against soldiers. They'll cost different resources and the unit cap remains the same. Also you can mix them together if you want to find the mix that works for you and your current situation. (I.E. you can have bombers AND fighters but they both contribute to the same total plane cap.)
So you get to choose what your army costs and what it's good against (and also what it's weak against). This makes war more dynamic. Losing effort? You can choose to build some anti-tank units to rack up the damage that way instead of just lobbing missiles and nukes for the next month or so. And hey, if you've been zeroed but your alliance is still going alright maybe you hitting up those tanks will help your fellow war buddies with their wars?
To make this work and not just promote big nations flip flopping what they produce the penalty for switching between new resources will be/include time. It'll take a few days to get the new resource up and running so if you want to switch focus you'll have to wait and produce none of the new resources in the meantime.
I may just make an open thread for econ ideas to see where it goes. Might make my life easier.
There are a few considerations I would stipulate but maybe doing this more publicly will receive less confusion at least.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, AwesomeNova said:
And you're saving one half of the game by what, making war contrived through a game mechanic? Like another poster has said, this would make the politics leading up to war more towards pointless theater to hide the true reason, that being "I need my econ penalty gone, man." The organic, emergent politics surrounding war is what makes war interesting, not war itself or the game mechanics, because the war mechanics are too shallow on their own to be engaging (unless you're raiding, I guess).
I know this isn't within the scope of these suggestion, but the game needs its war mechanics to be reworked to be more engaging and, y'know, fun. Heck, there isn't much depth to any of the game mechanics, either. New players bounce because their contributions to the wider politics is constrained to war and micro AA politics, which doesn't have much impact on the rest of the game, and the old guard has a tight grip on power. On top of that, it takes months of city growth and projects to even be considered impactful in war. Without anywhere to meaningfully participate in P&W's politics, the fun part, they end up copying optimized builds until they get big enough or quit, and most just quit.
I'm not asking for a silver bullet, just a step in the right direction, but I doubt a "stagnation" mechanic would do that.
I don't agree with your first assumption tbh.
I've been told I cannot rework the game in the way you wish it to be. Alex ultimately does not want complete rework.
Catch up mechanics are a different debate and not the basis to refuse any different changes.
13 minutes ago, Bolby Ballinger said:So . . . if you don't expect this to actually change the frequency of war how exactly is it encouraging war?
If it's not gonna bring about any actual change then it's nothing but an added layer of complexity for both the players and the coders.
Alliances don't wish to go to war, even if they have a grudge match against someone, fearing another alliance just gets further ahead. The game has become ways to dodge wars whilst your enemies fight, but I sense now everyone is playing the same game.
They can now know that they will at least fight a war every 6 months and not sit at peace endlessly. Meaning we may actually see people fight grudge matches because they won't look over their shoulder at who is growing at their expense.
I say this as someone who has seen how difficult it is to convince people to actually take risk or go to war in general.
-
33 minutes ago, Sval said:
Lack of war isn't what causes the game to stagnate.
The problem is the lack of new blood, the years-long slog it takes to get anywhere near the levers of power in global politics. The same old faces doing the same old things in the same old repetitive circles is what causes stagnation. I doubt there's a game mechanic capable of fixing that.
Rather than nerfing the economic aspect of the game with "stagnation" why not add some more depth to it?
Some more resources. Manufacturing chains that go one or two layers deeper than "bauxite→Aluminium→PewPewAirplane". I don't know, maybe add some actual consumption to city/infrastructure upkeep, rather than just a little bit of cash?That's kinda where I've been thinking of going with the next econ update, yeah. Look, no update is a silver bullet solution, it will take a few different updates to fix this game.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Ozwyn said:
Yeah i know you disagree prolly because this shit will benefit your alliance when they go to the war theyre blatantly planning for. Thats the only reason i can possibly think you even imagine this is a good idea
I think it's a good idea because the game relies on war. It's what creates politics and community engagement half the time. Wars have increasingly become less and less frequent as time has gone on, and the game has become less active as a result.
You don't need to attack me personally for having a different point of view, I am yet to do so to you. I will refrain from responding to you from here on out and I suggest you accept that you have had your say on this proposal and move on.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Ozwyn said:
This ignores the influx in pirates youll see, the fact naps are gonna be shorter because people will wanna keep their bonus up, wars are gonna last longer because people will want the full bonus and will therefore need to fight longer which will lead to overlaps in naps expiring and wars starting. And the fact any alliance trying to enjoy peace will likely be bigger targets because they are gonna be less prepared and thus more often hit
I disagree with your assessment and I think we'll need to agree to disagree at this point. Thanks for your input.
-
Just now, Ozwyn said:
It 100% will be more than that tf, if it was gonna stay the same wtf are you even trying to incentivize war for
You can effectively farm for 5 months at the same income as now, if you play it correctly. So 2-3 times a year, maybe 4 at best. Again, most people fight 2-3 times in a year now.
-
6 minutes ago, Ozwyn said:
Side note feels worth mentioning that individual wars take like 2 days to complete and participating in alliance wars is pretty involved and time consuming especially if you're concerned more about winning (which you extra are with this change cuz winning plus getting the constant war bonus is the only way to make it kinda worth it) thats a shit ton of time to suddenly have to sink into the game especially considering how frequent alliances wars are gonna become, people arent gonna like that time sync people like peacetime in part because you dont have to focus on it constantly and can be more relaxed instead of having to constantly be on coordinating and worrying about when your nations gonna get bombed to shit and you have to spend hundreds of mil on rebuilding
They'll be roughly 2-3 a year, about the same as now for most people.
-
10 minutes ago, Stanko1987 said:
Idea 1. I like the idea but do not clearly understand it 100%. My interpretation of this is I am assuming that this is going to be an add on to the current military research which is to allow players to buy each upgrade which will also increase the rebuy capacity for the day, or will that be added to the existing cost reduction buff? My only concern is, is the cost of resources going to shoot up in prices again as it did with Aluminum when the recent military update went live on the main server?
Idea 2. I do not have a problem with it as i strongly agree that war needs to be incentivized and one of way of doing it is you mentioning that for each day you are currently not in war, you accumulate 1 negative modifier each day and once you get up to 60 days without any active wars, or if you accumulate negative 60 modifier, the economic output of your nation begins to reduce, not limited to resources production and cash produced each turn. But with each war won, you should be able to accumulate positive modifier for when you reach up to 60 positive modifiers, the cost upkeep should be reduced by at least 5 or 10%, and economic output increased by 10%. With a negative 60 modifier, the cost upkeep should increase by 10% and economic output decreased by 10%.
However, I would also like to propose that raiding gets that little bit of more of a buff which would incentivize players and also alliances to be at war more often as it gives them more options and ways of generating income and revenue for the alliance and for players.
Since this is strictly a discussion for Military and War, i am going to stick to Military and War. However, Espionage itself should be included in the working as many people other than myself have been asking for a Espionage reworks as the current espionage mechanic is totally imbalanced in its current form.
Also, I would like to see a rework on the cost of building Aircrafts as needing 10 Aluminum per aircraft to build is totally an over kill, just to spend billions of dollars to get it reduced back to 5 Aluminum per aircraft before the recent military update got implemented onto the main server, as this has also cause Aluminum to triple in cost and making war even more expensive and giving a reason for alliances to avoid wars and conflicts and continue farming endlessly as this part of the update has discouraged alliances from entering into wars and conflicts and only the top 10 alliances are able to afford to be at war while Micros and Nanos or alliances not in the top 10 are unable to sustain war for longer than a few days to a week at tops. There needs to be some form of balance and some counter measures in place to counter inflations or else there is no point trying to incentivize war and encourage war if there is no counter measures in place to tackle this inflation and price shooting up almost 3X.
Idea 3. Terrible idea.Yes, the increase to rebuy would be linked to the current cost reduction bonus. The current price increase is due to the game all trying to do it at the same time. Over time this won't be an issue.
Planes cannot be reduced to 5 aluminium (most people barely rebuild them after the first round anyway). Sketchy outlined a way to avoid impacting smaller nations, which I will likely adopt. Spies need to be completely redone and it isn't high on the priority list, nor has legit anyone given me a good way to rework them, I'd have probably 10 times the amount of people complaining in this thread for even remotely tweaking spies.
I sounded people out of your spy suggestions and they came up with fair arguments as to how it would make spies even more useless. Until I think of or someone gives me a good starting point for a rework, I cannot just magically make it happen.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Ozwyn said:
The economy, politics and alliances are also key components of the game and id say the fact that you wanna add adverse affects for focusing on one part of the game and forcing everyone to focus on another is just bad for the game. Id say maybe the fact you have to incentivize doing war at all is probably a sign you need to make the war mechanics actually fun to play and worth doing not just make the other parts of the game shitty and not worth playing
I am not really forcing much, you could farm for almost 5 months before it becomes more negative than what you're doing now. Most people do not have much more peace than 5 months, so I'd argue the majority will realise this doesn't do a lot.
7 minutes ago, AwesomeNova said:I forgot about the "bigger number better" part of war that has been an issue for years. I agree with the rest, too. The fundamental game mechanics hasn't change all of the time I have been playing P&W, just more tweaks bolted onto it.
The game is never going to be reworked like that. Sorry but that one is out of my hands.
-
1
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, Ozwyn said:
Tbh wanting to focus on war is one thing but id say the fact that its pointed out to you that something you are considering doing is going to cause a negative impact to multiple aspects of the game and a large chunk of the player base and your only response is basically just the game is actually basically only about war so idc is honestly highly concerning
No, I said it was a key component of the game and in the title of the game. You can feel free to not war if you wish, you will have adverse effects compared to those who do. The game was designed for wars to be a key component of the game though.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just now, Kurama said:
It takes 1 month to rebuild more if you dont have a good economy so you will only have 1-2 to grow and it is not like alliances will time their wars together it will be at different times so while you just got out of a war your ally just got attacked by another after someone's 3 months ended, I could be wrong tbh most new changes are faced with a big negative/pushback until they are introduced and dont do much but I do still think a buff to constantly being at war is abit unnecessary as the nerf already does the job
Tldr: My suggestion is to make it a negative nerf for stagnation only and making it exponential instead of fixed decrease every month which makes small peacetime less impactfull on stagnation and longer peace very impactfull
Not sure what alliances (who aren't broke) are taking more than 1 week to rebuild. All wars end within a week.
You are not wrong, people often tell me the sky is falling when a change comes in that has adverse effects and we're all still here.
-
10 minutes ago, Kurama said:
I get wanting to incentive war and I am all for it the game has been way too stagnant recently but giving a buff to going to alot of wars and nerfing those that dont seems like overkill imo one would be enough either negative impact on those that dont (better option imo) or small buff to those that do cuz this will lead to a couple problems firstly
- people will find ways to lower there stagnation with no cost like working with other alliances for example or declaring on inactives and use it as an economic buff
- secondly it will force way too many wars since no alliance will want to go negative and some will even want to go positive buff leading to constantly going indefinite wars which kinda ruins the game cuz people will get rolled out of the game + constant war makes the game boring + kills whales/food
Overall love the concept just think the solution is way too overkill
Yeah, as mentioned this is not final and some suggestions to stop people abusing the system have already been suggested in this thread. Minimum amount of damage and activity etc.
It only really makes you go to war every 3-4 months. The first month of negatives, I suspect some alliances will eat because it's still cheaper than fighting. I don't think you'd see indefinite wars, because the buff isn't that much.
-
8 minutes ago, Ozwyn said:
Its a natsim game why are you only focusing on war? Ffs this game has a huge functioning economy system i feel like its concerning you only care about the war aspect theres a reason when you make forum post asking about what should he done with the game theres tons of people asking for not war
I am focusing on war for this thread. I have done an econ focused update before this and will again before the year is finished.
War is a vital part of this game and I will not apologise for that. Most people talk to me about war changes more than economic ones just fyi.
-
25 minutes ago, DragonKnight said:
Hey, can we know what caused this bug and what steps will be taken to fix this? Thanks in advance.
Slight miscommunication between myself and the dev team during the test tournament basically. Only just noticing now due to someone bug reporting it. You won't be able to build any units without having at least 1 military improvement.
18 minutes ago, Ozwyn said:I like the idea of idea 2 but honestly i feel like if its gonna work, for one its gonna lead to a complete loss in revenue for most people with current numbers, cause this is likely just gonna lead to a necessity of 5553 builds just to ensure you arent constantly being raided and losing this however leads to an issue for a lot of mid and high tier players where the lost rev from having 5553 is higher than the revenue gained even from having the max production increase.
Secondly if you want to incentivize war maybe just make being at war a lot a bonus and don't penalize for not warring often. Theres a decent chunk of players who dont want to have to war often even while not caring about the fact its better economically, i feel like this is just gonna alienate a bunch of players if you make it an active detriment to just chill and farm or something. Instead just make it a benefit the rev increase alone will incentivize alliance wars and just people raiding and pirating as long as you can make them worth doing.
The game is designed for war, not sure what else to tell you. It's half the games title.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Sketchy said:
Instead of a 0.5% rebuy, it should be a flat unit rebuy increase similar to that of the capacity upgrade. Essentially maxing a tree should give you +4 cities of rebuy.
The way % would apply to rebuy, that's a larger buff for whales than it is for others.Didn't consider that, you could do a fixed amount of rebuy but it wouldn't be 4 cities. Simply because it won't math splitting 4 cities over 10 levels of upgrades.
You'd likely need to increase it more than 4 cities worth. 10 cities would make my life the easiest tbh lol
-
Suggestion via discord for idea 2:
- Make it only against active nations to avoid abuse. Easily done via the diamond activity tracker, nations that are a purple diamond (have not logged in for more than a week) do not count towards reducing stagnation.
-
4 minutes ago, Rageproject said:
Idea 1 is fine. Switching cost savings for an additional rebuy buff is more effective for players to understand.
Idea 2 could be simplified by simply using a 30-day rolling model tied to a modifier on gross income. Example, nations get -0.25% per day of peace and +0.25% per day when completing wars. Thst would create a potential 107.5% cap and 92.5% low for daily gross income.
Idea 3 is a bad idea. We already have issues of it being so easy as a raider to shave score and massively downdeclare with next to no infra to hit someone. Capping military at lower limits will actually cause additional downdeclaring potential. Cities and military should impact score the most because they really do dictate war strength. If you were worried about war costs, then just lessen the unit costs or revert them back to their previous values before research was added.
I’m disappointed you haven’t mentioned anything about revamping the spying mechanics. That’s been something several threads and conversations have continued to take issue with. Just a few modifications to that system could make it much more effective.
Spies need a complete rework and those advocating for changes haven't fully thought out the implications of their changes.
They also not a high priority.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Hey all,
This thread is to be seen as floating a few ideas and seeing what people think. They are not linked and further details will likely come later for a few of them.
Idea 1 - Buffing Cost Reduction Military Research
This will be the only one in which I will confirm, *something* will happen with to buff this side of the tree. Currently we think this side needs an extra mechanic to be seen as viable when compared to unit cap increase. It should be noted that a few bugs are being removed from the unit cap which weren't intended upon release (e.g. being able to have units without any mil improvements).
Anyway, the idea is fairly simple: Add 0.5% rebuy buff for the unit being researched per level - this would be 10% rebuy should you complete the tree for that unit.
We would need to probably rename this side of the tree to Military Efficiency rather than cost reduction.
Idea 2 - Encouraging War
It's no secret that wars are detrimental to growth and economics. This has swung to the point where political actors seek to avoid war rather than promote them and has led to political stagnation. The solution is to therefore give incentive to alliances to not farm endlessly but to create wars to also benefit them economically.
The idea:
Introduce a new metric tracked on peoples nations. Each day, their stagnation ticks up by 1 point. Once it reaches 60 points, the population and resource production in cities begins to decline based on the following formula.
Population (%) = 1-MAX(((I23 - 60) / 240) * 0.6,-2)
Resource Production (%) = 1-MAX(((I23 - 60) / 240) * 0.7,-2)Now I will say, these are some rough numbers to give an idea and the way it would work does need more fleshing out, but please see below:
As you can see, after 60 days a negative modifier will slowly kick in. Every 30 days (roughly 1 month) the modifier gets worse. Conversely you can decrease your modifier so that you gain economic output (this is capped at -30). To reduce your stagnation modifier, you would need to complete wars. The amount being reduced I believe should be linked to war type declarations:
Raid War - Reduces stagnation by 2
Ordinary War - Reduces stagnation by 3
Attrition War - Reduces stagnation by 4
Please note, both the nation losing and the offensive nation would have their stagnation modifier reduced by the same amount upon war completion.
This may also encourage more even wars as the fight over slots becomes more important.
Idea 3 - Make wars cheaper
Quite easy this one. Reduce military gained by cities & research by 20%. Makes wars cheaper, promoting more wars. Flattens war range allowing for more interaction between tiers. Reduces the impact of cities on overall war strength, in preparation for future mechanics, making the war system less dependent on cities.
These are the numbers:
- Reduce hangar capacity from 15 to 12
- Reduce tank factory capacity from 250 to 180
- Reduce barracks capacity from 3000 to 2400
- Reduce drydocks capacity from 5 to 4
- Reduce by a similar rate across military research
Feedback:
Please note that these are 3 discussion ideas and not all related to each other. Upvoting or downvoting this post gives me very little idea of what people do or do not approve on and therefore written feedback is always better.
-
2
-
1
-
11
-
3
-
2 hours ago, Velyni Vas said:
You withdrew from talks, not us. We can white peace today but that doesn’t fit your Rose bad narrative. Quit the games, Epi.
That would mean he'd stop getting attention, and I don't think he can handle that yet.
-
Thanks for voting everyone. The poll has now concluded with Economic update with more engaging day to day economic mechanics winning the poll overall and will be a focus when developing a new update in the future.
We also note that Improved nation simulation mechanics surrounding policies, government types and approval. had significant support and will also be explored by a few design team members as well.
Please note that although we will develop ideas around this, hopefully within the near future, other updates may come out before their design completion. This does not mean we have abandoned any of the aforementioned design areas but that designing new updates can hit roadblocks and take longer than other ideas. Hopefully you will hear from me soon with some new exciting updates!
-
50 minutes ago, Firwof Kromwell said:
CRAWLING IN MY SKIN....
THESE WOUNDS, THEY WILL NOT HEAL!!!
FEAR IS HOW I FALL...
CONFUSING WHAT IS REAL!!!!!
Feel free to go back to the asylum friend.
3 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:wait a sec... you drag your alliance into a war you know you are going to lose, one you spent how long preparing for, because you were mad that TKR bailed you out of a different war you were losing over a year ago. Then despite all your preparations, 55 of your members quit, 30+ of them ran to vaca mode, and you guys could barely keep global radiation over 35% for the majority of the war. Your global perception went from people considering you guys an elite alliance to being an absolute joke. After two - three weeks i honestly assumed you guys were all quitting the game your performance was so pathetic..
Now that its over you get in here and spin it like the entire war was a troll job and it was fun for all. If you guys were having the grand time you say you did, ya think we would have seen a little more effort out of you guys.
I have done some dumb things over the years, but this entire thing would be embarrassing for a micro, let alone a bunch of seasoned players.
Call TKR mad, i get it, if i face planted as hard as you guys did, i would use every kind of spin i could think of to save whatever small amount of face you have left.
I don't think we'll be taking pointers on war performance from Grumpy. Just saying.
-
3
-
Game Development Discussion - Idle Simulator & Brainstorming
in Game Discussion
Posted
It resets every year. You would loot 22%.