Keegoz

2024-04-25T13:06:37Z

23 minutes ago, lancelot1 said:

You literally use this argument against every single person who posts lol.

It isn't an argument, it's literally a fact. She wasn't leader. Kid can you just stop posting your dribble and let the adults talk.

Monday at 01:57 PM

49 minutes ago, lancelot1 said:

You guys signed a 4 month NAP following a 3.5 month NAP. As far as I know, that’s an unprecedented move, and, at best, is an extremely boring attempt to avoid having to fight wars. You then spent half of this thread claiming TKR is only mad because we were trying to get in on the deal. A claim that has been completely debunked as a lie. But you’re still trying to spin this in your favor. This was a lame and pathetic move. Just own it and say you did it for your own self interests and move on. Stop trying to justify it.

We've existed at war longer than peace. TKR started the beef here with trying to twist every fact.

Is it this hard for you guys to stop with the bs? We're annoyed with the lies and the gaslighting that has been non-stop at this point.

The claim hasn't been debunked btw. You guys saying it is false doesn't make it an automatic truth. We have enough evidence of TKR lying to our faces already, it's beyond pathetic and the basis of why we no longer trust you.

Saturday at 11:20 AM

1 hour ago, Alexio15 said:

Yay I get to buy more cities… oh wait

I have it on the authority of RON, that war is dead and no one will fight ever again. They've never been wrong before, so I think you're fine.

April 20

45 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

It's only a bad NAP when it doesn't include TKR.

I'm sure @BigMorf would be singing a different tune if the Syndicate/Eclipse/ODOO nap that he supported got through.

It's only bad because we decided to not be rolled for the games entertainment.

April 12

2 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

I'm not sure how you can look at a formula which accompanying chart has Lime skyrocket from lowest value bonus to highest value bonus, and go "Damn, this is really what we should be going with". I'd like to think that that alone would highlight the issue with the formula as is.

A good portion, if not most of, whale nations can't even spawn treasures given the 15-65% range. The largest nation sits a 15035 score which caps it at 9772. While whalehood is defined by city count and not score (and with scores fluctuating as well), if you take Grumpy as a benchmark, most of their nations can't spawn a treasure. It similarly excludes Eclipse's upper cohort (C45 and up). Rose's a bit more mixed but their larger/largest nations are similarly excluded. t$'s largest nations are likewise excluded. At a glance, roughly 45 and up with fairly tall infra can't spawn it due to score inhibition. I imagine that this city count would lower as people presumably move back to 0350.

In most cases (whenever they didn't just happen to spawn in their alliance), alliances get those treasures by buying them from whichever smaller alliance spawned them. That's why there's a concentration of them along the larger alliances. This is doubly true given that the price floor for treasures tend to be fairly high (usually something like 300m), and becomes harder to justify paying for the smaller an alliance is. I recall being hard pressed to justify the cost for one in Requiem (a small upper tier, edging whale alliance), as it didn't leave much of a profit margin after the fact.

I struggle to see how your proposal is going to address concentration in the top alliances when it it doesn't affect why this concentration is happening (larger alliances/economies benefitting from having them, smaller alliances benefitting more from selling than keeping), or how this concentration is happening.

Which is why we have further plans for treasures, but wish to see how the colour proposal outcome goes. For now, removing 'sniping' is an easy change to make whilst we further workshop them.

Feel free to propose your own colour bloc calculation or amendment. That's why this post exists.

April 11

2 hours ago, Robert2424 said:

Not sure how either new project is healthy for the game. You could honestly double or triple the costs of these projects and people are going to buy them. Not sure why you be for Buffing Nuke Turreting and pirates extorting players unless you already abuse this system. You already have alliances entire "war strategy" to sell there regular millitary and just nuke turret the enemy alliance.

Also. Don't understand the argument of not being able to sustain building two nukes a day while blockaded. You still produce resources and donating to the game you can just get the resources you need. Not that nukes are that expensive to begin with.

This thread and elsewhere have complained about how expensive it is. I doubt we see a mass uptake on buying this project except those over c35. Nukes scale off as the game grows, it's pretty simple really. Damaging 1 city isn't that much to someone rocking 40 cities.

You might sustain building 2 for the first round. You rapidly end up in negative income after around 3 rounds, which is difficult to juggle unless you sell off excess improvements. At which point the cost to yourself to nuke is questionable.

Donating or stacking credits is also an expensive tactic. I doubt this is done much, unless you enjoy throwing away money.

April 10

Thanks for those who have given input. This is where we are at with the proposed changes thus far:

Colour Calculation Changes

Step 1:

Eliminate all people not in an alliance from counting towards the color bonus.

Eliminate all people city 10 and below from counting towards the color bonus. (Can still benefit from the color bonus).

Step 2:

Adjust the Turn Bonus formula from:

Turn Bonus = (Average Daily Monetary Net Revenue / Nations)

To this:

Turn Bonus = ( (Average Daily Monetary Net Revenue * 0.75) / Nations)

Step 3:

Instead of raising the cap to 150k, change the cap to the following formula. Currently this is around ~111k with the above changes.

New Turn Bonus Cap = (Total Aggregate DNR/Total Nations)

Step 4:

Create a second bonus with the following formula:

Recruit Bonus = (Total Nations <c11 on Color/(Total Nations <c11/5)) * New Turn Bonus Cap

Step 5:

Add the revised Turn Bonus to the new Recruit Bonus. This is your final Color Turn Bonus.

What this accomplishes:

Removes the need to bully nanos off of colors. Gives nanos free reign to choose any color and receive it's bonus without impact.
Remove the need for training alliances that don't benefit from the main alliances bonus.
Creates value for lower tier nations and nanos for larger nations and alliances, giving them slightly more power. Larger alliances can court smaller alliances to increase their recruitment bonus.
Allows for multiple approaches to gain increased bonus without changing the system to benefit one style of play over another.
Create a cap that automatically scales over time as the game grows or shrinks, and pins the recruitment bonus to a value that adjusts to the ebb and flow of player count.

Treasure Changes

Treasures have increasingly become very rewarding to only large/wealthy alliances. To the point where treasure ‘sniping’ has made them almost an exclusively a mechanic for top 8 alliances and whale nations. The following is to try and balance that out a little. Further updates on treasures may come in the future that further link them to colour blocs.

Treasures now only spawn in nations with the same colour as their alliance.
A nation must be on the colour for at least 14 days for a treasure to spawn on that nation.
Removal of continent requirement for treasures.
The two treasures that spawn in any nation (Hoa Hakananai'a & Holy Grail) will now instead spawn in a nation on the lowest colour bloc at the time of its respawn.

April 10

11 hours ago, MBaku said:

I think the fundamental problem is using nukes/missiles as the primary improvement destroyers. There is no way to balance the impact is has against small nations vs. big nations. 15 improvements (3 nukes) a day a ton for a c20 on 2k infra, it's nothing to a c50 with 3k infra.

That goes back to @Buorhann's idea -and an idea that we've brought up many times in the past - but as @Keegoz says, have never come to a consensus on - which is improv degradation when you infra does not support that number of improvs or drastically increasing the ability for military attacks to destroy improvs. Generals will have some impact with some traits on their dev tree i think but that's still sporadic and unreliable to become the meta i would think.

Here's another idea - Aircraft can target improvs - (3) for IT, (2) for MS, (1) for PV.

After the general improv drops - we should reassess the new meta and we should absolutely revisit war balancing. Beige rework didn't work but that's only because there was a pointless beige cap of 5 days. But rapid military rebuilding in beige should be looked at because of the major buffs to nuke/missiles that discourage military fighting at all in a one-sided war. There should be a way to use military to gain some net with flash attacks in a way that can equal or surpass the damage that nuke/missile turrets do. This just isn't possible with the opportunity cost of a 6 day rebuild (extra day for rebuy).

I'm waiting until Generals are done and we have a little bit more of an idea on how they impact warfare. My current thinking is to increase naval attacks destroying improvements by 5-10% and perhaps creating a modifier to destroy improvements when you're over the cap.

My major concern of increasing it too much, is how punishing wars become if you lose and how much it could encourage the winning side to keep bashing up the losing side. There are a couple of things I think we also need to consider with beige, one thing I would like would be a straight up increase in unit buying if you are on beige and decreasing spies ability to destroy units or at least as many.

April 9

1 hour ago, MBaku said:

Normally I’d be first in line for new military projects but the cost is kind of silly and these projects don’t really promote military game play, just the opposite. They promote no-military gameplay which I find boring.

let me know when you get a project to build on Propaganda Bureau to build more MILITARY as a military project

Here’s an idea - a project that allows you to build twice the military while in beige. Speed up rebuild time so you can actually FIGHT wars

These suggestions have been routinely shut down or received overwhelmingly negative feedback. The design team spent almost an entire year trying to adjust/fix the war system and we had nothing to show for it at the end due to either a lack of agreement from the team or public backlash. The war system is the one we have and the only way we'll see any real adjustment is to do a complete overhaul, which would mean probably no updates and potentially no wars for a period of time.

April 8

2 hours ago, Autumn Annayah said:

Is it safe to say yall abandoned the perk tree thing mentioned a year ago or that still being worked on?

We asked recently what update the community would like next, and perks did not come out on top. It is unlikely we see them in the foreseeable future.

Currently the work required to design it vs the potential increase in gameplay just doesn't add up to being a priority update.

April 8

8 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Just build your nation with Alum, Fuel, Ammo, and Uranium mines. Jack it all up since there's no real Improvement destruction in the game. Build all the nuke/missile projects.

Go crazy. Color bonus and Daily income bonus (Plus the income protection you have that keeps them from being looted) plus the self sufficient improvement resources, and you can build nukes/missiles without worry about being blockaded.

You can have 50/10 Improvement slots of self-sufficiency to do this because the Infra Cap means jack shit. Then just go to town hitting all the whales and nations out there. Fresh built nukes/missiles are protected from being spied on. Just check in once a day, "Oh I got 12 MAPs? Nuke." Go back to doing other things because no matter what your target does, they can't stop you. Sure they can fast beige you with 5 Naval/3 Ground attacks, but they're eating at least 1 nuke and 2 missiles in that time frame. If they mess up, that's 2 nukes + whatever missiles. If they don't beige you, well, you just beiged them and loot the hell out of them.

And if you get beiged, that's more bonus income and the ability to resupply yourself if needed. Lather, rinse, repeat.

This balance/game design team is stupid.

"But the projects are expensive" - Please... Anybody can get those within weeks, if not days.

"What's your solution to this, Hippo?" Well, one solution is that any improvements over infra level cap should have increased destruction chances. Don't jack up the color bonus and inflate MORE free income into the game. That's beyond stupidity. Remove the spy protection from nukes and missiles or remove these projects in the game. Could also lower the income protection limit that can't be looted.

All of these ideas people will hate, but they're necessary to maintain a balance.

This isn't how nuke rouging works and sustaining 2 nukes buying per day whilst having 50/10 improvements would be rather difficult. Loading yourself up with resources sounds a little silly unless you want to give away loot. I'm sure people will use this to stack nukes but they can ultimately be spied away.

Colour blocs are being reworked entirely atm. This is a stop-gap fix for the time being.

April 2

It doesn't have to just be the colour bloc that has a council. Feasibly you could have 1-2 elected positions per colour bloc that then form a council from all colour blocs that make choices or propose suggestions.

April 2

7 minutes ago, Ramona said:

Sounds super convoluted, love it, I like the political side of it though.

I would say one quick fix that could be made is to raise the Turn Bonuses cap from $75k to $150k per turn (or at least $100k).

As 9 out of 14 colour blocs are above $50k and 5 colour blocs have hit the $75k limit already.

And for the 5 at the top of the leaderboard it is actually ridiculous in terms of turn bonuses:

Uncapped Green: $200k

Uncapped Pink: $140k

Uncapped White: $140k

Uncapped Maroon: $95k

Uncapped Orange: $83k

I get capping the top one as clearly Green Prosperity is working too well (I am also on green), but having 30% of the game capped at $75k shows that the cap is outdated on current average income of nations ingame and should be raised in line with the incomes of today.

Could probably raise the floor from $0 to $50k or something too to help smaller nations and alliances but idc.

For extra data, over 60% of nations are above beige ($50k per turn).

This has already been coded into the game by Alex (150k cap). Really up to @Alex or @Village to push it live at this point.

April 2

Hey all,

As some of you may know, we had a thread where we asked for feedback on what our next update should be. Now that both the Project/Commerce rework and Generals updates are both being coded by the development team, it is time for the design team to begin planning for the colour bloc update.

I've seen a few proposed changes to this, and I feel as though we should look at some that have been presented to me. If you wish to voice your ideas, this thread will be the place to do so. No decision has been made on where we should go, and once I have a feel of what the more popular ideas are, I'll likely go back to the design team to create a full proposal. Generally what we are looking for are 2 things, 1) A rework on how colour is calculated and 2) A colour bloc council that allows for political/economic decisions.

Current Idea Proposal:

Colour Calculation Changes

Step 1:

Eliminate all people not in an alliance from counting towards the color bonus.

Eliminate all people city 10 and below from counting towards the color bonus. (Can still benefit from the color bonus).

Step 2:

Adjust the Turn Bonus formula from:

Turn Bonus = (Average Daily Monetary Net Revenue / Nations)

To this:

Turn Bonus = ( (Average Daily Monetary Net Revenue * 0.75) / Nations)

Step 3:

Instead of raising the cap to 150k, change the cap to the following formula. Currently this is around ~111k with the above changes.

New Turn Bonus Cap = (Total Aggregate DNR/Total Nations)

Step 4:

Create a second bonus with the following formula:

Recruit Bonus = (Total Nations <c11 on Color/(Total Nations <c11/5)) * New Turn Bonus Cap

Step 5:

Add the revised Turn Bonus to the new Recruit Bonus. This is your final Color Turn Bonus.

What this accomplishes:

Removes the need to bully nanos off of colors. Gives nanos free reign to choose any color and receive it's bonus without impact.
Remove the need for training alliances that don't benefit from the main alliances bonus.
Creates value for lower tier nations and nanos for larger nations and alliances, giving them slightly more power. Larger alliances can court smaller alliances to increase their recruitment bonus.
Allows for multiple approaches to gain increased bonus without changing the system to benefit one style of play over another.
Create a cap that automatically scales over time as the game grows or shrinks, and pins the recruitment bonus to a value that adjusts to the ebb and flow of player count.

Treasure Changes

Treasures have increasingly become very rewarding to only large/wealthy alliances. To the point where treasure ‘sniping’ has made them almost an exclusively a mechanic for top 8 alliances and whale nations. The following is to try and balance that out a little. Further updates on treasures may come in the future that further link them to colour blocs.

Treasures now only spawn in nations with the same colour as their alliance.
A nation must be on the colour for at least 14 days for a treasure to spawn on that nation.
Removal of continent requirement for treasures.
The two treasures that spawn in any nation (Hoa Hakananai'a & Holy Grail) will now instead spawn in a nation on the lowest colour bloc at the time of its respawn.

Colour Bloc Council (Under Work)

So far I have only had one solid proposal on this, you can get the general idea from this google document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13f_rjow5i3dD9wJCYKsu9OroClpdGAvvOTCMX0YAxSQ/edit#heading=h.xadj016tgw9u

As you can see, we're in the very early phase of this idea. So we are seeking community feedback and input before we start to move in any sort of direction.

March 2

On 12/6/2023 at 2:12 PM, Keegoz said:

Proposal 4:

Highlight alliance members when trading on the market.

Reason for addition: Easier to trade with friendly nations from a glance.

This has been coded, although I am unsure if it is live or just on the test server. Will update again when I get confirmation.

February 21

On 2/19/2024 at 11:11 PM, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Perhaps I phrased it poorly, but yes. For people who actually tried to nuke them (by building up), it's been made easier. For those who didn't, it was made possible.

I have to question the point of the change, if nuking them doesn't have that much of an effect on them anyways (a premise I disagree with).

Probably worth noting that the second premise is my opinion. Not the one that was the prevailing opinion when the change was made back then under Village.

Nukes only damage one city. So they are more effective on smaller nations than larger ones. E.g. you nuke someone with 5 cities you have nuked 20% of their income whether a c10 is 10%.

They will therefore become less effective over time as the average city of active players increases.

February 18

6 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

It was proposed and pushed explicitly to make turreting easier, if I recall Keegoz correctly.

It was designed to ensure whales could not hide during wars as effectively. Nukes aren't that effective against whales anyway.

February 11

17 hours ago, lightside said:

It wouldn't take decades. While I would like a major war revamp I do agree we probably wont get one as it will be hard to get the community to agree. That doesn't mean we should add more things to encourage nuke turreting, it also doesn't mean we can't make small changes to the war system to encourage fighting back more rather then just nuke turreting.

To give an easy example, just look at how the war system handles RNG and casualty's. While I don't know how the code handles it, from what I can tell the game handles RNG and then from that hands out either immense victory's, normal victory's, or failures. Those victory's then effect the causality rate. The problem with this is discourages come backs, as once someone is winning a war and always getting immense victory's it means they 1. Have a larger military and 2. Are getting the bonus causality's that comes with immense victory's. This double effect discourages come backs. A better way to handle this would be to remove the causality effect from the victory type and just add it back into the initial RNG. This would be mean that the initial battles at the start of a war would play out exactly the same with little change, however when one side is losing they would have a slightly better ability to come back, this is because while they would be taking more loses as they have a smaller army, they wouldn't be getting directly punished by the rng system like how it currently works with the victory types.

We've been through this plenty of times. All of them have hit dead ends.

We don't have the manpower either to overhaul the war system. We're probably pushing it with the current proposals as is.

February 9

33 minutes ago, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:

So, two whale focused projects, I am a whale, I guess we can consider this a market survey of the intended customer.

$1,207,200,000 for the first project.

$833,750,000 for the second.

About 2b in total. More or less city 40 for me.

Yeah no I'll take the city. You can just keep these tbh, nuke turreting isn't enjoyable (and never was), the part where someone on the losing side of wars could do anything more interesting or enjoyable than login once a day are long, long gone. I mostly don't even bother. Hell, I don't even remember to have to decide not to bother to begin with, because it's just so goddamn boring. Might as well just lock my account for a month, same level of activity just about lol.

Given c40 is now at best the starting point of being a whale. That probably is a good thing, as for the rest not everyone has the same gameplay style.

February 9

11 minutes ago, darkblade said:

The cost of this project seems too high for the value it's given. Sure if you're getting 30m nukes, that's great and all. But I don't think that many people will end up buying this project based on the current price, especially whales (unless your name is Hatebi). This just seems like a massive cash sink with no benefit to match.

It's aimed at being a whale project where long ROI times are a thing. You can hit 25-30m nukes in the upper tiers, meaning you could feasibly be doing 50-60m of damage per day. Most wars go for a month so over 30 days you could have 1.5 billion in damage dealt (obviously VDS will block quite a few though but the ROI should be doable over a few wars).

15 minutes ago, darkblade said:

I like this project a lot actually. My only complaint is that it's slightly overpowered for it's price. I would either raise the price a bit, lower the percentage to 10-15%, or remove the extra improvement. Do one of those and you'll have a very solid project for losing wars.

This is actually the project that is probably overpriced & harder to ROI on.

16 minutes ago, darkblade said:

Alliance & National Decisions: This sounds great on paper, but can easily become a boring feature of the game. My good friend and 2ic @Abaddon made a good point when I brought up a similar system from other games. The most likely situation is that players/alliances will just mid max it and have all the results saved so they can always pick the best choices. This will just result in repetitive gameplay where you just log on and pick whichever option is best based on the question presented to you on that day. I think there is a way to implement this correctly. But it will require a great deal of balancing during and after development so that players need to consider which options are best for their nation/alliance.

I am not proposing random events as decisions. The decisions will always be the same and merely have a cooldown affect.

22 minutes ago, darkblade said:

Colour Blocs: If I remember correctly the idea of the color bloc system was to encourage alliances to go to war over it (just like treasures). However nowadays that isn't the case anymore. The color bloc bonus has been mid maxed so hard that it's honestly a worthless feature in my opinion. Right now it's just extra revenue for the big alliances who control the blocs while the little guys either have to find a that will let them join their bloc, or join one of the shitty blocs. Sure you could increase it to $150,000 (I'm looking at you @Alex). But all that does is 1. Increase the wealth disparity amongst the blocs. And 2. Promote more color bloc policing. At the end of the day, the big alliances profit from a color bloc increase while the little guys lose out. I don't have a exact idea on how to fix this issue. But a new system should be put in place where both small and big alliances can profit if they cooperate.

This proposal would basically be in 2 parts, the first part may happen regardless of the vote. Part 1 rework how the colour blocs are calculated and Part 2 put some more political stuff into it via colour councils.

February 9

Hey all,

Just wanted to give some updates regarding development at the moment. Firstly I want to note that if you wish to give feedback about any future design team suggestions, that there will now be a thread in the community feedback section of the P&W server. This will ensure we are more likely to read your feedback than if you were to post about it in other popular servers.

Secondly, I just want to inform you all that the Project & Commerce Rework has begun being coded. I understand many of you want an exact timeframe for this proposal but it is still likely too early to tell. Quite honestly it could be out within months or it might not be out for half a year. It all depends on how much time the coders have and how many bugs we run in to when they are added to the test server. You will however know they are close when they are added to the test server and ideally we can have them live approx. 1 month from that point.

Generals is still going through feedback at the moment and will be the next major update to the game. We're hoping to have it finalised by the end of the month to hand over to be coded.

There are therefore a few things we need to discuss after this point about what the design team focuses its discussions on post-generals.

Thirdly, I am going to ask for feedback for two late game project ideas that have been discussed by the design team.

Project Proposals

Nuclear Launch Facility

Project Requirements: Nuclear Research Facility, Missile Launch Pad & Space Program.

Project Cost: $750m, 50k Uranium, 50k Gasoline, 50k Aluminium.

Project Effect: Allows for the purchase of 1 extra nuke per day.

Guiding Satellite

Project Requirements: Nuclear Research Facility, Missile Launch Pad & Space Program.

Project Cost: $200m, 40k aluminium, 20k steel, 40k gasoline, 40k munitions, 40k uranium

Project Effect: Increase infrastructure damage dealt by nukes and missiles by 20% & Destroy 1 extra improvement.

These are both aimed at being whale projects. Nukes & Missiles scale off as time continues and nations grow, they will likely need further adjustments in the future but given current coding restraints this is the easiest way to fix the issue temporarily.

Future Discussion

There are a few things in this game that need updates or additions to, as to maximise player satisfaction I have added a poll as to which area of the game we should focus upon.

The areas that I believe need improvements/additions:

Alliance & National Decisions - Alliance decisions would range from military & economic buffs but with a downside. National decisions would be repeatable temporary buffs that would have a scaling resources cost (based on city count).
Colour Blocs - A complete redesign of how colour's are calculated & potentially more political aspects such as a colour council. Ideally removing the incentive to force new alliances & players off the colour bloc.
Perks revamped - A simplified perks system with choices between 2 branches (Economic or Military)
Other - Obviously if the community wants a different area focus upon, then please leave a comment below (or upvote anyone with a similar suggestion to your own)

February 9

It is on my target list, but honestly it needs a complete re-work as to not make it a mechanic where new nations/alliances are bullied onto the worst colour.

January 24

On 1/23/2024 at 1:20 PM, MonkeyDLegend said:

I would disagree here, It only hinders the growth of bad alliances and noobs. I bought two of those projects after 60days of raiding with 2cities.
They might seem expensive but that also makes it worth saving up for them.

I also bought 7 other projects after only 60 days of raiding.

They are quite cheap if you get the proper guidance in-game.

People should be able to play with whatever game style they wish. Forcing raiding is one thing that has likely led to less retention rates.

January 20

Extensions treaty type has been added to the game.

January 20

6 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

wait unless my math is wrong doesn't this make it worse? you still need 18 improvement slots to max out your income with both projects, except now you need more of the more expensive improvements vs the cheap supermarkets. since you made shopping malls and stadiums less effective.

I dont understand how this helps newer players with lower infra levels, wouldnt the best way to help them be to lower the number of improvement slots needed to max commerce?

How are you helping smaller nations by forcing them to buy more supermarkets to get the same amount of commerce as they currently have.

Unless i am missing something, currently a new nation to get to 100% commerce needs 3 Stad, 4 ShopM, 5 B, 1 SM. Under the new proposal, they will need 3 stad, 4 shop 5 bank, 2 sm. If anything keeping the supermarket bonus cheap punishes whales and large nations because you are forcing us to use up improvement slots for something that only increases our commerce 3 percent.

To get 100% commerce you need 1 subway, 5 banks, 4 malls, 3 stadiums when you have no projects. 13 slots all up.

Once you get ITC you need 16 slots for 115% (a reduction of 1 from what we currently have) and Telesat makes it 17 slots for 125% (a reduction of 2 slots).

I think you forgot about the subway being a commerce improvement?

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Posts posted by Keegoz

Colour Calculation Changes

Treasure Changes

Colour Calculation Changes

Treasure Changes

Important Information