Keegoz

I think the game has plenty of villians rn, and they differ depending on what side you are on. People don't go build blatant hegemonies because people are hyper-aware of them now and will snuff them out before they are completed. Thus if one is being built, I doubt you'd know about it until it was basically already here. I actually think the game is far more alliance-centric than people want to believe and most alliances are out here to ensure their own goals/gains. Spheres are merely built to help in acheiving that.

Can't wait to do it for a third year in a row next Christmas!

Just fyi, Kadin started playing this game from basically the beginning. 2013 crew represent.

If you're at 'You mad, bro?' as your argument, then I'll take my W and go. I certainly won't take lectures from t$ about letting something go though lmfao.

You can barely remember conversations or events from last month accurately. Keep living in your fantasy world Wana.

You really just cannot stop yourself from lying. You have not taken the high road, nor did you stop yourself from leaking (I've caught you trying to do it multiple times in backrooms). You had hours to ponder our proposal of a hit and were active in brainstorming on it. No one should trust anything you say at this point. You're making yourself a fantasy.

I wouldn't mind an in-game lotto personally

Don't act like that is a recent thing lol

You do realise we do not code right? War changes are almost universally disliked by everyone. Only thing that unites the community is that the current system is shit and then whenever you float an idea, we get people who cannot agree on how to change the system. Even this thread has people divided. For what it is worth I have always agreed that the older war system was a better template to tweak from than what we ended up with. Point is, the game owner has no desire to ever back track on it afaik.

You're right, it wasn't an even war.

How dare we not run the alliance like an anime as he suggested. Then we'd have the power of God and anime.

"We asked them what their CB for joining was. We asked them what the benefit to joining was. We received no solid answers, basically only being told "We want to" and soon after we were told "We're going in."" Do you also want me to leak where you were helping us with CB ideas? Or that you also entertained ideas of joining as well.

I suppose if you're going to lie, might as well show it.

What they meant to say is "We run away from all fights". They don't have to be good or bad.

I haven't lost since before NPOLT :v

I'm not mad, just disappointed.

Telling that bloc to militarise and watching them not do so.

Sorry @hidude45454 for making you do more work.

Cataclysm has for too long been sitting idle. We've looked for opportunities to have a fun, interesting war and believe one has presented itself. Apologies to those who will get upset by this. Cataclysm hereby declares war on those involved in the Midgard offensive war.

Just to give a bit of an idea of what the loot modifier would could look like, this is something Village came up with: Came up with a modifier for beige and ground attack loot based on relative city count, it'd only apply for the folks who're only in range because they're inactive. In essence, the modifier makes it so you make less money as your city count increases, meaning you're not drying out targets so much and you're also not going to have such a drastic falloff from C15 to C16, meaning there's still a benefit to building mod = max(min(1 - (your_cities - enemy_cities) / 15, 1), 0.2). The modifier is minimum 20% of loot you'd normally get, decreasing as your city difference changes. Other possible formula is max(min(1 - (your_cities - enemy_cities) / your_cities, 1), 0.2)

It is where the lower tier projects are currently aimed at. The end of the Resource Production Center and just before AUP. There is a chance it could be further tweaked but you have to draw the line somewhere and given there is (sorta) one already drawn we went with that.

Based on both polling results, thread discussion and dev team discussion we have put this together as a more formal proposal on changing new player gameplay. This is following on from the previous thread revolving around changing new player gameplay and catch up mechanics. You can find these discussions/results here: Below you can see some of our thinking behind each decision. Extended new player revenue bonus 100% bonus for C1, decreasing by 5% from C2 to C20 (C2 will have 95%, C20 will have 5%) We made this decision based upon the thread discussion on the reduction of revenue for each city. That being that if it decreases by 10%, the revenue gained by the new city is wiped out from the bonus drop. If you wish to look at projected income based on the different bonuses you may do so here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xYJJNs35AQeBvNcHt2L6lQvqaoXJOFMONpMzBVkQUYk/edit#gid=0 Increased login bonus Increased login bonus - 3m You lose two steps if you miss a day Increased login bonus - max daily increase (100k) Increased login bonus - max new player bonus 2x (no change) This is mostly from the poll, with at times us making decisions based upon the middle option between often 'no change' to 'max change'. Losing two steps on log in progress, rather than all progress, was discussed both in the thread and as game devs. Raiding and inactive nations Raiding and inactive nations - C15 and below can declare on any inactives below their score Didn't want to open it to all tiers as we were concerned that larger nations may actually begin to benefit from this far more than any new player. We're also unsure at this time on how it will play out and want to see it in action in less consequential tiers before potentially expanding at a later date. A loot modifier will be applied to nations as they increase in cities to reduce a c15. Raiding will hopefully supplement nations growth as they move from primarily raiding at lower cities to shifting towards farming if they so choose. It also eases the massive income loss that we currently see from when a c3-5 stops raiding and begins to build up. This loot modifier will have its own mini-thread to determine how this should be calculated. Inactivity Poll We want to ensure that we are on the same page on inactivity. We feel it is reasonable for the above to take place if the nation is 14 days inactive. To ensure that people who dip out of VM for a few hours aren't automatically then raided we have proposed a beige timer be placed on people who come out of VM for 24 hours. This however is not set in stone as a decision, please vote in the poll above. - VM comes with 24 hours of beige - Inactive is 14 days Possible Concerns/Solutions: This largely came from the thread but also between me/Village reviewing a few things. We have somewhat spitballed some ideas to potentially overcome the issues however it is likely that we will keep these in the back pocket to be used if the concerns play out. Inevitably with changes, we're going to have to 'wait and see' before acting. Creating solutions to issues we aren't 100% sure will occur isn't something we wish to do right now. The loot modifier however is likely to come with this change and will get its own thread. Oversaturation The main concern here was that if we expand raiding that the amount of ‘good’ raid targets will dramatically decrease. Some possible solutions are below: - NPC nations - Nations specifically designed to be raided and give loot. They may or may not have specific challenges in the war to get ‘better’ loot. This idea would be the one that needs the most tinkering but it would be interesting to introduce and perhaps expand them into other tiers later on. - Buffed production bonus - New nations have a buffed production bonus at the beginning of the game to provide more loot to raiders. - Project for lower tiers to grant something for successful raids (e.g. 2m for each successful raid war) - Takes the focus off specific nation loot as much and allows lower tiers to grow despite their targets. - Loot modifier so the farther down you declare the less loot you get, only applies to nations not normally in your score range. No incentive to move on to higher tiers - Loot modifier will hopefully deal with some of that. There are already some incentives to move up anyway but introducing more ‘mid tier’ projects may help to encourage players to move up. Please offer any feedback or ideas. If you need us to elaborate on our decision making further, please ask!

I wouldn't mind a slight rework of the cost. Whereby the cost of buying UP/AUP/MP in total is the same but UP/AUP are made cheaper with the bulk of the cost moving towards MP (and possibly whatever other project that comes after that).

It really isn't that complicated imo.

Just like to echo Village's sentiment that we're quite appreciative of the feedback. There are defs some issues brought up that neither myself or him thought of. We have a bit of a list going atm on what to address and will tinker with the proposal a little further. Please keep any other feedback coming that has not already been mentioned though.