Jump to content

Roquentin

VIP
  • Content Count

    813
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Roquentin last won the day on April 7

Roquentin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1032 Upvote King

6 Followers

About Roquentin

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Alliance Pip
    New Pacific Order
  • Leader Name
    Roquentin
  • Nation Name
    T-Ara
  • Nation ID
    11527
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order

Recent Profile Visitors

2100 profile views
  1. Roquentin

    My last request after deleted my nation

    I said internal tension which can come about from disagreements in how the group should move forward and that can come up when some of its objectives have been met. One of the examples I used did not result in anyone fighting each other. The goal of IQ was to shake up the traditional politics and change the outcomes of wars. The specifics of coordination of internal development were no longer working when it was essential to keep the bloc in tact. I can put forward another split: so your previous sphere split up due to something and they didn't end up hitting you until almost a year later. I didn't say there needed to be animosity. People didn't think much of the war as there were plenty of feelings of rappochement between the two groups and I pointed out the initial hits in the war gave an impression of an intent to minimize infra damage. You could throw a war for fun if you wanted to, just people wouldn't see it as real if you could be perceived as holding back. You can work with anyone you want. If we were trying to get top sphere status, we could have enlarged our grouping a lot more rather than having 3 core alliances and the differences between the core and the outside alliances are pretty big, with many of the stats given to us including inexperienced entities or they count everyone remotely tied as a "for sure". There didn't seem to be any intrinsic motivation for this war be it in the sense you describe of power politics or animosity. I doubt they all rolled out to get SRD's revenge against CoS. As I said, a war for sport is possible. We just have no compulsion to hit any particular party. We never committed to hitting any particular alliances to anyone mentioned in the screenshot. If every time someone in one sphere maybe approached maybe one or two people about hitting someone else meant that there was some sort of coalition talks, then we could be implicated in any number of plans to hit almost any sphere. People found reasons to fight each other based on suspicion and plotting early on yes. Now this is the more weird part where it makes little sense for the post to get this many upvotes. I'm not sure how our sphere would match up to both KETOG/Chaos together. Pretty sure we're at a non-minor disadvantage there. So if you want us to dive into you both, it probably won't happen. I don't know where we said we'd hit TKR alongside BK or that we were going to roflstomp Chaos. When we denigrated the war, it's not only in lack of shittalk, because it had a lot more to do with the actual battlefield movements. I'm really not sure how it's enjoyable war for anyone except KETOG atm, but I guess some people enjoy giving KT 12b of loot. At this point given that Chaos is seemingly living up to its name, it might be time to reevaluate the concept.
  2. Roquentin

    My last request after deleted my nation

    I don't recall saying animosity or stipulating it. It's possible I used it here and there. I usually used tension or tensions as most of the historic bloc splits involved an underlying tension that wasn't always hating. Tensions could be like it being proposed that an alliance join a bloc but one alliance disagrees but are in the minority and leaves when the others insist. It usually was hate or distust though. The Guardiansphere was split wasn't due to anyone hating Guardian, but rather SK and Rose having had issues. The Syndicate - Paragon one had a lot of distrust and dislike between certain actors to give examples. I never saw a gentleman's agreement to split out of boredom without other FA changes as likely though. While some of the more ego-driven ones involved people disliking each other, some times the distrust followed a disagreement without devolving into pure hate. I didn't really see much reason for the TKR split for instance to have a real material basis as there wasn't any seeming disagreement and there were strong relationships between the blocs. Some people reacted negatively to feeling they were getting worked around and did their own splits without gunning for TKR. The alliances didn't really integrate into any other spheres. It was a Catch-22 since it was stated that people they were previously allied with wanted to stay together on a conditional basis because they feared being overrun by IQ. Many people also were hesitant to potentially alienate former upper tier partners out of the concern a consolidated growing political bloc would be able to swarm them so they were eager to insure that wouldn't be the case. I've never been a fan of the concept where people wanted to just remake the web without any real change in vision. The main reason people brought up lack of animosity with regards to the war is there were many instances early on where it looked like infra damage was being minimized along with rumors of being people being told to hold back to some degree. Even people in TKR like Micchan were saying they had no real motivation to fight even though you attacked them and thought it was pointless. Initial counters didn't have infra as the emphasis either. edit: So we see a ton of raid wars and ordinary declared despite militarization advantage with Chaos nations having ample time to evacuate excess resources, what is anyone going to think? Now we see some Chaos are just very generous guys and like getting looted unnecessarily and donating to the KETOG side.
  3. Roquentin

    Food Required for City Planning

    Yeah, there seems to have been an assumption with these projects that people would sell off the food or use it for the projects. I don't think it makes a lot of sense that people are expected to get 2.5m food for the Advanced one when it's close to being 500m on its own. It's a weird situation where the people who can drop 3.5m food without issue are the ones who won't benefit much from the 150m discount and it'd be surprising if Alex doesn't see the issue with how this project has turned out.
  4. Roquentin

    End off-shore banks for Alliances

    It's not a risk at all because most alliances move their stuff when they get raided. It's already easy enough to keep people and let them get beiged. Most people don't want their score bloated unless they're getting something out of it. If this was a real issue, it'd be easy to set the formula for the bank loot to minutes inactive of the nation getting beiged and 0 for the rest. Alliances already raid their members instead of giving them up for grabs when they have loot. The people that are actually dedicated to raiding expect to get countered when doing so. There's a death of unprotected raid targets as is. Right now, all it does it mean if someone doesn't make a bank alliance or have a different one to send it to, is they get looted. That's it. It's an unneeded hassle and benefits mainly people who don't have to frequently shuffle it, which will be the ones who are on the winning side short of really bad mistakes like declaring and getting beiged due to overconfidence. It happened on the losing side with Reaver too. In addition to the strain of fighting everyone, it added the unnecessary insult to injury by costing them that much. Even if they felt it was down to Reaver's inattentiveness, it was still a huge blow to an already defeated group. What if someone had made an AA and then they weren't able to get online? You'd say it's inactivity, but losing billions because of an emergency event would be ridiculous. It is far more likely that an alliance that is losing will lose more of its bank to looting than one that is winning. They either have to continuously make more alliances or put it on beige nations. It's essentially a system that is mostly circumvented by those with the best position to do so. Most of the incidents where bank looting led to big loots was when someone moved it to a specific nation to avoid bank looting and the alliance was unable to counter. This is a gray area and Alex has to intervene and investigate each time it happens, so it's not exactly a positive phenomenon. How would it end piracy? Most raids are based on getting the 10% of resources/cash as loot from the nations. The main times where banks are looted in vast numbers are the cases I outlined above and I gave a compromise solution to discourage keeping inactives. If there's some perceived right to easy loot from booted nations, however, then it would make far more sense for Alex to code in some pinatas that spawn on none once a day than the current system where much of the viable inactive loot is already secured via hits by other members of the alliance if people want targets on none that carry no risk of counters.
  5. Roquentin

    End off-shore banks for Alliances

    Yes, this is a big part of why they're bad. It's just introduced a lot of different ways of hiding and people trying to do what they can to squeeze into the rules. There's no reason for the function to be in place. It's usually been unnecessary extra spoils of war for winners except for some incidents. A wealth transfer from those who are getting beat down to the winners is counterproductive.
  6. Roquentin

    Fixing the war system

    Yeah. Cash has fallen behind resources significantly and purchasing power of many players is very limited due to lack of cash but they can produce resources at the same rate but it's not enough to have enough to buy the ones they don't produce at a level where prices don't crash. It's ultimately an issue on the demand side rather than the supply suicide.
  7. Roquentin

    Mass Infra Buying

    Well, one of the bigger complaints people have is number of clicks to do something. Seeing as how people are using mobile more often than computers, limiting tedious clicking would go along way to improving user experience along with UI improvements and more RP elements in-depth national policies.
  8. Roquentin

    Increased Costs to Build New Cities

    A major issue and a reason you're getting objections is this doesn't change the fundamental issue surrounding the game: with no other gameplay mechanisms to invest in people think cities are the be all end all. There need to be tangible ways for people to play without city buying as a goal. It makes the game very narrow that everything revolves around city accumulation. It's unlikely a large percentage of the player base will get to a level where it's super expensive like 1b to pay these costs, but the meta that hasn't been reined in tells them they should act as if they can some day get there. Everyone is a temporarily-embarrassed 40 city guy or they don't care that much about growth. Everything is tied to building more cities when it doesn't really make sense to give such a central role to a goal most players have no chance of ever reaching. I propose as a start to make a trade off between cash income/projects and larger cities/resources, but cash income buffs requiring raw resources to buy. This would be comparable to Norway and Singapore having money disproportionate to their size but having to import things not available there. Right now this game might as well be named City Buying Simulator + War. So here's an alternative rather than using raws for purchase costs, use them as maintenance costs for cities above 22. If the total number of powerplants exceeds 22, then the resource costs listed above apply as daily maintenance. Additionally for every hangar above 110 count, an upkeep cost of 250 gas is applied. Someone buying a lot of cities could choose to just max out raws if they didn't want to pay the costs but it would begin to get expensive to do the typical high infra, high resource, high commerce builds. Halve infra reqs for projects and make some projects be able to have multiples . Someone below 5 cities could raid their way to buying 3 Silicon Valleys for 900m which would raise their cash income to 10m a day. For people below 15 cities, they could get two urban renewal projects valued at 100m and 5k of reach raw, each would add a total of 500k citizens. They would stop working if they reached 16. Add a Highrise project only available to nations that are below 23 cities that adds 300k citizens to the population but stops working if you go above the city level. 200m and 10000 of each raw resource. In addition, another one named Sovereign Wealth Fund that increases gross income by 5% which would cost 10000 of each raw and 200m. National Draft Office would add the same amount of military a city can but you'd only be able to buy one every 3 months at 200m and 10k of each raw resource. We can fiddle with the exact numbers and potential projects, but introducing alternatives to city buying would go a long way to solving the issue and having some sort of drawback to continuous expansion was a concept you had right with Statekraft.
  9. Roquentin

    SNN-Hungry Hungry Hippos

    I would be glad since if there was one alliance in each sphere doing it, it would go a long way to depoliticizing the subject. Right now it's just GoG and Yakuza that I know of adopting it fully.
  10. If you're not able to take the tanks/ships down to a significant level, people can double buy out of range of even updecs depending on city counts. It happened fairly often in Trail of Tiers. So there end up being a few ways to rebalance it: increase updec range and decrease max buy capacity and make a mandatory gap between rebuys of units.
  11. The soldier change makes sense. To nerf aircraft in a general sense makes it pointless to fight anyone bigger than you. The large updec range was put in to facilitate a situation where larger players could lose and not have it be like other games where they are OP. The reason updec works is because the aircraft rebuy takes the longest. To impact that means there is no point in having a large updec range and whoever can field the most units/has the highest rebuy wins absolutely and is untouchable unless they go out of their way to fight similarly sized nations. 50-150 planes being lost when rebuys are limited is problematic given if you're fighting someone or several people with a significant city advantage, a double buy ends up being a killer. The other proposal of losing 10% of air to 2 IT ground battles also is as ground is easy to win for bigger nations. It would be extremely risky to declare on more than one person in that scenario. As Thanos pointed out, using aircraft means you lose copious amounts of infra and usually some resources via beiging so it's already fairly balanced. In a previous war, the opposing coalition touted the loot stats from beiging. The morale aspect of people associating beiging with being good also plays a role. Unit damage is important but it's not usually viable to completely wipe everyone's units if they're smaller than you, so the goal is typically to get rid of the units of people that can get into range and make them lose more money than you by continuing the conflict.
  12. Roquentin

    SNN-Hungry Hungry Hippos

    The real question is who is on 100/100 in TGH?
  13. Roquentin

    Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?

    Symptoms =/= Cause Imagine if there was a certain material required to progress past city 10. We'll call it unobtanium. It is only profitable for nations below 10 cities to produce it. If you produce it at 10 or above, you will be running a huge loss and not be able to get anywhere. The material is only obtainable via a mechanism that makes it take 20 days to fully deliver and the seller has to manually send it to you twice at ten day intervals. Your ability to grow and your destructive capacity are wholly determined by how much unobtanium you can accumulate. You can also lose it too and you will lose the cities you bought with it as the unobtanium is required to sustain them. Most players who want to play long-term try to grow out of the city 10 range but find few sellers of unobtanium relative to their demand. This means it requires a decent amount of individual initiative to find the salesmen for it if your alliance does not recruit or have a contract with an alliance that does. Even if your alliance does recruit, as most people are trying to get out of the city 10 range because they want mechanical progression, any supply is temporary and contingent on additional new players joining the game. This also goes for external acquisitions, as a healthy population growth is required to replace the previous salesmen who move onto becoming buyers. Population growth slows over time and comes down to a trickle and at a certain point falls well below the replacement level and exacerbates the situation. Most people who began the game as teenagers or college-age with it being a large percentage of the playerbase decide to dial back their activity meaning even less people actively pursuing the unobtanium salesmen proactively when not many had before increasing the gap between those able to obtain and not. The game lasts for an additional 10 years with these trends continuing. There end up being two solutions: one is someone takes on the administrative burden of finding the external salesmen scarce as they are. Most external salesmen sell at much higher prices which mean you will obtain half the unobtanium you used to a month as you'll only get one shipment after a 10 day interval and then you'll need to pay again and wait another 10 days. There are two ways to get past it: the micromanagement approach where a government member seeks the best rate sellers compulsively and the other is having at least a 1:1 ratio of people who never stop being salesmen and don't go past city 10 fueling a wealth transfer to the other sector of the alliance. Most players are unwilling to give up the unobtanium they already have and either don't recruit or can't recruit enough people who can be convinced to remain as unobtanium salesmen at favorable rates to the bigger people. The alliances that do have this benefit end up having the newer players and people who remain as permanent salesmen funnel the unobtanium to the other members who grow at an exponential pace to radical heights and end up being way ahead. Many players quit over time for a variety of reasons and don't see a browser game in their long-term outlook, but many who stick around are playing it as a primarily single-player game where they check in on their stats or admire their join date occasionally. As most alliances never kick anyone out and the culture of avoidance of booting people for inactivity is prevalent, no one does so. Another culturally prevalent thing is to keep an alliance going past the point of it having sufficient activity due to a historical legacy or it being a service to the players wanting to continue to play inactively. Disbandment is seen as failure and no one wants to be the one who disbanded their alliance. Few new players join and as the only way to have an impact on the game is to be someone's perpetual unobtanium farm or be a high government official, but since most alliances are inactive, there's very little potential maneuvering to do for the remaining chiefs who no longer have the warbands they used to at their disposal and play conservatively and the scope for potential action is limited, making it even more pointless. Most alliances continue to lose large numbers of veteran players due to them forgetting to log in past a certain point and when war comes, they are too lazy to do much and it incentivizes more to quit. Fewer and fewer new players join with only a couple of alliances having the staff willing to service them. Nothing about the mechanics ever changes and the admin team is aware of the trends and is at peace with them as the game is not a focus as they did not project the game to last as long as it had.
  14. Roquentin

    Boring game.

    The reason is this type of game isn't lucrative enough for a team of professionals to be employed, so a real company isn't going to make one like this. The main downside of that is the person who makes it is usually a hobbyist who manages to get a playerbase so it's not someone who can put out a phone app right away. Most of the other games had admins that realized that it was nothing compared to other potential opportunities(e.g. Project Terra's and Lunar Wars'), so they pulled the plug on their games. The game that was the flashiest in the genre(nationsgame) was more professional but had a lot of glitches that turned people off and there's what happened with steps to war where it was somewhat professional but a disaster and it wasn't the only money-making opportunity for them. Erepublik is fueled by rl nationalism a lot of the time and donations giving you a huge advantage. To Alex's credit, he's at least somewhat involved in the game unlike the CN admin, but the issue is he's divorced from the real gameplay and his activity isn't at the level where he'll make these quality of life improvements or be able to add content. People are donating anyway and he wanted to prioritize his grades. You're totally right that there should be built-in functionality that is sorely missing(like the calculations/bulk infra/etc. and more content for players that isn't contingent on saving up money or resources over time). Right now people that have IT guys have a huge advantage over people that don't and relying so much on the community to provide hasn't always been great(see site slowdowns/api clamp down). So when someone who isn't technical wants to do something, they have to find someone. Even many people that know how to code don't want to do it for a game especially when their programs can easily get broken. A lot of mobile players get turned off by all the manual stuff they have to do. I've advocated for the UI to be changed and for more government-type content to be put in like right now we just have the questionnaire that sets you to moderate/fascist/etc. but it could be a lot more. Approval rating makes no sense as is either and could be tweaked significantly. We'll have to see what he does this summer in terms of his planned interventions. For every potential good change, it's feasible something else gets severely unbalanced.
  15. Roquentin

    Enable Alliance Leaders to Set Embargoes For Members

    Basically, I don't get where this notion of individual sovereignty comes from conflicting with something automatically imposed like the embargo. If people wanted to be able to determine their alliance's policies, surely democratic alliances would be more prominent. People choose to pool their sovereignty under the government on other hand here. This is because it is not an individual nation game. It's an alliance game as Sketchy said. If you want it to be an individual-oriented game, then you should have not introduced alliances to begin with and limited cooperation between nations based on geography or something else. As long as cooperation is needed, people will unite and forego individual autonomy to some degree. The embargo isn't any more imposing than an alliance color or application process. There are plenty of non-mechanical things you can introduce to increase individual playability as RP aspects keep people animated in other games. The government types have a lot of potential. Playing as an individual nation is suited to single player games or short runs, not collaborative browser games where people are reliant on each other.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.