Jump to content

Sketchy

Wiki Mod
  • Posts

    2222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    95

Everything posted by Sketchy

  1. The temptation to put "Xmas 2024" in that timeline was great, I will not lie.
  2. Don't worry bro we are changing it for you. Beige is prime real estate.
  3. Well no, if you turn back the clock you'd be turning it counter clockwise smh.
  4. Seaweed Bloc strikes fear in the hearts of men.
  5. I: Non Aggression All parties agree to abstain from engaging in or endorsing any form of political, military, or espionage activities against their partners. II: Mutual Defence All parties commit to coordinating efforts and providing defence to each other against foreign attacks. III: Optional Offence All parties maintain the right to participate in offensive actions against other alliances at their discretion. IV: Intelligence All parties agree to share relevant intelligence concerning their economic, political, and military interests to each other. V: Cancellation All parties agree to give 72 hour notice before cancelling the treaty. All prior clauses are still in effect during this period. Signed for Singularity Prime Intelligence: Sketchy, Anri Neural Network: Abaddon, Keegoz Assimilation Directive: Tartarus Signed for Eclipse Commander: Vein MA Specialist: Pascal Tech Specialist: Putmir Signed for Weebunism General Secretary: Empiur Deputy General Secretary: Baam Signed for Dark Brotherhood Listener: Arima, Chezstick Keeper: ToxicPepper Speaker of Deception: Big Mac
  6. Well you have a future career in FA with a complete bs answer like that at least.
  7. I like the flag, although, I feel like you should have done it without putting the name of the alliance in it. That's never a good idea.
  8. Rarely do the implemented mechanics in this game ever work out as they are intended. As always the player base experiments through to the logical meta, which is usually not what was expected by development. The reality is nukes have for better or worse have become the primary tool with which a losing alliance can deal damage. Until a superior replacement is implemented, nerfing them in order to counter nuke rogues, a very small contingent of the game, is an incredibly bad idea. Also just to note, the reason nukes haven't scaled well over time, obviously, is the inflation of the games economy. I think you yourself would be familiar with it, Grumpy pretty much started the upper tier arms race with the meta you created. Would be far better to simply cap city count to curtail many of these issues I would think.
  9. As always, mechanics that improve guerrilla warfare in ways that make these strategies less relevant/necessary are always preferable. I don't inherently disagree with the 1000 total infra requirement, but it seems kind of moot. Would be pretty easy for someone to build 1k total. Hell at c40 that's like 25 infra per city.
  10. Currently, city builds can only be changed individually or all at once. The whole system to change builds is incredibly awkward and dated. The following suggestions can help improve this. Templates The solution is to allow players to save city builds as templates. This would ideally be done by allowing players to save an existing city build as a template, and then apply it in a drop down menu to cities. A visual aid of city templates Mass Import Tool A mass import tool that functions similar to the mass infra/land tools, allowing you to change a dropbox next to the list cities and import across all cities. A visual aid of the Mass Template Tool These two small quality of life changes could make the management of builds considerably less tedious, and also open up avenues for mechanics in that future that encourage diversifying your builds from city to city, to make the economic systems in the game a little more interesting.
  11. And this is the real issue. Food/Land is the only scaleable resource in the game. I'm a broken record at this point, but what the game needs is more longterm investments. We need more ways to build our nations tall, rather than wide. Even infra suffers from the same issue, there is an effective cap on maximum infra that exists, because generally speaking, the games war cycle happens in around 2-3 months. So only idiots purchase infra with ROI periods that extend much further than that. After c30, the ROI on cities is so incredibly low, you'll never see the money you invested back. The only reason to do it, is for increased military strength. Rather than constantly adjusting levers to fix the market, we should be looking at expanding and deepening the current economic mechanics in the game. They are so surface level that a single individual can manage 170 nations econ themselves, which is exactly what I'm doing.
  12. I think it would be best to allow the market to correct itself for a change, before tweaking consumption or production again. Some of the people hovering over the prices in the design team trying to pull levers to course correct need to relax a bit. The market right now is already super high, reducing consumption further will only exacerbate that. Even if we were going to course correct, not sure why manus need fixing, nor why we'd do it this way. Increasing costs is always the best way to approach this. --- Also the reason the food supply is so high, is the game has been at peace for a long period of time. Looking at the supply chart, during peace we generate about 50m food per day, and at 100% radiation, we consume about 50m per day. Politics can resolve that.
  13. If the last 8 years of game development is anything to go by, no. It always comes back to this whenever war changes come up. The only solution to the raiding vs fighting mechanics issue would be to completely divorce the two mechanics. Raiding should be a seperate mechanic from fighting. Many of the issues are simply baked into the foundation of the games core mechanics.
  14. Yes, and he called it a small change. Which like....bruh 100 ideas for retention improvement and we go with this. How about inbuilt game loans? So larger nations can invest in smaller ones with automatic transfers and less risk. Private corporations, run by players, so they can make their news and banking and merc and gambling etc companies. Or better onboarding with alliance tags etc so new players can find better fits for themselves alliance wise.
  15. Goddamn. I truly apologize for rolling House Stark all those months ago. It seems like it may have jolted your brain.
  16. *Sighs* @Alex This game's entire issue from a design perspective is it can't decide if it wants to be an individual or group game. The reality is the meta over the last 10 years has developed this game into a team sport. We need more interplay and teamwork in the mechanics, not less. A big reason war changes constantly got stalled or band aid patched over the years is because we have two separate games being played out and they have fundamentally different priorities. I would address the specifics of the change, but fundamentally I dislike them, and that's a whole separate rant, and I expect more than a few people will respond to that specifically. I'd rather address the core premise of your post. I think you are attacking this from the wrong angle, and the premise for why you are proposing the changes is inherently detrimental. Also, what is the design team doing right now? Is this a design team proposal or an Alex one? The design team has been doing a bunch of work, and going through various changes and making some progress lately, I feel like it would better if we allowed that to continue and didn't get too many of these surprise meta shifts.
  17. Singularity and The Golden Horde signs PentaForce. That will be all.
  18. NPO tried to do this exact thing and was punished this exact way. It's a known rule. It's literally listed on the website. 16. Protecting Alliance Banks with Vacation Mode or a New Nation Moderation Points Guideline: 25-75 Expiration: 2 Years In general, it is allowed to use Vacation Mode for any reason, including to avoid wars. However, the specific use of Vacation Mode in protecting the contents of an alliance bank from being raided is against the rules. If you are caught doing so, the bank will be promptly returned, with 20% of the contents deleted. If you suspect this is happening, please PM Alex in-game and he will investigate. Alternatively, using a brand new nation (less than 14 days old) to protect an alliance bank using their starting beige protection time (from new war declarations) is also against the rules. If you are caught doing so, the bank will be promptly returned, with 20% of the contents deleted. If you suspect this is happening, please PM Alex in-game and he will investigate.
  19. Actually I think I had some money there. Can you please send me my 10bn back. Thanks. I'll accept any mod points that may entail.
  20. I requested crayons and a coloring book for him but I am still waiting.
  21. You seem to be forgetting I was leading Paradise at the time. You are correct that you weren't plotting to hit Singularity at that point, because it didn't exist, but it's a moot point, you did plan to hit Singularities predecessor, you DID hit Singularity ultimately, when it merged, on the back of that plan. There was even a retroactive attempt to use the formation of Singularity and the numbers it provided to Florida, as a justification, completely ignoring the fact you were more than willing to hit Florida, with TKR/Grumpy AND CATA. I was establishing why I don't trust you by pointing to an example of when I worked with you in a coalition, and then you immediately plotted to target the people you worked with in that same coalition. You can say it was all about Rose all you like, but Rose didn't even front the coalition against Fortuna, nor the formation of Florida, I have as much of a basis to make that claim as Rose does, and given my role in the formation of that coalition, more so I'd say. And considering you just conceded that Rose has a leg to stand on, it's clear you aren't denying you chose to target us immediately after the war ended. I wasn't criticizing your desire to make an arrangement that benefited you. I was directly responding to the claim you "rescued us" and that we should be "grateful." You made a self interested decision to enter. We made overtures towards you before the war ever started, to which you guys turned down. That's within your rights, but the attempt to spin the events of last war as a "rescue" of a group of alliances who had already lost all their infra and been fighting that specific conflict for 2 months is laughable. We COULD have gone through with what by all accounts would have been long nap, sat out of the next cycle, leaving you guys to fend for yourselves. (Which, amusingly, is what happened here.), but instead we chose to fight longer in order to avoid a potential nap cycle being placed on all parties. I'm going to assume this is because you only became leader after the war, and so your involvement was limited. There was definitely discussion and counter measures put into place for the one glaring possibility you are alluding. And you are correct, panicked decision making did take place, but it wasn't ours. We had very specific expectations that were set, and when the chips were down, those expectations were not met by the parties on your side of the coalition. We didn't panic, we immediately responded, and urged others to follow through on the commitments they had made, but out of fear, they chose not to. So no, I don't concede that at all. My claim, from the beginning, is that there was an attempt, by Morf, to leave us behind. That is what he supported, that is what he wanted. And that is why he brought the deal only to Rose first, and pitched it that way. Had Rose agreed to it then, that's what would have happened. You say he brought the offer to Rose first, what you are omitting, is he brought the offer that included leaving Singularity/TFP in the war alone, to Rose first, and advocated for it. And he did a lot more advocating for it from what I have seen. This I find a little ridiculous. Your only grievance from us is that as you say, is malicious rumors. But those "malicious" rumors, are just the same accusations that I have made here. Essentially, you are mad that we are mad at you. You can call what I've said lies and smears, but when things started to get heated here, I approached you and offered to settle this privately. I haven't yet dropped any of the information on here to make my points, because ultimately, the only audience here that I've been directing this is you and your government. So here is my question, Do you want me to start dropping logs? Because being called a liar for the claims I've been making is, to me, a direct call out. And the only way I can defend myself here is to start doing so. I am happy to start responding, with logs, starting with every post Canbec has made, and then you, and then the random ass members of TKR and their various hot takes, if that is where we feel this needs to go. Or, we can deal with it privately, and you stop trying to argue points in public that aren't true.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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