- Popular Post
.jpg.f6b3f4433e314c16aa01f6308b5ef572.jpg)
Sketchy
-
Posts
2411 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
130
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Sketchy
-
-
1 hour ago, Odium said:
The only thing I am a bit confused on is the operational efficiency section on page 10. Perhaps after 8 hours of sleep I could make sense of the equation but right now it is not coming to me XD, mind giving a bit further explanation on that?
I probably should clarify that's a modifier on the existing operation bonuses.
So if a bonus is say, 2% food production, the final formula would be 2% * Operational Efficiency.
It basically scales from thr top 20 average (the value used to determine city costs atm)
Less cities than t20a = higher bonus
More = lower bonus
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I want to preface this post by stating that from what I have gathered from public posts and the recent gamewide poll, the design team is currently looking for ideas related to expanding the econ mechanics in the game.
While there are definitely other areas of the game that could also use attention, I am proposing this idea with that in mind.
Porting the entire concept to a forum post is going to be rather difficult as the design document I have written is 11 pages, so instead I'll simply link the google document for people to read.
If anyone has any questions or potential issues let me know in the replies I suppose.
Here is the link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cZhQPgYb6MJifHP0NhVFlcAxSgW4s8RRUFOlAAczZJk/edit?usp=drivesdk
-
16
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Well now that Rose has said Camelot should not be "politically isolate" it must be the case.
-
10
-
1 minute ago, Stanko1987 said:
If each military improvement gets a capacity reduction? Or i am just misunderstanding the whole idea 3 lol
If everyone's military gets reduced, then it doesn't matter. The main change in strength would be that it condenses ranges, but that's a good thing. It certainly would not negatively impact a c40, who is more or less smack in the middle of the current meta war range.
-
Just now, Stanko1987 said:
What happens to the strength of units and damage they are able to inflict? Will that increase to counter the units reduced? If Idea 3 was to get a popular upvote and it gets enough support for it to get implemented?
Why would the strength need to be increased?
-
6 minutes ago, Stanko1987 said:
I am happy with Idea 1 and 2 but please do not go with the idea 3 which reduces the capacity of units per military improvement i already worked hard enough to get to C40 to be able to produce the number of units i am able to produce lol
It...reduces them... for everyone.
If anything at c40 you benefit from condensed ranges. Nitpicking over the actual number of units is silly, it doesn't matter. All that matters is the relative number.
-
12 minutes ago, Stanko1987 said:
10 is an over kill considering how much the price of Aluminum and Bauxite went up
Once the older population of the game gets through the early research, all of the currently inflated resources will go back down. Likely not to where they were before of course, as there is now a larger steady demand, but the main reason the market is so high is military research is the largest resource sink in the games history, added all at once.
Alum will go up more relatively than others because it costs more, but Alum was by far the most inflated manu pre update anyway so it's more likely to just even things out.-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Ozwyn said:
Even if we ignore that this will increase average mmr just on principle of everyone is going to he fighting way more often and therefore needs to be milled more often, people are going to end up at war more often wars are currently costly as hell and rebuilding is equally as expensive especially alliance wars the cost of rebuilding alone is also going to make the increase in revenue from warring even less worth doing and generally is gonna harm everyone but pirates
Respectfully, you don't seem to understand what drives MMR, nor what the normal war cycle has been for the games history. MMR has nothing to do with people fighting more often. People raise and lower their MMR based on threat levels at the given moment, not based on how often they fight.
The above suggestion is only shifting the peace/war cycle closer to where it has been for the majority of the games history. Wars every 3-4 months were the norm for most of the games history, and we didn't practice higher MMRs as a result.
Everything else you have mentioned doesn't matter. You are acting like costs are an inherent negative and the development should be about minimising everyone's costs, which is again, ridiculous.7 minutes ago, Ozwyn said:Sitting and farming can absolutely be a playstyle especially considering one of the main current goals of the game is getting more cities, and its also often paired with playing the market and politics (but yknow maybe if we wanna make it even more of a viable playstyle the other aspects of the game should be fleshed out more instead of focusing on war for the hundreth time)
And fact of the matter is that all this does is make people wanna play the game less, fun fact when i interview most people to join my alliance they say their reason for playing is because they want to manage a nation and do economy shit, all this is doing is making those things shittier while forcing everyone to do a part of the game thats honestly also shitty because for some reason we refuse to just make the war mechanics engaging
Sitting and farming is doing more to kill the engagement of this game than anything else. If you want to align your playstyle to farming, you still can. There is nothing stopping a farming alliance from farming for 8 months, you'll just get less income. IF you aren't even playing competitively, engaging in the war system, then it doesn't even matter if you make less money, you are effectively playing a singleplayer game anyway.
Only one of us is advocating for interacting with one mechanic at the expense of all others. I'm the longest running active econ manager in the games history, I am very familiar with econ and the playstyle. But the game is more than just econ, and the politics has become so warped around it that it's slowly but surely killed a lot of the most engaging and interesting content in the game. -
57 minutes ago, Ozwyn said:
It absolutely will cause an impact, its going to actively change how people play the game, its 100% going to increase the average mmr for high tiers and mid tiers and the bonus doesnt even make up for the cost of that switch
Again, it's not likely to negatively impact anyone unless they've actively been avoiding conflict for over half a year. Otherwise it's basically completely business as usual.
This isn't going to increase average MMR either. MMR meta is based on time to max mil, and typically 0250 is the meta because you can get near max with a double buy.1 hour ago, Ozwyn said:Thats absolutely not ridiculous? Why are we trying to discourage multiple playstyles thats just gonna kill the game. For one this doesnt only affect players in alliances so this point isnt that relevant but also if you want to incentivize alliance wars just adding a decent econ buff would do just that. Also most NAPs last multiple months and the rebuilding from war usually takes a month at least youre just gonna start penalizing everyone who bothers to have a NAP.
I respectfully would not call sitting and farming for 12 months a playstyle. I'd call that not playing the game. The game development should be balanced and designed with the people playing the game in mind, not the people playing farmville in the corner by themselves. That mentality is doing more to "kill the game" than this would.
-
4 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
The way it is balanced in the op, unless people actively avoid conflict for over half a year, it's not going to impact much.
Is the argument you are making here that the game development should avoid negatively impacting alliances that avoid fighting for 6 months to a year? That seems rather ridiculous.4 minutes ago, Lucianus said:Idea 2: my issue with idea 2 is that, for an actor focused on econ, it makes more sense to prolong wars rather then declare more. The main bulk of damages in wars are taken in day 1-3, or 1-5 in some cases (the first round of war). This is especially true for the victorious side of a conflict, who barely takes damage after round 1. Let me take the Camelot conflict with Rose as an example; the main damage Rose received was received in the first 5 days, and in the 30-ish days afterwards, less damage was taken then in the first 5. We see this being the case in a vast majority of conflicts.
That means that, for perfect economic efficiency, it would be more useful to keep such a war ongoing indefinetely instead of constantly declaring new ones (way more costly). I do not wish to roll anyone out of the game, not even my worst enemies, so please don't make a mechanic where it is incentivized/pragmatic to keep wars ongoing (indefinetely).
Potentially, this can be (partially) fixed by an earlier siggestion in this thread: remove high stagnation easily and low stagnation very difficult, so that only a few wars are mandated.
I don't think it makes sense to prolong wars for economic benefit in the suggested model. The amount of income you lose from simply being engaged in a conflict, is going to eliminate the bonus for staying at -30, without even counting the damage you'd continue to take. It will always be more profitable to end the war, rebuild and take the 90 days of peace. Upon reaching -30, you have bought yourself 3 months without any penalty, which is plenty of time to grow off.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Keegoz said:
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
Fair point yeah. I would do 8 cities then. That keeps it in line with the capacity upgrades which are 4 cities. Something like:
- Soldiers > 2000 per upgrade.
- Tanks > 100 per upgrade.
- Planes > 6 per upgrade.
- Ships > 1,2 per upgrade (rounded down)
-
2 hours ago, Keegoz said:
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.
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.2 hours ago, Keegoz said: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
I like this and can't spot any immediate issues with it. Condensing the game a little would help future proof it a bit.
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Divios said:
and some balancing is probably needed as 2 from raid seems a bit too low, the high tier doesn't have a lot of wars to fight after the starting few days, at best, they'll be removing a month of stagnation after 6 month of NAP.
In the post it mentions defensives, so if you are getting slotted by nukes you'll lose plenty.
I just checked our war against TKR, plenty of people on their side had few offensives but many many defensives, and those defensives would presumably all be attrition. I definitely imagine this would all need to be tested in the live server and tweaked later, but honestly I expect if anything this might be too effective.
Ideally it should be balanced so you can wipe out 2-3months of stagnation in a single 2-4 week conflict imo. If you sit at peace for 9 months you probably should have to put in the extra work to get that back down to 0.-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Keegoz said:
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.
Only possible issue I can see with this is does it track at the time of war completion, or the time of declaration? If someone goes inactive after I hit them, I should still get the reduction.
Additional Thoughts:- You could also make it so fighting sub c10 targets doesn't reduce stagnation, and nations below c20 aren't effected by stagnation. Given how quickly nations can farm to c20 these days, it makes more sense not to penalize smaller nations and micros. Ultimately mid/upper/whale tier nations are the ones being farmed and are the ones driving whether wars happen.
- If you have a damage threshold and inactivity cap you don't need to make it per war type. Only reason to delineate between war types is to avoid abuse but if you tackle that with those metrics instead, then you don't need to. Which is better, because there are many viable strategic reasons why an alliance would use raid vs ordinary vs attrition in an actual global conflict.
-
4
-
50 minutes ago, leonissenbaum said:
Idea 2 - I like the idea of this, but in the current form this won't work. There's incentive to declare wars in-game, but no real incentive to actually do anything. If I declared on one arrgh nation every now and then, and worked with them to minimize damage, that'd work around this mechanic. To make the mechanic work, it'd have to be tied to damage in some form, so instead of 4 stagnation points due to an attrition war being declared and having no attacks, 4 stagnation points being awarded due to inflicting $40m in damages (arbitrary number) seems more effective. (Potentially not including loot, since otherwise it can be gamed? Though that might be rough for pirates.)
It does say in the post that they'll need to complete the wars, which I took to mean beige rather than expiry, so no attacks wouldn't work.
Still could be an issue of people farming nations though, but I can't imagine even Arrgh nations want to be eating beiges constantly for people.
Might need to have some other additional metric considered as well, but scaling it to damages directly might be complicated given that damages scale based on nation size. It could perhaps be a damage threshold? You could tally the cities of both parties and then determine a minimum damage threshold based on that, and then you'd only reduce stagnation if that damage threshold was hit. It wouldn't even have to be super high, just enough for it to not be conveniently farmed.
-
4
-
-
5 hours ago, George Clooney said:
You have 1,785 nukes and 122 members as on 6 July 2025. EVH has 125 nukes. TKR has 728. TFP has 337. TI has 416. We can discuss whether or not you are actually going to cap the number of nukes your nations hold (seems highly unlikely), but there can be no question that the number you hold now is significantly above average and noteworthy.
Yes. I was shitposting because he said the stockpile is growing but it is no longer growing lmfao
-
7 hours ago, ToxicPepper said:
Singularity’s growing stockpile of nuclear weapons has drawn our attention. While we do not believe these weapons will be deployed against Spectre, the increasing quantity raises concerns regarding their potential use. The uncertainty surrounding when and against whom these weapons may be used remains a matter that requires continuous attention.
It's not growing anymore. We hit our target.
SNN fake news.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Velyni Vas said:
This issue was handled privately, with Shadow Valley, and reps were sent. Diplomacy was already had between parties and this action was taken out regardless of dialogue and without any private touching base of Spectre. Just since it’s public and all.
Why are you spying the poor disenfranchised youth Velyni?
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, EpimetheusTalks said:
Comprehensive Non-Aggression Pact (NAP): Camelot requires a real, enforceable NAP covering direct and "proxy warfare", broad peace/security guarantees, and a recovery window of at least 6 (six) months to clear debts and restore its economy.
HAHAHAHA good luck with that bud
You broke the last one
Everyone else needs guarantees not you lmfao-
3
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
18 hours ago, Tyfighter said:When you all realize that roses entire plan was to get Camelot to disband by attempting to buy there debt through a extension or 3rd party alliance so they could break the nap by saying that Camelot is defaulting on loan rose has just been able to manipulate most of the community at this point
Unfortunately it’s blankly obvious MO did respond to the event but there wording indicates that’s no official representative attempted to buy the debt but a 3rd party alliance that’s heavily tied to them like valinor could’ve done it in there stead
Defaulting on a loan debt would not be grounds to void a NAP.
Rose wouldn't have been able to use it as justification to break NAP, anymore than Camelot can use this fake loan buying scheme as a justification to break a nap against TFP.
Also, the idea that an offshore, which is typically controlled by government members or people with trust within the alliance, doesn't fall under Rose is ridiculous.
If Epi was so certain Rose was intending to break the nap with some ridiculous loan scheme that no major alliance would look at and say Rose had a case, why did Epi hit TFP and claim it was part of the event, instead of hitting Rose.
Because he's trying to find any angle to justify what's he's done and each time one is thoroughly debunked he has to conjure a new excuse.
-
1
-
8
-
2
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I take full credit for badgering him for hours until he finally cracked and unwittingly admitted he can't prove anything.
Reminder: He broke the NAP and hit TFP. None of these claims ever mattered anyway.-
1
-
1
-
14
-
1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
12 hours ago, Firwof Kromwell said:Apparently ole friend, you're stuck as I've already talked you in DMs n rehashed here. I even asked you what I should do & I decided to.do what I've been poked at to do, blaze my own trail half careless of onlookers. You recommended I do so
I admit one thing, you did recommend staying out of diplomatic/public relations matters. I just couldn't resist the itch to stand to defend old friends between Cam & Buck himself. I'm saying what I can gather as true whilst not caring for all the excess noise as you put it. Your words against your words yikes...
Apparently, old friend, you're stuck in a loop—because we've already gone over this in DMs, and now again here. I even asked you directly what path you thought I should take, and in the end, I chose the one I was being pushed toward anyway: to carve my own trail, half indifferent to the crowd watching.
To your credit, you did advise me to steer clear of diplomatic and public affairs. I’ll give you that. But I couldn’t ignore the pull to speak up—not when it involved old friends, not with Cam and Buck both in the picture. I'm sharing what I believe to be true, cutting through the noise you so often warned about.
But here’s the thing: your past advice now stands in contradiction to your current stance. Your words are colliding with themselves. That’s not on me.
5 hours ago, Firwof Kromwell said:What's too assume we're not civil, not agreeing to disagree on a warm homely note? I still see him as a viable friend regardless of disagreement, has concern n criticque which I do appreciate. Gawd we can't be humanely compassionate regardless of differences anymore? Way to jump the fence before reading the apprehending signage again May May😆
keep it coming shmuckems 💋 the saltier you are, the wetter you make me.
Why assume we’re not civil? It’s entirely possible—and in this case, true—that we’ve simply agreed to disagree on a warm, familiar note. I still consider him a friend, disagreement or not. He’s offered both concern and critique, which I genuinely appreciate.
Funny how quickly people leap to conflict before even reading the signs. Whatever happened to showing a little human compassion despite differing views?
But hey—keep it coming, schmuckems 💋
The saltier you get, the more entertained I am.4 hours ago, Firwof Kromwell said:Ayyrite so nobody is allowed to make even continue to hold friends that disagree w/ each other every so often, got it. Not finding ways to settle disputes & seek forgiveness is now part of my mental inventory, I got chu homles 101% 😉
P.S. other ppls lack ofs are my problem not theirs, also noted
Ah, I see—we’re not allowed to maintain friendships with people we occasionally disagree with. Got it. Apparently, resolving conflicts and extending grace is off the table now. Noted, and added to my mental checklist. I got you, homie—101%. 😉
P.S. Seems like other people’s shortcomings are now my responsibility, too. Duly noted.
-
1
-
7
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
48 minutes ago, Firwof Kromwell said:Well hello there, I'm. not surprised but you know you can't talk like that cuz is be a phat lie, you know that 😏 more certainly so after what SIN pulled last war both ingame and forums was an HORRENDOUSLY UTTER DISASTER. That's also an obvious since SIN did contain most of the merge potential at 1st since it's the end of the merge list of all steaming from Soup.
You say that last part as you know better, it's the truth & you know it. More so after yall tried so hard to convince ppl to do what ya wanted last war, epic flop. Yalls mouths have been fluently recorded through the forums since that. Rose & TFP only come into the mix as TFP-TI have fluid history of dog piling together, more correctly using a secret treaty w/o paper multiple times, you know that true to. That is the same for Oblivion as they still defended Rose related targets, even from a diff sphere throu Spy ops & merc work, something that both Rose and Obliv are known for throughout the years in the backrooms.
Now tell me, how is it not that suspicious, especially this past yr alone, to have all those aa's separated by treaty yet untied by backrooms decks n motives. More than Cam exists of IQ aa's from npolt Era who also hold that post war disposition, why single out just one group while other aa's specially BK still exist w/ those core values from then still existing when I talked to them last(past few days).
Add on that anyone on the list, more so highlighted, further directly mentioned can easily be searched whereas you have one if the most seen/heard distinguished voice. All information I posed as evidence is at our figure tips both Discord and forums. When there's that much evidence throughout the yrs, I'm compelled to let ppl run aces wild w/ thoughts and curiosity like myself, even more to act direct on my resolve than espionage and merc-proxy
May I advise you put your posts into chapgpt and say "make this smarter".
Here let me do it for you:
Here’s a refined and more articulate version of your post that keeps the fiery tone while making it clearer and more polished:
Well, hello there. Let’s be honest—it’s no surprise to anyone that your statements are far from accurate. After what SIN pulled in the last war, both in-game and on the forums, it was an unmitigated disaster, plain and simple. Everyone knows that, and anyone pretending otherwise is just fooling themselves. SIN held most of the merger potential at the outset—no shock there, given that it was the final stop for everyone spinning out from Soup.
You’re trying to paint it otherwise, but the truth is obvious, and you know it. Especially after the last war, when you tried so hard to convince people to do your bidding—epic flop. Your words have been well documented across the forums since then. Let’s not forget that Rose and TFP’s involvement was hardly random, either. TFP and TI have a long history of teaming up, often through backchannel deals with no paper trail. And Oblivion? Still defending Rose-aligned targets, even across different spheres, through spy work and mercenary operations—everyone knows it. They’ve been playing this game in the shadows for years.
So let’s talk about this year. Isn’t it suspicious how all these alliances—supposedly separated by treaty—still manage to pull the same strings from the backrooms? There’s more than just Cam’s connections to IQ alliances from the NPOLT era—many of them still hold the same post-war dispositions when you talk to them now, even as recently as a few days ago. Why single out one group when BK and others still cling to the same core values?
And let’s be real—any alliance I mentioned here can be easily checked. Their words, actions, and even Discord logs are right there at our fingertips. With that much evidence built up over the years, how can I not let people chase their own curiosities and push their own resolves? There’s no need for espionage or mercenary proxies when the truth is already this plain to see.
Let me know if you’d like to tweak the tone or emphasize any particular part!
It still reads like nonsensical crack addict stream of consciousness drivel but at least I can understand it lmfao.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
Bro I have been trying to get included in a conspiracy theory all week but instead of getting Epi I get discount Epi.
Like 80% of the people in this list are literally currently in Singularity. A bunch of them have quit.
I wish I could argue with you over this but it's actually so mentally deranged it defeats itself lololol
-
4
-
Public Notice to TGH and AA
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
If the letter of the law argument is stupid, why are people advocating for all these additional conditionals to NAPs? Naps used to be a very cut and dry process. Arguing over the details of naps was not a widespread problem for most of this games history. It's only become a problem because people have consistently tried to shift or change the norms that had been established for years.
It's really simple people. Either naps are "Don't hit each other under any circumstances" or naps are conditional, in which case they need to be specific in order be enforceable.
I have been making this argument for what feels like almost 2 years at this point. People are being selective. You cannot adhere to the concept of the "spirit of the nap" when the fabric of trust has already been eroded due to consistently moving the goalposts on what the normative expectations of that spirit even is.
The reality is, there is now a great deal of ambiguity in what constitutes a nap break. This entire argument between both sides proves as much. If there isn't a consensus on the basic foundations of what a nap is, then the only way for naps to work is for the details to be outlined clearly.
What's more, everyone was given a rather clear opportunity to re-establish a standard and rather than doing so, further continued to situationalise and inject ambiguity. Many alliances have actively avoided the topic of re-establishing a normative standard, and the only logical conclusion I can draw from that is they prefer the ambiguity because they believe it gives them space to make up the rules as they see fit.
Things like this used to be something called a CB. Alliances used to do the proper thing, wait until the NAP period is over, and then roll the offending alliance. In this particular case, all evidence would suggest that EVH is perfectly capable of rolling TGH at a later date for this offense, and it's very probable TGH will have absolutely no way to stop you. Choosing to roll them during a nap, is a blatant testing of whether you can get away with a loose definition of said nap.
NAPs are not typical treaties. They are not, actually, mutually consensual agreements, in the same way a mutual defense treaty is for example. NAPs are always signed in a tense political state between two parties that typically have no reason to trust each other. Almost always, there is a direct power imbalance that allows one party to dictate the specifics of that agreement, and one party is often pressured to sign it under duress. Because of that, NAPs are rarely based on trust, and clarity is required for both parties to consent and for those agreements to be upheld. Once upon a time, that clarity existed in the general meta that everyone understood and accepted. Now that people have injected ambiguity into that process, the only way naps can work is for the letter of the law approach.
This could be rectified, if the alliances of the game came together, and established and agreed upon a new standard. But until that happens, and I find it unlikely that it will, the letter of the law approach is the only approach that can work.
Luckily for you perhaps, it seems that even if a nap is breached, the enforcement mechanism for how that is dealt with is no longer agreed upon either. So I expect naps as a meta will continue to erode before shattering completely before long. It will become harder and harder to enforce a standard that doesn't benefit a large portion of alliances, when it's not even being enforced in a way that protects those alliances. NAPs currently only benefit people who are already in positions of strength.