Sketchy

Camelot + Camelotᶜᵃᵐᵉˡᵒᵗ = Camelot⁴

You know I've always thought I don't share my opinions enough.

I wasn't suggesting people wouldn't buy it, I was suggesting people would prioritize the order in which they buy these differently, based on costs. The maximum bonus for planes cap for examples is the equivalent of 4 cities, I could buy half those upgrades, then half the ground ones instead, and get the effective benefit of 2 cities, or I could focus all of my resources into planes only at increased cost. The order in which people buy them is ultimately what matters, as people will obviously continue to buy them as they gain more income. Using your analogy about PB, if PB cost 2bn instead of peanuts, you would definitely see a reduction in the amount of people who bought it, at an early game level. People would still buy it obviously but much later. Same logic applies here.

I mean, the idea presumably would be to buy some of the upgrades not all of them. Making the upper limit exorbitantantly expensive acts as a soft cap, which we really need on cities too. Cities don't give that much benefit either. It's like 1-2m income per city at whale tier, they primarily exist as buffs to military. Looking at the attached sheet, seems that would be considerably more expensive. Focusing a single upgrade costs considerably more than diversifying. I definitely think that will prompt different alliances/players to make different decisions regarding which upgrades to encourage/fund.

Coming in 2026 with the Ultra Expert Advanced Urban Planning

Speaking from experience, no. The way the game works, especially for majors the cost of actually milling up and fighting is a much larger expense than the actual damage from nukes. When we fought arrgh they did like 10bn in damages, but it was like 30bn in costs from income, and we were on lower infra relative to most majors now. Any major that gets picked would take 50bn easy assuming arrgh puts in some level of effort.

Don't worry guys, if it looks you might be the one getting nuked, just hit Rose to get your name removed.

Thank you for submitting your vote. I am afraid however us organizers here at Arrgh are unable to process your vote. Please resubmit with the proper format below: Alliance you wish to be nuked: Name of the alliance leader that instructed you to submit this vote: If possible, please attach any evidence, including discord logs, of the leader and their instructions to you regarding who should be nuked, this will help us verify that you are indeed a sanctioned voter, voting on behalf of your illustrious alliance. Hope this helped.

You forgot those silly suckers in Rose. Can you believe those fools actually bought 1 vote! And they were gonna win anyway! That's 50m! A c11 nation won't be getting c12 this cycle thanks to that silly decision!

Pretty sure the pricing is designed for majors. That being said if the price goes up i can't see anyone dumping money without a loss. Arrgh is going to do maybe 30-50bn in damages at most depending on the alliance. Votes are only going to consolidate more each round, making the cost to "win" the vote higher and higher. For most majors anything more than 15bn and you are better off just taking the hit.

Anri's head hit the glass ceiling.

Singularity is undergoing some significant changes in leadership. Anri, my co-leader, is retiring from leadership. Anri has been with Singularity from its inception and has made an immeasurable contribution to what we are as an alliance. His military prowess during global wars is unmatched, and he has had a hand in overseeing every war we’ve been in since we’ve started. He is one of - if not the most underrated MA figures in this game, as there is no one else you’d rather be on your side in times of crisis or in the pressure room when everybody else is panicking. When shit hits the fan, he is the person you can rely on to carry the alliance. Through time, his competency in every aspect of the game mechanics and his ability to make the correct decisions under pressure has been proven time and time again. Aside from his IC contributions, Anri has had a calming presence on all of us and was sometimes what kept us together through trying times. He is truly a rare gem, an absolutely amazing person to hang out with and the best friend you could ever have. The impact he has had on our culture will last forever, as he has shaped what it means to be a part of and play in SIN. We thank him for everything he’s done for us whilst in Leadership, and we wish him a peaceful retirement as the first Prime Legacy of Singularity. In his place, we’ll be promoting Abaddon to co-leader, to help lead the alliance into the next stage. Abaddon has been a vital part of our internal management as a second in command, helping to manage our IA department, assist with Econ, and help manage our Milcom during war. Abaddon will be stepping up to continue assisting both internally, and now externally in the management of Singularity in the future. With Abaddon moving up to leadership, our current FA Head, Tartarus, will be taking his place as our new second in command. Tartarus has been a fundamental part of our FA, working as my counterpart to push forward the objectives of our alliance. He’ll continue to operate in this role, with additional authority. TLDR: Anri retires, Abaddon promoted to leadership, Tartarus becomes 2ic, and you are still a !@#$ for not reading the full post.

The same community has also forestalled many good updates because they negatively impacted raiding. Again this has been an issue for 8 years, all the way back in 2016. Yeah and nothing in the above suggestion actually changes that. Being at "raiding" all the time vs being at war all the time is a semantic difference at best and would depend entirely on how raid mechanics worked, which would likely be decided by the input of the raiding community, based on the above post. It isn't talking about "fixing" raiding. Also Perks were a horrible idea, at least based on what I saw presented. They would have broken the game and left the dev team cleaning the mess for the next how many years. I'm not sure who balanced them, but they did a poor job of it. Don't you spend a good chunk of your time complaining about the whale tier advantage and how noone can possibly catch up? Poor balance is what allowed that to happen. A c3 raid meta that funnelled ungodly amounts of previously untouched funds into the games wealth pool, and inflated everything, creating new whales that then created an arms race between the major alliances, which then forced them to refocus their funding towards creating more whales, which has been spiralling ever upwards since. Personally, I'd rather the game get more econ updates, and rebalances, then focus on tweaking the war system for the 1000th time, but people don't all agree with me, just like they don't all agree with you. A lot of the problems with the game are fundamental, due to years of stupidly unbalanced updates. Hell we just had an update that basically existed solely because Pre's design team seemed to pick the prices of projects by spinning around 10 times then throwing shit at a wall of numbers to see what prices they should have. I don't disagree with the sentiment for new things, but saying absolutely no tweaks or adjustments to the game are needed/wanted is silly. And an entirely new raid mechanic, ironically, doesn't even fit the bill for what you are talking about. Honestly this thread kind of proves my point a little. Raiders have the opportunity to give input that could create a system that would vastly benefit them, much more than the current one does, not to mention the possibility of improvement over time to that system. Instead change comes with opposition, rather than input, as always. Yes obviously changing the mechanics...impacts the mechanical play. The irony here is all that is being suggested is a divorce of these mechanics to allow each to be improved and developed separately, without interacting and affecting each other. Which would resolve the issue of conflicting priorities in both systems.

You talked shit without knowing what you were talking about. Take your L.

SleepingNinja tryna be the new Firwof I see.

Because it's a game. Picturing scenarios from real life was your first mistake. The game should be balanced around mechanics, not around meticulous realism. You could find 100 other glaring issues with the game that way.

As I said at the time of it's proposal, 2,5x updeclare range was way too much. It's kind of ridiculous, you can literally updeclare on anyone now. I never saw the need for an increase at all, but if it's not being reverted, it should at least be decreased to 2.0x. I don't think the new projects need to be changed really. If this war proved anything, it's that they aren't that significant of a change to the meta. Not necessarily opposed to increasing the cost of nukes, but I feel like it would be better to increase the alum cost, which obviously needs more sinks in the game, than the uranium cost. 750 Alum > 1000 Alum would be better in my opinion.

In the 8 or so years I've played this game, one of the consistent impediments to changes that improve the war system is how those same changes would impact raiding as a mechanic. Actual substantive progress on improving war mechanics, held back because of conflicting priorities. Seperating the two mechanics creates an opportunity to improve both without making the other worse.

Hmm. I am unsure whether or not opening Navy up to hit other units is a good or bad thing. Game already is very rock paper scissors, units feel interchangeable. Perhaps it would be better to make them actual viable infra killers? Reduce costs to operate and build, and make them more specialized towards dealing infra damage. Perhaps give them special attacks for breaking controls? Like for example, 6 or 8 maps to break ground/air control. Something that gives them a more unique style, rather than becoming Planes 2.0 but less cost effective. I don't mind this idea. As long as the costs and bonuses are scaled properly, which would presumably be something that is hammered down later. I think small incremental amounts would be ideal, so 0.1% seems right. Obviously I assume they'd be a bit cheaper than cities. A 10% bonus to military (which it seems would require 100 upgrades) would be pretty significant, especially since I assume it would scale by city size. I think the main issue, is like cities, this needs some sort of soft or hard cap, and to prevent things from getting out of hand. Oh boy. Yeah I've been an advocate of doing something like this for awhile. Raiding and War are two mechanics that have in many cases opposing priorities. Having to consider how changes will impact raiding, every single time a war change is discussed, has held back both from evolving as mechanics. Separating the two out allows both to be worked on and improved.

Instructions Unclear, declared perma war on EVH and deleted the peace negotiation server.

I could always do what all the other majors do and ignore you. Would you prefer that? 🤣

I think you should make up your mind. You are complaining about a long nap between t$ and us, whilst simultaneously complaining about us also fighting them all the time. My actual point was that retention has little to do with the issue you guys are whining about, which is true. I think you just exist to complain. Start contributing to the game and doing something. For all your talk of farming, I've fought plenty in the past year. I've started multiple global wars. I am not sitting around with my finger up my ass complaining about the state of the game on deaf ears. Don't like the dynamic? You've had ample opportunity to step up and change it. But alas, as it is for many in the peanut gallery, you would rather sit in your alliance, an alliance which, I might add, has engaged in all the same things you are currently complaining about, and whine.

The decline in players in general has nothing to do with 6 month naps. There has been major wars during these naps, it's not as if the game has sat at peace for any extended time. People can literally look at the wiki or food charts and see as much. We have had 3 Global wars so far this year, 4 if you split the two ones we have just had. Player engagement is down because the lower tier meta is shit and filters out half the new playerbase, a meta that most of the people who are complaining about naps also support. Wars always drive players out of the game, peace is when you see growth and retention.