Sketchy

New nations provide shit all in terms of tax. Like pennies. Far more likely people will just drop them for the pure cosmetic bump in average score than waste their time shuffling them into a tax group to tax all 100% of their 2 dollars. You assume way too much. How alliances use this system will vary wildly dependent on whose running their respective econ departments and their agenda.

Well for starters I think basing your game mechanics around what "multis might do" is pointless. Multis are exploitative regardless, so the way to solve that should be improving ways to catch them, and completely independent of the game mechanics. As for the argument about alliances getting free money, I think that is a very limited view of what tax brackets are capable of, or how alliances generally use taxes in the first place. You bring up TI, but you used the line of logic I just pointed out when you brought out the food update. The two situations aren't comparable either. The reason TI grew and wasn't stopped was literally part of the flaw, it had a HUGE amount of members BECAUSE of the poor design of the treasure system. Tax brackets don't inherently encourage all alliances to combine into one alliance for profit so you are comparing apples to oranges here.

The question I pose to you is simple. Why is tax farming a negative in your mind? Shouldn't alliances be given more control over their own taxes, regardless of how they are used? If tax farming is deemed a negative, then players will treat it so and will punish it via the politics in the game. Set predetermined tiers doesn't allow for the control we might want. What if we don't want a progressive tax rate? What if we want our groups and tiers determined by some other standard? I think you should allow the leaders of the alliances to decide how they want to handle taxes themselves, independent of any arbitrary system you create. If the members have issue, they can protest or leave, if the other alliances think "tax farming" is a negative, they can use it as a basis for war. Just like you said in the radiation update let the politics decide how this system pans out.

Well we all know its the frontend he has trouble with. I have graciously solved this issue by doing 10% of the work for him. Now he has no excuses.

STEP 1: Add the tax options in the alliance edit page. STEP 2: Add a permission for who can assign tax groups. STEP 3: Add buttons to assign people into tax groups on the member page. STEP 4: Listen and believe. JUST DO IT.

Sweden. But not to stay, just for perspective, so they can realize just how worse it could really be.

No. If you wanted to get paid more you should have chosen a different career path. Plus I'd rather people teach because they want to teach not because it pays well. What makes teachers so special anyway? I can name 10 jobs that are twice as hard, just as important to society, and get paid less.

Mods should lock this thread and warn the poster. This isn't an "announcement"

*facepalms* The higher your infra, the more damage you take in VALUE. Higher infra costs more so its "more damage". How do you not see that?

The issue is it really should be a flat amount. Infra is already scaled in value. So why further increase damage by also scaling by percentage? The cost of infra already deters building too tall.

I mean, everyone does namecalling in this thread, I think the point is they call you an idiot and present facts to back it up, whilst you just use your insults as the entire basis of your argument. Anyway, I'm still waiting for Big Brother to tell me about the perfect communist utopia.

Yer if it was up to me I'd force everyone to use slack and delete our stupid forums. Forums are a thing of the past. Like IRC. Get woke.

Most of which is included in my counter-proposal. Wars would be 3 days. Instead of a race to win the war, it would be a race to do as much resistance damage, whilst maintaining as much of your own as possible. The system I suggested balances infra damage out better. All your system does is further screw the loser (and 10% is a HUGE difference), when they already would be losing from infra damage, since you've weighted things like nukes and missiles higher. My counter-proposal also encourages winning the war, but it also encourages winning the war by a large margin as infra damage and loot would be directly tied to the size of your victory. Also, what about raiding? Now all raids will effectively end in the victim receiving 10% of their infra destroyed, despite the goal of a raid to be to loot not destroy. Neither system does that well.

You guys still didn't get the memo about putting the images in the main thread so people know what they are voting on smh

That seems kind of counter-intuitive when the goal of this thread is to discuss the changes you proposed. I proposed an alternative that fixes some of the imbalances with your current idea in the same thread because generally discussion involves some sort of compromise and or counter-proposals. Just cutout the espionage part. Now it's not as significant. The idea of taking 10% infra damage off of people whilst also doing normal infra damage from attacks is just moronic. Wars are already way too damaging, this is just getting worse. The compromise I suggested makes closer wars damaging for both players, whilst larger victories are less damaging for the victor and more damaging for the loser.

I was thinking to complement the system I suggested above it could work like: The cap for spies is increased to 150 or 200 with a CIA. Instead of the old system of expending spies to do operations:Spies would need to be "embedded" inside a nation. Espionage would work similar to war, in that you need to declare an espionage attack on an individual, before you can use espionage operations again them. This would be silent. The amount of espionage attacks would have no limit, since the power would be in the spies. Embedding spies would cost Espionage Action points. An action to hunt spies would allow nations to kill a % of all spies currently embedded in their nation. Each spy would increase the % of succeeding an operation by 1%. Embedding 100 spies in a nation would give you a 100% success chance. Failure always results in your nation name being discovered. Since you only would get 150 (or 200) spies, you would have to decide where and how many to send out to nations, and the more you send out, the more EAPS it would use do so. Adversely, the more spies you have embedded in a nation, the lower the chance of succeeding in pulling them all back to use elsewhere. This could simply be an invert percentage, 99 spies = 1% etc.

I assumed when he said "the second they are built" he meant an automated bot that did so. My bad.

I have a compromise system that I think could work. How resistance and victory/loss should work Instead of starting with 100 resistance, all fighters should start with 1000 resistance. Instead of wars ending when resistance reaches zero, wars should end after the 3 day period. The winner of the war is the person with the most remaining resistance. The winner should receive loot, relative to the DIFFERENCE between the remaining resistances of each fighter. This keeps raiding a viable strategy by allowing people to still loot large amounts off of inactive or ill-prepared targets who aren't good at fighting. Both players take infra damage. Infra damage is calculated based on the DIFFERENCE between the remaining resistances of each fighter. The wider the gap, the less damage the winner takes and the more damage the loser takes. Normal attacks, including missiles and nukes, no longer do infra damage. Missiles should be made targetable to hit certain units. Nukes should do a signficant amount of resistance damage, but should made less economically efficient as they are effectively a trump card. Resistance should be expendable in order to do either more combat attacks or espionage operations. How combat mechanics should work ​Fortifying should be cumulative, the more successful fortifications in a row without interruption, the higher the fortification. (Capped of course) Interrupting a Fortification requires an impressive ground or air triumph. Ground control and air control should remain, but the advantages should be reduced dramatically. To counter this, ground control and air control should be shared across fighters. Furthermore, the more people who gain air control and ground control, the greater the bonus. This creates more cooperative and coordinated combat. How espionage should work The current espionage system should be completely scrapped. It should add strategy to existing combat mechanics instead of emulating them but at a smaller and poorer scale. Instead, espionage should play hand in hand with the new system. Similar to war, espionage should also have "action points" which regenerate every turn and allow you to engage in various operations. Operations should complement the current war system. For example: Small espionage actions could include things like increasing your defense against ground or air attacks, so that their damage to your resistance is lowered, or increasing your damage to theirs. These buffs would be hidden, and allow you to specialize your units to be more effective in a certain area, or buff them evenly. Since the buffs would be hidden, an action to check what buffs your opponents have could help. Larger espionage actions could include things like larger buffs, allowing you to catch your opponent unawares, or things like breaking your opponents air/ground control, blockade, or even gaining your own air/ground control. Anyway this is just a rough idea, and some of the espionage changes are a bit more ambitious, but even without those I think the general concept is better and allows for more back and forth strategy between opponents.

Answer ^ Reduced through every attack, so in theory one could lose every attack that one mounts but still take stuff? Or are results of an attacks important too? And of course credits aren't lootable.

Yer can this thread die already. Never should have gotten past the OP.

salty af

Isn't that against the rules.

I like the general premise. The balancing is just awful tho. A few questions/suggestions: If 10% infra damage is taken upon being bieged, do normal attacks still do infra damage?If so, this shouldn't be a thing, it's a terrible idea imo. If not, The amount should be flat. Higher infra amounts already means more damage in terms of cost, there is no reason to further screw that by also making it relative to infra amounts. If that also extends to nukes & missiles, it might not be a bad idea to keep it at 10%. For additional strategy, you should consider:Allowing resistance to be expended in order to do attacks if one has no action points. Weakening yourself at the expense of doing more damage to your enemy. Having the fortify amount increase each time you do it in a row, but have it reset on losing to an immense triumph. This would allow people to have a way to come back and take the lead if only slightly losing. Instead of reworking espionage, throw the current system out of the window and instead tie it directly to strategy with the new war system. Have an option to lower the effectiveness of your opponents ground attacks on damaging resistances, or increase your own damage. The espionage system would be better if it worked hand in hand with war and had its own Espionage action points instead of this silly "1 or 2 operations a day crap"

Next time you should consider having people post their nominations in a google form so its easier to compile. Not as fun when its anonymous tho

God not another "rename this improvement/project" thread. Subway is fine. Leave it alone.