Jump to content

Prefontaine

Members
  • Posts

    3970
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    122

Prefontaine last won the day on June 10

Prefontaine had the most liked content!

Retained

  • Member Title
    Stray Dogma

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Leader Name
    Prefontaine
  • Nation Name
    Chaos
  • Nation ID
    3767
  • Alliance Name
    Admin Alliance

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name: Prefontaine#5550

Recent Profile Visitors

12767 profile views

Prefontaine's Achievements

Legendary Member

Legendary Member (8/8)

9.8k

Reputation

3

Community Answers

  1. During wars it was more than 5 people. I'm sure the idea for GPWC started with a few people and then ballooned into the 1k+ that it was.
  2. Waiting on Alex. I've not heard from him in a bit, so I don't have any update.
  3. It’s a non-choice, the illusion of choice. VDS is far more beneficial than the fallout shelter, if you force someone to chose between them there’s no actual choice to make. More in line to an actual choice would be being allowed to have just an iron dome or VDS.
  4. Locking this thread. I'll talk with Alex once he's back in town and we will announce coming changes to Baseball after that. Thanks
  5. To give some context, the focus will be on how this impacts alliance warfare. The Goal: Reduce the global wars are won in the first day (barring many alliances joining later) Reduce the amount of times players have to sit on a nation effectively doing nothing but absorbing missiles/nukes Thus promoting players who win the war, actually winning wars. Those are the main two elements of what we'd like to address with the beige system. Currently through tactics it's possible to blitz someone down to low military and the effectively sit on them so they can't rebuild. This results in the winning side of the war not being able to win many of the actual battles to avoid beige. Allowing enemy's to be beiged allows them a chance to rebuild military strength and risk causing some damage to the winning side. The concerns are that allowing rebuild mechanics makes it "purely a numbers game" and that the smaller side, or less wealthy side will never defeat the larger numbers. While the smaller side rarely beats the larger side regardless, it does allow for the fighting stage of war to be prolonged and more resources to be used if the alliance chooses a strategy that isn't selling off all units and soaking up damage until the enemy is tired of kicking them. There's no current mechanic to stop alliances from playing the refusal to fight card. The concerns of a partial rebuild are that it's effectively the same as no rebuild as having 50% of your army likely means you're just going to lose the resources needed to make those and will be unable to do any significant damage. The original plan is to have test server tournaments with these different concepts. This thread is for general feedback. Gauging the temperature. Summary: No Change allows for blitzes to determine the whole war as nations can sit upon the defeated party. This promotes stagnate wars in game, but more politically decisive wars. The aggressor is often the victor unless they perform poorly or are attacking sizable outnumbered odds. Something in the middle allows for partial rebuilds. This will guarantee a break from the war, getting out of blockade, but only a partial rebuild of units. Players will come out of beige status with less than full fighting power and likely no rebuilds. Risks being tactically pointless. If your side lost of the opening wave coming out coordinated as a weaker version of yourself likely does nothing Full rebuild. Allows for the possibility of the side who wins the first round not winning the whole war. Allows alliances to coordinate meaningful second or further rounds of warfare. Sitting on nations stops becoming a predominate strategy. Risks becoming a "who has more" resources or members battle. Risks wars being longer as nations may continue to fight back as they can no longer be held down.
  6. Can we all take a breath for a moment and try to let some of the emotions settle to give way to a more meaningful conversation? Speaking for myself I can assure you, the only grudge I hold against baseball is having to have conversations like these. Do I think it's a dumb mechanic in these games? Sure. Do I care that it exists? Not really. Do I care that it's abusable? That's where I care. The thread started with some ideas about how to allow for it to exist, and how to focus the benefits, and I was definitely receptive to it. Belgium and I are on board with the no changes for X days after announced changes to allow for ROI for recent investors. Rather than spitting venom at baseball users or at those proposing to change it, spend the energy on finding better solutions.
  7. Last I looked it wasn't whales using it to the extreme. I'm fine making it a decreasing cap as well.
  8. What about a scaled cap? Something that say stops growing around 25 cities? Starts at being able to ear 40M per month at 1 city, and then grows by 2M per city up to something near 80M?
  9. Following items are scheduled to go live sometime at the end of next week: 3 Projects Embargoes Trade Navy Some QoL changes may come as well, but they are currently being worked on and the target hopes to be the end of June - early July on any lingering items.
  10. How much would a monthly cap look like in your opinion?
  11. For those unaware, baseball has several issues in terms of balancing with respect to the game. When used casually it is not disruptive, however there are some who do not use baseball casually. Here are the main talking points There are players bringing in over 8M a day playing baseball (240M per month) These high end players largely use bot assisted tools Recent game disruption (serve crashing) was a result of these tools. Some other points to note: Baseball is heavily used by some alliances as part of the military strategy for funding nations in blockade, or otherwise down and out in a war. I expect them to have a heavy protesting presence here. Baseball is not intended to be a core, or necessary mechanic in the game. In our solutions to how to address Baseball problems is that we don't want to burden the players who want nothing to do with baseball to have be essential to growth. An early solution to this was a proposed daily 5M cap that was much easier to reach. 5M per day is 10x the normal max login bonus, 10% of a whales income, over double a newish players income, and would be the largest single source of revenue outside of lucky raids. Anyone who didn't play baseball for this 5M would fall behind easily. Baseball is proposed to have the following changes: Daily revenue from baseball is capped at $1M Players age rate is reduced by 25% (retire more slowly) Revenue from baseball is increased 25% (makes getting to the $1M easier) If you're largely against these changes, please suggest an alternative that follows the concept of not making baseball a pivotal part of the game for income. I'm open to other ideas, but not open to leaving things as is. Baseball has become a growing issue that has more and more been met with a "Lets get rid of it" response. The idea is to avoid that, so a change needs to happen or it'll just go away at this point.
  12. Alliance war, one or two alliances versus one or two alliances. Sphere war, sphere versus sphere assuming there are more than 2 major spheres. Global war, Multiple spheres, or two spheres with several alliances outside of the sphere involved as well.
  13. Pinging Alex to send out the first round of fundage.
  14. Target is middle of next month. I appreciate your constant cynicism.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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