Prefontaine

As was said, you can create and upload your own. Locking thread.

What about changing fortified to allow ships to aid in defense?

I have 9/10 projects and I want to buy the missile pad project, but I also want an iron dome. I can only get one of those two. Instead I buy the RnD Center and am now at 10/12 project slots and can buy both the dome and the missile pad.

Great. Time to get my next update list ready to go and accumulate more downvotes!

It all makes sense now. Also I unblocked your post for this occasion. Congrats.

The point of these changes to remove beige cycling.

With feedback we have scratched off points 4 and 5 in the OP. 1-3 will remain and be implemented into the test server for a future tournament when Alex is able.

You quoted the answer, no one is forcing the alliances to rebuild and fight back. They don't have to throw all of their resources into a war, they can sit and bide their time for the next war just like in the current system. Only with this change, they will now have the option to fight back if they choose and deem it worth the cost to rebuild the alliance army.

Well, then Sphere B gets a 2 day notice of what's coming and can plan accordingly, or they can quickly team up with C to fight A because of that notice as well. Sounds.... Dynamic.

Allow me to be blunt. The largest complaint about wars in this game stem from the fact that wars are decided in the first day or a war and that when you're the winning side you need not win a war. This is what this change is addressing. Wars will end with a victor and the loser can have a chance to rebuild thus eliminating the wars being decided immediately. The complaints that wars will be less frequent - I'd rather see 50% less globals in a year if it means those wars don't have the above problems and are more fun. Leadership and active players, who are largely the people who will post in these threads, may be okay with cycling because it's easier than planning multiple blitzes but players do no like sitting there and doing nothing in a war. At least if the war is a dogpile the winning side is having a bit more fun versus sitting there idling and getting nuked/missiled. It's just a resource race now - A dogpile will still be a dogpile. Nothing will prevent you from selling everything you have and curling up in a ball until their tired of kicking you. What it will allow is that if there's a chance for a side to turn the tide, they now have the window to. Will it cost them more resources? Of course, but this is where war resources are supposed to be used, in war. That this method doesn't require skill versus cycling - Please. If you can cycle even 50% of the side your fighting remotely well enough you're fine. People slipping through cracks doesn't turn the tide. If anything allowing a side the chance to muster and another side needing to defend requires more skill/planning/execution. That this will only cause dog piles - If mechanics that allow the blitzed side a chance to come back in a fair fight stop nations from going to war that's on the player base. Don't expect me to create mechanics that grow you a spine. Players only engage in wars that they have no chance of losing, then that is solely on the players.

No one is forcing you to rebuild and fight back, merely giving you the option to if your side views it as a valid option.

First, happy to have new faces on the team. Are you asking to join? 1/3 - If a side can turn the tide, great. It makes the war more interested. It's also then possible the tide can turn multiple times. 4- Pirate concerns are not high on the list when compared to balancing global war mechanics. Again it simply reduces casualties and not the outcome roll on the war victory type. 5- Would be a strategy, but you're also letting people know that a war is likely coming soon if a sphere does it on mass.

They do. Again, reacting to team concerns regarding it being too easy for a defeated side to come out of beige coordinated and counter blitz. If the members of the dev team who had/have these concerns want to address them I will let them.

Also while I have peoples attention regarding beige, please check out this thread and vote for spying during beige.

Currently spy attacks sent or received aren't impacted by beige. Should they be?

Again, I don't want to put words in peoples mouths. The argument about limiting counter blitzes is not mine. The concern expressed was if a side gets the upper hand in their opening blitz, it shouldn't be too easy for the defeated side to rally and perform a coordinated counter blitz. Ideas like restricting when a nation could come out of beige (past suggestions) were concepts floated to remedy that.

One of the strongest resistances made from @Lucianus is that it should not be too easy for nations to come back after the first round and take out the attackers. If he wants to argue his point here on that topic I'll let him. The 10% reduction is something I'm more than happy to remove, but was added with those concerns in mind.

Wars that can last over a month being decided in the first day where the winning side doesn't win the physical wars and has to sit there doing nothing is not a good system, nor is it fun.

Before I get into the changes, lets just briefly discuss what function beige is supposed to be, and what it is in the current meta. Currently beige is something you want to avoid letting your opponents get in a global war. It results in what should be the victors moving the war to expiration to cycle the defeated party. What beige should be is a means for rebuilding after being defeated in a war. The current plan pulls from previous concepts that were well liked at the time and has a focus on simplicity, which was also requested at the time. All wars end in beige. If the war would expire, the nation with the most resistance win. If the resistance is tied, the win goes to the defending nation. If no attacks happen by either party in 20 turns, the war ends. Beige timers do not begin reducing until all defensive wars have ended. If a nation leaves beige early, their units are 10% less effective in offensive wars for 12 turns. If a nation wins a war, that nation can produce an additional 25% units for the remainder of that day. This number stacks but is always calculated off of the base 100% unit production levels. Points 4 and 5 stem from wanting to allow offensive parties some edge if the win the first round of wars while the defeated side is regrouping. To clarify point 4, if I was going to send an attack that would kill 10,000 soldiers, it only kills 9,000 instead. This 10% reduction will not effect victory (IT, Moderate, Pyrrhic) rolls, just the damage done only in offensively declared wars. To clarify point 5, if I can produce 10,000 soldiers in a day and I win a war, I can now produce 12,500 for the remainder of that day. If I've already built 10,000 I can now build an additional 2,500. If I win a second war that same day it only increases to 15,000, not 25% of 12,500. This benefit only lasts for the remainder of that day. If you win a war 2 minutes before day change, this benefits window is only 2 minutes. Some sitting/cycling will occur when nations on losing sides declare offensive wars in the opening wars. If I'm declared on 3x and then go offensive in 2 wars, if my 3 defensive wars end quickly my offensive opponents could wait to reduce the beige timers. However if I'm done fighting back in that round the beige window will allow me to not be blockaded, resupply and rebuild to out swinging. This can be fixed by making it so beige doesn't start reducing until after ALL wars are expired. As a nation needs to not be in beige to declare wars. This route allows for nations to artificially lengthen beige timers though by declaring a war right before they're defeated.

People who fought Rose in the past and lumped Yarr into stats, but now may be allied to Rose and are not I didn't find the need to post the tiering breakdown as it already has been posted and I don't see the breakdown being a problem. Are they strong from C27-C39? Yeah, they have an edge but not an overbearing one. If you combine the last 4 sections into groups of two you get Ro$e 27-34: 141 HW 27-34: 116 Ro$e 35+: 50 HW 35+: 49

Lets look at some numbers by average and total score for the top 4 alliances in each sphere. TKR: 676k, 4.05k TI: 509k, 3.9k Guardian: 298k, 6.6k GoB: 290k, 8.8k Total Strength: 1773k Average Average: 5.83k Rose: 907k Strength, 3.9K average tS: 511k Strength, 3.9k average HS: 116k Strength, 3.4k average ASM: 111k Strength, 3.4k average Total Strength: 1645k Average Average: 3.65k Cataclysm: 429k, 4.25k Eclipse: 409k, 4.2k Weeb: 255k, 3.45k Serp: 235k, 4.8k Total Strength: 1328k Average Average: 4.175k BS: 341k, 2.7k tCW: 339k, 4.6k Carth: 240k, 3.1k Legion: 235k, 3.05k Total Strength: 1155k Average Average: 3.35k Just looking at the top 4 alliances in each sphere, which Ro$e has the least depth in post top-4, HW is still larger in both total and average. Obviously current military levels impact that, but it gives you a small barometer. I might be one of the crazy people not in Ro$e that doesn't see this combination as a terrible thing, but I'm my own brand of crazy. Rose and tS shed some allies before combining, if they wanted to be the biggest blob, they wouldn't have done that. Barring HS these are fresh moves in a way. Major alliances cutting some ties and establishing new ones. I've long been against Guardian and GoB being allied, simply for the fact that it's been that way forever. I don't like seeing treaties stick forever, for whatever reasons, though the most common reason seems to be general apathy for the effort. I think this move allows for the possibility of more politics routes versus the forcing towards bi-polarity. They've not created a blob that is too powerful. If other spheres overreact, specifically HW, and try to grow their blob simply to further out-grow Ro$e then that's a problem, but it's not Ro$e's fault. Side note, Yarr is no longer counted in Ro$e's numbers? I remember in past metrics Yarr was counted. Guess you only add them when it helps your narrative! Anyway, hopefully we see some interesting things come from these moves.

@Adrienne if you want to add an in-game alliance recruitment page to the QoL, please link directly to this thread in the OP of the QoL.

If you'd like to have a constructive conversation once you've cooled down. I'll be all ears. I understand that TKR uses baseball as a mechanic to circumvent blockades and keeping nuking during a war. This in itself is part of the problem. The problem with only viewing it on a small scale is embodied by NPOLT and Alpha, of being able to creation nation farms to provide revenue.

The rest of your post was not responded to because those points were largely addressed already. Raiding and trading are core mechanics of this game. Activity in such encouraged. Baseball is a fringe element of the game that should not have the level of impact in extreme cases that it currently does. To the point that this will hamper growth of new players I just find that statement inaccurate. Players grow faster than in the past, plain and simple. This change would only hit the very top of players using the system in a way it was not intended to be used. The outcome is not decided beyond that a change is happening. This poll is to determine which level of a hard cap would be preferred if a hard cap were to be implemented. Having a "no change" option in a poll designed to determine that if the change was implemented what should it look like would actually be pointless.

Could be doable.