Zukran

Yes I am in Guardian, actually wait let me double check... yup. You and I are not in any position to make any claims to how much one side is owed. So you and I saying anything about that is not relevant especially with the limited information we have including the obviously questionable assets/liabilities. I also personally never said one side is owed $8 billion, but House Of Stark believes they are owed $8 billion. If you read what I said above, I purely wanted to shed light about inaccurate, shady, incomplete financing in the documents linked by The Foundation and asked questions related to that and how their stock price was decided. If you are able to answer any of the above questions or determine the true asset/liability from the information provided by The Foundation let me know. But if we just want to throw our personal opinions around with nothing to back it up, I personally think Alex owes me $8 billion.

As an outsider looking in, my god this is such a poorly run bank. Not perfect to the decimal? Borg is pointing out errors after errors for hundreds of millions. Don't you think it's important to have an accurate assets/liabilities statement? Have there ever been any audits? More issues: Tamasith took out $1.5 bil and repaid it with interest but its not logged. Where is that money? I also don't see where that $30 mill payment came from? Repaid as can be seen here: Also this should be an easy one to get the $2mil. Why has this not been paid? Like seriously, this took literally 5 minutes to find these 2 glaring issues and I found a couple more but decided not to continue down the rabbit hole. Where is the money that was declared a loss but which was actually paid back? Has there been any attempt to go through the books, cleaning them up and checking in with people(who are still active) in regards to outstanding payments? --- If Krampus has too much going on IRL, he should have passed the reins to someone else. For instance I don't start shady poorly run bank because I know I don't have time. It's really that simple. Hard to believe, but everyone knows at the end of a school semester there are exams. Its easy to plan ahead and be responsible especially when others are reliant on you. --- Stock market prices are the value of the company as determined by the markets/investors. Which takes into account many factors including revenue/profit growth, earnings per share, assets/liabilities etc. Who determined the stock price of $16 billion and how was that determined? Did HoS come up with that valuation? So many questions and so much malpractice.

Yeah lets just steam roll them with all of our members that would be less cowardly. Btw, Im at war and still producing. Where's our money? Pay up, or pay the fee!

Which is why adding more variables and factors to the outcome of a war would spice things up and change the meta. With my proposed changes your army would not be wiped within the first hour, because of this you would be able to rebuild and rearm your nation assuming you have the resources and money to do it. The amount of resources stockpiled would have a big impact on how one side performs during a war. On top of that your sides stock pile can't be easily measured by your opponents(except by spies, which might make spies actually useful when it comes to gathering intelligence) and thus it would be more difficult to assess/predict the outcome of a war. The outcome of the war could very well come down to who is able to secure resources through the market or trading agreements with other alliances. Then because wars move slower, there will be more room to coordinate, counter and would give those who are more active a chance to outperform in wars. Which adds yet another factor that would have more influence in the outcome of a war. So in the end while my suggestion wouldn't solve the above in all cases, but it would definitely add more variance then just who has the most nations.

While I think this change could affect politics, economies, and resource production. The main purpose of this change is focused on the war system and how wars are carried out. The core issue is that the majority of wars are decided within the first couple hours, are generally unrecoverable and almost never swing back in the defenders favor. This leaves us in a pretty stale environment, where the attackers nearly almost win. Leaving most defending nations destroyed and unable to even take part in the war before they can login to see what happened.

How Wars Are Currently You got pinged in discord, your alliance is at war. You login, see some notifications, and you check your nation and your entire military was wiped out in minutes. With your reduced military there's nothing you can really do except sit there and take a beating. The majority of major wars are decided within the first hour and are generally unrecoverable. Why is this an issue? Wars are currently won the majority of time by who has the most nations and who attacked first. (Resulting in a fight to have the most nations in a bloc, to be safe, which stagnates the game and has dull politics). As the defendant the war is generally unrecoverable. (Your military can be nearly wiped after one coordinated strike. Not allowing you to react or having the ability to fight back). Most nations that have their military wiped at the start of the war, don't rebuild and just hunker down. So there is very limited back and forth and is generally one sided. Most alliances give up within a day or two due to the nature of the mechanics. They sell their units and just hide their resources. Day change has too much influence and meta. (Making players have to be on at DC when tensions are high otherwise they could get wiped instantly. This ends up causing constant server outages. This is also unfair to those who are not available during DC and generally makes it harder for them to be involved in wars.) What do I Propose? Reduce the amount of units destroyed in each battle to 25% of current losses. (If you lose 100 soldiers in a battle right now, in the new system you would lose 25.) By slowing the amount of units destroyed, we delay the results of the war and allow more opportunity for rebuilding, countering, coordinating and actually having a role and taking part in the war. Allows potential allies or third parties to join and make for more interesting dynamics. As is one side is generally wiped beyond recovery by the time any one can step in to help or decide to help. Depending on the length of the war, it could come down to who is able to obtain resources to fund the war. Currently because your army gets wiped so quickly people just resort to nuking/missiling instead of trying to build up and fight back. But in my proposal you'd be able to rebuild and attack back and potentially turn the tides. This also allows everyone to actually participate in the war and coordinating efforts with your alliance. Increase the cost of each unit 3x. This offsets the reduction in losses in battle, making it more expensive to rebuild. Decreases(but not eliminates) the importance of having the most nations in your bloc. Puts increased emphasis on whos better prepared, coordinated and who has access to resources. Increase the cost to maintain military 2x. Makes it more expensive to sit at max military, deterring nations from always being maxed. Creates a more interesting dynamic when it comes to maintaining a military and maximizing growth/income. Reduce the amount of units you can build in a day by 50%. Would make it so with 3 defensive wars you couldn't necessarily remax after an initial attack blitz, but you'd be able to rebuild significantly if you have the resources and fight back. Give offensive battles an advantage over defenders, perhaps reduce attackers losses by 25%(aka attackers, lose less units then defenders) To promote fighting back, offensive battles should have reduced losses. This promotes back and forth attacks making it more cost efficient to actually engage your enemy rather then sit and be destroyed(which is not fun). Will also allow smaller nations the chance to actually attack a larger nation and have the potential to be cost efficient offensively. Summary Altogether the above in my opinion would result in a more interesting, dynamic and fun war experience. By reducing the amount of units destroyed, you enable people to rebuild and fight back, instead of being beat down before they can even react. Wars shouldn't be decided within the first couple hours or days, it should be a week or two long struggle. The results of the war should come down to not just the # of nations on your side, but the economic capabilities of your alliance, coordination, and grit. This also may help reduce the necessity of having the largest bloc and put more focus on if you can counter, coordinate and sustain the war economically. Thoughts? I am curious to hear everyone's thoughts and opinions. I did just throw in estimates in terms of how much each value should be shifted. I'm not married to any of the currently specified values, but I believe they get the point across.

Ahhh projection at its finest. Sekrit Treeties bad! The more targets, the more infra to burn! Good luck Rose, Eclipse, TEst. I'll be watching my net.

This is an outrage, this is unbelievable! Hollywood and Celestial will remember this day!

Its pretty obvious Celestial and Hollywood don't have an interest in warring at the current time. However neither side can deescalate without making themselves open to attack from clock, which clock has a history of rolling one bloc then taking advantage of their already built military to attack another.(This literally just happened) This agreement disincentives Clock rolling Celestial or Hollywood after the de-escalation. If Clock truly had no interest in attacking either of them, then I don't see what all the fuss is about. Unless another micro bloc wanted to attack Celestial or Hollywood, which I highly doubt. Then after the Clock - Backroom fiasco everything will be back to normal. This isn't a long term pact and Celestial and Hollywood will go right back to being rivals like they have been for years. To think this some how made a jumbo bloc is ridiculous. Both sides just want to deescalate from the situation but cover there butts from clock. So... whats the issue? Why are we really upset?

Would this update the date offered for the market items? Eg. There are currently 5 people currently trying to sell food for 129. The market currently displays the earliest 129 offer on top. With this addition if it doesn't update the date offered that person could remain on top for a very long time(assuming the price doesn't lower) because the new trade offers would be lumped into the same trade. Alternatively if it does update the time, people would likely not want to offer more resources at the same amount because it would lower the position of the offer in the list, making it less likely to fill. I do support the suggestion, however that's primarily due to increasing the clicks for active traders. I don't think it will have very much impact to the average gamer and I don't think it will change much(if anything) in the market. Aside from potentially creating large gaps in the market prices. As prices lower, earlier higher trades will be removed for lower prices creating a large gap between the active traders with lower prices and the casual players prices that are higher. Is there any data on how many trades this would eliminate at the current time? - Im sure this would be high. However how many of those would be on the front page of the market?(aka 4+ trades from one nation on the front page) I'm guessing very little to none. In which case again most people would never see the results from this implementation.

In that case you will never get the most for your money/resources. Which results in the entire game getting shorted on money because those individuals are making it impossible for you to buy/sell at the true market rate. It doesn't bother me that I get overbid or undercut by non marketers. That's fine, but the few individuals make it nearly impossible unless you post at a severe discount or overbid and they are always on watching and undercutting or overbidding. But where did your iron come from? You took the iron off the market with artificial demand which in return reduced supply resulted in a squeeze due to a lack of iron in the markets. If you didn't purchase that iron it would still be with the original producers and they likely would have posted it when the prices get high in attempt to take advantage of the high price or it would probably have been posted in a sell offer that would have made it more difficult to artificially inflate the price of iron. Its naive to think iron producers wouldn't try to take advantage of the artificially high prices and that only the marketers could bring it down to a reasonable price. By creating "stability" the marketers are actually manipulating the free market by creating artificial demand and supply. They aren't producing anything, they aren't utilizing the resources and they are ultimately making it impossible for the rest of the game to get a true markets price for their resources which in return makes it difficult to utilize the built in mechanic to post offers to sell or buy resources. I am no one important related to my sphere. So to say this is somehow our sphere pushing for "fairness" while we try to monopolize more is incorrect and is pretty funny you are that scared of Hollywood that you have such outlandish theories as you try to sway others opinions against us. Again I don't care about undercutting by the average joe. Its that certain individuals are utilizing the functionality of the markets to make it impossible to get a true markets value for your resources. Which in my mind is abuse of the system and is why we are here today. I don't really see why alliances and blocs keep getting brought up no matter how many times I address it. They have no relevance here. Hahaha, you do you my man. The fact that you spend that much time on it is remarkable, but I don't think the markets were ever intended to be monitored by a single nation and overbid/undercut 18 hours a day. The game its self was designed to be passive and long term. That's just how it was designed, that's why it takes a month to save up resources and to buy a city. I'm not saying get rid of trading, you should still be able to participate in daily market trades. However I'm almost certain there are probably less than 10 people in the entire game that post more than 10-15 offers a day. So in reality this would not affect 99% of the game aside from those people having more of a chance to buy/sell goods at a true markets rate. As I mentioned above traders create artificial demand and supply, disrupt the free markets and are not essential by any means. If traders were essential it would be an ingame mechanic with a NPC. I am 100% sure if the traders stopped for a week things would be just fine if not better for the rest of the players in the game and there would be a true free market. Quite simply I'm pretty sure the game developers didn't intend for the markets to be monitored by a couple nations who undercut and overbid every other nation at all times of the day. That is what this specific suggestion is trying resolve and realistically shouldn't take more than a couple hours to implement. ~Z

And thats fine, however things could always be better which is what I'm pushing for.

I wouldn't really call it a skill... It's really easy to do, you just have to dedicate an obscene amount of time(12 hours+ a day) to compete with the current players. As I said before, it again doesn't matter who is doing it, just that it is being done. I don't understand why you guys keep bringing up spheres and alliances, except as purely a deflection of the issue at hand. You're also assuming that the specific individuals share profit with the rest of the bloc, which they do not. Those few individuals are "rich". The rest are long time whales.

It doesn't really matter who is doing it, just that it is being "dominated" by 2-3 individuals. The fact that its happening and you hereby recognize it is proof that its an issue. I can't imagine the game devs thought, lets have a free open market where a couple people will control the entire market and the rest of the players just have to deal with it. Also with that same thought process, everyone not in TKR, Grumpy or Guardian should therefore be angry that Hollywood is dominating, controlling, manipulating the markets and want this change enacted.