Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Theodosius

  1. Where's my prenup? PS Vein you were late, as always
  2. More CN transplants, great, said nobody ever. People do not want more mechanics from a dead game. While treasures may not be perfect, they add a layer to the game that actually makes you put in the effort to acquire them. Trading treasures was also a layer of the game that added content until it was forbidden without a replacement. The player base is simply asking for a way to trade them, as promised.
  3. Suggestion updated to reflect the feedback about treasure min-maxing. Not being able to buy a treasure if you already have one will prevent whale min-maxing, while at the same time it wouldn't interfere with people obtaining treasures via war or RNG spawn, where it would be incredibly rare to find yourself holding 2 treasures, either during a war when they're basically worthless, or having some rare luck with the RNG.
  4. Mhm. More ways of acquiring extra project slots are definitely needed considering this puts us at 13 new projects with this update. As for the treasures, yeah as I said, don't expect it this update as its obviously gonna happen soon. To prevent hijacking the thread, I started a new topic about it here
  5. Inspired by this discussion, I'm starting this separate thread to draw more awareness to this issue. We're all aware that treasure trading via war has been banned by rules for a while now. A trading system was announced to take its place, but considering there has been no movement on this since the day treasure trading was rendered illegal a few months ago, I believe this should be put to consideration again and added to the docket for the next update. Here is my suggestion: Personal trade offers for buying and selling treasures. - Nation to nation treasure offers. One side receives the money, the other receives the treasure. Standard trade offer stuff, just like for the resources. - 5 day cooldown on treasure movement. For obvious purposes of preventing playing hot potatoes with treasures. - If the treasure bearer is blockaded, the treasure can not be traded. Self-explanatory. - Cap the amount of treasures one nation can hold to 2. Make treasure buying unavailable to nations that already hold one treasure. To prevent biggest/richest nations from hoarding all the treasures. The nation should not be able to buy a treasure if they already have one. If y'all think of something else this system would need, throw it in the comments below.
  6. An idea of unlocking further 2 project slots was good, albeit the means of procuring it being weird. If I'm not mistaken, recently there have been 9 (am I counting this right?) new projects added to the game. This update will bring that number up to 13. We have in turn seen only one free project slot awarded to the base limit. So maybe add another one, or two free slots to the base limit and keep this metric as well? People are struggling with slots as it is, and rarely anyone is fond of the idea to go 3000 infra just to unlock more slots. Does this include moving people off and on different brackets? Perhaps a level that allows editing the control panel permissions itself, or is this assumed to be in the top role (Leader)? Everything else sounds fine on the permission list and I commend the QoL additions that will be added. As far as the trading topic goes, I would like to remind everyone that the old way of treasure trading has been prohibited for a good while now (its been months, right?), and the supposed system that was gonna replace that has not been mentioned since the day treasure transfers by war have been banned. So I will quote a rather old suggestion from last year about this: So perhaps something worth adding to the docket for the next update?
  7. Lmfao what are you smoking dude
  8. Rightful King initials: Stannis Baratheon = S.B. Squeegee Blake = S.B. Coincidence? I THINK NOT. ALL HAIL THE RIGHTFUL KING!
  9. I will miss House Stark. Farewell, sweet prince.
  10. I have said this many times so far (all those retirement pings, s m h), but I felt like not posting here for posterity would be wrong. It has been the absolute pleasure working alongside you, mon ami. I know you'll enjoy your retirement. I am very much looking forward to yet another excellent addition to our EE advisory board. May the ROI bless you.
  11. This reminds of Hollywood actors and moguls who kept denying that Harvey Weinstein is scum of the earth despite gruesome amount of facts right in front of them. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
  12. I got that from the changelog. You missed my entire point, which was built on understanding that the new meta will only allow for defending parties in wars to get beiged, and as aforementioned, that is no good. As some people mentioned in previous threads, and as I've outlined on the previous page, there are some serious issues that would come out of such war system - mainly easy nation cycling, permawarring possibilities and lack of viable opportunities to fight back and get respite. I don't know, have I bungled my points? Mayhaps someone with better English can explain it better?
  13. It's supposedly designed to make beige less desirable/useful (which okay, kinda makes sense as a counterbalance?), but you can't get enough beige in the first place anyway so ayy lmao
  14. A well supported player simple solution/suggestion of making **all wars (edit: for clarification, make both the offensive and defensive parties in all wars be able to receive beige)** end in beige upon expiry dependent on remaining resistance has been made meaningless with this, what, a cosmetic change at best? No one cares about the in game victory/loss ratio mechanic. None of the proposed points address fighting back from an unfavourable position and none of them address easy time of continuous cycling/sitting on people (translation: permawar easy af) that the recent changes have made possible (and the aforementioned ones do not fix this). Make the first point actually do something and make all the wars beige upon expiry, either based on resistance or some additional factors - and at least, in a way, it will patch up the main issues of the current meta that was radically broken when beige was completely removed. Not being able to break beige until you're down to 12 turns seems like a sufficient counterweight to getting beiged, but it's meaningless if there is simply no possible scenario of a nation getting enough time on beige for respite in the first place.
  15. All political squabbles, rivalries and blue balls are henceforth to be settled by... CHESS DUELS That's right, you heard me people! *throws gauntlet at Keegoz* ROOK TO G8, YOUR MOVE SIR On topic: This is a formality thread and we all know you're gonna do whatever you want, so lets pretend I've thrown some angreh input here and you can go ahead and keep pretending anything the playerbase says is being taken into consideration. I doubt you're gonna see the community want to be your guinea pig, though.
  16. There seems to be no point in arguing or bringing forward well-intentioned, valid suggestions if the administration is just gonna arbitrarily chop off whatever they deem a nuisance to moderate in this game, however crucial a given mechanic or however radical the change is, without any consideration for how it reflects on the gameplay meta, or without any plans how to alleviate newly induced (and much bigger) issues. But new projects, amirite? Just sit back and let it burn, dawgs.
  17. a forum suggestion with overwhelming support: gets ignored for 3 months one voicey boi: haha downvotes go insta brrr still tho:
  18. I don't care what evidence people bring to you guys in t$, the level of reparations and harsh terms my dear friend Aero was asking on behalf of his alliance were perfectly reasonable and they don't even count because he strongly said "not bad guy, quick peace yes" in my DMs. Ftfy. What's embarrassing here is as a former member is shilling for a guy who was ready to push harsh terms on your alliance and your people and (inadvertently or not) attempt to drive them out of the game. So yes. Soft.
  19. The nation name is now Basileia ton Rhomaion if anyone is still feeling frisky and wants to try and impose those terms. I'll be waiting. @Aero @Poolaris
  20. + - 5 day cooldown (if gained through trade) on a treasure to prevent abuses (ping-ponging the treasure to prevent losing it) - instituting the same mechanics that apply to resources (can't trade treasures if you're blockaded) Seems pretty straight forward and simple to make considering the mechanics for it already exist, no need to overcomplicate something if there's a simple way to do it
  • Create New...

Important Information

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