Vladamir Putin

Who

Who

ORANGE MAN BAD

A simple solution that I'd implement is to put a "safe trade" option in the account settings. When it's on, making a trade offer that's buys an offer for more than 200% of the average market of the value will result in a box popping up asking ”ARE YOU SURE DUDE????" Same with selling something, except if it's 50% or less of the average price. This way, those who keep making trading mistakes have the option of giving themselves a safety net, those who pay attention can spend 5 seconds turning it off like it's confetti, and most trade mistakes should be prevented. Edit: You could also make the ranges at which the safe trade is set at adjustable for the user

Merge into BK when? ?

Not a fan of moving declaration ranges from score to cities, even in very rare circumstances. The nice thing about the current war range system is that it gives pros and cons to certain choices. Buy up to 3k infra? Your score is now inflated. Stockpiled 50 missiles and nukes? Your score is now inflated. Max ground and navy when it was completely unnecessary? Your score is now inflated. I think if someone is dumb enough to make all these mistakes, they should be majorly downdeclared for it. If a 33 city guy gets shredded down to no military and 900 infra per city, him fighting back with soldier spams to either win on the ground or force the enemy to spam soldier airstrikes is the one chance he has to fight back. I understand why someone would want to prevent insane down declares, but there's a reason why these declares were in range. They're annoying, but not broken and definitely not unbeatable.

Seems like a fun idea. However, what would prevent someone from giving themselves lots of beige time by declaring war on random people in order to spam 50 soldier ground attacks to beige themselves? And would that be considered slot-filling? Also, iirc, when you send just a few units in an attack, it wastes almost no resources from the defender.

>shorter wars require more staggered hits 3-4 day wars would likely prevent missiles and nukes being used to force a beige onto someone who doesn't want to beige you. So how will you fix that? Add resistance damage to nukes and missiles so the same strategy can be used in these new smaller war sessions? This also prevents someone from getting an extra opening to double-buy in the same war, often used to combo with counters. None of these changes have any specific problem that they're trying to solve, just randomly throwing out suggestions with random numbers and getting upset with people who criticize the lack of improvements. >simpler There's your issue right there. Your goal shouldn't be to make the mechanics simpler, it should be setup to award those who can coordinate and punish those who can't. Making the game faster doesn't make it better. Let's make wars 1 turn, 60x the fun! 3 day wars would increase the ratio of starting MAPs (5-6) used in war compared to the MAPs you gain over time. This would basically be a bootleg version of speeding up the game. This adds no new strategies, rather takes some away or you'd have to alter some numbers proportionally (missile/nuke example before). If you want this, just make updates every 12 hours and turns every hour, and the game will be twice as fast. I said total effort. Average out the total effort from every single person under this system, then compare it to if everyone managed their own nation, and it's not even close. Also, can't blame the answer for being off-topic if you asked for it. Another reason why lowering length of wars is a bad idea: When updeclaring pretty high up, often you get into a situation where if you airstrike anymore, you'll end up beiging them, while they still have a ground/navy strong enough to beige you. Normally you'd have to choose between beiging or getting beiged in this situation. But with 3 day wars, there's a good chance the war could expire before that could happen, allowing you to pounce on them again without them having any chance to retaliate. Now while i appreciate people posting the first idea that pops into their head, it would be nice for them to post many different war situations and break down how the new war system would increase the incentive to coordinate in all of them, rather than just how the new system has different numbers because they're bored of the old ones.

An alliance based on maximizing effectiveness with the least amount of total effort will always benefit the most from the simplest mechanics possible. And there is nothing more effortless than having a few people manage the growth of the entire alliance and having members attack in the same exact way, pressing the same few buttons repeatedly.

All the changes suggested would greatly reduce the amount of coordination needed to permanently hold down targets. It's everything about coordination. When you suggest ideas that would have no positive effects on the game, yet would directly benefit your alliance, discussing the idea and the AA is one and the same.

If only you could use your hive-mind in-game as you do on the forums, then mechanics that require coordination would work completely in your favor.

Both ideas revolve around making the game much easier to play by removing coordination needed to alternate beiges. Argue random semantics all you want, the case remains the same. If you dislike the fact that the war mechanics heavily punish those who can't coordinate, learn to coordinate. Will take you a lot less time to learn the mechanics than trying to convince everyone else that the mechanics should be stripped away.

Current meta-game: Declare with 3 members swiftly, do the best combination of attacks in order to grind their air down as quickly and efficiently as possible, then work to destroy the rest of their military while establishing immenses to further reduce the chance of the opponent recovering. All while making sure to alternate beiges (if need be) in order to both maximize damage on the enemy, minimize damage on yourself, and limit any chance of the opponent recovering. What you want: HURRR DURRR ATTACK FOR 4 DAYS DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE DO WRONG THEY SCREWED NO MATTER WHAT The only reason you should argue against a mechanic that highly benefits those who coordinate is if you think coordination shouldn't play a large factor in a war, or if you can't coordinate. 2nd Frawley update idea: Increase upkeep of tanks and ships 3rd Frawley update idea: Remove ground and naval attacks, give everyone at 16 cities a 50% casualty bonus 4th Frawley update idea: Give 100b to NPO

I don't know what's worse, the fact that it made pirating annoyingly difficult to profit off of, or the fact that fortify is pretty much worthless now. Would have been nice to have fortify have a chance of removing a random immense an opponent has on you, or decreases the amount of infra/loot you lose. But nope, completely worthless.

So basically, you want to remove the population cap. Although it would be fun to see 0 infra nations smashing those with half their city counts, it would be rather unbalanced.

>Thread about player retention >The issue isn't about game boredom Yeah, no. If a new player is having fun, they will continue to play, regardless of their city count. This is a community issue, not an economic issue. So by trying to lower city costs in an attempt to raise player retention will do nothing and misses the point. So my argument has everything to do with the suggestion.

Well yeah, the game's at face is just not interesting. It's slow, the graphics are rather boring. The game is only as fun as you make it. Assuming the player has never played a game like this, unless they magically stumble into an alliance discord with people willing to teach them how the game's mechanics works in a non-tedious manner, they will likely quit. If you want to boost player retention, make a better tutorial, have an admin pay people some credits in exchange for solid tutorial videos. You really think new players who quit the game will respond "man, if cities were cheaper, i'd have had sooooo much more fun in the game"? No. It's about the community that they surround themselves with, or lack thereof.

If people in your alliance are quitting the game due to boredom, that's a direct result of an incompetent government. If your alliance does not create an economic system which creates an incentive to be active, your best and biggest members will leave, your taxes will rise, and you'll turn into a low-tier cess-pool pandering to the admin to benefit yourself rather than spending time adapting like prominent alliances are and should be.

Exactly what all factors should be valued. Deleted nations, inactive nations, economical flexibility, all of which don't go in your favor.