Lottario
-
Posts
22 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Lottario
-
-
I've had the same issue, I think its related to home games going to extra innings (all the games should show up in your match history, but have a score of 0-0).
-
Econ Perk: Civil buildings are 10% more effective for each point up to 5 (so police stations/hospitals max out at 3.75% reduction, recycling center maxes out at 105 pollution reduction, and subways max out at 67.5 pollution reduction)
-
Since this is back in discussion again, what were the problems with the system Sheepy proposed here? So we have an idea of where to go differently this time around.
-
1
-
-
Can we do away with the reset time entirely? Just have military purchasing tied to turns, like income is (and have it stack up to 12 worth turns max). It would take some tweaking of the number of units you can buy per day, but it might make things easier. So for soldiers, increase the amount of soldiers you can buy per barracks per day to 1200. Each turn, you can buy 100 soldiers/barracks. The amount you can buy stacks each turn, capped at 1200/barracks. Once you buy soldiers, the amount you can buy decreases, until the next turn, when it goes up by 100/barracks again.
-
3
-
-
Sent another $6 mil investment. I can probably get you the other two later tonight.
-
I'll invest $2 million today. If you still need money tomorrow I'll invest more.
EDIT: The investment is under the condition that I don't have to name another one of your cities
-
I like this idea but I already see problems.
1) I believe that this is dandy, but the emigration might not always go to the person with the better environment. I think that disease, crime rate, and wages would be a larger factor than the amount of pollution. I am not disregarding pollution, but I do not think it would be the number one thing on (many) peoples' minds.
Those factors could also be considered for sure. The two scenarios I mentioned were just suggestions of a way this idea could work. Ideally what I'm after is a way to make location on the map matter more for relations/tension between nations.
2) This could be detrimental to newer nations that are still within the war range of say a raider because they just happened to choose the wrong spot on the map. Also, before this would proceed I would like to better understand is the war range requirement for two nations or just one? For example, if my nation could not attack yours, but you could attack mine, would you still affect me and would I still affect you?I'd say in your scenario, just mine would effect you. As a nation thats at least 25% bigger, you shouldn't have too much of a problem putting together a stronger military than me. If you are, then I'm likely having a negative effect on other neighbours as well, so it might be good for a group of you to get together and convince me to decommission troops.
I don't think this rests on particularly sound logic, especially if you're trying to create inter-nation tension. Allow me to give an example.
Nation A is a decently new nation, lets say with a couple 500 infra cities. Since it is newer, it focuses mainly on resource production and refinement, such improvements take up a majority of its slots, which naturally means it is going to have high pollution levels. Nation B is a bit older, and has moved onto a more commerce focused build, which means it has less pollution.
By your system, since Nation A has more pollution, its citizens begin moving en masse to Nation B. Now for Nation B, this is great news. It is essentially getting free population, which in this game translates to more money for it. Nation B has no reason to dislike Nation A for its pollution, in fact it has a good reason to want it to be more polluted. For Nation A on the other hand, they are stuck in a bit of a bind, they can either:
1. Do nothing and continue to lose population they need to make money to Nation B.
2. Spend a lot of money on pollution reducing improvements, which may stop the flow of population, but will hurt financially, both with purchasing costs and maintenance, only making an unsustainable money situation worse.
3. Sell a lot of resource buildings and go commerce, which can also be very costly early, and seems like unnecessary pigeonholing.
In other words, Nation A loses whatever way you look at it, and Nation B only gains. There is no way warfare would solve this problem, and this system would only serve to help less polluted nations, while hurting more polluted ones. If you are trying to make pollution sting more, or develop tensions, this isn't the way to do it.
Since a nation is already punished for their own pollution level, I didn't want to hold their pollution level against them twice. So in your scenario, nation A wouldn't be punished again for their pollution, but nation B would be affected by it. Nation B wouldn't necessarily lose the population to Nation A, but maybe to Nation C, outside of A's circle of influence.
So in this mock-up, the yellow nation is polluting heavily. This drives population away from the purple nation, who is within the yellow nations circle of influence, and to the green nation, who is in the purple nations circle of influence, but not the yellow nations (and is therefore unaffected by the yellow nations pollution).
You all are focusing too much on the single example provided. Pollution doesn't need to be the only factor affecting immigration rates.
This precisely. I provided a couple of examples, but I'm more interested in the overall idea, ie using the map to create tensions/talks between nations.
i think people migrate due to many other factors besides pollution for example, tax rate, people obviously prefer a nation with a low tax rate, a nation with higer infra level, assuming higher the level of infra means more developed nation? A nation with low crime rate definately sounds more attractive to me , for me to migrate to.
Tax rate doesn't currently have an effect on the game, so I left that one out, because it would take larger overall modifications to it (if it had an effect on immigration now, everyone could just switch to a far right government with no penalty). Having infra affect it makes sense, but that would simply benefit the larger nations and hurt the smaller/newer ones, ie not ideal.
Crime rate could definitely work with my suggestion though.
-
1
-
-
One thing I really like about this game is that the placement of a nation on the map matters. What I'd like to see is the use of the map expanded, giving a greater overall impact on the game, and causing more player interaction. So what I would suggest is this:
Each nation has a "circle of influence" on the map, with its radius tied to the number of nations in the game (as the game grows in size, the radius shrinks).
Decisions nations within your circle of influence make have an effect on your nations population. Two examples (and I would ask everyone to add more and expand/modify these):
1) If my nation has a high level of pollution, some of this carries over to nations within my circle of influence. My polluting the environment causes a certain percentage of their citizens to emigrate to a nation within their circle of influence with a better environment. Thus, I've just caused tension with my neighbours, and they either need to live with it, discuss fixing the problem with me, or bomb the pollution away/me into cooperating.
2) The size of militaries of nations in your war range, in your sphere of influence should also have an effect (unless they are in your alliance). So if I have the largest military of the nations in my war range in my circle, my forces provide a feeling of safety to my citizens, making them stay, as well as drawing citizens away from nations within my circle. Do this enough, and I'll annoy my neighbours into taking military action against me to protect their economies.
Probably cap the emigration rate at 20% or somewhere around there. Enough to make the effect noticeable and cause tension between neighbours who aren't cooperating, but not enough to completely cripple a nation. Also, something may have to be done to prevent alliances from stacking their nations on top of each other for this to work.
-
2
-
-
How does it look now?
Worse. Now it shows that I have zero stadiums total, when I have four (before it was showing two when I had three).
-
I think you caught it right before I finished updating it. Check again.
Nope, still shows as different for me. I'm still seeing 10% on my revenue screen (it was 3% before the update), and 6.1% on the leaderboard
-
I've modified the formula in a way that I think promotes color diversity a lot better. Instead of using All Nations, it now uses all nations that aren't on gray. I also changed one of the multiplication factors from 100 to 200, so that alliances are more harmful to a color's score.
Bonus = ( Nations on Color * 2 ) / ( All Nations (Not on Gray) + ( Alliances on Color ^ 2 *
100200 ))My colour stock bonus currently isn't the same on my revenue page as it is on the colour leaderboards (10% on the revenue page vs 6.1% on the leaderboards). I imagine one of those two pages isn't implementing the new formula correctly.
-
I've missed at least the 6AM and 8AM turn today.
-
I was looking at how long it will take until I can make a new city/how much it will cost, and the part that tells me how many turns I have to wait is... uhh.... wrong.
Screenshot:
Needless to say, I don't think that number of turns is correct.
-
It works for me again now too.
-
When I click the Create New City button on my cities list, I get taken to http://politicsandwar.com/city/create/, but nothing shows up in the main area of the page. I have the sidebar and the header image, but the body is blank (I shouldn't be able to create a city yet anyways, but it did at least show me SOMETHING before).
-
1
-
-
It worked for me last night, but the night before, I had the same issue as Toxxikation. I've noticed it before once or twice, but it doesn't seem consistent.
-
I don't think we're going to fit 5 new resources into the resource bar, though.
Would it be possible to simply count them all as a general "food" for the resource bar, and then have something show up on mouse over to show the individual quantities of each type?
-
Yup, works for me again! Thanks!
-
1
-
-
Nation Name: Ursa Minor Beta
Nation Link: http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=5692
-
Thanks for the formula and the new charts! Looks like it might be a while before I can get to that 20%
Something might be up with the new charts though. It looked fine the first time I looked at them, but now my score breakdown chart only shows military for some reason.
-
Hey all, new player here, just a quick question that I can't seem to find the answer to anywhere.
Is there anywhere I can check to see the score breakdown of my nation? I've got the notification that less than 20% of my nation score comes from military (which I don't really need to worry about quite yet, since I still have a week on beige), and it would be nice to see how close/far off I am from getting to that 20% when it comes time to build up my forces (I get the impression that 20% might even be a little low to maintain an adequate defense, but its as good a goal as any to go for to start).
Thanks!
OBL Suggestion - Multiple Leagues/Relegation
in Game Suggestions
Posted
With OBL showing some decent interested (67 teams signed up as of this post, and it hasn't even been officially released yet), what I'd like to suggest is an automatically scheduled baseball season with multiple leagues. An outline:
- 20 teams per league, initially grouped based on rating, with new teams simply being added to the lowest league afterwards
- Each team plays one game per turn (scheduled automatically), with 80 games/season (an equal number of home and away)
- Each season lasts one Orbis season (Sping/Summer/Fall/Winter)
- The bottom two teams are demoted to the league below at the end of the season (just based on season standings, no need to complicate things with playoffs)
- Teams are then promoted from the lower league to fill the league above (normally two teams, but more if a nation/team deletes)
Aside from making the competition more even (teams are grouped with more similarly rated teams until they're ready to move up), this gives new players something to aim for in OBL (very easy to see who the best teams are, good for player retention).
A potential addition (I can't decide if I like this part or not, but I figured I'd post it anyways):
- Leave the earnings variable as 15 for the bottom league, but increase it for each league above (ie the second lowest league has an earnings variable of 20, the third lowest 25, etc).
This encourages activity in OBL, as the better your team and the higher the league you're in, the more you stand to earn. As well, it incentivizes established players to recruit new teams to OBL, as the more leagues there are, the higher the earnings variable in the top leagues will be.