Jump to content

Velekk Hemlock

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Leader Name
    Velekk Sain
  • Nation Name
    Principi Sen Patrena
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name
    The Band of the Falcon

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name: Hemlock

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Velekk Hemlock's Achievements

Casual Member

Casual Member (2/8)



  1. Congratulations! Your lot have always been fantastic people.
  2. I like being able to build alliance wide-projects. I hear you cry "But Hemlock! That would ruin balance between alliances!!!" Alas, I say "Is balance already non-existent due to simple tiering?".
  3. "If you want to learn more about alliances we have a module in the tutorial that goes into detail. If you skip to that part don’t forget to come back and complete this module! If you want to complete this..." you should probably change "we" to "there is a module later in this tutorial that goes into further detail..." This is nitpicky ofc but I feel that tone is important. In a game tutorial you typically do not want to refer to the authors of the tutorial in explaining it because it can cause confusion or otherwise break "immersion". I'll post some more examples when I have the chance of little edits. Overall the tutorial is very good and I 100% agree about making it too in-depth. Part of the game is learning. Mechanics should be learned, scenarios constructed around using those mechanics created, and vital information conveyed naturally, but they need to learn how to play themselves. The big failing of the current tutorial is that it doesn't convey the systems that the game operates under at all. Opportunity Cost and Return on Investment aren't mentioned so players don't think about it. Infra scaling isn't talked about. Farming is encouraged yet the mechanics are not explained. Etc. You're hitting a lot of the bases on introducing things AND not keeping vital mechanics hidden under a wiki somewhere.
  4. Imo most of the proposed changes around new players are pretty good except the raiding changes Inactives should not be opened up. Raiding works fine now It's a give and take You give up passive income so that you can make more money You give up more money, so you have higher passive income It allows different play styles to be efficient depending on the amount a player wants to engage with the game. Opening up raiding destroys that system entirely and also heavily nerfs raiding for the same reason why raiding at c10-15 is inefficient. Over saturation. If players don't want to delay gratification for more growth in the future then they can join an alliance that doesn't have a program that does that. More engaged players that also are generally of higher patience and understanding of the game's mechanics are fine with raiding inactives, it's more fun than passive income generation and lower c-levels are a wild-west where interesting things are allowed to happen. Nothing mechanically stops raiding at c15. In fact, you can make almost as much money at that level too if you're lucky and willing to do dangerous things. The problem is that the demand exceeds the supply of raid targets. The solution to this isn't to change war mechanics and cater to one play style over the other. It's okay that there isn't a perfect equality between player incomes and new player experiences. *Adding I think npc nations are a great idea to address inability to raid or regularily engage with war mechanics without overriding existing mechanics.
  5. You should not have them bring their infrastructure to 1000. Bring it to about 500, have a small raiding build for them, and show them to use the @### tool. Needs polishing. The tutorial should have less personality and be more straightforward. Try proof reading it further to make it as concise, descriptive, and easy to follow as possible. Following that, you should teach them specifically about opportunity cost and use examples. Explaining why farming isn't viable using actual numbers for what the tutorial nation template is would be way better than just saying "farms bad". So on and so forth.
  6. Sounds like a good idea but tbh I have no clue how feasible it actually is for the team to manage this lol
  7. What else would our glorious forums be for if not wondrous drama among all us itsy alliances of Orbis? Have fun friends!!!
  8. Why would you spend time adding any of this stuff? 1. It would mess with RP. How is Zombie Springfield supposed to care about LGBT or Marijuana policy? Doesn't account for peoples custom ethnic, ideological, and species based nation make ups. 2. I seriously doubt Alex or anyone on the API team has literally any qualifications to code a complex sociological simulation based on abstract and extremely simplified "policy" settings. 3. Seems ripe for inaccurate or otherwise strange policy based approval, lot of potential bias here that wouldn't reflect reality. Basing something like this off of "how you guess people feel" right now due to popular rhetoric is not good. Plus, people don't necessarily want really normie simplified political ideologies in their nations. Flat anti-immigration nationalists? How cliche. Give us the racist secret government that recruits immigrants from abroad with "good racial features" to strengthen the forehead size of their nation or something idiotic like that 4.There are plenty of more important game mechanics to focus on - I know you don't claim otherwise but this is actually something important to understand when suggesting major alterations to something that doesn't need them.
  9. It's just a compilation of already present data. If it wasn't a bot it'd be someone slaving over a spreadsheet or even more accurately checking alliance score. Frankly, I don't think a bot processing the information in a digestible manner is the root of any issues.
  10. Seems it was addressed somewhat by His Holy Decagon saying "I don’t think we are? If it sounds nonsensical to you, it’s because we aren’t actually “crying foul” As far as I can tell, Keegoz leaked logs not to say "Ha ha! Wana bad and Clock is very victimized", but to point out it's ridiculous for Wana to say "reflect on your actions" when Wana clearly has at the least some responsibility for the whole chaining war. Now you can argue whether Clock needed to make that agreement to hit Rose but Keegoz reads as being pissed Clock is being used a scapegoat for a universally disliked FA move. I don't necessarily agree with Clock being "forced" into it, but I can see that perspective especially when they're being blamed for HW and Celestial "needing" to make this arrangement. Maybe because Wana gave screenshots from when the original conversation occurred we'll get more logs showing the entire conversation.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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