Jump to content

Ukunaka

Members
  • Posts

    325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ukunaka

  1. actually instead of making tourism into what's basically another commerce section id like to see tourism effect the rate of population increase in a city over time, so that nations with high tourism have a higher population growth rate. however this would require a overhaul to city population growth in general, tweaking the base formula and adding some things to function as populations sinks. perhaps things can lead to population decrease over time (bottom-capped at base amount) at low tourism such as having low commerce or low infra to improvements ratio or crime & disease.. something like that, and nukes wiping some of the non-base populations when used. etc. if fleshed out in a balanced manner it actually could be a worthwhile and dynamic feature, with some people effectively having young cities with old city populations and vice versa. but as it has implications in economic power and warfare at low infra due to population it really must be tested thoroughly to see its short and long term effects and shouldnt be published live until it is safe and wont effect a major conflict. both tourism and population growth/decay could also be a new source of projects related to them, adding more dynamics in project builds & economic planning as well
  2. you can trade anything for the objective, and can cancel the offer immediately after posting if you don't want to sell anything.
  3. right... because your side totally didnt blitz my bloc... also the point wasnt that they should be in the war, its that one of the only alliances without an excuse not to defend taith, who is being hit right now unrelated to the global, is dropping their treaty, without providing any screenshots or proof of their claims in their post.
  4. TCM the Taith protector not involved in the great wat refuses to assist its Meme treaty.
  5. Once upon a time credits could be cashed in for 5m, in those days it meant a name change would cost 10m for a single change or 20m for a full change. Now credits are worth 20m and sell for up to 30m on the market at times, that's 80 to 120m for a full rebrand to leader & Nation. As this is really a cosmetic change as it takes about 7 minutes to figure out who this person was before, either name change tokens should be reduced to 1 credit or there should be a bulk Name Change purchase so you can buy 2 for 3 credits, 5 for 7, or 10 for 10 credits etc.(or something like that) at a time at a bulk discount. This really is just something that hasn't caught up with the changing times
  6. Increase referral score to atleast 1k, 500 made sense in the old score system but now it is way to low.
  7. Id like to suggest the implementation of Vassal Treaties. while Vassals now are typically placed under Protectorate or MDP I think having a seperate treaty for Offshores, Academies/Training alliances, and other directly governed extensions is a much needed addition, a vassal/offshore and a protectorate are very different when it comes to things like treaty chaining & Responsibilities to eachother, as vassals are essentially Part of the same alliance, with their obligations being very different than a typical protectorate. I think adding vassal treaties would lead to help clearing alot of these distinctions. As a bonus suggestion Id also like to see MDoAP BLOC & MDAP BLOC Treaties added as well, and as a bonus bonus suggestion would like to see a row added to alliance pages beneath alliance score that shows the combined score of them and their VASSAL and BLOC treatied allies
  8. Blockade break operation, Spy Op that when successful breaks all blockades the enemy currently has (as im guessing that would be easier to implement then making it able to choose which to break, which would be ideal.) Should have the same or 130% (or more even) the diffuculty of spying a nuke or somehow set it to account ship counts and have it based on that (& spy counts obviously) as this is kinda OP TBH if it doesnt have a high failure rate I could also be persuaded to support a space control break for air control though not sure how that would work logically from a real world perspective or what to call it. I would not oppose, but would not support a ground control break as I think that gives air power too much strength Not really a suggestion I care much about, just an idea ive had for a few years and never posted
  9. Definitely like this idea, but have to admit I'm about as biased as @Sir Scarfalot when it comes to anything involving missiles. So maybe to appease the people freaking out, reduce the resistance they damage proportional to the MAP change, this would also slightly buff Iron Dome just a touch since it would take more missiles to do the same resistance damage therefore more chances of being shot down.
  10. Ill be honest, I don't care much for how you layed it out mechanically but something like this or a change to the treasure system could work if implemented right.
  11. I could get behind this but would prefer it to be a toggle in settings to hide.
  12. Remove score requirement, replace it with this 3 to 5 People that have reached 10 cities or 30 days playing required to make a new alliance. This way players who want to make an alliance are encouraged to interact more with the community, which may lead them to rethinking their choice if they are less ready than they thought, and most new alliances will already have an established core group from the beginning to govern. Is this a hard impedement? not really, but I think it is better than raising the score requirement by some arbitrarily decided number every 2 years or so.
  13. Now that organizing wars to clear bounties is officially against the rules, I dont think this mechanic makes sense anymore.
  14. Maybe just the project at 2, city remaining 4 or 3. since while some projects can be powerful, if some alliance upbought their soldier 6 cities on a war at the end of month and then upbought 6 more at monthly reset that would just be way too abusive IMO And 6 on its own can be pretty heavy too especially in the lower mid tier.
  15. I think making alliances cost 60 to 20m cash would make people think more about the alliance as an investment, and while it is an easy goal to obtain, it is still both a cost that causes them to think whether they should go c11 or buy this alliance. If this was implemented along with a small time period after creation, only 10 days or so, I think this would make it to where inexperienced players will seek other alliances to learn how to govern and get a group together, and possibly even help the nanos by overthrowing or becoming a more productive governor than the leader, which helps with new players that dont want to be with anything too established for their liking getting trapped in a player sink and quitting when it greys out. Another good idea, though not sure how it would be implemented in coding, is to make it to were 1 person cant create an alliance at all, there has to be 5 players or some other arbitrary number, this creates an impedement that requires them to interact with the community. This is also an easy thing to get around, but forces them to think more than just clicking that create button after rushing to some score.
  16. Yes lets make this game more exclusive than it already is...that will help attract new players to this game for sure...
  17. If any thing was implemented with approval rating it would require a total revamp, with caps on negative and positive overflow. (Maybe -100 to 200 as point cap, with 0 to 100 being effective rate, and new players start ~80-50 instead of 100) and if nothing is done with it, it should probably be removed, since it is alot of pointless data with all its formulas as it stands now. My original suggestion on approval ratings when I was new, was that they should effect your base crime rating, high approval not needing police station until higher infra, and low approval needing an extra police earlier etc.
  18. Its a government where the monarch tells everyone not to listen to him or he'll Kill them, but they rebel by continuing to follow his lead, and he lacks the power to kill them for it. "You don't tell me you're not king anymore!!" In seriousness to the OPs suggestion, I would expand by adding more subtypes to all government types, even ones that seem implausible to the sane or unlikely to unimmaginative folks, and allowing VIP to Make a custom gov & Icon.
  19. As a balance id go for 10 days, since that is in line with other ingame timers. I always though 14 was a little long; but 7 while realistic to irl situations that drive you afk, is easily abusable without being a large cost economically or in time. *written before I realised everyone else already said the same....
  20. I like this approach better than alliance projects
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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