James Hutton

I support this

there is a preview function ?

My problems with this: 1)." First, the market will force the trading market to be above that price preventing any market spiral towards extremely low prices as we see today." A mechanic that does not let players decide the price of resources defeats the purpose of having a fluctuating market, and would prevent people from lowering prices to compete with other people. 2)." This would balance the loads of nations producing massive amounts of resources by allowing resources to leave the global economy and provide a solution to the relatively low demand for the surplus of goods on the market." I disagree, by having a market that would jack up the prices of resources it would cause more damage to nations then help them, as It would cost the customer more then the norm. Additionally, raising prices on a global scale would cause only less and less resources being bought, and that would defeat the purpose of having this market anyway.If people keep mass-producing items of course the price goes down that is how the real world works. 3)."In practice, this market would almost never be utilized because global prices would have to better and you can't buy resources from the game market, so it only exists as a benchmark price minimum/floor." Then why not just say we need a price floor instead of introducing a 24/7 customer. And I'm pretty sure price floor for resources suggestions have been shot down by alex in the past. If you are concerned about the recourse trade prices going down, don't worry eventually the prices would go back up that is how a free-flowing market works. Eventually the resources would become so cheap that people can't afford to drop prices further, and then resources wouldn't be produced, increasing prices. Also, this would buff uranium production witch is a very, very bad idea.

1). Adding a notification to the game whenever someone responds to a post you did in the forums. That way more people would take advantage of the forums. 2). Changing the Stadium city improvement to something else. Its not really an issue but it does bother me that the stadium city improvement doesn't affect the baseball mechanics whatsoever. Maybe changing its name to something like "Cinema" or "Mega Mall" IDK. I think I'm just being picky. 3). Adding a box on the trade screen that tells you the lowest being sold of an item and the lowest being bought for. This would save a lot of time for people who actively buy and sell recorces. 4). Adding a time cap of when you can reapply to the same alliance after quitting/getting kicked. I recently saw someone quit an alliance, have his alliance members declare war on him, and he rejoined the alliance so that 2 of the 3 defense war slots are filled then he declared war, so that the slots are filled beforehand. I think that is a bit of an exploit, don't ya think? Or maybe have the wars immediately resolved if you joined the alliance of the attacking nation.

I think the main reason there is not "send aid" feature is because you can declare war on the country thats attacking the other person effectively causing more things to attack the same person, and basically "sending aid" at a basic level.

A solution To fix the problem with the fact that hosting makes more money is to make winnings have a multiplier affected by the hosting stadium's seating/quality level. That way if a real team went to a leeching stadium, the real team can take advantage of the leeching stadium

After reading though all 4 pages of comments on this topic, I came up with 2 general topics that needs to be addressed: 1). Baseball is a huge investment and takes a lot of time and resources to effectively be a positive investment: This is a very delicate thing to adjust, as making it too cheap would just increase the next the next problems. I have posted my idea about using stadium city improvements to increase the money output, but now that I think about it that would also increase my next problem aswell. 2). The people who host games make way more money than the people who play away games, causing leeching: This is by far the biggest issue. More people have complained about this issue with baseball more than anything else. There is a lot of suggestions to fix this, from automatically make games be hosted from both sides to strait up increasing the winnings. There really isn't anything to be said about this topic it just has to be addressed, because this can only be fixed by increasing the other sides output, wether it by hosting a game on both sides or by increasing winnings something's got to happen

Yea the way the current approval rating works is fine.

Yea I would think so

No criticism? Wow I'm good

The problem with seeing a range is that it's still gives you a decent idea of what their army is like, unless the range is huge but at that point having the range in the first place is useless. The problem is many wars were won or avoided by deception, such as pretending to have a big army, or pretending to have a small army. So how about something like this: say the ranges are already in place, under the military tab, you can pay an amount depending on how many mock-ups you need to build or how many things you need to hide: hiding would naturally cost more, to shift the range up or down.

Grammer Nazi aside, there is something we can build off of this abut lacking proposal. The basic idea of morale is basically this: (people are happy) = (buffs in war) So let's work with this. Morale can be based off of how many victories in a war, or based off of your government approval rating. So how about when a war is imitated, both sides have a base morale of 10, with 1 morale added per 20% of your government approval rating, so you can start with a max of 15 or a min of 10. Morale will go up or down depending on victories or defeats. So what will morale boost? The 3 options are either increase in casualties, increase of attack/defense rolls, a tiny boost in resistance damage, or any combination of the 3. Obviously resistance wouldn't be increased for nukes or missiles. Also I think morale shouldn't be a boost that is dependent on how much government rating or war victories you have, and instead boost you by a flat rate if you have more morale than your opponent. This way weak nations with low government ratings because of war loss won't take more than usual damage from their next opponent. its a unique idea and having morale based on government rating would make people actually care about controlling their pollution, disease, and crime even more than just a cap for their troops. Also I think the propaganda project should increase your morale by 1 as well.

I think the munitions thing is just a generic term for all firearms ammo but you know in orbis there is always a sulfur mine conveniently next to a lead mine.

I think it would be really nifty (and make investing baseball worth it) if stadiums(the city improvement) has an affect to increase the revenue of ticket sales by 2.5% per stadium improvement, with a max cap of 52.5% (or 21 stadium improvements, or 3 stadiums in 7 cities). The weird number is because stadiums are maxed at 3 stadiums per city. Baseball is a very powerful investment, but it is very time consuming and costs a lot of money to use, deterring many players away from it and favoring more conventional methods of revenue such as trade, maxing commerce, or through Raids. By increasing the rewards with something that players can better influence, more people would actually use baseball. However, even a 52.5% increase in ticket sales isn't as much as you would think, because a match produces an average of $6000, and a 52.5% increase would mean a match would make it $9150 per match, witch isn't much unless you grind baseball with another person for an hour making well over 10K per hour. To balance this mechanic, I believe that a increase in the cost of stadiums from &100000 and 40 steel/50 aluminum to $150000 and 50 steel/50 aluminum would work.

-You Can Do It! people hear about the news and start working harder, 10% revenue increase (in both fuel consumption and production)