Jump to content

Cianuro

Members
  • Content count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Cianuro

  • Rank
    Casual Member

Profile Information

  • Alliance Pip
    Frostbite
  • Leader Name
    Cianuro
  • Nation Name
    Dunmirth
  • Nation ID
    109403
  • Alliance Name
    Frostbite

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Chopsuey Cyanide
  1. As a combination of several ideas I saw in here, I'd suggest put a 12 turn limit on bank transactions going through, and also providing an 'approve' option for someone of higher rank to do. This will give a 24 hours notice for anyone of government to notice and report (and hopefully prevent) while also not stalling any bank transactions for too long, so long as someone of higher rank can come on and approve the transaction. This also maintains that level of trust in picking proper government positions, since a Master and Sentinel could still coup together as a team. I don't agree that a member who becomes bored of the game, or disagrees with something that occurs in their alliance should be able to simply take all the bank's money and completely erase its existence. The power to destroy an entire alliance, is too much for one nation to hold alone.
  2. Cianuro

    Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

    What do you mean we aren't here to debate the embargo solution? Anything that is a *suggestion* is up for debate and feedback, just because you want to denounce it entirely, doesn't mean I can't try to convince you, if you choose to not debate it, that's pure ignorance. Also I don't recall the "different solution" you're referring so please inform me again so I can account for it and maybe reconsider my previous statements regarding the team embargo. If for the sake of compromise, 45/55 will appease you, I will agree to those terms, although I still disagree that winner should take majority. Abuse means to utilize something for anything other than its intended use. Baseball is intended to pass time while also creating a secondary source of income. If Flavee chooses to use his time playing baseball, that is still considered passing the time and within the grounds of its intended function. I would say that using a bot is both, cheating, and abuse; but not one nor the other.
  3. Cianuro

    Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

    I think most can agree that facing less players whom are willing to cooperate and split profits, is way better than facing the same amount of players who don't share their profits. What's the point in playing against leeches if all you're going to make is a meager amount of cash? "This change sounds like its coming soon enough, its fortunate I started Baseball when I did to help you guys out of a mess. If you had experience with systems you would see the problem." Oh lordy, lordy, our messiah has arrived, thank Jesus we're being saved.
  4. Cianuro

    Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

    Compromise means to meet in the middle of the two options. These are the two options for the embargo argument: Yes embargo, no embargo. As you can see there is no middle there, none that I can think of anyway, but if you want to suggest one go ahead. Continuing on, you originally said the current system gives the host 96% of the profits, so your proposal was to give the winner 90% of the profits instead. Well in the middle of those two options (winner takes 4% and winner takes 90%), the middle ground would be 47%, but for the purpose of rounding, I suggested 40 or 50%. I thought that was a pretty reasonable compromise to be honest. I really do not believe the winner should get more profits, that only gives the rich an advantage over the poor and in my opinion, a person should not be discouraged from playing a game solely because their pockets are too small.
  5. Cianuro

    Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

    "My pockets are full" was irrelevant, you could have just said "I do like baseball" and been done with it. I don't believe I've been stubborn, maybe I have, but I've tried to take into account all the problems and all the solutions and comment on them with my ideas and suggestions. Even with your idea I was trying to compromise. You said you wanted winner takes 90% and I tried to meet you with winner takes 50 or 40% both of which you shot down, so please remind me again, whose being stubborn? Also if you're really curious why I did not want to reply again, it is as simple as this: You're boneheaded and hard to argue with.
  6. Cianuro

    Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

    Make whatever assumptions you want about me, it does not tackle the problems we're facing. Whether I am a leecher or a farmer or a casual is irrelevant. If you're not going to at least try and compromise, then there's no helping you. I'm glad your pockets are full, glad you feel the need to brag about your virtual monies, congrats man.
  7. Cianuro

    Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

    That will not distribute the revenue more fairly, that will only give the people who can afford to dump 40 mil into their players a huge advantage which I would not call in any way, fair. By both the host, and the away team splitting the profits, both will earn a nice amount of cash. "...they still have to win the match mind you." Yes, because it's very hard for a 100 rating team to roflstomp a 10 rating team. Your idea would work if every team was on equal footing, but they're not, not everyone on pnw is capable of maxing their team and they should not be forced to in order to make any reasonable profit. I don't really care how fast of a learner you say you are, there are many other people in this discussion with a lot more experience in baseball so I do not think you should be so quick to shoot down their ideas. You chose to play baseball, don't like it? That's your problem bud.
  8. Cianuro

    Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

    Why do you believe the winner should take the majority of the profits? "I don't think you're understand hosting all that well" Didn't you say you only came to baseball 3 or 4 days ago? Having a max team is *only required* to make max profits, but not everyone can *afford* to max their team. Some of us (like myself) just invest solely into our stadiums and play home games; some of us split the profits, some of us are leeches and the leeches are one of the problems we're dealing with.
  9. Cianuro

    Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

    I said I wasn't gonna come back, but seeing as the discussion has reached more people and that more ideas are being thrown out there (all of which I think are terrific btw) I decided to just throw myself back in. For Lairah, I think that the winner taking 50 or 40% of the collected profits would be good, I think that would solve many problems. I just think winner takes 90% is excessive since that would take away the incentive for hosting games considering that most hosting teams invested in their stadiums rather than players which would result in them losing 90% of their stadium's profits (which they invested heavily into) in a majority of the played games. The only reason why I would suggest host takes 60% is because they are the ones selling tickets, but also because the away player gets bonus cash if they win. And regarding the sponsorship idea, I think that's also a great idea, but I don't think it should be added alongside the above-mentioned one. In my opinion it would have to be one or the other. I think the former solution fixes more problems than the latter. The first solution fixes issues with leeches, removes the need of sending trades in order to split profits, incentivizes people to play away games, and is fair to both the wealthy and the poor. All in all, a terrific idea, and on top of the 'team embargo' I think this would fix many of the current problems we're seeing in baseball. However, the sponsorship idea would also incentivize people to invest into their away teams, and would be beneficial to both the wealthy and poor. Leeches would still exist, but it wouldn't matter much since the away team is getting compensated whether or not the host chooses to split his profits.
  10. Cianuro

    Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

    It's not "winning" really, considering that if the odds are against you, you will only earn more than the better team on few occasions since on the other occasions, they'll be stomping you repeatedly. Also it's not intended neglect, it's the inability to spend 40 mil neglect. Well of course there's less max teams, but if every weak team embargoed the better teams, then that would only leave them to play against each other, which I'm fine with. Not sure how farming with another max team is a bad idea, I'd think it's a good idea. Two max teams versing each other would cause a larger attendance = more money, then they would split their profits. It would not in any way be difficult for you to play against max teams. Off the top of my head, Syrus, Flavee, Imperium, and Don't Know come to mind, who play at least 100 games straight before taking a break. You should have no issues finding and playing against them, since they are on consistently. I don't really have any more interest in continuing this debate, so whatever message you send next I will read but not respond to. Hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.
  11. Cianuro

    Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

    You don't deserve to win a bigger amount for overcoming the odds against you? Okie den. I guess I am part of the problem *shrugs*. I'm not going to go out of my way to get you evidence, I don't really care all that much to post it, since I'm guessing it will little impact your opinion (if at all). ""Team embargo"? That would give maxed teams pretty much no one to play." Wrong. Maxed teams would vs. each other much like many of them do now. The only reason you do not want the team embargo to be added is because your set on this winner takes 90% of the earnings idea, and that if this got implemented your 100 rating team would have to vs other 100 rating teams which would lower the number of times you would win.
  12. Cianuro

    Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

    That number is based off your revenue and does not apply to each team. Also, baseball is not all that unpredictable; an 8 rating nation vs a 100 rating has probability play heavily out of their favor, raising the chances that they lose by a lot more. In one instance, it took my 8 rating team 36 games to win a single game against a 100 rating team. It's not impossible for an 8 rating team to win against a maxed team, but it's highly unlikely. Your suggestion would make the game extremely unfair towards players without the millions of dollars required to max out baseball. My suggestion is: raise the winnings amount and make it scale with the rating of the winning team; like if an 8 rating team beat a 100 rating team they should get $5,000 whereas if a 100 rating team beat an 8 rating team, they should only get $2,500. Then on top of this, add the 'team embargo' system so maxed out teams do not need to face against non-maxed ones.
  13. Cianuro

    Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

    I don't know where you pulled this 96% from, but it's false. Your suggestion states that the winning nation should take 90% of what the host's stadium generates. Smaller, less wealthy nations such as myself only play home games because we are, well, poor. Baseball is a reliable source of income for me as long as I dedicate the proper time to it. I make about $7,000 per game after investing $9,000,000 into my stadium and a minor amount to my players. I do not want to forfeit 90% of my $7,000 just because my opponent spent 30 mil more than myself into his/her players. You say that $20,000 is a good amount, but the chances an 8 rating team beats a 100 or even 50 rating team is extremely low. $20,000 does not nearly equate to the current amounts I make from baseball, currently by spamming home games I can make 400k in 10 minutes and that's after the fact that I give some of my profits to the away team. I'll use Flavee as an example, me and him played for about 10 minutes (120 games total), I hosted and made 700k total profits, I sent him 300k for his participation, meaning I came away with 400k. 400k is a way larger number than the mere 20k you're proposing the losing nation should receive. I like almost everything about the system as it stands, except I would like the previously mentioned 'team embargo' to be implemented to prevent absolute leeching.
  14. Cianuro

    Baseball Needs Some Tweaking

    "I wouldn't say easier, this idea is to make Baseball more accessible and enjoyable for current and new people." *1) Winning team gets 90% of the revenue generated and the Losing Team gets 10% of the revenue generated* "This change above is much better and will solve that problem more smoothly without killing baseball." So basically, let all the wealthy nations that can afford to dump 40 mil into their team take 90% of the profit from the not-so wealthy nations that can only dump maybe 5 or 10 mil into their stadium/team; this will totally make baseball more accessible and enjoyable for the newer nations coming in I'm sure. Nations that can only afford to put a few mil into their teams will never win home, nor away games and will only cause them to forfeit 90% of their profits, 99% of the time. Sounds like a terrific idea. However, I completely agree that nations should be able to prevent their team from playing another specified nation through embargo.
  15. Cianuro

    Hello from Kaiserliches Monaco!

    As Monarch of Italy, I did not approve any of these agreements... But enjoy your stay.
×

Important Information

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