Jump to content

Raphael

Members
  • Posts

    1304
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

Everything posted by Raphael

  1. So the NAP covered "All parties" in the war. Samurai is on CTOWNED with quite a few wars. Regardless of whether you claim them, Samurai is indeed breaking the NAP quite clearly. edit: Samurai was apparently #14 in Net for the war. Not a bad showing. 14 Samurai (NET)$3,090,208,310 (Offensives)129 (Defensives)115 (Inflicted)$9,083,203,364 (Received)$5,992,995,054
  2. I can't believe TKR and Grumpy have formed another hegemony
  3. I still never got a clear answer as to how Adrienne rhymes with pants unless there was some ESL thing going on and he was using his native word for pants.
  4. Your honor, my client, Kastor Lordaeron, has had no dealings with pirates, scallywags, smugglers, sailors, privateers, or any characters-of-ill-repute. These false accusations are brazen, outlandish, and ludicrous. I will prove to this court that Mr. Lordaeron is innocent of all charges, and furthermore that Mr. Lordaeron is an upstanding citizen of this good land and has never had so much as a parking ticket before these accusations!
  5. Congratulations on the new government and peaceful transition of power! 41 is an impressive number.
  6. Since the war range and downdeclares have become so impossible to balance, the time has come breath new life into PnW's war system. Rather than each barracks adding a flat amount of soldiers, give it a tiny diminishing return curve. So instead of a c40 having 40 cities worth of soldiers, they'd have only 30. A c41 would have 30.25 cities worth of soldiers. etc. These are not finalized numbers, but just an example of what I mean. This way, larger nations are still receiving additional units and not being punished for growing - like some would argue the now pseudo-limitless updeclare range does. Rather, it just levels the playing field for the 90% of the playerbase that isn't above c35. We have to eventually recognize that asking players to invest 1-2 irl years just to be considered in a relevant tier isn't a good game design and will force ever-higher attrition rates as a result. I think this would also refresh politics again, as most alliances do not have an uppermost tier but this change would allow them to compete again. edit: For clarification, this is proposing we choose a city count to be an equilibrium point where anything above that point gives diminished military capacity. So, for example, if we pick c30: Anything at or below c30 would remain unchanged in terms of game mechanics. Every city above c30 would give fewer units per building lessening with each additional city. So c31 with max barracks would only give 95% of the troops it normally would. c32 would give 90%. Etc.
  7. Probably going to get all the downvotes here but land shouldn't be immutable. It would be cool to either be able to steal land from your opponents or have it decay over time, needing replacement and therefore repayment. That's the whole idea, give me all your downvotes fellow whales, but look at your income and tell me that it's not 60-80% from producing food.
  8. Dang we didn't even have time to swap protectors again
  9. #LetPerksDie I'd like to see anything that adds more interaction between players in the game, so I voted for color blocs. The alliance/nation decisions are cool too though. Projects look cool. Maybe rework nuke damage to be a percentage of infra instead of flat numerical amounts.
  10. The intent is to incentivize some national political roleplay tbh. So like coordinating either with your alliance or other individual nations to get on the same currency.
  11. So these could very well be projects but the idea is that these would be dependent on other players interacting together to have a true impact. Grand Temple: Boosts both war and domestic policy effectiveness by 1% for every 10 nations that share your religion and color bloc. Capped at 20% bonus. International Stock Exchange: Increases commerce by 1% for every 10 nations that share your currency and color bloc. Capped at 20% bonus. Orbis Climate Accords: Reduces pollution in your cities by 0.01% for every nation that signs, only accessible at c30 or above. Belt and Road Initiative: Requires a nation at/above c30 to agree to this with a nation at/below c29. The larger nation receives a 2% income bonus for agreeing. The smaller nation receives an additional 25% output to their manufacturing resource output, and a cost reduction of infrastructure of 33%, until they reach c30 or this deal has been in effect for 180 days. This can only be active with one nation at a time. Bounty Hunter Haven: Every bounty collected from another player gives you an additional 10% on top of what you earn. Maginot Line: This is complicated to explain but bear with me. Every nation in your alliance that has this project, if they have any active defensive wars with Fortify active in them, creates a stacking effect for the Fortify mechanic across the alliance (only the members with this project) where Fortify increases attacker casualties by an additional 1% per nation using fortify in any defensive war. This only stacks 1% per nation, not per war. There are many more examples but the concept I'm pitching is introducing things that give off more of an MMO vibe instead of the solo-nation-building game where we can only interact through war.
  12. I like this idea. I would also say that the formula should be completely flipped as right now the conflict caused is big AA's kicking little/new AA's off their sphere. Make it so that the more nations and lower the average revenue is, the higher the extra income is imo. This way it pushes larger AA's like t$ to invite people to Green rather than push them off. Competition of a different, more political nature, and it benefits smaller nations more or at least equally to the whales that currently profit most from the formula.
  13. Shwin, our protectorate died for this
  14. Sad times for this new player.
  15. I get the sense that food will not be spiking any further
  16. It is somehow both immeasurably disappointing and totally fitting that the most exciting event in probably the last three or four years in the game was snuffed out in twenty four hours. This is a solid summary of the state of the game.
  17. Epimetheus recently posted a youtube video that broke down alliances into tiers based on their numerical rank, and that inspired me to make a post about it and share my thoughts. I disagreed with much of what Epi had to say once he got closer to the top AA's, and I've been government in various top AA's and probably have a unique mix of experiences to share. These are purely my subjective thoughts and observations, so if you feel like I've mischaracterized your group then I probably have. Post a long reply telling me how you disagree! Below Rank 75: The Abyss - This is where you find one-man alliances, offshores, dead alliances being preserved by their last fan, or micros that have a handful of active new players struggling to get off the ground. Other than offshores, almost every alliance past rank 75 has more inactive than active players, low membership, low average score. Light never reaches this low on the rankings. There is no advice to leave the Abyss, the pressure has crushed you. Best to leave your AA once it gets here unless you have a reason to stay (offshores etc). Rank 51-75: The Second Page - It's actually not uncommon to find household names floating around this tier, as a lost war can often sink smaller groups past rank 50. This is where low-tier raiding groups and true micros are usually found. Characterized almost universally by the phrase "I didn't realize they were that low!" on at least a couple of the names here. This is also where training AA's are usually positioned, as well as new alliances for their first month or two can usually be found here while they're first building up. The main advice for this tier is to use diplomacy to your advantage, the lower the ranks the brighter good diplomacy can shine. Secure a protectorate with someone strong enough to defend you against major threats, stop stirring up pointless drama or wars, focus on growing your members and recruitment. You may even want to strongly consider opening talks with your closest allies about merging into them in order to combine forces. This tier is often suffering from multiple terminal issues that will take more effort to fix than to scrap and try again later. 30-50: The Potential - This tier is where a lot of newer or growing groups end up who are missing a key piece of the formula. These are the household names who sometimes end up below rank 50 during a losing war, micros who are doing better than most, or even smaller whale groups like Yarr. Breaching the top 50 usually means you're doing things right, but you may be missing one or two key things that will push you up into the relevancy on your own. Many of these groups are key members of larger coalitions, but not necessarily powerhouses in themselves yet. The main advice for these groups is to identify what you're missing and try to flesh it out (most probably are doing this already). Pieces like: Recruitment, do you have enough members? Average score, are you missing mid/upper tier nations (I am aware this can take awhile to grow)? Maybe your FA is subpar and you're associating with too many sub-rank 50 groups who pull you into needless wars and prevent your success, maybe you don't understand the economic meta of the game, or maybe you're not culling your inactives like you should be. Usually it's only one or two tweaks that can start to bump these guys up the ranks. 21-30: The Swamp - The name sounds harsher than the intent. This tier is where many once-micros have found their stride, are coming into their own identity other than being a micro, and generally are striving to do things the right way. This is also the place where some household names go to die, groups who should be competitive with at least the tier above this one but for one reason or another have stumbled into a decline and now fight for their own survival rather than success. This tier is generally where alliances start being able to enforce their own will, in a limited capacity, and find success in doing so. This is also where Arrgh usually sits doing its own thing. All the keys to success are here: Money, experience, political connections, and membership. These groups are often some of the silent workhorses in their coalitions, but generally don't get recognition or a huge say at the negotiating table. The universal advice for this tier is that improved tiering will drastically change your outcomes. Advice to the older-but-fallen alliances: Favor activity over tradition especially for government positions, you are in a spot where you will have to experience pain one way or another in order to recover, usually this happens from a splinter if the alliance itself can't pull itself together in time. Rank 13-20: The Backbone - This is the tier usually comprised of high-member-count alliances with prominent middle tiers, beginning to breach into the upper tiers. These groups usually can and will enforce their ideas into the coalition, but they aren't necessarily the leadership. These are the groups where the most surprise is directed when they do exceedingly well or exceedingly poor. Tiering, time, and sometimes member-count are the only thing that really separate these groups from the tier above them. The advice in this tier is to start being conservative with your politics: Rather than being ride-or-die in someone else's war, take the backseat and let the powerbrokers take the heat for their decisions. Cultivate relationships with all corners of the web and you will benefit greatly when your time comes, otherwise you will end up categorized as a hanger-on to one of the bigger alliances. Rank ?-?: The Secondary Powers - A bit subjective here because we're now drifting into political opinion and that can't always be based on score/rank. Especially while a war has been going on for the past month. This tier is comprised of top alliances usually with their own robust upper tiers and political connections. These groups could easily form their own spheres of influence and most have done so in the past. These groups can probably fight any single or even handful of alliances in the game by themselves and win, and are usually considered equal partners in their coalitions. They just aren't ~1m score alliances, with the notable exception being TI - who are a secondary power purely by their own ambition or lack thereof. Rank ?-?: Great Powers - The powerbrokers and figureheads of any given sphere. These groups could almost be paperless and still heavily influence the politics of the game, the names of their high government often make the news when they retire or change seats, and generally a lot of the game's politics hinge on their decisions. These groups are almost universally years-old alliances with triple digit memberships and roughly one million or more score. Even the argument of who is considered a great power at any given time is a source of constant debate and content for the game. These groups tend to lead (or be seen to be leading) their own spheres. They take the brunt of responsibility for sphere actions, even if they may not be the ones pushing said actions. A treaty between any of these groups is considered a significant and a threat to the balance of power. These groups are usually the bulk of damages dealt and received during global wars and their presence determines whether or not a war is considered "a global" affair. Advice at this or secondary power stage is pointless, as usually these last two tiers are arrogant enough to ignore any advice given regardless. They will rise or fall due to their own actions and probably take several other groups with them in either direction. I'll close this out with the disclaimer that a ton of what I've said is a generalization of the tiers at the time of posting. You could probably break it down further but I tried to tier based on where I thought made sense. Not every group in any given tier fits that tier, and a lot of what I mentioned was subjective. I tried to be positive but honest, so hopefully I didn't hurt any feelings. I recognize we all spend hours of our weeks trying to run our respective alliances and it's not as easy as taking a sentence of advice to succeed. Hope you guys enjoyed this!
  18. This is my exact thought. We see way too much victim-blaming in this game when people pull dumb stunts, and not nearly enough accountability for the people who are constantly screwing people over. Camelot is doing alright trying to help other alliances and on way-to-generous terms (allowing them to exist as an extension).
  19. Interesting project. Good luck with it!
  20. A high gov position given from a merge! TKR is evolving.
  21. This should be Alex's favorite suggestion ever because it'll incentivize donations for more than just selling a credit or quick cash. Player choice! 1. Change the donate for infra option to "bring a city up to 2700 infrastructure" instead of additional 100. The ingame tool tells me (with discounts) that this is roughly $32.9m so makes it slightly more cost-effective than actually redeeming a credit for cash. Even more cost-effective without the discounts. 2. Reduce VIP party to 20 credits and I think a lot more alliances would be buying this regularly. Even though it's less per purchase, I think it would result in more purchases making up for the difference as many people buy 20 credits a month as-is and may do so for this purpose. 3. New City Timer Reset: Reduce to 2 credits. 3 is a bit rough and uneven. 4. National Project Timer Reset: Increase to 2 credits to make it even with city timers. 5. Location Change: Reduce to 1 credit and I think you'll see an increase in usage similar to the VIP party reduction logic. 6. Even at wartime prices the resource redemption is perpetually less cost-effective than redeeming a credit directly. I think cash should be the least cost-effective option rather than the most as the "king" resource people really want. Most people would redeem resources to sell, so adjust appropriately to be slightly more than $30m at least in wartime pricing. example: 150k food for 200PPU is exactly $30m, what I can redeem a credit for directly. Selling a credit would probably get me an extra few mil on top of that. 7. New donation idea simple to implement: Your vote on your color bloc name now counts for double for VIP members (so 1 vote turns into 2 for VIP, this also factors into the VIP party change as now smaller AA's trying to take color names will snag cheaper VIP party to do so).
  22. Summarizing what I said on discord: 1. I'm not sure about the shift to raws for a lot of the projects. Raws are already steadily decreasing in supply and this feels like an odd choice. I'd be interested to hear reasoning (sorry if I missed the reasoning in the OP). 2. City Cost Reduction Projects I think should be re-examined to be even less expensive than proposed. The goal is to reward actively growing new nations with faster/cheaper growth, having them be massive projects with big-ticket cost is the opposite of that goal. I'd rather see the "resource sink" aspect of these projects be shifted somewhere else like onto the Spy Satellites or other big-ticket lategame items. 3. Military Salvage and Bureau of Domestic Affairs I think are getting over-buffed. Resource sinks are still needed and you're handing out a lot of bonuses instead. 4. I genuinely think Spy Satellite is already way too powerful as it is. A coordinated spy effort like we see from Rose and others can often put up more damages than nukes can consistently produce. I was hoping for a nerf but instead it got a buff. I like the idea of something giving an extra spy per day other than the CIA, but not the spy satellite. Maybe shift it over to the surveillance network instead?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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