Wendell
-
Posts
883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Wendell
-
-
16 hours ago, Micchan said:
Older/bigger players will rebuild infra faster, it's a penalty for smaller/newer players
I'm not sure what you mean...
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Ivan Ivanov said:
I like this idea, but I think there should be a cap at how much the infra price can be reduced. 1% for 500 miles might seem fine, but what if someone were to get 50,000 land? Would infra cost nothing? Would it go into negatives and create an exploitable glitch in where you make free money? It’s a good idea but needs restrictions.
Maybe it could be capped at 50% with 10000 land. Anyone trying to game the system would have to spend a ton on just land alone.
-
1
-
-
Just as the title says,
If you buy more land your cities are less cramped and therefore infrastructure is less stressed.
For example, for every 500 square miles bought the infrastructure costs reduces by 1%.
-
1
-
-
Hello friend?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Ripper said:
All of the terms submitted have been accepted by all the members of the coalition, while others have been rejected.
Proposed terms that give any kind of military, economy or political advantage after this war never passed through this filter.
It's only for six months lol
-
Finally a TKR nerf.
-
3
-
-
Thank you MinesomeMc!! And your welcome!
-
1
-
-
To streamline the war system mechanic it would help to be able to pre-select a series of attacks with the amount of MAPs available. Example: You have 10 MAPs so you can have 3 ground battles, 2 ground battles and 1 naval/airstrike, 2 naval/airstrike or one missile launch.
-
1
-
-
Simple solution: keep your score as low as possible with maximum military capabilities at one click or turn away. That way your score(and military) is flexible for wars and you don't have to worry about down declares.
-
1
-
-
Simple suggestion
Automatically move alliance members that are inactive for more than a week to applicant.
-
2
-
-
I like the idea. But instead can you have a region or nation color affected. For example:"All blue nations have suffered from a thunderstorm"
Also, can you have more positive events like: Summer season spawns: Celebrity Visitation 20% chance to get $500,000, or Scientific Breakthrough that awards 50 infrastructure etc.
Great Idea!
-
3
-
-
@Flavee So I don't care about your negativity or trolling. Confirming all my points just proves you agree. If you do t like different ideas on a suggestions forum (where New ideas live) maybe you should rethink your purpose in responding to anyone's posts in this subforum.
-
5
-
-
On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:
This is why you have an average -4.7 reputation per post. Keep it up though, you'll eventually get to the level of @No neck casey
Anyway, it is not easy to gain approval rating. It is in fact an extremely risky, difficult, and counterproductive endeavor, since the only real way to quickly increase approval rating is to win wars. And with the war system being what it is, winning wars is something that you very much want to avoid doing in many circumstances.
Make ways to increase approval ratings, or have a real use for it. I mean why have it. Its just extra code for Alex to deal with, maybe he meant to do something with it and left it unfinished or forgot.
Winning wars is supposed to be a bad thing? That doesn't make sense.
-
4
-
-
11 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
There's a number of issues with this, but one that stands out is that approval rating, as it stands, is unbounded both above 100% and below 0%. Personally I've had an approval rating as high as 400% and currently am at -176%, pushing for -200%.
I mean, I'm wildly off the bell curve in many ways, but the point remains: approval rating is currently a flavor mechanic for limited RP purposes and nothing more, and we've been playing under that system for years.
Another critical issue is that approval rating is increased largely by winning wars, and dramatically reduced by losing wars and declaring wars that aren't won, and reduced by having wars declared upon you. This means that it's really easy to lose your approval rating unless you consolidate and avoid risk, which are maladaptive behaviors that are extremely bad for the game as a whole and must be mechanically discouraged, not encouraged.
1. So make it bounded or get rid of it.
2. Don't care about what your approval rating is or what has happened for many years.
3. It is just as easy to gain approval rating.
4. Anything else?
10 hours ago, Flavee said:The lowest Approval rating is -4,710.98 right now. According to you higher ratings will bring more taxes and what about lower rating... They won't pay tax?
1. Don't care about the lowest approval rating.
2. That question tells me you didn't read my original post.
3. Was there anything constructive you needed to add?
-
6
-
-
22 hours ago, Lairah said:
I personally think you don't understand the point of tariffs in general, nor the point of them in a setting like PW. Forcing people you don't like to spend more on resources, by you putting tariffs on them, is a simple but logical tactic. Especially, if, say, you are Rose, putting tariffs on NPO. NPO is well known to have outstanding debts already, you're just spitting on their shoes now.
Don't be so close-minded, think in-depth about how this would affect relations, before saying its pointless. Two people who have, both think you're missing something. That's 66%, maybe reconsider that.
He has a valid point on how tariffs could affect trade rates. And tariffs of course won't have the same affect as it does in the real world. I think that's what @Arthur Pendragonis saying. I'm not saying I totally disagree with tariffs but after all the facts are presented it could be decided on whether its a good idea or not.
-
4
-
-
I think approval rating should mean something like an extra bonus on revenue or higher taxes. Like if citizens approve your rule they should willing to pay additional taxes or give donations to their dear leader.
-
7
-
-
On 5/21/2018 at 11:53 PM, Ukunaka said:
and i will accept and respect your view/criticism of my suggestion instead of throwing a hissy fit and downvoting everyone that doesn't agree with my suggestion.
What? But its okay for you to do it? You started to down vote my initial suggestion and everything I said afterwards. You're just being petty for no reason.
And professional raiders like you all are they main ones attacking people in the same alliance. Don't try to project you actions unto me!
I was cordial and nice at first but you all wanted to attack me personally....on a freaking forum about a game. LOL
Lighten tf up!!
-
7
-
-
@Flavee Is that an issue also?
-
4
-
-
The interesting thing is that I see similar suggestions and everyone on that thread is mannerable and respectable.
7 hours ago, Lairah said:Considering your alliance, i wonder why you're surprised you get raided. I raided your leader and not only did he not do a thing about it, he didn't even try to invoke any treaties to do anything about it.
I'm not sure what big alliance you were in, wherein you got attacked and they didn't protect you, i'm guessing they weren't so big. Even smaller alliances do that. Even MY alliance does that, infact i'm often the person that dispatches them to do so. So i'm really not sure where you're getting this narrative from, any respectable alliance will protect it's members, and most alliances in the top 50 fall under that category. I think Arrgh may be the only exception, they only sometimes counter. If they feel like it.
Yeah I was part of Black Knights. They seem to be unconcerned. I was former Zodiac until they made a terrible decision to merge with BK. They countered well.
-
5
-
-
@AlexWow this is just a suggestion and I get creamed left and right? Just wow I didn't know it is was so serious.
Just really? is just a suggestion I'm not the game creator so I can't change anything. Maybe I hit a nerve?
Maybe it's troll week or something
7 hours ago, Codonian said:I'm interested in where that personal attack was? Please do not slander me just because you did not like what i commented. There was no personal attack.
Edit: @Alex I believe I should be banned for my scathing personal attack on this poor fellow.
@Alex I would have to say that this user is quite hostile to game suggestions!
-
3
-
-
No need for personal attacks. I like the game and therefore it is for me. My experience is different from yours. I was in BIG alliances and when I get attacked by random raiders no one comes to my defense. What is the point of an alliance if yo I get raided anyway?
2 minutes ago, Codonian said:Then you'll have to figure out a way play the game without changing the mechanics. The game is very obviously setup to encourage teamwork. If you don't want to be apart of a unit either adapt your play style, find the best way to utilise your solo-play style or perhaps consider that this game isn't for you.
-
7
-
-
18 hours ago, Ukunaka said:
This just devalues coordination and makes alliances' much weaker, if your being attacked by three people, then you should get your allies and alliance members to assist.
Well that is part of the point of it. Everyone doesn't want to be in alliance. It can stop alliance raids and micro alliance bullying.
It also isn't fun to be attacked right out of beige and not being to build up fast enough due to being wiped clean out by three down declares...
-
4
-
-
I think to reduce damage from raiders there should be a mutual reduction system for players attacking from same alliance. For example a player can have only 60000 soldiers and may have to defend against 3 timed that=180000 soldiers. A example of mutual reduction would be: If the attacker establishes ground control, decrease second and third attackers max deployment by 60% and 75% respectively. Same thing with or other units. Thanks
-
12
-
Mercenary Alliance Survey
in General Discussion
Posted
Please answer to the best of your ability. No down votes please this is totally not a meddling tactic.