Jump to content

Limbuwan

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    181

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Limbuwan

    The First Snek on The Moon (No Whales Allowed)

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted

    About SYNDICATE, INC.,

    SYNDICATE, Inc., based near Nassau, The Bahamas, is the world's leading gasoline, aluminum, steel and munitions distributor for a wide variety of peacekeeping and humanitarian activities. Wholly-owned SYNDICATE, Inc. subsidiary brand/s include ENTERPRISE, Corp., (NYSE: ESC), which provides opportunities for growth, development, and outreach for exceptional candidates throughout the globe, The Rohirrim, a rising equine research and breeding firm, and Prima Victoria, a corporation with extensive contacts and knowledge in former British-held colonies and dominions. For more information about SYNDICATE, Inc., and it's activities, contact WANA, Chief Global Strategist.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     

    Had to do it.

    • Like 3

    Church of the Force

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said:

    What else would you call that coalition?

    "consolidate quack and roasis"

    It implied to me you mean roasis is still a thing while in our view It was never a thing. Just different spheres acting on their own.

    • Upvote 2

    Church of the Force

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted

    1 minute ago, zigbigadorlou said:

    The ink on our peace terms have not been dried, and already you consolidate quack and roasis. I guess you couldn't be trusted to grow internally? Bring it on. I for one welcome our new abbas overlords.

    Is roasis even a thing except for the term pushed by other to make it look fair ?

    An Incentive For Action

    in Game Suggestions

    Posted

    On 10/31/2018 at 12:21 AM, Sketchy said:

    @Alex

    Overview

    One of the things I've noticed over time is that there is a tendency for alliances to spend long periods of time stockpiling resources, especially the major AAs, very often far more than is needed for just one or even two conflicts, and sitting on them, in the hopes of never having to be in a position where they can run out, but at the cost of stagnating an already fairly slow political landscape, while other newer and more engaged alliances often struggle to stockpile enough to stay competitive. While there is plenty of other causes for the tendency for war stagnation, rather than just another suggestion to tinker with the war system and potentially break it, I'd like to propose something less direct.

     

    Part 1 - Refined resources should suffer degradation over time.

    More specifically, I am suggesting that all refined resources (so munitions, gasoline, steel and aluminium), whether they are stored on a players nation, or in an alliance bank, should suffer degradation at a rate of 0.03% per day, per tonne/unit. This works out to 10.95% of all stockpiles of refined resources, degraded to dust, per year. Here is an example in action:

    27f21cf6dd76b994ed74b2c1a35b3ff4.png

     

    So why? Well the most obvious impact would be a mental shift in the meta on how players view stockpiling resources. If stockpiling 10 wars ahead has a downside, players are more likely to spend the current resources they have in the now on current conflicts, resulting in more wars more often, and less long term stockpiling.

    The further time people spend out of war, the further incentive they have to invest their resources IN war, or trade them to those who will, increasing the volume and frequency of trade, as people will want to offload their resources before they suffer degradation to willing buyers.

    Finally, newer alliances will be able to enter the arena more competitively, being less at a handicap vs alliances with years of stockpiles. Larger alliances already have huge income bases vs most newer alliances, the additional stockpile advantage allows alliances to create long term holds over the game and prevents new dynamics from flourishing.

     

    Part 2 - A "safe storage" project, and using the mechanic to disincentivize alliance bank hiding.

    To further capitalize on the above changes, my second part of this suggestion is implementing a new nation project, that reduces the degradation rate of refined resources held by nations by 33%, so from 0.03% a day/10.95% a year to a reduced rate of 0.02% a day/7.3% a year. An example:

    9923b7e768a85fcdedd391885cc7905a.png

    It would need to be fairly expensive, probably more so than most current projects, but with how long its been since we've seen a new project, I think it would be a welcome addition. Now, the additional benefit of this particular proposal, is how it would create a dynamic which forces alliance leaders to choose between stockpiling resources inside a bank,, shuffling them around during war to avoid looting like usual, where they are relatively safe, OR, on a nation with the project, putting them at bigger risk from raiders like Arrgh and others, but potentially saving a large amount in the process. While not eradicating bank hiding, it does force alliances to consider the risk vs cost analysis and is likely to reduce it in some cases.

     

    Part 3 - Offsetting the economic impact and potential negative side effects for stagnation.

    Now obviously, by implementing this change, the total pool of refined resources will be lower, further increasing prices, and making it harder for alliances, particularly newer ones, to actually stockpile resources at all, undermining the purpose of the proposal. But that is easily rectified.

    For Gasoline and Munitions, all war consumption of these resources, both offensive and defensive, should be reduced by 10%. This will completely offset the reduction in supply with a reduction in demand, while still maintaining the incentive for people to use rather than stockpile.

    For Steel, the cost of tanks should be reduced to 0.5 steel per tank. This is a long overdue rebalance in the ridiculously high cost in tanks, which is already prompting people not to purchase them. As many people have noted, tanks are becoming very similar to how ships used to be, too expensive for their utility, and this will both rectify this issue and offset the downsides of degradation. Ship steel costs are fine to remain the same.

    For Aluminium, I'd actually not make any changes at all. As  far as stockpiling goes, Alum is one of the least important resources needed at high volumes. As it is only used by planes, and at a much lesser amount than Steel or Gas/Alum, there is really no need to offset it, and it may bring Alum more in line with other resources balance wise.

     

    Won't people just bypass this change by stockpiling cash and raws instead?

    In short, probably. But doing so puts them at risk of being caught with low stockpiles at a time of war. Once a war is around the corner, the cost of resources increases, and the market volume is not endless. Alliances cannot quickly transfer cash or raws to refined in preparation for a war, not without incurring a large cost from inflated prices, or buying up the entire market and running out of buyers. Even after war, restockpiling is a gradual process, as mass purchasing will drive up prices and ultimately cost more. In effect, it'll be up to the individual alliances themselves to decide how much they think is a suitable stockpile, and bare the consequences.

     

    What about Vacation Mode?

    In order to prevent exploitation, refined resources should still degrade, even if nations enter vacation mode, so that nations don't use VM nations as "safe storage" for refined resources. VM nations will need to either give their resources to their alliance bank for safekeeping, to a trusted friend, or incur the cost. Otherwise, Sheepy will need to create rules and moderate them regarding this, and frankly that should be avoided at all costs.

    Grave digging.

    Igniting discussion for possible changes.

    Thank you.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1

    Biggest complaints regarding gameplay.

    in Game Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Limbuwan

    6 hours ago, James II said:

    I'd like to add they still get penalties of losing i.e. infra damage and loot and bank loot. But they should not be protected.

    I’d like to add further so that a nation is not pinned down forever and be given beige whoever has lower resistance remaining.

     

    What happened to that 12 turn cooldown stuff ? where we can buy troops every turn worth instead of having to wait for reset.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept