BelgiumFury

Ships need significant buffs, not nerfs.

It's a pain to see an alliance with a history like yours disband. A long time ago when I was a baby rose member I loved the idea there was another relevant alliance with rose in the name. And even though it's dumb to this day i sometimes feel an odd sense of joy when i saw an OTW in the wild. No real reason for those feelings, I didn't know you well (except you had a rich history). It's sad to lose that history. It's sad that this stupid little thing I liked is dissapearing. But, all the best Sval, I hope it goes you well.

dew it

If you have not bought credits for 180 days you get a 50% discount.

Zig my brother in arms! I got so frustrated and dm'd Alex. A solution may be on the way!

Yeah it might make it better in that situation (as mentioned in point one); but my point was is that in that case the war is already "won", so the relevance is less than what i'd like it to be (about the same relevance as planes and tanks).

Can someone explain to me why credits should be excluded here; as far as I'm concerned 20 different credit prices are just as annoying. If someone actually deletes, everything should be distributed to the nations fighting. If you delete you are a wussy and deserve it. Although this is nice and sweet; i don't think that this will structurally fix the issues that Naval has. That issue is that it has no place at all in the Global War meta, it will just make the cost of mismanaging ships and destroying infra cheaper. Which seems like a non solution. Ships need a buff / mechanics change that will make them more useful and or more interesting to be used in meta war situations, during the early stages of the war. Currently they are only good in three situations: - Destroying loads and loads of infra if you have a lot of cities (this will be buffed quite a bit as ships are cheaper to use now). - Blockading (In the deciding stages of a global war this is very rarely useful). - One shipping (this is only useful if your opponent is absolute shit). Just to be clear: I am not opposed to this change (I don't really care much for it); i just don't think it's actually going to do a lot. --- Those are the three comments I have; I think these changes are mostly very good and or interesting.

time to start removing people from rose (for science!)

Nah that's dumb. Unless deleting trade offers becomes easier. Optimally you'd get a pop up wiht you three current trades and just be able to choose which one to delete instead of doing weird click trougjh things. The trade UI isn't optimal no need to make people interact with it more than needed.

This was the intended target of this change, fricking people who literally do !@#$ all and dont keep MMR during peace time. But i agree with others that the result on the war meta would be too big for the change to make sense.

It makes no sense that there is a minimum price for treasure trading. If an alliance wants to do some heavy extortion, let them. The minimum price should be 0. It's even weirder if you take into account that you can pay the money back in a seperate trade anyway. that's all folks.

So in essence you want to train your troops and the only real cost is logging in? How big would this small cost be?

Atlan I worked with you a bit a long time ago; and you were one of the best, kindest and most efficient people I've met in Orbis. I wouldn't trust many people over you to give TLE another go; good luck to you and to the alliance!

It would and I think that's the whole point; we want to give normal people more of a say in what they do and give them some autonomy. That being said; if an alliance really wants to be an absolute wussy alliance that puts embargoes on its own members, you can enforce it like you enforce nation color or any other metric.

This might be a better idea; or at least more than one. If 10 is too radical 5 might be it.

I'm happy this was posted on April fools lmao

the thing is i dont think they could be better; rewarding people for actively engaging with a core mechanic is good.

I do not spend 12 hours (or even one hour) on the market in this game and i seemingly do not have much issues in the current market; so i really am not sure what you are talking about. 95% of the time I spend in this game is in our internal affairs departement, and i've been exceedingly busy in real life and yet I am completly fine with how it goes now..

if someone actually did that and put in time and effort and was minimally biased (which is a challenge on its on in Orbis); it would be absolute fire.

if this is actually true; i have huge respect for TKR Grump and Guardian. And to everyone who is not controlling the market while they are: massive skill issue. edit:

I think that's a very fair comment to make; and would certainly make it a lot more interesting / competitive. I wasn't sure where exactly to draw the bar. lelw

I do not think this is an issue that needs fixing; this isnt market manipulation but rewarding people for putting in time in a core game mechanic. People listed examples earlier that were actually issues (for example; people that cant fufill the market orders they have). But this; i would go as far to call it intended game design. If your price is right these one up one down people will not matter, I promise.

People seem to really like the possibility of rewards for in game things they have done (for example the free project slot). Here I propose that everyone who has looted at least 1.5B (as per the stat on your nation page) will get a free undestructible project (and a free project slot to go along with it). The effect will be that you loot 10% more of everything in every raid war you do. I propose the name "Advanced Raiding Equipement" although, any name is a good name. This project will reward raiders, be a fun "achievement" to get while not being OP (war type and policy matter a lot more for example).

This is a simple suggestion: whenever you declare war on someone you will automatically gain the effect of an immense triumph for every category they do not have any units in (assuming that you in fact do). Why? This could be an interesting way to boost raiding against very innactive stronger nations (eg free blockade). This could be an interesting way to make actually blitzing without build up more viable (which would be interesting in my opinion; it wouldnt really give any strongadvantage against a well prepared opponent). This could be an interesting way for people to cooperate more (for example if people keep one ship to prevent immediate blockades, you could work togheter with someone who decs, destorys the one ship and then you can dec yourself blockading them anyway). That's all for now folks.

i think it would be an itneresting idea; boosting ships and fortifying at the same time. If you ask 3 maps (to fortify) to just let ships defend in air vs ships i'd make it a bit stronger than I proposed earlier though; to justify the maps.