Dryad

I do think a downvoting system strongly promotes toxic behaviour and it doesn't ever make anyone happy to get downvoted. It can have its uses though for example in game suggestions as a sort of voting system to see on a single glance how popular a suggestion is, so perhaps disabling it in only some categories makes sense. Then again we have also seen in the baseball thread that up and downvoting is heavily biased.

#metoo

A punishment would be something like removing your earnings so far and perhaps even removing cities etc bought with baseball money. That would be a terrible idea, nobody should be punished and have their time spent so far go to waste. The removal or nerf of this feature is not a punishment per se, as long as Alex also refunds the money spent on stadium and team.

I don't think it's intentional either. I want t$ to get crushed but not because of false "accusations". The first explanation I can think of on why it seems to happen to t$ more often than other alliances is because they are currently in the position of having wars in which their aircraft and ground is getting crushed, so mass navaling kinda remains as the only choice of attack. On the other hand coalition b tends to do more airstrikes and ground battles and thus it happens to them less. So basically t$ may just do a lot more naval attacks. Whether that's actually the case or not, who knows, but I feel that it makes sense

i'm definitely jealous.

I think that lowering the profit per game is actually a bad fix. The money it currently generates per game may be slightly too high but not by a lot. The problem with baseball as I see it isnt that it generates too much money per click, but the fact that people can do this for hours when the game is really a turn-based thing and imo should be playable as such without earning 100 times less than baseball players. It's an issue of balancing and also game-design. Also, I wanna bring up a different approach to fix the issue that I'm not necessarily in favor of but that I think is at least worth mentioning: Don't nerf the payout per game but buff it and instead make it like a you can only play 1 game every 10 minutes thing. Like lets say just to bring the concept across you can only play 1 game in 10 minutes but you earn $10m from that single game, its basically the same income that it currently generates but its something you dont need to dedicate hours into and something that botting would be useless at because every human can easily click a button every 10 minutes if they are online. Essentially it would reward checking the game out every once in a while. I'm not actually in favor of having $10m be the number and think it should be way way way way lower, but the point is there is ways to keep it equivalent to what it is now, but makes it less of a scripting and waste your life issue.

there is no punishment at all. you keep everything you have earned and a suggested part of the solution may very well be to refund all costs that went into upgrading stadium and team. certainly nobody is asking alex to remove your earnings.

raiding and trading both dont generate new stuff from nothing. those are a competition, in the case of raiding its competing in war and trading is a strategic thing as well, there is loser and winners in it because it isnt generating anything.

what a moderation headache tho, right alex? Since according to Alex these people arent even using scripts there seems to be either issues with script detection or it is game-breaking even without scripts. Well the 13b and 9b put my 4b raid loot to shame.

Yes! thank you

i'm now able to access the dropdown, but receive an error

not an error, i cant access the drop down menu

I just came out of beige to declare a war and i'm unable to switch color from gray.

funny

You mean Mythic? I won't even claim relevance, unlike Noctis and other Micros we aren't posting every little thing we do on the OWF. That being said, not only will you perform extremely poorly against our core in terms of net-dmg, but we would also wipe the floor with you if NPO and t$ give us the permission to engage you uninterrupted.

Seems like solid stuff. I would impose the $20m fee on any nation though, since people are just gonna have younger nations create the alliance for them otherwise.

the spy report would be published on the target nation, so everyone could see it. i like the idea, but as akuryo said it should be optional. may have to share loot with others if you find a raid target and then others hit it because of the report, so it can be bad to publish the report.

I'm not against making that a rule. Currently it isn't breaking rules by my understanding, the only rule is images need to be PG13. Something that devs in games that I have previously played have asked for and that I like to do, is to challenge these edge-cases of things that aren't against the rules but perhaps should be. Generally the more people do things that are questionable the more of an issue they become and thus rules tend to become more fleshed out and improve by including these things and straight up mention them to not be allowed. It was the same with the fake-nation pages which did happen to get banned, challenging the rules may very well improve them. That's my justification to why I think what I'm doing isn't wrong. The reason I have that header on the other hand is simply because I like it, certainly though I can find a header that is more easy going on eyes which I also like.

I have a feeling this change of capping or removing banks may very well accomplish the opposite and strongly raise the importance of creating a hegemony. Top alliances will try to ally each other and completely decimate the rest of the game. Imagine one hegemony sphere with full military thats just keeping the rest of the game zeroed and loot them forever, while the hegemony sphere just cant have their well protected nations beiged. I guess that does make wars shorter, but personally I dont see newer alliances able to compete at all, they will get rolled and lose everything they have, including all their munitions so good luck getting back up. Creating a safe offshore is really something you can do with just 2 people even for new alliances, if they know how to do it that is. I do however believe that this concept of a game with a capped alliance bank or none at all isnt inherently bad, it's just that people havent played the game like this for years and with this change everyone has suddenly played the game in an unintelligent way basically since its existence, because all their stockpiles are suddenly not a good thing anymore and instead they should have built more cities or something. If everyone was broke then I doubt the feedback would be as bad. Personally, I kinda love the idea of fat loot all over the place, but the fact that I have savings and would lose it all makes it a pain to imagine. If this change does get implemented then I hope there will at least be an announcement long before the change actually happens so people have a month or two to use most of it in some meaningful way.

Well, you shouldnt try to balance it around solo alliances. If alliance bank looting is removed then offshores will no longer be needed, so you need to look at the wealth of average alliance members to balance it. Your income is clearly not the norm in this game.

Those numbers are actually so high you may as well not have a cap at all. Actually an interesting proposal if alliance bank looting isnt removed though, because then a cap with numbers like this has impact on offshores only, e.g. a 20 city offshore could only store 2b cash in contrast to 100b.

A logical consequence of this implementation is that alliances will try to recruit inactive players with no wealth to boost their bank capacity. As someone who leads a micro alliance with no inactive, that seeks out quality of members over quantity, I think it would be absolutely lame to see alliances with 300 inactives.

you could ask me to change it