Jump to content

Majima Goro

Members
  • Posts

    1325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Everything posted by Majima Goro

  1. would it matter for whales at all? You can just build/destroy it at will. And for whales, that's like 2-4 days of income per cycle. unless one of them is a permanent project, hard pass to adding the entire project altogether.
  2. I've given some thinking to this: 1) Nukes should be able to increase disease in all cities. This will effectively mow down revenue proportional to size. If you can nuke someone enough, you can in theory reduce their population low enough to get them negative revenues. If they want to keep fighting, they'd need to start taking money out of their banks to sustain military(or even sell military) 2) ALLIANCE HQ: Each alliance will be able to build an HQ on a continent of their liking. Any nation in the alliance on the same continent as their HQ will be able to freely receive funds(not send funds away) even during blockades. As a player, you'd have the option to be on the continent of your alliance and be at ease of mind OR be on a different continent to make different resources than your friends in your alliance can make. Paired with Alliance Wide Embargos planned to be added, a dynamic can be created where alliances could become suppliers for a particular resource and being embargoed by them could inhibit your ability to get a particular resource. Moving HQ will cost upto 10 credits.
  3. Beige Cycling isn't a bad thing in itself. An alliance that can beige cycle well would be the deemed as competent and nerfing beige cycling would in effect be like nerfing someone who is better at the game than the others. Same goes for blitzes. We've seen examples where the alliance blitzing doesn't slot people well or do attacks that are not needed. While personally, the changes that were proposed in the "All wars end in beige" post would have benefited me, I don't think it would have created a healthy competition. I think the current system is fine but we have to do something to give people more beige time. Making cycling harder by increasing beige time from losing wars might be a good solution. Having superiorities expire every X turns to promote players to keep attacking with all types of attacks could be another way forward. While we definitely should allow players to be able to rebuild faster, competence should be equally rewarded as well.
  4. This is a good suggestion. Nukes should be able to kill units too infact. Nuking a city should wipe out a substantial amount of all units in the city(or really modifier*army/city count). Eg: nuke should hence kill some 10k troops, 1k tanks, 60 planes and 10 ships. Not a lot but it adds up when 8 or 9 people are nuking you.
  5. I'm not sure how no one has pointed this out yet but here I go. By signing this treaty, you have successfully painted a big red x on yourselves. You know they will come for you. Not now but they will eventually come for you. The question is when. Once this treaty is void, either one of you could be a target of a DoW. You might win, you might lose, that's an entirely different story. But when the CB(officially or not) used is this treaty, the party that is not hit knows it could be 'chained'. Would it then be in the favour of the second party to help party 1 and eliminate the threat with numbers OR would party 2 stay sitting, waiting for the storm to hit. This treaty is dog poop for a reason because if we go by the so called precedence, in all cases, both parties should be rolled. But both parties can avoid being rolled by treatying each other indefinitely, bringing us back to the start of the loop and the cycle begins all over again.
  6. I like this suggestion because it goes against the narrative of "ships weak, pls buff".
  7. Over the course of many years, the biggest problem we have had on the forum is mismatching nation/leader names. These could be due to various factors like changing names in-game, trying to keep a different name on forums, etc. The suggestion is simple: Link the game nations with the forum account dynamically so that updates to in-game names is reflected directly on the forums. How it would work: Since a lot of people already exist on the forums, the implementation would need to be in two steps #1: For existing accounts: Most existing accounts already have their nation ids stored on the forums. A script can be written to send all these nations a message in-game which would contain an activation link to permanently link their forum accounts with their nations. #2: For new accounts: During registration, a nation link/id would need to be provided. A message will be sent in-game to activate the account. A special case for returning players: If someone rerolls with a new nation, they would have the option to re-link their nations with the forum account. A reasonable limit/time limit may be imposed between changes. Benefits: A dynamic link would reduce forum reports for mismatching names. It would also be next to impossible to impersonate people on the forums. From a statistical perspective, players would be able to grasp better the trends of people from various alliances/spheres. Ghost accounts to rig polls can also be more easily caught. It can also serve as a safeguard to tracking multis if the activation link is IP limited, i.e, only 1 message/IP can be sent. Conclusion: Please implement this change so I don't have to manually change my nation name. kthxbye
  8. If TKR changes to anything above 1351, their MDP shall be void. Looks like a ploy by Clock to break the treaty so they can hit HW.
  9. It makes no sense how this term ever made its way into peace posts. There is only one way to stop new war declarations against another alliance which is by signing a treaty between the alliances. There is nothing there that physically stops a player from alliance X from attacking another from alliance Y other than a physical treaty. This term needs rewording since it has always sent the wrong message.
  10. Hi, I want candy. Anyone kind soul, pls gib candy pls?
  11. How does radiation affect coal blocks or any inorganic things for the matter? I think what you really mean is radiation should affect global disease rates as well, something I would very much like to see. Imagine global nuclear winter and everyday it goes on, say 10% of your then population dies off. Moreover, building efficiency should depend on your population, each improvement needing a minimum number of people to work, below which, production is scaled down proportionally. It would make global conflicts actually have a global effect, hurting everyone instead of just the people involved. It would pave the way for smaller and shorter conflicts because a big one would be devastating for both sides. Not only this, such a change would make nukes very much more powerful than they are currently, leading to treaties to limit nuclear weapon usage and such. I hope this change is implemented
  12. 2/3 weeks? Weak! Unless this war goes on for atleast 2 to 3 working years, I rate this war 2/10
  13. 0/10, worst war ever, no wars even declared
  14. I want candy. Is this where I ask for candy?
  15. The ones who'll buy it are whales. I thought we are trying to make nerf whales, not make them profit significantly during globals. They make a lot already. Plus, in a few years, nuclear winter would be gone since more or less everyone would have 30 cities due to Metro Project and making food. Global nuclear winter could be a big thing and we just throwing a good mechanic under the bus cuz newbies can't produce food?
  16. There were two phases of the counter offensive. The more damaging phase was when their mil had been wiped out. You can say it was the third round where people who couldn't be hit in the second round were being hit. I also noticed something weird about UU. They had people with infra going back and forth between themselves and CTO.
  17. UU exited at the start of second round, ie, not a lot of their nations bore the burnt of the counter-offensive
  18. Forgot to put "Protected by Backroom"
  19. If Camelot rebuild their upper tier now, they can definitely cause enough damage and take probably absolute control of c20+ region in this war just by sheer numbers. Question is, will Camelot do it?
  20. I'll be honest, I was disappointed with the new Dark Theme given how Alex paid for a dark theme. If possible, I would want a dark mode that looks like this: I would post more pics in the official discord server
  21. Actually, there is a problem with this. Using bots to spy ingame is not allowed. They are not allowed to conduct ingame espionages. Moreover, unlimited intel ops would mean you would have 2 ops always remaining as long as you do Intel ops only. From what I understand, people would just do the intel op 10mins before DC. If they see you have spies, they will assassinate them. Else they would just move to a different target.
  22. GDP minus costs "calculated" from city builds and military gives GNI. Then use the ingame GNI, check the difference and then divide the difference with upkeep for spy. This gives a highly accurate count. Do note that GNI has been problematic and apparently is broken for a lot of people. But it works for a vast majority.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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