GeneralB
-
Posts
17 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by GeneralB
-
-
42 minutes ago, Epi said:
Yeah, we can't set a cost that's too high to be spammable by large alliances whilst also allowing new alliances to be formed.
Maybe find a way different then a cost, because it's either gonna be too high or not high enough (if there is one)
-
On 9/14/2019 at 2:54 AM, Inst said:
I think one thing I've pointed out is how war in this game is so antagonistic to casual players. The activity requirements are simply too high, which results in high player attrition during wartime.
One way to deal with it is to reduce the speed of war, that is to say, to increase the amount of time available for players to counter, as well as to punish players less for being semi-inactive.The two ways of doing this would be as follows:
1. Reduce MAP generation from one every 2 hours to one every 4 hours, or some other factor. This would also decrease server load, but it'd also make the game a lot less energetic for active players. The averse effects would be that this would effectively punish raiders, as well as decrease the rate in-game in which infra is destroyed.
2. Reduce the rate at which units are destroyed by non-spy ops / improvement destruction. As before, this would make it so that players have more time to counter. The primary adverse effect would be making it harder to stop raiders, as raiders can deal more damage before their military is zeroed out.
In both scenarios, this would require the cost of units to be increased to compensate for lower war destructiveness (the point is not to start 12 month wars), and have the adverse effect of making it harder to updeclare and making downdeclares more dangerous, as unit rebuys are more powerful. One way to deal with that is to simply halve the rebuy time, making it so that planes now take 12 days to max out, soldiers take 6 days, and so on. Alternatively, for a third option, soldier, tank, aircraft, and ship maxes could be further increased, but this would make the problems of downdeclares even more irritating, as cities and infra now comprise smaller score components of the game.
Still, slowing down the pace of war would have many benefits in that the power of the blitz would be much reduced and that players and alliances would have more time to react to a preemptive strike. It would help reduce the tyranny of the offensive and create more tactical combat that's focused more on counters and deployments instead of simply who gets the better overwhelming blitz.
This is nice, but to do this, it might be necessary to extend the 5 day cap on wars.
-
Ok, how about this, many people use low score nations to do this, what if you just make it so a nation must have a nation with 1000 or so score in it to have an alliance bank or just be an alliance?
-
1 minute ago, Pasky Darkfire said:
No, Don't end this. I want to see how deep and dark this rabbit hole goes.
I'm sure it can go far, I mean, look how far it's gone already
-
1 minute ago, MinesomeMC said:
Alex can
But would he?
-
9 hours ago, CitrusK said:
I… thought this was supposed to be weekly?
What happened to that?
Whatever, this suggestion is being posted on my birthday, September the 25th. It better get some goddamned upvotes.Alright, the suggestion part of the suggestion. Always an important part.
Prisoners of War.
Now, something that I noticed was the uselessness of soldiers. If your aircraft gets zeroed out, ground control will do nothing, and they will, eventually (and slowly) airstrike your soldiers to death.
And, so I was thinking of ways that soldiers could become better. How much better?
Not much better.
But here’s the basics.
The Project
Any good project is a project. So, I will tell you how much the project costs to make.
Food: 50,000
Steel: 1,500
Aluminum: 2,000
Coal: 1,500
Iron: 1,500
Money: $10,000,000(Can be changed, whether it be too expensive, or too cheap.)
What it does
So, in basics, the suggestion is that a percentage (I’m using 10% as an example for simplicity reasons) of enemy soldiers killed (in a ground attack) will join your side.
So, basically, here’s the gist.
I’m going to use 10% as a base example (just so it’s all clear and simple, it can be raised or lowered) if I launch a ground attack on Elijah Mikaelson, and I (one way or another) kill 100,000 of his soldiers, I will receive 10,000 soldiers in 2-3 days. So, if I kill 100,000 soldiers three times, in 2-3 days, I will have 30k more soldiers.
Even with this, you won’t be able to exceed your maximum amount of military.
Now, you may be wanting to hit the downvote button because this is entirely too simplistic and stupid. Here’s my response to that, don’t downvote it, and go upvote my next (or last) suggestion.
Thanks in advance. (Feel free to upvote this post if you like it though.)
This shouldn't work, I mean, POWs are taken, not turned sides, if anything, make them lose troop, rather then them lose troops and you gain them
-
5 hours ago, Theodosius said:
The idea behind my suggestions is to make offshores economically unprofitable, not outright impossible. If an alliance is willing to pay 150M for 3 offshores, then have those offshores blockaded and slotted by Arrgh only to be forced to make another offshore, that is their prerogative. Is it possible? Yes. Is it profitable? No.
The second point has been addressed on the 1000 score abuse-prevention ideas. Also makes no sense as the cost of creating the offshore would still fall on your shoulders.
The third point, I see nothing wrong with that. Some alliances have been doing that for years before offshores were made a possibility. The idea is not to make prevention of bank looting impossible.
The ideas I've brought forward induce a way of natural decay of resources, through minimal inconsequential bank loots that would happen upon beiges. It would also bring forward a difficulty to defend offshores, creating new raiding possibilities. Bank caps are an artificial way of handling this problem and they would require constant changes and balances as the game grows.
Yeah, you're right, it'd be better just to make them unprofitable, but what about existing one, wouldn't they just be able to stay profitable?
-
2 hours ago, Limbuwan said:
Not really. Theo suggestion does not stop creating new alliance. Since players will only set up an alliance once they’re experienced enough and fulfills the requirement of ingame money/credit.
that established alliance bypassing this new suggestion can be easily fixable with setting the limit of 100 days per nation for alliance recreation and require higher level of coordination on beige cycle/discipline once the war is won militarily.
he can set his member to create a bank beforehand but i hope that said member wont turn out akuryo, epi or other unidentified bank stealer.
Forcing us to risk ourselves with banking will only hinder great war plans coz there is a fear of losing too much with no hope of making a comeback since losing sphere will continue to get looted and the only option would be a treaty cluster and thus Rebranding of game to “Politics and Discord”
Even if there's a 100 day barrier, that really wouldn't stop larger alliances, and can be unfair for someone who's alliances falls apart on day 7
-
46 minutes ago, Epi said:
All this does is restrict the number of new alliances. 20mil, 50mil. 1 credit, 10 credits. 45 days, 100 days.
These things don't matter to the large alliances. If we implement this TKR, BK and NPO will set 3 gov. members each to be semi-permanent bankers and they'll rotate the bank around beiges. And again, smaller alliances won't have to, because most of them store their money with the chief member of their sphere.
Also the time restriction is rather pointless, as i'd just have one of my members form the alliance. Even if i can't be leader, i could set banking perms to member. ?
Another consequence would be storing banks with neutral spheres/alliances. Sure it might create politics if they're caught, but knowing the risks it'll be unlikely.
The issue rn, is we have a handful of banks holding all the wealth in the game and being virtually untouchable. That's not gonna change, we can find new ways around any impediments we create except a cap on bank contents. Forcing us to bank for ourselves. Forcing us to actually risk our savings when going to war.
If Sheepy's trying to end the era of swiss bank accounts, it might be a good idea to let him ?
Yeah, that's true, how would you stop it then?
-
37 minutes ago, lightside said:
A better idea would be to limit the size of the alliance bank until the alliance has a certain score rather then disabling the bank completely.
Bu what about starting alliances, some of them might have a good amount of stuff to start off, but then they'd have a strict limit imposed.
-
1
-
-
Tanks are useful, you it's more military stuff in general, and even though they fall to planes, it's good to have them. Let's say you're attacked, if you don't even have any tanks, your opponent has an advantage, because they can bring in tanks at a better combat rate and defeat you, but if you have tanks, then they have another factor to worry about. Additionally, if you're gonna worry about score, remember, you can only have 5 barracks per city, so 15,000 troops per city, that's a limit to 7.5 score, per city from soldiers (correct me if I'm wrong) whereas you can still build 5 factories past that, with 250 tanks per factory, that's the ability to get an additional 750 score max (again, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't trust my mental math here), so, yeah, they can be worth it.
-
21 minutes ago, Alex said:
They should all have a description below the subforum name:
Alright, thanks
-
2 minutes ago, Viselli said:
I like this suggestion but will add on I and some others suggested in Alex's original thread. You should have to unlock the alliance bank based off the score of the alliance. 5k - 10k score should be enough to not hinder legitimate micros from starting but is enough to guarantee that an offshore has large enough members for the average player to raid.
But then what if some nation creates an offshore and has good score? It could happen, and then they might have enough, though the 20M cost is a good idea @Theodosius
-
46 minutes ago, Zephyr said:
Could it be made even more interesting if say there were a "Plant false intelligence" op added too, whereby a successful op plants a fake (randomly generated) report on the nation?
I say randomly generated because then two real gather intel reports made public would reveal the truth, and I suppose if the player could pick the numbers they could copy another fake report and then there's potentially no value to sharing real reports as a random spectator won't be able to discern which is the truth.
Make plant false intelligence ops unlimited on a nation similar to the way gather intel works, it'll mean players messing around with it won't piss off others by using the limited spy slots and increasing potential moderation.
But then wouldn't everyone just know then it's gonna be fake? If anything, make it be a 50/50 chance of sending out a fake spy report, then way you might go off it or you might chose not to, because it could be correct or it could be wrong.
-
13 hours ago, Alex said:
Welcome to the forum!
Things are categorized reasonably well - what kind of content are you looking for on the forum?
Nothing really specific, it's just that there's a lot of categories, is there a generic list of them and what they're for anywhere?
-
I'm new enough to the game to post here, and I really don't know what to say, so, hi?
P.S. There are way too many articles on the forum, any tips on how to navigate?
-
1
-
Nation Name
in Game Reports
Posted
I'm quite sure this name is against the game rules.