Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kastor

Revert dumb change or buff mechanics

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Pascal said:

This is a cop-out

Alex said when he made treasures it was more or less to provide conflict. There has never been any major conflict over treasures. The one time we got close, he nerfed them. I want to see something good.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dtc justice said:

Why can't we make it so treasures can be traded on the global market

Because that makes them just plain resources, and not a source of conflict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Kastor said:

So recently, Alex made a new rule that treasures could no longer be traded, instead, they can inly be fought over. However, we’ve been playing this game for a long time, and no one minus arrgh or if its on a micro, ever fights over treasures.

 

So you’ve been nerfing treasures since they came out, from the beginning when they were strong and actually useful, then when they were abused you reverted the changes to them, nerfing them to the point where you couldn’t stack them. Now after removing that, you’ve now removed the only medium of actually using treasures. 
 

So either you need to buff treasures or remove the rule, otherwise, why would alliances even pursue treasures? The payoff isn’t enough for a war, and now you can’t trade them. 
 

@Alex

What's your buff proposal? Before when they stacked linearly it was OP; the stacking should remain at a decreasing returns to scale formula, but it could be increased.

The current gross income percentage Treasure bonus for alliances is sqrt(Treasures * 4)

If we consider a typical alliance like The Lost Empire, their members generated $484,577,858.26 in gross income in the past 24 hours. A 2% bonus to that would be $9,691,557.165. Treasures last for 60 days, but rarely do you get a Treasure right at the beginning of its lifespan. Lets say they made an effort to get a Treasure and got to hold it for 30 days. That means the Treasure is worth approximately $9,691,557.165 * 30 ~ $291m to them.

For a larger alliance like The Knights Radiant, the Treasure would be worth closer to $850m per the same assumptions.

Knowing these numbers, my question is what is enough of a buff to make the Treasures worth fighting over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex leaking opsec tax info lol

 

Also the first treasure gives 2% and 2 treasures give 2.83% @Alex not 4%

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

Alex leaking opsec tax info lol

 

Also the first treasure gives 2% and 2 treasures give 2.83% @Alex not 4%

You're right, thank you. Let me adjust my numbers in my previous post.

Also, this belongs in Game Suggestions; moving this topic there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alex said:

What's your buff proposal? Before when they stacked linearly it was OP; the stacking should remain at a decreasing returns to scale formula, but it could be increased.

The current gross income percentage Treasure bonus for alliances is sqrt(Treasures * 4)

If we consider a typical alliance like The Lost Empire, their members generated $484,577,858.26 in gross income in the past 24 hours. A 4% bonus to that would be $19,383,114.33. Treasures last for 60 days, but rarely do you get a Treasure right at the beginning of its lifespan. Lets say they made an effort to get a Treasure and got to hold it for 30 days. That means the Treasure is worth approximately $19,383,114.33 * 30 ~ $581m to them.

For a larger alliance like The Knights Radiant, the Treasure would be worth closer to $1.7b per the same assumptions.

Knowing these numbers, my question is what is enough of a buff to make the Treasures worth fighting over?

So I've been thinking about making a post about treasure for a long time, but I didn't because I didn't think you'd go over it, but I think its a worthwhile idea to explore. None of these numbers are final, tweak as u think is best, just the general concept alone with the buffs I think will make them more useful.

 

So atm, we have 30 treasures, remove them until 6. This increases the rarity of treasures. The problem with treasures now is the boost isn't worth a war because they respond every 60 days and there's so many of them, you'll EVENTUALLY get one if u wait long enough, and if you really want one you can buy it. With your change and it being down to 6, treasures are a must have.

 

Now, buff them massively, not to the point of breaking, but make the treasures WORTH getting.

1. Each Treasure gets a automatic +2% revenue. 

2. Treasures now spawn every 90 days instead of 60.

3. Treasures have the oppurtunity to "get lost" during the war and have a 5% chance(maybe higher) to despawn.

 

Now, the ideas:

 

1. War Treasure:

Passive: The alliance that holds this take 5% less damage from wars, and 10% less from looting.

(+2% revenue)

 

2. Golden Age Treasure

Passive: A golden age falls upon the alliance that has this. All Resource production is increased by 5%. Revenue is increased by 5%

(+2%)

 

3. Sparta Treasure

Passive: Utilizing the Spartan's defensive abilities, your NATION can only be declared upon by 2 nations, however you may only declare one(2?) offensive war, every war that your alliance is a defender in, the enemy starts with 1 less MAP.

4. Wonder Treasure

Passive: Your treasure unlocks the secret to wonder building, all cities and projects now has -20 less turns between them, and cost 1% less.

5. Dominance Treasure

Passive: This treasure will only spawn in a nation that recently won a war,  you receive +10% from looting personally, while your alliance mates receive +2% from looting. Your alliance bank security is increased, giving your enemies less a chance to loot your bank(-5% looting ability) (I felt like this one would be hard to code, because its so wonky).

6.  Enlightenment Treasure

Passive: Enlightenment increases the amount of population in each city, by 4%, and gives you a +3% revenue to you and your alliance.

 

 

So I wanna make sure I'm saying this right, imo, treasures should stack, and I think the passives and the abilities should stack too, for example, if I get the Golden Age Treasure, I get the +2% passive from having a treasure(tourism?) then the +5%.

Having 2 or more treasures applies the above as well, so the +2% stacks, they are not added.

 

This is to give a huge boost to whoever holds the treasure, which I think is real and gives an added value. Each treasure is just that, TREASURE! While you would get money off of each, what it can teach you is more important. 

 

Like I said, numbers aren't final, and I'm not sure what would break the game. The overall added revenue isn't enough to make it worthwhile

 

 

 making sure your rival doesn't get all 6 treasures though >>>>

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alex said:

What's your buff proposal? Before when they stacked linearly it was OP; the stacking should remain at a decreasing returns to scale formula, but it could be increased.

The current gross income percentage Treasure bonus for alliances is sqrt(Treasures * 4)

If we consider a typical alliance like The Lost Empire, their members generated $484,577,858.26 in gross income in the past 24 hours. A 2% bonus to that would be $9,691,557.165. Treasures last for 60 days, but rarely do you get a Treasure right at the beginning of its lifespan. Lets say they made an effort to get a Treasure and got to hold it for 30 days. That means the Treasure is worth approximately $9,691,557.165 * 30 ~ $291m to them.

For a larger alliance like The Knights Radiant, the Treasure would be worth closer to $850m per the same assumptions.

Knowing these numbers, my question is what is enough of a buff to make the Treasures worth fighting over?

It'd have to be worth several billion my dude. Either having or having multiple would, neither is the case now. Even if you made it the case, with treasure buying being illegal, conflict for them is still a non thing. People would be ok to take the buffs their sphere or alliance gets naturally because other alliances and spheres won't likely get more, if treasure buying was still in place, pirates would still loot treasures, sell to the highest bidder, and may create an imbalance.

If you want a conflict Alex, you do not merely need to make a value worth fighting over, you need to make an imbalance capable of forming with it. Otherwise there's just no reason not to take the buff my mass member AA is statistically more likely to get and be happy with it and accept others may get one too.

No, we don't mind that. Most people wouldn't, not worth it too. However we might mind if someone started getting multiples and stacking them. Treasure Island nearly started a war itself, and for good reason.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you want to make treasures meaningful then you need to increase their duration of just make them plain permanent. Right now it’s not worthwhile to try to steal one when they will disappear so fast. If they were made permanent then alliances will have a reason to fight for them. Additional a treasures market where someone can sell them would also make this a more useful mechanic. In other words we don’t need to change the stat effects of them to make them worthwhile to fight over.

 

Edited by lightside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Alex said:

What's your buff proposal? Before when they stacked linearly it was OP; the stacking should remain at a decreasing returns to scale formula, but it could be increased.

The current gross income percentage Treasure bonus for alliances is sqrt(Treasures * 4)

If we consider a typical alliance like The Lost Empire, their members generated $484,577,858.26 in gross income in the past 24 hours. A 2% bonus to that would be $9,691,557.165. Treasures last for 60 days, but rarely do you get a Treasure right at the beginning of its lifespan. Lets say they made an effort to get a Treasure and got to hold it for 30 days. That means the Treasure is worth approximately $9,691,557.165 * 30 ~ $291m to them.

For a larger alliance like The Knights Radiant, the Treasure would be worth closer to $850m per the same assumptions.

Knowing these numbers, my question is what is enough of a buff to make the Treasures worth fighting over?

The cost of war vs. the relative benefit of gaining a treasure essentially means that there is no incentive to pursue conventional war over a treasure. For example: most recent war Arrgh attacked Umbrella Corp. and did $1.2bn in damages - and thats in a 2 day war with a micro who was barely in the top 50; with wars involving larger alliances that number scales significantly. In short its just not worthwhile AAs pursuing war over treasures; furthermore if you buff treasures to the point where it is actually worthwhile the treasures themselves would need to be seriously OP.

The issue is, you've just banned the main way treasures were being transferred. AA would sell a treasure for cash/res by losing a war; or alternately pirate would raid treasure and then sell it on via the same mechanic. Now because its 'illegal' there is little reason to see treasures changing hands unless it falls into the hands of an unprotected micro; and pirates wont go after treasures because you've made the subsequent transfer/selling of them against the rules.

Effectively it just becomes an RNG mechanic. If you buff treasures to the point where they are worth whole alliances fighting over they would probably need to be buffed to the point of being OP. Assuming a revision of the rules is off the table, perhaps you would be willing to consider allowing people to trade treasures via in game mechanic; at least this way individuals can go treasure hunting + subsequently sell them on without breaking game rules.

Edited by Swedge
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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