Jump to content
Alex

9/30/2014 - Donations! Resource Taxation! Color Stock!

Recommended Posts

Hi guys!

 

I'm excited to bring you today's update, I think it's all important things that you guys have been waiting for for some time.

 

1. First, I'm announcing the donation options for this next month. There are 4 options (you can start donating for these now):

  • $5 for $250,000 in-game
  • $10 for $500,000 in-game
  • $15 for $750,000 in-game
  • $25 for $1,250,000 in-game

Each nation has a cap of $25 receivable for this month in donations. That means you can donate $25 once, or $5 one day, $15 another day, and another $5 at a separate time this month so long as you don't go over the $25 limit. You'll be able to see how much a nation has donated by viewing it's nation page, if it has made any donations there will be a money bag icon next to the "Basic Information" header of the nation information table.

 

2. Second, I've changed the formula for the Color Stock Bonus. This is in an effort to promote more diversity amongst the colors -- right now we've got 3 colors that are basically empty while a couple other colors that are full. Let's see some spreading around. The new formula for Color Stock Bonus is:

 

Bonus = ( Nations on Color * 2 ) / ( All Nations (Not on Gray) + ( Alliances on Color ^ 2 * 100 200 ))

 

 

3. Lastly, and probably the most anticipated, is just a minor change to give alliances more control over how they tax their members. You now have the ability to have a separate tax rate for cash income, and for resource production. All resources fall under the Resource Tax, while only money falls into the normal Tax Rate. This is all pretty straightforward, and only really matters if you're in an alliance or an alliance-leader.

 

Hope you guys enjoy the update! As always, if I screwed anything up let me know in the Tech Support forum.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention that you guys can go ahead and purchase any donations you'd like to make for this month starting now -- there's technically still 2 hours left this month (server time) but I've already wiped it for the new month, so if you're itching for some extra money feel free to make your donations now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to complain about you double posting instead of editing the OP.

 

Also you missed the opportunity for an amazing joke, shame on you.

Edited by underlordgc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think you would see more diversity in color choice if larger numbers per color directly correlated with lesser benefits, and vice versa. For instance, a simple function such as B=0.01(√x)/x (where 'B' is the bonus for a color and 'x' is the number of nations using said color) would have enormous benefits for a color with only a few members, whie also gradually reducing the benefits for colors with many members (without eliminating the benefit entirely). The more popular color would still have an advantage, but on a more even playing field.

Of course, maybe your formula does this and I'm just not seeing it. I think it would be helpful if we could see the results of the equation in graph form, based on a limited sample size...say, for a game with 400 players, just to simulate the effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think you would see more diversity in color choice if larger numbers per color directly correlated with lesser benefits, and vice versa. For instance, a simple function such as B=0.01(√x)/x (where 'B' is the bonus for a color and 'x' is the number of nations using said color) would have enormous benefits for a color with only a few members, whie also gradually reducing the benefits for colors with many members (without eliminating the benefit entirely). The more popular color would still have an advantage, but on a more even playing field.

 

Of course, maybe your formula does this and I'm just not seeing it. I think it would be helpful if we could see the results of the equation in graph form, based on a limited sample size...say, for a game with 400 players, just to simulate the effects.

 

Interestingly enough, this was the original idea behind color stock and was the formula used during most of the development period.

 

While it sounds good in theory, in practice the big alliances would just split up into smaller ones. The players referred to these as color colonies, and essentially the alliances didn't change at all just how they were represented in the game was. Instead of having one alliance of 50 members on one color, they'd have 25 on two different colors in order to get a much larger bonus. This caused a lot of confusion about who was really who, and seemed silly to encourage that sort of behavior.

 

The other issue we had was too much color domination. Unaligned nations would be repeatedly attacked by alliances to knock them to gray and get off of their color so that they wouldn't impact the bonus, and those nations would have nowhere to go. In the end we adopted the new formula, which for the most part works much better and I think after this update will really be working as intended. There's incentive for the players to hang out on the same color and grow it, but also incentive for alliances to spread to different colors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it sounds good in theory, in practice the big alliances would just split up into smaller ones. The players referred to these as color colonies, and essentially the alliances didn't change at all just how they were represented in the game was. Instead of having one alliance of 50 members on one color, they'd have 25 on two different colors in order to get a much larger bonus. This caused a lot of confusion about who was really who, and seemed silly to encourage that sort of behavior.

It created drama, which seems to be what everyone is clamming for these days. Maybe we should bring it back for a bit and see if it wasn't as bad as some made it out to be.

 

Reaches for his Admirals hat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I don't see a notably difference in real game stats. 

But that may be due to the low amount of unaligned players on colors and alliances playing this game, green looks slightly better than what it was I think. 

It does look like a 40 man alliance could get a high color bonus or so, depending on how many are on the color. 

 

It's definitely something to think about as the game grows. 

Edited by Diabolos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really want to make it cause drama again you need to do what we've suggested loads of times and make is MUCH harsher for more than 1 alliance to be on a colour. As soon as it becomes 2 alliances sharing a colour the penalty should be a lot worse and then again for 3 e.t.c. You don't cause drama by making anything slightly more anything, It has to be a big change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really want to make it cause drama again you need to do what we've suggested loads of times and make is MUCH harsher for more than 1 alliance to be on a colour. As soon as it becomes 2 alliances sharing a colour the penalty should be a lot worse and then again for 3 e.t.c. You don't cause drama by making anything slightly more anything, It has to be a big change.

 

The top 10 alliances would each be on a different a different color and they would bully any small alliances that tried to form. I think people who like the small alliance environment would leave the game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top 10 alliances would each be on a different a different color and they would bully any small alliances that tried to form. I think people who like the small alliance environment would leave the game.

Agree with you.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top 10 alliances would each be on a different a different color and they would bully any small alliances that tried to form. I think people who like the small alliance environment would leave the game.

 

Why? Atm only 6 more out of the top 10 get into calculation. Small alliances often tend to break before even getting 300 score.

Maybe it would be better if two alliances in the top 10 share 1 colour... happy ending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 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.