lightside Posted August 18, 2020 Share Posted August 18, 2020 Currently alot of the nations in the game are reaching a point where there’s not much more they can do with projects. As such I would like to suggest adding “super” projects to the game. These projects are very expensive projects costing in the billions. They are unique in that they provide two different bonuses. They provide a unique bonus to the nation that builds them and they also provide a small bonus to the alliance that the nation is apart of. As these projects are very expensive it would require a nation saving for a long time to build them or an alliance working together to get them built. Nations that build them would get both the alliance and host nation bonus applied to their nation. Additionally, the alliance effect would not stack if an alliance had multiple projects. They would be built and count as a project slots like any other project. Here are some examples I thought off. I am not specially suggesting these as I didn’t put much thought into the numbers, they are just examples of how this could work. Development Bank Cost 500 Mil 3 mil Food Host Nation Effect - 5 % new city Cost Alliance Effect Nations under 20 city's get - 7.5% new city cost International Space Station Cost 750 mil 100000 Aluminium 100000 Steel 50000 Uranium Host Nation Effect -5% Project Cost Alliance Effect -5% Project Cost Modern Stock Exchange Cost 1.5 billion 50000 Aluminum 50000 Steel Host Nation Effect +3% Commerce +3% Max Commerce Alliance Effect +2% Commerce +2% Max Commerce 1 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dryad Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 28 minutes ago, lightside said: Additionally, the alliance effect would not stack if an alliance had multiple projects. You mean multiple of the same project wouldn't stack I assume? Or could there only be one alliance bonus in total? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 Alliance-scale projects are a good idea, really they are. It'd be important to limit their impact however; something like one of these per 100 players in an alliance for their benefits to be active. So you'd need two development projects after the 100th player in that alliance. It's not even like that'd be particularly problematic, considering how much economy 100 players really represents. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightside Posted August 19, 2020 Author Share Posted August 19, 2020 15 minutes ago, Dryad said: You mean multiple of the same project wouldn't stack I assume? Or could there only be one alliance bonus in total? I mean multiple of the same type wouldn't stack. So if an alliance had 2 of a certain project they still get the same bonus as if they had 1 project. However the nation that has the second project would still get the additional nation bonus however so its still useful to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightside Posted August 19, 2020 Author Share Posted August 19, 2020 14 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Alliance-scale projects are a good idea, really they are. It'd be important to limit their impact however; something like one of these per 100 players in an alliance for their benefits to be active. So you'd need two development projects after the 100th player in that alliance. It's not even like that'd be particularly problematic, considering how much economy 100 players really represents. Ya I can possible see it being scaled that way. Also one of the reasons i suggested these projects be built in nations rather in some kind of alliance interface is because that way new alliances can get the same bonus's as older alliances as long as they recruit the right players. At the same time is gives more for old players to do while they are also helping newer players though these projects. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 (edited) This would highly disadvantage small, upcoming alliances and disproportionately benefit densely populated alliances. If the costs correlated with member count and/or score then I think it would be good, but I do not like the idea in its current form. Edited August 19, 2020 by Hime-sama 2 Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Hime-sama said: This would highly disadvantage small, upcoming alliances and disproportionately benefit densely populated alliances. If the costs correlated with member count and/or score then I think it would be good, but I do not like the idea in its current form. Actually, if anything it would encourage large players to sponsor or form smaller alliances that much more effectively, enabling micros that somehow get these to become that much more viable. This would be better than universally giving all micros the same advantages, since that would mean the best micros with experienced or at least wealthy leadership would gain the most advantages and recruits. Unprepared and poorly funded micros really should be discouraged, and that's what this would do. Edited August 19, 2020 by Sir Scarfalot 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 1 minute ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Actually, if anything it would encourage large players to sponsor or form smaller alliances that much more effectively, enabling micros that somehow get these to become that much more viable. This would be better than universally giving all micros the same advantages, since that would mean the best micros with experienced or at least wealthy leadership would gain the most advantages and recruits. Yes, if a micro somehow got their hands on any or all 3 of the proposed projects, it would make them more viable, I agree. However, the issue is in obtaining them to begin with; relying on a sponsor is unreliable given the projects are such a high expenditure that alliances may even be hesitant to grant them to 'good' micros. I also don't think taking away more autonomy from these micros is necessarily positive because the increased dependency only makes them easier to manipulate and control, which if last war is any example to follow, is not a good thing. In any case, I do think proportionate costs work better over fixed costs for an idea like this, simply due to the nature of it being a group project and its benefits varying from alliance to alliance. Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketya Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 Interesting idea. a twist on this idea could be that the alliance level bonus gets unlocked when X number of nations within the same alliance build the same ‘super’ project. The concern around smaller alliances not benefitting could be managed through some sort of sliding scale? For instance, the bigger the alliance is the the lower alliance level benefits are. good idea in general though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 2 hours ago, Hime-sama said: Yes, if a micro somehow got their hands on any or all 3 of the proposed projects, it would make them more viable, I agree. However, the issue is in obtaining them to begin with; relying on a sponsor is unreliable given the projects are such a high expenditure that alliances may even be hesitant to grant them to 'good' micros. I also don't think taking away more autonomy from these micros is necessarily positive because the increased dependency only makes them easier to manipulate and control, which if last war is any example to follow, is not a good thing. In any case, I do think proportionate costs work better over fixed costs for an idea like this, simply due to the nature of it being a group project and its benefits varying from alliance to alliance. Honestly any even half decently run and developed micro could still afford these. The bigger issue at hand with them is they're not really worth it for micros who tend to have short shelf lives. 5% back on project costs is going to take an eternity to pay itself back. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Akuryo said: Honestly any even half decently run and developed micro could still afford these. The bigger issue at hand with them is they're not really worth it for micros who tend to have short shelf lives. 5% back on project costs is going to take an eternity to pay itself back. That bigger issue was encompassed when I said they are not affordable to micros, because sure a 'good' micro probably could buy it, but as you said, it would not pay off any time soon, plus opportunity costs, etc. Edited August 19, 2020 by Hime-sama Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Posted August 19, 2020 Share Posted August 19, 2020 Everyone wants new projects I for some reason want new improvements Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cjfly Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) I do like the idea of Alliance improvements but I think an initial cost + daily upkeep cost would be more effective as an alliance would pull together and build then would have to stick around and pay a % of taxes/resources in order to keep it from deteriorating. this would also help with alliance banks and minimize off-shore accounts in times of war due to daily improvement requirements and also forcing higher taxes to keep projects especially during times of war and of course a bonus to the opponent if they are able to reduce an alliances funds/resources to a point where they cant afford the improvement and it/they get destroyed. For example: Project #1 initial cost + 2% nation taxes daily + Set amount of Alliance funds daily #2 Initial cost + 5% nation taxes daily + Set amount of Alliance funds daily #3 Initial cost + 10% nation taxes daily + Set amount of Alliance funds daily So if you had all 3 projects you would need to pay initial cost plus 17% taxes for every nation in alliance & the set amount of alliance funds daily. This is just an example and #'s aren't balanced but would allow even smaller alliances to use these as all they would need to worry about is initial costs and of course getting your members to accept the extra tax rates needed to keep the projects and alliance going. Edited August 23, 2020 by Cjfly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightside Posted August 23, 2020 Author Share Posted August 23, 2020 2 hours ago, Cjfly said: I do like the idea of Alliance improvements but I think an initial cost + daily upkeep cost would be more effective as an alliance would pull together and build then would have to stick around and pay a % of taxes/resources in order to keep it from deteriorating. this would also help with alliance banks and minimize off-shore accounts in times of war due to daily improvement requirements and also forcing higher taxes to keep projects especially during times of war and of course a bonus to the opponent if they are able to reduce an alliances funds/resources to a point where they cant afford the improvement and it/they get destroyed. For example: Project #1 initial cost + 2% nation taxes daily + Set amount of Alliance funds daily #2 Initial cost + 5% nation taxes daily + Set amount of Alliance funds daily #3 Initial cost + 10% nation taxes daily + Set amount of Alliance funds daily So if you had all 3 projects you would need to pay initial cost plus 17% taxes for every nation in alliance & the set amount of alliance funds daily. This is just an example and #'s aren't balanced but would allow even smaller alliances to use these as all they would need to worry about is initial costs and of course getting your members to accept the extra tax rates needed to keep the projects and alliance going. No one would build them if that was the case. The cost wouldn’t be worth the benefit. Not to mention with the death of IQ most alliances in this game don’t have high communist tax policy’s. Which is good as over control like that makes the game less fun I think. This is another reason why I suggested these projects be built in nations and not some alliance interface. Having more endgame possibility’s for nations is good in my opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cjfly Posted August 23, 2020 Share Posted August 23, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, lightside said: No one would build them if that was the case. The cost wouldn’t be worth the benefit. Not to mention with the death of IQ most alliances in this game don’t have high communist tax policy’s. Which is good as over control like that makes the game less fun I think. This is another reason why I suggested these projects be built in nations and not some alliance interface. Having more endgame possibility’s for nations is good in my opinion 3 hours ago, Cjfly said: This is just an example and #'s aren't balanced Edited August 23, 2020 by Cjfly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ukunaka Posted September 1, 2020 Share Posted September 1, 2020 I like this approach better than alliance projects Quote Join The Empire of the Moonlit Sakura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.