Jump to content

Super Projects


lightside
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Biggest-Bloc-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Hime-sama
  • Upvote 2

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Sir Scarfalot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Hime-sama

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Cjfly

lQwIisV.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Cjfly

lQwIisV.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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...
 Share

  • 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.