Prefontaine Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 So we have bonuses for color spheres, why not one for continents besides what resources you can produce? It should be based off of the number of active players on the continent. You could even implement something down the road like the "rainbow council" for continents. More functions! So my thought is that being on a continent could give you bonus to your mining 0-10% base on population count where smaller populations have a larger bonus (less people mining the land), so your food, oil, coal, baux, etc.. Would be increased based on that. You could also give a small bump to refinement as well, refined resources are increased 0-2.5% based on pop. These increases would effect the pre-alliance taxed ammount. So say I made 1000 food a day, with the extra 10% if I was maxed out I'd make 1100 food. Could also do things like 5% increase to navy for nations close to the sea, or 5% increase to tanks/soldiers for nations inland. Lots of options for things to effect nations based on locations. For now simply increasing production would be the simplest, but there's lots of possibilities. Specializations could also happen, like you can select that you make more of 1 resource rather than all, and that'll add a modifier to that percentage. So on and so forth. But the resource idea should be easy to balance, and easy to code. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destroyer Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Agreed. Especially the military part. This could also increase population in low population continents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNG Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 This is a really interesting idea, I support this. Quote "They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays. <Kastor> And laughs and shit. <Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted December 3, 2014 Administrators Share Posted December 3, 2014 I disagree for the following reasons: 1) It's much harder to change continents than colors. You get to change continents once in your nation's lifetime. 2) The distribution of nations across continents is not even close to even. https://politicsandwar.com/leaderboards/display=continentEurope and North America both have some 500 nations, whereas Australia only has 100 nations. Anyone who's not on North America or Europe is going to get the short end of this, and will probably just decide to move their nation's location to North America or Europe and we'll see problems in the market because too many nations are producing the same resources. 3) Your nation's location should be about where you want it to be, not some min-maxing equation. If I want to roleplay my nation as the old Roman Empire, but have to put my nation in Asia to get any sort of worthwhile bonus, then I feel like the game is dumb. Affecting nations based on whether they're close to the sea or not is also not a good idea because: 1) It's going to be literally impossible. We don't have coordinates for every spec of ocean on the world map, and trying to figure out if your coordinates are close enough to them would be impossible. 2) Again, forcing people to put their nation somewhere they don't want it to be for a bonus is wrong. Maps and nation location ought to stay cosmetic (except for what resources you have access too, seeing as that's already established). 2 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungu Gavana Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 It is understandable that the idea has been denied by Sheepy. However, it would appear to be an ethical idea for individuals to produce a critical analysis on the subject for the purposes of challenging the arguments that were presented within the discussion.​Currently, nations are restricted from producing certain resources based on the location of their continent. In the process, certain resources are worth more than other resources, resulting in players resorting to producing nations within a continent that possesses the most valuable commodity. Thus, a "continental bonus" should not be neglected based on the premise that it "deters nations from producing a nation within a continent".​A recommendation:​1. A continent that lacks an extensive amount of players could result in providing nations with an "expansionist" bonus in order to prevent players from hoarding the location of a specific continent. For example, if Australia were to be a hardly occupied region of the planet of Orbis, it could result in attaining an "expansionist" bonus that reduces the costs of "land" by 5%-10% considering that an extensive amount of so-called land remains available to the nation. However, it should NOT increase the costs of purchasing land within continents that are over-flooded with players. Each continent could possess a "Pan-African Convention", "Pan-Asian Convention", "Pan-North American Convention", "Pan-South American Convention" etc... for the purposes of voting on THREE continental policies that could be utilized within a continent. Thus, the concept of "majority rule" shall be diminished since players shall be capable of selecting the second or third policy rather than the first police (note that each nation is capable of selecting ONE out of the THREE elected policies within the continent).​Hopefully, I am not prohibited from producing a post within the following "denied" topic. However, it should be an ethical idea for one to conduct a critical analysis on an idea that was produced two years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadesflames Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 It should be based off of the number of active players on the continent. Soooo...punish the active members of a continent for just so happening to have picked the least active continent? Sounds fair... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungu Gavana Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 Soooo...punish the active members of a continent for just so happening to have picked the least active continent? Sounds fair... "... A continent that lacks an extensive amount of players could result in providing nations with an "expansionist" bonus in order to prevent players from hoarding the location of a specific continent. For example, if Australia were to be a hardly occupied region of the planet of Orbis, it could result in attaining an "expansionist" bonus that reduces the costs of "land" by 5%-10% considering that an extensive amount of so-called land remains available to the nation. However, it should NOT increase the costs of purchasing land within continents that are over-flooded with players..." - Mungu Gavana Quote 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.