1/22/2015 - Treasures

[last187]

what no1 wants to see is that you wont go to war over  a treasure unless the bonus is like super high which in itself would still be unfair since some nations or alliances are untouchable soo we will let rnjesus decide who gets a  massive advantage? for example if i have the same nation as someone in gpa and they got a treasure. they will now outperform me on all levels (coz of increased monetary influx) without them being better (ie better prepared for war or better guides , more active etc) if that nation is also properly militarised (ie missiles or a few nations in range to defend) then that dude (and possibly his alliance) is looking at a massive massive massive benefit all decided by random chance

 

truly there must be better ways of fixing the no war problem 

 

edit: lets say one alliance has a 57% chance of winning wars ( which is not unreasonable) if you simulate that at one war a month to take the treasure and the current average growth of the game in about 1.75 years that alliance would have a majority of the treasures

 

the positive effects being that the prices of resources would skyrocket to unseen heights but the negative effects being that said alliance would outgrow us all even with constant warring cos at best the bonuses are being added to each other and peeps are suggesting to make em alliance wide

Edited January 23, 2015 by last187

[Ayayay]

 

[21:10:34] <+underlordgc> who's dumb idea was this treasure !@#$

[21:10:43] <Jroc> PB

[21:10:46] <DarkSpecter93> princess bubblegum

01[21:10:54] <+underlordgc> I want to0 slap masterblaster with a !@#$ tree then

01[21:11:03] <+underlordgc> the !@#$ logic went into this?

[21:11:10] <DarkSpecter93> but sheepy decided tipo add it without the bonus in less then 24 hours afer the idea was suggested

[21:11:20] <DarkSpecter93> *to

01[21:11:20] <+underlordgc> the costs of war vastly outwiegh any benifits you get from a !@#$ gem

01[21:11:31] <+underlordgc> seriously

[21:11:31] <Jroc> not if the gem has benefits

[21:11:31] <FilthyFifths> We need the Ark 

[21:11:32] <Jroc> you dolt

[21:11:36] <FilthyFifths> I'd fight over that !@#$

[21:11:36] <DarkSpecter93> a lot of these nerds seem to be in favor of it

01[21:11:44] <+underlordgc> it's pointless

[21:11:48] <Jroc> we're all nerds

[21:11:52] <Jroc> except for FilthyFifths he's OG

[21:11:52] <FilthyFifths> also add in a picture of muhammad

[21:12:01] <FilthyFifths> so abbas can get pissed off

[21:12:02] <VladtheImplier> ^

[21:12:08] <VladtheImplier> ALLAHU AKBAR

[21:12:38] <DarkSpecter93> i think abbas would instead do what ever he could to get the picture

01[21:12:40] <+underlordgc> only a !@#$ retard will cause 10 milion in damge to thei8r nation to get a tiny ass boost

01[21:13:02] <+underlordgc> all it will do is make targets of unlucky sods in wars

01[21:13:08] <+underlordgc> it will cause !@#$ all 

[21:13:11] <DarkSpecter93> its stupid, what makes it worse is it randonly spawns into any nations after 30 days

01[21:13:24] <+underlordgc> ex- !@#$-actly

01[21:13:32] <+underlordgc> [21:12:40] <+underlordgc> only a !@#$ retard will cause 10 milion in damge to thei8r nation to get a tiny ass boost

01[21:13:41] <+underlordgc> *tinny ass temporey boost

[21:14:03] <DarkSpecter93> i guess sheepy assumes we all wish to war for a temp boost when im against it

06[21:14:03] <Jroc> dont understimate the nerds underlordgc 

[21:14:13] <Atzuya> ^

[21:14:14] <Jroc> I like war

[21:14:19] <Jroc> I want more anarchy

01[21:14:43] <+underlordgc> I like war to

[21:14:45] <DarkSpecter93> im all for war as long as its legit but fighting over a stupid icon is retarded and could possibly piss a lot of people off when they wake up to see their nation being attacked

[21:14:46] <Atzuya> I'm looking forward for that surge in steel price

01[21:14:56] <+underlordgc> I'm not in favor of arbitrary boosts to nations

[21:15:09] <Atzuya> stupid icon... wars have been fought for more stupid reasons

01[21:15:19] <+underlordgc> wars are fought becuase people want to fight

[21:15:33] <Atzuya> and now they have the 'valid' CB

01[21:15:39] <+underlordgc> lol no

[21:15:40] <DarkSpecter93> and this will be the king of stupid war reasons

[21:15:57] <Jroc> if I wasn't committed to Rose, I would be rolling with Ogaden 

01[21:16:00] <+underlordgc> no one is going to use a boost as a CB

[21:16:13] <Atzuya> lol, remember war for color stock in alpha?

[21:16:32] <Jroc> I just watch from the sidelines and look at the work of art Arrgh is doing

[21:16:35] <Atzuya> small skirmishes, but war nevertheless

01[21:16:37] <+underlordgc> lol, that was 20% and VoC were !@#$ unstopable

06[21:16:38] * Jroc dries his tears

01[21:16:44] <+underlordgc> *20-30

01[21:17:08] <+underlordgc> when Guardian !@#$ed with ther WHite sea fleet nothing happened becuase it wasn't completly loopsioded

01[21:17:28] <+underlordgc> man, that 37%bonus was nice

01[21:17:44] <+underlordgc> anyayws, VoC raided everybody cause they could

01[21:18:04] <+underlordgc> they did it before color stock even existed >.>

[21:18:39] <FilthyFifths> I remember when TOO forced Guardian to stay under 100 ns for a bit

01[21:18:48] <+underlordgc> this !@#$ will do nothing simply becuase the costs to acuire it will vastly outwiegh any benifits you can get from it

[21:19:18] <DarkSpecter93> ^^^^

 

Edited January 23, 2015 by underlordgc

[ataraxis]

Random idea: possibly having certain multiple treasures (maybe alliance-wide) creates "combos" that amplifies the benefits of each.

 

Also @ Sheepy: I'm confused as to why you think 15% bonus to alliances is reasonable at the same time a 9% bonus to an individual is also reasonable...

[Dolphman]

I feel like pure RNG is a bad idea.

 

Ideally, to encourage war but respect those who are neutral, you can increase the chance for treasures to end up in big alliances.

 

So in the formula you should include the factors: Number of people in your alliance, Is in alliance, number of military units, and other factors.

 

I am going to guess your code for deciding which nation can be simplified to this

RNG = RNG()

if RNG is valid Nation ID:
    give Treasure()
else 
    get new RNG()

(not a real programming language, written pythonically)

 

This selection has many problems. I will test this later, but I hypothesize that overtime you will find a pattern of newer nations getting nearly all of these treasures. Mostly from beiged no-alliance nations who create an account and never use it again. This is due to a growth rate of nations being higher than the death rate.

 

An obvious choice is to block beige nations from receiving the treasure. However, this problem will still arise overtime, no matter how many treasures you add.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Dolphman

[saeton]

 

01[21:13:41] <+underlordgc> *tinny ass temporey boost

 

[21:14:45] <DarkSpecter93> im all for war as long as its legit but fighting over a stupid icon is retarded and could possibly piss a lot of people off when they wake up to see their nation being 

 

 

1) *tiny ass temporary boost. I like how you corrected yourself with misspellings, lol.

 

2) Dark. Who are you to decide a war is legit? Is any war truly legit? 

[Grillick]

2) Dark. Who are you to decide a war is legit? Is any war truly legit? 

Is any war truly not?

[T-Pain]

Why not allow people that do not wish to have a treasure spawn on their nation turn off the option. In doing so they also forfeit any alliance bonus given to the alliance they reside in for having a treasure. 

[Spyro]

Why not allow people that do not wish to have a treasure spawn on their nation turn off the option. In doing so they also forfeit any alliance bonus given to the alliance they reside in for having a treasure. 

 

I can agree to that.

[saeton]

what no1 wants to see is that you wont go to war over  a treasure unless the bonus is like super high which in itself would still be unfair since some nations or alliances are untouchable soo we will let rnjesus decide who gets a  massive advantage? for example if i have the same nation as someone in gpa and they got a treasure. they will now outperform me on all levels (coz of increased monetary influx) without them being better (ie better prepared for war or better guides , more active etc) if that nation is also properly militarised (ie missiles or a few nations in range to defend) then that dude (and possibly his alliance) is looking at a massive massive massive benefit all decided by random chance

 

[WISD0MTREE]

if i log in when i wake up one day to see that a teeasure spawned into my nation follwed by 1-3 people attacking for that treasure and cause me millions in damages then im not gonna waste my time logging back in just to fix the damages knowing that another treasure will spawn in my nation before i even finsih rebuilding followed by being attacked again..... It will just be a waste of my time and wont be worth logging back in.

1. There is a military tab. You should check it out. It deters attackers from attacking you if you have enough. 

2. They will Beige you ASAP so they get the treasure. Not much damage done. 

 

So basically RNG decides If I lose of bunch of Infrastructure? I would just let them beige me ASAP.

Which is what they want to do to gain the treasure. 

 

1) Donations do not guarantee you anything... Sheepy has said this time and again. You donate because you want to support the game and the developer. It in no way entitles you to anything other than the rewards you're already given. You're not a customer, if you were it would be a subscription, and not a donation.

Yes, please no donations options. 

 

Why not allow people that do not wish to have a treasure spawn on their nation turn off the option. In doing so they also forfeit any alliance bonus given to the alliance they reside in for having a treasure. 

That defeats the purpose of the treasures, then. 

[last187]

i guess we all agree on the fact that its a bad system and wont solve the problem it sets out to solve

[Princess Bubblegum]

i guess we all agree on the fact that its a bad system and wont solve the problem it sets out to solve

 

I don't think it's a bad system. It just needs to be improved from the initial suggestion.

 

 

truly there must be better ways of fixing the no war problem 

 

edit: lets say one alliance has a 57% chance of winning wars ( which is not unreasonable) if you simulate that at one war a month to take the treasure and the current average growth of the game in about 1.75 years that alliance would have a majority of the treasures

 

the positive effects being that the prices of resources would skyrocket to unseen heights but the negative effects being that said alliance would outgrow us all even with constant warring cos at best the bonuses are being added to each other and peeps are suggesting to make em alliance wide

 

Except if treasures are respawning it's impossible for alliances to dominate treasures for long. In 1.75 years all of the treasures would have respawned.

 

No one alliance will dominate the treasures without becoming politically isolated from the rest. at best they can attempt to form an oligarchy or hegemoney of the strongest alliances splitting the treasures among themselves at the expense of everyone else. In any event, there will be an increase in politics and in war with the implementation.

[Ayayay]

I don't think it's a bad system. It just needs to be improved from the initial suggestion.

 

 

Except if treasures are respawning it's impossible for alliances to dominate treasures for long. In 1.75 years all of the treasures would have respawned.

 

No one alliance will dominate the treasures without becoming politically isolated from the rest. at best they can attempt to form an oligarchy or hegemoney of the strongest alliances splitting the treasures among themselves at the expense of everyone else. In any event, there will be an increase in politics and in war with the implementation.

01[21:13:32] <+underlordgc> [21:12:40] <+underlordgc> only a !@#$ retard will cause 10 milion in damge to thei8r nation to get a tiny ass boost

Edited January 25, 2015 by underlordgc

[Princess Bubblegum]

 

 

01[21:13:32] <+underlordgc> [21:12:40] <+underlordgc> only a !@#$ retard will cause 10 milion in damge to thei8r nation to get a tiny ass boost

 

Which is why the boost shouldn't be tiny and shouldn't be limited to only their nation.

[ataraxis]

I would also suggest some more unique treasure bonuses for both variety and as well as being able to cater to many forms of gameplay, if the treasures were stronger.

 

e.g.

- better spy odds

- more battle points (initial, passive)

- faster city population growth

- reduced disease/crime/pollution

- ability to instapeace any war

- deal more damage

- take less damage

- reduced military resource consumption

- increased color bonus (rewards people who are on the color)

- more aggressive war slots

- less defensive war slots

- better resource production

- extended power plant coverage

- shorter city/project refresh timers

- free project slot (so you need 5000 less infra to get a project, but if you lose the treasure you need to buy 10000 more infra; it basically lets you get your next project sooner)

- increased commerce cap

- increased military production

- improve all other held treasures

- increase proportion of raided material

etc. etc.

 

Would you war for that?

[Arthur James]

-5% less infra/land cost?

-5% more for selling a land/infra?

-immerse materials being raided from nation and its alliance if you lose the war? (except you would lost the treasure)

-winter/summer is no effect on the nation(s)?

-buying improvements can be cost upto 10% less?

-10% less material consuming from Power Plant usage but 10% more pollution OR

10% more material consumption with 10% less pollution output?

-Immerse Starvation even you food drops to zero?

-Soldier requires less food to maintain?

-Recovery from damaged infra cost 10% less to rebuild before reaching its maximum infra they were constructed

 

WOuld you WAR for that as well?

Edited January 25, 2015 by Arthur James

[Alex]

Where did I say I was able to choose not to be attacked?

 

I said attackers could choose whether to attack a neutral nation or not.

 

Never denied being at risk!

 

If nations weren't going to attack you before, are they going to attack you now? Possibly, but should they do so they're choosing not to identify your neutrality and that's going to throw quite a bit of politics into the situation. What does your alliance do in that situation? Maintain neutrality? Are they going to try and find allies just in case someone goes to war with them? These are the types of decisions that should already have to be made, but unfortunately are not. This suggestion is more about politics than war.

 

@Underlordgc -

 

If the bonus is so small that no one will fight for it, why are you worried about waking up to having your nation attacked? These two ideas seriously contradict each other.

 

 

 

Random idea: possibly having certain multiple treasures (maybe alliance-wide) creates "combos" that amplifies the benefits of each.

 

Also @ Sheepy: I'm confused as to why you think 15% bonus to alliances is reasonable at the same time a 9% bonus to an individual is also reasonable...

 

I like the thought of multiple treasures giving alliances a bonus. Why would a 15% bonus not be reasonable? These treasures automatically respawn; they're not going to be held forever. Providing a high bonus is the only way to make them really beneficial.

 

I feel like pure RNG is a bad idea.

 

Ideally, to encourage war but respect those who are neutral, you can increase the chance for treasures to end up in big alliances.

 

So in the formula you should include the factors: Number of people in your alliance, Is in alliance, number of military units, and other factors.

 

I am going to guess your code for deciding which nation can be simplified to this

RNG = RNG()

if RNG is valid Nation ID:
    give Treasure()
else 
    get new RNG()

(not a real programming language, written pythonically)

 

This selection has many problems. I will test this later, but I hypothesize that overtime you will find a pattern of newer nations getting nearly all of these treasures. Mostly from beiged no-alliance nations who create an account and never use it again. This is due to a growth rate of nations being higher than the death rate.

 

An obvious choice is to block beige nations from receiving the treasure. However, this problem will still arise overtime, no matter how many treasures you add.

 

Your assumption is completely incorrect, and it's something that I've already addressed in the first post. Read that and you'll see how the next nation is selected (I'll give you a hint- there's no RNG involved).

[ataraxis]

@above: I personally don't think 15% isn't unreasonable, but compared to the individual bonus ranging from 3% to 9%, it seems a bit out of scope. The individual bonus should probably be bigger. than the alliance bonus.

[Ayayay]

@Underlordgc -

If the bonus is so small that no one will fight for it, why are you worried about waking up to having your nation attacked? These two ideas seriously contradict each other.

 

 

01[21:13:02] <+underlordgc> all it will do is make targets of unlucky sods in wars

Edited January 26, 2015 by underlordgc

[Dolphman]

Your assumption is completely incorrect, and it's something that I've already addressed in the first post. Read that and you'll see how the next nation is selected (I'll give you a hint- there's no RNG involved).

 

Gave it a better read. Now I am pushing for RNG. The Explanation was vague. If no RNG is involved couldn't I perfectly predict who has what treasures and when they will receive them?. If I were to perfectly scrape your site at any one moment, could I manage to perfectly predict next-months treasure holders (or at least know the frontrunners), declare war on them first, win (after treasures are distrubuted)  before anybody else possibly can?

 

You didn't outright give out the formula, but observation could allow me to get a good guess on it. No RNG would take 1-3 Cycles to get a good read on the system

Edited January 26, 2015 by Dolphman

[Dwynn]

Gave it a better read. Now I am pushing for RNG. The Explanation was vague. If no RNG is involved couldn't I perfectly predict who has what treasures and when they will receive them?. If I were to perfectly scrape your site at any one moment, could I manage to perfectly predict next-months treasure holders (or at least know the frontrunners), declare war on them first, win (after treasures are distrubuted)  before anybody else possibly can?

 

You didn't outright give out the formula, but observation could allow me to get a good guess on it. No RNG would take 1-3 Cycles to get a good read on the system

 

1) you can perfectly predict which treasure would reset. Simply by seeing which one is at 29 days. 

2) You don't have to predict where it's going to go, because you can simply pull the leaderboard to see where it went.

3) There is a bit of RNG as it spawns randomly in the range limitations it has implemented.

4) Having full RNG would make treasures useless because there is no point in having them on tiny nations. The point of the treasures is to make going to war in larger nations more worthwhile.

[Dolphman]

1) you can perfectly predict which treasure would reset. Simply by seeing which one is at 29 days. 

2) You don't have to predict where it's going to go, because you can simply pull the leaderboard to see where it went.

3) There is a bit of RNG as it spawns randomly in the range limitations it has implemented.

4) Having full RNG would make treasures useless because there is no point in having them on tiny nations. The point of the treasures is to make going to war in larger nations more worthwhile.

 

The point was that could I practically predict who would get what treasure, and more importantly when? A little RNG could be accounted for in observation, still allowing me to correctly guess the formula. It would be better if sheepy did not give out this formula outright. Perhaps shaking it up every once and while to prevent somebody from getting their hands on it.

 

I could generate the thousands of possibly RNG sceneroes, see who overlaps the most, attack them , and (the second the tresures are distrubuted) get the win before anybody else can.

 

The Range formula is bleh. The Upper limits need to be increased.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Dolphman

[rapmanej]

Where did I say I was able to choose not to be attacked?

 

I said attackers could choose whether to attack a neutral nation or not.

 

Never denied being at risk!

 

After reading your posts in this thread, I'll come out and just say it.  

 

If we have neutrals, every damn one of us should roll them.  Neutrals offer nothing but stagnation and fake moralism into these games.  

[ataraxis]

We have neutrals.

 

Do you want to lead?

[Alex]

Gave it a better read. Now I am pushing for RNG. The Explanation was vague. If no RNG is involved couldn't I perfectly predict who has what treasures and when they will receive them?. If I were to perfectly scrape your site at any one moment, could I manage to perfectly predict next-months treasure holders (or at least know the frontrunners), declare war on them first, win (after treasures are distrubuted)  before anybody else possibly can?

 

You didn't outright give out the formula, but observation could allow me to get a good guess on it. No RNG would take 1-3 Cycles to get a good read on the system

 

This is kind of amusing. I've already given out the formula in the OP, so I'm not sure where this ambiguity is coming from.

 

The point was that could I practically predict who would get what treasure, and more importantly when? A little RNG could be accounted for in observation, still allowing me to correctly guess the formula. It would be better if sheepy did not give out this formula outright. Perhaps shaking it up every once and while to prevent somebody from getting their hands on it.

 

I could generate the thousands of possibly RNG sceneroes, see who overlaps the most, attack them , and (the second the tresures are distrubuted) get the win before anybody else can.

 

The Range formula is bleh. The Upper limits need to be increased.

 

Any given treasure has about 500 different nations is could possibly go to. Go look at the OP and you can see the formula, and as Malone pointed out you can see who has which treasure. If you really think someone (an alliance maybe?) is going to declare war on 500 different nation the night before a treasure respawns to gobble it up immediately, I'd find that laughable.