6/10/2015 - Approval Rating

[Atzuya]

 

when you attempt to pass or repeal a law, you do a RNG roll between 0-100. If that roll is above your approval rating, you fail, and have to try again or wait until the next day.

Approval rating shouldn't be the sole factor determining whether a law getting passed or not. A nation with zero rating should still be able to pass laws even if it's only 5% or so

 

And it can dip into negatives?

[Ayayay]

This is like a one-time threat. So what, everyone in the world embargoes me and brings me down to -50 AR points. From there I can't go any lower, no matter how many more embargoes you pile on, but each turn I will continue to rise, slightly. Eventually, I'll be back up to a normal level, even while I'm still embargoed, and you can't really do anything else but un-embargo me, which only brings me up another 3 points.

So what your saying is:

Get all my friends and allies to embargo me

Reach -50 AR

Get even more to embargo me since I can't go below -50 AR

Get them all to lift it and get all the AR I could ever want

 

Great system, I love it. Hey, could you add some effects while you're at it like boosting my income or resource production with high AR? After all, this doesn't seem abusable and I'm sure those laws that actually do something won't satiate my desire to pass laws to boost my nation.

[ELPINCHAZO]

I don't understand, it literally has no effect on you. You don't like other people having fun through roleplaying? If you didn't want to play a nation simulation game, why are you here?

 

Well,I'm glad to see you're spending time on aspects of the game that have entirely no effect.

[Alex]

So what your saying is:

Get all my friends and allies to embargo me

Reach -50 AR

Get even more to embargo me since I can't go below -50 AR

Get them all to lift it and get all the AR I could ever want

 

Great system, I love it. Hey, could you add some effects while you're at it like boosting my income or resource production with high AR? After all, this doesn't seem abusable and I'm sure those laws that actually do something won't satiate my desire to pass laws to boost my nation.

 

Hm, this would be an interesting abuse of the system that I hadn't considered. I suppose I ought to remove those limits, then (at least for the negatives).

 

Approval rating shouldn't be the sole factor determining whether a law getting passed or not. A nation with zero rating should still be able to pass laws even if it's only 5% or so

 

And it can dip into negatives?

 

It's a points system, represented as a percentage. If you go below 0, it's represented as 0%, though, you can see the actual figure if you look at the API. If it goes above 100, it's represented as 100%, but it does provide a bit of a buffer from going down again.

[Eviljak]

Too many possibities of abuse. Goin to suck during war, and be annoying during peace. Id prefer crime rate over this.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Eviljak

[Alex]

Well,I'm glad to see you're spending time on aspects of the game that have entirely no effect.

 

You're just being obstinate, aren't you?

 

It obviously has an effect, people like to roleplay. That's what this whole game is about, roleplay, heaven forbid I add anything that you don't like but others may enjoy. Just because it has no effect on the mechanics of multiplayer interaction does not make it unimportant or have no effect, it just simply has no effect on you should you choose not to care about it, so I don't see why you're complaining. The whole world doesn't revolve around ELPINCHAZO, you know.

Too many possibities of abuse. Goin to suck during war, and be annoying during peace. Id prefer crime rate over this.

 

This doesn't even make sense. Abuse of what? Even if you have a 0% approval rating, it doesn't change anything, it's just a roleplay statistic that says your people don't like you. What is there to abuse?

[Kastor]

But only marginally. I'm envisioning a law system where you can pass laws X amount of times per day, and when you attempt to pass or repeal a law, you do a RNG roll between 0-100. If that roll is above your approval rating, you fail, and have to try again or wait until the next day.

 

So, while it is preferable to have a higher approval rating, it's far from necessary, and approval ratings have a tendency to increase on their own, anyway. Plus, "laws" will be mostly cosmetic (think: Pass this law to ban texting and driving.) with only a few laws that really do much to your nation. It's part of a system to be built around "single-player" nation roleplay.

 

I know I've been hassling you a lot about this, and thats just because I want to see it in-game already. But I don't see a point in making laws that have no effect on your nation.

 

However, I've been thinking about Laws a lot, and a system you could use would be HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW. 

 

HIGH has a low chance of passing, and have the biggest effect on your nation (Think +1 Offensive slot or something). However, you can try 3 times a day, but not on the same law.

MEDIUM has a medium chance of passing, and have a medium effect on your nation(Think +0.8% income increase). However you can only try twice a day.

LOW has a high chance of passing, but have the lowest effect on your nation(think +450 citizens). You can only try once per day.

 

And you couldn't mix and match, if you went Medium that day you'd have to go medium again. If you'd like, I can write up a list of ideas to go on each list?

[Eviljak]

Depends on what (somewhat meaningful) means i suppose. I just dont see a reason to add this element right now...the games pretty fun as it is. Instead, add a truckload more projects or something and wait a bit before adding a brand new dynamic.

 

Not a terrible idea, maybe not the best idea ever but, just too soon to add imo.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Eviljak

[Atzuya]

It's a points system, represented as a percentage. If you go below 0, it's represented as 0%, though, you can see the actual figure if you look at the API. If it goes above 100, it's represented as 100%, but it does provide a bit of a buffer from going down again.

Old as hell nations can really have 200-300 points after a few months or so if there's no limit whatsoever from all the points generated per turn. While yeah bottom limit is bad, there should be an upper limit.

 

Too many possibities of abuse. Goin to suck during war, and be annoying during peace. Id prefer crime rate over this.

We already have crime stuff

[ELPINCHAZO]

You're just being obstinate, aren't you?

 

It obviously has an effect, people like to roleplay. That's what this whole game is about, roleplay, heaven forbid I add anything that you don't like but others may enjoy. Just because it has no effect on the mechanics of multiplayer interaction does not make it unimportant or have no effect, it just simply has no effect on you should you choose not to care about it, so I don't see why you're complaining. The whole world doesn't revolve around ELPINCHAZO, you know.

 

Why wouldn't I be obstinate,I think this is a terrible idea.

 

Please be clear, am I no longer allowed to voice my opinion? I ask for future reference and request you keep the personal attacks to a minimum until such time as you've clearly outlined your opinion stating policy.  -2 approval rating

[Alex]

Old as hell nations can really have 200-300 points after a few months or so if there's no limit whatsoever from all the points generated per turn. While yeah bottom limit is bad, there should be an upper limit.

 

I've preserved the 150 cap, while removing the bottom limit and updated the wiki page accordingly. 

 

Why wouldn't I be obstinate,I think this is a terrible idea.

 

Please be clear, am I no longer allowed to voice my opinion? I ask for future reference and request you keep the personal attacks to a minimum until such time as you've clearly outlined your opinion stating policy.  -2 approval rating

 

You're allowed to voice your opinion -- I haven't censored you or warned you, only responded. As for personal attacks, I see none, only a direct response. You're objecting to a change that brings no negatives, and only positives to the game, that others have already stated they like. And for what reason? I don't know if you read the whole original post, but I suggest you go back and re-read it again. This change is minor, and if you choose not to embrace the individual roleplay aspect of the game, you don't ever even have to look at it. What you're doing is simply belittling my efforts and bettering the game for no reason other than that "this isn't nationstates." I can appreciate constructive criticism, but you're bashing on a change for a selfish reason, and all I'm doing is calling you out on that.

 

I know I've been hassling you a lot about this, and thats just because I want to see it in-game already. But I don't see a point in making laws that have no effect on your nation.

 

However, I've been thinking about Laws a lot, and a system you could use would be HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW. 

 

HIGH has a low chance of passing, and have the biggest effect on your nation (Think +1 Offensive slot or something). However, you can try 3 times a day, but not on the same law.

MEDIUM has a medium chance of passing, and have a medium effect on your nation(Think +0.8% income increase). However you can only try twice a day.

LOW has a high chance of passing, but have the lowest effect on your nation(think +450 citizens). You can only try once per day.

 

And you couldn't mix and match, if you went Medium that day you'd have to go medium again. If you'd like, I can write up a list of ideas to go on each list?

 

Someday I will create a suggestion thread for laws. At this time, though, it's not something to really worry about. As for your suggestion of tiers, I think it would unnecessarily over complicate things. 

[Atzuya]

Hm... what would the laws exactly do, though? Would they be permanent 'perks' that would give you bonuses as you pass them one at a time?

[ELPINCHAZO]

You're allowed to voice your opinion -- I haven't censored you or warned you, only responded. As for personal attacks, I see none, only a direct response. You're objecting to a change that brings no negatives, and only positives to the game, that others have already stated they like. And for what reason? I don't know if you read the whole original post, but I suggest you go back and re-read it again. This change is minor, and if you choose not to embrace the individual roleplay aspect of the game, you don't ever even have to look at it. What you're doing is simply belittling my efforts and bettering the game for no reason other than that "this isn't nationstates." I can appreciate constructive criticism, but you're bashing on a change for a selfish reason, and all I'm doing is calling you out on that.. 

 

I voiced my opinion and you really didn't need to respond to it but couldn't refuse and had to add in a implied 'maybe you should leave' dig in there.

 

I think this was a terrible idea because you could have spent time on more important aspects of the game (hey,how IS that work on the bank bug btw?). You've stated more than a few times that you didn't want to automate things in the game that players can do on their own. I find a kind of irony in you ignoring that idea when going after the 'roleplay aspect'.

 

Please explain where my reasons are selfish because that is a load of crap. Thanks again for going the personal attack route for no reason.

[Ayayay]

Okay, I just want it to be clear. Will any of these laws have an effect mechanically or will they all be roleplay?

[Phiney]

Sorry Sheepy but I'm with ElPinchazo. This is treasures all over again. Randomly implementing a new feature that hasn't been discussed at all with your Dev talk team, and continuing to ignore the large to do list, which is precisely what you claimed you wouldn't do anymore after the spy change debacle. -5 approval points.

 

Edit:you also can't get pissed at people for voicing disapproval and use the excuse 'but it literally has no effect' and then in the next line say it will in the future have an effect. Although, if treasures are anything to go buy, the future is a long time away (think alliance treasure count effect)

 

Edit two: I get that you're itching to add something new and different to the game (that was obvious with the jurassic Park suggestion, which, btw, was a good way to do things, discussion before implementation) and that you might be feeling down with people pressuring you for decent updates, but I don't think the solution is to add stuff on a whim. If this was going to stay entirely role play, no one would have issue. If you would like happier feedback from your community, maybe in the future if you do something like this, bundle it up with a change people discussed and everyone is happy with (e.g. Slot filled indicator)

Edited June 11, 2015 by Phiney

[Greene]

I have to be honest,I hate this. If I wanted Nation States,I'd play Nation States.

I'm with you on this, man. There are tons of better ways to spend your time, Sheepy. Implementing a feature that I expect most of us neither want nor would have even asked for probably took a lot of time. Instead, please consider implementing changes and improvements to our existing features that can take this game to the next level. One possible example might be improving our messaging system. Just a thought here.

[Ace]

Abuseable, how?

 

 

Embargoing countries cost us 0. While the country we embargoed got a -3.

And you are planning to add a "control over your country" mechanic.

An alliance of 33 people can basically destroy a rivaling nations by everyone embargoing him.

 

My solution is either add a -2 penalty on the country who DOES the embargoing. So that embargoing countries are NOT-FREE. Or reduce the penalty to -1 for the embargo-ed nation.

 

If 100 people embargoed your nation you mustved pissed orbis off real bad.

[Alex]

I voiced my opinion and you really didn't need to respond to it but couldn't refuse and had to add in a implied 'maybe you should leave' dig in there.

 

I think this was a terrible idea because you could have spent time on more important aspects of the game (hey,how IS that work on the bank bug btw?). You've stated more than a few times that you didn't want to automate things in the game that players can do on their own. I find a kind of irony in you ignoring that idea when going after the 'roleplay aspect'.

 

Please explain where my reasons are selfish because that is a load of crap. Thanks again for going the personal attack route for no reason.

 

First, I'm not attacking you. If I am attacking you, then you (and a majority of the people that use this forum) attack me on a regular basis.

 

Second, the bank bug has been gone for months. It's also incredibly irrelevant to this announcement. 

 

Third, I believe your reasons are selfish because you don't like to roleplay, and you don't think other people should like it. That's what this is about, isn't it? Not being Nation States?

 

Lastly, I have provided you with a 100% free to play game and community, dedicating hundreds, possibly thousands of hours of my time into creating. You don't own this game, I'm not your employee, and you don't get to tell me what to do or how to spend my time. Just because the update that I created isn't what you wanted, does not mean that you have a right to tell me that I'm wasting my time or should've been more productive. I don't expect you or everyone to like every little change, but I'll be damned if you're going to tell me how I need to be spending my time when I have put in this much time and effort creating something for you and everyone else, for free.

 

Okay, I just want it to be clear. Will any of these laws have an effect mechanically or will they all be roleplay?

 

Yes, they will, as I detailed in my blog post that I linked to in the OP. This is the introduction to a system similar to Perks, but with more purpose and more roleplay. If approval rating is such a hot issue that we can't bear to use it for anything mechanically, then that's fine. Approval rating itself can stay cosmetic if it needs to, but that's a bridge we haven't come to yet, let alone crossed.

 

Embargoing countries cost us 0. While the country we embargoed got a -3.

And you are planning to add a "control over your country" mechanic.

An alliance of 33 people can basically destroy a rivaling nations by everyone embargoing him.

 

My solution is either add a -2 penalty on the country who DOES the embargoing. So that embargoing countries are NOT-FREE. Or reduce the penalty to -1 for the embargo-ed nation.

 

If 100 people embargoed your nation you mustved pissed orbis off real bad.

 

This is potentially a good suggestion, but if you're okay with 100 people tanking your approval rating to 0, I don't see why having ~33 people do it is so much different (I understand that 100 is 3x the magnitude of 33, but the philosophy behind both is the same).

 

I'm with you on this, man. There are tons of better ways to spend your time, Sheepy. Implementing a feature that I expect most of us neither want nor would have even asked for probably took a lot of time. Instead, please consider implementing changes and improvements to our existing features that can take this game to the next level. One possible example might be improving our messaging system. Just a thought here.

 

Please see my response to ELPINCHAZO. While I appreciate suggestions, feedback, etc. I will not be ordered around. I don't appreciate it when people tell me I'm wasting my time, just because I didn't release the update that they wanted.

 

Sorry Sheepy but I'm with ElPinchazo. This is treasures all over again. Randomly implementing a new feature that hasn't been discussed at all with your Dev talk team, and continuing to ignore the large to do list, which is precisely what you claimed you wouldn't do anymore after the spy change debacle. -5 approval points.

 

Edit:you also can't get pissed at people for voicing disapproval and use the excuse 'but it literally has no effect' and then in the next line say it will in the future have an effect. Although, if treasures are anything to go buy, the future is a long time away (think alliance treasure count effect)

 

Edit two: I get that you're itching to add something new and different to the game (that was obvious with the jurassic Park suggestion, which, btw, was a good way to do things, discussion before implementation) and that you might be feeling down with people pressuring you for decent updates, but I don't think the solution is to add stuff on a whim. If this was going to stay entirely role play, no one would have issue. If you would like happier feedback from your community, maybe in the future if you do something like this, bundle it up with a change people discussed and everyone is happy with (e.g. Slot filled indicator)

 

This feature isn't completely out of the blue, see my blog post: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/blog/1/entry-15-laws-a-mixture-of-roleplay-and-nation-perks/which I linked to in the OP. This is something that was looked at and discussed by a lot of people, and received quite a bit of approval.

 

As for the Approval Ratings themselves, I don't understand what the big stink is. As I told underlordgc, if they're that big of an issue that no one wants them to have an effect mechanically, they simply don't have to. That doesn't mean they don't have to exist -- after all, there are a lot of "roleplay" things that we don't "need". Let's just do away with the maps, people can just use a dropdown box to pick their continent, and who needs nation and leader names? Let's just streamline it to your ID, since those names have no effect mechanics-wise, etc. There's more to the game than just numbers, you know.

 

Approval Ratings are just roleplay. Until I tell you otherwise, that's what they are, and while I suggested they may be used for not-just-roleplay, that doesn't make them inherently bad. If you think that using them outside of roleplay is a bad idea, then tell me that. That's fine. But to just !@#$ on the idea and offer no reason why other than "this isn't nationstates" or "i don't like roleplay" is very frustrating.

[Phiney]

You're going about this responding to criticism completely the wrong way here Sheepy, and I strongly believe you will look back at this and regret being so aggressive. You ask for feedback and then respond very badly to negative responses.

 

Also, if you're gunna make a suggestion outside of the suggestion forums, it'd help to at least make a post on the suggestion forums linking to it. Expecting people to discuss a suggestion somewhere other than the suggestions forum and then have everyone see it is ridiculous.

 

We want to help you Sheepy, we're not posting to shit on you we're trying to actually have a discussion (although I admit it could have been done classier by pinchy). Also, having a go at people and claiming they don't like a suggestion just because they don't role play is very much a personal attack, plus the fact they're in an alliance that DOES indeed role play, so maybe don't get too upset about it. If you ask people to be advisors, and then go behind their back and do something without consulting them at all, you're generally not going to get a hugely positive result from them.

 

Yes, it's your game, it's free, you spent months working on it you don't need to listen to lowly us if you don't want to, but please don't be rude to your userbase.

 

Edit: regarding the bank bug, you're claiming it's fixed, but you've just actually turned off part of the game mechanics that causes it. That's not a fix by anyone's standards and has actually detracted from the game.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Phiney

[Ayayay]

Approval Ratings are just roleplay. Until I tell you otherwise, that's what they are, and while I suggested they may be used for not-just-roleplay, that doesn't make them inherently bad. If you think that using them outside of roleplay is a bad idea, then tell me that. That's fine. But to just !@#$ on the idea and offer no reason why other than "this isn't nationstates" or "i don't like roleplay" is very frustrating.

Okay, let me give a quick rundown of why I personally abhor the idea having any effects beyond roleplay purposes.

 

I like having 100% control over every aspect of my nation. I like being able to play as I see fit with as much control over my nation as anyone else. True, I may play sub-optimally or get rolled, but it's also possible for me to use my knowledge to play better than others and rebuild myself as well as anyone else. Everyone has the exact same ability to build their nation and access to the same knowledge as another. If something like this is introduced that power is taken away from the players and placed into the hands of random luck. You could be the best player in the game but if everyone dislikes and embargoes you or your alliance goes on the offense then you end up losing the ability to shape your nation as you see fit and it becomes far more based on luck rather than skill.

 

Now, it's arguable that trading is luck based as people can embargo you. However, you are still able to trade with alliance mates or friends and get around those embargoes if you play the game well. In this case there is nothing you, your friends, or alliance can do to help you and your option is literally to sit and wait long enough for your AR to go up. At least when you are waiting to buy your next city you can speed it up by trading, lowering military count, getting alliance aid, etc but in this case the only thing you are able to do is sit and do nothing and hope it can go up fast enough.

 

Even a mild benefit can stack-up over a period of a month or two and all this idea does is disempower players and take away from skilled gameplay while handing it over to luck-based gameplay when it simply isn't needed nor wanted.

Edited June 11, 2015 by underlordgc

[ELPINCHAZO]

First, I'm not attacking you. If I am attacking you, then you (and a majority of the people that use this forum) attack me on a regular basis.

 

Second, the bank bug has been gone for months. It's also incredibly irrelevant to this announcement. 

 

Third, I believe your reasons are selfish because you don't like to roleplay, and you don't think other people should like it. That's what this is about, isn't it? Not being Nation States?

 

Lastly, I have provided you with a 100% free to play game and community, dedicating hundreds, possibly thousands of hours of my time into creating. You don't own this game, I'm not your employee, and you don't get to tell me what to do or how to spend my time. Just because the update that I created isn't what you wanted, does not mean that you have a right to tell me that I'm wasting my time or should've been more productive. I don't expect you or everyone to like every little change, but I'll be damned if you're going to tell me how I need to be spending my time when I have put in this much time and effort creating something for you and everyone else, for free.

The bank bug is  extremely relevant because it exemplifies the points made by Phiney,Grealind and myself. I'd prefer that changes add depth to gameplay and not be purely cosmetic unless they are something that allows the game to continue to function(e.g. hats,pips,etc.). I'd like to see the community grow ,your game continue and succeed. 

 

Yes,you clearly have attacked me by insinuating that If I don't agree with the change then I shouldn't be here. I'm selfish because YOU think I don't want others to role play.You're REALLY reaching there about what you assume about what I want and what my reasons are. 

 

Yes its your time and can spend it how ever the !@#$ you want to(even if it results in a terrible series of missteps that destroys your labor of love). If this is something you want to monetize further ,then you better really learn to something about customer relations. Every interaction you have with players while you are wearing the tag of Admin is just that. Learn to take some !@#$ing criticism,you don't have to respond to all of it and you don't have to be so !@#$ing defensive about it. People respond,!@#$,moan suggest and everything else because they care about the game and community. If you want to tune it all out and just make the game you want then fine. Enjoy all the donations you can send yourself

 

So forgive me for being critical,!@#$.

[Alex]

You're going about this responding to criticism completely the wrong way here Sheepy, and I strongly believe you will look back at this and regret being so aggressive. You ask for feedback and then respond very badly to negative responses.

 

Also, if you're gunna make a suggestion outside of the suggestion forums, it'd help to at least make a post on the suggestion forums linking to it. Expecting people to discuss a suggestion somewhere other than the suggestions forum and then have everyone see it is ridiculous.

 

We want to help you Sheepy, we're not posting to shit on you we're trying to actually have a discussion (although I admit it could have been done classier by pinchy). Also, having a go at people and claiming they don't like a suggestion just because they don't role play is very much a personal attack, plus the fact they're in an alliance that DOES indeed role play, so maybe don't get too upset about it. If you ask people to be advisors, and then go behind their back and do something without consulting them at all, you're generally not going to get a hugely positive result from them.

 

Yes, it's your game, it's free, you spent months working on it you don't need to listen to lowly us if you don't want to, but please don't be rude to your userbase.

 

I'm not intending to be rude, and yes I am aware that I am rather frustrated with some of the reactions to this post. I feel much of the criticism was undeserved at this time, and people are severely overreacting to a meaningless feature in terms of gameplay. You'd think Approval Rating was the new Commerce by the way some people reacted. 

 

I have to be honest,I hate this. If I wanted Nation States,I'd play Nation States.

 

This, I thought specifically was completely unwarranted.

 

Okay, let me give a quick rundown of why I personally abhor the idea having any effects beyond roleplay purposes.

 

I like having 100% control over every aspect of my nation. I like being able to play as I see fit with as much control over my nation as anyone else. True, I may play sub-optimally or get rolled, but it's also possible for me to use my knowledge to play better than others and rebuild myself as well as anyone else. Everyone has the exact same ability to build their nation and access to the same knowledge as another. If something like this is introduced that power is taken away from the players and placed into the hands of random luck. You could be the best player in the game but if everyone dislikes and embargoes you or your alliance goes on the offense then you end up losing the ability to shape your nation as you see fit and it becomes far more based on luck rather than skill.

 

Now, it's arguable that trading is luck based as people can embargo you. However, you are still able to trade with alliance mates or friends and get around those embargoes if you play the game well. In this case there is nothing you, your friends, or alliance can do to help you and your option is literally to sit and wait long enough for your AR to go up. At least when you are waiting to buy your next city you can speed it up by trading, lowering military count, getting alliance aid, etc but in this case the only thing you are able to do is sit and do nothing and hope it can go up fast enough.

 

Even a mild benefit can stack-up over a period of a month or two and all this idea does is disempower players and take away from skilled gameplay while handing it over to luck-based gameplay when it simply isn't needed nor wanted.

 

I actually agree with you, and I think it comes down to one of two things: 

 

1) Removing embargoes from the list of things that affect your AR. 2) Keeping AR completely cosmetic. Either of these options is a fine solution, imo.

 

The bank bug is  extremely relevant because it exemplifies the points made by Phiney,Grealind and myself. I'd prefer that changes add depth to gameplay and not be purely cosmetic unless they are something that allows the game to continue to function(e.g. hats,pips,etc.). I'd like to see the community grow ,your game continue and succeed. 

 

Yes,you clearly have attacked me by insinuating that If I don't agree with the change then I shouldn't be here. I'm selfish because YOU think I don't want others to role play.You're REALLY reaching there about what you assume about what I want and what my reasons are. 

 

Yes its your time and can spend it how ever the !@#$ you want to(even if it results in a terrible series of missteps that destroys your labor of love). If this is something you want to monetize further ,then you better really learn to something about customer relations. Every interaction you have with players while you are wearing the tag of Admin is just that. Learn to take some !@#$ing criticism,you don't have to respond to all of it and you don't have to be so !@#$ing defensive about it. People respond,!@#$,moan suggest and everything else because they care about the game and community. If you want to tune it all out and just make the game you want then fine. Enjoy all the donations you can send yourself

 

So forgive me for being critical,!@#$.

 

A bug that was resolved a couple of months ago is relevant? I disagree. I also disagree about this change - I think it does add depth to gameplay, in terms of roleplay. I appreciate your concern for the game and the community.

 

I disagree with how you're going about it. You literally just posted, "I have to be honest,I hate this. If I wanted Nation States,I'd play Nation States." There was no explanation, just the fact that you hated the change. I responded, "I don't understand, it literally has no effect on you. You don't like other people having fun through roleplaying? If you didn't want to play a nation simulation game, why are you here?" You responded to that with, "Well,I'm glad to see you're spending time on aspects of the game that have entirely no effect." 

 

You didn't respond to my question, you didn't tell me why you disliked the change, you just told me that you hated it and that I was wasting my time. And you're right, I took a jab at you when I said the whole world doesn't revolve around you, but you can't hold this double standard where I have to have thick skin and you don't. Ever since you've deflected this issue from the actual announcement and change to accusing me of attacking you and bringing up a whole host of other concerns completely unrelated to this topic. I imagine you'll continue to do so. 

 

Be critical, like I said I respond to criticism well. Your initial responses to this thread, however, we just rude, and so far you can't come to terms with that or accept the fact that I've called you out on it. 

 

You are right, however, I shouldn't have bothered to respond to you to begin with. I should respond to posts that actually are critiques of changes, and not waste my time with someone that just wants to bicker.

[Phiney]

I know this is off topic, but I just wanted to address this repeated claim of the bank bug being fixed. You've just turned off the root of the cause, disabling actual game features. That's not a fix.

 

Back on topic, I agree with under that this should be a cosmetic thing rather than a mechanic change. It just seems too fluffy and not grounded enough, doesn't give tactics. I also think it'd be more interesting if it was just points instead of a percent, then you could have a leader board for it which would make people more interested.

[Alex]

I know this is off topic, but I just wanted to address this repeated claim of the bank bug being fixed. You've just turned off the root of the cause, disabling actual game features. That's not a fix.

 

Back on topic, I agree with under that this should be a cosmetic thing rather than a mechanic change. It just seems too fluffy and not grounded enough, doesn't give tactics. I also think it'd be more interesting if it was just points instead of a percent, then you could have a leader board for it which would make people more interested.

 

You are correct about the bug, but looting alliance banks hasn't really been a top concern for anyone so far, it seems. If you guys want it back, I'll fix the bug and bring it back, but I think it's a separate conversation we need to have as a community first.

 

As for the Approval Rating, I'm tending to lean towards agreeing with you on keeping it purely cosmetic. And I also think removing the upper cap is a good idea, presuming it's staying cosmetic, as people love Leaderboards things. It might mean folks embargoing the high-ups on the Leaderboards for S+Gs, though, not that that's necessarily a big deal.

[Mutwa]

I like the change but it is hard to tell until we know what effect laws will have.

 

I imagine there will have to be a lot of balancing if they effect nations in anyway that isn't purely cosmetic.