Incoming Change to Color Stock Bonus

[seabasstion]

i will be highly surprised if this actually increased war the way it is intended, which i am presuming is more alliance wide wars based on your comments.

 

the problem with wars is that they are too expensive for developed alliances/nations, and the juice simply isn't worth the squeeze even in 'winning' wars. you still come out way behind. the cost of consumables and infrastructure that would be destroyed will far exceed the value gained from these treasures, especially if you have to hustle for them every month on mulitple war fronts. 

 

going into war for economic reasons falls apart once you get past early stages of this game

 

you're trying to increase war activity by creating an incentive rather than decreasing a burden. it is my position that decreasing the war burden would serve your agenda much better if you truly want more global wars as it is the underlying cause of the issue you are addressing.

 

all this will effectively do is create a relatively insignificant lottery each month and raising the profitable raiding strength range up a few points. things will only push further in the 'no war' category as the game progresses because of the exponential cost of infrastructure compared to the linear earnings of commerce. as nations become more advanced on average, this incentive will continue to erode with each infrastructure purchase.

 

alliance wide wars will still happen, but they will be just as frequent as they are now and happen on their own accord. even if an alliance is spawned with 10 treasures it would still be foolish to try and get them as all encompassing war costs will easily exceed the benefit gained from this.

 

however if this DOES work the way you intend and there is a big uptick in war activity, i hope there is the option to gift this to someone else because i wouldn't want it. 

Edited October 14, 2015 by seabasstion

[Dimitri Valko]

Ugh, sounds like a terrible update...

[Prefontaine]

There's also the fact that if treasures become as important as you hope they will, Sheepy, getting one becomes a huge burden. The treasure holder will likely need to have nearly max military while having the treasure, thus negating the personal bonus AND alliance bonus combined by a large margin. Which is a problem. You want people to want these things, but no one would want to hold them. Especially more than one.

[seabasstion]

There's also the fact that if treasures become as important as you hope they will, Sheepy, getting one becomes a huge burden. The treasure holder will likely need to have nearly max military while having the treasure, thus negating the personal bonus AND alliance bonus combined by a large margin. Which is a problem. You want people to want these things, but no one would want to hold them. Especially more than one.

 

Exactly. This is why I hope a gifting/forfeit option is available

[Alex]

i will be highly surprised if this actually increased war the way it is intended, which i am presuming is more alliance wide wars based on your comments.

 

the problem with wars is that they are too expensive for developed alliances/nations, and the juice simply isn't worth the squeeze even in 'winning' wars. you still come out way behind. the cost of consumables and infrastructure that would be destroyed will far exceed the value gained from these treasures, especially if you have to hustle for them every month on mulitple war fronts. 

 

going into war for economic reasons falls apart once you get past early stages of this game

 

you're trying to increase war activity by creating an incentive rather than decreasing a burden. it is my position that decreasing the war burden would serve your agenda much better if you truly want more global wars as it is the underlying cause of the issue you are addressing.

 

all this will effectively do is create a relatively insignificant lottery each month and raising the profitable raiding strength range up a few points. things will only push further in the 'no war' category as the game progresses because of the exponential cost of infrastructure compared to the linear earnings of commerce. as nations become more advanced on average, this incentive will continue to erode with each infrastructure purchase.

 

alliance wide wars will still happen, but they will be just as frequent as they are now and happen on their own accord. even if an alliance is spawned with 10 treasures it would still be foolish to try and get them as all encompassing war costs will easily exceed the benefit gained from this.

 

however if this DOES work the way you intend and there is a big uptick in war activity, i hope there is the option to gift this to someone else because i wouldn't want it. 

 

 

There's also the fact that if treasures become as important as you hope they will, Sheepy, getting one becomes a huge burden. The treasure holder will likely need to have nearly max military while having the treasure, thus negating the personal bonus AND alliance bonus combined by a large margin. Which is a problem. You want people to want these things, but no one would want to hold them. Especially more than one.

 

The purpose of this isn't necessarily because I think we're going to have 10 wars a week now, it's just tying up two "loose ends" together in a system that should create a little more inequality and instability. If people are uncomfortable in the hot seat with a treasure, that's good, that means the system is actually working like it should in theory. I don't suspect that will be the case, and honestly even a 10% income bonus isn't /that/ significant in the grand scheme of things. 

 

What this does do is reduced bonuses globally, which will help game inflation as well. There's a number of pros to this change, but you're right, it's not going to create alliance wars out of thin air and be this magical update.

[Hooves]

How are small alliances without treasures supposed to attract new members? If the new members could just look at the bigger alliances and see all these wonderful treasures. You can't expect the small alliance to fight the big alliance for those treasures to attract people, no no no, that's not how it works.

[Atzuya]

Small alliances can simply look at which colors have the most treasures and sit there, at the risk of attracting attention when there are already too many alliances in that color.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Atzuya

[Peace and War]

I forgot we had treasures in this game

[TellUrGrlThx]

Just give em to Mensa. We don't recruit anyway.

[Valakias]

So i think this is good because it gives treasures a meaning

[MRBOOTY]

I disagree. The new Color Stock Bonus system will create greater inequality, which I think is good in this case.

 

If you let one alliance get even half the treasures, that's a 30% income bonus that they're getting. That should put a big target on their head, and hopefully force some diplomacy. And when diplomacy fails, there's only war.

And this will happen- but there are about 10 alliances that that could happen to, and if you're not in that alliance your growth is going to be absolute crap. Nobody is going to be leaving big alliances to go to smaller ones with huge bonuses available in the big alliances.

 

How are small alliances without treasures supposed to attract new members? If the new members could just look at the bigger alliances and see all these wonderful treasures. You can't expect the small alliance to fight the big alliance for those treasures to attract people, no no no, that's not how it works.

Also this

 

Also, if we ever do get a hedgemonic power in the game they'll stay that way, because they can just get all of the treasures and nobody will ever be able to keep up with them.

[Aerys Targaryen]

This is a crappy update. I read other comments and happened to agree with most of them.

 

Why not treat treasures like any other resource? If there are a lot of nations, they will share those treasures and the net effect would be less. You can take number of treasures and divide it by number of members in the colour and alliance.

 

If you think creating an 'unfair' system will make people do something, may be you're right, alliances will just start to merge to get the advantage. If you are not promoting smaller alliances, politics of this game will get simpler and over time will get dormant.

 

Please refer this suggestion regarding the treasure system.

[TellUrGrlThx]

How about you make a rule against allowing alliances to buy treasures? Reset em at the end of this month and do that if you really want to stick with this terrible idea of a color bonus system.

 

If not then listen to 90% of this game and go back to the old system until you come up with a better way to change the color system.

[Azaghul]

I don't see alliances starting wars to get treasures, but I could see disputes emerging over treasures that leads to a wider conflict.