Jump to content

The Treasure System is Unfair and Needs to be Fixed


MRBOOTY
 Share

Recommended Posts

I agree. Yellow seems to be the only color to hold a consistently high bonus and everyone else kinda suffers. Even being a yellow alliance I feel it's unfair to everyone else and we should revert back to the old system. 

Edited by Ashwyn Traverse
  • Upvote 6

:wub: -removed by thor- :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well actually according to Sheepy it being unfair was the intention which is something I don't exactly hear much in game design but whatever. It benefiting Rose most is expected and I don't mean anything else beyond that before someone here jumps on me. All round the big alliances benefit much more, just the other ones all got their clocks kicked in lately so they don't get it as much. 

 

What I'll say is that making the big alliances more powerful is not how you promote a better game, they have enough advantages thank you. Banning treasures spawning in the top 10 alliances might fix it a bit maybe. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, what? He said the point of this was to benefit big alliances?

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/9035-incoming-change-to-color-stock-bonus/page-2

 

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.

 

Inequality == good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of complaining about "fairness" and "lost income" and yet none have quite attempted to post a suggestion that is "fair" and achieves even close to the objectives of the admin for the treasure or color stocks. He doesn't want them to be "fair". He wants people to actually have to DO SOMETHING to get those bonuses. Those alliances who have spent a lot of time building their communities have a better chance of getting a bonus? Good. They deserve it. They did something. 

 

You have a way to do something about it too. Sure there's going to be someone who replies back with "it's not worth it" to war for it. K, cool story bro. You know what isn't "fair"... getting a bonus for doing nothing.

 

I think the model is quite "fair" myself. 

 

Its simple, guys. You have two choices.

 

1. Don't get a bonus.

2. Go take a treasure.

Edited by Cynic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Banning treasures spawning in the top 10 alliances might fix it a bit maybe.

If we were to do something like that, I think a more flexible system would work better.

 

i.e. having it so the chance of a treasure spawning in your alliance decreases as your alliance becomes stronger. That, of course, still makes smaller alliances much bigger targets, but if we're talking limiting treasure spawning in larger alliances I think something along those lines would be best.

  • Upvote 2
xzhPlEh.png?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You can't declare war on this nation because they are outside of your war range. Your war range extends to +75% or -25% of your score. You can also always declare on nations within the next 10 ranks above you.

 

I too clicked the button, and was disappointed.

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10/25 08:45 pm

Your nation was embargoed by Dimitri Valko of Ryas for the reason listed of: Has Bad Suggestions..

 

There ya go Dimitri. You did something finally, but I think this was the button you were looking for.

 

 

;)

putin-trump-sig_zps657urhx9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of complaining about "fairness" and "lost income" and yet none have quite attempted to post a suggestion that is "fair" and achieves even close to the objectives of the admin for the treasure or color stocks. He doesn't want them to be "fair". He wants people to actually have to DO SOMETHING to get those bonuses. Those alliances who have spent a lot of time building their communities have a better chance of getting a bonus? Good. They deserve it. They did something. 

 

You have a way to do something about it too. Sure there's going to be someone who replies back with "it's not worth it" to war for it. K, cool story bro. You know what isn't "fair"... getting a bonus for doing nothing.

 

I think the model is quite "fair" myself. 

 

Its simple, guys. You have two choices.

 

1. Don't get a bonus.

2. Go take a treasure.

Ok yeah a 4th page alliance should go ahead and declare on Rose to get treasures. It's not "fair" because it is completely impossible for any not top 10 alliance to even have a shot in the dark at getting any kind of bonus, while all of the top alliances will get 10+ percent.

 

It may help communities that have been together for longer... It also punishes communities that are just getting together now. 

 

 

Sheepy, on 14 Oct 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:snapback.png

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.

Wow. Well, at least I get the point now of what this is trying to do, but it would still make sense to have treasures be based on a per-capita count. Otherwise, it's only really creates the incentive for big alliances and it makes smaller alliances even less relevant. This is probably the first mechanic that's specifically designed to harm non-huge alliances, and it's likely to be a complete and very damaging failure.

MR BOOTY IN DA HOUSE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10/25 08:45 pm

Your nation was embargoed by Dimitri Valko of Ryas for the reason listed of: Has Bad Suggestions..

 

There ya go Dimitri. You did something finally, but I think this was the button you were looking for.

 

You can't declare war on this nation because they are outside of your war range. Your war range extends to +75% or -25% of your score. You can also always declare on nations within the next 10 ranks above you.

 

:(

dpluao815a3.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we were to do something like that, I think a more flexible system would work better.

 

i.e. having it so the chance of a treasure spawning in your alliance decreases as your alliance becomes stronger. That, of course, still makes smaller alliances much bigger targets, but if we're talking limiting treasure spawning in larger alliances I think something along those lines would be best.

Yes but honestly if colors are 90% reliant on treasures, might as well not have color alignment, it's just useless now.

:wub: -removed by thor- :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should all universally, and calmly decide on a mega color to migrate to. That way we may be one step closer to communism, and all of us will be the same. Honestly I'd just prefer to stick with the old system for now and keep thinking on the thought process a little more. As I said before, you can't expect a small alliance to pick any fights for these treasures. They simply can't do anything about it, and it just ruins the point of politics to even try. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should all universally, and calmly decide on a mega color to migrate to. That way we may be one step closer to communism, and all of us will be the same. Honestly I'd just prefer to stick with the old system for now and keep thinking on the thought process a little more. As I said before, you can't expect a small alliance to pick any fights for these treasures. They simply can't do anything about it, and it just ruins the point of politics to even try. 

Dogpile on yellow?

:wub: -removed by thor- :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the model is quite "fair" myself. 

 

You and Sheepy seem to be in the minority of people who liked your suggestion. You know it's bad when you've made a suggestion for the game so badly people desperately want to go to war with you. Though to be fair you only made a bad system slightly worse.

  • Upvote 4

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.