The Treasure System is Unfair and Needs to be Fixed

[donsberger]

OddSquad has raided who? Other than our guys in the low score ranges who raids inactives we haven't raided anybody for treasures

[Bollocks]

I personally had no idea you could even trade treasures. Perhaps Sheepy should integrate it into the global market place, similar to credits. 

[Buorhann]

I personally had no idea you could even trade treasures. Perhaps Sheepy should integrate it into the global market place, similar to credits. 

 

Not a bad idea, but it would encourage someone to pawn off their treasure for $1 before their nation loses a battle.

 

Then again, that would make Naval blockades more important.  Hm...

Edited October 27, 2015 by Buorhann

[Kemal Ergenekon]

For your infra and cities and tanks and planes and score differences, you work for.

 

For treasures, you're at the mercy of the almighty Random Number God.

 

Skill is fundamentally different from luck, and if you can't get this, then I can't help you further.

 

Just declare war on someone who has a treasure and beige them. If you didn't get the treasure initially, you work to get them. If you were lucky and got it, you need to defend yourself against people who want it for themselves, so you again work for it.

[Krillian]

Not a bad idea, but it would encourage someone to pawn off their treasure for $1 before their nation loses a battle.

 

Then again, that would make Naval blockades more important. Hm...

Productive comments ^ adding the treasures to market would make things interesting but they then become a commodity. Is this what we want?

[Diocletian]

You know at first I was extremely dissatisfied with this update too. Truly though, now that I've saw it in action I realize it's really nowhere near as bad as a lot of folks try to paint it out to be. Does it do anything to encourage war? Ehh, in the low-mid tier alliances it's very possible. To the "big dogs" of Orbis? - Almost zill of a chance. It's a pretty interesting dynamic that seems to be especially useful during world wars (as we've already witnessed this war). The real question of whether this system will "make or break" the game will fall to many months of a scientific study of sorts. I truly do believe we'll all have to wait an extended period of time to base our beliefs on this matter on something grounded in tangible evidence. Yes it makes things unbalanced a bit, and that's actually a pretty kickass feature in my opinion.

 

Now the arguments on either side of the debate have already been stated, so I'll refrain from adding anything further until I see for myself whether or not this change allows for anything dramatic to play out. Only time will tell! 

[Valakias]

The question is: how much we cared for color stock before this update? Nothing. How much we cared for treasures? Nothing. This update brings in a new dynamic, that adds a bit of tension and something to do, which is what the game needs in abundance, considering how easy it is to simple stagnate and do nothing. We have something else to compete for now.

 

Its true that the politics right now is alive, and i don't see it going away, but big wars for drama will keep happening, and we also have this new system that, to be honest, still has to be figured out fully. Its unfair because from irrelevant has now become important, and still must be understood.

 

As of now, i "like" it, meaning i'd like to see where it leads us. If in a few month we think its bad, fixes will come, because Sheepy has shown that he  cares plenty of times. 

Edited October 27, 2015 by Valakias

[Rozalia]

One thing I'd like to know by the way. Which are the treasures that respawn in 30 days and the ones that do so in 60?

[Hysteria]

I think an expansion of how many treasures pop up and a little more detailed information on how they work would solve the problem.

[William of Cobden]

There should be an option to get rid of a treasure if you don't want it, or block your nation from accepting one in the first place.  Unless you are in a top alliance they are just a big target on your back and an excuse for small alliances/nations to get rolled by bigger ones. ...

Edited October 28, 2015 by William of Cobden

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

FYI, Most large alliances arent going to risk going to war, to pick up a few extra percentage points, while they do have the most to gain, they also have to most to lose if a move to steal treasures goes bad and escalates into a large war.

[Pfeiffer]

FYI, Most large alliances arent going to risk going to war, to pick up a few extra percentage points, while they do have the most to gain, they also have to most to lose if a move to steal treasures goes bad and escalates into a large war.

 

You speak for most large alliances now? That's good to know.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

what an honor, looks like I am moving up in the world, from getting trolled by regular Mensa members to now the leader of Mensa!

[Dimitri Valko]

what an honor, looks like I am moving up in the world, from getting trolled by regular Mensa members to now the leader of Mensa!

 

I don't think you know what "trolled" means, man.

[Krillian]

There should be an option to get rid of a treasure if you don't want it, or block your nation from accepting one in the first place. Unless you are in a top alliance they are just a big target on your back and an excuse for small alliances/nations to get rolled by bigger ones. ...

I agree that there should be a checkbox "Search for treasure in your nation" or something of the like.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

An option to sell or auction treasures would solve many problems.

 

Also, instead of random spawns, they could initially be placed in bot countries Sheepy had at some point (inactive non-player nations which have very large armies).

[Oblige]

An option to sell or auction treasures would solve many problems.

 

Also, instead of random spawns, they could initially be placed in bot countries Sheepy had at some point (inactive non-player nations which have very large armies).

 

That sounds exciting.

 

Also, there is nothing preventing any other AA from doing what Rose did. I don't see what all the QQ'ing over this is for. 

Edited October 29, 2015 by Oblige

[Kemal Ergenekon]

That sounds exciting.

 

Also, there is nothing preventing any other AA from doing what Rose did. I don't see what all the QQ'ing over this is for. 

 

 

QQers gonna QQ

[Oblige]

Actually look at Mensa. They'll have as many treasures as Rose soon and they're taking them by force instead of diplomacy. Clearly the system is workable from both angles. 

[Bollocks]

An option to sell or auction treasures would solve many problems.

 

Also, instead of random spawns, they could initially be placed in bot countries Sheepy had at some point (inactive non-player nations which have very large armies).

 

I completely agree.

 

It would be interesting to have bot armies that need multiple rounds of war to defeat and steal the treasure. It can add tension because another alliance can come in and snipe the slots right after your alliance just spent 10mil on tanks trying to grind down the bot armies' ground force. 

[Dr Rush]

One thing I'd like to know by the way. Which are the treasures that respawn in 30 days and the ones that do so in 60?

All of the treasures respawn after 60 days. They are split into 2 two groups that spawn 30 days apart.

[Ayayay]

You speak for most large alliances now? That's good to know.

You didn't know SRD runs TC FA? Thought that was obvious by now

[Rozalia]

All of the treasures respawn after 60 days. They are split into 2 two groups that spawn 30 days apart.

 

Thank you.

[Beowulf the Second]

+0.5 to the bot countries spawning w/treasures idea, seems interesting. Complex though.

[Dwemyrn]

You know what would be funny if it hasn't already happened yet? If the pink treasure spawns in Inst's nation out of reach for anyone over the 60 days. That being said, maybe shorten the treasure spawning to 15 or 30 days? idk