What do you think about Color Stock Bonus?

[Alex]

It got nerfed pretty hard, and isn't doing it's job in helping separate alliances among the colors. I think we ought to remove it entirely, and just keep the Alliance Treasure Bonus instead. If you look, most colors have little to no bonus currently anyway; all that the system is doing now is preventing alliances from being on the colors they want to be on.

 

I do have some other ideas related to how we could make colors applicable to the game again:

 

 

A new set of content that I would like to add to the game, relevant to colors, is some sort of elections based on colors similar to what (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) has. Except, I'm thinking the people elected (maybe like 5 per color) would then get to set trade restrictions for nations on that color. For example, they could set a minimum selling price of Oil for pink nations to $100/ea. All pink nations wouldn't be able to sell Oil for cheaper than that (on the global market) and we'd see some competition between regulations by the colors. It gives players a way to "solve" the undercutting problems sometimes seen in the market. Additionally, colors could set ceilings on prices as well if they wished, perhaps if they wanted to try to stop price-gouging, etc.

 

I think individually it wouldn't do much, as people would hop around colors to get to the unregulated colors. It would take a broad coalition between alliances on all colors with control over their respective Color (Senates?) to make it effective. Perhaps also there could be a broader legislative body that could dictate price floors/ceilings on the global market for all colors (something that would take a stronger majority to do, perhaps.)

 

Anyway, please offer your feedback and vote in the poll.

[Captain_Vietnam]

increase all income by some amount or increase treasure income to make up for what people lose by removing bonus!

[Spaceman Thrax]

Strong yes on removing it. It was worth trying out, but it doesn't do what it was intended to and isn't particularly fun.

 

I'd get rid of the treasures as well, for essentially the same reason, but that's another thread topic probably.

[Hubotz]

What incentivizes color-specific trade regulations? For example, it doesn't seem to me that Pink alliances and players would ever advocate to restrict their trading options, because if the price of oil goes under $100 they will be entirely unable to sell oil.

 

Am I misunderstanding what you meant?

[Spite]

What incentivizes color-specific trade regulations? For example, it doesn't seem to me that Pink alliances and players would ever advocate to restrict their trading options, because if the price of oil goes under $100 they will be entirely unable to sell oil.

 

Am I misunderstanding what you meant?

This. Who would deliberately restrict the ability of their own nations to profit from markets?

 

If you were talking about import prices I would half understand.

[Luna]

Please get rid of it.

[Rozalia]

Sounds like part of the sphere of influence idea I suggested except based on the colours. Anyway you could try reverting colour stock to how it was before but half the max (so 5% max instead of 10%). That way you keep the treasure bonus you want to maintain and it should force some spreading out.

 

Though really I don't know why it has taken protests to get this talk to happen. Everyone said it would happen (well outside the obvious suspects with interests in the matter, and I say that as someone benefiting from the change so no crass comments about being salty about it please) to begin with and we saw Yellow and Green both go down the pan. It was argued that alliances getting treasures would boost their colour and spread people out, nonsense of course but I'm not just saying that as proof of that exists in game right now. Nobody cared about Blue until it gained some treasures and then everyone figuratively changed to it. 4 extra treasures made the alliance count on it go from 4 to 16.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Rozalia

[Stormrideron]

I can see what you are thinking Sheepy, I think it would be quite interesting to have resources tied to the color of the player / alliance. 

 

Like for instance, the average price of oil selling for Pink nation is $1,500 and then you can add percentage multipler to that for min and max. Let's say 20% percentage, so that the pink nation can sell between $1,200 to $1,800. Not just that but it will remove insane price such as 1 food for $5,000,000 or 1 steel for $9,999,999. Let the free market flow and dictate the price for game. 

 

If pink nations want to sell higher, then they must put it at higher price to push the average price, thus the price range widens for them. However, all nations should be able to purchase goods from other nations regardless of the average price for each color of nation. 

 

In addition to that, it will also help soften the spike, allowing the market to freely climb up and climb down. So yes, I support resources being tied to color of nation, would love to see very high competition in market.

[Captain_Vietnam]

alliance put effort into bonus!

 

why remove it and ruin hard work???

[Rozalia]

If that idea is really being considered being implemented then I'd hope some consideration would be given to my own on the matter as they tread similar ground. 

 

 

Sphere leaders = Top 10 alliances

Alliances that can be sphered - first off alliances in the top 10 cannot be sphered at all as they are too powerful. Only alliances below the top 10 can be sphered.

Alliances can only be sphered by one Sphere leader - In an effort to stop big top 10 alliances rigging it by having their allies all be sphered by them all at once, alliances can only be sphered by one leader. To sphered by another they'd have to be removed first.

 

Effects of Spheres - Those within spheres when buying resources must buy from nations within their sphere first, only when there is none available within the sphere are they permitted to buy on the global market. This promotes inter sphere purchasing but to avoid certain members abusing that by setting up crazy prices the sphere leader can set up a minimum and maximum price on each resource to avoid this abuse. 

 

Prices in and out of sphere - Now one thing this shouldn't do is restrict sellers because we play in real time and forcing sellers to wait a day before having their goods go on the global market I don't believe is something people want. So here is a suggestion on promoting in alliance buying while still having your goods on the global market.

 

Tariffs - Sphere leaders can set a percentage based tariff that will apply to nations within their sphere which will only apply to nations outside the sphere buying goods from your sphered nations. So say:

 

The Dutch East India Company is the sphere leader.

Genius Corps is a sphered alliance under DEIC.

Cobalt is a sphered alliance under DEIC.

DEIC has a tariff of 30%.

Genius Corps nation is selling 1000 Steel at $2000 per unit. 

For a DEIC or Cobalt nation that $2000 per unit would be what they'd have to pay.

For other alliances like let us say United Purple Nations for example the price would instead be $2600 per unit.

 

The tariff of course would be adjustable once a day or perhaps a week may be better by the sphere leader. It could be set 0-100% up to them.

Now where the extra money goes can be dealt with in different manners. It could simply become extra money into the pocket of the seller, it could go into the sphere leader's bank, the seller and bank can split it... or you can allow all those options by allowing the sphere leader to set what they'd like (so do they want to enrich their sellers? Their own bank? Or a bit of both?).

 

How to sphere and leaving: Tricky business but here is some ideas.

 

First off a sphere leader can straight up invite an alliance into it's sphere, and can also remove an alliance. I was thinking there could be two types of agreements, two sided and one sided.

 

One sided: Sphere leader can diplomatically remove sphered alliance. Sphered alliance cannot remove itself diplomatically.

Two sided: Both parties can remove the sphered alliance from the sphere. 

 

Of course the one sided agreement has to allow the sphered alliance a way out so one way to allow that would be a decision available to the sphered alliance's leaders that they can take when they have 5 ongoing wars with the sphere leader's alliance. Than they'd need a certain amount of victories to break free, but at the same time if they recieve the same amount of defeats than their attemp fails. If we set the amount needed at 33% your member count than an alliance of 30 would need 10 victories to break free, but if they recieve 10 defeats first than they remain.

A cooldown would likely have to exist to not allow those alliances to constantly start such wars.

 

Losing sphere leader status - When you drop out of the top 10 you have a week to regain your spot. Failure to do so removes you as a sphere leader, your sphered alliances are "freed", and the new sphere leader takes your spot.

 

Taking into account the colour mechanic you could also integrate that too. If each sphere leader has a different colour than you can make it so sphered alliances to get the colour bonus they must take the colour of their sphere leader. Such a thing would be problematic for alliances like GPA for example as VE would likely get the green but oh well.

You could to be fair give the #1 ranked alliance first dibs on choosing a colour, than the #2, and so on.

 

 

Ultimately though what would be the full powers we're talking about here? Before all this colour nonsense Roz Wei had I believe maybe a little over half the blue nations. As such what happens if Roz Wei gets all 5 seats? Can I ban people/alliances from trading with blue at will? Can I force everyone to be uncompetitive with really high prices so no one purchases off blue? On the other side of the spectrum can I make the rates really low so no one blue sells as it won't be profitable? Not that I would do such a thing of course, but best to know these things ahead of time as ultimately someone would do it at some point. 

[Kim Jong-Il]

A new set of content that I would like to add to the game, relevant to colors, is some sort of elections based on colors similar to what (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) has. Except, I'm thinking the people elected (maybe like 5 per color) would then get to set trade restrictions for nations on that color. For example, they could set a minimum selling price of Oil for pink nations to $100/ea. All pink nations wouldn't be able to sell Oil for cheaper than that (on the global market) and we'd see some competition between regulations by the colors. It gives players a way to "solve" the undercutting problems sometimes seen in the market. Additionally, colors could set ceilings on prices as well if they wished, perhaps if they wanted to try to stop price-gouging, etc.

 

Would the trade restrictions work sort of like a sliding scale? If not I would think a sliding scale factor would be better suit

 

Also for the restrictions, I think that if you could restrict what aa's you could send to, for example if you're on red you cant sell to orange nations, that would be good as well

Edited December 2, 2015 by Kim Jong-Il

[Hubotz]

The market is fine. Adding restrictions makes it less fair almost by definition. If my freedom on the market was bound by alliances/colors, I would almost certainly be permanently residing on the alliance None in the grey sphere

 

The standard complaint about markets is that the discrepancy between Buy and Sell offers is too large. If this is true, then we would like there to be more undercutting, not less, and you could make it more convenient to do so by adding a quickoffer feature that automatically undercuts the next guy.

[Dimitri Valko]

Yes, I've said it since you've implemented it.

 

 A lot of people are boycotting the rates by going on blue.

 

 

[EDIT:] That election price cap idea is shit. No thank you.

 

Oh, and get rid of treasures, too, while you are at it. They're another shit concept.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Dimitri Valko

[Kastor]

I'm going to say this for all the players of Orbis.

 

 

GET RID OF TREASURES.

CHANGE THE CSB BACK TO HOW IT WAS(maybe with a small nerf to help with our growing population).

[Eric]

screw color stock...VOTE NO AND MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

[Odin]

Interesting, though:

- Whats the use of having all nations in an alliance on the same colour? / remove nation colours.*

- Alliance colours should only be changeable after 1 month or so to prevent colour-hopping. 

 

Additional:

 Trading with someone who has the same (national* and) alliance colour should generate a normal free trade.

-> Trading with someone out of this colour should add the tariffs set by colour sphere leaders.

 

Edit: Sphere leader should be the alliance on a colour with the most treasures?

Or this alliance gets 60% of those tariffs, and the next best 4 alliances on that colour get each 10% (or set the % themselves)? -> To remain with the idea of having council members on a colour sphere.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Odin

[Dimitri Valko]

We should get rid of colours in general.

 

WHO'S WITH ME?!

[Nadir Aminu]

Interesting, though:

- Whats the use of having all nations in an alliance on the same colour? / remove nation colours.*

- Alliance colours should only be changeable after 1 month or so to prevent colour-hopping.

 

Additional:

Trading with someone who has the same (national* and) alliance colour should generate a normal free trade.

-> Trading with someone out of this colour should add the tariffs set by colour sphere leaders.

 

Edit: Sphere leader should be the alliance on a colour with the most treasures?

This is actually interesting. Colours could represent certain trade organizations and that could be it.

[Dwemyrn]

Should it be fixed, yes, Should it be removed, no. Reverting it back to old way would be fine, but removing it completely after !@#$ing it up in the first place is just kind of annoying since you changed something that was broken.

[NihBetodaru]

I do like the idea of creating trade organizations with the color blocks and imposing tariffs on the other colors. That would introduce another side of the political game we have going. 

[Atzuya]

People got really lazy to claim those treasures

 

Trade restrictions sound good, but there should be more to it than just limiting the prices. Trade sanction against someone perhaps.

[Dimitri Valko]

Can we replace colours with something more realistic, perhaps?

[Azaghul]

I like what (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) does with color events, but it could be better and more consistent.

 

Maybe the Senators make choices that will have a more positive on some nations and negative on others?

 

For example
 

- 3% boost in income and 10% increase in military costs and upkeep vs 3% income penalty and 10% reduction in military costs and upkeep

 

- 10% bonus to raw resources produced vs 10% bonus to manufactured goods produced.

 

- No change vs 10% penalty to manufactured goods produced without project and 20% increase for manufactured goods produced with project.

 

- 5% income bonus to nations under the color's average NS vs 2%income bonus to nations over the color's average NS.

 

If you don't want it to be too inflationary each option could have more potential penalties like the first option.

 

You'd probably need to tighten the limits on alliances/nations switching colors to avoid abuse.

[Ayayay]

A new set of content that I would like to add to the game, relevant to colors, is some sort of elections based on colors similar to what (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) has. Except, I'm thinking the people elected (maybe like 5 per color) would then get to set trade restrictions for nations on that color. For example, they could set a minimum selling price of Oil for pink nations to $100/ea. All pink nations wouldn't be able to sell Oil for cheaper than that (on the global market) and we'd see some competition between regulations by the colors. It gives players a way to "solve" the undercutting problems sometimes seen in the market. Additionally, colors could set ceilings on prices as well if they wished, perhaps if they wanted to try to stop price-gouging, etc.

 

I think individually it wouldn't do much, as people would hop around colors to get to the unregulated colors. It would take a broad coalition between alliances on all colors with control over their respective Color (Senates?) to make it effective. Perhaps also there could be a broader legislative body that could dictate price floors/ceilings on the global market for all colors (something that would take a stronger majority to do, perhaps.)

Wasn't that your idea like a year and a half ago that most people said "Let's try it and see what happens" and then you just didn't do it? I'm like 90% sure I remember something like that and some rainbow council bullshit.

[Alex]

Wasn't that your idea like a year and a half ago that most people said "Let's try it and see what happens" and then you just didn't do it? I'm like 90% sure I remember something like that and some rainbow council bullshit.

 

Oh sure, I have lots of ideas. Just not enough time to build all of them.

 

Honestly, I just kind of threw that in there to let people know that I wasn't just going to remove CSB and leave colors meaningless (for long.) It's a bit of red herring