Captain_Vietnam Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 all this do is make smaller nations cannot catch up with larger it also mean people will only login every 10 days to buy new city! i think not fair remove??? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwemyrn Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 all this do is make smaller nations cannot catch up with larger it also mean people will only login every 10 days to buy new city! i think not fair remove??? It should stay in place. We had to take on the same wait at your size to get where we are now so suck it up. 1 Quote -removed by thor- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Fox Fire Posted December 3, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted December 3, 2015 Yeah, I only log in every ten days to buy a new city. I totally don't give a shit about the log in bonus, or actually doing anything in game. I just come here to troll the forums and act like I know everything about the game, like you...... /sarcasm. 7 Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomasious Rubinlord Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I believe the entire point of this delay is to have time to develop one's city to be strong and prosperous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Vietnam Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 Yeah, I only log in every ten days to buy a new city. I totally don't give a shit about the log in bonus, or actually doing anything in game. I just come here to troll the forums and act like I know everything about the game, like you...... /sarcasm. so you admit to troll!!!?? maybe you should stop trolling my thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Jerry Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 all this do is make smaller nations cannot catch up with larger it also mean people will only login every 10 days to buy new city! i think not fair remove??? It's there to help avoid "Multis" from coming into the game and being a top tier nation within the first couple of days. Are you a multi? Take a look at the top 200 nations and see how long they've been around. They've worked and put in the time to get their nations where they are! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 you can catch up fairly quick if you can avoid war, my next city costs me 180 million dollars, I do not make 180 million dollars in 10 days, it will probably take me around a month to get to that point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I'm less than two months old and already have 5 cities with 700 infra in each. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Only thing that annoys me is that projects and cities are tied together... damn you sheepy! 2 Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 If we're honestly considering this, the first 4 should be removed to increase catch up time. We are getting to that point where it'll take a year to get to the highest score. Lets cut that back a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 If we're honestly considering this, the first 4 should be removed to increase catch up time. We are getting to that point where it'll take a year to get to the highest score. Lets cut that back a bit. Why? The people who've already been here a year had to go through exactly that. This game is a long term game about putting long term effort into your nation. Not making people square right off the bat. If this is the logic we are using, we might as well make a hard 1,000 score cap and let everyone start with a billion in cash. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubotz Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 This isn't a horrendous suggestion. I don't see why the response to it is so vitriolic, especially on the front of 'we had to wait so you should too'. That's silly because if you indeed were negatively impacted by the city timer, then I think it isn't super unreasonable to think that it should be changed for the benefit of newer players. Two arguments against removing the city timer: Large nations might make multiaccounts and funnel them hundreds of millions of dollars to instantly grow huge for nefarious purposes. I am skeptical about this one. Even if you went ahead and did that, you would be very easily caught since a nation jumping that much score is very conspicuous. Additionally, I couldn't fathom doing such a thing to be useful. Wars could be won, especially in the lower tiers, by declaring on a nation and immediately building several cities and militarizing them. This one is slightly more relevant, especially for those who intended to build said cities anyway. One fix is to make cities unbuildable in a state of war, but that would make casual raiders pretty mad. Also, maybe nations with superior pixels deserve to rout their enemies in a war, but that is a topic for another time. One argument for removing the city timer: I could have 10 cities right now, gosh darn it. Quote GET LOANS NOW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I am skeptical about this one. Even if you went ahead and did that, you would be very easily caught since a nation jumping that much score is very conspicuous. Additionally, I couldn't fathom doing such a thing to be useful. Have you ever played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)? This one is slightly more relevant, especially for those who intended to build said cities anyway. One fix is to make cities unbuildable in a state of war, but that would make casual raiders pretty mad. Also, maybe nations with superior pixels deserve to rout their enemies in a war, but that is a topic for another time. Or we could just keep the timer in place.... I could have 10 cities right now, gosh darn it. So could so many others. !@#$ the long term commitment! I want all my shit nao!!!! Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redael Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Still raise the price every and it should work, also i one got enough money to build a city, got raided a day before The timer ran out, then I had to rebuild in order to get a city Quote Gary Johnson 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubotz Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Have you ever played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)? Nope. Do enlighten me though, I'm actually curious about this one. If a multi cropped up that got fed hundreds of millions in this game, it seems to me that the person responsible would be burnt at the stake within a day. I guess you could war a low-tier, but that would be solved if the city-blitz thing is resolved. So could so many others. !@#$ the long term commitment! I want all my shit nao!!!! Basically. Quote GET LOANS NOW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Nope. Do enlighten me though, I'm actually curious about this one. If a multi cropped up that got fed hundreds of millions in this game, it seems to me that the person responsible would be burnt at the stake within a day. I guess you could war a low-tier, but that would be solved if the city-blitz thing is resolved. Basically. So the millions of free cash I've been sent from nations not on my IP is suspicious? Not according to Sheepy. In fact, he doesn't even ban Sith unless he thinks he has "solid evidence". Sending a nation a !@#$ ton of cash for seemingly nothing is not exactly suspicious, let alone solid evidence. Do you know how people multi in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)? Not from the same IP, that's for sure. Regardless, that's not even my point. The point is that this game is a long term investment. Not something you play for 3 days and finish. 3 Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Vietnam Posted December 5, 2015 Author Share Posted December 5, 2015 This isn't a horrendous suggestion. I don't see why the response to it is so vitriolic, especially on the front of 'we had to wait so you should too'. That's silly because if you indeed were negatively impacted by the city timer, then I think it isn't super unreasonable to think that it should be changed for the benefit of newer players. Two arguments against removing the city timer: Large nations might make multiaccounts and funnel them hundreds of millions of dollars to instantly grow huge for nefarious purposes. I am skeptical about this one. Even if you went ahead and did that, you would be very easily caught since a nation jumping that much score is very conspicuous. Additionally, I couldn't fathom doing such a thing to be useful. Wars could be won, especially in the lower tiers, by declaring on a nation and immediately building several cities and militarizing them. This one is slightly more relevant, especially for those who intended to build said cities anyway. One fix is to make cities unbuildable in a state of war, but that would make casual raiders pretty mad. Also, maybe nations with superior pixels deserve to rout their enemies in a war, but that is a topic for another time. One argument for removing the city timer: I could have 10 cities right now, gosh darn it. that is no different from alliances giving loads of cash to build up barrackes! with timer in place small nation will never catch up making game unfun long run! as for muilti - people can muilti anyway with system in place! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Haddad Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 yeah this is a bad idea Quote Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwemyrn Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) Again, the answer is no. I had to wait as long as I did to get 11 cities, you will wait just as long if not longer. We don't need to remove a timer for cities or projects because then timers for other things such as alliance color change/nation color change, government changes, etc are rendered pointless. We already ruined the colorstock with a shitty change, we don't need to ruin aspects of the game further because it inconveniences a tiny nation such as yourself. Just keep in mind, provided you're in an alliance that has promise, you can grow to 6 cities rather quickly, to which then you would be more than able fund yourself into growing further. If you're worried about being small, find a damn alliance that can help you grow quickly rather than !@#$ing about the timers. Edited December 5, 2015 by Ansom Quote -removed by thor- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Vietnam Posted December 5, 2015 Author Share Posted December 5, 2015 Again, the answer is no. I had to wait as long as I did to get 11 cities, you will wait just as long if not longer. We don't need to remove a timer for cities or projects because then timers for other things such as alliance color change/nation color change, government changes, etc are rendered pointless. We already ruined the colorstock with a shitty change, we don't need to ruin aspects of the game further because it inconveniences a tiny nation such as yourself. Just keep in mind, provided you're in alliance that has promise, you can grow to 6 cities rather quickly, to which then you would be more than able fund yourself. If you're worried about being small, find a damn alliance that can help you grow quickly rather than !@#$ing about the timers. arguement is hard for you???! so hard for everybody else???! make good for all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Scandanavia Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 so you admit to troll!!!?? maybe you should stop trolling my thread! it was sarcasm you idiot 1 Quote The Great Emperor of New Scandinavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Haddad Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 this is a bad idea and a waste of time just to look at Quote Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Haddad Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 hey don't make this personal Quote Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Pax Posted December 5, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted December 5, 2015 A big portion of everyone's arguments is "I had to wait with this system so I want other people to wait"I disagree with that. I also disagree with the idea of removing them entirely, which allows uninhibited growth and does screw older players.What I'd argue for is a system that allows for some slight acceleration in the growth of small nations, based off of the size of the biggest nations. Right now, if we continue down our path, we'll become yet another nation sim that is extraordinarily top-heavy in sizes and where there isn't as much a chance for new nations to become relevant. It's happened with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), it'll happen here. Yes, avoiding war is a good way to grow, but not only is that not always an option, you have to account for the fact that many top nations will eventually be those avoiding war until they're well beyond the reach of most nations (and we hardly need another DBDC here) One possible function could be: MAX(MIN(([Your Cities]*25)/[Largest Nation's Cities],10),3), which results in the following numbers: 8 Quote <+JohnHarms> We need more feminists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Haddad Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 A big portion of everyone's arguments is "I had to wait with this system so I want other people to wait" I disagree with that. I also disagree with the idea of removing them entirely, which allows uninhibited growth and does screw older players. What I'd argue for is a system that allows for some slight acceleration in the growth of small nations, based off of the size of the biggest nations. Right now, if we continue down our path, we'll become yet another nation sim that is extraordinarily top-heavy in sizes and where there isn't as much a chance for new nations to become relevant. It's happened with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), it'll happen here. Yes, avoiding war is a good way to grow, but not only is that not always an option, you have to account for the fact that many top nations will eventually be those avoiding war until they're well beyond the reach of most nations (and we hardly need another DBDC here) One possible function could be: MAX(MIN(([Your Cities]*25)/[Largest Nation's Cities],10),3), which results in the following numbers: my brain hurt but yeah Quote Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.