Jump to content

MaGneT

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,238

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by MaGneT

  1. MaGneT

    Posted

    Because you're a shortsighted stooge?

    You're really the only person I respect enough to answer here.

    I'm not dumb enough to be blind to DH's political objectives. That's why I'm amused by the fact that despite what I know to be poor judgment, for some reason I can't help but like them. Perhaps flak attack is right. They've just got style.

    Now, it's a crass, angst-ridden-teenagers bent on world domination kind of style, but let's be real here. That's actually hard to dislike.

    (at least for me)

  2. Magicman657

    Posted

    You're so right here, Magicman, and I endorsed your proposal. Jerdge has a good one too.

    I think the most sleek way of doing it would be assigning every nation 4 resources when they start and allowing them to pick any 2 as "in-use". You can change your "in-use" resources once every 3 days, like religion and government. The improvement and wonder Jerdge proposed should also add 1 resource slot to each nation. That would give each nation 6 resources (but still only able to use two) and allow groups of nations to actively organize their own trade circles. A group of 5 nations can, theoretically, organize their trades perfectly for maximum growth.

    It doesn't make sense that a very developed nation that spans thousands of miles should only have native access to two resources. The larger the nation is, the more likely it is to contain more than two natural resources. The more advanced it is, the more likely it is to be able to take advantage of those resources. Active players who organize their trades with others will be rewarded by this, while those who choose to ignore trades will stagnate in comparison. That's a huge improvement from the currently random system.

  5. MaGneT

    Posted

    To clarify, I'm not whining and I'll be here until an hour after the server turns off, even if the Suggestion Box remains completely ignored until that day.

    That being said, I think that growth in CN could be enhanced. I said it before and I'll say it again - growing is boring. There is very little differentiation in the process for a mature nation. Pay bills for 20 days, buy a ton of infra/land, collect taxes. While you're at it, toss out 3mil to a bunch of little guys, get 50 tech in the mail 10 days later and another 50 tech 10 days after that. Rinse and repeat. Now, as I said, this is good enough and I'll keep doing it contently. That's good and jolly, but the aid system could be far more interesting.

    I'm tossing a bunch of ideas around in my head as I pace around my room here. What sticks out most is applying something of a light-speed principle to aid. Of course, c needs to vary for each nation, otherwise we'll just have an aid cap that can't be reasonably reached. So, what do we change? First, we would need a fundamental overhaul of how aid slots actually function. Forget the aid slots that take 10 days to expire. I say make them expire based on how much is sent. There shouldn't be a baseline of 3mil = 10 days and every additional 3mil is another 10 days, or something like that. Instead, base it on the nation that is sending the aid. Make a formula (with some sort of exponent involved, of course) that incorporates tech, land and infra into the mix. I'd also suggest that it favors infra, because ever since the tech bonus was uncapped, infrastructure has become but a showpiece.

    Essentially, the function would be that a larger nation would be able to send out more aid more quickly. So, a big guy might be able to toss 500mil in the amount of time I can toss out 50mil. It should be slightly more complex than 10x the size = 10x the rate, though. If a nation has 5k infra and 10k tech, I'd say that his aid should go more slowly than a nation with 10k infra and 5k tech. Why? Well, many of you would argue that if a nation is more technologically advanced, it'd be able to send out aid more quickly. But considering that the technology for foreign aid is given to all nations via the fact that a 0 tech nation can send aid, I'd say that's silly. A higher tech level should give you a benefit, but infra:tech ratio should be chief. So, what remains is the infrastructure necessary to distribute that aid and the land mass that the aid is taken from. I'm not sure if land should have any effect, but if you are considering this, keep it in mind. We should also toss some other variables into the mix. Make a Foreign Aid Commission speed the rate that a nation can process its aid as a replacement to the +50% bonus to aid. Add Cargo Ships as naval vessels to do the same. Perhaps add Cargo Ports as improvements and if a receiving nation has them, they reduce the processing time.

    A big snag many of you might be thinking is "well what about those huge nations who will just send out 1bil and get 30,000 tech in return?" Okay, so let's say it takes them X days to clear that outgoing 1bil slot. It'd take a whole lot longer for that little guy to clear is 30,000 tech slot. Well, the next obvious argument is "it will take X days for a lot of nations to acquire 75% of the largest nation on Bob's tech, you don't have to worry about the little guy even sticking around for a day after he sends out that 30k tech." You're absolutely right if you thought that. So what do we do about that? Pretty simple. For cash in an aid deal, it can all be there the day that it is accepted. This makes sense both realistically and in gameplay. Obviously, nowadays, you can wire billions in a moment. That'd be consistent. Gameplay-wise, cash aid is often used for instant purposes, as in the case of an impending war. Tech, however, if viewed as computers and stuff, needs to be shipped. Gameplay-wise, it isn't used for quick, pre-war aid, but instead for slow growth. I'd recommend making tech added to a nation at the end of an aid slot's duration. I'd also recommend making aid slots containing tech only able to stay open if the nation sending it regularly pays their bills.

    This will discourage people from making these huge purchases from undedicated newbies or their buddy who they called up to make a dummy nation to help inflate their own. It will raise the value of the active tech seller vastly, as those who can be trusted will be swamped with massive deals. I think it's a pretty good though primitive idea. Any feedback/thoughts? I obviously need to refine it, but I figure I may as well not go further because I think I got the gist across and I want to hear any criticism y'all have.

  6. Ryan Greenberg

    Posted

    I think that coming up with a reason for a war that is slightly stronger than "we just don't like you" shows a little bit of class on the part of the declaring alliance.

    I think honesty and just saying "we hate you, so we're fighting you" works much better. No sense looking for moral superiority in some falsely perceived slight when you can just have the truest moral superiority of all by being up front.

  15. MaGneT

    Posted

    Thanks AirMe :)

    The way that I wanted to do this was this live site that I'm using, which is free. I really like the idea of doing it live, it just seems more interactive and it's a bit more thrilling. The Skype thing you proposed makes it seem like I'm going to have to record my calls beforehand, which could get a bit annoying :\

    And to everyone who is interested, I appreciate your interest.

  16. MaGneT

    Posted

    I'll give this a listen when it's not 5 AM. You might want to put up an MP3 on an ordinary file hoster for those who don't/can't use WMP; being a game of geeks and college students I'm sure there are plenty of Linux users about. :P

    I think there's also a Flash stream available on the site . . . I'll look into it.

  20. Goose

    Posted

    Brendan, at least you were quoted! Well, as my IC persona is glad that the information reached his ears, he isn't allowed to speak right now.

    Whoever did this needs to realize that a game is a game and it is no reason at all to violate someone's privacy, regardless if your IC agenda in the game involves leaking screenshots.

  21. Rebel Virginia

    Posted

    <snip>

    And it does not matter to me who would make a statement like this. If Liz or Penkala or Allied_Threat or anybody else I hold in high regard made an equal post, I would also point out their foolishness, and bring them to the lower rung known as humanity. Your God complex is the issue at hand here.

    To compare an incompetent like Liz, who cannot even run her own foreign affairs department without dragging her own alliance through the mud, to someone like RV, who, although I haven't agreed with him at many times, has done things that are truly notable. Being at the tip of the spear during the whole Karma movement, for example. And Penkala - well, RV can examine fact and draw a conclusion, then successfully back up that argument with logic. Penkala . . . not so much.

    I actually just fought Allied_Threat and he was a quite competent opponent. Only respect to him.

    As far as greatness goes, I can't help but admit RV would be on my list. If I thought of the most influential people on Bob through my years here, I'd probably think Ivan Moldavi, Dilber, Electron Sponge, Doitzel, Schattenmann, Archon, mpol777 and Rebel Virginia would all be up there. Some were great with their charisma and ability to attract people. Some are wordsmiths who can change the minds of their enemies with a post. Some are larger-than-life political figures with more enemies than friends, but far more victories than losses. Some, like RV, seem to be the constant voice of morality and dissent through every major conflict as long as I can remember. So, regardless of what you may think of his ego, this man belongs on that list.

  22. Penkala

    Posted

    That is not nearly the sole reason. It's not even the main reason. The main reason is that DT attacked during peace negotiations (and in case you're curious no, LoSS was not asked to pay reps). Next you have that they attacked Legacy looking for an easy fight, then tried to back out after we made it clear we wouldn't let them do that. Then of course there's the complete refusal to negotiate in good faith (which is admittedly a new issue).

    The ODP is more of a capstone on all that.

    You're clearly misled, uninformed or plain stupid. We attacked after LoSS greenlighted us saying that they had no intention of agreeing to peace while TIO was still in the war. We chose Legacy because that's who their guys were having the most trouble matching up with. All of this is established fact. When we "tried to back out" it was because the TIO front had closed and there was no more reason to fight. It was not because we are afraid nor is it because we feel that we are being beaten. Oh, and as far as negotiating in good faith, I'd suggest that you relearn basic reading comprehension, because Liz's hissy fits show a lot worse faith than any of the polite negotiating on the part of DT that occurred throughout this event.

    Then again, considering that you think honoring an ODP merits the placement of harsh reps, I am not particularly surprised that your void of a brain was open for your government to fill with half-truths and propaganda.

  24. Penkala

    Posted

    CSN is an alliance that I hold in high regard and I will not be adjusting that opinion until this is concluded. This blog sure as hell isn't helping them though.

    Also: you wrote an apology into the terms as an opportunity to restore their image? Really? I cannot imagine any thought process where that seems reasonable and in the logs it looks like a backpedal.

    Reading back through, you're right, it does seem to look that way. I would consider that to be simply a miscue on the part of our guys. From what I understand, in back room internal discussions, white peace was supposed to be our counter-offer and the apology thing a suggestion to them out of good will. It was just presented improperly.

    I'm not privy to all of the information though, so I could very much be incorrect.

  25. Penkala

    Posted

    And I already addressed why Liz would react that way: It was a slap to the face. You might want to read the previous points.

    Exactly. You didn't activate a treaty to defend an ally, you activated it to bandwagon on a war and hit a side you didn't like. Thanks for finally admitting it. ..And there's nothing wrong with that. But don't pretend that you're "just defending an ally" so you should get white peace. Look at the facts. It makes you smarter.

    No, it was not a slap in the face. Telling us we have to pay 40,000 tech is just that. I would call what we did a move back to sanity.

    As far as your bandwagoning allegation goes, that's a load of nonsense. I was simply describing how the treaty situation would have favored entry on this "side" regardless of what actually happened. I thought such theoretical things would be understood given the fact that we have quite concretely established that the reason that we are in this war is that our friends in LoSS asked us for help and we obliged.

    EDIT: No. We included the apology, if you read further into the logs, to give CSN an opportunity to restore their image. We have no ill will against them if they return to sanity. If they do not want to apologize to DT, LoSS, Legacy, RnR and their own membership for prolonging the damages and costs of war, that is their prerogative. We did not mean it as any sort of surrender. Either Myworld or Oz says that quite plainly after Liz starting stomping her feet like Veruca Salt.

×
×
  • Create New...