Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cazaric

Limited Foreign Aid

Recommended Posts

One of the big differences between SE and TE is the lack of foreign aid in the latter, meaning that you're largely on your own in terms of building. However, it's difficult to watch a friend or ally struggle to crawl back from a war because they didn't keep a warchest as large as yours.

 

How about we add foreign aid into TE, in a limited capacity?

 

Talking to some others, we've come up with these possible ideas:

 

1. You can only send aid to someone with less nation strength than you. This prevents smaller nations from feeding the higher ones, and ensures that it is a helping hand rather than boosting someone higher than they already are. 

 

2. In order to be able to send or receive foreign aid, a nation must be X days old, to prevent people creating just to send out, then deleting and creating again.

 

3. Soldiers and money only, no tech. We don't need tech dealing in TE.

 

4. Only one foreign aid slot per nation. This limits the effectiveness of it. It can still be done, but it won't be gamebreaking. And the foreign ministry could provide another slot, so that it isn't just a worse version of the bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the big differences between SE and TE is the lack of foreign aid in the latter, meaning that you're largely on your own in terms of building. However, it's difficult to watch a friend or ally struggle to crawl back from a war because they didn't keep a warchest as large as yours.

 

How about we add foreign aid into TE, in a limited capacity?

 

Talking to some others, we've come up with these possible ideas:

 

1. You can only send aid to someone with less nation strength than you. This prevents smaller nations from feeding the higher ones, and ensures that it is a helping hand rather than boosting someone higher than they already are. 

 

2. In order to be able to send or receive foreign aid, a nation must be X days old, to prevent people creating just to send out, then deleting and creating again.

 

3. Soldiers and money only, no tech. We don't need tech dealing in TE.

 

4. Only one foreign aid slot per nation. This limits the effectiveness of it. It can still be done, but it won't be gamebreaking. And the foreign ministry could provide another slot, so that it isn't just a worse version of the bank.

But is it limited enough?

I could build up now and then have a higher nation strength than you and send you, a much more experienced ruler money for an awesome build. A few days later (assuming it would be similar to SE aid, and that we  strategically avoided me now having a higher NS than you ), you could send me aid and then I would use that at some point to grow too.  It would really have more of an aggressive impact on game play than you may want.  I give you guys  A LOT of credit for being very intelligent and creative with knowing how to workout ways to benefit from this (No shade, genuine complement).

 

Nothing is stopping the faux nations created for the purpose of sending aid and then disappearing. Just wait the allotted time, grow a little, drain the faux nation of resources and then at the appropriate time, delete it or allow it to go inactive.

 

How about money only aid (3 Million max), You can only receive aid from one nation per 30 days, and you can only send aid once to a nation per 30 days with at least 45k or 50k causalities?  Remember, you don't want to take away from the RL money making potential of the game itself.  We enjoy the game but the "bottom line" keeps the game online. (Yes I am sure they make money through ads and whatnot as well)

 

What do you think :)

Edited by King Obsidian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see what you're saying, yeah. I'm not a fan of flag running, and don't want to give runners more ammunition, so if a solution could be found to impliment this in a way that enables rebuilding and assistance without being able to be abused by runners, all the better.

 

I think your limitations are good. Especially the casualties one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an additional restriction, perhaps only within your AA? 

That would prevent off-AA flagrunning benefiting from this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Ezeriel, that isn't a bad idea, but when it comes to flag running I really feel like the Creator of Planet Bob could help with that.  How about top 25 or top 50 per round as a reward receive a 1 flag upload reward?  OR Nations that receive @ least 100,000 or 300,000 attacking casualties and 100,000 or 300,000 defending casualties receive a 1 flag upload reward?

 

That way, you connect flag running to being actively @ war rather than pixel hugging.

Edited by King Obsidian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an awful lot of flags being uploaded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but there is no downside to that.

  • We eliminate pixel-hugging-flag-running.
  • It would Create a positive war incentive.
  • Those who want a flag still must earn it through War.
  • Those who would like to have a flag would actually have a 'real' pathway to get one.

The alternative seems to be the status quo:

  •  Non-participating Pixel hugging nations.
  • Rulers that never get a realistic participation incentive (which could help player retention and growth).
  • Rulers that get caught trying to "win" get attacked or otherwise blocked and thus never win a flag or t-shirt or bag or water-bottle etc.

It's good for the ego of the better builders and players of the game, but it hurts the game overall.

 

Increase the causality threshold for earning a flag if that would help some. 

 

I still think your limited aid suggestion has merit :)  I know we've gotten a bit sidetracked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That could be potentially very good for player retention, as you're right - it does provide incentive for those who are not necessarily the best, but put in the effort.

However, I don't think it would eliminate pixel-hugging, because they would tend to be chasing donations, rather than flags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but there is no downside to that.

  • We eliminate pixel-hugging-flag-running.
  • It would Create a positive war incentive.
  • Those who want a flag still must earn it through War.
  • Those who would like to have a flag would actually have a 'real' pathway to get one.

The alternative seems to be the status quo:

  •  Non-participating Pixel hugging nations.
  • Rulers that never get a realistic participation incentive (which could help player retention and growth).
  • Rulers that get caught trying to "win" get attacked or otherwise blocked and thus never win a flag or t-shirt or bag or water-bottle etc.

It's good for the ego of the better builders and players of the game, but it hurts the game overall.

 

Increase the causality threshold for earning a flag if that would help some. 

 

I still think your limited aid suggestion has merit :)  I know we've gotten a bit sidetracked.

 

We already solved this.  Only one flag exists for the "pixel-hugger" - the highest NS record.  You could argue land is pixel-hugging too, and that's an argument best done when you loot 100 land in one GA and kill off 350 with a nuke, which is easy, by the way.  There's much more to building than what you call "pixel hugging".  It's an art, it takes skill, and your argument seems to be based out of personal feelings of inadequacy.  If you personally want to stop someone from taking a flag by "pixel hugging" you have war slots, use them.  Alternatively learn to build and compete for it yourself.  This game is a competition, and playing to win is not something to be discouraged or shamed.  It is the goal.  Out of the dozens of people who go for a flag each round, only a few win.  And - here's a thought you may not have had - if you instead go to learn from the good players rather than demonize them, you might get taught HOW to build huge warchests and large amounts of infra.  Attitude plays a part in who wins and who loses too.  Blaming others for being "too good" isn't an excuse.  Your options are get better yourself, or don't - and if you choose the latter, your right to complain goes out the window.
 

I'll further say this - if we make war the only way to win a flag, it's still going to be the best builders who are getting the flags.  Max damage?  Whoever can afford 2500 tech will take it - the builders.  Most casualties?  Whoever's got the most infra (which is the base value that determines how many soldiers you have) takes it - the builders.  No matter how you try to spin it, it's people who can both build and fight effectively that will have the best chance and how well you build plays a huge role in how well you fight.  This game does take skill, no matter how simplistic it may seem.  Discouraging people from being good at the game is just plain asinine.

 

This attitude that people should be somehow shamed or punished for being good at this game is idiotic and reeks of this "everyone gets a participation trophy" nonsense.  It has no place here.  And yes, sometimes your alliance loses a war badly and is knocked out of the competition.  I watched NDO get burned to the ground last round by TDO, several of our top players were ZI'd - but that's the risk of war.  Didn't stop me, or the other NDO for that matter, from enjoying the rest of the round.  That can happen in this game, and it should.  Without that risk, there's nothing to gain by playing.  There's no glory, there's no incentive, there's no reason to even play.  Make flags that common, and we'll see them cheapened to the point where anyone can just buy one for 100 tech after two rounds when every 2-man micro has a flag, and nobody plays to get them anymore.  From a practical administrative perspective, it also kills off the incentive for players to donate, which makes this financially pointless for the operators.  In the real world, if a website is not profitable, it gets either shut down or flooded with obnoxious ads.  Make all the "boo corporations suck" arguments you want, do you really think the people bankrolling this site and running this thing for a living care?  Add those outcomes up and you get only one possible end: Bye-bye, TE!  Furthermore, the topic was - if I recall - how to best place an aid system in the game, and I've said my piece, so I'll switch to that now.

 

Faux nations can be deterred by requiring not only a waiting period, but actual nation development.  We had a comparable issue a long time ago with people building into the top 5% and shutting everyone out of the nuke race unless they built an MP, and the solution was to eliminate the top 5%, require the MP, and require an infrastructure/tech threshold.  The FAC wonder's almost useless in TE anyway, so it could be re-purposed.  Jack the cost up to $5m, require 2k infra and a nation age of at least 15 days - this forces faux nations to actually play.  The other restrictions in Caz's OP would fit naturally with that - and it would also prevent people who create temp trade nations from being wrongfully singled out as "aid pumps".

Edited by Nick GhostWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not know that it would be possible for someone to misunderstand this thread but there it is ::Looks @ Nick::  Clearly you have taken this way, WAY more negatively than you should have LOL.  The conversation isn't about flag running (YES, we did get a bit sidetracked starting at #5), it is really about having a Limited Aid system and not encouraging "inadequate" rulers to NOT PARTICIPATE thinking they can win a flag by not fighting and only building for 90 days.

 

Having said that, I will address some of your negative misunderstandings about what you read in my previous postings.

 

First, my posts in no way condemns "Great Players" and none of them should take what has been said here as personal as you obviously have.

 

Second, Casual players are necessary for the viability of the game and YES, when raising children you may not want to promote mediocrity with "participation trophies" but in a game thirsty for growth, YOU ABSOLUTELY DO WANT PARTICIPATION AWARDS!  If they participate long enough, they may learn, or they might find that "mentor" that takes them to the next level.  The alternative is you "great" players beat noob a$$ so often until they quit and then you eventually have no game at all.

 

There is a lot more that you have said that I want to address because you have went on a rant and it is totally misplaced, misdirected, and out of context here.

 

edited for grammar only.

Edited by King Obsidian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not know that it would be possible for someone to misunderstand this thread but there it is ::Looks @ Nick::  Clearly you have taken this way, WAY more negatively than you should have LOL.  The conversation isn't about flag running (YES, we did get a bit sidetracked starting at #5), it is really about having a Limited Aid system and not encouraging "inadequate" rulers to NOT PARTICIPATE thinking they can win a flag by not fighting and only building for 90 days.

 

Having said that, I will address some of your negative misunderstandings about what you read in my previous postings.

 

First, my posts in no way condemns "Great Players" and none of them should take what has been said here as personal as you obviously have.

 

Second, Casual players are necessary for the viability of the game and YES, when raising children you may not want to promote mediocrity with "participation trophies" but in a game thirsty for growth, YOU ABSOLUTELY DO WANT PARTICIPATION AWARDS!  If they participate long enough, they may learn, or they might find that "mentor" that takes them to the next level.  The alternative is you "great" players beat noob a$$ so often until they quit and then you eventually have no game at all.

 

There is a lot more that you have said that I want to address because you have went on a rant and it is totally misplaced, misdirected, and out of context here.

 

edited for grammar only.

 

I've made suggestions for participation rewards, however they exist on a tiered scale.  In game cash, tech, infra, access to a wonder or resource, with the flag reserved for the top.  I'm not interested in kicking noob butt, unless they challenge me to a fight.  I'm interested in teaching noobs to be great.

 

Sorry if I came off a bit negative.  Consider it built-up anger against people who do rage against "good players" and whine about unfairness... people who you associate with.  I guess I should have withheld judgment; you are after all an individual who may have had different views.  You're right, it was misdirected.

Edited by Nick GhostWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apology accepted.  No harm.  No foul.

 

Now, back to getting my noob, inadequate, no mentor having a$$ beatdown @ War  ;) .

 

Cazaric, I apologize for hijacking your Limited Aid suggestion post.  I hope it gets real consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Ezeriel, that isn't a bad idea, but when it comes to flag running I really feel like the Creator of Planet Bob could help with that.  How about top 25 or top 50 per round as a reward receive a 1 flag upload reward?  OR Nations that receive @ least 100,000 or 300,000 attacking casualties and 100,000 or 300,000 defending casualties receive a 1 flag upload reward?

 

That way, you connect flag running to being actively @ war rather than pixel hugging.

 

Just to clarify by flag-running I was referring to those who chase achievements. 

By making aid inter-AA only you're making it harder for people to hide away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apology accepted.  No harm.  No foul.

 

Now, back to getting my noob, inadequate, no mentor having a$$ beatdown @ War  ;) .

 

Cazaric, I apologize for hijacking your Limited Aid suggestion post.  I hope it gets real consideration.

 

If you'd like mentors and don't want to get punished for whiners' BS, there are other options than where you're at.  Lot of alliances in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh & No aid allowed during an active war.   Post-war only.

 

Given that soldiers are an acceptable aid commodity in this model, and an aid fall during a war means that the person sending the aid must consider that, being higher ranked, they may not be able to get aid themselves, I think aid during war makes sense.... to a point.  I don't know if anyone added this but I think the maximum caps on cash aid falls should be identical to the old SE caps, without the FAC modifier.  3mil maximum cash, and I'm not seeing any reason to put a wonder in to increase that cap.  I think that the maximum soldier aid possible to a nation should not be hard capped but rather, dynamic and tied to the nation's peak infrastructure.  2 soldiers per infra level from the nation's "peak infrastructure" value.  This makes it so nations can't simply hover at next to zero development protected by tens of thousands of troops and incentivizes building.  It also ensures that someone's ability to receive soldier aid can't be brought down to zero by a dog-pile of high NS WRC-powered monsters ZI'ing someone.  The whole point of soldier aid is to provide additional military kick and as TE has a much greater emphasis on war than SE, it might make sense for whole new forms of aid to be included with this, built around that concept of aid being of more military than financial utility.  Tank aid, anyone?  Maybe Spy aid?  Airplane aid (this one I could see being very popular)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I just like the idea of the only help during war you receive is the cooperation of a teammate or an ally who happens to be fighting a common enemy. Or a teammate declaring war against someone who has declared war against you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think aid is a lousy idea. It would mean that the larger alliances could have a group of builders who would try to avoid war, backing up a group of warriors who would fight with high NS and minimum warchests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think aid is a lousy idea. It would mean that the larger alliances could have a group of builders who would try to avoid war, backing up a group of warriors who would fight with high NS and minimum warchests.

In which case just hit the builders and ruin them, and then the entire plan comes crashing down :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think aid is a lousy idea. It would mean that the larger alliances could have a group of builders who would try to avoid war, backing up a group of warriors who would fight with high NS and minimum warchests.

 

a group of builders trying to avoid war would get war anyway, and the high NS/minimal warchest crowd would get bill locked in said war.  we've seen this one repeat over and over again; high NS with no cash to back it up just becomes fodder for the "greatest 7-day loss" award.  if anyone actually tried such a hare-brained strategy they would be crushed easily.  fortunately for those people, the idea is that you can only send aid to nations that are below your NS, so these high-NS nations wouldn't be able to receive an aid bailout according to the proposal.  and, since builders tend to be high NS due to the game mechanic of building directly adding NS (and increasing the amount of NS that can be added via militarization), you're essentially saying that the high NS crowd would back the high NS crowd, which doesn't make any sense.

Edited by Nick GhostWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aid would be good only for the purposes of helping out bill locked nations etc or those with no money trying to rebuild.

you can limit it to 1 slot. in or out only.

the high ns nations won't be able to get the aid unless these rich builders were even higher ns.

also. I will add something. when admin changed the start up money he did make it easier for all the "casual nations". you just don't know what you are doing.

it also meant that people can win without donating at all.
Fair enough plenty still donate. but the richest of the rich these past 2 rounds have not donated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can only receive aid of you have less than X amount of cash. let's say 5 mil. AND have less than your peak infra. perhaps a percentage of your peak infra. but Id still like to see a nation who can maybe hit 80 percent still able to get that hand up.

if you have less than 5 mil you can be aided another 5 mil. that gives a bill locked or broke nation a chance at getting back in the game. or even a nation who can't quite fully rebuild after a hard fought war.

along with ns criteria and nation age criteria the numbers etc can be tweaked etc. foreign ministry fac etc can come in to play if you like to offer more or 1 extra slot.

obviously start up cash from round to round can vary what the numbers should be.


there is easily a way to allow this without it being able to be abused or used for other than the intended purpose

with 25mil as it is. 5 mil seems to me a decent aid threshold as well as aid amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can only receive aid of you have less than X amount of cash. let's say 5 mil. AND have less than your peak infra. perhaps a percentage of your peak infra. but Id still like to see a nation who can maybe hit 80 percent still able to get that hand up.

if you have less than 5 mil you can be aided another 5 mil. that gives a bill locked or broke nation a chance at getting back in the game. or even a nation who can't quite fully rebuild after a hard fought war.

along with ns criteria and nation age criteria the numbers etc can be tweaked etc. foreign ministry fac etc can come in to play if you like to offer more or 1 extra slot.

obviously start up cash from round to round can vary what the numbers should be.


there is easily a way to allow this without it being able to be abused or used for other than the intended purpose

with 25mil as it is. 5 mil seems to me a decent aid threshold as well as aid amount.

 

i'm thinking rather than block nations who aren't at peak infra and anyone with more than 5 mil, we stick with a wait time, a wonder requirement, and a "lower NS requirement".  with a limited number of slots (say maybe, 3 total) and a sufficiently low aid limit, you COULD game it but the profits wouldn't be high enough.  StevieG mentioned 5mil; i think even lower would be more appropriate.  maybe even make it so that only nations in Anarchy could receive aid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's blocking nations who can get to peak infra and still have money left over. not the other way around.

why do nations with 5 mil plus need it?

this way it cannot be gamed at all.

essentially if you are struggling to rebuy your infra aftwr war you can get a helping hand. 1 slot only. any more is bad imo. that's also why it's at 5 mil. AND could also potentially be a once per round per nation.

as to anarchy. not everyone gets locked. even broke nations can get out of anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×