New environment effect

[joebollman36]

my population dropped by 8-9 people. its bad to have nukes, but they're gonna be more devastating. I really dont like the new move, but border walls actually are useful.

+2 happinesss= 10+ dollars

[myruler]

my population dropped by 8-9 people. its bad to have nukes, but they're gonna be more devastating. I really dont like the new move, but border walls actually are useful.

+2 happinesss= 10+ dollars

Wait, you are complaining because you lost 9 people? Or was that a typo and should have been 8-9k people?

[crazy canuck]

what? How the heck shall I "calculate the effect of this change being made without a warning" into anything? I did not even know the moment in which it would come. I made this suggestion some time ago and exchanged some PMs regarding possible equations, nothing more. Once it was implemented, I helped to find the mistake in the first implementation, but you will find SEVERAL statements of me saying that I was surprised as well.

Besides this, I already have proved that nations which are THAT poor that they cannot even switch to borderwalls do not face THAT harsh penalties at all. They can just switch to Democracy as gov to get rid of of 1 envpenalty of a possible 3 in the WORST CASE (importing coal+oil+uran while NOT importing water). Even in this worst case, the remaining 2 envpenalty are not nearly enough to cripple a nation, especially if it is small (why that: read the post 2 postings above - the smaller you are the less happiness affects you).

If you re-read what have have said in the last couple of posts, you will know that I am not saying you had control. In fact in my very first post I said my comments were directed at the admin more then you. But since you are the one carrying the banner as it were, you are the one I must have this discussion with.

You may have been surprised by your idea being implemented. But, it being your idea, you knew exactly how to adapt. That puts you in a position that makes it more difficult for you to judge the shock of the bulk of the other players of this game.

I think that it is little comfort to the average player of this game to suggest to them that they are not "crippled" by a fundamental change in game mechanics. Just as it is little comfort to suggest that all they need to do is redo their trades and redo their improvements.

The real problem with these changes is not the small nations. It is with the medium nations. They are the ones feeling the pain. Perhaps I would understand your vehemance in defending this if you addressed the problem of that mid range nation.

FYI, I am in the top 100 nations and I have the NEO. This doesnt really affect me. I am arguing the point for the benefit of the community as a whole.

Edited May 20, 2008 by crazy canuck

[KMbanana]

My main issue with this is middle nations importing coal/oil/uranium.

I have coal AND oil, so this change means all my trading partners need to destroy 5 improvements so they can build 2 border walls, just so my resources aren't hurting them. To a developing nation this is a significant impact if they're not up to at least police academies.

It's hard enough to get trades sets outside the standard 3bonus resource set, this is just an extra kick in the balls.

[choop]

This update was a good one, and together with the next updates which will hopefully come soon, it will create a whole new depth for CN gameplay.

Wait, what? What do you know that we don't, and why?

[joebollman36]

my population dropped by 8-9 people. its bad to have nukes, but they're gonna be more devastating. I really dont like the new move, but border walls actually are useful.

+2 happinesss= 10+ dollars

edit- 8-9 thousand people

[sayton]

Wait, what? What do you know that we don't, and why?

its not a matter of what he knows.. its a matter of common sense..

ADMIN must change something soon.. nations are nearing the max infra mark again.. and stuff.. there are always changes!!!

check update log.. this wasnt the only change..

[LJ Scott]

Wait, what? What do you know that we don't, and why?

Well admin mentions stuff in the Suggestion Box you know.

Like attack %'s are going to be reworked etc iirc.

Hopefully nukes at the same time

[JoshuaR]

yes, nations must adapt by trading war improvements for border walls. Yes it hurts them. Yes it affects everyone, so the point is moot?

[Reyne]

From the start I knew this would not be a popular update and I expect to see many threads like this and many PM complaints. My response... bring it on. Environment was a feature that had a lot of potential in the game and now that potential is better realized with this update.

To the point of killing nations? That may be extreme phrasing, but if a nation's income is less than it's bills, it's going to kill that nation. I'm not worried so much for myself, but for others starting out.

It's too extreme. If you want all nations to be the same, seeking the same trades, seeing rerolls until they get the "right" trade set, eliminating the urge to play the war games (I know several players who would LOVE to turn this into GPAnations), then you've done the right thing. But to make the changes in the middle of a war is a cheap shot.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Reyne Mordigan

[Heft]

I think this would be an excellent time to uncap the GRL.

[XRCatD]

I think this would've worked better/made people happier if it made better environment give better income than before rather than worse environment give worse income than before. Overall, either way would make environment have more effect, but the first way (better environment==> better income) makes players happier.

[acrux]

To all the big nations that dont feel this or think this is bad for the middle/smaller ones, then aid us all.. its not hurting you, youre not set back days, weeks, months..

I still like how dac fights its all good, as he can handle pretty much anything with his size, but for the smaller nations that were trying to grow its pushed them down pretty quickly. There is no reason why i shouldnt have 5 improvements, and im not even close to getting a 4th now.

As for the whole just add walls, well if i was making what i did, and the setup i had before i would, but when you throw a wrench in the mix without warning, NOT everyone can do this.

[Homura]

I personally like this change to the game.

Yes, I am at war right now (well sort of ... until the nation I was fighting got deleted for inactivity), with transitional government, and the whole barracks + guerrilla camp thing bringing my environment down to a sweet 5.18. I would like to note however that I am not bill locked and in fact my non-collection time income (around 3 mil per day) is still much higher than my bills (around 2 mil per day). I've only got -5 improvement slots which does make this a back step for me. Being ranked 574th in land probably helps me though. However, I can't say I care all that much about "MAH PIXELS" being lost. I am at war, after all.

However, the whole issue of cookie cutter nations is one that makes the game boring and disappointing to play. The complexity is lost when you can just read a guide that says build these improvements in this order and get these perfect trades. Anything that makes things not that simple is a positive change to the game. If anything, we should have more changes like this.

The only thing I would be concerned about is the fact that my native resources are environmentally unfriendly, which may discourage trading with me in the future, even if I'm not impacted myself. Perhaps the infrastructure purchase cost reduction should be increased somewhat with the industrial trade set to keep it comparable to the agricultural set, but otherwise I have no problems.

[Reyne]

The point I believe was to have Enviroment mean something.

It did. The environment suffered when the radiation levels were up.

Actually iirc "infrastructure to land ratio" is a factor in the enviroment score.

To enable those outside the top 5% to be able to buy nukes. Doesn't mean they can afford to maintain them.

So why have something they can't maintain? Doesn't make sense.

Why should we have a useless feature?

Get rid of it? It wasn't anything that really made my game anyway.

Well I've made it 400 odd days with pigs + lead and never complained. If you want better resources, re-roll.

Also to the second part; "Rome wasn't built in a day."

Want a cookie? This does nothing but penalize both types of CNers - the Nation Builders and the Warriors. And god forbid you try to be both.

[Tryptamine]

I hung through 25 pages of discussion, but I've started to lose the wherewithal to continue to follow. I've run into a logic stop, and I apologize if it's already been addressed. Some nations, it has been said, do not enjoy the nation building/optimization aspect of this game. That's totally legitimate. The definition of "enjoyable" will vary based on your objectives in playing the game. If you're more geared toward politics and war, there's a great thing about this game: You can wage war at any level... You're not limited by your NS or level of development. If your focus is war, this update should not have hurt you, as you should be properly prepared for war if you're expecting to succeed at it. Additionally, you can be politically involved without being a top nation. Look around at the leaders of some of the most successful alliances in CN. Few of them are in this group of "top nations," yet they've been indisputably influential forces in shaping the political dynamics of this game. Syzygy, Diskord, and a few others have been major forces in the more mathematically cerebral aspects of this game. The argument that this update makes the game less enjoyable because it makes optimization more challenging is hypocritical and thus falls on its face. You like to fight... As such, you'll probably never be a nation at the very top. You can fight wars at any level... Why are you so against additions that make the game more enjoyable for the people who are focused on development and the puzzle aspects? It may not make the game more fun for you, but does the fact that it keeps someone else playing actually bother you? Does increasing their enjoyment decrease yours? People play this game for different reasons, as has been acknowledged. Players need to come to terms with the fact that not every update will please everyone, and at times, groups of one inclination will benefit more than groups of another.

[MikeSierra]

I've been asked to post this response from the OG forums here. First off, let me say that I'm definately in the "builder" camp. I can't say I disagree with the concept here, but I can't see the changes doing what they were intended to do.

Re: Hitting a point where building your nation actually hurts it: With his new suggestions, and the ever-increasing cost to buy infrastructure and land, eventually you hit a point where it is too expensive to buy enough land to keep your population density down (is there still a maximum size cap?). At that point, if you buy more infrastructure, it raises your population, which raises your population density, which lowers your environment, which lowers both your income AND your population (which, incidentally, is a double hit to income, because you have fewer people with each making less money!). You're still going to hit a point where it makes no sense to build, this will likely just have shifted where that balance point is.

Re: Slowing down growth for everyone making destruction have more impact: To go to the builder/warrior model, some builders are going to be put off by the fact that their nation growth is even slower than before. Warriors, on the other hand, are more interested in growing their nation to be able to wage war more effectively. If everyone is growing at the same rate, then one of three things happens: the recovery time between wars increases (decreasing the number of wars in a game that many say needs more wars to keep things interesting); wars occur at the same rate and a new equilibrium point is achieved at a lower nation strength; or alliances/blocs capable of laying the smack down on their opponents grow an even more insurmountable lead, because their opponents can't recover as quickly.

Re: Increasing destruction on a sliding scale: While nations would likely do more damage to nations of similar size, bigger nations also recover faster than smaller nations, so they will tend to remain bigger. The really unfortunate side effect of this, which is completely contrary to making it easier for new players to reach the upper ranks, is that a big nation would pound a smaller nation even harder than before, and the smaller nation would do even less to the bigger nations than before. End result, it becomes easier for the established nations to keep new nations from reaching the top tier.

Re: Adding new features that cost a lot: This does nothing to fix the problem of nations sitting on hordes of cash because there is nothing for them to buy. People will just do a cost-benefit analysis on the new items. If the benefit exceeds the cost, then they will buy it, gain an even bigger advantage over nations who can't afford them, and then once there is nothing left to buy, sit on hordes of cash. If the cost exceeds the benefit, then people just won't buy the new items, and will continue to sit on hordes of cash.

Re: By changing to a % environmental penalty, "all nations would be affected equally": Nations with resources that carry an environmental penalty will be affected more, not because the affect on their nation directly, but because people will be less willing to trade for those resources. Rather than "balancing" the resources, it may very well just shift what the "optimal" mix of resources is. I have enough trouble finding a good stable trade with Cattle/Coal because it's not an optimal mix. Now if accepting coal is going to lower your environment, it makes it that much harder to sell my sub-optimal mix of resources.

Re: By uncapping the GRL "nuclear war will have worldwide effects and there will be political pressure to stop the massive use of nuclear weaponry": When the GRL was initially introduced ( :argh: ), it wasn't capped, and there was no pressure to stop it. The reason? People argued that since everyone was affected by the GRL equally, the only global affect of the GRL was to shift everyone down the scale equally. The GRL went to some ridiculously high number before Admin decided to cap it. Let's put it this way... if I fire a shotgun at my enemy indoors, I know it's going to hurt both of our ears, but he's going to get shot and I'm not. If launching a nuke at my enemies is going to lower both of our incomes by some fraction of a percent, but he's still going to lose all of his soldiers etc, and I'm not, I still come out ahead by firing the nuke. Since the warriors are only looking for an advantage and not relative footing, this is really only going to hold back the builders.

Re: Land has additional use and is more important: Land still reaches a point where it is prohibitively expensive to buy. The only reason that I have a huge amount of land is I had previously hit a point where buying more infrastructure would hurt my nation, and buying more tech did nothing for me, so I put all my income into land for a few months. Essentially this change just makes it more expensive to grow your nation because you have to buy land in addition to your infrastructure.

Re: Skill has more impact in the game: Because this is a new change out of the blue, luck has more impact right now, as in "were you lucky enough to have bought the right things so that this change doesn't affect you terribly". Going forward, some players will simply figure out what the new optimum mix is, share it with their alliance mates, which will then spread to the rest of the game. At that point, it simply becomes more "common knowledge" like "always buy a harbour for your first improvement".

Re: "realism. Environment has in reality a strong impact on the health of your population, and therefore the amount of deseases and deaths (pop modifiers) and the amount of days they are ill (income modifier):" The United States produces a huge amount of pollution, yet has unrivaled economic strength. China has severe pollution problems, but has a huge population. Sure, the environment affects health, but there are many, many factors at play. Furthermore, the "environment" is not insular to one country... air and water pollution caused in one country will affect its neighbours. You want realism? Your nation doesn't have or import iron and at least one of coal, oil, uranium, or water? Sorry, no electricity for you: say goodbye to most of your income and population. You don't have steel and construction? Sorry, you can't build any infrastructure. No electronics? I guess it's the dark ages for you. Population density is too high? Sorry, you can't purchase more land, all of the planet's land area is already owned. Your soldiers all died in the war? Sorry, you can't just buy more, because they have to come from somewhere... I guess you'll have to wait while you train another generation of citizens. Blah blah blah... Claiming that an arbitrary decrease in a nebulous "environment" stat directly leads to a reduction of x% population and y% income isn't more realistic, it's just more arbitrary.

[Reyne]

Get some aid in the short term.

You offering? Smart-assed responses to a REAL problem with game play don't help.

Changes are fine and good. The change to NS when it was halved was not a big deal. Yeah, it didn't look good on paper but it still didn't affect players' ability to play successfully.

Stop trolling people just because they don't suck it up and take it up the you know what. It seems that when people report an actual problem instead of blindly supporting a change, they are either shot down or ignored.

Why are you so against additions that make the game more enjoyable for the people who are focused on development and the puzzle aspects? It may not make the game more fun for you, but does the fact that it keeps someone else playing actually bother you? Does increasing their enjoyment decrease yours? People play this game for different reasons, as has been acknowledged. Players need to come to terms with the fact that not every update will please everyone, and at times, groups of one inclination will benefit more than groups of another.

Your argument goes both ways. There is a huge difference some receiving no benefits while others do and crippling effects. I can't see where that enhances anyone's game. Unless you are a sociopath.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Reyne Mordigan

[Alan Shore]

And yes, nations need cash to switch improvements, that is part of something called "preparation". A nation with constantly $0 available has done something significantly wrong in its management.

If you had bothered reading the thread, you would note it is not even close to that simple as this damages population, which means for a lot of nations to buy border walls, they will need to sacrifice upwards of a half dozen economic improvements to buy it. It is NOT a matter of just swapping them out and everyone is fine again no matter how many times you would like to assert it is.

[Lord War]

Maybe it's just April Fool's Day...again...a bit late...by a long way.

"Hahahaaa, very funny admin, that was a good one, you really had us worried for a moment there...you can change it back now, we all had a great laugh"

But in all seriousness, is it just me or does everyone else observe how the change does not in any way, shape, or form, actually work towards its own proposed objective?

Where is the opportunity for anyone to be more intelligent and better manage and develop their nation?

And how influential does a feature need to be? I mean, sure it could have had some more attention in the game, but this change makes the game all about environment...or did I miss something, is that what the game is all about now? Sorry, I was confused for a moment there, the name of the game is Cyber Nations, I just assumed we were managing nations, but hey, it's an easy mistake isn't it, once again, I should have just magically known, it's all about Cyber Environments!

Also, who here lives in a country where 'environment' affects their economy to such an epic scale? -Some mighty fine realism in this update, so yeah, I guess that's a well thought argument by its advocates.

I'm still going over it, but if after having checked this half a dozen times I am right, then I believe my nation now earns (after collecting taxes and paying bills) 18% of that which it did before the change, though I guess the select few here who advocate the change and coincidently and conveniently came out on top are right, I should have been more intelligent and managed my nation better. I mean I should have known not to initially manage my nation as best I could, but instead procrastinate in knowing that great change would come, I should have been prepared to suddenly find a thousand citizens spontaneously disappeared or ran away and that the ones that remained would become suddenly overwhelmed with grief and overtly concerned about the environment and in turn create an epic failure to my economy. I mean you're right, that is quite obviously a much better management scheme -It's so predictable, I should have known, how did I miss that? And how could I have missed the warning that such adverse changes were coming? Silly me, but hey, a select few have somehow managed to come out on top, so that's all that really matters isn't it, that the ones who were sitting by jealously watching them big bloated nations with endearing glares finally get an unfair advantage, finally a system that just picks them up and carries them to the finish line. you're right guys, it's well earned!

Sooooo, anyone else here having fun with the new CN? Perhaps there's some generous souls out there to donate some cash to me. I was right in the middle of tech deals, except usually my nation earns enough that I can buy the tech before having to send it, quite easily, however due to some recent very predictable events which I was not expecting, I no longer earn enough to complete tech deals....anywhere in the near future.

[Lysdexia]

If you had bothered reading the thread, you would note it is not even close to that simple as this damages population, which means for a lot of nations to buy border walls, they will need to sacrifice upwards of a half dozen economic improvements to buy it. It is NOT a matter of just swapping them out and everyone is fine again no matter how many times you would like to assert it is.

Zha I agree. It's not only that, but so many nations are heavily engaged in war at this time.

While many of them are the enemy to some of us, Thinking in game play only, recovery seems unlikely. Those that were unlucky enough not to be in an alliance, and in war. I don't even want to think about.

The argument that wars should be costly , and do great harm is an argument to try to change attitudes through game mechanics. Yet I remember a time where after war, recovery was speedier. There was less war because it was so much easier to catch up. The political gain wasn't as great. It was great to watch alliances rebuild and take their place back on the world stage.

One of the greatest things about CN in the past has been not only the ability to manage a nation , but in regrowth, building , and opportunity.

I remember all the griping as there was not enough war. People were bored . Now the effect of war is people give up easier, as rebuilding is so slow, and recovery even slower.

Why were the dynamics of sides so fun back then , because once a war happened, the other alliances were able to recover. Now they cannot catch up. It's not just a question of how effectively you manage a nation. Game mechanics are not only slowing down growth of the top , but recovery of anyone who has ever been at war , is at war , and are trying to recover at present.

Being larger means less fun, there's less to buy , less to do. It does get quite boring. Yet if growth slows down too much , the game also slows down for everyone. While smaller nations have things to buy, it takes them longer to buy it. The time investment is to great just to get a decent nation. This is an incredibly slow game as it is.

And Finally Syz.. Nations at war, aren't likely to make any changes during a war. So don't say some of us haven't taken your advice. Some of us are still locked into our governments, and situations and game mechanics won't allow the change. And with my naturals coal/silver and the usual 3 to 4 weeks it take me to settle for what trades I can get, I'm not really looking forward to a trade switch. Not to mention the nations I'm trading with are at war also.

Like I said this is a slow game . It was a fast change , and new nations won't know the difference. Yet Oldies like me, well we remember a different game. Improvements shouldn't just add to the game, they should also make the game enjoyable to play.

I am wondering tho where the game will go , when play is focused on the game, where you update once a day, yet have to spend an huge amount of time setting it up just to collect only to loose it all , and rebuilding will take forever and a day. Indeed there will be much more to loose through war. And I don't know if people will stay for the long slow regrowth after them. No longer is there any balance to the expense of the rise of infrastructure cost. Tech nor military add anything to your nation. Now Nukes take something away from your nation. So will some alliances focus to much on perfect building only to loose it all when they are less likely to be defended by nukes ? I dunno. All I know is it's a different world. And I totally hate my nation.

[TheDave]

I've not read the whole thread from the start, but I dont have that much land for a nation my size, and if I hadn't come to the forums and seen this thread I would have not realised the environment had changed. I've not noticed a drop in my income at all - and I don't have a perfect environment... Can't see how all these people are saying they have lost double figures worth of happiness points.

[uaciaut]

Why were the dynamics of sides so fun back then , because once a war happened, the other alliances were able to recover. Now they cannot catch up. It's not just a question of how effectively you manage a nation. Game mechanics are not only slowing down growth of the top , but recovery of anyone who has ever been at war , is at war , and are trying to recover at present.

Wait, what? Where did this come from? A 150 infra is way harder to grow back at 12k compared to 7k-8k by a lot, this isn't true at all really. People are less prone to go to war nowadays because if they use nukes they usually get slapped with a Perma-ZI by some alliances so basically using a part of the system they fought hard to get to gets them out of the game

As for nations being at war now, well any change that will affect the system (unless it's something that does it ONLY in a positive way, which i personally wouldn't really want) will come harder for one nation that's at war. There has been an active alliance wide war in CN now for quite some time, there's no way this could have been implemented without affecting them.

Being larger means less fun, there's less to buy , less to do. It does get quite boring. Yet if growth slows down too much , the game also slows down for everyone. While smaller nations have things to buy, it takes them longer to buy it. The time investment is to great just to get a decent nation. This is an incredibly slow game as it is.

Smaller nations have a much smaller inflation and a 3 million package means a lot to them; that's the key in their growth, not being able to buy lots of things which, based on this system already come in a pretty fixed order (harbor, FM, 5 factories, etc etc). The growth slows down a lot after the 4k and 5k infra borders because, well it's supposed to really.

I mean, do you really want to be able to buy more infra to make up for what you lost during a war? That would be pretty easy since nations who go to war have practically nothing to risk because a 3 mil pack slapped on them will get them back in shape and it would make the game's inflation only worse really.

And Finally Syz.. Nations at war, aren't likely to make any changes during a war. So don't say some of us haven't taken your advice. Some of us are still locked into our governments, and situations and game mechanics won't allow the change. And with my naturals coal/silver and the usual 3 to 4 weeks it take me to settle for what trades I can get, I'm not really looking forward to a trade switch. Not to mention the nations I'm trading with are at war also.

Like I said this is a slow game . It was a fast change , and new nations won't know the difference. Yet Oldies like me, well we remember a different game. Improvements shouldn't just add to the game, they should also make the game enjoyable to play.

Syz didn't implement anything, he just suggested it, and like i said before, during the last few months there has been a war currently ongoing pretty much constantly, so there's no way a change that affects negatively won't have worse effects on someone at war

I am wondering tho where the game will go , when play is focused on the game, where you update once a day, yet have to spend an huge amount of time setting it up just to collect only to loose it all , and rebuilding will take forever and a day. Indeed there will be much more to loose through war. And I don't know if people will stay for the long slow regrowth after them. No longer is there any balance to the expense of the rise of infrastructure cost. Tech nor military add anything to your nation. Now Nukes take something away from your nation. So will some alliances focus to much on perfect building only to loose it all when they are less likely to be defended by nukes ? I dunno. All I know is it's a different world. And I totally hate my nation.

Lose what? An imaginary number on a screen? I've little interest really for individual losses, what concerns me is the effect on a larger scale.

Because if everyone loses than no one actually lost if you understand me so the next step would be to see if this affects some more than others and at what rate, so i can tell if anything needs fixing or not.

As for wars. Wars will be nuclear or non-nuclear, with a few rogue exceptions, like they always have been. Nuclear wars will criple many nations a lot, true (again i'm not very interested in scarce rogue cases, they're pretty rare generally and receive a perma-zi with a sanction pretty fast), but this is one of the more interesting things about this game. Because nukes are also a weapon of propaganda and image and they should be used as one in the politics section of the game, it makes the game more interesting.

And the environment thing has a much much smaller effect on non-nuclear wars really.

Now what does concern me is whether this change increases inflation at a faster rate for 4k-6k infra nations (who don't have the slots to buy BW's) than to those at 6k+ or 12k+.

The way infra costs and upkeep currently increase does put a standstill on the growth passed certain levels by itself so adding things that change this "balance" (lack of better word) may not be very beneficial, but given the fact that at around 5k infra still doesn't have an obscene price, this really doesn't have such a great negative impact really.

I mean sure, 5k infra nations with MP will have a hard time maintaining their nukes, but at 6k+ it's fairly easy if you buy border walls (i mean seriously, with 5 border walls my current income is about as big as it was before with 2, since 3+ bw's weren't profitable for me before; i don't understand why so much complaining really)

[LJ Scott]

But to make the changes in the middle of a war is a cheap shot.

You know I haven't seen any GATO etc members complaining, considering if it's crippling the winning side

It did. The environment suffered when the radiation levels were up.

Yes those big highs of 1.3 GRL

So why have something they can't maintain? Doesn't make sense.

Well if you put any thought into building your nation, then you should have made it through these changes well or only have to make minimal changes. For myself I bought 1 border wall and I now make more than I did prior to losing 5K~ citizens.

Get rid of it? It wasn't anything that really made my game anyway.

Now it does make the game.

Want a cookie? This does nothing but penalize both types of CNers - the Nation Builders and the Warriors. And god forbid you try to be both.

Yes please. The point is people have gotten by with horrible nations previously and will continue to do so.

You offering? Smart-assed responses to a REAL problem with game play don't help.

Brilliant you quoted me from when the change was initially made and admin accidentally made it x10 too strong. I said that in the short term i.e. whilst admin was still tinkering with it. Which only lasted an hour or so anyway.

Your argument goes both ways. There is a huge difference some receiving no benefits while others do and crippling effects. I can't see where that enhances anyone's game. Unless you are a sociopath.

Brilliant, moan about me "trolling" people ( ) and then suggest I'm a sociopath. If you have any skill in this game, or have built your nation in a level fashion, then you'll get through these changes untouched or having to rethink your strategy and make the odd change e.g. trade swapping + LC swapping + borderwalls whilst sledding. I'm sure any decent alliance has already got to work on this and will either now or soon have guides in place to redevelop how one grows your nation now.

[Poyplemonkeys]

I quite like the new changes. It's hurt my nation for sure, but nothing I won't be able to overcome.

I'm just glad I got a warning prior to them so that I could collect before 8,000 citizens walked off with 13 days worth of taxes... oh wait.

This update was good. The way it was handled has probably cost me upwards of $25mil.