Zaxon Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 This, but not that new war system. Admin just got rid of the stacking system on Test server. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apeman Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 I'd like to see you try without your nukes. Actually, scratch that. Doesn't matter either way. Sorry big brother, do you have a bigger brother that could do the chirping? Nevermind it doesn't matter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 I personally didn't have any issues with what was happening. It was more a product of the game having just one major sphere anyway. Why shouldn't they all clump together to reap the rewards jointly. It's just using game mechanics to your advantage. And if they want to have a bunch of whale nations, why should anyone care? 3 Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 And if they want to have a bunch of whale nations, why should anyone care? Yeah, it's just more targets for the next war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rin Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 (edited) Ironically, Treasure Island was causing a bit of political tension. Not much, about the same level as Britain-EU tensions. It could have actually sparked or been forced into something interesting had the treasure system remained important. Not everyone in the same sphere could be united under one AA. It benefited some more than others. Being a zero-sum game, that means that it actually harmed those who didn't participate. There's a whole bunch of opsec stuff I can't even talk about, but you get the picture. And on the other hand, it produced rivals, not just between those on the same sphere, but between other spheres. Could have ended up in an evil iron grip thing one day. Edited November 9, 2016 by Rin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Ironically, Treasure Island was causing a bit of political tension. Not much, about the same level as Britain-EU tensions. It could have actually sparked or been forced into something interesting had the treasure system remained important. Not everyone in the same sphere could be united under one AA. It benefited some more than others. Being a zero-sum game, that means that it actually harmed those who didn't participate. There's a whole bunch of opsec stuff I can't even talk about, but you get the picture. And on the other hand, it produced rivals, not just between those on the same sphere, but between other spheres. Could have ended up in an evil iron grip thing one day. Now that is interesting to know considering that there shouldn't have been much to stir up any political tension to begin with if you look at it from a game mechanics perspective. 1 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soultak3r1 Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 I thought about reading through 8 pages of this stuff but then remembered I'm an IT grad student and I've got projects to work on so the following might have already been pointed out. This change in treasures has very little impact at all. If there are 100 treasures and an alliance of 100 nations can get all of them, even with not getting the full bonus from before, it still would put them at the gross advantage you're seeking to get rid of. At that point they have a couple options, sit on them so others can't have them or just sell/give them to their allies. Now granted, an alliance having all or most of them past the point of the bonus cap while not having the fear of being raided for them is rare. Except if you're the top 10% you're aiming this mechanic change towards. While this could cause political tension from treasure hording, it's doubtful to go far. As you've clearly seen, the idea that adding treasures into the game to help fuel wars has already been proven to not really work. Simply put, this changes nothing really except the value of treasures, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mageofpie Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Treasures and alliances are for losers anyways. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakeman4 Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 I'm just gonna point out that the Arrgh score formula change completely contradicts and refutes just about every single point made by Sheepy in his fluff piece. That is all, carry on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tygon Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 Seems like a good change to me. It cuts down on the warchests of treasure hoarders, making them easier targets to be warred infinitely and loot them. Perfect situation to keep the game from going the way of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), where no one can even hope to compete for the top because the top has already been claimed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vellocet Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Fair and square. Good update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts