Popular Post Soxirella Posted May 20, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted May 20, 2017 Needless to say, falling market prices hit new players worse than old, since the latter most likely have a higher daily income. Anyway, similar to how Food Production is disrupted due to Nuclear Attacks, I suggest we implement this for other resources. This should be both reason based and a random factor. Some potential reasons: 1) War - Active wars can result in lower base resources for everyone, based on how much geared soldiers they have. Reason: farmers/miners are moved from resource production to military service. 2) War - A player loosing his recent wars will have lower manufactured products until a week after his latest loss, if he lost 3+ / 5 of his recent wars. 3) Strikes - A random event lasting a week or so, based on the very under used 'Approval Rating'. In fact, edit the Approval Rating formula and/or ability to hold a celebration in the nation to raise Approval Rating. 4) Spying - A special spy attack that will trigger a Strike or any other disruption. Example: "Break irrigation facility" attack to disable "Mass Irrigation Project" or something similar. This would keep more resources off the market and is also a realistic idea and will affect other parts of the nation build such as military and improvements. The actual formulas and other reasons can be decided later, if we have consensus on whether this idea can be considered to be implemented. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James II Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 The idea of economic Espionage tickles my fancy greatly. 3 Quote "Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxirella Posted May 20, 2017 Author Share Posted May 20, 2017 To add another factor, let's not make the temporary disabling of projects automatically get restored. Rather, it should require a manual trigger after an initial time period. However, I'd be open to reducing the disable time period if they pay a premium or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dio Brando Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 The idea of economic Espionage tickles my fancy greatly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PackAnimal Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 This is a really nice idea, as there are actual economic consequences to warfare beyond just losing infrastructure. +1 The idea of economic Espionage tickles my fancy greatly. Quote Mans two modes of existence can be thought of as his light and dark side. He is either the Protector or the Ravager. The Immovable Object or the Unstoppable Force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty Posted May 20, 2017 Share Posted May 20, 2017 OWF: Yes Alex: No, maybe some other time Quote "There's nothing you can know that isn't known,Nothing you can see that isn't shown,There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be, All you need is love,Love is all you need." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 (edited) Because the market-side of this game is so interesting to a lot of people, I greatly support mixing up the supply/demand curve for resources, as we did with food. I've wondered if a global mechanic couldn't be put in place where as more people produce a resource, the amount, for example, an iron mine produces, goes down. Less people have an iron mine up and that resource produces more. Edited May 21, 2017 by Placentica Quote 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...
James II Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 Because the market-side of this game is so interesting to a lot of people, I greatly support mixing up the supply/demand curve for resources, as we did with food. I've wondered if a global mechanic couldn't be put in place where as more people produce a resource, the amount, for example, an iron mine produces, goes down. Less people have an iron mine up and that resource produces more. Would give people reason to kick them off their continent. Inb4 Nuke Bloc owns Australia Quote "Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted May 21, 2017 Share Posted May 21, 2017 Would give people reason to kick them off their continent. Inb4 Nuke Bloc owns Australia Credits would become very valuable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguar Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 Sheepy needs to stop ignoring this issue and do something about it, a major component of his game is not working properly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxirella Posted May 25, 2017 Author Share Posted May 25, 2017 True, but how do we get Alex to notice this? change.org petition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 True, but how do we get Alex to notice this? change.org petition? No, just post keywords. CREDITS MONEY SERVER BITCOIN PAYPAL CREDITS DOGECOIN PUPPIES PLAYER-ENGAGEMENT DONATIONS LITECOIN 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxirella Posted July 10, 2017 Author Share Posted July 10, 2017 I am bumping this thread since whatever new changes that Alex did is not a long term solution, but a mere quick and dirty fix. Eventually, we will face another slow deflationary market, if the fundamentals of resource usage is not changed. 1 Quote 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.