No.3633
Does this method skirt the inflation losses on resources?
No.3635
Yes it does- but only partially. It's softening the taxes, but there's still going to be taxes.
No.3636
>>3635
Over time won't these postings stack up and clutter the market pages?
No.3637
>>3636
People have been known to do that shit anyway.
No.3638
>>3637
Suggestion: You have to buy your own resources if you want them off the marketplace.
This means that people can't repeatedly undercut each other without incurring taxes on dickery, and this kind of shit gets punished all to hell.
No.3639
>>3638
I'm actually considering this. Can the usual suspects tell me if it's a good idea?
No.3640
>>3639
I'm not a 'usual suspect', but I've got an opinion.
It would mean if you fuck up then you have to have an exorbitant amount of cash on hand to fix it. For the majority of the playerbase (Read: Those without 5+ malls), you'll just about never have more cash on-hand than the cost of your resources.
What other games do though is they make you pay the overhead cost up-front, and cancelling doesn't refund the overhead. In this case, it would mean paying the relevant percentage for your market type ahead of time.
If it worked that way (not requiring the FULL price, but still costing you the %), I'd be fine with it, personally.
No.3641
File: 1435454671862.jpg (Spoiler Image, 190.24 KB, 638x660, 29:30, 0a29f0005b224682e10843281a….jpg)
>>3639
I'd prefer if you could restore Clop to the pre-reset conditions: without inflation loss or any annoying caps for the market and deals.
In Clop V1 it took us more than a year to crush all opponents and achieve eternal peace. With the changes after the reset we didn't even need two months.
All of those new mechanics are killing the game. I mean what are we supposed to do now? Before the reset we could at least watch some numbers grow. Now we can't do anything. There aren't any opponents left so all that's left to do is either go stasis or rape some noobs.
Autists like it when everything runs smoothly. They love to see their stockpiles grow. You've taken that away from us. You removed pretty much the only long-term motivator.
>>3640
>they make you pay the overhead cost up-front
I think this would keep people from using the market.
No.3642
>>3641
I'll be honest things are so boring now and there no numbers or anything that make me what to push beyond what I making. It just seems pointless when eventually all I can do is buy and sell and hope to god someone new comes so they can take all my overflowing resources.
No.3643
>>3641
>Autists like it when everything runs smoothly. They love to see their stockpiles grow. You've taken that away from us. You removed pretty much the only long-term motivator.
Basically this, the worst part is that by making stockpiles unattainable you actually hurt small players more than larger empire ones. How you ask, simple in war you can attack fast or slow. slow depends on production and fast depends on stockpiles by removing large stockpiles only production counts, thus a large empire can know that a small nation empire does not have the large stockpiles they once could have. Then again fast wars have been very rare in CLOP anyway.
No.3644
>>3641
>>3642
Aren't you guys reading the chat? There are noobs in there, doing things like trading and learning and playing, while you lament about your numbers not going up forever.
>>3643
>this convoluted-ass nonlogic
How would a small empire get a larger stockpile than a large empire, again?
No.3645
>>3644
>There are noobs in there, doing things like trading and learning and playing
How does this change anything? When our nations were still small, we've been trading and playing too. It's only a matter of time until they run into the same problem as we did.
The fact that there's no way to acquire more nations (everyone's in an alliance and no one dares to start a war) only means that they won't have anything to do even quicker than we did because they won't be able to spend some time building up a second or third nation.
>>3644
>How would a small empire get a larger stockpile than a large empire, again?
By not fighting any wars. There's a reason why FFA survived until the end of V1.
The fight against Bug and Loli was the only time when the members of FFA had to use some of their resources. They've spent the remaining time stockpiling their resources which turned them into a nearly impenetrable wall.
No.3646
>>3645
>no one dares to start a war
Okay, well, if I put something in the game that no one dares to use…
>They've spent the remaining time stockpiling their resources which turned them into a nearly impenetrable wall.
I don't think FFA's combined might was ever classifiable as a "small empire", but this is one of the reasons I put this in! A few people having a bottomless well of resources was making wars unwinnable, and you acknowledge that and want to go back to it…?
From the guide:
>CLOP is not a game of watching your numbers go up uninterrupted and crushing everypony you see just because you played longer than them.
That's been in there since it started.
If you want to get your numbers as high as possible, why not play more Compounds? I don't even know the theoretical maximum a given group of players can reach for production.
No.3647
>>3646
>why not play more Compounds?
Because numbers for the sake of numbers is awful and the only reason to play Compounds is to stop yourself from imploding. When I joined Compounds I think I played until… tier 4? before permastasising.
With CLOP there's a face to the numbers. It's a nation management/political building sim. But even these games have their point where they become tedious, and that's usually when you've built everything that you can and are stable. At which point there's nothing really to do except watch the numbers go up / fight a suicidal war and start over / bitch and whine on the board
No.3648
>>3647
I only just thought of this right after posting… but a better way of limiting resources would be to add more ways to sink them that people will actually care about.
No.3649
>>3639
If it were to be implemented, it would require a warning prompt or quick review where players are asked to double check the figures they entered. I suspect that would help prevent crippling mistakes mentioned earlier.
No.3650
File: 1435517585245.jpg (Spoiler Image, 1.08 MB, 1900x1493, 1900:1493, 9d8ce0d09a87023b5cfa2ad05a….jpg)
>>3646
>Okay, well, if I put something in the game that no one dares to use…
…then you have to adjust it so people start to use it. You can't blame the players for not using certain elements of the game if they think it's just not worth it for whatever reason.
Otherwise Clop will end like Compounds.
In Compounds there are lots of things to do. Most of them are pretty pointless, though. There are only three actions most of the players (save for alliance leaders) will do: give resources to alliance, take resources from alliance, increase production.
Apart from increasing the production, there are no addictive gameplay elements whatsoever. Players are supposed to create their own content through rivalry and stuff but obviously it doesn't work that way. Lots of players have had some deep engrained grudges against each other and even that wasn't enough to let them stick to the game long enough for any serious wars to happen.
I'm pretty sure most players who tried Compounds agree that this game is a failed experiment. It was really interesting to watch and I learned quite some do's and dont's of game development but by now it should be quite obvious that this game will never take off.
I don't mean to be rude or overly harsh, but in my opinion you should let Compounds die. I know you've invested a lot of time into this game and it's really commendable that you wanted to provide us with a game that is entirely based on your own ideas. You should use the experience you gained to improve Clop or to create a new game (maybe even without horses).
Don't turn Clop into a second Compounds. It won't end well.
>and you acknowledge that and want to go back to it…?
Exactly!
I'd like to hear some other player's opinions on this. Am I the only one who dislikes the resource caps and the limits in deals and on the market? What are you doing with your resources once you have built up your nation and your resources have hit the soft caps?
>If you want to get your numbers as high as possible, why not play more Compounds?
Or I could play Cookie Clicker. At least that game would require me to do more than 10 clicks per day. :P
No.3651
>>3650
If my only choice to retain players is to create a game that continues focusing on the autistic, addictve aspects of watching numbers go up, I'm going to decisively learn my lesson from this and stop developing games.
Possibly stop playing anything with any long-term anything, actually.
I'll shut down the servers and light myself on fire before I let >CLOP become another Farmville.
No.3652
Don't make it overly harsh to get stuff back from the market. THat'll not go well, and imho, it's not a godd way to eliminate the underlying problem anyway: people using it to go over caps.
I'm still of the opinion that market (and deal) items should still be counted for taxes, or otherwise penalized in some way. They're stuff you own, and therefore need to be paid for. If you don't want to straight up add market/deal resources to your tax-paying stuff, why not do stuff like adding a bit tax to inflation, based on the price of the resources on the market? That way, one could park stuff there, but has to pay for it in a different manner.
And yes, I'm pro-caps. Partly because I like the logistics of dealing with streaming economies, partly because I think it's better for the game overall.
Caps reduce stockpiles, making the split between old and new players not quite as large.
They encourage trading and actually using said resources, since they'd be gone anyway. Remember Aryan: "No reset, but resource caps? Better use those excess to destroy everyone!"
Wars both "cost" less (due to the resources being lost to taxes otherwise) and pay off more (due to nations carrying their own storage). So should be quite a bit more tempting to start. That the player base chooses not to it is not admin's fault (except maybe a bit in the length of newb week, but not terribly much).
I also don't think we "ended" >CLOP yet. Yes, KoE is gone, but that hardly means there's eternal peace. In fact, the players being who they are, I'd be damned if people aren't planning their next step since the first troops were sent.
I do even like stockpiling more now that there's a maximum cap (which is determined by the production amount of when you pay all of it for taxes). This is a personal opinion, but for me, bigger stockpiles do mean more now, because they're harder to achieve (since production slows more and more with rising numbers).
No.3653
>>3652
Plan ahead? I would never.
No.3654
>>3651
Like I said, a better way to do it would be to give us more interesting/useful things to do with the resources that will take them out of the game altogether. Emphasis on interesting/useful.
The reason the disparity exists between the amount of resources new players and old players stockpile is because new players are constantly using those resources to build things which give them more resources. This promotes trade, and keeps everyone's stockpiles low. Once players hit the point where they can't reasonably add on more buildings, they have nothing to do with the resources except let them stockpile. So the solution here is obviously to add something that will be useful to players enough to use, that will take the problem resources out of the game, without adding new resources in.
This of course requires knowing what resources are 'problem resources'. Though, that's not hard to figure out.
No.3656
>>3652
>why not do stuff like adding a bit tax to inflation, based on the price of the resources on the market?
Not feasible. Random alterations to the math, based on what other players (possibly malicious) are doing? At least in Compounds the "alter the game" stuff requires sacrifice.
>>3654
So, what, statue-equivalents for oil and sugar?
No.3657
>>3656
>statue-equivalents for oil and sugar
Nooo! Statues are boring and not fun. The only reason I've made a single one is because I had close to 100k copper stockpiled across both my nations and wanted to stay under the cap. If this addition is to replace caps, it needs to be something players will use of their own free will.
It would likely have to be an entirely new system. Ideally it would be something players can interact with each other using.
As for examples…
You could use this to add in a non-rulebreaky, peaceful way to expand an empire.
You could probably add some kind of espionage system, though it would need to be very carefully designed and monitored, to prevent the entire game from imploding. Would either need to not be able to touch stockpiles, or to have some way to keep a certain amount safe from tampering (because it would become a VERY easy way to oneshot people otherwise).
Could add some kind of PvE target for fighting against that gives some kind of interesting reward. Fighting monsters and griffons and other stuff.
These ideas would require a significant coding investment, though. But, I really don't see anything 'simple' being engaging enough to be effective.
No.3658
>>3656
Copper statues are the best because copper is the resource that is used the least for sat
upgrading them to about 50-70 sat/statue would be nice however for the players who have nothing better to do
The fundamental problem however has been that you don't want one side to "win"
if you would like to solve this it will always need you to react to what the political situation is in game
you could look at other games for ideas on how to maintain instability
No.3659
>>3656
>>3658
Expanding on this you could do what other games do and give the SE/NLR more focus so that the players have something to do, at least until enough players are around to last a few years without a clear "winner"
No.3661
>>3654
>give us more interesting/useful things to do with the resources
This!
For example, how about being able to change the weather (Pegasi are doing this in the show!) in all Burros for some ticks? Players could either make it rain (+5% sugar production for everyone) or start a heat wave (-5% sugar production). I think adding more ways to interact with the other players of this game would be really interesting.
Stuff like this exists in Compounds (changing element positions or increasing/decreasing costs (no, I don't want players to be able to change game variables in Clop)) and I think it's a neat feature (even though nobody will use it in the foreseeable future because it's really expensive).
For 1,000,000 bits people could be able to change the top message. Just like the humor action in Compounds. I think this could cause lots of butthurt once people start to insult each other. :D
>>3658
>upgrading them to about 50-70 sat/statue would be nice
Do you remember pre-reset Clop? A statue needs 20k copper and my empire was producing 60k per day. I've had 200 statues in Dirtopia (you can have a sceenshot if you don't believe me). With 50 sat/statue I could have replaced all of my sat buildings with statues.
50 Sat is a ridiculously high number for a building that doesn't need upkeep and isn't exactly expensive for players in their late-game.
No.3662
>>3661
>~780 Billion bits (13 nation empire)
>not expensive
No.3663
>>3661
Doing a few more calculations
20k copper x 15k = 300m
sat = 10k
300m / 10k = 30k tics aka 6+ years
No.3664
File: 1435621017057.jpg (277.77 KB, 1280x1097, 1280:1097, 9227f1196edf8424659a9ebbb6….jpg)
>>3663
You got this all wrong.
Statues aren't sat buildings. They're a resource sink.
You don't build statues to get satisfaction. You build them to get rid of resources or to show off. Check the text above the statue rankings:
>Here, you can see who has the biggest ego and the most money to spend.
If you want to make some calculations, you should see it that way:
I was able to build 3 statues a day.
With 50sat/statue I would have been able to replace 5 Toy and Candy Shops per day.
There were 236 Toy and Candy Shops in each of my Saddles. They used up 1600 sugar per tick (and 1k oil for energy). That's the production of an entire Burro.
It would have taken me ~50 days to replace all TaCs in one Saddle with Statues. 150 days for all three Saddles.
After less than half a year I would have been able to save almost 5k sugar (and 3k oil) per tick.
It was pretty much impossible to conquer my 13 nation empire without overpowered statues. What do you think would have happened if I would have been able to replace all TaCs with statues? I wouldn't even be able to lose my nations through rebels because statues don't need upkeep.
No.3665
>>3664
>You got this all wrong.
>Statues aren't sat buildings. They're a resource sink.
That is where you have got this all wrong, look to the future, only the players obsessed with horsecock waste copper on statues; by making them viable for sat they can be a resource sink for players who are not.
No.3666
File: 1435623105753.png (Spoiler Image, 1.25 MB, 1280x768, 5:3, df42230086fb593c15730a46e9….png)
>>3665
>by making them viable for sat they can be a resource sink for players who are not
Except that they'll turn into the absolute opposite of a resource sink.
When statues become a viable sat building, they'll replace the current sat buildings at least partially. This means that the demand for sugar, coffee, cupcakes and oil will drop dramatically.
Basically you increase the value of copper (which has been pretty stable since the end of the last war) while decreasing the value of everything else.
We've had this exact same discussion a few months ago. Increasing the sat output of statues is a terrible idea.
>only the players obsessed with horsecock
Horse cock if fucking awesome you imbecile.
No.3668
>>3666
>Except that they'll turn into the absolute opposite of a resource sink.
Enjoy having a late game, with nothing to do.
Statues would at least added a few months of building to keep things interesting.
No.3669
>>3661
>For 1,000,000 bits people could be able to change the top message.
This is the only actual suggestion (as opposed to "you should do something that…") I've seen that might be of some value. Seriously considering this one, and I think I might do it tonight.
No.3670
File: 1435626592611.png (Spoiler Image, 1.1 MB, 1680x1050, 8:5, 46596a3dd3d1352cd7c1cc4766….png)
>>3668
>Statues would at least added a few months of building to keep things interesting.
Yeah, and afterwards it will be even worse than now. You're the one who told me to look to the future but it seems like it's you who's lacking in foresight.
Other things need to be implemented to ensure an interesting late-game. We have to make sure that new players won't get overwhelmed with options and actions, though.
If you really want a buff for statues, how about this: Every statue increases the resource soft cap by 1%.
>>3669
Are you putting this on the 'actions' page? If you keep adding stuff, you might have to think about changing the layout or something. It seems like quite a few new players are overwhelmed by the amount of buttons.
Maybe an interactive tutorial or an introductory video would be helpful, too.
No.3671
>>3670
>>Statues would at least added a few months of building to keep things interesting.
>
>Yeah, and afterwards it will be even worse than now. You're the one who told me to look to the future but it seems like it's you who's lacking in foresight.
>
>Other things need to be implemented to ensure an interesting late-game. We have to make sure that new players won't get overwhelmed with options and actions, though.
Start
better start building
nation is fully built now better attack someone
time to build up that new nation
repeat
Finally after months get a maxed out empire fully built
whelp time to kill everyone and then quit nothing else to do
after all its not like statues are worth it lol
>Worse than now
Its not like it would flip some magic switch to make rising powers have a chance, ether you can gain power over time as a player and therefore have more than new players or you can't, nothing would fundamentally change.
The fundamental problem is this paradox; players would like to be more powerful for playing longer, players would like those who have not played as long to still be able to be overpower ones who have played longer. This is not going to change if the oldest of players are given SOMETHING to do in the late game.
No.3672
>>3669
Sounds nice
when you do could you make it a "king of the hill" thing where in order to post your message (resetting on the wartic) you need to pay equal to or greater than 1m more than the last player?
Because 1 mill is not a lot and it would make for interesting biding wars
No.3673
>>3671
Each statue negates 100 points of damage from attacking troops, or adds 0.1% to the defensive multiplier.
Tower up, boys.
No.3674
>>3672
The value would need to decay per tick back down to the minimum, or else after only a single day the price would be in the hundreds of millions, because we're all asshats like that.
No.3675
>>3672
>(resetting on the wartic)
>>3674
No.3676
>>3675
Whoops, I missed that part. That's what I get for posting at 6AM before sleep.
No.3677
>>3676
its all good, happens to the best of us.
No.3678
>>3650
>>and you acknowledge that and want to go back to it…?
>Exactly!
>I'd like to hear some other player's opinions on this. Am I the only one who dislikes the resource caps and the limits in deals and on the market? What are you doing with your resources once you have built up your nation and your resources have hit the soft caps?
Yes please
>>3671
>this paradox
Once every other month have an “event”
Switching every other event, the SE/NLR will start attacking the 20 largest empires (with more than one nation) with 50x(the number of days since the event began) troops every war tic in each nation; this would not stop until least 10% of the nations of the largest empress have been lost.
Meanwhile the other of the SE/NLR will be able to be attacked by any player not of the 20 largest until twice the 10% of new nations have been conquered.
If one of the players is vassal then have then reversed who is attacking them (SE/NLR).
Thus smaller players will always be growing bigger empires, an unstoppable horde of new blood to threaten the old guard and the old guard will still have reason to conquer new nations, perhaps even to attack each other in an effort to end the event sooner.
No.3682
>>3678
>the old guard will still have reason to conquer new nations
To be attacked by SE/NLR (regardless of their actual relationship, I presume)? No idea when you last checked the game, but there are only 6 empires with more than one nation at the moment. Conquering just one nation would make you a target in the next event.
No.3683
>>3682
>To be attacked by SE/NLR (regardless of their actual relationship, I presume)?
That's the idea.
As for only 6 empires at the moment, in time who knows; having at least 20 would make the game less controlled by each individual emperor/empress.
After more thought, stopping the 20 from attacking each-other during the event would stop them from forming a group and just killing a new comer each time an event happened.
No.3684
>>3683
You know how it could end? 6 empires would go through hell every 2 months with a superpower, losing a nation each time, while the smaller nations won't care because they don't want to go through the same hell in the next event. The power difference would be thus smaller, except that instead of being more empires, there would be none.
No.3686
>>3684
Do you think it would be that big of an deterrent?
Well then just make the events happen for the top 20 with more than 8 nations or something.
No.3714
AAADDDMIIIN, THIS GUY'S EXPLOITING THE ARMOR MARKET!!!!!!!!
BAN WHEN???
No.3715
>>3714
AAADDDMIIIN, THIS GUY'S EXPLOITING THE ARMOR MARKET!!!!!!!!
BAN WHEN???
You're just jealous that my offer is bigger than yours. Peasant.
No.3716
>>3714
Also your resolution is shit
No.3717
>>3715
IT'S OK WHEN I DO IT!!!
No.3718
>>3715
>>3717
Like I said, herding ferrets.
It's the same basic statement as cats, except ferrets don't really have a bone structure you can get a good hold on, and they're oily, and the dig into everything, and…
>>3716
>Also your resolution is shit
I can't read your screenshot without leaning into the screen, and yes, I do need glasses, why do you ask?
No.3719
>>3718
I feel like I'm checking my savings when I look at my offers: "Okay, let's see. I have 2b non-taxable in the buyers market account, 80k safe oil tucked away in the oil hole, 120k copper in the copper stash…"
It's stupid.
No.3769
>>3669
>suggestions
I know I'm late to the party and I'm sure this has been said a thousand times before, but:
I think the Solar Empire and the New Lunar Republic should periodically create dummy empires with self-sustaining production. Say, once every month or two months. These empires would mostly play by the same rules that humans do, with maybe a little fudging, but they would stay off the market, have enormous pre-existing stockpiles, and generally be very difficult opponents to take down. But you would get to keep any nations you were able to conquer.
1. This would allow "raiding parties" which would give players a way to interact positively with one another without always necessarily sowing an equal and opposite amount of negativity (i.e. "I helped player X!" instead of "I helped player X at the expense of player Y!") It would be attractive to the kind of player who does not have the killer PvP instinct currently necessary for high-level play. Which, of course, most players in popular PvP games are sheep rather than wolves, and wolves need sheep to feed upon.
2. This could even replace taxes, as the AI opponents would be difficult enough so that players with higher resource stockpiles would need to lead the charge. I think this could be an especially big advantage, as taxes are pretty aggravating.
3. It would speed empire and alliance building, putting more players into the lategame faster, thus leveling the playing field. After all, suppose each generated Sister empire is seven or ten or thirteen nations strong: one strong player can't conquer or absorb all of those himself, he'll have to join forces with others and mete out rewards for assistance. And so the alliances would likely be grappling for position in the raids.
4. It would create certain incommensurable incentives, such as bragging rights. Or perhaps there could be special buildings that exist only on empire nations–not necessarily overpowered buildings, just buildings with a little twist. Or maybe empire relations could be tweaked for such conquered nations. Such tweaks would change the optimal endgame balance for those nations. Or perhaps such nations could come with a certain stock of serum, so that you could bypass the economic growth and DNA collection that's currently necessary for Ascension if you wanted to. The point is that the reward could be incommensurable and highly desirable, thus adding a little more variety to the gameplay.
No.3770
>>3769
Of course, I also think any one player's Ascension should count as a win condition, and cause the game to be reset on the spot. Maybe I'm just weird.
No.3771
>>3769
Sounds great.
>>3770
>Of course, I also think any one player's Ascension should count as a win condition, and cause the game to be reset on the spot. Maybe I'm just weird.
No thank you.
No.3773
>>3769
Removal of taxes is a bad idea. It leads to a runaway effect.
No.3784
>>3773
Reminder that taxes are killing this game.
No.3785
>>3784
Taxes?
That's what you're going to pin it on? Taxes.
No.3786
Just checking in…
>crying about boredom
See, this is what KoE was fighting to prevent. You complete idiots chose this dedgame as preferable to long-term potential.
If anyone tries to fix it, you'll resist it, just like before.
Honestly, you deserve to be bored out of your skulls; I won't save you again.
No.3787
>>3785
Everyone hates taxes.
>>3786
Long time no see, loser. :P
>I won't save you again.
Both of us know that you would get your shit pushed in again as soon as your nation leaves noob protection.
No.3788
>>3787
And you still insist that you'd rather be bored than consider letting me create a living game.
Thx for proving my point :3
No.3789
>>3786
>>3788
>You complete idiots chose this dedgame as preferable to long-term potential.
>And you still insist that you'd rather be bored than consider letting me create a living game.
What are you even talking about?
No.3790
File: 1440063405108.png (146.35 KB, 532x751, 532:751, 714779__safe_solo_humanize….png)
>>3788
>Thx for proving my point
Of course I'd resist any actions you would take. It's not that hard to figure this out.
By the way, you wanted to achieve everlasting peace by forcing an extensive rule book upon every player. The guild managed to bring peace to this game without shoving a stick up everyone's ass. Clearly we did a better job accomplishing the goal you always claimed to pursue.
No.3791
>>3790
You managed to bring peace by literally shoving everyone out of the game and then quitting; so yeah, congratulations on achieving everything you ever wanted :P
No.3793
>>3791
The fact that you consider yourself along with TKoE and Bluhtsturm as everyone only shows how inflated your ego is.
No.3794
>>3788
>living game
>thinks worldwide peace enforced by his totalitarian regime is 'living game'
Things would be even more stagnant if you got your way. At least now people can start wars still without some asshat trying to sic the whole game on them.
The reasons the game is stagnant now are going to stay the reasons the game is stagnant no matter whether you wave your dick around of not.
No.3795
>>3794
Well, if he wanted to wave his dick around, people would chop it off creating a temporary war economy at least. A blip of activity that would be vaguely noteworthy.
>>3791
>You managed to bring peace by literally shoving everyone out of the game and then quitting;
No one told you cowardly fucks to stasis in the middle of a battle, then try to stealth quit to avoid the repercussions of your own actions. You start a war, accept the fact when you lost and move on. Your group decided it was more honorable to get Admin to ban and delete them while they were in stasis, leaving only bad feelings left towards you because your group attempted to avoid punishment en masse.
>>3787
>Everyone hates taxes.
Ehh, I'm indifferent. It makes stockpiling over 100k annoying, but not impossible though.
I can't say anything about the million unit stockpiles myself though. Stagnation is slowing the game to a crawl, but mostly because no one is acting like an idiot at the moment.
No.3796
>>3794
Exactly this, the state of the game is entirely the result of lack of visibility. The game was at it's largest when it brought in large waves of people when it was based on /mlp/ because more people saw it then. Then because of a decision outside of Admin's control it had to be moved off of 4chan and moved to mlpchan's random board where despite a large drop off it still had enough visibility to attract new members until the decision was made to move it to it's own hidden board there at which point the chance of anyone stumbling across it and wanting to see what it was were rendered nil, and now that its on a random 8chan board it's not in any better a circumstance, when the ads on derpibooru run the game is healthy with the influx of new blood but only until they end and it slowly withers for a few more months. The games stagnet because it doesn't attract new players sitting in a little corner of the internet with a player base that's grown apathetic by now.
The only thing this idiot >>3786
accomplished in all his incompetence was the institution of an awful rubber band mechanic that's strangling the life out of the people who are left.
No.3798
>>3795
I meant taxes in real life. I'm pretty sure everyone hates those (except for politicans).
At least some players have to like the taxes in Clop, r-right?
>>3796
Thanks for reminding me to download Episode 7!
No.3799
The taxes only exist because if they didn't, people would just grow indefinitely and newbies would never have a chance against indefinitely stockpiled goods.
If you want new players, invite them.
I'll advertise again sometime, probably Derpi again.
No.3800
>>3799
Plenty of nerdy autists on FIMFiction.
No.3801
>>3794
>At least now people can start wars still without some asshat trying to sic the whole game on them.
If you can figure out a way to have a war without bringing in the whole game, I'd be glad to hear it. Right now, there's no way for a war to exist that won't result in large empires getting larger, whether or not the current empires were involved at all.
>Things would be even more stagnant if you got your way
You still don't understand what my goals even were. I wanted the game to be playable, which means not stagnant. Instead, you resisted, which naturally led to you successfully making the game stagnant. Congrats, you've gotten exactly what you wanted and fought for, so keep on complaining about it :P
No.3802
>>3801
> Instead, you resisted, which naturally led to you successfully making the game stagnant.
You assholes using your free will to resist the glorious golden future that I don't have to tell you about because it's easier to force you to acquiesce–
Wait no, why are you guys fighting back at all, I quit because quitting is easy, you guys are jerks for not being enlightened by my magnificence.
It's clearly our fault for not understanding your undeniable truth, and instead deciding to live on by our own choices instead.
Man, remember when TKoE just wanted to take that Saddle? And you guys were bloviating about how FC was the true villian, and you were just white knights trying to save people from our villainy?
Isn't it fun to rewrite history?
No.3803
>>3799
>The taxes only exist because if they didn't, people would just grow indefinitely and newbies would never have a chance against indefinitely stockpiled goods.
The better solution is a sink for resources that's interesting and useful enough that it's worth using. Taxes make people feel like they're punished for growing, at which point they just stop playing. Interesting and useful resource sinks make people feel like they're being rewarded for investing more time into the game.
At the moment, war doesn't work because war both punishes the attacker and is way too large scale to bother with because the population is way too low for any single war to not be everyone's interest.
An espionage system might be interesting, but dangerous and volatile.
A lot of people have already suggested some kind of PvE thing.
You could also add other options for war other than the all-or-nothing that it is now. Such as say, raiding parties. This one seems a little pointless though if combat stays the same as it is now, unless they can accomplish their goal /without/ winning the 'battle'.
>>3801
>If you can figure out a way to have a war without bringing in the whole game, I'd be glad to hear it.
>I wanted the game to be playable, which means not stagnant.
The key word was 'sic'. As in, under your regime, any fighting would be punished by giving everyone a free pass to attack them without getting this same treatment in return. Thus, you would actively stifle war and make the game more stagnant.
There's been plenty of small wars and conquests since you've been gone. These could never have happened if you'd gotten your way.
No.3804
>>3802
Please note, the invasion of FC was not supported by the majority of their members, and the following morale dive was what truly lost the war for them.
No.3805
>>3804
I'd pin that on the overabundance of malls eating the little copper production they had and severely limiting their offensive capabilities which they were once again to idiotic to notice, as well as the fact that after Aryan casually plucked one of their burros those malls would have dwindled that supply too. They were losing anyway due to their own incompetence again, their decision to pussy out just cut it short.
No.3806
>>3803
>The better solution is a sink for resources that's interesting and useful enough that it's worth using.
Statues
>PvE thing.
Yes
10/10 Post Tyrannis
No.3807
Taxes
Because of taxes…
Deals are a hassle
Buyers market is kill
Less than 60k allowed on the market
Mall Superstates are impossible
Face it Admin Taxes are just a pain
No.3808
>>3805
I was on the inside. We had more than enough copper. Yes, we had sugar issues, but solutions were in the works. Of course, the morale dip… The malls helped.
No.3809
File: 1440298914825.png (1.38 MB, 2091x3064, 2091:3064, 417c3c4f3eb28395832b5ab3b5….png)
>>3807
>Deals are a hassle
>Buyers market is kill
>Less than 60k allowed on the market
>Mall Superstates are impossible
Exactly. Taxes and the measures taken to avoid tax evasion are affecting the gameplay in a really negative way.
Instead of punishing and trying to prevent certain playstyles, you should encourage favorable playstyles in some way.
No.3810
>>3806
>Statues
>interesting and useful
This is supposed to be a joke, right?
No.3820
>>3810
They could be, given a competitive yet long term upgrade.
No.3826
>>3820
Even if statues were somehow made interesting and useful (I doubt they can be both), that's only a sink for ONE resource.