Please use this thread to share any feedback, suggestions, or complaints based on your experience playing on the Cooperation server so far. Let me know if you'd like a response to your comments. Thank you for helping to improve the server.

Probably just a "first reset" thing, but it seems like there should be fewer c/i bots for market purposes. If a techer or farmer doesn't win with these prices it's because all the techers and farmers sucked.

The search feature continues to be awesome.

Personally, with how many turns acountry can hold at once, I'd like to see them roll in a little faster but YMMV.

Thanks again for trying to continuously improve the game here.

Just make this server 1a for pansies and take bots out of 1a

Allow tag switching and tag member dropping. Perhaps just add some type of security measure and maybe a penalty for tag jumping. Give bots more land and other resources before coming oop to allow them the ability to build faster making it more challenging for real players to catch up and break them.

Not a bad idea. I concur remove bots from 1a Alliance server for PvP only.

What if we changed tag average networth to another metric? I'm not sure that it's so meaningful for a server like this. Any ideas? It would be nice to remove the penalty for having someone inactive in your tag.

Delete inactive countries..

Turn inactive countries into bots. But don't allow the player to start any new ones for the remainder of the reset. Make vacation mode 7 days only.

Tag admin should have ability to boot/remove inactive players after 5 days.

I would like to see spy ops increased by 10.

People should have the ability to detag.

Avg networth should still be divided by 10 players. One person tags winning ANW is silly.

How would you define inactive? You can hoard turns for upwards of 7 days I think, on this server. And what if they are spending a very minimal amount of turns?

Better question, why does it matter if some other country is inactive?

I like the current spy op rate. It requires a group to coordinate and work together.
I agree that a one person tag shouldn't be considered for an ANW title.

I'm indifferent on the other aspects since I'm not an admin, I'll let others speak to that.

Keep ANW. But make a "combined title" that uses all relevant metrics; members, TNW, ANW, T10 countries, top rank and the alliance that scores the lowest sum of combined ranks in all of these gets put first. that way if you drop members you might gain on ANW but since you lose tnw and members its not very clear if its even an advantage for you.

Example
Clan A is
4th in ANW
top country ranked 1st
3rd in members
2nd in TNW
3rd in number of top 10 countries

So they get 4+1+3+2+3 = 13 in score which is a very strong score that might make them #1 or #2 among all clans (lower score is better)

If they drop 2 low ranked members they might be 4th in members, and they might even get a worse TNW rank, even if they get up to 3rd in ANW.

You can always make it so that you cant drop people unless its before the last 10 days or something, thereby making it a very difficult choice that most leaders wont see a reason to do.

I have no issues with the above proposal. It seems to be a pretty elegant solution to the problem.

Allowing detagging is going to lead to abuse because players don't have access to war as a means to resolve disputes. For example, a player could join a tag and benefit from spy ops, offensive allies, and research allies all set only to detag and join another tag. A tag could recruit a new player to help with spy ops and detag them at the end of the round to raise their average networth.

The average networth calculation is currently bugged but that will be fixed before the end of the round.

You could make it to where you could not drop people in the last 15 days. I just do not think a tag should be held accountable for someone who plays for 2-3 days and then stops logging in.

When it comes to your metric I can see what you are trying to do, but I think it needs to be explained a little differently the outcome not the example. Take the alliances that are right now and use it like it is the end of the set.

Using SKA who is currently 3rd in membership, 1st in TNW, and 2nd in ANW.

This would mean that they get an alliance score of 6.

I am not sure how hard it would be to code number of top 10 countries. How would you score alliances that have 0?




I can see your point of view. I would be happy with 5 more ops. I just am not a fan of just 5 is all.

Could we set it to something that if they are below x in NW and have not played in x amount of days?

Suggestion:

Create a cumulative Top Clans page. It's purpose is for Total Networth to be tracked as the years go on (like players have). It's round 1 - everyone will know to re-use the same tag. It's encouragement to play multiple rounds and keep your clan alive. There's no war clans to blind side us so the rankings would be fair play.

Unless someone steals it. For this feature the clan admin would have to have it auto recreated, saved, or a feature sort of like utopia had back in the day do you want to stay with this clan next set. That way it cannot be hijacked.

I think a middle ground would be: the ability to detag countries still in protection. Or less than 1 day worth of turns? I know I have made multiple attempts to return only to immediately stop playing. The country would be unable to assist and the admin would be able to remove that `100 $4717 M CountryName` country.

Slip?

llaar restarted NA. I made a country and am actually playing it.

I can't imagine anyone cares about this

Nobody, literally nobody, cares about your opinion. Until you can admit when you said extremely ignorant and false things, the words you type are meaningless.


Also, not for nothing, but in any of these suggestion threads all you ever do is act like your opinion is the only one that matters. When in reality it's probably the only one that doesn't. Do us all a favor and go back into hiding.

So it's like golf, lowest score wins?


I like the idea someone else had with records/cumulative score keeping from round to round, giving people a reason to keep working for a clan, creating a legacy. If the scores are boiled down to 'points' so to speak, the points aren't norm referenced or anything, so they become meaningless across sets. Only downside to that option, I think.

I think this would just incentivize pushing a single country - it would be tougher without FA and the way SO's work fairly now, but I don't think it's what I would hope for with the server. Specifically, having one country get to #1 is more important than pretty much all the other categories given the variance (e.g. if 11 is the max value you can get for not placing in top 10). This is also something that could just be done by anyone (like a rankings thread at the end of the set).

The cumulative records over time is certainly pretty interesting, and something that's a little tougher to do outside of the game. I like the idea of ANW mattering, because it helps distinguish those who work together versus maybe having more numbers with players who put in minimal effort to help (it's still good, and those players are necessary and helpful with spy ops etc, but I'd argue higher ANW means they likely had someone doing that and more).

Would it be easy enough to allow players to detag (or be detagged) if they haven't attacked or spied at all? This would get those players who logged in one day to never return. If your tag is open to randoms though, I think there's a limit on reasonable accommodations for this.

I like the idea. We could definitely come up with a better algorithm, but the base idea is cool.

fewer CI :)

Simple buffs to specific strats each set to change the status quo/meta.
Each set the buffs would reset and a different strat would receive a buff. This could rotate every 6 sets or something.

Or if creating buffs to each strat is too complex (undoubtedly), the easier solution would be to add or subtract bots of the strats you are trying to buff/nerf each set. For example, reduce the amount of commies next set so CI receives a buff, and so forth. The addition would rotate each set (thinking odd and even set numbers).

Really like that idea, Rasp! Changing the meta and creating a scenario where the outcomes are less predictable would be a lot of fun.

I also was wondering if you're the OG Slip....lol welcome back!

Yeah, it could be cool, but it would need to be done unpredictably; otherwise, we could game that system, IMO.

Tech is way too expense. Oil is too expensive and food is insanely expensive.

I went as a dict casher. Probably just as bad if not worse than going commie Indy.

Market conditions are what they are, the server dicatates that internally through strat mix. I agree, I almost went dict cash too it would have been awful.

I also really like Rasp's idea of changing the bot mix randomly every set, doesn't require actual changes to programming to change the meta every set. The "seasons" are how Blizzard made Diablo 3 keep insane popularity for a decade, it's obviously a winning formula.

Hell, it doesn't even have to be set where it's predictable:
Set 1: Commie bots reduced, Set 2: Commie bots reset, Casher bots reduced, Set 3: Casher bots reset, Farmer bots reduced, etc

Instead, if it was randomized, that would be even better.

We will have oil on the PM next round.

No!!!!! Make those fluffes buy my 900 per barrel oil!

I am surprised you'd want to add oil on the PM. For Express, I think it makes sense for a variety of reasons, but I'm not sure that really makes sense for this server.

That said, I'm also surprised no one is stepping up to supply the volumes given the number of non-bot Fasc on the server (or maybe some large demos are doing a bit of speculation...). That said, I'm sure they're happy with the bushel prices too, so maybe they're just heads down (rolling in cash).

As a large demo, bushels are unattractive. That leaves market speculation. Hope I don't get burned!

Just wait until I have have resource decay bonus next round.

Just pumped $8b into the jets for the c/i's hoping something would change

huzzah!

edit: ~What about missiles?~ lol oops, this is coop forum.

This works if you set the pm prices in line with how food works, with high sell and buy prices. But that would also destroy any remaining utility in destocking.

Instead just increase the amount of units it gives on pm and you'll solve all the problems.

If you do that, you should also reduce the amount of oil needed per unit to attack.

If the oil supply is lower, consumption should be as well– given you do not want it on the PM.

There are 153 human players in the server.

Unfortunately, at least 50 of them or 33% of them have stopped playing.

Would be great if the mods can approach these players through pm and get feedback from them to find out why they stopped playing.

This means I have a shot at top 100.....woohoo!

We should only require half the oil - 98% of our units are going on a one way trip!

Oh, that's an interesting idea. Make SS only use 50% of normal.

The point is to raise the oil supply by setting a higher minimum value so oil will hold more value at the end of a set. Currently it's a gamble to produce oil as over supply makes the oil fairly worthless. It's required for grabbing but largely pointless for jumping.

earthquakes suck on large countries... just had 2 and needed a half days worth of turns to rebuild from that! why are they even a feature? they randomly penalize a player for no real reason IMO

There's a new earthquake related bonus that you probably want to get.

I would love an Express coop version so Superfly wont suicide on me (so I can play without defense) :)

Will there be any changes next set that your aware of?