I have trouble visualizing that lol. Too tired - brain gonna exploded lol. I know of something called olark, and I guess the principle would be the same, minus the chat going only to one person. I suppose the idea would pretty much be the same, except for how it's coded and the ultimate end result.

Ok, let me get this straight, you want to waste YOUR turns retalling a guy who's gonna self-delete? Aside from obtaining acres, what purpose would that serve?

How would that work? I'm asking, because the way the layout has been created may not make this possible.

You got that right bro! :D

What do you wanna do with so much missiles? Sounds like a suicide plan...

All of these ideas are amazing! Kudos to the OP for that great idea.

@Marshal, I disagree. If you have zero turns, this means you can't attack or do anything to gain resources. If you're a farmer, without turns you'll only be able to buy so much with the food you'll sell. Furthermore, you'll have lost a lot of money in the process, especially with Xninja's idea about being forced to buy top of the line units (in other words, whichever is more expensive, those are the ones you buy, regardless of whether it's on the priv or pub market!).

@everyone in general. Now, as for the idea of spending all turns, that by itself means one thing: you spend ~76 turns (thus 38 purchases) WITHOUT producing anything. That's a hit to any country, regardless how you see it. He loses turns, food, troops/turrets/tanks AND the most important resource, money. Now, he must spend MORE turns to produce anything at all to then sell it... losing even more money in the process.

This is a win-win situation, no matter how you look at it. After all, that guy will lose all of that and has been taken the ability to attack that nite OR to a large extent the next day.

Of course, a limit could be placed if there were issues. Maybe up to 20 turns (10 possible purchases).

As the title says, we should have a script for that. Of course, not only for spies, but for attacks. During wars when all of a sudden, you're told that by the script, you wanna have more time to either FA a specific amount of goods, drop land or whatever you need to! I don't wanna send 50mil worth if I only need to send at very least 5mil for example. Not only that, I wanna know the dif amounts so that I don't waste my time trying to figure that stuff out.

The reality is that if someone stonewalls, they could still die if he's spied again, rushed and then doesn't have time to respond the second time around. Stonewalling itself has become obsolete to a certain extent, unless you catch it (while having two tabs open), defend, switch to the other tab and press on the main menu button continuously to see if they stopped GSing/BRing - OR, you blindly buy troops/turrets in a set pattern (like after each 3 seconds). Ideally, people wanna rush a player, knowing full well he might be online like any other player.

The captcha system is irritating, but the most annoying thing isn't something you can control - it's the illegible words, ugh.

lol @ Celphi's error.

I want a donut... a Boston Cream would be nice.

Speak about bad luck :(

The bastards.

Not sure Juice, it depends how it's handled. If we assume that EE holds our data in their databases, then all the other sites would do would check the time. But then again, since we can't know that for sure, I hope this could be fixed :(

@SpeedWood, yeah for sure. lol. The only one that no one cares about is the 18 hours ones lol, since it wouldn't change much for us.

It says 24 hours, but in fact it's more like 24 hours plus 3-10 minutes. Not sure if this is meant to be more than 24 hours, but for those of us with a tighter schedule, that gets more complicated. Imagine one week, right there you have to add at least 21 minutes.

Korean forum

I agree with blid. Makes no sense to disable it - it would be like being unable to access spy operations page simply because you didn't have spies.

Unless you can concretely prove your point, then this is pure speculation on your part.

Well said Viceroy.

lol, that message doesn't sound right if someone sends a missile.

In other words, you agree with me that his point is moot.

Yes I did @Tellarion! On the contrary, @h2orich is the one who is right.

All of it is a gamble, and my suggestion makes no difference in the grander scheme of things, since it too is merely a gamble ;)

I cannot say that there are any true cookie cutter build that actually exist, nor could exist, even by implementing my suggestion. After all, if we all build the same builds, then what difference does it make?

I agree. It should. No wonder a lot of people get confused :/ Most just don't even notice it though.

You should add this as [sug] @h2orich!

Good point elvesrus.

Concerning your second point, there would need to be a greater discussion. As it stands now, we're talking mostly about people who either worked with the code itself, or one some of the rare people who know so much about the game that this particular discussion isn't even focused on normal players like myself. So far, I haven't seen one good (or valid) argument. Even Xinhuan himself says the idea isn't bad. He does not praise it either, but he understands the value in at least having a discussion.

This is definitely an idea that merits a real discussion with clan members. I've proposed changes in the past, but never cared much about the results. But this particular idea is truly worth defending till the end. By no means is it a perfect idea, but it's a damn good one. For some people it will add more value, to others it might change nothing. All it needs is some polishing, some minor tweaks, and voila.

The fact remains that the numbers have been declining ever since Earth: 2025. Do we need some changes? Yes. I have played some clones of Earth: 2025, but God are they ever worthless. Earth Empires is the only game that closely resembles Earth: 2025 in terms of UI and gameplay. Although, it would be a good idea to add ideas to the mix sometimes. To keep it more interesting. There are how many servers? *waits for elvesrus to calculate* See? Who says it has to be implemented on all those servers? Personally, I say we make one of the servers a test server for these types of ideas. If people love it, we'll know soon enough.

Thanks tellarion, much appreciated :)

@h2orich: You can't know who gonna's run what. So, you're either gonna be having a better set you you originally planned, or a worst one. I guess, this is the extent to what you could say.

@Xinhuan: Imagine you are playing on the PS4. So, you prefer shooter games, I prefer RPG's. The value for me of a great shooter or a terrible shooter is pretty much the same, correct? As for RPG's, I could put a real value on whether game X is better or worst than game Z.

What I am saying is that for me it does add a lot of value. Here is why: it can add a lot of enjoyability in the process. At least, I can enjoy that added bonus because it actually means more to me than without it.

Oh, I didn't see your link there Xinhuan. Gonna check it now... thanks for that. So it'll always be formula*.999, regardless of the turn you're at for the day?

Thanks @Marshal. The .999 includes the army guys eating bushels then?

Thanks Marshal.

@Xinhuan. I tend to stay away from Google at times, since there are always 5-10 answers for many expressions out there. Didn't want to take it for granted the one I chose would have been the right one. So asking is better.

It does add something positive in my opinion. Here is why: you have to choose carefully what will become your strengths and weaknesses. Fine, have the strengths you want, but you have to be careful about the weaknesses you choose. For example, take a Rep cashier, he's already fluffed at -10% power compared to a dict at +25%. So, as a rep cashier, do you improve on your power a bit? Or do you worsen it? What do you do? I like having to torment myself to choose, so do all RPG gamer - hence why we start over the same damn game, so as to try a new possibility.

As for creating a cookie cutter builds, that's utter bull. RPG's don't have those, because you ALWAYS weaken yourself in some way or other. So, you end up going maybe at 60% in one direction and then 40% in another. Or maybe 60% str, 30% def and 10% magic. You know what I mean? Imagine, fine, a warrior cookie cutter build, 65% str, 25% def and 10% magic. You're fluffed big time. Don't tell me you can create a cookie cutter build while sacrificing nothing. If you empower yourself somehow, but you weaken yourself some other way!

Also, I was proposing we have a cap as to prevent what you would see as a cookie cutter build. So that argument in my eyes is invalid.

@Xinhuan. That is decay? Shouldn't decay be packaged in with the loss per turn though?

Also, how can decay be twice the amount of food intake? In this case, we are talking about less than 2 bil food in stock.



fluff you Marshal.

What is that cookie cutter expression about?

As for the rest of your comment Xinhuan, you fail to demonstrate how it would negatively impact the game. When you play Neverwinter Nights for example, you have pre-determined packages, but most people don't go that way. Instead, they choose what abilities they want, plus the skills.

As for your last statement, no one is forcing someone to take a customized government. You really are taking players for stupid. My idea is NOT complicated, it's freaking simple dude. If someone really doesn't want to deal with a customizable government, fine, they take a pre-packaged govt type - problem solved.

ttt

I'm not gonna let this GREAT idea unanswered! This certainly deserves at least a trial run. I can't imagine anyone being against this idea. It's smart, refreshing, interesting, and adds a degree of difficulty for players.

If not, then anyone who read this post deserves to know real reasons why this would not be a good idea. The reason you gave earlier is not a real answer in my eyes, only an answer to not implement an interesting idea. So I'm still waiting.

Started with X amount of food. We will say 100 mil for math purposes. I was losing X amount - I will say 50K per turn (only because I don't want to state the real amount).

Imagine you lose around 49K and the last turn 50K, and let us say you have 100 turns. Basic math would state that you would do 50K x 100 = around the amount of food you would lose, which would mean 5 mil.

Now that you thought of all of this, now imagine the amount being lost times 3. This is what happened to me today when I verified. wtf?

In the example this would amount to 15 mil. I will not state what amount I actually lost, but you get the picture. Again, wtf???

Actually, this is exactly what could be done by some players.

I highly disagree with your second comment. On the contrary, I believe most players (around 60%) would use the common governments. Although, I'm pretty sure there is a considerate amount of players who would like this opportunity to fiddle around the numbers and add (and remove) buffs/debuffs.

The reality is that some people are using strats using specific govts, while they are perfect as training tools, or if you don't want to spend time fiddling around with changing numbers and/or adding/removing buffs/debuffs. So if we could be given the chance, it would be awesome.

Come on qzjul, honestly tell me that this idea would not be worth implementing, with actual valid reasons. You gotta admit, this would help the game veterans in renewing their passion for the game :D

Let me explain my idea using the Fascism type of government:

Current:
+15% Food Production
+50% Oil Production
-10% Maximum Per Capita Income
-15% Population

Now, imagine if we take Food Production which is currently at 15%. Which is fine and all, but what if we modify it, or even remove it, or replace it with something else etc. What if i create a new form of government? Of course, everyone could create their own and name it whatever they want - barred any existing (or similar) names such as Dictatorship. This said, when spying someone, you would receive the specs of his government :) and will be permanently added to your spy reports until the next set. In the Scores page, the letter could be "S".

Thus, with our example of Fascism, everyone would need to spend 100 POSITIVE points and 100 NEGATIVE points altogether, as every government has both positive AND negative points.

So, 15% could be considered 35 POSITIVE points, and oil production could be considered 65 POSITIVE points. While the negative capita and negative population would each be considered -50 NEGATIVE points. Thus, each would have a total of 100 points, meaning a grand total of 200 points spent. Half in positive, and half in negative.

Therefore, if we consider the initial example with the Food Production of +15%, then +5% could equate to 11 positive points; as for +10% would equate to 23 positive points. This said, any positive points would be rounded down. Of course the grand total of anything could equate between 97-103 points.

Lastly, I understand that we don't want people to create massive killing machines or whatever other type of machine. Let us take Dictatorship with it's +25% power. Perhaps the maximum could be 50%.

OR

we state that any one item cannot be more than 65 points. For example, Dictatorship has the following stats:

+25% Military Strength
+30% Spy Effectiveness
-30% Construction Speed
+33% Ghost Acres


The ghost acres equate to 1 point per extra percentage of ghost acre. So 33% equates to 33 points.
As for the spy effectiveness, each point per percentage equates to 1.1 points. In the end, 33 points.
As for Military Strength, It also equates to the same type of math. 33 points.

So this said, if we say that the mil strength can't be more than 50%, this equates to 65 points (66, but fluff it, we'll round it down a point for convenience).

I know that my idea may not be explained as properly as I want to explain it, but it would take too long to explain an idea that may or may not get shot down.

Any ideas about this? Personally, I like the idea of choosing your strengths AND your weaknesses. I think this can be implemented very easily, provided that the math is agreed upon :)

I don't like it either. No one does -_-

People don't like change. Look at craigslist. Looks like utter fluff, but everyone likes it because that is what they are accustomed to. Of course, the old design of the portal did not look like fluff. It looked good. We want it back.

That would be perfect to get new player countries bombarded -_- Talk about inviting new players to become suiciders on someone because of their impatience. No, not express. Either a new server, OR a revamped server for the purpose of facebook/apps play.

No, I often switch between both. If I play STO, I can't use FF (because it messes it up after a while). If I don't play STO, then I use FF.

Whenever I log using either FF or Chrome, I always have to redo it (whenever I change browsers that is).

Does anyone know of any (free) software or free web based software I can use for the following purpose:

I want to be able to create images. I tried using http://pixlr.com/ and it's not as advanced as the software (or web based software) that I am looking for. I'm not talking about simply adding or modifying images with photoshop, which is fine for most things. But, I want to be able to easily create something from scratch. I find softwares like photoshop impossible to deal with in terms of actually creating images. The reality is that it does not possess the advanced power that images created with other professional software offer (I would presume). I don't think I could achieve something as nice as this using photoshop http://fc08.deviantart.net/...verse_by_ANTIFAN_REAL.jpg

Basically, I am looking for a software that allows that possibility but that gives you the ease of doing so. For someone with limited knowledge of design.

Thanks! I'll take a look at that as well - the turns aspect that is. I hadn't thought about that to be honest, but now I know :D

So I take it my formula is correct then? Thank you.

Imagine you have 1,000,000,000 (1bil) to spend.

Let us assume that troops are $100 and jets/turrets at $135 while tanks are $420.

Networth is troops or jets/turrets multiplied by:

.5 (for troops)

.6 (for jets/turrets)

2 (for tanks)



The Networth for those troops you max out comes to $5,000,000

The Networth for those jets/turrets you max out comes to $4,444,444

The Networth for those tanks you max out comes to $4,761,905



So, the troops in this particular case is the best option, correct? Can someone lemme know if this is correctly equated? I changed the numbers to make it easier to calculate on my end, as I am trying to better understand what to max out near the end of the game. That is, even though this won't be the exact math, I am trying to better see if this is the correct formula.

Ditto. Other bonus bugs on top of that one.

This fluff happens to me too, even when I don't clear my cache/cookies. There is certainly a bug in the code still.

Then THIS should be interesting :D

@ Riddler, I am sure there are one man clans out there ready to jump in the war :p It'll shift the whole paradigm of the war.