Request: Double Issue Inbox Size

[Lord Dominator]

I would like to request that the number of issues a single nation can hols at a time be double from 5 to 10. Back when issues came every 12 hours, this would have represented a timespan of 2.5 days for the inbox to fill, while now with one every 6 hours that time is only 1.25 days. Speaking as someone who can't always login daily, I think doubling the inbox size to account for the doubling in issue receiving speed years back is perfectly reasonable, and moves the stats/issue component of the game back to the historical norm of login needs.

[Jar Wattinree]

There's absolutely no way this wouldn't be abused at all. I'd just let the issues pile up on those nations I've deliberately built via the most extreme options of issues I could find and then, click, be ten issues deep into a ridiculous stat boost. That absolutely won't be unbalanced at all.

[Honeydewistania]

Just use the 12 hour throttle

[Lord Dominator]

Just use the 12 hour throttle

At which point I am disadvantaged relative to other issues players who can and do login in daily.

There's absolutely no way this wouldn't be abused at all. I'd just let the issues pile up on those nations I've deliberately built via the most extreme options of issues I could find and then, click, be ten issues deep into a ridiculous stat boost. That absolutely won't be unbalanced at all.

Which is the same thing as doing so with 2 sets of 5 under the current inbox size. Your proposed 'unbalanced' method would be no change to the current ability to do the same, sans one single jump rather than two smaller jumps in stats. I am not proposing any change in issue frequency, only a return to the 2.5 day period for a full inbox.

[Bormiar]

I really like this, though I don't understand Jar's comment. Wouldn't doing this give you the same stat changes as if you answered the issues right when they came?

[The Unified Missourtama States]

I would overall be in support, but I disagree with this not having negative consequences, I see this change causing an increase in puppets, and possibly messing with the TCALS changes.

I don't see any obvious ways that this might change any current safety systems in place in the game, although I feel that this may give a bigger buff to TCALS pull-events than we think it might. The TCALS nerf was something incredibly important that helped sustain the long-term health and competitiveness of cards collecting and I feel is important to sustain that, and that adding issues may hurt the ability of small farmers to always fit in the 2-minute drop place. In more simple area of cards, this also allows less work for farmers, as they can let puppets "fruit" longer allowing them to have more puppets, and let us be honest, nobody wants more puppet nations in the world.

[Galdanulia]

I have to disagree with the AN. Let's say I was a card farmer, and the change was just made to increase the issue inbox size to ten. I excitedly make a bunch more puppets, because I can get twice as many issues, and hence twice as many cards, each time I check a nation. Problem: that doesn't change how long it takes to solve an issue, it only raises the number of issues I'll have. Sure, I'll get twice as many issues, but it'll take me twice as long to solve them as well.

Personally, I love this idea.

[Noahs Second Country]

I have to agree with TUMS, this means farmers will switch half as often during pull events, which could be problematic.

I'd still welcome the change though.

[Honeydewistania]

I have to disagree with the AN. Let's say I was a card farmer, and the change was just made to increase the issue inbox size to ten. I excitedly make a bunch more puppets, because I can get twice as many issues, and hence twice as many cards, each time I check a nation. Problem: that doesn't change how long it takes to solve an issue, it only raises the number of issues I'll have. Sure, I'll get twice as many issues, but it'll take me twice as long to solve them as well.

Personally, I love this idea.

Except that instead of answering a max of 5 issues in 2 minutes, which involves quickly and randomly pressing buttons, now they'll answer 10 issues in 2 minutes.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

I have to disagree with the AN. Let's say I was a card farmer, and the change was just made to increase the issue inbox size to ten. I excitedly make a bunch more puppets, because I can get twice as many issues, and hence twice as many cards, each time I check a nation. Problem: that doesn't change how long it takes to solve an issue, it only raises the number of issues I'll have. Sure, I'll get twice as many issues, but it'll take me twice as long to solve them as well.

Personally, I love this idea.

Thank you for telling us how you got your 28.17 bank of deck value, however, farmers do things differently; oftentimes, switching takes more time than answering, this is true whether you are farming manually, or with containerise and gotissuses answering, switching takes the most time and yields nothing.

However overall, this change wouldn't tilt the field it would raise it evenly (although that will still be problematic), this proposal to increase the issues inbox has my full support.

[Jar Wattinree]

There's absolutely no way this wouldn't be abused at all. I'd just let the issues pile up on those nations I've deliberately built via the most extreme options of issues I could find and then, click, be ten issues deep into a ridiculous stat boost. That absolutely won't be unbalanced at all.

Which is the same thing as doing so with 2 sets of 5 under the current inbox size. Your proposed 'unbalanced' method would be no change to the current ability to do the same, sans one single jump rather than two smaller jumps in stats. I am not proposing any change in issue frequency, only a return to the 2.5 day period for a full inbox.

Except you're taking two days, two separate instances of issue answering (assuming you answer all five at once), and condensing it into one day, however long you've waited to get those issues. That is unbalanced, because you're getting twice the result on one day rather than it being spread out over two days. The jumps would be more noticeable.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

Except you're taking two days, two separate instances of issue answering (assuming you answer all five at once), and condensing it into one day, however long you've waited to get those issues. That is unbalanced, because you're getting twice the result on one day rather than it being spread out over two days. The jumps would be more noticeable.

Yes, but it's still the same changes, so what if the graph looks different? There is no problem here, maybe you misunderstand how issue effects work.

[Lord Dominator]

Which is the same thing as doing so with 2 sets of 5 under the current inbox size. Your proposed 'unbalanced' method would be no change to the current ability to do the same, sans one single jump rather than two smaller jumps in stats. I am not proposing any change in issue frequency, only a return to the 2.5 day period for a full inbox.

Except you're taking two days, two separate instances of issue answering (assuming you answer all five at once), and condensing it into one day, however long you've waited to get those issues. That is unbalanced, because you're getting twice the result on one day rather than it being spread out over two days. The jumps would be more noticeable.

I still don't see the problem, since only the perception of how big individual changes are is changing. The actual stat changes remain the same as they would. I personally wouldn't have a problem with someone passing me in stats in such a manner, simply because a brief glance can tell me what they're doing (and obviously, they have the same chances on getting an individual issue as I do).

I have no comment on the card farming impacts, not being one myself.

[Galdanulia]

I have to disagree with the AN. Let's say I was a card farmer, and the change was just made to increase the issue inbox size to ten. I excitedly make a bunch more puppets, because I can get twice as many issues, and hence twice as many cards, each time I check a nation. Problem: that doesn't change how long it takes to solve an issue, it only raises the number of issues I'll have. Sure, I'll get twice as many issues, but it'll take me twice as long to solve them as well.

Personally, I love this idea.

Thank you for telling us how you got your 28.17 bank of deck value, however, farmers do things differently; oftentimes, switching takes more time than answering, this is true whether you are farming manually, or with containerise and gotissuses answering, switching takes the most time and yields nothing.

However overall, this change wouldn't tilt the field it would raise it evenly (although that will still be problematic), this proposal to increase the issues inbox has my full support.

For the record, not a card farmer.

[Corindia]

There's absolutely no way this wouldn't be abused at all. I'd just let the issues pile up on those nations I've deliberately built via the most extreme options of issues I could find and then, click, be ten issues deep into a ridiculous stat boost. That absolutely won't be unbalanced at all.

how is this different than doing five issues twice? This just reduces dailies. Granted, that itself might be bad, but not sure how stats changes would be accelerated.

[Flanderlion]

I'm for this. For me personally, I haven't always recently be able to manage doing all my issues within the day (or 1.5 days before you begin to miss out on issues) and hit the dreaded 5 issue mark with the last issue received more than 6 hours ago.

Re cards, I personally think the only real solution is going to be accounts which would allow card pack rate limits per user rather than per nation. Allowing 10 rather than 5 issues (or 8 if going from 1 digit to 2 might mess up formatting somewhere) won't significantly change the current card meta so shouldn't be a major factor in this.

[Makdon]

This sounds good to me, and I honestly don’t understand what Jar is talking about. How will something all players will have available be unbalanced? I don’t know what problems this will cause with cards, but I suspect they could be fixed with proper calibrations.