Eco Dev Tracker

It's unfortunately not uncommon for Eco to be flagged by some antivirus software after an update for a while, it's a false positive.

My Windows Defender is not triggering like yours and VirusTotal also looks fine: https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/db508018185bb1d8c71d7935feac671b1fb10b07dbe385b48655132dae8ec04b/detection

Should be fixed in 11.1.5.

There isn't too much difference anymore since the discounted multi-packages are no longer offered, licenses on either Steam or SLG can be linked to the respective other. If you purchase on our website we voluntarily provide a slightly better refund option of 14 days with no matter the amount of time played (compared to 2 hours on Steam for most countries) - but only if the account was not yet linked to Steam. (As we can't easily revoke Steam licenses)

The CO2 offset of plants is the factor we're going to make flexible based on world size to have a better representation even with over-sized worlds, also removing the cap to allow players to actually have impact by adding new plant life to the ecosystem, having a different means than pollution restrictions to address issues. Additionally all animals are supposed to actually remove plants from the world as part of their diet, which they currently don't do - so basically make sure that your fields are fenced in or there might be some losses, especially if there is no natural plant sources left. Without any food around, the animals will die, though.

Basing it on active player counts is unfortunately neither simple to do to begin with nor easy to balance, so that's not something we're planning. It would also partially remove player agency in pollution, if adjustments were simply made based on how many players are around instead of players actually being the cause of issues tha...

And that's no surprise given what I already noted.

https://wiki.play.eco/en/Server_Configuration#Change_World_Size

12 players is still coop, so default size.

And how often did you play on a server with a world size that supported the player count and that did nothing against the problem? E.g. comparable to the official servers, not going beyond 1km² if there isn't at least more than hundred people, staying on 0.52 km² if its notable less than 50?

Also, it's kinda not the goal of Eco to have the world flood - data for official servers suggests the occurance is of a frequency as we expect it. We are not however responsible for the configuration of other servers - it's understandable and fully fine if those value other needs higher, but it has never been a secret or unknown that the world capacity needs to fit for pollution to pose any threat.

That's exactly what I was saying - you are likely playing a server that isn't using fitting configuration for their player count. We've been constantly repeating and it's noted on the wiki that the ecologic part of Eco only works when the capacity of the world for handling pollution is in balance with the player count, e.g. mostly the server having chosen a fitting world size for the audience.

That unfortunately is not the case for many servers, as many communities value a higher space higher and opt for large servers despite lower player numbers. When the world size is selected fittingly for the player count pollution absolutely does play a role without anyone needing to pollute on purpose. That is well visible on many of the official server cycles, multiple per year ending in a flooded world. White Tiger requires laws to restrict pollution levels, otherwise it would drown just as well - it's a constant heated topic there, as the measures that tend to be taken are restrict...

The question is a bit odd as it seems to be missing context, as pollution is already a core challenge with real consequences and can be handled with systems like courts and laws when servers use the correct settings for their player amount, which barely any do.

I nontheless voted "Yes! - Make pollution a core challenge with real consequences." as the next minor Update happens to contain changes to those mechanics making them harder and trying to automatically adjust some things when servers were not configured correctly for the player count.

You need to set EnableAdminUI in Civics.eco and then open the Federation and untick the "Requires child settlements" checkbox. /nosetreqs doesn't apply there.

That's no problem, only thing that is not acceptable is server ads as posts or server ads in comments when the OP wasn't actually looking for servers in their post.

I'm not sure if you actually read my post, as what I have been saying is that there is already sufficient difficulty (as in too much) - there is no need for an increase in it in the social matters.

The other part of your post seems to be a very generalized premise I cannot agree with, neither does noone in real life care nor do people in Eco not care. In the opposite the successful shooting of the meteor is the main and unfortunately often only goal the majority of players pursues and failure in preserving the world regularly leads to mass exodus of people from a server that feel they have lost when sea level rises and poses inconvenience to them.

Eco is also intentionally a game abstracting from real life and supposed to allow reflection back on that. That will always be limited in effectiveness, as in opposite to a game you just cannot leave in the real world.

If players already have issues organizing despite that having major benefits in the important soc...