Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. Then you simply have never been told this by an “experienced” player. It was told to me. You wouldn’t know anything about it - if i was the only one told — or a few others. Slight enough not to do anything but confuse new players with inaccurate advice. I was told of this while ago - do not know the name of the person who told me
  3. Hollywoods c40+ advantage covers a max of 76 Blackwater nations , for a single round , now 0 Blackwater c1-20 advantage covers 350 nations, probably closer to 400 now with the average score drop on that side. You are losing this war badly by choice which is the sad part about it all. The reason why you are losing at all is because you were out-planned, out-prepared (recieved the blitz) and out performed at all levels.
  4. Today
  5. Are we allowed forum presence without a nation linked to our accounts?
  6. It's been interesting to see who's BSing civilly and who isn't in this thread.
  7. Yesterday
  8. No, HC just wants to burn everything. HW has a lot of pixels, I mean you'd have to be monkeys to hug all of them and when he sees pixels he just sees a big forest fire. It's not his fault it's an addiction and we should all give him the sympathy he needs.
  9. I can't speak to the future, but we can look at the past. It's been what, 5-6 years or more since credits came into being? As far as I can remember it's always been 10 credit caps. The $ amount has gone up for in game rewards but has been at 20M base for quite a bit now. I think the city idea Kan just posted isn't bad, but I'd have to check with Alex on the analytics of how frequently new players buy credits, then also a number of cities that makes it worth while versus just cashing in the credits. The biggest problem with credits is the impact on lower tier warfare. Players can very easily declare wars and massive city counts with credits after having their defensive slots fill. Limiters like not being able to cash in credits above 10 while in an active war could be something. What do people think about a trial period? A couple months of allowing higher credit caps and we can monitor closely the use them and if the result is as bad as people fear?
  10. instead of credit maybe add like you can instantly buy 12 cities before the timer starts, that change from 5 to 10 was good, at some point we will need to up it again since we are close to reaching a good amount of players at c35 and above.
  11. I think alternative means of monetization without affecting game balance could be implemented. I'm not trying to tell you I have a business plan for Alex in my back pocket, but at the same time I am voicing my opinion that this change would be unpopular and, in my opinion, the wrong decision to make for PnW as a community and a company. As stated on discord privately to Alex, I don't mean my post to be a "gotcha" roast or another takedown of a development thread. This is sincere feedback and I am more than happy to help Alex brainstorm alternative means of boosting donations or even non-donation means of monetizing PnW. I really enjoy this game and this community and I don't want to see it ruined.
  12. That's interesting, I heard there was quite the internal fight in clock about figuring out if you wanted to hit Rose or HW. Maybe the people telling me stuff are full of shit. Then again... maybe they aren't.
  13. Seconded. This thread has certainly been a wild ride and an interesting read, to say the least. Thanks for putting up with us, Syndi, and I'm sorry for some of the bs you've had to put up with on your way to being able to have a more productive discussion. It was nice chatting with y'all this morning on your discord as well.
  14. Yes very interesting to see tS CBs which boil down to members ghosting for raids in KT, attacking Oasis (of all alliances) to being a threat to BW and tS. Literally the worst bloc in the game a threat to tS? What a sad joke. Your threads and allies threads have been a barren wasteland as well, this thread by HC is only thing seemingly to get tS to wake up and actually do something for once. So forgive me for not believing that tS brings anything to the table when it comes to interesting and fun gameplay regardless of being "honorable". Syndicate are not good guys or bad guys, your boring guys. Yes yes, we all know tS prominent early activity and early wars. Many times tS won outnumbered and facing the powers of the game. What happened to that Syndicate? Because all I see is an alliance that whines every global they lose about it being a dogpile, and an alliance that dogpiles every chance they can to win against anybody else. Oasis? threat to tS gotta dogpile. Rose, we can take those guys on with another entire sphere. Oh do we not have enough allies to fight HW? Better decom all military and give up. Like Jesus. If your mentality was forged in greatness before by now that has withered and left an empty husk and that is the current Syndicate.
  15. Grumpy sounds fun, definittly next stop if I ever decide to leave HoF (unlikely at this point.) I'm just surprised Sphinx is trying to get you rolled. Sphinx usually acts to try and get Sphinx roled so I find this shocking indeed.
  16. I think the issue is not about funding the game to keep the servers alive. I support users being able to spend money to support the game and to get a little boost from it, I used to buy credits myself. But in my opinion, it's the fact that the line between pay to win, and free to play has moved closer to the pay to win side. I'm not saying that the game is at that point now, you can still grow your nation without that feeling that you need credits to catch up with your peers. But will this be the last time that Alex increases the credit cap? Because what if it happens again? What if a year later you can now redeem 30 credits? And that starts pushing into pay to win territory. And that's one of the big reasons why I don't play free to play games, It's because they usually are pay to win. And that's why I believe that most people are worried about this credit cap increase. I still don't think that we are in pay to win territory, but I think a line needs to be drawn on the credit cap.
  17. Bugs get handled in a timely fashion. New content is slow, sure, but we don't want the rushed changes of years gone by either. You state your main problem is that this is a cash grab, even calling it scummy. I've also stated that money which has been made has been increasingly invested back into the game, especially over the last two years. You state that credit value should be increased, but you yourself state you don't think that'd actually do anything to generate more revenue. You mention cosmetics so that older players will buy them, but if I wanted credits I'd simply buy them off the market and have since they were sold on the market. What alternatives do you suggest that would actually work? An alternative that I don't like is removing them from purchase in game, or make it so they're only purchasable at a market mark-up. Players only make 25% of what a credit goes for on the market, this means to get 25M for selling a credit on the market it would go for 100M on the market. If there is to be better coding, better moderation, better servers, better advertisements to draw in players something needs to be changed to increase income into the game. I'm all ears.
  18. Don't worry, shooting the messenger was simply the first step of many in my long campaign of terror. Next is @Aero. 💀
  19. So there are a couple of balance issues in this month's post that I take issue with, but I think this piece will have the largest impact on the game of any changes in the past year and I'd like to address it. 1. I think increasing the value of credits any further right now is a mistake due to scaling of the game. Any further "purchasable" amount of anything will start to impact game balance. I'll use my own nation as an example for the math. Including resources and at peak infra, I will make ~$30m a day. According to the game I'm in the top 3% of nations by score (this is mid-war btw, I'm sure I'm closer to top 1% by city count). 30,000,000 x 30 = 900,000,000. The cheapest credit on the market rn is $23m per credit. If you pay attention, you'll know credits don't often sell in batches of ten but rather you have to buy a few at the lowest price then pay more for a few more but that's not necessarily relevant. 23,000,000 x 20 = 460,000,000 That's over 50% of a top nation's monthly income now going to someone for using their irl wallet. How is that not pay-to-win at that point? I feel like that's so grossly over-compensating "donators" that it would significantly impact game balance/tiering/the economy of the game. The overwhelming majority of people are still below 25 cities and this would more than double, triple, quadruple, etc. a smaller nation's income. 2. I think this is a scummy business practice purely aimed to gain more "donations" aka revenue for Alex. Rather than continuing with the positive-impact business practice of increasing the credit's value to increase the amount of people wanting to purchase them (which I still don't think should happen) - this practice would introduce an immoral and frankly disgusting business practice of watering down your product to essentially force people to pay more or fall behind those willing to pay the price. Just to reiterate, I think credits are in a good place right now where newer nations can really benefit from them and older nations get a nice bump from them and they're useful enough during wars / for cosmetics that older people still want to buy them. I also agree with the sentiments expressed by others here: An obvious money-grab like this would really dampen my passion for PnW as a game. I'm on the dev team, in the QA-team channel, very active in this community overall and Alex is simply not putting in the hours he's promised to this community. Just since I joined the dev team, our own docket is years behind its own schedule. I personally feel like PnW has plenty of potential to grow both internally as a game and externally by netting more players into the community - but effort needs to be put into it for that to materialize not simply throw more pay-to-win mechanics in and completely throw off the balance of the game simply to line someone's pocket. I admire Alex and I like him as a person but if this change goes forward I personally will have a diminished view of both him and his game.
  20. Up vote, but it bears further reiterating: this is exactly the takeaway I'd say is the important part and you've summarized, at least my grievance, perfectly.
  21. Aye. I think one of the key takeaways of the critiques t$ receives here is for us to reflect on our playstyle in a way that maintains the ideological (core) facets of t$ that add flavour to the game, while also considering behaviorisms that may have escalated for the worse. I haven't been fully read up on recent memory, but would it be a safe assumption that if on a gov-level, we decouple gripes surrounding our communication style from gripes surrounding our political style,we'd be casting a big enough net to address the most pressing criticisms levied at t$? Sidenote- I speak for Partisan and not t$, although t$ gov naturally reads this thread.
  22. Glad to see you have been converted
  23. Name them so that we may shame them.
  24. Just want to point out that I think ideological disagreements are good and healthy for the game because we should be having discourse from multiple viewpoints. One of the things I've always appreciated about T$, whether you agree or disagree, is that y'all are willing to take a stance and stick with it for the long-haul. That isn't something I personally want to see the lost because more principled actors in the game means more interesting and diverse politics (*coughs in Rose's direction*). The other question, and the one I feel is more at stake here, is how you go about doing it, and it feels like especially after you left Partisan that things have gotten nastier and exhausting to deal with it. Adam nailed the point that you splitting the middle expertly, between pushing your points but also stopping before you got too inflammatory. Issue is that basically nobody is going to be as good at being you as you. And as I said in a previous post, I don't think it's just y'all but also the environment you're in. It's one thing to have eumir be eumir on the forums and then have you making tounge-in-cheek "friend" comments. It's another to have a half-dozen syndi gov and ex-gov relentlessly attacking you in the RON public chat. I don't need to be called an idiot 20 times before I can finish typing a sentence to know that y'all have valid disagreements with me. Having been both your ally and enemy, I can say it sucks on either end. Obviously, this isn't everything at issue here, but I'm trying to leave the comments on current politics to the active politicians.
  25. I 100% think a meta move back to forums being primary would help a lot overall. More content that can actually be reasonably kept up with for one, and for two it helps a lot with flooding and swarming, making it easier to actually have conversations. Discord and radio have their perks for sure, but forums shouldn't be neglected.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.