Leaderboard

Or here's another revolutionary idea: not brigade upvotes and virtue signal to Alex about retention when this has little to no effect on it, and instead learn how not to suck at Econ.

The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that is it too low and we reach it. Emperor: The Royalist Shah: Penguin Satrap of Econ: Wulfharth Satrap of Diplomacy: Penguin Satrap of IA: Forgotpants https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=4823 https://discord.gg/An5zNBm the charter is work in progress

There are better ways to give new players a starting chance without inherently devaluing older players previously built cities, especially when many were built under an economy with a considerably lower level of cash floating around in the economy. Cutting the city timer up to 5 cities was one previous option that was employed. Increasing the starting daily bonus was another. Choosing an arbitrary limit of 20 cities (which is fairly high might I add, the majority of the playerbase is still well under that) to reduce costs is obviously going to unfairly advantage a specific portion of the playerbase. Considering this update is supposed to be targeted at retention, aka keeping new people around, there is no logical reason the price reduction would go up to 20 cities. Other proposals, like reducing the cost of infrastructure and land in the first X (lets say 5 or maybe 10) cities in any nation, by a flat amount like 20%, and further moving the city timer limit up to say 10 cities, would both have a more balanced effect on the game and target the actual new players.

There are many more sides to retention rather than how fast you can spoon-feed someone cities. If you think retention only depends on someone's growth you're incredibly wrong. As I can see, your entire argument for the proposed change is to encourage retention across newer players, giving mass recruiting alliances a benefit while elites get nothing out of this. The whole appeal to going elite is that your current players have a good retention rate meaning they're enough to sustain growth and keep the community going. (Examples are TGH, Guardian, t$, CoS and many names down the list) For the sake of your education, in nation-sim games like this, retention ties very little to ones nation but tie a lot more to the community they're in and how often the alliance can keep them logging in. Retention for BK will never be the same as the retention of Rose, TKR, NPO etc. Every alliance has a different theme, community and econ/ia systems to keep players interested in playing in the alliance, but that doesn't mean the players aren't interested in the game, they're just not interested in your alliance. If the people joining BK are going inactive, the only thing you can do is engage them, no amount of cities you buy them will change that. Give them jobs, encourage and empower your community and make systems which encourage people to compete and login every day. By having a theme revolved around memes and ayy lmao, you're obviously going to have shit retention for players that aren't interested in any of that and simply cannot fit in, and some goes for TKR, Rose, NPO, TCW, doesn't matter. Weeb alliances have high retention with weeb players, people that like the stormlight archive have a great time in TKR, etc etc. You just dragged yourself out of a war where you need at least 20-30 days of high taxes to stimulate growth, nobody is going to enjoy that, of course they're going to look to either go elsewhere or if they're too attached to BK they'll simply stop playing. Your alliance has a closed recruitment policy atm meaning your community is slowing down, especially after so many mergers where you literally had to adapt at least a hundred players to a new community. There is no question to why your retention sucks, but the game has no fault in this, you only need to look in the mirror. I completely disagree that we need to lower city costs, in my experience as an IA head I find it increasingly difficult to teach new members how to fight when we're constantly encouraging people to build cities instead of warchests or focusing on raiding. The removal of city timers for the first 5 cities is fine, but when you get to 5-6 cities you can't raid anymore (unless you're Arrgh), meaning you need to switch to econ build and that's where members reduce their activity. Every member is active their first 5 cities because they have to actually play the game, as soon as they have to sit around they turn to the community to keep them entertained.

No thanks, A true civilized population needs a hierarchy. The ability to distinguish patricians and plebs clearly is vital and unfortunately for IQ, they are at the bottom of the pecking order. Keep IQ down.

So is this about alliance politics or player retention? Sketchy's idea is by far the best here, as it directly targets new player's growth. If an alliance pre-selects nations based on their cities, that's on them and their decision making. The fact that the initial idea was targeted to go up to 20 cities tells me that this is based on alliance politics (Yours) more so than new player retention. Most people are aware that BK has suffered from retaining players, its one of the reasons why the merges occurred to help clot that wound. BK/NPO are also known to strategically place nations at 14 cities, that this was done on purpose. Problem is with your initial idea is that many other alliances, some older than BK, some around the same age of BK, and some newer than BK - all have had growth in their nations just fine under the current economic system. I agree on the idea of retaining players, but the execution of the message makes me highly suspicious. Changing the system to cater to sub-20 city nations would be a massive slap to the current players who grew through this. That's why I like Sketchy's idea because it targets the first 10 cities, which is plenty enough to get a player situated in the current environment. --------------- The other issue I have with this particular request is the fact people assume it would retain players. I disagree with that entirely. It'll help them grow, sure, but if retention is something you want - that's entirely on the alliances themselves (All of us, as a community). Most new players will decide whether the game is worth while to invest time in or not within their first 5 cities of growth. Making it easier for them to climb to 10 cities won't make or break that decision. They'll see how slow this game progresses in general, the lack of community involvement, or the limited efforts they have unless the alliance they're in is at war (War is literally the only thing in this game that involves everybody). If they enjoy a community of players, they'll stick around regardless of how slow things are. We, as leaders in the game, just need to make sure they know the expectation of the game and keep up with them throughout the weeks/months of playing. Sidenote: I'm not entirely opposed to this. I agree that something should be done to help new players keep up with the older ones. I disagree with the "up to 20" cities bit, but I certainly won't turn it away either as I'll directly benefit from it myself too. Again though, Sketchy's idea actually targets new players where politics isn't involved, and it would massively help those micro alliances.

I generally agree with this sentiment, and if we can find a formula that gets mostly agreement, I'll go for it. Right now, the nations with the most cities have 33, so I think any change in city cost formula should be about neutral at that point, so as not to make it so that nations that already have a lot of cities will never be able to be caught up to. At the same time, I think it would make sense to not just lower the cost of cities across the board, and so in keeping with the current exponential cost scheme city prices will have to increase after some point (here I'm picking 33 cities for fairness.) The current formula is: 50000(x-1)^3 + 150000x + 75000 A simple formula for the proposed change the loosely fits what I was looking for in requirements is: 1500(x-1)^4 + 75000 The cost formulas intersect between 34 and 35 cities; that is, before the 35th city, all city costs are cheaper than the status quo. Starting at 35 and beyond, cities would be more expensive than currently. Under the current formula, the total cost for cities 2-34 would be $14,912,800,000 and under the proposed formula change here, it would be $11,743,017,600. The difference you can see then is ~$4,000,000,000 most of which is front loaded into the earlier cities. Obviously, this would be a huge shift to gameplay and building strategies, and would bring many many younger and newer nations into the fold as viable players. Thus, older established players would certainly lose some relative power by this. So, it's not something I am interesting in going through with without vast support by the playerbase. I'm also open to other formula adjustment suggestions.

Congrats on your foundation. I see this is based on the Sassanid Persian Dynasty. For those that don't know, the religion at that time wasn't Islamic, but was instead Zoroastrianism. So, unfortunately, KT cannot use Islam CB. 3:

1. I don’t think that is exactly fair. Almost every alliance has poor player retention. 2. I don’t think this is fair either. For once I agree with Leo, none of the arguments against this have anything to do with the idea, just politics of the game. Of course this will help IQ, but it doesn’t necessarily mean we shouldn’t do it. @Alex would it be possible to give people who are in the gain now, a bonus for having cities. Maybe the difference between the city costs of then and now. You did something similar when you nerfed spies. Mentioning IQ and using KT as an example is literally making this about individual alliances.

Ngl I did check the alliance to see if it was Islamic, but the Sassanids pre-date Islam by a decent margin. In fact, Muslim conquest contributed to the collapse of the Sassanid Empire. Y'all are good.

@Alex Probably a big ask, but do you have the statistics of how many nations delete at each city level? I'd guess based off of Sketchy's war stats thread the vast majority is at city 1 or 2, but dunno if you have more exact numbers over a larger period of time that could show where exactly players are leaving after sticking around past that initial creation. Right now I'm on Bourhann's side of the argument. The retention of new nations has always been a struggle for mass recruiting alliances. It's on the alliance themselves to keep players engaged - whether that be through an off site community worth sticking around for or frequent wars in game.

Well yeah, the game's at face is just not interesting. It's slow, the graphics are rather boring. The game is only as fun as you make it. Assuming the player has never played a game like this, unless they magically stumble into an alliance discord with people willing to teach them how the game's mechanics works in a non-tedious manner, they will likely quit. If you want to boost player retention, make a better tutorial, have an admin pay people some credits in exchange for solid tutorial videos. You really think new players who quit the game will respond "man, if cities were cheaper, i'd have had sooooo much more fun in the game"? No. It's about the community that they surround themselves with, or lack thereof.

Nah, it's a fake split.

Posted Thursday at 08:42 AM Only invalid cause your preferred choice is losing, hm? I posted that the vote wasn't valid after a discussion with RP'ers on this forum - it is invalid because anyone can vote, a vote should only be held where people who are actually playing vote to decide on a changing factor in the system that y'all use. I posted that the vote didn't count because there are people that don't play Nat RP - like me, so you have someone voting who isn't even participating. Like usual, Eva sticks her head up her ass and takes it the wrong way. I am not going to be participating in any RP located here on the PW forums - that was pretty evident in my original post when I said "anyone could have voted in this, including me, who doesn't play natRp and won't be" Eva & Co. Y'all are a bunch of retards. This gonna be considered IC bc its RP. All if this is just RP.

You have not literaly read what they said and are ignoring to adress points made to this topic. So I'll try again. What you're asking is not to benefit new players, but to benefit yourself. Saying it's for new players is a lie you use to get a political advantage over your opponents. So this has nothing to do with new players and all to do with politics. So answer the godamn points they made. Even if this was about new players, it's a bad unbalanced policy that would harm older, more loyal players by devaluing their sense of achivment. Not only that but it's actually not helping the new players to get interest in the game. The game would just get easier for them while remaining same in content. The only thing you're doing is giving them easy mode that makes them think they are good until they get destroyed by elite players who actually enjoy and understand this game, and then some 100+ people delete cause the game is harder than they were comfortable with. And besideds it's your side who lost both the war and the player base, so it goes to show that problem lies withing YOU and not the game mehanics. I'm tired of people whining and crying to @Alex every time they suck at the game casue someone else actuall bothered to master it. How many times did you have to nerf Arrgh to be able to stand on your own shaky feet? And what did you achive by it? Good, old, loyal players were betrayed and left the game, and were repalced by large number of noobs who enjoed how easy the game was, since there were almost no elite left to show them what this game was really about. I'd rather purge those new players who'd quit anyway in few months, than to keep them around for a year instead of people who've already played this game over a year. And besides, with all the nerfs done, this game isn't even hard to play, it takes around 100 wars to learn all the tricks. If you lack war experience, well, either do more war till you figure it our, join Arrgh and git gud, or ask Arrgh to raid your members till they git gud. Why is learning and adapting such a strange concept to all you losers who have to ask admin to change game in your favour? All you'll ever achive is force players like us to suffer for a month at best, make a few of our people ragequit, and then we'll adapt to it and destroy you again, and then either you or someone else will go and cry again how OP we are and how game needs to change to suit them better. And do you know what's funny? Most of those whiners quit the game after those changes failed to make it any easier for them to deal with us, and despite everything, here I am, still persiting, still adapting, and still destroying anyone crazy enough to challange me.

Hello, fellow new player. I am a new player with a city count of 19.

Just because someone from BK suggests something doesn't make it automatically a bad idea to benefit them done entirely by sucking up to admin lmao. Grow up and lose the persecution complex KT. Anyway, I wouldn't be opposed to this on principle. As I recall, there was an adjustment to the cost of cities once before, a couple years back. (someone can go back and find a link I'm sure) It was done to address a similar issue, the increasing gap between the biggest nations and newer nations who weren't sticking around. So, there is precedent, which is probably why Alex isn't entirely opposed lol. Making cities marginally cheaper (as the formula Alex proposed would) is hardly gamebreaking and if it helps player retention, as the previous adjustment was aimed at, then why not. There are other options as well, but at the end of the day more people playing PnW is a good thing.

If people in your alliance are quitting the game due to boredom, that's a direct result of an incompetent government. If your alliance does not create an economic system which creates an incentive to be active, your best and biggest members will leave, your taxes will rise, and you'll turn into a low-tier cess-pool pandering to the admin to benefit yourself rather than spending time adapting like prominent alliances are and should be.

Ironically, this only further validates my argument, that there is no logical reason for the cutoff point to be 20 cities. 20 cities is a long term goal, its not something a new player will be realistically working towards. I offered a solution that would accelerate new player growth sub 10 cities and allow new players to get into the area where the majority of the active player base lies, faster, and it was shot down by the people pushing for this suggestion. Meanwhile no one has given any valid rationale for why 20 cities is a reasonable option for cutoff, nor have any other forms of retention improvement been suggested.

It doesn't increase the cost of investment at all, there is no rule that says alliances have to immediately build new players to 5 cities, let alone 10. Its fairly easy to create a structured time-based econ program. You also didn't address the cheap infrastructure component, nor did you address why 20 cities is somehow a reasonable cutoff point considering that is a long term goal. People have had minimum city counts prior to the update that moved the city timer up, and new players have always been a risky investment. Not sure where you are going with this line of reasoning. This is then an argument about war ranges and war mechanics and not an argument about growth. Because you didn't even address the obvious improvements to growth in my suggestion for new players (which the whole point of this thread was to increase retention by increasing growth). The difference is my solution doesn't unfairly advantage people in a key range (14-17), whilst disadvantaging a different one (20+). It instead puts the focus on the actual noobs (less than 10 cities). As for the first sentence, It sounds like you are making that claim and not inferring I made it, if that is the case, then my solution addresses that. By reducing infrastructure and land costs in sub 10 cities, whilst removing the city timer, it will accelerate the growth process for all nations under 10 cities, whilst not unfairly disadvantaging larger players who can also make use of said bonus to rebuild those cities faster etc. If this suggestion was targetted at player retention, then its worth noting that I disagree with the premise that this is the primary reason for low retention rates. Some people don't like nation simulators, just not their speed, and the only way you stand a chance of capturing that audience is by creating engaging ways to keep those players interested on a day to day basis whilst still not majorly disadvantaging the more casual playerbase.

Low retention rates are part of the genre. Even well established games by dev studios with 3-D graphics tend to have relatively low retention rates. Look at Clash of Clans or Boom Beach. They have lots more in terms of content and even have graphics, yet their one week retention rate isn't even 40%. A game analyst who analyzed games like Temple Run said 5% after 30 days is great. Again, that is with games that an entire dev studio makes, not just Sheepy. One thing those games have that PaW doesn't is a steady stream of content. It was months between the last few wars. If you truly want increased retention, go for options to increase the frequency of wars.

The problem I see in shrinking the city cost sub-30 cities is the implications it could have on wars. This proposition is basically just a call to make everyone in IQ into whales to accommodate for the lack of skill within their players, citing it would help everyone else to give themselves the moral high ground. Making this an altruistic argument, or one of keeping players in, is overall a false dogma laid down by the IQ hegemon. Trust me, players don't stay in this game because they want to pixel farm, I would have left long ago because such a proposition is laughable. People stay because they love the community; it's fun to engage with your fellow Orbisians. Look, to propose that the growth factor among us minors is skewed in favor of whales and not us is a false statement. If you pursued growth in your alliance, you'd select your most competent members and supercharge them to a higher status, bringing up a few first than all together. Hell, if I recall correctly, you lot have ludicrous taxes on your base, that should have been enough capital to rebuild your top and middle brass, then bring up the shining stars among your lower rung. But to lobby Alex over lowering city costs to supercharge yourselves, then alluding to its many benefits while alluding briefly that somehow growth in this game is somehow too "prohibitive" is just absolutely devious, especially with your votemongering by flooding this forum with your bloc members. I see no reason why we should shift city prices from their status quo, and until you can change my mind, I stand by my argument. Though, I ought to give you guys credit for trying, this realpolitik move is obviously based off of historical events where the uplifting of poorer, larger groups led to the shadowing of the head honcho, like the United States and Britain, Germany and Britain, the Soviet Union and Germany, France and again Britain, China and Japan, and soon China and the United States. I'll finish this off with a quote from Lenin which should console you, "Half a century ago, Germany was a miserable, insignificant country, as far as capitalist strength was concerned, compared with the strength of England at that time. Japan was similarly insignificant compared with Russia. Is it 'conceivable' that in ten or twenty years' time the relative strength of the imperialist powers will have remained unchanged? Absolutely inconceivable."

How am I making this political? If I were politically biased towards my own alliance, I'd say yes to this proposal. There's about 70% people below the sub-20 range in KT right now and many more in ET. Why make game easier? It's already easy as it is. You're spinning my words, growth and retention are connected, people simply need to get better at managing their growth besides hitting the "Sheepy, cities are too expensive" button.

Milcom information just wants to be free!

Actually - I said you were complete trash to just about everyone at least once. Lies again - headupass syndrome. #urtrash #MAXimumRP

Leaked message from KT Milcom!

How did I miss this? @Sketchy already covered a lot of what needed to be said. If you're going to punish people, you need to look at the source of the issue first, then go from there to see the appropriate punishment if the situation is relying on subjective opinion. A 48hr ban on Shifty though for that image? Yet nothing happened to others? This is clearly not bias, right? Or do we need to mass report posts? I can sure as hell arrange that on people who are constantly baiting others to go into OOC attacks in the In-Alliance Forums. If anything, just edit out the posts with something cute (Turning offensive to funny/cute), then shoot a warning if you're unsure of how to really handle a issue. At least it'll be somewhat amusing and lighthearted of a situation. If the offender reposts the image in retaliation or does something else in spite of it, at least then you have justification for whatever you deem appropriate because you'd have a very clear idea what the intent was beforehand.

Hey @rey, how was it to sit on the sidelines watching your MDP allies burn last war?

And this is the exact problem with the moderation of this forum. Your personal subjective interpretation of a post should not be what dictates whether it does or does not break the rules. Whether or not you "get the joke" is completely irrelevant, what are you the humor police?

Comrade Johnny Costello has started the revolution! Comrades all across Orbis have broken into their alliance banks and have seized all of the warchest materials within. Millions of steel, munitions, gasoline, and aluminum have been funneled into the eager hands of the partisan militias... It's time for the evildoers to be destroyed! Below, a list of undesirables have been published, and sent to various party commissars embedded in militias spread across Orbis. Their names read as follows: As I typed this, telegrams are coming in from all over Orbis at the success the revolutionary forces are having at bringing these criminals to justice. I will relay to you all the best I can the things I am hearing: --- AkAk, having knowledge bestowed upon him from Rozalia in the afterlife, was quick to fortify Roz Wei. Large, thick walls made from an unknown, rock-like material have surrounded Roz Wei. All attempts to break through have failed. ---- While it is well-known by now that Rozalia has already met his fate at our righteous hands, little is known about the circumstances surrounding his fall. All that is known is that, even surrounded, Rozalia fought at full strength, chanting in some unknown language. In the end, it took the full strength of Alex himself to terminate Rozalia. The scum has finally been vanquished. Praise the Revolution! --- Next, the revolution's sight was on Mad Max. Mad Max changed his name and fled between different alliances to avoid capture, but was eventually cornered and surrendered peacefully. The photo has been edited to protect the identity of the brave xir that made the arrest. --- DragonK proved hard to find, but his ship was eventually located. After refusing to surrender, the Orbis Revolutionary Navy fired upon DragonK's singular vessel. Despite losing dozens of ships, the ORN successfully sank DragonK's vessel. DragonK chose to go down with his ship. It's last radio transmissions, interestingly, sounded like somebody was playing War Thunder. An investigation has been launched. --- Both being German, it wasn't surprising that Horsecock and Geralt would team up. Both men have worked quite well together, eliminating all platoons sent to capture them. As it stands now, both men are on the run. Elite teams of the Orbis Revolutionary Army (O.R.N.) is tracking them. If you have any information that would lead to their capture, please PM me on Discord. There is a $500,000 cash reward (funds pending). --- Piggy was remarkably easy to apprehend and capture. Unfortunately, he couldn't be brought to trial as the soldiers who captured him quickly slaughtered him and ate him. I know things are bad, but there is no excuse for this. Those men should've had enough food to last them 3 weeks. We need to do something about securing more food for the O.R.A. --- Quickly after piggy was eaten, James XVI was discovered. Revolutionary fighters quickly- No. Just no. Get outta here with that bullshit. - Buorhann Damn commies --- Manthrax was up next. Using his experience from sinking tens of thousands of hours into X-com, he was able to put up a great fight. Many O.R.N. fighters died trying to stop him. However, like all evildoers who are against the people, he to was brought down through our superior tactics. --- After the fall of Manthrax, the revolutionaries caught up with Justin. However, unlike previous undesireables where the target was unable to be captured due to them fighting back and killing most of the men sent in to capture them, Justin was able to turn all O.R.N. fighters against the revolution. Approximately 112% of all O.R.N. fighters sent to capture Justin deserted. Upon return, they all sang 'God's Plan' and talked about how 'Trudeau is a dirty traitor to Canada.' Research is being done into how this was possible. Justin is still at large. Make sure each of those traitorous bastards gets the bullet. --- Lightning was soon discovered, and many teams of elite O.R.N. fighters were sent in to deal with her. Although many lives were lost, the brave men and women of the glorious revolution finally brought her to justice using one of Rozalia's own heavenly weapons. --- Finally, it was Shiho's turn to answer to the people. O.R.N. forces surrounded him and- Not gonna tell you again, Thalmor. You need to stop this. Don't make me do this a third time. - Buorhann --- As the revolution grew, so to did the need to bring down the sources of all the scourage. One of the most toxic alliances in Orbis, Knights Templar, was picked to be assaulted. Weakened from the most recent war, they were in a prime spot now to be attacked by all forces of the revolution. And attacked they were. We descended upon them like snow in an avalanche. The Templars had to pay for their sins. Sins that they think they're absolved from because they fight for 'God.' I personally had a bone to pick with Theo. He had stolen the Templar throne from me. And such a dispute can only be resolved by bloodshed. For the revolution, comrades! --- Although most of our forces were tied up fighting the Templars, Shifty was already on the move, and so we had to deploy forces to take him out. Many Teachers on How To Theorize (T.H.O.T.) - core teachers on Orbis revolutionary theory - had been killed by Shifty. With so many of our philosophers killed, it was clear he posed a massive threat to our revolution. Unfortunately, Shifty has continued to prove himself too hard to catch. The few times he had been found he was able to successfully dispatch with the brave O.R.N. personnel engaging him. Fret not! This threat will be dealt with! --- Epi, a minor target in the revolution, was easily caught by infiltrators within Atlas. We thank the brave non-binary individuals of the 2nd Transgendered Police Battalion, the 'Screaming Soyboys', for their bravery in Epi's arrest. --- Kastor, instead of having to be hunted apprehended by revolutionary forces, peacefully turned himself in. He was placed in a local prison under the supervisor of local forces until a commissar could've taken him in. Roughly a few hours after being imprisoned, Kastor had somehow managed to convince all prison staff to make them his leader. Furthermore, he was somehow able to grow his list of supporters to the point where he was able to get into the headquarters of the revolution and, as one witness put it, 'flex on that little !@#$ Thalmor'. Kastor was reportedly distressed when he found out Thalmor was away fighting KT. Kastor was able to escape, and is currently on the run as elite O.R.N. forces chase after him. This is an emergency. All of the cash and resources we stockpiled went missing. I don't know how this could've happened. We need to think of a plan immediately. ---- Insert Name Here, Codonian, and Patrick Higgins all teamed up together (likely inspired by the Horsecock-Geralt pairing). All three went on the offensive, dealing a lot some damage. Fortunately, they bit off more than they could chew, and were captured. Codonian died in the process. Following the capture of Insert Name Here and Patrick Higgins, the decision was made to execute all prisoners currently in O.R.N. hands. Therefore, Insert Name Here, Patrick Higgins, Epimethus, and Mad Max were all lined up and shot like that reactionary garage that they are. Before that, though, all of them except Mad Max was forced to undergo gender reassignment surgery so they could feel how oppressed they made women. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Isn't revolution beautiful? While half of the scumbags on the list have been dealt with, the other half remains. They will have their day at the end of rope in court for their sins against the people. You might be asking yourself, 'Thalmor, isn't this excessive? Do these people really need to be killed?' YES! I'm only obeying the ignitor of the revolution. Although perhaps I am going to far, because in his post he said they should only be banned for wrongthink: But, then again, maybe drastic action is the only option we have left: Because, let's be real, banning and 'stomping out' is the only appropriate response to a 'lack in correct thought': --- HEIL SOCIAL JUSTICE HEIL VICTORY

This is actually a very valid point. Most nations grow to an extent then become inactive tax farms at some point.

So the premise of BK's proposal is to significantly reduce the cost of cities below the 20 mark in order to help -all- alliances with player retention. Not sure why BK thinks it can speak for all alliances here on what would and wouldn't benefit them. The premise alone does not hold ground because it is plainly obvious how this would assist one particular side of the player base significantly more than the others. They say they aren't making it political but then they propose the change to benefit -new- players be to reduce city costs below the -20- city mark. How exactly does that benefit new players? A better implementation, if any is even necessary (which I am not convinced it is considering BK from a quick glance is one of the only established alliances that consistently bleeds members and this proposal being done by them and virtue signal liked by the rest of IQ) would be something that directly targets players within the first couple of days of them coming into the game, as opposed to something that will affect the majority of the game and specifically one corner of the world will essentially get a get-out-of-jail at 80% off card because they made terrible economic decisions over the past year or more. >don't make it political >proposes a very political change and has the nerve to tell everyone else not to respond in kind

Until you compare the population of all those combined, counting only the actives, no red or purple diamonds, and then you realize they make up a tiny minority of the nations currently existing at that level, the players at that level, most of whom don't stick around long. The argument isn't that all new players drop, the argument is that 95% of them do. Now maybe that number isn't exactly right, i also don't think it's too far from the truth, someone feel free to get concrete numbers and prove me wrong. Whether or not this suggestion would make it any better... maybe. A little bit, i think, but ultimately i think it's benefit would be less to keeping new players, and more to helping the ones already here. I'm not just talking about IQ alliances, either. I'm talking smaller, newer alliances, that don't have alot of members, don't have a huge bankroll, or a garrison of whales to endlessly print money and anything else they could want. Alliances like my own, Husaria, i'd say TRF too, since TRF is mostly TCI with a dash of SGM. People that are already here, are likely to stay here, who are in these lower city counts, many of them for some time. When you're small like this, you can only afford so many grants, and you can push people to accept higher taxes only to so far. Truly, i don't think this would do a significant amount to keep new players. It will do a little. More than anything, i think it would help alliances, specifically the smaller ones. Yeah, IQ alliances don't have whales, but NPO for example, just has a cool 100+ at 14 cities, and their alliance has been around for a while. The only reason you should be poor, is if you're not managing your resources as well as you could. At least the little guys complain less about it, while trying to grow and not be swallowed up by you. Now the question becomes, how badly needed, if at all needed, is something that will do a little to increase player retention, and alot to empower smaller alliances to grow, especially if they're run well. So, Orbis, is this needed, and if so, how badly? I'd say i'm a bit of a biased party, my city timer is up in 2 turns for number 10, and i'm in one of those small alliances, i'm a little blinded by self interest, just a tad.

Where's @Ukunaka with his Rise of the Planet of the Micros memes?

Do you have a non-political argument against this or no?

Time to commit suicide by two shots in the back of your head, @WISD0MTREE

But if yes won you'd have 'threatned' with leaving NatRP and dowvnoting everyones posts for no reason except of hatred and would have accused mods of being corrupt or something bad. Those whom have voted with yes and with that lost, they have kept silence, except the Mad Max post about your whatever. But I don't see you keeping shut after losing. And he does have a point, doesn't matter when he points out that only RPer participaints can vote, it is important that he pointed it out and that is stayed in only in the sphere of RPers. Still, seeing from your actions innpast in ORP of invinting ooc friends to the rp with whom you are close with just so they can protect you inside the rp. And alas, be original.

actual mechanical bonuses for literally going on crusade/Waaagh/jihad/whatnot for Dio/Buorkhann/Atom/etc? Woo!

No, daddy!

Downvote incomming in 3... 2... 1...

Υοu've never seen any DoWs on Arrgh, have you?

As I've told others, I have a plan and pushing forward with it. IoM disbanding was a hiccup though, but nonetheless, we'll go forward.

Very good, deus vult my bros

hi i'm rey i support people who call others uncle toms and use OOC attacks in-game.

Fun fact: Historically, the Knights Templar and Golden Horde were, for a brief period, on the same side against the Muslims in the 13th century.

Everyone secretly loves Shifty, they just don't know it yet. Sketchy would care about Shiftsters. Sketchy is from the same Genus as Shifty. Both branched off in the early Oligocene as the continents slowly began to drift part. At one point the range of the common ancestor was from Antarctica, South America, and Australia. As these 3 continents spread out further, they began to differentiate into species. One unknown specimen was found exclusively in Antarctica, but was thought to have gone extinct by 35 m.y.a as the continent began to freeze. Despite popular belief, CreepyLurkers are not related at all and are an example of convergent evolution.

HUH WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR