Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/06/18 in all areas

  1. 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.
    25 points
  2. 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
    11 points
  3. 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.
    10 points
  4. 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.
    8 points
  5. 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.
    8 points
  6. 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.
    7 points
  7. 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.
    7 points
  8. 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:
    7 points
  9. 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.
    5 points
  10. 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.
    5 points
  11. @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.
    4 points
  12. 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.
    4 points
  13. Nah, it's a fake split.
    4 points
  14. 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.
    3 points
  15. 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.
    3 points
  16. Hello, fellow new player. I am a new player with a city count of 19.
    3 points
  17. 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.
    3 points
  18. 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.
    3 points
  19. 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.
    2 points
  20. 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.
    2 points
  21. 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.
    2 points
  22. 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."
    2 points
  23. 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.
    2 points
  24. Milcom information just wants to be free!
    2 points
  25. Actually - I said you were complete trash to just about everyone at least once. Lies again - headupass syndrome. #urtrash #MAXimumRP
    2 points
  26. Leaked message from KT Milcom!
    2 points
  27. 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.
    2 points
  28. Hey @rey, how was it to sit on the sidelines watching your MDP allies burn last war?
    2 points
  29. 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?
    2 points
  30. My nation is not even a year old and I have 17 cities. It's taking years to get to 20+ cities? Maybe if you don't actively pursure more cities, yes. Dramatically reducing the cost of cities to benefit those alliances that simply haven't put as much resources and work into growing their member's nations over the time and therefore punishing those who did? No, thanks.
    1 point
  31. Yes, and how long was it between the past few wars? A bit more than half a year? That's like citing the number of terrorists deaths in 2001 to make a claim terrorism will kill everyone in NYC within your lifetime.
    1 point
  32. Yeah we are the bad guys. Why was this suggestion taken in right now? After a larger IQ debt? Totes our fault for protesting on them getting off easier. Also Leo, if you had that large ammount of players in your hands and your lied hands then how come many VM, Delete, Make Mutinies and yada yada which leads to less positive war results. If you coordinated and worked well with your money you could have made the Members be in a good self-sustaining position so to say with decent ammounts of cities, income and all of the above but the result js with many abandonments happening, with less players in the game aka deleteing yada yada. I really don't need to talk much about this and exoand it +we get it iq, your only ways of making yourself seem superior to us is downvoting us. Great accomplishment
    1 point
  33. I'm basically against this as it removes our excuse for not growing into the same tier as everyone else. We'll just get choked out at 20 cities.
    1 point
  34. I have another revolutionary idea: Provide an argument against it if you don't like the idea. Thought provoking, I know.
    1 point
  35. Good luck, guys! Nice inaugural gov lineup ?
    1 point
  36. I was recently banned for a post in Thalmor's thread. Now the image in question or rather images, were of a gnome sighting in Argentina and of a gnome child in black SS officer wear. The reason for this ban and dual point strike on Shifty's warn meter was due to "roleplaying as a Nazi." Now mind you, I did not post anything "pro-Nazi" I merely posted a joke/valid reference to the original post and was all within the context of meme-ing. >Johnny Costello and company call certain people undesirable/deplorable racists, nazis, and insensitive folks. >Thalmor makes thread about sjws bringing these people to justice >Shifty has already been called a nazi numerous times over just about anything, so he posts a "nazi gnome" (mind you with no runes or swastikas, so it was purposefully censored) and the statement "you won't take me alive" (common phrase for escaping criminals/also implying self-cyanide poisoning) Overall, it was appropriate for the over-the-top nature of the thread and mocking Johnny's post. Shifty does not roleplay as a nazi, he shitposted. Shifty roleplays as everything, currently he is a classically trained mage.
    1 point
  37. For political order to persist, it did not suffice to merely teach it as an abstract ideology. For it to not just enter the mentality of Laurentine citizens, but also to be cemented there as a sacrosanct teaching without alternatives, the Ordre nouveau had to be made manifest in everday life. It had to exist visibly in the lives of Faraway subjects, it had to dictate their very environment. it had to be omnipresent, leaving no doubt about its righteousness and legitimacy. For this, the Faraway Realm was not merely willing to restructure society, but also, to restructure its cities. The old high-rise buildings were frowned upon as modernist structures without beauty. Bull-dozed, they were to be replaced by new more historicist buildings of designs reminiscient of neo-baroque and Seconde Empire. The maximum amount of floors was limited at 8, which was to be a compromise between the need to be efficient in space and to avoid growing as tall as before. Main streets would be broadened and made less accessible for cars, instead pedestrian areas and tramway systems were established to have the inner cities calmer and less polluted and to cut down on the industrial needs for cars and petrol. As the Laurentian Realm produced much of its electricity from hydroelectricity and nuclear plants, hydrocarbons were mostly needed for industrial applications, heating, transportation and the military. As the Salazarstani crisis had showed, there was a need to gain some independence in fossil fuels, which prompted the Asociation Royale d'Industries Chimiques Laurentiénnes (ARICL) to be established as a state-owned entity. Consolidated out of smaller enterprises that had been nationalised upon taking over the Great Lakes region, the ARICL formed a network of refineries, plants and factories, designed to process raw resources into chemial substances for industrial applications, including the synthetic production of hydrocarbons from coal mined in the South. Outside Detroit, a new conversion plant was constructed, with reserve capacities, as while it was deemed more economic to import crude oil in stable times from abroad, these capacities would be used in times of crisis to make up for any loss of suppliers.
    1 point
  38. OOC Commissars have informed me that I need to be corrected. I am awaiting for my transfer to the nearest re-education camp. As to the treaty: Thanks to everyone for nice wishes!
    1 point
  39. Name a more iconic duo. I'll wait.
    1 point
  40. 1 point
  41. both of these alliances are trash
    1 point
  42. We already worked along side with them in the previous war.
    1 point
  43. Why are you asking us to propose the return of color stock bonuses?
    1 point
  44. Also "write it off as shitty roleplay and move on" message: Nah. If they take up space on the map, they should have to face the consequences for their actions
    1 point
  45. I have very mixed feelings about this... until I formulate a proper response I'll offer 5mil to anyone who joins the Satanic Temple and posts proof: https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/join-us
    1 point
  46. All the context needed to understand the post was within the thread itself. The moderators either didn't choose to read it and do their due diligence, or like I said, "they didn't get it". Humor is subjective, so is what people take offense to, what matters is whether or not a post violates the rules or not. What it means to promote: With regards to referencing historical discussions and satirical usage, promoting Nazism, Terrorism, Racism, etc means using those images, agenda, propaganda in place in RL society to further promote that type of hate and agenda within this community. What part of the post promotes hate or an agenda? If the moderators felt that being a "nazi" was such a bad thing, they would crackdown on people like the person who instigated that thread, who randomly call people nazis without evidence. But of course they won't lmfao. The only standards the moderation team have are double standards.
    1 point
  47. The bastards came for me but they were no match for my smooth talking Canadian ways.
    1 point
  48. There could be an option for alliance management to allow anyone to deposit into the alliance bank, even if they are not a member. This could help private banks that work as an alliance to receive Loan payments from their clients and provide better services, without using Trade and individual nations in the process. Alliances, via control panel, could enable bank access or not to non-members.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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