Leaderboard

This.

#pwawards @Fraggle

1. Logs were shared elsewhere of the poaching attempt. 2. BK stated in the logs above that they were entering because of any action taken against GS which entered despite having no tie to the conflict. Also note, BK is on the side of the global conflict trying to force Grumpy to sign paper because it enters wars due to "friendship" the likes of which were justified here.

1) The losing side is being asked to give it up or keep fighting. They can give it up and then plot and scheme to war parties to get it back. Or just bring it back when they're in a position to defend themselves if attacked over it. 2) Who are the top alliances involved? I created this coalition but TEst is not large does that mean we don't get a seat at the table in the war we were one of the two main catalysts for? The large part of the terms given by several other contributing alliances are largest cosmetic/post related terms, nothing detrimental to an alliances well-being. Who are you to say someone who fought hard along side a side does not get a voice at the table? Who are you to suggest that 2 alliances get to speak for several whom they may have no ties to? You've never been in a situation where a coalition, not a bloc is fighting I take it, at least in a leadership position. If you had you'd realize how idiotic your sentiment is. 3) Peace talks have been going for a long time, a cease fire only helps the losing side keep the pressure off of them and gives morale to hold out longer. Why not keep holding out when you're not getting hit? You can have a refund on your 2 cents.

Too lazy to make a meme out of it, but congrats to Knightfall™ for being the first war in Orbis History to surpass $1 trillion in total damage!

As we've already said, the failed merge proposal really hasn't bothered us as much as you might like to think - whilst ultimately it would have been neat to see (especially considering ever since we initially protected you we've been under the impression we both had a similar outlook), it's not some sort of huge devastating blow. We're just amused at how it ended with Arthur just leaving the chat without a word after we asked a pretty harmless question regarding "unforseen opportunities" that meant they were no longer planning to head down the paperless alliance route. I guess we know what this was now - upgrading that protectorate agreement, so I'm not really sure why that was cause to immediately stop talking to us. On an aside: "[Camelot] weren't as obsessed with the forums" Guess not really caring means we're obsessed... As for the "paperless friends" comment, our issue is more how you went about it, not that it happened. Speaking from the perspective of someone who has been in paperless alliances in government and as a member for a large portion of their time in this game, getting involved in a fight that doesn't directly concern you often comes with a lot of consideration - if you decide to commit to, say, defending an alliance you're friends with, you take on the knowledge that you should fully expect to be countered. Roz Wei did this in 2016(?) against Rose for the 168-whatever day war knowing full well that by trying to help a friend (t$ in that case) we'd be countered (only we didn't expect everyone on the opposing side to take an opportunity to hit us :P). In this instance, Goon Squad had no treaty with Camelot or their protectorate we hit until they sent a 'counter' attack (after wars with Camelot/their protectorate had already started) seemingly in order to make it look like they had a 'paper' treaty to legitimise attacking us. Our retaliation against Goon Squad resulted in BK stepping in to their defence which seemed rather odd. [EDIT: Hodor put this much more succinctly a couple of posts above] Perhaps you misunderstand what "paperless friends" means, Epi? It certainly doesn't usually mean creating a physical treaty in game when you want to get involved in a war. Just do it as is and accept for the most part that it's generally going to be considered an aggressive action, and dealt with as such.

i blame @Vexz she started it all smh #blameValinor

Seeing as someone was kind enough to provide award icons for each of the categories, I've added the awards in-game for nations and alliances. Some of the categories are negative, so if anyone would like an award removed from their nation/alliance page, just let me know. Easiest way is to shoot me a message on Discord, but a PM here or in-game will work as well. Also, it was a lot of manually entry setting up the awards, so if I have made any mistakes (incorrect icon, award assigned to wrong person, missing award) please let me know about that as well. And I should probably just add in that I did not facilitate or participate in these yearly awards at all; they were community run and a "for fun" thing. Someone has put them on every year, and I have added awards in-game in the past when someone has taken time to create the awards (for everyone.) I believe last year no one made award icons, so none were added in-game.

There are many programmers that exist beyond your tiny bubble. Like the ones that coded the war stat website, Rose's automated system, Reqiuems ability to track aars and applicants(I don't forsee trades being much of a stretch for it), and I'm sure there are plenty of other projects I dont know about The point is, the ability to produce it is there, and yet they have not programmed it. The community seems to believe, for the most part, that this bot is unethical. You di not have to agree with that, but you di need to drop the arrogant persona and acknowledge your bubble is not the only thing in the world capable of anything.

Alliance of the Year: Black Knights - I can agree Most Powerful Alliance: Black Knights - I can agree Best Military: Black Knights - I disagree but still valid option Best Rookie Alliance: Camelot - Wrong, it's TGH Best Flag: New Pacific Order - I disagree but it's too subjective Best War Flag: Black Knights / New Pacific Order - I disagree and the fact that CKD is last gives an idea Most Active Alliance: Black Knights - It's a stupid award because if I have to pick the most active alliance I don't go for big alliances, but if we are talking about highest number of active players I have to agree, who wins the awards has the highest number of active players Most Honourable Alliance: New Pacific Order - Wrong because the right option is no one, or Arrgh since they are loyal to rum Most Improved Alliance: Acadia - NG is still there so nothing improved Best Diplomatic Team: New Pacific Order - I can agree Best Economic System: The Syndicate - Impossible to vote this award and it's stupid anyway Best Recruiting Staff: New Pacific Order - I disagree but we can go with this Best Propaganda Staff: Black Knights - I disagree but still valid option Best Alliance Growth: Polaris - Sorry? Best Forums: New Pacific Order - I disagree because my forum > any other forum (and forums > slack/discord) Alliance Most Likely to Succeed in 2019: Black Knights - #1 spot +1 doesn't exist so it's the wrong option Most Immoral Alliance: Camelot - Oh c'mon Most Controversial Alliance: Arrgh - Oh c'mon Best Alliance for New Players: Black Knights - I can agree Most Missed Alliance for 2018: Mensa HQ - I agree Best Re-started/Re-branded alliance of 2018: Terminus Est - I agree Player of the Year: Leo the Great - I still need a definition for player of the year, if you say it's the leader of the alliance on the #1 spot I have to agree, but it's that the definition? Most Powerful Player: Leo the Great - I can agree Best Alliance Leader: Leo the Great - it's basically a popularity contest so yes? no? who cares Most Controversial Player: Alex - Always Alex Most Dynamic Player: Dynamic - Easiest award ever Best Player Sig: Gorge - Who cares Best Player Avatar: Leo the Great - Every option is good, who cares Best OOC Poster: Alex - lol, I expected Shifty Best IC Poster: Fraggle - I disagree but I can agree Nicest Player: The Emperor - Meh Funniest Player: TheNG - I can agree Most Active Player: Roquentin - Who else? Playing 150 nations is not easy Player Most Likely to Achieve Greatness in 2019: Leo the Great - Again, can't be someone who is already up there Player Most Likely to Achieve Greatness in 2020: TheRebelMan - Half of the players who voted will not be here in 2020, do we really need this award? Best Wall of Text: Rozalia's Deleted Threads - tl;dr Best P&W Forum Topic: Knightfall War Stats - I can agree Biggest Controversy: The Continued Existence of The Commonwealth - Why people woted this? I don't get it Funniest Event: Charlie Recreating the Naked John Lennon Photo - I don't remember this one Most Entertaining Discord Channel: Politics & War - DISCORD = BAD Best Treaty Announcement: War Boys II - I don't remember Best Declaration of War: CoS DoW on Guardian - I can agree Biggest Meme: Arrgh - What? Largest E-Peen: TheNG - Nope, NG has a tiny peen Best Villain: Alex - Always him Most Hated Poster: MinesomeMC - I disagree but he's up there I guess Most Missed Player (Player that has gone inactive/quit): Dobby/Thorin/Alex the Great - Not Roz? Worst Alliance of the Year: The Commonwealth - May not be the best but there are a lot of worse alliances Worst Military of the Year: The Knights Radiant - Delicious tears of all those players we kicked in the ass Worst Diplomatic Move: TKR Refusing Peace in Knightfall - I don't understand why it was an option Most Inactive Large Alliance: The Knights Radiant - Delicious tears of all those players we kicked in the ass part 2 Alliance Most Likely to Fail in 2019: The Commonwealth - Fail like disband? I disagree Worst Player of the Year: Sweeeeet Ronny D - Same for best player but in this case I really don't understand Worst Princess of the Year: Kastor - Self made award Worst Alliance Leader of the Year: TheNG - As usual Worst Treaty of the Year: Guardian/Commonwealth - Why? Can anyone explain? Worst Forum Poster: Element - Not the most constant but the one with the highest peak Worst Nation Setup: Fraggle - If it's the worst why is #1? Worst Fighters of the Year (must have fought in 2018): The Commonwealth - Too many people don't understand the award, it's not less fighters, is worst fighters Alliance Most Likely to get Rolled in 2019: New Pacific Order - With the current situation is the less likely

ITT People mad BK doesn’t do elawyering when it’s obvious someone is trying to use prots to escalate with an ally.

The way I see it, when an alliance sends counters to defend their protectorate they are making the offensive action. So in this case I see it as "Camelot took offensive action in defense of their protectorate". So if you respond to offensive action by meeting the attackers directly you are taking defensive action, no?

Still leaves us with 4 treaties, you'll need to cancel each one in sequence ?

"In a world getting ever so dangerous, the people must come together and protect what is rightfully theirs. Failure to do so means they don't deserve their freedoms and rights." In accordance to rising tensions throughout the Globe, Masrani Global, The Holy Britannian Empire and Canada come together and create the North American Treaty Organization, also known as NATO. Article 1) Pax Americana The Signatories agree that foreign colonization is a threat to the sovereignty of the nations and peoples of the Americas. We reserve the right to intervene in wars to guarantee the independence of all Americans. Article 2) Free Trade The Signatories agree to allow Free trade between each member and all trade restrictions between the signatories is now forbidden. Article 3) Mutual Defense(Non Chaining) All Signatories shall see an attack on one as an attack on the rest, unless a signatory joined a war aggressively and is being retaliated against. After that this agreement becomes optional. Article 4) Integrated Military Command and Intelligence Services All signatories agree to integrate their militaries with eachother to create a more effective and efficient Defense force. This is to ensure quick responses from all signatories. All intelligence services shall share intelligence concerning National Security between the signatories. Article 5) Optional Aggression Signatories must unanimously agree to any aggressive war started under the Organization now known as North American Treaty Organization, NATO. If a single signatory does not go through the process of voting for an Aggressive war through, the others are exempt from providing any assistance including defense. Article 6) Membership All Signatories must unanimously agree to allow a new member into the NATO organization. All Signatories can leave this pact by providing a 3 year(3 months IRL) Article 7) Energy Sharing(Optional) To ensure each other's national security, Signatories can opt in the NATO Energy Sharing Program which will connect each signatories energy grid to the rest of the organization and providing any excess energy to a signatory in need. Article 8. Supremacy Clause Signatories agree to uphold this agreement before any other agreements created by other parties.

Not sure what the merger had to do with a ‘forum obession’. That’s not exactly why you declined, if you want I can show you a part of the convo. Not sure on the part where I called you allies, you’re the one who offered us a secret treaty.

Didn't you guys request Empyrea to sign a super sekrit treaty?

Fraggle op pls nerf

"Paperles" *checks Empryea alliance page* Don't think that word means what you want it to mate.

Might = right come on we all know this. This is what PnW has always been and will not change under NPO/BK Rule , not sure why people dont understand that But does go to show that Camelot is not capable of protecting anyone, its BK who is protecting people.

So you agree Camelot can counter for their protectorate yet, you don't believe that countering Camelot's counters is an offensive action against Camelot and therefore BK's protectorate? If you counter a counter, I would consider that as an offensive action because, if allowed to continue, then it results in repeatedly countering each other's counters which would just be a war without a declaration, yeah? Personally, I don't see why y'all would hit Camelot's protectorate in the first place, it just seems like poking the bear and asking for retaliation.

A clarifying post now that I'm back and reading up roughly on the discussions here: Early in my trip, Chris contacted me and asked if I had any issue with the yearly awards being held off-site, and I said no, that's not an issue. These awards are not hosted or overseen by me, as far as I'm concerned, it's completely community run and you should take the entire process (categories to vote in, nominations, voting, etc.) with a grain of salt. This is all just for fun anyway, it's not like winning a vote gives your nation an in-game cash boost or something. I understand the privacy concerns about using a different website, and I think it is smart to be thoughtful and forward thinking about such things. However, this is such a voluntary and unimportant aspect of the game that you can simply not participate if you're that concerned about it. I also understand the concerns about the vote being rigged, and to be honest, I have no idea whether it was rigged or not, I didn't oversee things at all. Again, take all the results with a grain of salt. While I don't really see an incentive to rig the vote (why have a vote in the first place, you could just proclaim so-and-so as [insert category] of the year in a post with much less effort) it is possible. From what I've read, the pollsters are releasing all the voting data publicly for post-validation anyway, so I imagine we'll find out whether it was rigged or not. Someone also mentioned why in-game awards weren't added for 2017 - the reason is that no one made the award icons. Because I'm not overseeing this process, I have never put in the effort to find/create icons for all of the categories, and have told the yearly award administrators that if someone creates a set of awards (for everyone, not just for the award that you won) I'll add them in-game. That happened in 2016 and 2018, but not last year, for whatever reason. Someone could go make a set of award icons now and I could go back and add the 2017 awards in-game as well. Anyway, I hope that about summarizes things. As I said in the results thread, if you received an award in-game that you don't want, just shoot me a message (Discord DM, PM here, PM in-game) and I will remove it for you (or your alliance.) I'd like to get a better voting/polling system setup in-game for a variety of purposes, and it would probably be ideal to build in voting into the game next year and do it more officially. As of now my plan is to really just work P&W full-time in the second half of this year, so I should have plenty of time to configure such a system and even administrate the awards more officially.

Congrats on your worst idea of the new year. For adding an in game reward to these you're going to catch so much shit.

You can't hate the organisers for the results of a damn poll. We've been churning these out for years, god damn its not the organisers rigging it. If you give people an option on who to vote for, and you provide in game nations with links, so they don't even need to come online on the forums, the people with the most players will statistically win every time- because there's more of them. No not all the results are accurate at all, for example BK succeeding this year? What? They already got what they want. How does one move up from the top? Polaris best growth? Not a chance in hell. But that isn't the fault of the organisers, it's a fault of the system we seem to come back to every single time. You can't be mad at IQ for winning stuff, it was only natural that the people with the most influence won.

Are you the TKR sphere version of noctis? Because you're acting about as intelligent as he is, and that's one of the meanest things I've said this week.

The real tragedy of this war is NPO nations using EMC funds to buy their own cities and ruining Roq's tiering scheme

In the spirit of fun and bloodshed, I have written a program that automatically creates a target list given a list of offensive and defensive alliances. I am willing to let anyone use it...for a price. Message me in-game or on Discord with the total number of offensive and defensive nations involved and additional specifications that you may need. Alliance names can be disclosed after confirmation of services, and the price can be paid right around war declaration time in order to ensure confidentiality. I'd be more than happy to engage in a back-and-forth discussion if necessary! I look forward to making things a little more exciting, and good luck warring! Sample target list between several random micros: https://goo.gl/gFa3KM

Preamble My mummy doesn’t believe me when I told her I met ayyliens. One day I was skipping in the rose garden, thinking about how I !@#$-a-lot, and met a talking taco. He took me to his leader, some purple fella with a thicc chin, and we had a great time. I told him about my plans to teach others how to launch the biggest loads and he agreed to make sure no one bullied me on the way! The time has come for the ayyliens to learn how to unleash the load as well. This’ll show my mummy! ARTICLE I – Non-aggression Neither signatory shall engage in any acts detrimental to its counterpart. Should such an incident occur between the signatories, both parties agree to seek solutions through private diplomatic channels. ARTICLE II - Mutual Defense The signatories agree to defend one another against any and all military aggression from third parties. This can be in the form of military, diplomatic, or economic resources. The degree of aid to be provided is contingent on the request placed by the defendant. ARTICLE III - Optional Aggression Either signatory may request assistance with the planning and execution of an offensive war against a third party. Such assistance, though encouraged, is not mandatory. ARTICLE IV – Intelligence Both signatories agree to share any intelligence they have obtained and that could prove useful or vital to the other. Should any intelligence pertain information concerning a direct, imminent attack, on either signatory, both signatories are mandated to respond appropriately in a joint force. ARTICLE V – Non-Chaining In any scenario where either signatory finds itself attacked as a consequence of fulfillment of third party obligations, the Mutual Defense clause as stipulated by article II will be void. Assistance in such a situation can still be requested for by either signatory; however, its fulfillment will be optional. ARTICLE VI – Cancellation Should either signatory decide this agreement is not in their best interest, the other signatory must be informed 72 hours prior to their withdrawal. Upon the passing of said hours, all articles are void. Tl;dr: Black Knights and Camelot sign a MDoAP and hereby declare both will abide to the articles stipulated above. Signed for Black Knights Signed for Camelot King: Arthur Wizard: Epi Lord of Foreign Affairs: Bill Rice

I think you think Chris is someone different than who he is. Our Chris has no affiliation with Project-Terra, or any game like this until he started working with me here. He also doesn't have development access to fix something like this. I'll look at solving this right now. EDIT: The issue was a minor bug in the code that caused the calculated and recorded value for the cost of infrastructure destroyed in missile attacks to be calculated as the value between 0 and the infrastructure in the city before the attack. This bug has been fixed now, so the values should be properly recorded going forward, but unfortunately there's no way to correct the stored value. In theory, you could calculate the correct value yourself however using the recorded amount of infrastructure destroyed along with the recorded city infrastructure before the attack and run the calculation manually yourself using the infrastructure pricing formula.

The poaching thing isn't even the issue. BK signed off on them slotting the guy attempting to poach from Emp.

Did you read the post before hitting reply or just respond to one you wish had been posted?

I don't just burn them to the ground, i give them an option first. When they refuse; and they always do - then i burn them ground. Just ask Lanchester how many opportunities they had. What score would that be? I popped into my alliance at around 3,000 score. A friend from nationstates made a new nation shortly before that and jumped right in. Should that have prevented? Why should it have been? Certainly i'm roughly 634,519 times more qualified than your average micro leader. If the score was even 10,000 i wouldn't have made it, that's because my experienced members are trapped in warring alliances. Even if they weren't and it was set 15 - still wouldn't have made it. You would've given new members to TCE weeks before it blew itself apart instead of the person who ripped all the idiotic splinters of it to shreds. Except, i wouldn't have been able to, since only one of my 10-11 cities who did that (and who i built there myself), was old enough to join with these restrictions. Logically you'd think, giving them a better alternative should work! Surely, i mean there's two right now. You got me and you got samohT. Yet even counting the latters applicants, he's 2/3 the size of Illuminati, which says its 300 days old but actually only just woke again like 3 weeks ago. I bet i do more than Illuminati at the very least to get new people to. My banner ad is, supposedly, doing quite excellently, we have an alright recruitment bot going thats brought a couple people in, our newest member now spams our ad in the discord, and i (come at me you little micro shits) quite happily march right over to these shitty micros, rather frequently, and try to poach them. It turns out you can't very effectively poach people to a better alliance when they have no clue what that even means. They don't know their micro is bad, or how its bad, me saying its bad and saying i know better and listing all the things ive done to prove it means nothing. I may as well be speaking another language to them. Their whole world is that little micro and i roll up to their doorstep shitting on it infront of them, they just see me as some twirly mustachioed villain. If you talk to their leaders like Windseeker does, you'll find every last one has some prideful optimism that they'll ever be anything better than a black hole. That's why i've come to the conclusion they're better off being blasted to the ground. Lanchester a good example, i was ever only going to get 1 round. They have a protector now, of course, and they were gonna get 6 days of beige and it only takes 30 seconds to get one with any of these protectorate spam alliances. That ignoring that because i can't get any manpower (apparently a global war this size is hilariously damaging to recruitment efforts, wish id known that before), means most of them aren't even really in my range anymore. Now you could go back to your original plan after this, but then you just kill all hopes of new alliances, unless they're like one out of many i hear coming post war that has enough people joining start up to be well and truly beyond any limitations you'd set. Sadly, i and samohT as i'm told, aren't the most social and drawing people in the world. I planned to start this alliance with 4-5 friends, only 3 could make it. If i'm lucky as all hell, post-war i'll get an extra half-dozen or so ontop of the 2 im expecting because their plans changed. You've narrowed your choices down to kill all startups or kill 90% of new players. Let me offer an alternative. The community - as it seems far more concerned than the game admin about this who we all lament is lazy and does nothing but minimal work band-aid fixes - will organize itself to create the tutorial it actually wants for the game. We're far more qualified for it anyway, our section on alliances could not only explain what they are and what they do, but even tell them what questions they should ask and things to look out for when reading those messages and looking at those pages. If Alex made the new tutorial as we wish, 85% of us would hate it and scream at him anyway. If we do it our damned selves it's much more likely to be reflective of the way the game actually works rather than the idealistic picture of one university student in India right now. I'd do it myself, but you MAY have noticed, i'm just a tad on the rambly side, and i don't foresee that going so well.

Keep digging that hole, Camelot.

Kek. That being said, i have an open spot over here. :^)

A for effort on trying to correct your mistake, but you're not getting back your 50M.

Paperless does exist. GoB is a form of fake-paperless, the kind with secret treaties. TEst is actual paperless. Yes, they're friendly with t$. However, under Pre's leadership and probably still even now, they'd be friendly towards Guardian as well, who they happen to have blitzed. Paperless alliances are friends with you but not your ally. Everyone in TEst and CoS including leadership likes Guardian, and that fact only made them more happy to be the ones hitting them. A wise man once said, just because they're your friend, doesn't mean you can't fight them. I'd count SK as actual paperless too. Sure, they're not quite like TEst or CoS, their situation came about from their allies disintegrating, and i'm sure they have people they're friendly with. They're not allied to anyone though, nobody is obligated to help them nor they help anyone. The same cannot be said of GoB. So what's really being asked, is for GoB to just be honest and blatant about its treaty situation, to either admit and showcase its treaties or to admit having none saying it is ACTUALLY paperless and then act as if it is so.

BK BEST K

BK STRONK!!!

1) Grow up 2) This is a no discussion forum, read the rules 3) Someone told me enough negative reputation = ban , that's why I care about it but regardless that is irrelevant, the fact of the matter is the abuse of the feature regardless of caring or not

Shut your mouth kid. You know full well there can be a difference in infra cost based on how much one has. Don't play dumb. 1500 infra to 1600 will cost way more than say 1200 infra to 1300 infra. Now go take your garbage elsewhere, preferably to a landfill or incineration plant.

I mean....posting "Hey we declare meme war against BK" after creating a treaty with an alliance BK is really at war with, even knowing there is a real war really happening and also knowing most people's eyes aren't going to catch the "meme" part and end up just seeing "Hey we declare war against BK" ....Looks like the joke is on ya'll...

Yeah, vote my reply down all you want Micchan.. That doesn't change the truth that hurts.

No sir, you must have a IQ higher than 150 to have your application considered.

Actually Spite, a lot of us spouting Dio stuff is IC / IG roleplay. Perhaps you're just not that internet jargon savvy to know this sir. Also, wonderful article detailing a lot of our thoughts coming here.

Interesting reply. I don't think any of us was talking about how great Pfeiffer is...

I don't know why that's creepy. Are you putting a lot of thought into that? I mean, you did see me shaking hands with a Mensa candidate ( Dr. Michio Kaku ) right?

Don't worry Pig, I'm watching your feet too.

I just find it amusing you're in every thread that Mensa HQ is mentioned. I like you being a groupie. What consequences are we facing?