Leaderboard

To Whom It May Concern, Week 2 of The Hobo Express has come and gone. The past week has been an odd one to be sure. Visiting the once-great Platinum Studios of the Bad Company record label brought back memories of both the positive and negative variety. Some of the nicest people you will meet reside within the studio. Although, it is hard to stay within the recording booth, as it appears they don't have a cleaning crew. Dust, syringes and candy bar wrappers everywhere. If they changed their business format for artists to record there, perhaps the interior of the building would be better off. Regardless, I wish them the best of luck in the increasingly competitive market of the music industry. Next up? Find out below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZDQjlcWKBY So here we are, jumping back onboard the train. The next stop? Knights Templar. We shall see what these little fellas in suits of armor have to show us. Oddly enough, a few more people have taken residence in the boxcar next to us. Pika, Sparqs have joined JKell, Charlie and myself on this expedition across Orbis. I pray that they all remembered to bring soap. Sincerely, Kev New Hobo Express Song: Be sure to join us for the full review on Great Job! with Kev and Charlie on Fridays 11PM Central! https://discord.gg/KsTCus

It's time for a Crusade!

Speaking for the great nation of New Bloxhelm, we are excited to ride The Express into Knights Templar!

EM's alliance

So um.... Ockey is mass spying people as he always does. Aku/Rosey/whoever else is talking shit as they always do. So.... What's new here?

If KT was more autistic, it’d be Mensa HQ.

You mean their autism rub off on KT :^)

So, you guys joined a micro, after joining the honorable, by comparison, alliance in BC.

You’re approaching Noctis territory.

What are those poles? What should we do if those poles you name just fought a war on the same side and appear to be pretty buddy buddy. I would argue the opposite. Limited wars are more professional. If you enter with a limited goal (eg, cutting someone down to size) then 3 rounds is plenty to accomplish a reasonable goal. It's sufficient enough to get a point across, and avoids the mess of terms. If it is not settled with white peace after 3 rounds, your opponent is either delusional, whales who need more time to burn, or nuke bloc. Historically, IRL, limited wars are also a sign of political acumen and I think it is the same here.

If you check our DMs clearly says Vlad but thalmor works as well

Many mistrades are to buy food for 2k+ PPU from clicking on the Create Offer page and then forgetting to change the resource type. An easy fix to this would be to set the Create Offer default resource type to match the resource of the originating page. ie. if a player clicks Create Offer from a screen that was filtering on iron, then the default resource should be iron instead of food. If the originating page isn't filtering on a resource type, then just leave the default resource type to food. I think this would be as simple as appending something like "&defaultResource=iron" to the Create Offer button and updating the Create Offer page to consume that parameter. If this is too much work, then a simpler change would be to just unset the default resource type. Leave it blank, thus requiring players to select their desired resource.

So with this war wrapping up, and looking back at the wars this past year, we've gotten into a cycle of the aggressors winning again, but the wars being stretched out for long lengths of time by the defenders, who refuse peace until damage is equal. For example, the 2 longest wars to date were back to back, so obviously the trend we're going with is defenders forgoing long-term growth plans/patterns for short term damage to the alliances their fighting, even if its more detrimental to them in the long run. Do you think the longer wars/less growth is going to be the norm going forward?

The thought of KT being more autistic than it already is...I think I'm going to cry.

I wouldn't overlook the difference between what was initially proposed and what ended up being signed. EMC went out of their way to aruge for a change in wording that ammounts to little more than semantic difference, but it was clearly important to them otherwise they'd have accepted first time. As far as who shot first in the talks, I only know what I've read and the only publically discussed talks-related issue that I can recall having been commented on by both parties was that a joke copy of the treaty was made to troll EMC and they didn't show up to arranged talks for a while after that. If you shared the logs so that the rest of the game could draw their own conclusions it would clear the air a bit.

Purely basing this on what I've seen on the forums, and maybe I'm being naive in thinking like this but I think a big reason for the slow peace process was the initial trolling of TKR in the negotiation channel, the "war heroes" thing. Making a toxic negotiation environment is a great way to put up a roadblock in talks, and looking at the difference between the original terms and the revised terms as well as the course of the war after the initial talks (no notable improvement in TKR sphere position and the hit on TFP) I think I'd be correct in saying TKR didn't stall talks purely for strategic reasons, so it must've been something else. Hence why I say it was the approach to talks. Call them stupid, incompetent or whatever, I think not putting up for shit talk is more or less in line with TKR's culture and the will of their memberhsip. If Coalition A was interested in ending the war in December then a better approach would've been to pry further into TKR's objections with an open mind rather than laugh them out.

in soviet russia, fraggle nukes you

Good fight. See you again in 12 months time.

Alright, let's look at these points in the future. Fast growth is partially possible due to wars becoming increasingly expensive and from higher tier players funding lower tier players. As more players reach whale status, it stands to reason new players will grow at increasing rates. Limiting whale growth will only hinder the rate at which new players can grow. It took over 2 years for the first nation in the game to reach 20 cities. Many new players can reach that in months due to whales funding alliances to buy them up. In the future, there will be more whales and larger whales, increasing growth. Limiting infra would limit this effect, limiting growth. Alliances are providing grants up to over 12 cities. That number will grow as they can fund more from whales. Limiting infra would limit this effect, limiting growth. A Boy Named Crow's 1st post addressed this issue in the future very well. Wars have been increasing in length and intensity, as a general trend. Assuming this continues, war will be even more expensive. This actually helps new players in two ways: Whales will fund warchests for newer players as cities won't be as beneficial. Sheepy designed the game so new players make raw resources, mid-tier players make manufactured resources, and whales use commerce. The price of war materials will increase, helping new players and mid-tier players at the expense of whales. Over time, yes, leaderboards and firsts are naturally claimed. However, we still have a large abundance of new things to do. I don't see this ever becoming an issue in PnW and suspect the game will die from other causes before we run out of titles to claim. As for the rest of your post: Majority of players involved in the game's meta have watched other games similar to PnW die. However, every game has their own set of rule and features. Therefore they aren't carbon copies and what will fix one game may break another. As I said earlier: Yes, there are many things that need looking at with an outlook on the future. Implementing a change that has half a dozen standing points against it ensures we won't reach that future easily.

Check here before making a new thread. If you suggest something that has already been denied, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. This thread is currently in progress. I've moved the ones form the previous thread in here and changed the formatting to a (hopefully) more helpful style and added some back to page twelve of the suggestion pages. (I swear, we need a "Most Savage Game Suggestions Response" thread. Some people have no chill.) Denied suggestions will take priority over approved suggestions. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Denied Suggestions Mass Infra Purchase for Everyone [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Alliance IP Ban [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Reduce City Planning Food Requirement [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Delete The Game [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Cap Alliance Bank Size per Player [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Infra Costs Resources [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Increase City Cost Through Resources [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Alliance Leader Embargoes for Alliance [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Water as a Resource [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Improve Baseball [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Cease-Fire [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Make Missiles/Nukes More Endgame [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Blackjack [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Ban Trade Bots [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Automated Trade Fulfillment and Trade Matching [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Automated Trade Agreements [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Baseball Tipping Button [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Separate Tax Rates for Raw and Manufactured Resources [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Make Cities Cost Less Over Time [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Increase Nuke Damage [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Fewer MAPs for Small Attacks [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Removing Deletion Timer [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Shortening 2 Hour Turns [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Classifying Nation Size Using Score [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Tax Each Resource Separately [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Nation Banks [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Continent Bonuses [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Steal Unit Production as an Incentive to Beige Opponents [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Donate for a Public Flag [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Make Infra Cost More Per City [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Resource to Resource Trading [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Remove Inactives from Alliances [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Secret Trades [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Remove Higher War Upkeep Costs [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Change Daily Log In Bonus to a Percent [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Approved Suggestions [To Be Added] Land Leaderboard [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] [To Be Added] Increase Trade Resource Limit, Trade Confirmation Screen, Trade API [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] [To Be Added] Link Alliance Trade Offers with Global Trade Screen [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Mass Infra Buying/Buy To x Infra [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Increase Daily Login Bonus [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] City Discount Project [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Increase City Population Growth Age Bonus [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Link Resource Icons To Trade Screen [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Order Treaties [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Tax Resources and Cash Separately [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Remove Bounties on Deleted Nations [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Browser Notifications [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Remove 0s From Trade Screen on Mobile [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Take NAPs Off The Treaty Web [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Remove Game Date Timers [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Nation Activity Markers [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Increase Alliance Description Limit [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Page Title Changes [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Change Color Bonus [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Note: Colors have been changed since. The formula in the above link is incorrect. Improved UI [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Embargo Alliances [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Show War Declaration Time [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Improve Alliance Score Graphs [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Show City Manager for Other Nations [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Add Alliance GDP [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Originally Denied, Later Approved Suggestions Nota Bene: These are mostly added after a major change to the system relating to the suggestion. Don't use this as an excuse to start a new thread about a previously denied suggestion. Beige System Changes [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Note: Beige was overhauled since this was suggested. Beige is now shorter and stacks with each defeat. Changed [Link] Add A Spy Range [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Note: This was added as part of a major spy overhaul. Changed [Link] Tax Brackets [Link] Admin's Verdict [Link] Note: Certain nations now don't pay taxes, shrinking the potential for abuse. Changed [Link] <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> If you find a suggestion where Sheepy (Alex) or the mod team has ruled either way, PM me, message me on Discord, in-game message me, or post it below with a link to the post. Feel free to post any questions, comments, concerns, etc.

Pinned this one and unpinned the older one.

Welcome to the game!

"Grumpy" Gang, "Grumpy" Gang, "Grumpy" Gang Spent six months on this game Figured it's time for some fame (ooh!) Coalition A fricked up my alliance name But we rebuild quick so it's all the same But now ima go buy Balmains "Grumpy" Gang, "Grumpy" Gang, "Grumpy" Gang #Hypebeast #Yeet #Gucci #Clout ESKETIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT

I swear to god I thought Inst was a Dubayoo multi or reroll for the longest time.

To Whom It May Concern, It has been months since Mr. Traveler and myself have left Platinum Studios. Our Mongolian friends provided shelter, supplies and some laughs during our mission to find a home. Here we are sitting around a campfire, a cup of hot soup in our hands with our knapsacks at our sides. Home. What is a home? Is it a destination? Is it a group of people? Can one home be better than another? We look to find the answers to these questions. Being objective is paramount to discovering the truth. At times being objective can be a hard thing to accomplish. We all have our biases and our point of views. This is why we have decided to go around the world on our makeshift Hobo Express. Each week we will travel far and wide in the pursuit to find a new home; to see what lies beyond. We will then report our findings on Friday night (11pm Central) using our mobile studio. We are hoping by the end of this expedition we can finally objectively call one of these alliances in Orbis our home. First stop, Empyrea. The death and decay that lay upon the lands of Empyrea is getting Charlie all hot and bothered. With any luck, this will be a short trip and we can call this next stop home. Great! Tidings and Best Wishes, Kev and Charlie

Solution time. Thunder Dome Weekends. Two nation's enter into war for 48 hours and battle to the death, no limits. Think of the side bets. Think of The fraggles who would drop hundreds of nukes on one nation.

I'd argue long periods of peace have a lot less to do with war chests and much more to do with politcal maneuvering. It's actually relatively easy to build a war chest if you know what you're doing. And while it certainly takes a bit of time, it just can't be the main factor by itself. Two points: 1.) I think it's fair to say most alliance leaders actively avoid wars, particularly ones that don't have easy odds. There are certainly more antagonistic sorts, and plenty of movers and shakers who are admirable. BUT if you polled every gov member in this game i bet you find most would agree to two key tenets "It is my job to look after my members' best interests" and "long term economic gains tend to do more for an alliance than a successful war" (especially so in about 2/3 of every triumvirate). 2.) Building a successful coalition of alliances is difficult even when you have everything going for you - and most successful coalitions begin disagreeing almost immediately after they've all agreed to declare war. Establishing all the necessary contacts and trust is definitely the most time consuming aspect of a prolonged peace and after war is declared getting everyone to agree on terms is certainly the most time consuming aspect of war. This is why I prefer IA. Combine both of those points and you end up in a situation where there is no particular incentive to antagonize the game any more than one has to, so they can build political relations and prepare their alliance for war AND no incentive for the victorious coalition to peace out promptly as an adversary that is pinned down is preferrable to one that's free to maneuver both financially and politically, for the most part. Especially if that enemy is voluntarily re-throwing themselves on the sword which is basically what happens every time somewhere after round three or four when all the good whaling opportunities have dried up. Realistically, if you want a more fluid and fast paced game - you'd need to reduce the potential costs of taking (and failing) risks + a much larger and diverse range of alliances and players + more balanced and competitive mechanics (particularly ones that are actively re-worked to keep things on an even tier). This game offers none of those things. If you want to succeed at a persistent nation sim, the first step is creating a nation and the second step is simply persisting long enough for every other player in the game to get bored and delete. Frankly, I'm surprised this game has remained as interesting as it currently is, and a lot of that credit goes to competent alliance leaders who are actively stirring the pot. The problem is this game is mechanically biased against stirring the pot, no matter how competent you think you are.

I mean mechanics might be one thing that may inhibit war but I think that is a fairly large cop out. The treaty whoring that we've seen is by far the largest cause for wars to not happen for extended amount of time. Hypothetically let's say t$ wanted to hit NPO. NPO is tied to quite a few alliances, who themselves are tied to even more alliances. Very quickly t$ would have to fight 20+ alliances to hit NPO. So the logical answer is to therefore get enough alliances on board on their side to be able to compete. Most alliances have their own plans so convincing them can be hard, there also usually is tussling over when everyone can/wants to do it. Now multiply that by the fact they need to now coordinate with 20+ alliances and you work out quite quickly why wars and organising them take an agonisingly long time. Spam treaties more and the longer wars will take to happen.

I'm sorry, but, I'm truly confused. Can we call their art demands stupid while also viciously defending the joke terms of this war as inconsequential and utterly non-punitive?

Long wars are a fundamental shift in the meta though. Leaders now have to balance how long they can sustain. That was Paracovents weakness was they lacked the economic and political willpower to sustain wars. You're putting the cart before the horse. Alliances need huge war chests because of the economics update, which is the true reason for wars being more spread out. If there should be wars it needs to be fixed at a mechanical level by either making wars cheaper or increasing cash flows. Long wars are part of a deterrence strategy as well. The first few rounds are when the vast majority of damage is done to the losers, so there is zero incentive to leave at that point.

There is plenty of strategic reasons to lengthen a war. There were quite a few as to why we extended ours. 1) We didn't see the war as overly justified and therefore stacking terms on top seemed meh 2) We knew a war with TKR was being discussed outside of our sphere, and as the war progressed learnt that it was very likely to happen. Therefore wasting resources and burning anything we could seemed like an alright idea. 3) There were two other spheres not being harassed by us, the guys in tCW with large infra had to stay at max mil otherwise those who dropped were nuked. ET was also doing well against everyones smaller guys. 4) We were aware of what Queen M had done, we however did not have any means of proving it but knew if we somehow could (Which was kinda lucky due to Alex) we would deal a decent PR blow against them. Overall we achieved some nice objectives and in the end sat out for this war allowing us to rebuild. So it worked out.

A bit confused, but also partially my fault because I was talking about both in game and real life, so I'm not sure which this is a rebuttal to, but I *think* it is the in game comment. So, yes, I agree that the disadvantaged side decides when the war ends, but I think the aggressors often build into the CB and discussion a motivation to be stubborn. For example, TGH recently rolled TRF because we wanted to bury the hatchet from the drama of last year. Queen M reached out and asked what the deal was, we said, we want to bury this thing, we saw an opportunity to hit you, we're gonna go for 2 rounds and we want this small concession. We were upfront from the start and it ended exactly as we said it would. This isn't a particularly strong example, but it is recent memory so it may serve some utility. This war arguably was the result of some simple power politics and straightforward calculus. So, in theory the goal from the get go was to cut TKR sphere down to size for a variety of reasons. This is a reasonable CB and a reasonable war, but the discussions and large amount of humiliating terms certainly pushed a different narrative that it was less about cutting them down to size and handing them an L, and more about absolute humiliation and degradation. Now, this could be a misreading, but that could also be the fault of either my disinterest or poor signalling from the aggressors as to what this war was really about. I am not TKR but if I imagine that if they knew they were going to get rolled because they were a threat, and once they were neutralized as a threat and handed minimalist terms, I think this would've ended ages ago and with significantly less toxicity.

Per our agreement, Grumpy is proudly announcing its need to take a NAP, because we are old and NAPs are the highlight of our day. We invite Guardian and TKR to pull up on the recliner, and sofa, first come first serve guys, and take a NAP with us, because you are our friends and friends NAP together. That is all. -SRD

On the road again! That was a Great! stopover in Empyrea. We were welcomed in with open arms and a bustling Discord server. Their community is always active whether spurred by their Question of the Day, friendly atWar games, or spitting fire in their #rap-battle channel. When we approached their alliance, I wasn't sure to expect. Would it be a shell of Roz Wei? Would they take the same intentionally inflammatory position he held in his day? I was pleasantly surprised to see that they have, in fact, begun to develop a distinctly Empyrean culture in their community. Overall, this has been a very positive start to our journey. While we didn't quite click enough to settle down, I'll definitely look back on this week with fond memories. One unexpected development - while we were there, we heard one of the most beautiful pieces of musical genius ever created. Our good friend Joshua Keller was spitting fire in Empyrea's studio. Over some hot soup one night, we mentioned our plans to mosie on down the trail on the Hobo Express. He jumped at the opportunity to get out and see the world, write a couple songs, and kick back while the winds of fate decided his course. While it's no easy thing to leave your friends behind, we're super stoked to have Josh come along with us. One guy can only take Kev's Beerhoe impression for so many hours! We're off to Bad Company to revisit our old stomping grounds and catch up with good friends in that neck of the woods. Maybe Josh could record a track while we're there! As always, tune into Great Job! with Kev and Charlie on Friday nights at 11PM Central. Keep track of your favorite hobos, catch up on current events, and meet cool people. See you there! Orbis Weekly: https://discord.gg/6THxUyx

Honestly, I'd have to at least dispute that one. Sure, getting rolled is costly and it inhibits growth and members tend to bail. However, there are still concrete and legitimate benefits to be gained from at least occasionally fighting some difficult fights, and even if not especially when losing them. Reputation, teambuilding, experience, and trimming off deserters all are things that simply cannot be bought with resources, no matter how many years of peace one has to fund them with.

There's no NAP.

Didn't you agree to pay me 250 million to nuke him, only to back out when I wanted half up front?

Hi I’m from Polaris. As a member of Vanguard we do not engage in conflict because we’re a bunch of pusseis;. So join and have your dream come true. Polaris: https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=2358

@Ameyuri, @katashimon13 and I travelled around Orbis like this about a year ago and it was pretty cool. I am sure you will have a lot of fun. You are more than welcome to visit CoS. Edit: I guess Charlie Traveler will be a legitimate name as of now.

All aboard!

Some scrub-ass punk thinks he's big shit just because he's an alliance officer, so I need to put him in his place. Am I able to frick his shit up while he's in my alliance, or do I have to leave to do it?

I think it's safe to say from this thread that people were waiting for something exciting to happen.

That's exactly what a 7 year old would say.

Ah ok, I somewhat disagree with you, but I understand where you're coming from. I think it's terrible that it went that far in the first place.

Let's be real here, at least the game is exciting once more.

He's in Rose at the moment. Ashland is showing the reason why we have issues with Rose as an alliance now.

He could've done better with his reply to Crowley, one of the few folks from Mensa who doesn't shit post from our alliance. But I guess he has a reputation to uphold.

Well, I'm not entirely sure Vanguard was the next target. After the raids on Reischland and a lack of action from Rose, it was one of those " Does Rose even care? " Then the personal attack ad happened and we went to attack while trying to be tactical with the web. Or that's my perspective on it. Who knows what would've happened without that ad. It was a surprise to me. Maybe more planning would've happened to where we would've hit Rose directly. I much would've preferred that, but looking at the web - that's just not logical. Rose is pretty much at the center of the web. Smart, but boring really. Your and Rozalia's earlier analysis seemed right along the path I think. It does seem to be tactical chess, but it's gotten out of hand ( As Ashland's attitude showed ).

I'm sure it was a 'tactical' thing, but who knows how definitions of alliances play out here. First we need a legitimate CB, now we're not doing right with triggering treaties since the Great VE War saw to it that nobody really follows them to their definitions. You're right though on allowing Rose to militarize, we'll see how it goes. We're ready.

Wtf Glorious? Lol