Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/04/19 in all areas

  1. @Buorhann First instance I found, and I'm sure there's many more My point is simply in the past, your side has celebrated deletion of IQ nations as being a good thing. Don't act like you didn't participate
    6 points
  2. nice to see both sides deflect and blame the other for poor player retention when it's in fact both their faults EMC used to flex how many people deleted from IQ, and now IQ is doing the same to them. you dug your graves, now lie in them however, i do in general agree with the fact that shorter wars are better for the game, so if there's a way to make it more expensive to sit on your opponents that would be good, but it also needs to be cheap to rebuild warchest at the same time. perhaps, make military units more expensive to maintain during wartime, and increase production of m
    5 points
  3. At this stage in the game, the baseball thing really should be capped at X number of games per day. We'll inevitably get people coming in here arguing that he's just really active and others claiming he's botting. Just cap it and then if people want to bot an extra 200k a day or something then go for it. It's also worth posting that stuff like this contributes to server lag when it's not even a main feature of the game.
    4 points
  4. if i could dislike myself i would
    3 points
  5. I think the implication here is that trust is more of just a consistency in what you say and your actions. I mean it's a fact that everybody is paranoid about the "other side," and that in itself is a suffocating dynamic, ideal for stagnation. Most often this is achieved through more inter-alliance communication, which is a strategy that TKR has attempted to employ recently, including with you guys although y'all don't talk too much . Maybe it's idealistic but I wouldn't call it naive to have more conversations between enemy factions where people actually hear each other out before moving t
    3 points
  6. If you cannot understand from what has already been said, then you'll never understand the point and thus further conversation is pointless.
    3 points
  7. I mean, even though you're Koalition B scrubs, I like you Khai - but Mr. AlotofScarf is pretty on the button. Spend some time talking to your own slave coalition if you even have access and the opposition as well, you'll soon find out that - sure they are seeing eye to eye - but that common ground is both sides not backing down. Unless something drastically changes, which I doubt it will - 1) both will not accept a loss as both feel they have not lost. 2) white peace is somehow 'out of the question' 3) levels of twatness and ego will keep the war engaged until someone just decides frick it.
    3 points
  8. I understand the need for OpSec. I think that too much of the game is played or know by too few of the players. The leaking of war plans was good for the overall entertainment value of the game since it forced the "major" players to get out of the back channels and battle on the forums. I am by no means saying that their shouldn't be any OpSec but more just saying that we should allow more things to be push into the open. We create our own entertainment not Alex. So when someone lets say gets caught spying on an alliance call them out in the open so we can all see and enjoy. I know I'm a
    3 points
  9. You're implying that our-side is the only one facing inactivity and deletions? Scrolling through your sides alliance membership pages I can see just as much as a problem. Regardless, I'm beating a dead horse whenever I say anything to anyone on your side. Like talking to a wall.
    3 points
  10. Funny that. You still haven't addressed Keegoz/Adrienne in talks, more or less giving them the run around.
    3 points
  11. This is pretty much the case. There was a summer lull in every game so far. I never like summer wars because people will decide they don't want to bothered by it and might even decide they're done altogether because of the temporary irritation, but the problem is people are only seeing it from the perspective of an involved player when the player retention issues are for the most part with people who have never participated in an alliance war or just quit on easy damage or the game looking bad. A lot the things Alex put in to make war not totally destroy people are lost on people who never pl
    3 points
  12. Perhaps the worst part is that opsec doesn't even exist. It's more like classism. People will leak stuff to other alliance leaders in a matter of minutes, to the point where I sometimes feel like DM's are being live-streamed to an audience. Humor aside, I see a few structural problems within PnW that I think need addressing: 1. Mechanics and meta. Fixing the mechanics can really "stop the bleeding" at its source. -The score formula needs adjusting ASAP. I, at 20 cities, can be declared on by 32 city nations. I can also declare on 10 city nations. How does that make f
    3 points
  13. The whole "weeding out the weak" idea is kinda toxic if you ask me. The idea that if I don't continue to perform at what could be considered an extreme level of war activity for months at a time and prioritize that over my real life or other things going on, that I could be culled from the heard doesn't make me want to play the game even more. If I'm going to be ostracized from the community, which is a major part of this game, there's not point in logging in. I'm a war hawk in this game. I like the raiding and the fighting and the defending. But I get that it isn't for everyone. And it's wild
    3 points
  14. It's not just the trash mechanics of the game or the look that keeps people away. We sort of need a cultural shift. Alliances put too much emphasis on "opsec" where if you aren't with the right crowd you will never know of the drama that could create a more entertaining experience. The steady flow of political intrigue is what got me hooked on other games in this genre.
    3 points
  15. Yarr acknowledges that we have been overwhelmed by the number of nations attacking us and surrenders to COalition B under the following terms: Yarr acknowledges that Clarke did nothing wrong That is all Signed for Yarr: https://i.imgur.com/fX7C0ge.gif Signed for Coalition B: https://i.imgur.com/eAHrdFc.gif
    2 points
  16. UPDATE: A poll has been posted, so please check off any and all ideas you think will positively help the game. UPDATE 2: Preliminary Results are now shown below. Note: all results are ranked by popularity as determined by percentage of total voters supporting each idea. TIER 1 (50% +) Administrative: Increased Game Maintenance/Updates Administrative: Increase External Advertising (Google, Discord, etc.) Administrative: Fix the Mobile App Tier 2 (40-50%) Alliance: Expand Outreach Efforts that Mirror GWPC for All Alliances Administrative: Mor
    2 points
  17. y'all could just not react to the post - these people either want upvotes or downvotes - stop giving them?
    2 points
  18. Every time @Roquentin makes a wall of text post, All I can imagine is this:
    2 points
  19. Trust would be needed in general to even have an adult conversation on the matter. Trust is what delivers a dialogue - if both sides don't have trust in each other, both sides wouldn't be reluctant to sit down and hash out end terms. Big talk this war has been the idea that the aggressiveness would just boil over again into another war or political engagements post war to drop the 'hegemony' of IQ from the game and be the dymanic heroes in the world creating minispheres. Trust, whether you choose to believe it or not, is needed on both sides and without that connection, we'll continue this
    2 points
  20. I didn't say I had trust issues. I'm not here afraid of any of you attacking me in the future. I'm also not any of the big talking bobbly heads on the forums saying the game is dying or everything not my friend is an enemy secret allied until the end of all time. On the other hand, your own negotiator tells me a big part of people pushing for more punitive shit on me was "Concerns that you would attack them aggressively again." Well, ok, i'll round up my 20 guys in 2 weeks and give you an early halloween? A more serious note, if anybody is 'concerned' i'll hit them in the future - perma
    2 points
  21. then why bring it up at all? you never sound particularly worried. in fact, you treat it as a good thing. in my original post i even said “EMC used to flex IQ deletions” which you acted like you had no idea even happened, and now you say that you both did it then and now. so, buorhann, which is it? do you treat people quitting the game during these 3 month+ wars as a good thing or a bad thing? because many people on your side are all “woe is me” now that they’re the ones facing the consequences of it
    2 points
  22. I should start posting daily Micro-DoWs like this whenever Mythic raids a random alliance.
    2 points
  23. The issue with wars is it's just a test of wills at their core. So when the infra is all burned and one side has control over the other, it just comes down to who decides to blink first (Not unlike RL wars). Take this war for example. Each side gets to say they're winning because of X statistic (One side uses planes, other side uses infra damage, whatever). They've spent the last month arguing over specifics of these stats, but really they only serve the purpose of bolstering their own side's morale and attempting to get the other side to lower their own morale to get them to talk
    2 points
  24. Coalition C (see: Yarr) Hereby surrenders to Coalition B (see: Black Knights, Mythic, Goon Squad, Alpha, Peoples Jest Resistance Force, Hyperion, Elite Democratic Republic, The Socialist League, House Stark, Code of Honor, Hyperborea, The Enterprise, Kazouku, Afrika Korps, Golden Phoenix, The United Armies, Terminal Jest, Brotherhood of the Clouds, The Coal Mines, The United States of America, Horsemen, Animation Domination, IronFront, New Pacific Order, Commerce Union, InfoWars, The Hanseatic League, Order of the Fallen Angels, United Socialist Nations, Acadia, The Common Wealth, Carthago, Gu
    2 points
  25. Opsec exists for a reason. There's plenty of examples in the game where opsec info got leaked out (This current war seems familiar...) and started situations. The few times I was loose with opsec early on in my opportunities of each alliance I was in (Except TKR, since I was rather a deadbeat then), there were always another player who would take the info and go around sharing it to make themselves look "better" or show off what they have. Keep in mind, these are different players each time too. A cultural shift of what you're asking is pretty much impossible, as you do not kno
    2 points
  26. Stealing some concepts from EVE Online: As part of the changes in war mechanics, I propose a change in alliance membership limits as well. When creating a new alliance, it can start at say 30 member limit and can go up to say 100 with upgrades (suggestions). As a new player joining in, in most cases they might want to go for the biggest or strongest alliances. If there were a lot more alliances filling these positions, it would open up diverse options, multiple coalitions and so on. Coalitions can consist of multiple alliances that can join or leave the coalition and are subject to its af
    2 points
  27. As the newest mod, I cannot stress this enough: If you feel like a post warrants moderator action, use the report button. Every moderator gets a notification for every report when they log in. I typically log in to 1 or 0 notifications. Mods are people too with limited time to comb all the content for violators but we put in time to help out the community. If content gets reported, it will be addressed via the rules. Guaranteed, every time.
    2 points
  28. Holy frick have we really been going this long?
    2 points
  29. I mean, this. At least you are honest about your intent to make the game less fun and cause people to quit, which is more than I can say for some. Personally though nothing takes the wind out of my sails more than uneven moderation.
    2 points
  30. Turns out that when wars go on for months on end and the people in charge demand you give it your all every day, it puts a big strain on the more casual players until they decide that this game isn't worth it anymore. The best way to retain the more casual players who make up a majority of this community is to restrict the length of these global wars Overtime, these players can become more active members of our community. Hell I was one of those people who only really checked a few times a day until about March last year, despite the fact that between CN and P&W, I've been around f
    2 points
  31. I believe it's partially due to because when an alliance starts to dominate a score range. People get upset with constant beiging , and the sitting which lasts up to 5 days if you come with 700 odd planes, and then get smashed instantly and are removed from playing for 5 days, rebuild and do the same thing again for multiple weeks I don't think many people would be every intered in playing long definitely with such stagnating growth which comes in war. And as said, a lot of people consider this more of a passive game rather than active, and the war requires activity rather than passivity.
    2 points
  32. I blame TDU. We had a surge of activity when TDU fell.
    2 points
  33. with what?! I have 18 cities and if i build to 2k no one can attack me! we gonna rebuild and see what you guys gonna do about it
    2 points
  34. 1 point
  35. I upvoted it out of protest. Fight me
    1 point
  36. I watch that movie for Alan Rickman. The fact that it has Bruce Willis is just extra. There are two main issues here. First are the "solutions" themselves. It's not that I don't understand them, it's that don't I think there's a single understanding for most of them. I'm not going to endorse something that will get used as a vacuous talking point later on, especially since some of these aren't much more than vacuous talking points to begin with, even in their best-articulated formats. Second is the notion on which the question is implicitly based. I don't think it's reasonabl
    1 point
  37. FAKE WITHDRAW Time for me to do some update 1. Carrie Lam aka HKEC had a press con today. she was saying "withdraw the bill" 2. Thats totally a lie for distracting the world focus. And China wants her to finish the chaos before 1 of October aka China's birthday. 3. why is it a lie? CarrieLam wasnt use her title to withdraw the bill. She just passed whole thing as a topic to the parliament. (Are we going to withdraw?) and let the councilors vote. Inside the parliament there are over 2/3 of councilors are pro-China. So thats a predictable result of the bill will not be withd
    1 point
  38. Yeah i'm sorry treaties don't make you relevant, that's not how it works. Especially since very few people care about literally anyone you're treatied to.
    1 point
  39. CC was literally walking out the door when terms were accepted, so he didn't have time to post the proper surrender. EDIT: Though there was some confusion at one point, the peace talks went... well peacefully. I had fun chatting with some of the people fighting me. I hope the larger war ends smoothly for everyone involved. Ugh, what have I become.
    1 point
  40. Since raids are now considered wars The Mandalorian Empire declares war on The Boys CB can be found in this video: https://youtu.be/pfh17XgsrMs
    1 point
  41. Seasonal changes in the player base likely explain a lot of this. Below are the links to the five regions of NationStates that all new nations spawn in if anyone wants to take a closer look at what @Dad posted. Notice the cyclical drop-offs in nation count every summer and every January. (The latter reflects people going inactive during the November and December holidays; a nation takes several weeks to delete once a player stops logging in.) --- Player attraction could likely be increased by consistent advertising (Alex advertised in the past but largely stopped as far as I k
    1 point
  42. This likely has very little to do with the war. Activity always peaks in May and drops off over the summer. If you look at population graphs in NationStates you'll see the exact same thing. I would be very surprised if more than 10% of the inactive players went inactive primarily because of the war and not the season. The population of The Pacific in NationStates decreased from 7,300 on May 1st to a low of 5,286 in Late July. On May 1st our "active in the last month" population on Alex's graphs was 7,150, and it reached a bottom value of 5,552 before the GPWC boom.
    1 point
  43. Current top 5: politicsandwar.com/nation/id=18180 politicsandwar.com/nation/id=11481 politicsandwar.com/nation/id=13040 politicsandwar.com/nation/id=60700 politicsandwar.com/nation/id=5674
    1 point
  44. Just because you made more than thirty unsuccesfful alliances doesn't mean it was your fault.
    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.