Leaderboard

@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

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.

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 manufactured/raw resources? im not sure, id have to give some more time to think about it toodles

if i could dislike myself i would

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 to walls on the OWF. *Note: This was my interpretation of the point suggested by another player, so these views are only my own on this point. The goal here was to let people indicate interest for as many ideas as they thought valid. Restricting it to one choice seems stupid since many of these ideas are not mutually exclusive. It's simply a gauge of general interest for Alex and all of our viewing. Maybe from that point, we can start to work out solutions that have broad support. The actual rankings by percentage are less relevant. I think y'all can like at least one thing there. Some of these are more conceptual-based, but, in cases like this, the goal is to display the universal (or lack thereof) of these ideas. If there is clear support for something like reducing inter-alliance toxicity, then now we have a framework at least to start making progress. I'm a true believer in communication, as aforementioned in response to Khai, and this essentially forces all of us to see everyone's views unfiltered by politics and agenda through Australian ballot. I should say, though, that if this attempts to solve problems that aren't necessarily affecting member loss but still endemic in Orbis, I'll still be satisfied.

If you cannot understand from what has already been said, then you'll never understand the point and thus further conversation is pointless.

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. Knowing slave coalition from previous wars, you know the aggro, you know the possibilities. Knowing the constant drama argument since the war happened, you know the tension. There are deep cuts. If you think this is just going to be a simple 'haha' peace out on a whim, wrong.

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.

Funny that. You still haven't addressed Keegoz/Adrienne in talks, more or less giving them the run around.

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

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: More Community Engagement from Moderation/Administration Administrative: Better-Looking Advertising Meta: Crack Down on Inter-Alliance Toxicity Meta: Shorter Wars Game: Add Functionality (RP tools, national issues etc.) Game: Rebalance Units (i.e. planes) Game: Improve the User Interface Tier 3 (35-40%) Game: Change Score Formula to Avoid Large City Mismatches Game: Add Constantly-Changing Elements ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As this latest global war has ravaged our infra, planes, banks and more, we seem to have been so caught up in fighting about CBs and the result of this war that we forgot something truly distressing. During the course of this war, we lost about 1100 weekly active players (the last bump is explained by the influx from GWPC) and nearly a quarter of our monthly active players. As a comparison to knightfall, only about 300 weekly players were lost at its worst (by the end it essentially netted to zero lost) and 5% of monthly active players. For wars of comparable size, this last one has had about 5x the loss of activity, so this is something that should be addressed by the entire Orbis community. Attached in the link is a graphic depicting this comparison for weekly players. I apologize, but after waiting an hour for the picture to load, I lost patience. Graph of Active Players I come to y'all here today hoping to spark a discussion on what we can do to change the circumstance that have created this precipitous decline in activity. Many blame it on the length of the war, and it's likely that most of the blame can be assigned here. Maybe there are better explanations or solutions, but that's what I was hoping this thread can be devoted to discussing. But just to keep everyone on track of the actual problem, I'd like to set a couple of ground rules (obviously not enforceable by the moderators, but for a clear, productive discussion): 1) Please don't call out alliances or blocs and assign them specific blame. I don't care if you're blaming NPO, TKR, BK or even Fark. It's not the purpose of this thread, and you have 20 other 35+ page threads to yap your mouth in. 2) This thread isn't about drama rather debate. Please focus posts on argumentation and ideation of solutions. This is also intended to be an escape from the hostility we have all shown against each other recently. I'll keep editing this post to display the ideas discussed, starting with one of my own. Afterwards, I'll post a poll with the ideas, so we can get a view of the community's opinion as well. I'm going to ping @Alex, so you can see how this thread evolves over time too. Ideas: 1. Game-Related Issues: - Update UI @Akuryo -Change game mechanics (example Edward's Color Mechanics Idea) @Akuryo @Edward I - Add more functionality (RP tools, issues etc.) to break Peace/War cycle @Shadowthrone - Focus and Promote Player Interactions @Edward I - Add more constantly-changing elements @Roquentin - Restructure war mechanics @Machiavelli - Rebalance Units such as planes @Buorhann - Make victory/terms actual game mechanics @Pasky Darkfire - Increase/remove rebuy ratios @GreatWhiteNorth - Increase Infra attrition @Bartholomew Roberts - Change Score Formula (Avoiding big down/updeclares) @Bartholomew Roberts - Lower Casualty ratios @Bartholomew Roberts - Make some VIP features available to everyone (customizable elements) @Roquentin - Update/Improve tutorial with a focus on war @Roquentin 2. Meta-Related Issues: - Address the current war meta @Aragorn, son of Arathorn (not necessarily implying "fun") - Don't necessarily ostracize non-war-focused alliances @Pasky Darkfire - Constraints on War Duration with clearly defined war goals/CB @Etatsorp - Limiting interpersonal rivalries as a factor in war @Etatsorp - Address Inter-alliance toxicity @Bartholomew Roberts - Reestablishing Trust @Sir Scarfalot - Shorter Wars @Gobi @Filmore 3. Alliance-Related Issues: - Expanding outreach efforts across Orbis, and following in the footsteps of NPO's efforts with GWPC. - Giving members more say in war decisions @Etatsorp - Providing players with more accessibility to the actual politics of the game @Leftbehind 4. Administration-Related Issues: - Increased external advertising @Machiavelli - Google advertising @Akuryo - Penetration of Good-looking Advertising towards and into Discord @Mad Max - More Game Maintenance/Community Engagement from Administration @Mad Max - Fix up Mobile App @Edward I

y'all could just not react to the post - these people either want upvotes or downvotes - stop giving them?

Every time @Roquentin makes a wall of text post, All I can imagine is this:

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 war. This is likely why IronFront was unable to achieve simple white peace with the opposition. We brokered a deal, even had a term from SOUP that I needed to name one of my cities after Pika. Waited a few days and instead of white peace, we were countered with a public surrender. We are tiny players in the game with the mouth pieces being the big guys - we can't argue terms, negotiate deals, or approach opposition in the same manner as them - it's just how it is. Speaking with leadership on both sides, there is a clearrrr divide in opinion - hell - just read the forums.Trust is needed, our coalition needs to take a step back and reevaluate the game as a whole and think about the future.

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 - permawar me. Because i can almost guarantee it'll happen unless you forcibly drive me from the game. Point me to where i said you needed good relations for peace talks. Technically speaking, point me again to where i said they were lovey-dovey conversations. If all you're gonna do is strawman literally everything i say you can show yourself the door. I have no time for puppets who can't pay attention.

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

I should start posting daily Micro-DoWs like this whenever Mythic raids a random alliance.

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 dreamer to actually think that we won't take this game personal or as serious business.

Shhhhhhhhh

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. Beyond this, the only other achievable end to a war is to make the game as least fun as it could be for the other side. That's not necessarily a stated goal as it is the only other deliverable effect of war. War, being an extension of the politics in the game, is also stagnate because the politics of this game are stagnate. I know there's the whole "Mini-sphere" debate ongoing, but that's generally a diplomatic meta debate and not necessarily something that can change given the state of the game (because it requires an amount of trust and communication between the spheres that just seems unrealistic at this point). If you want more people to stay in the game, give them something other than fighting to do. The economy is too open to be a useful tool in politics, and alliances can't stop their own members from trading on the world market. Alex could always adjust the market or potential for several markets as an economic influence tool. Alex can also exert in-game mechanics on war, he could refactor score to prevent brutal down-declares. He could introduce a mechanic that makes recruiting new nations vitally important for alliances. You begin to see where I'm going, in that if you want more people to stay, make the game less about war. Don't nerf war, because it isn't an either-or situation. You can always add another avenue of play to the game to enhance the "Politics" portion of PoliticsandWar, y'know? Anyway, what is definitely clear is the game as-is is really just down to saving massive resources and blowing them out in one long bang, and those alliances that can't keep up with that pace lose members quicker and surrender soonest. War's great, but there has to be more to do than build stockpiles and tossing them away in one big twice-yearly global.

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, Guardians of the Galaxy, Camelot, Yakuza, The United Empire of ZahAharon, Church of Atom, The Fighting Pacifists, Solar Knights, Frontier Records, Orange Defense Network, Order of the White Rose, The Syndicate, United Purple Nations, Electric Space, Polaris). Though the 7 members of Yarr are mighty, we yield to the might of the 47 alliances which needed to tame us. The terms of the surrender are as follows: 1) We lost. 2) Clarke has never done anything wrong. Not only has Clarke never done anything wrong, he's never even had a thought cross a synapse which might have even had an inclination of wrong doing. In fact, Clarke is so right, that wrongness is allergic to him. Reality has dictated that there is no existence in which Clarke has ever been wrong, is currently wrong, or will ever be wrong. He's basically Bret the Hitman Heart of being right (rip Roz). Clarke's sister however is a dumpster fire, and that Diablos guy was a complete nutjob. Signed for Yarr: Signed for Coalition B

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 know where loyalties lie. To the alliance, to a media source, to a group of friends that's spread out amongst the various alliances, or to themselves. Citation needed.

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.

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 played the other games, so they still treat it as if they get raided then they're dead so they'd better quit. Most of the war issues describe don't do it on their own as it requires a high level of involvement to get sat on for months to begin with. People are barely touching the game as is due to the presentation and also because the lack of advertising doesn't replace people who don't stick with it. The tutorial has to emphasize war more and make it clear it's not like real life where war is going to kill you. This is the actual best suggestion. There is a lack of advertising going on and it still looks like a web 1.0 game. Smith had brought up that people he knew in real life didn't want to play a "wikipedia-ass looking game." and it's true. There is a lack of stuff that is constantly changing rather than just cumulative. The game is based way too much on accumulation of cities and other stuff. This will be a natural turn off to people starting off late. The issues as Keshav mentioned where RP elements of the nation are customized or in-game political drivers rather than a bunch of egos fighting over them would be better. Max brought it up in private but some of the VIP features like page customization should be available to anyone. It's easier to ditch some boring web page than something that has your own mark. ---- It's weird to see metaplayers generalize their own experiences when they're a minority of the playerbase in terms of their specific gripes with the war system when most people just give up if they get rolled. The other thing is If people actually wanted democratic engagement and to engage in long text wall debates of their alliance's future and learn about what the Clarke did nothing joke is about or who the hell Clarke was, then you'd see it happen already. You're also already free to make a fully democratic alliance to differentiate yourselves. Most people playing are either because they like to blow stuff up, want to accumulate stuff, or like being part of the same thing for long periods of time. If you want to improve retention, the game has to give more to the people it's bringing in in terms of engagement and content.

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 for fair gameplay when I am either 2:1 outnumbered or can double-buy more units than the enemy can possess in total? -Infra damage needs to be increased. I think if infra burned quicker, wars would be shorter. -military buy limits should be raised or even eliminated. The reason "real world armies" take time to muster is because of location and the enemy doesn't have a guaranteed opportunity to strike at you while you regroup. Buy limits are a cool idea but reinforce the "winners stay winning" meta. Unless you can muster superior numbers in allies, you have one chance to win a war or your military gets sat on and zeroed out. - Military casualties should be adjusted. Planes, ships, and tanks die way too quickly. People should be able to actually fight in a war, not get crippled before they can log on. 2. Intrapolitics of alliances. Membership involvement in decision making is paramount. Some fashion of democratic engagement is necessary and makes the game feel more engaging. 3. Interpolitics of alliances. Toxicity of certain communities, communities turning into echo-chambers, and communities that stagnate are the three biggest problems in PnW in terms of inter-alliance politics. Certain groups are *extremely* hostile for no reason and then complain that the other groups don't feel open to them. Certain groups are very insular and never make any efforts to approach other groups and exist in their own echo-chamber as a result. Finally, the worst of the lot, the people who have an alliance full of inactive players that participate in wars as cannon fodder and never make waves. All three have their own problem to solve. All in all, I'd say the insular nature of some groups and the war mechanics are probably the two most glaring issues right now that take away from the atmosphere of the game as a whole.

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 to expect that from every single person in the game. There is going to be culture differences from a war themed/based alliance to alliances that are more politically or economically based. That's perfectly okay but I think everyone should be able to find their niche without being lambasted by insults for their choice of play-style. If people want to be the economical powerhouses and only be involved in wars with actual CBs relating to them, then good for them. If they want to play the political intrigue game and keep their own hands from getting dirty then they should be able to do that. Punishing these ideas while forcing the rhetoric that "War is the only way to have fun in this game, why don't you want to war?" drives out people with these play styles. So maybe as a community, people should be more supportive of people and alliances that do something other than war? The forums remind me a lot of time of the Gorilla enclosure at the zoo at points. A tonne of chest thumping and grand posturing between the majority of people. I'm glad there is some comic relief around because otherwise all the circular arguments would be so mind numbingly pointless that I wouldn't even log into the forums. In terms of war mechanics, I'd like to see Planes be brought down a peg or two. Like, usually you have 2 or 3 S rank classes in a game, and right now, planes are the only S rank while everything else is like at a B or C rank. Ships might be close to an B+ because if you have sheer volumes of them, they can be a !@#$ to deal with. But once you have zero planes against the other sides whatever planes, they basically just start blasting away at you. Also, and I stole this idea from someone who suggested it somewhere, I like the idea of being able to declare wars at the Alliance level. It gives a clear definition of who is fighting who. It could have three levels, like regular nation on nation wars, that determine a shared alliance resistance pool which would determine the length of the war in a way. It could impose a short NAP for a win, where the political side could come in and terms could be discussed, like a ceasefire. Or you could have a set NAP for each length of war and a compiled list of terms where you choose 1 or 2 and impose them. I'd definitely like to see something change with planes being the be all end all first before anything like this happened though.

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.

Holy frick have we really been going this long?

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.

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 for roughly 8 years now. People change over time and it's best we try to retain as many people as possible so we can allow our community to grow. Long lasting wars put a strain on everyone and people can only take so much before they get tired and quit. I know of quite a few notable members on both sides of this conflict who are looking at deleting and quitting soon just because it seems like there's no end to this cycle.

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.

I blame TDU. We had a surge of activity when TDU fell.

The dead can't surrender.

Here's a suggestion: Crack down on intentional efforts to mislead and confuse people. This includes discord posts telling new people to do things they really shouldn't, forums posts like this telling people that a major party in the current war has surrendered, fake nation page info, and even scenarios such as alliances/players deliberately brainwashing new players or a situation where people are merely being sarcastic, but that might not be understood by a newbie who knows nothing about big alliances or game politics. I'm a fairly new player myself, and I've been surprised by the amount of this that goes on in this community.

Hello Friends! This is your friendly neighborhood Italian Moose. We've all heard about Jack Rackham being couped by Jolt66. The wonderful guys (yes, including me. I'm very humble) of Legions of Venice offered to step in and help Jack take The Dixie Union back by force. Unfortunately, that failed. Jack has announced his intention is on Discord about starting a new alliance and letting the old TDU go. This folks, is where we get to the fun part. Jack Rackham (former leader of TDU) and Minesome MC (former protector of TDU) have both given Legions of Venice permission to roll the remaining members of TDU. So the Italians gangsters and knights of Legions of Venice will be attacking and rolling any remaining members of TDU. We will peace out when they surrender. We give them the options of disbanding or joining us. Below a poem for our opponents: Roses are red Violets are blue Orbis will be better off Without TDU Thank you for your time. All Hail Moose

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 withdraw. 4. Whats the different of "withdraw" than "the bill is dead / pause"? Inside the parliament instruction, there is only one lawfully accepted word "withdraw". Once the case has been withdraw, anyone tries to bring out again will be needed to start from the beginning (hand-in proposal >ask public opinions>get stat>past through different departments >first read>second read> some more fine tune then sign the bill). If it is pause in stead of withdraw , she can start from the current stage of the case (extradition bill is on the second read process,which is very close to the end game). 5. Thats why, please stay still with HK. Hopefully, the (Hong Kong human rights and democracy act) will be passed in US parliament. thats benefit for both side. Please share/retweet any post about this and hashtag #FakeWithdraw. I need to see this on all of the tmr headlines <3 Thank you guys support me for so long and keep update with me. Liberate Hong Kong, the revolution of our times. 5 demands, No one less.

I sometimes agree with you Gruber, and other time I understand why John threw you off the Nakatomi Building The options are basic summaries of people's points in the post, basically summarized by the edited first post of this page. So I mean, Understandably they're going to be semi-nebulous. Especially if the person's idea was a WoT with many different points and arguments for the idea. Even if none of the solutions for question 2 AREN'T enforceable mechanic wise, they're mainly a shift in perception/attitude by the community. So, if you don't understand the points, maybe question the people who made them and find out more info from them. Might be more beneficial than just knocking what's supposed to be a poll about generalized ideas. If then you don't like any of the ideas, then I'll agree there should have been a "NotA" option.

Hey everyone. Just posting this to state that a new bloc has been formed, currently known as the United Front. The members of the bloc help each other in times of need and to help each other grow. It is basically just a friendly tight knit group of alliances. The following alliances are currently in the bloc: The United Armies Σvolution Sons of Thunder Atlantis Unforgiven Legion The Players Now, I know that most of the alliances in this bloc are micros, but that doesn't really matter, as we will help each other grow and thrive. I also know that there is a possibility of this bloc failing, but hey, you will never know if you don't try.

I dunno but that doesn't make it a bad idea to try and figure out ?

It was mostly for the joke of us being against that many alliances as 7 people. We know who we were actually fighting out of that list. Got light'en up and be able to laugh once in a while, especially at the absurd.

This is racist.

Two weeks before IQ blitzes Yarr again for even more stats

We're adding three more weeks to the global war because of this thread.

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.

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 affiliations and advantages. There should a be a maximum limit of alliances within a coalition (say 8). Alliances would also need to declare war with Alliance UI. An official declaration of war can go in a global feed so everyone knows what is happening. Attacks can be declared within 180 seconds of a war dec (can be more to give prep time. think of it like logistics of moving your armies in position for war). War goals can be set like; 12 billion damage to infra, 200000 planes killed, 400 nukes launched etc. Achieving these war goals would be an instant victory leading to the losing side facing penalties like infra damage to all members or a % of all enemy banks (within reasonable limits). Alliances can only declare war on other alliances; coalitions can declare war on other coalitions. Again this would need coalition UI, actual gov roles and so on. Any wars outside of declared wars will be raids only. This gives individual players a chance as well. An unofficial grouping of players will fight on mostly even terms (raids vs raids) against other individuals or alliances.

Is this the thread where we pretend that for years causing enemy players to delete wasn't one of the goals of every war?

I personally think that wars should be shorter overall and to compensate, make them more frequent. After months of fighting, people get burnt out and it isn’t enjoyable anymore. If they were shorter, it would be a way to draw the community together, making everyone more active for like a month or two and then give them time to relax and take a step back. This would help retain more casual players, as well as let the people who love war do their thing. The problem is that because ending a war requires a side admitting defeat, no one really wants to do it, even if that’s what should be done.

I can get behind that, but if you remove the bank loot then there should be some kind of compensation, such as a larger nation beige loot maybe? Lots of people go to war for the purpose of looting, and not looting a bank is a large stream of lost potential