Leaderboard

Currently the only person who works closely with Alex and give advice on changes/updates (that I know of) is Prefontaine. My proposal is to extend that to a good-sized group of well-known and respected players who will give honest and constructive input on new changes to the game. This'll help with the issues of last update and controversy over recent rule changes and allow ordinary players from a variety of backgrounds to give their input directly to Alex before misguided new changes come out. stolen from @Vein

You hold no credibility, nor are you or your alliance in any position to make a moral judgement on anything, really. You're best off buggering off before t$ dropkicks you out of the rankings.

Is it really news that alliances kick other, poorly-defended, alliances off their colour to preserve the bonus? A lot of people wanted the colour blocs because they could make a political impact, so let's not try to shame alliances for politicizing colours.

This is Shifty following up with Joe Camelot... Shifty reminding you that smoke signals and smoking guns can harm you... only if you let them. Ayy lmao

Can bet Alex will just ignore this as he always does

Looks like the Hizu is back again making multis. He's been rebanned, along with 4 other accounts. Locking thread.

As an aside (from a somewhat objective onlooker), I believe this whole piece of drama to be not worth most people's time. Its mainly receiving attention by virtue of the dearth of drama that a 6-month NAP provides. Further, I personally have no stake in this, and this is just my individual view on what is being shown. Feel free to correct me if the limited information available warps this perspective. But to briefly bite on what's going on, it would seem that Sphinx and Odin, based on the facts presented in the log, have a somewhat legitimate point on being owed a considerable amount of money and resources. If I were in that position, I'd want my money back. Now, life happens, and it's later explained by Aku that NP financials had a tough go of it, so you open up for a compromise. I think Sphinx/Odin attempted to do that. But that's about where they being in the right ends. One thing the last war taught us is that without a semblance of trust or good faith, things won't go anywhere. Leaking, harboring leakers, and/or a lack of sufficient communication on those actions can facilitate such distrust. It makes it really hard to strike a deal or to even have productive conversations. Keegoz and Kev have a valid gripe there, and I don't know if I'd feel differently in their shoes. I feel like that cliche parenting line where you tell your kid that "you went from right to wrong by..." Unfortunately, that's the case here. Here's a suggestion: go back to DMs and try to listen to each other before dirty laundry gets dumped on here. This is already a toxic place filled with pettiness, and getting the satisfaction of the circle jerk or faux outrage is not going to solve your problems. Constructive conversations will. At the end of the day, I think it's important to note that whatever the result is and wherever your personal grudges lie, hundreds if not thousands of players rest on your decisions. I wish y'all the best of luck of figuring this out. I hope–for the sake of a deeper level of politics–you do.

Would the majority opinion not be better than a bunch of changes that literally nobody aside from Alex wants?

Ideally, the council would be comprised of informed individuals acting in good faith, however, even as a precaution, it should include people from a variety of alliances/spheres, big and small.

I saw Polar/IQ/et al's definition of FA Yeah, no thanks

Ahhhhh things always tend to die hard amirite @Epi @Azazel Last war, you guys call for the death of alliances, now you call for them to get out of something you can't control

So recently, Alex made a new rule that treasures could no longer be traded, instead, they can inly be fought over. However, we’ve been playing this game for a long time, and no one minus arrgh or if its on a micro, ever fights over treasures. So you’ve been nerfing treasures since they came out, from the beginning when they were strong and actually useful, then when they were abused you reverted the changes to them, nerfing them to the point where you couldn’t stack them. Now after removing that, you’ve now removed the only medium of actually using treasures. So either you need to buff treasures or remove the rule, otherwise, why would alliances even pursue treasures? The payoff isn’t enough for a war, and now you can’t trade them. @Alex

Epi fk off, it took us forever to get ck off of pink

Now that the initial wave of rage has slowed down, and now that people have had some time to see how the new update works, I'm proposing some revisions to the recent game update to improve it across the board and balance things out. 1) Military Score Changes. Tanks were buffed yet their score was nerfed more than planes, which actually were nerfed. Change the scores for tanks from 0.009 per tank to 0.015 per tank. 2) Make the unraidable money limit city-based to boost low tier raiders. For every three cities, have the unraidable limit go up by $100,000. Example: Cities 1-3, it's 100K. In 4-6, it's 200K. In 13-15, it's 500K, and 25-27 it's 900K. This also evens out war, since for someone with 5 cities 200K is enough money to rebuy some units, but for someone with 25 cities it's hardly anything. 3) The ground control changes were some of the most disliked changes in the update. Although I had some ideas on how to change it, after some discussion with a group of players reversion seems to be the best way to go until more ideas can be put on the table and a balanced solution could be found. It's better than what we have now, since planes already got a decent nerf this isn't especially needed. 4) Change the maximum amount of planes to 20 per hangar, 4 hangars per city, with a 1/4 (or 1/5) rebuy. This is less planes than people could have before, but they can buy planes faster now. 5) Readjust some of the casualty rates. This will balance things out and also slightly reduces the nerf to planes, which in most peoples opinions were a tad too much. Avg Soldiers Killed in a Ground Battle: 25% -> 35% Avg Aircraft Killed in an Airstrike (not dogfight): 29% -> 34% Airstrikes on Units Soldiers Killed Airstrike: 25% -> 35% Tanks Killed Airstrike: 14% -> 25% Aircraft Killed Airstrike (Dogfight): 53% -> 65% And if you don't want to revert the changes to Ground Control: Aircraft Killed by Tanks in a Ground Battle: 42% -> 27% (only after Ground Control has been established) That fixes a lot of the most disliked parts of the last update and balances things out in general. If you have any questions or anything, just ask.

This is Shifty with some money woes in CoL. Sometimes mergers bring out the best in AAs, other times they bring along baggage. Most importantly they bring leaks: In for a penny, in for a pound. I didn’t get the leaks from Odin. So I got them from another poster, but Odin got blamed? Well I did take the leaks from Royal News Network, but the main leaks were about Horsemen-Sketchy having treaty-sphere talks. That’s why I used a leak repost....but why would they just take Odins money and not trust a former gov/investor? Money talks, bud. Sometimes you gotta recover and let’s face it, Odin had the cash and all you gotta do is lose a friend/former member. This is SNN bringing you the dirt on Akuryo and money matters, the NP legacy on CoL, and solid FA line drawing between Hedgemoney and TCW.

This is why I primarily think this is a bad idea. From personal experience what’s going to end up happening is each of the groups of people working together will argue with other groups in order to benefit themselves. It just turns into a shit show where people leak messages of what other people say etc etc. a committe sounds good on paper but good luck finding a group of people completely unbiased and won’t argue with each other over personal grudges.

Eh bad idea imo. People will push their personal agendas if given a special status. I’ve seen it happen in other games, heck I’m in a similar thing for a much bigger game and I see it happen in their NDAs as well, people manipulating what they decide to input to change the game. Maybe I’m just have a pessimistic outlook but I would rather have Alex make a post when he has a game changing update and having people post publically why it’s bad or good so everyone can counter it instead of it being in a closed council.

Sadly, Alex’s decision making is far less informed than that of well informed players like Leopold, Valk, Thalmor, etc. Alex has an annoying habit of not thinking through any of the possible consequences of his updates when they happen, and then when said consequences occur that anyone could have predicted, he never admits his fault.

Agreed. Though it may be problematic if the council is just a bunch of alliance leaders trying to push their own agenda. Also, why is slot filling controversial now?

I am not intending to be unreasonable here, and it has been allowed for Treasures in the past. I have now explicitly codified into the rules that actions like this are against the rules, so going forward, do not do this again.

"STFU I know more FA than you"

A true graduate of the Leo school of foreign affairs. Truly Superchola-X's child.

I mean, the whole point of the color mechanics, however poorly implemented, was to add another axis of politics. I can't really fault them for trying, especially when other alliances also act to defend their colors to varying degrees. Whether they went about it a good or blusterous way, idk, I skimmed the screens so I can't speak to their tone.

Under, you bring Orbis together.

No, tanking someone's color is definitely an act of economic warfare. As much as I'd love to stir the crap, Epi is right here.

For game development, informed decision making is usually better than design by committee, or design by the masses.

To be fair, the purpose of the war was not to slot-fill the target, but to remove the bounty. Regardless, if you do think this to be slot filling, I'd ask you to give Changeup a break this time, because removing bounties this way has been legal for as long as I played, and most players(all that I've met with at least) were also under this impression. Furthermore, if you do go ahead and push this, I'd implore you to specify that in the rules, as technically speaking, removing bounties this way is not against the rules.

Earlier today I tried to launch 3 airstrikes against an opponent and got three Utter Failures despite having around 400 more planes on the first airstrike. The first one was 1925 vs. about 1550 planes and each of our planes went down by a similar amount(75-100) with each airstrike. The chances of getting UF each of the times individually was about 2%, and the chance of getting it all three times is 0.008%. The opponent had ground control, and I was sure it must be a bug with GC still grounding planes. I had no MAPs so I asked someone else attacking the same guy to do airstrikes and screenshot the detailed battle report page. Here is the planes used in the battle: And here is the result: As you can see, according the army value, Magister's planes are being affected by GC, as he should have an army value of closer to 3k because plane value is planes*3, but actually only has an army value of 1,668. Here is the link to the opponent: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=16132 Here is my war against him: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=659252 And here is Magister's war against him: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=659251

Do leaks like these happen often? I’m starting to like this Shifty guy.

A. Bullying is literally (a synonym for) the name of the game B. "Just a color", multiplied across an entire bloc, is a very substantial economic force. The damage is more than I'd care to calculate, but just to put it into perspective: going to war and pushing CK to the beige bloc (with a better bonus, by the way) is actually less economically damaging over time. That's why T$ takes green as seriously as it does; anyone goes onto it without permission and they are literally stealing millions straight from our monopoly. Hate us for it if you must, but... y'know. Is ours.

Somewhere recently I saw someone complain the game was getting boring. FA is always fun

Dear Little Keegoz, I’m going out to grab some milk. I’ll be back...maybe. In the meantime, be careful when you answer the door. There’s an odd fellow without a nose who keeps trying to get into our plumbing. He keeps going on and on about ‘Needing to create leaks’. Must be a plumber out of a job or something. Anyways, don’t let him in. A while back the same guy broke into Aunt Adrienne’s house, flooded the whole bathroom after he took a dump and then proceeded to lie to her about it while he was standing in his own shit water. Anywho, I’ll leave a $20 bill on the counter for dinner. You’re the man of the house while I’m gone. See you soon Little Keegoz. Love, Papa Kev

This could be the first color war in 6 years! Interesting. Personally, I think the color bonus is pretty marginal and poorly implemented. I mean, if 20 Grumpys joined maroon, that would also tank the color bonus I'd say the claim that Clover is violating the NAP by marginally reducing color income is a bit flimsy. But then I also think NAPs are generally a poor idea - we had years of conflict where people didn't jump a recovering alliance, without the need for them - and it's too long in any case. So I wouldn't have any qualms, personally, if Camelot 'violated' it in this instance. If we are going to be stuck with these as a common feature of peace terms (please god no), though, this and the recent drama between TCW/CoTL suggest we might want to better define what, if any, legitimate grounds there are to break it. Or to consider it void between parties.

Colour bloc wars are beyond stupid

So I accuse you of conspiring leak through Shifty and your response is to leak through Shifty. Thanks for confirming my position.

It remains to be seen if the other alliances of Orbis will react to Hizu-Atlantis blatant assault on our braincells.

This is just pathetic.

This didn't age well.

Tbf, the video promoting the game wasn't that good at representing what the game was about.

When this settles to around 4k, can we have a conversation about player retention and ease of entry instead of just pushing newbs through a meat grinder and assuming they will be fine because other's were?

Please add a poll so the community can show which revisions they agree with (include a "none of the above" option as well).

No. This will only cause problems

IDK bro, from how I remember last war, it was as easy as reporting leadership for cheating to kill alliances and their allies. Which people nowadays can get immunity for apparently. Have you tried cheating and asking for immunity Eumir?

i'm selling popcorn for 5 dollars

But why you leak our holdings, though? Couldn't like, blur our names out or something?

He and me arnt a multi, were siblings and were both verified, and alot of ppl know us ;-; Him and i arnt a multi, we are siblings and we are both verified, whats so wrong about wanting to play a game together, keep your trash comments to your self pls, we just want to play the game, and alot of ppl know we arnt multi ;-;