Leaderboard

A well supported player simple solution/suggestion of making **all wars (edit: for clarification, make both the offensive and defensive parties in all wars be able to receive beige)** end in beige upon expiry dependent on remaining resistance has been made meaningless with this, what, a cosmetic change at best? No one cares about the in game victory/loss ratio mechanic. None of the proposed points address fighting back from an unfavourable position and none of them address easy time of continuous cycling/sitting on people (translation: permawar easy af) that the recent changes have made possible (and the aforementioned ones do not fix this). Make the first point actually do something and make all the wars beige upon expiry, either based on resistance or some additional factors - and at least, in a way, it will patch up the main issues of the current meta that was radically broken when beige was completely removed. Not being able to break beige until you're down to 12 turns seems like a sufficient counterweight to getting beiged, but it's meaningless if there is simply no possible scenario of a nation getting enough time on beige for respite in the first place.

I feel like not being able to leave beige with more than 12 turns is kind of counter productive to what you're trying to achieve. If you want to make it so people can make a comeback during war...not allowing them to leave beige when they please---makes it very difficult for people to coordinate a blitz

Previous strategy: Destroy an opponent's military and only attack when they build up. Make sure someone gets in a fresh declaration if it looks like you'll beige them. That new declaration is to keep their military suppressed until beige expires and others can declare to keep their military depleted. New strategy: Destroy an opponent's military and only attack when they build up. Make sure someone gets in a fresh declaration if it looks like you'll beige them or the war is going to expire. The new declaration is to keep their military suppressed until beige expires and others can declare to keep their military depleted.

Before the beige changes, @Alex, one of the ways people would break out of being perma-cycled was by declaring wars on less experienced members and trying to bait them into beiging you. It stopped easy nation cycling by preying on the less experienced and requiring individuals to be disciplined and milcom teams to be very on top of things in terms of keeping up with memberships and not awarding too much beige time to people. The concern people have is that even by giving beige back, without aggressive wars awarding beige (or some other change that accomplishes something similar), it is still too difficult for people to break out of being permablockaded and makes it too easy for the winning side to permablockade the other side. In short, the old beige mechanics required a lot more strategy and skill to maintain permablockades, the recent changes and new proposals remove a lot of that strategy and also make it more difficult to break out of permablockades/turn a war around.

I get where you're coming from. Coming from a former alliance leaders point of view, I would want my members to know that they should be doing this themselves. Better informed members, better alliance sort of thinking. If you have members that aren't performing how you want them to, even as simple as being on the correct color, that can easily be fixed with leaders communicating with their members. If you have members that refuse to follow that basic sort of instruction, perhaps they should be considered to be removed from said alliance. Again, this is coming from a former leadership POV. Having a few small areas which require leaderships to instruct members on how they should be performing isn't a bad thing, IMO. All that being said, I don't feel strongly against adding such a mechanic.

After reviewing feedback from Azaghul's thread Alex is considering removing the auto-accepting peace mechanic. That mechanic being that when a nation has been defeated and is beige, that nation auto-accepts peace offers sent to them in other existing wars. The main changes to the mechanic as a whole are as follows: All wars will end in a victory or defeat when they expire determined by remaining resistance levels. In the case of a tie, the defender is victorious. Wars that end through expiration will not cause infrastructure damage or give loot. Nations who are placed into beige from losing a war cannot leave beige early if they have more than 12 turns of beige time remaining. Newly created nations can still leave beige early. Losing a war adds 20 turns of beige with a maximum of 5 days of beige. Aggressors will no longer receive beige if they lose their war. Last call for input before the changes are finalized on the test server, tested, then moved live.

You still can't get out of permablockade with these changes. You could shorten the time a war expires to three days instead of five just to make sure the nation gets SOME time to build up unhindered. And what was the reason of not exiting beige early. I mean the deal was if you declare on someone you agree to forfeit beige time. Is there something wrong with that mechanic???

I've finally gotten the go ahead to created a player based development team. This will be a small group of players lead by me which have a separate channel in the Politics and War discord to discuss game development. There will also be an observer. The point of the observer is to provide public updates of the game dev group is working on, though I will still give my regular monthly updates. The observer will be required to clear their public reports through me first, just incase there is a feature Alex doesn't want to be public knowledge too early. Since this position will operating on discord, to apply contact me on discord. My user name is Prefontaine#5550.

And again, if the concern is moderation, just rewrite the rule so that it only concerns itself with allies slot filling. What's defined as an ally? Direct ties and whoever is in their temporary coalition. It'd be easier to change (especially given the bugs that invariably follow an update), it'd net the same end result, and it'd avoid having another rather poor update be pushed out. It simply makes more sense as a whole.

One concern I do have with the change that makes it so you can't leave beige is that it will hurt pirates. Considering how often raiders fight and get countered this change will make it so they aren't allowed to raid as much as they want anymore(because they can't leave beige). Which would make the game less enjoyable for them.

Simple enough, just add mass land purchase. If you can do it with infra, why not with land. Has been suggested before, but obviously it has fallen on deaf ears, so here I am

I like all the changes but the one where you can't leave beige early. Just the assurance of beige always being applied is enough in my opinion. This will help solve the bad meta of not winning wars.

Alex's reason for not giving the aggressor beige is slot filling, right? I think having all wars (offensive and defensive) end in beige, disincentivizes slot filling more than not having it. Why would people need to slot fill to receive beige if everyone gets it anyway? The only reason one might slot fill, is to occupy those slots and do minimal damage while the person whose slots they're filling can beat their opponents. However, I think that's a lot more detectable than slot filling for beige, and it is also still possible in the new proposed system.

Hi. I know a lot of potential updates or changes to the test server do get announced. I've just noticed I usually hear about new mechanics being tested "through the grapevine." and I could be blind but I also don't see anywhere to post feedback for the changes. I feel like this can result in people being blindsided by changes when they get pushed to Live, and I also feel like this doesn't provide any appropriate avenue with which to discuss potential changes / give feedback. Feedback seems to be the most important part of the test server existing so I figured we might need a public area for it.

Correct. The exact text from the test server announcement is as follows:

It's supposedly designed to make beige less desirable/useful (which okay, kinda makes sense as a counterbalance?), but you can't get enough beige in the first place anyway so ayy lmao

I think theo's response shouldnt be glossed over here. How do you plan to address those concerns? (or how does alex plan to)

From the Desk of Old Gobo Fraggle The Very Best Hobo Fraggle. Friends!! Friends!! Friends!! Let old Gobo catch some wind. Our old friend @Prefonteen had us over for some great lettuce. It was amazing until it wasn't. Let old Gobo grab a seat for a minute. The things Gobo heard.... So there we are, all of Fraggle Rock.... Let me grab some lettuce. In a square with our host in the middle. Great lettuce. We were honored. Let me go get Boober and see if he can explain this.... Old Gobo.....that was some great lettuce. Our old friend knows how to have a gathering. So.....me, Boober Fraggle, aka Old Boober, was enjoying the company....mighty fine company. You see, I brought a Doozer with me, unbeknownst to anyone. Well he escaped and fell into a hole. A hole you say? Yes, a hole. So we left the lettuce session minus one Doozer. Well then this little fella came back....with extra lettuce and a story. I'll let him tell it. It's a scam. Coalmas is just a Ponzi scheme. The lettuce man told me so. Well if this Doozer says so, it is. Let's stop this before it goes too far. Flood the coal mines!!!! Down with Exorock!!

yeah same, i have yet to be able to build my military.

Theyre still not happening for me

Similar to the removal of downvotes, I think this could encourage people to instead reply physically (with malice), and the ND rules do not really stop people as is. As for reducing the likelihood of producing good faith reports, I'm not sure the reactions actually discourage people from making them, since downvotes don't have any baring on reputation. They're a tool to easily show dissent/disagreement, which you tend to see on reports made disingenuously, fall into a gray area, or a person merely disagrees with enforcement on whichever rule. Overall I think it is important to maintain reactions on reports because people will make bad faith reports regardless, and the community needs a way to publicly denounce them. Edit: Is is also possible that there isn't a lack of good faith reports as gauging the moderation subforum may make one believe, but that many of those reports are, instead, made privately, off-forum, due to the negative connotation associated with being a "whisteblower." I have personally received messages including nations to report because they don't want to make the report themselves.

..... You are aware they deleted their nation right?

You can see why we are hiring 😂

Hahaha, how did I miss this, Nokia getting rekt, love to see it.

Good luck guys! Love the DOE

Again, I don't see what is preventing Alex from simply rewriting the rules to acknowledge the reality at hand. It'd be preferable as it's easier to modify that than it is to rewrite the code and have it not be bugged for weeks on end (on top of the initial time invested which is much more substantial).

Not sure why this is so hard to understand, and why beige got removed because of this.

Alliance: The Knights Radiant Broken rules: War slotting in use to blockading people. The whole entire week, they've been war slotting me and blocking my resources which makes it impossible to fight against our attackers and then having only one person to block our resources then attacking all over again. Please do something about this because it makes the game unplayable, unless blockading is nerfed, it makes the entire game impossible to play. In fact probably useless to play since you have literally no options to defend yourself. Imagine a game where when you attack, you cant defend. After all, the rule applies only if it has moderation discretion meaning that the rules only apply if moderation says so.

Your ban will expire automatically after 89 days. At that point, you will be allowed to create a new nation and try again. To respond to your questions/protestations, your city names were things like "rayshard brooks deserved what he got" and "cops should get an RPG to deal wtih blm" which are statements that promote violence and arguably racism (at least the latter) which is not tolerated here.

People like Nazism even less.

So you want to punish any strategic game play got it. If the defenders are too stupid and do beige you to give you the build time thats a mistake on their part not your part especially during a global war. The failure for you to see this on a global war scale is a very big oversight by you.

nobody likes a rat.

@Nokia Rokia Rest in peace, I always knew you would frick up over and over... and over again

The youtube video was pretty garbage advert for the game, I'm shocked that we retained as many as we have.

Tanks price is changing from 1 steel per tank to 0.5 steel per tank in the coming patch.

I feel like it would be your own fault for falling for such an obvious scam. It says "credits," "sell," "$1." Not to mention it should not be made impossible to sell credits for low prices like that since trades are the only method available to gift away credits.

I'm not even sorry at this point, maybe these guys will learn a lesson. Maybe not.

I don't think you can call the leadership "incompetent" when there wasn't any leadership to begin with. 🤔

Downvotes are back.

He’s awarding us the power of knowledge of this crisis.

There's no doubt there's a bubble in the economy, right now we're not producing enough raws to replace those we're burning in refining. However, you will soon see the power of the free market, as demand for raws increases, so do the prices, as the prices increase, it will soon become more profitable to mine raws than buy them and refine them, people will subsequently start producing more raws. There's nothing to fear, the bubble will be removed through the power of the free market. Further, I urge noobs to not take the advice of having a couple extra resource slots at the expense of no hospitals or whatever, disease is a killer, if you ran your numbers, you'd realize what you're missing out on when you have 5-15% disease.

The best part about this was that it was posted in "Yearly Awards".

Figures you'd have low standards for what classifies as an alliance.

This belongs in National affairs, your alliance is literally just your nation.

Hello, I wanted to suggest for a while you to buff tanks in some way, either making them less fragile or lowering the costs of production, beacuse tanks are too often lost in battles in comparision to their price, especially for newer or non-steel-producing nations, like me, because at this point spending steel on ships is more profitable.

Poster has no matching nation, so topic has been locked.

I was issued a nation strike for supposed promotion of violence against a race. I disagree with this because the city names in question were regarding the BLM group and rayshard brooks, who is a person. while I can understand if you don't want me promoting violence, I was not, I was saying cops should be able to defend themselves against protesters and criminals. neither BLM or rayshard brooks are a race of people, and I was not promoting violence about either, I was saying cops should get an rpg for self-defense and that there was nothing wrong with the shooting of brooks, it was sad, but is what happens if you try to shoot a cop. I am not contesting my other two strikes for slot filling and racism, but I would like to note that I am a firm believer in the phrase all lives matter, and I believe racism is the lowest, most crude form of collectivism and should be shunned from polite society if it is real. I was also unaware what I was doing was slot filing, but I accept your decision on that. Ban ID: 1825

Ok, where is the standard for what comments are allowed or not, the game rules say nothing about this and I don't want to navigate an online comunity where I don't know what is and is not acceptable. Also, you could say those statements promote violence, but not racism. Rayshard brooks is not representative of all black people, unless you with to say that all blacks will drive drunk, pass out in a drive through, and try to shoot a cop. and when I say deal with BLM, I only mean the violent protesters, but either way the organization black lives matter does not speak for every black person, they are marxists using african americans as a tool.

Hello this is just my take on how Nation Perks should be done and my complaints with Alex’s suggested idea (OBVIOUSLY ITS SUPER OLD but I wanted to talk about the potential of nation perks) which you can choose 8 perks out of these 20 also there is a TL:DR at the bottom for those who don’t want to read this novel. The first thing that’s bad about this system with great potential is that there’s really no specialization to the upgrades, I feel like this is pick the developement ones when starting and then just “pick 8 from the 10 good ones and boom everyone does it” You don’t NEED to focus on commerce, why would you focus and specialize one tree when you could just grab the best one (+10% commerce) pick the second best arguably first +25% troop recruitment(broken op this is an expensive project level bonus) etc etc. there’s no specialization in play style here it’s essentially a stat boost of pick the best 8 jack of all trades master of all. What is a better version of this is for Perks which you can put points into and they get better as a result, for example one I made up off the top of my head is one for commerce boost Commerce Tree Commerce Boost 1/4 - Increase commerce by 1% 2/4 - Inc 2% 4/4 - Inc 4% (Total 10%+ All Cities) Commerce Building Infrastructure 1/4 - +1 Super Market capacity 2/4 - +1 Mall Capacity 3/4 - +1 Bank cap 4/4 +1 Stadium Cap 3rd Branch (?) 4th Branch (?) something like this which encourages spending perks into one thing which gains More as you specialize, in the income boost case you get more efficient the more you specialize into it, the building tree is a prime example of how being a jack of all trades is bad, the first perk is nothing really but if you look later on a stadium is VERY desirable as it’s efficient, 1 improv slot for the same commerce as 2.5~ banks etc. Pollution is a big factor in not going overly on manufacturing and each of the upgrades provides more as you go without being over powered. Another thing as you can probably tell is that this would require a Change in how many perk points you get instead of immediately 8 perks to choose from I believe you should gain them through building cities for example 2 points per city or maybe 3 every odd numbered city. Now I can already see the main complaint for having it being tied to cities. tHiS hElPs WhAlEs. I’m just going to say I don’t really believe this is a problem as yes they would have more perks but they’re cost per perk point increases exponentially as you don’t get more per city as you increase in cities. — Counter Arguments A big thing I can see being thought is that, well even if you have to specialize now to get the full perks wouldn’t people just max each branch of different upgrade trees they thought is the best just like how the original idea is? Well the very simple solution is to incentivize completing the tree my idea for this is let’s say you complete all of the Commerce Tree - Commerce Boost 4/4, Buildings 4/4, X(?) 4/4, X(?) 4/4. You get a bonus for specializing and completing a tree for example my idea for Commerce tree bonus would be + 1(2 maybe) Improvements to all cities. This could make a medium size nations for example C20 gain 20 improvements which is one of the original perks but now you actually are rewarded for specializing. Also it should be noted that the 3rd and 4th branches that I put as X don’t necessarily have to be good, actually I encourage it to be something BELOW AVERAGE, that way it’s not just a super op tree where you always want to upgrade it. This allows for people to choose to specialize in one tree where they could’ve used the 4 perk points into something more efficient but instead get the Tree bonus which makes up for perhaps 2 slightly below average perks. Development Tree Pollution Cleanup 1/4 - Reduce pollution in cities by 3 2/4 - Reduce pollution in cities by 5 3/4 - Reduce pollution in cities by12 4/4 - Reduce pollution in cities by 15 Pollution Efficiency 1/4 - Subways reduce pollution by +3 2/4 - Subways reduce pollution by +5 3/4 - Subways reduce pollution by +12 4/4 - Recycling centers Reduce pollution by +10 Raw Resource Efficiency 1/4 - Produce 3% more in all Raws 2/4 - Produce 5% more in all Raws 3/4 - Produce 10% More in all Raws 4/4 - Produces 12% more in all Raws - Note % Production also increases % Pollution by each mine. X ( ?) 4th branch unknown Tree bonus - Increase production bonus cap to 75% (if you have max amount of raw production buildings/manufacturing production its bonus goes from 50%->75% As you can see by this tree the first 2 branches are nothing, your spending 8 Perk points for basically a recycling center which doesn’t take up an improv slot which is good but.... doesn’t do much, however when you get the bonus it’s a substantial bonus which makes up for the lesser branches which allows for as I’ve repeated better rewards the more you specialize and this stops people from just picking the good branches of upgrades. Military Going to explain my thoughts about the problem with having a military branch with this system. 1. you cannot tell what other nations and alliances perks are WITHOUT spying in game or getting a leak outside of game This of course anyone who knows anything about war at all brings a huge advantage to the person who strikes first even more so than it already is with the new ground changes, this can be fixed by separating military and war branches to use a different currency to upgrade as you would never normally be on a military perk build UNLESS going into alliance war or you’re a pirate. I think a very good perk to separating the the perks of military v economic is that we could see a HUGE improvement to our current war strategy. Let’s be honest there’s not much strategy to war rn, even though some casuals still can’t figure out the best attacks it’s not complicated. I would propose some sort of play style uniqueness to war, for example the war perks wouldn’t give bonuses or whatever but allow you to specialize troops - Note: I’ve read Vali’s suggestion to military changes and I think this way is much superior way to having military be specialized to beat other builds without having like dozens of subunits which you can change everyday, the reason being at that point it’s lazy strategy of you seeing your opponents build and then changing your build. Military (THESE ALL GIVE THE FLAT BONUS DESCRIBED) Soldiers Anti Air (1/3) - Reduce Damage taken by airstrikes by 5%, increased damage taken by 3% from soldiers Anti Tank (1/3) - Increase Damage Dealt to Tanks by 5%, Increase Damage taken by air Medic (1/2) - Reduce Soldier casualties by 5% Tanks Light Armor (1/3) Reduce Damage taken by airstrikes by 5%, Increase Damage taken by tanks by 3%(Faster to run away from bombs I guess, naming could use work idk). Heavy Armor (1/3) Reduce Damage taken by Tanks by 5%, Increase Damage taken by airstrikes by 3% ??? Planes Bombs (1/3) - Increased 5% Damage to tanks, increased 3% damage taken by planes Napalm (1/3) - Increased 5% Damage to soldiers increased 3% damage taken by planes Better AIM (1/3) - Increased 5% Damage to planes, decreased damage 3% to everything else ??? Etc etc you get the idea please keep in minding reading the military part of this, it’s a verrryy rough idea of how we could get unique playstyles and strategy in PnW without adding new troops which causes imo unnecessary complexity as the simplicity in 4 units sometimes is better than a ton of units. Of course there is lots to be improved on.. I won’t dive to deep but the idea is by having these increased damages it allows for players to target specific troops or defend against specific troops making not a single play style the only one you can do as there’s both advantages and disadvantages to each perk in the military branch. -This being said there is arguments against this, perhaps making the war dynamics more complex would be bad, who knows. The new war changes are out and I don’t even know how those will play out. ( In retrospect maybe this should be renamed to Troop upgrade or whatever as I think the upgrades under war in the original suggestion by Alex are fine although the military ones are way to broken. The War ones however could be put in the economic perks as they seem to be for pirates tbh.) Resetting Perks Should cost a decent amount of money based on city count something like 10 days ROI perhaps. Also should be a cooldown to change perks for 10 days, obvious reason is obvious nuff said. TL;DR -Perks should give increased rewards through specialization such as well as completing a specific whole tree which avoids people just getting free stats by picking the best individual increases in perks. -Should gain perk points through cities which would increase by a flat amount per city which means perk point cost increases the more you get essentially soft capping how much you get ( Im thinking 2 Points per city or 3 points every 2 cities based on my idea of each tree containing 4 branches and each branch costing 4 points to max (16 total for tree bonus) (EDIT - Perhaps start with 3 Points, gain 1 every city This means you get a full branch at 14 cities which is low and easy to get through grants from many alliances. This also means you don’t get a 2nd full branch till city 30 which is good since that requires significant investment) -Military and economic perks seperated in order to not increase first strike advantage even further than currently with new tank changes. I want to hear the criticism about this system of perks as it is definitely not even close to perfect and it could be improved on for the sake of the game.