Leaderboard

here is mine

@Alex Hey, Dont you think its unfair to have changed the city score after the people who have worked their ass of to get to a certain city tier with no warnings or whatsoever? for example, the current people at 30+ cities or even myself at city 37 only have specific alliances/targets that i could fight meaning the targets i could war with has drastically lowered. I wouldn't like to be stuck fighting the same alliances/people over and over again, sure it would of been fine if we got to a high city tiering after u made the change, but dont you think its unfair for those people who already were at 30+ cities for you just to change the amount of people we could war with out of nowhere? sure there is the option of deleting cities, but thats not really fair as we've spent a lot of time and $ to get to where we are at now so I have 2 suggestions. Lower the score of each city (instead of 100, make it 75 maybe) or return the $ to the people who want to get down to a certain city. There could be a city threshold that is acceptable to receive a refund, for example c26 and above and there could be a timelimit for when people could ask for an refund. For example one week.

I thought this would be fun and totally not something to procrastinate on instead of homework. Use the link to rank 20 PnW alliances that I felt were interesting enough to rank. Post your rankings below! https://tiermaker.com/create/pnw-alliances-517430 Example:

Serious one: #notbait

Summary of the changes made to the formula as of 5/14: Score per City increased from 50 -> 100 (after City #1) Added a base +10 Score to everyone Changing military unit score to be closer to actual value: Soldiers: 0.0005 -> 0.0004 each Tanks: 0.05 -> 0.009 each Aircraft: 0.5 -> 0.2 each Ships: 2 -> 0.75 each Score from Missiles and Nuclear Weapons are capped at 50 each (the 51st Missile or Nuclear Weapon will not add to your nation score.) Suggested changes [bolded]: Score per City increased from 50 -> 75 (after City #1) Added a base +10 Score to everyone Changing military unit score to be closer to actual value: Soldiers: 0.0005 -> 0.0004 each Tanks: 0.05 -> 0.025 each Aircraft: 0.5 -> 0.3 each Ships: 2 -> 1 each Score from Missiles and Nuclear Weapons are capped at 50 each (the 51st Missile or Nuclear Weapon will not add to your nation score.) Why: The shortest version possible is that the score changes hardlocked people into tiers, it "tightened" war ranges. My contention is that it over-tightened based on city count instead of standing military. Your city count is not a good mechanism to be the main determinant of war range because it does represent your current military capability. The changes effectively have created an environment for wars where, even if you are zeroed, you can't escape people with a similar city count & max military. This is obviously very sub-optimal gameplay and probably unintended. I think the revised numbers will still keep war ranges tightened but not to the extreme we now see. tl;dr - Arrgh has been the guinea pig for these score changes for about a month now. Even while zeroed out we get slotted by people with max military: 2k planes, 20k tanks, 200 boats, max soldiers. That's impossible to get out from under, even while we're running extremely low infra builds. In a large-scale conflict, y'all are going to be in for a world of hurt if these score changes stay the way they are.

Investor Contact: Theodosius Media Contact: Partisan $YNDICATE, INC., ANNOUNCES DEPARTURE AND APPOINTMENT OF COO NASSAU, Bahamas, 2020-07-25: $YNDICATE, INC., (NYSE:SCC) is providing an update to all shareholders and potential investors on the status of the Chief Operations Officer(COO) position. We have unfortunate news today on the departure of our COO, Leopold von Habsburg. Leopold has retained the position for the past 657 days and has provided an era of stability and ever-increasing margins leading to huge economic bonuses for our associates. Leopold through various strategic options and mandates had acquired a significant shareholder position within the company which he used to leverage his influence over many of $YNDICATE, INC., moves both diplomatic and economic. He has been involved in many of the highs and lows of our company’s economic viability. Most recently he used his clear and direct leadership along with the whole executive team to help topple an aggressive communist regime that was plaguing the world of Orbis. With peace and solidarity firmly entrenched within $YNDICATE, INC., Leopold has had time to reflect on his future within the company. This week $YNDICATE, INC., share price reached a 52 week high and Leopold von Habsburg has made the decision, with approval and recommendation from his economic advisors, to liquidate all his holdings within $yndicate INC., and invest the profits in various real estate holdings around Orbis. When asked for a quote on this huge development he responded with “I just wanted to live the simple life”. His first purchase was a scenic lake along with the corresponding mountain and land in a 100km radius which he dedicated to $YNDICATE, INC., and offers lucrative vacation packages for $yndicate associates. Leopold has provided a picture to be sent out as a memo to all $yndicate personnel which he denies is advertising. Photographer: VP of Operations, Lucas As a token of the board’s gratitude to Leopold von Habsburg, they have moved to make him an honourary board advisor despite holding no equity within $YNDICATE, INC.,. This move has received universal acclaim from all shareholders. The board has also elected Adam as the new Chief Operations Officer. Adam has been running $YNDICATE, INC., subsidiary ENTERPRI$E, Corp., (NYSE: ESC) and has introduced sweeping reforms that have reduced operation costs dramatically and lead to subsequent quarterly growth. The board is very optimistic on the future of $YNDICATE, INC., with Adam at its helm. Thank you everyone for your time. Leopold von Habsburg, former Chief Operations Officer About $YNDICATE, INC., $YNDICATE, Inc., based near Nassau, The Bahamas, is the world's leading gasoline, aluminum, steel and munitions distributor for a wide variety of peacekeeping and humanitarian activities. Wholly-owned $YNDICATE, Inc. subsidiary brands include the Elysium, which designs, markets and distributes tank and missile materials, and Black Knights, which continues to test the limits and boundaries with regards to media content. This sentence is here because la Revolución has finally triumphed. For more information about SYNDICATE, Inc., and its activities, contact Partisan, Chief Strategic Officer.

Where's Monkey?

My unbiased and inoffensive tier list. Enjoy!

Everyone is Equal.

$hut up and go $hit post di$re$pectully in $omeone el$e$ retirement thread.

Seems like a popular suggestion, and I think you're right that maybe war ranges got tightened too much. I'm a fan of leaving cities at 100 score, but otherwise I have no personal issue with the changes you proposed increasing the military unit scores. I'm going to bring this to the Dev Team's attention now for some feedback from them.

No, he's just an idiot who thinks he knows anything because TI doesn't have literally any other option for milcom, lol.

So we have every single option for how to manage alliance taxes. But we're missing one that every single alliance can utilize at one point or another. Introducing "Add Everyone to Tax Bracket"! We have a way to add people based on city count. However in alliances that have 15+ different city counts it's tedious and fills the alliance activity feed with nonsense. By have a "Move all" option alliances can move from peacetime taxes to wartime taxes without tediously going through and manually changing every single person or city count. It also give the use to having different tax brackets listed out. Otherwise people just have 1 tax bracket and change the values for that single bracket. By having multiple brackets and moving all members at once you can simple have tax brackets listed as: 25/25 Peace 50/50 War 80/80 Debt Repays 100/100 Inactive And move everyone all at once.

(In order from left to right) Yes.

Are the tier lists where every alliance is in one tier just memes?

F to Adam but I think you know this was always coming.

Which 300k score whale fest should I choose? Hmmm. Let's pick one with a cool name. Welp, looks like the all get an S score. Wooo! Congrats for winning!

You all seem to have forgotten to put lordaeron in the S tier, what a silly mistake.

I just threw a quick one together with absolutely no bias to post as a screenshot

You did an awesome job. Congratulations and thank you for everything, friend! I'm looking forward to !@#$ing about everything from the sidelines of retirement with you.

Congratulations on retirement Leo, was a pleasure to work with you! Condolences to Adam. And congrats to KETOGG, just one more executive spot to go!

And now if Utmos is any indication, Leopold will gradually disappear, never to be seen again.

Damn I've never been more attracted to you

goons

'One way of tracking a player’s status is by how their infrastructure or military units change over time. Selling infrastructure would not apply to this. The main goal in a nation-to-nation war is to destroy the opponent’s military units and infrastructure." Um. raiding tries to accomplish the taking of loot. So would we assume that those with 0 troops would not receive a beige timer. So pirates who use ships only could essentially perma raid someone because they aren't losing enough military. This system addresses a good chunk of issues but not all of them. Especially on the wars where the defender doesn't loose much infra.

what are taxes? and what is this screen you are showing?

Preface Before I dive into this, I just want to mention that this post is really a rough draft. I won't be mentioning too much about the specifics of the content of the tutorial. Instead, this is a redesign of the implementation of a tutorial. If this idea is popular, I may start adding specific tutorial content into it with a future post. Main Issue When new players join P&W, they often tend to leave the game within the first month as there is a lack of guidance and purpose for them in the game. It can be overwhelming and players may feel lost. The current Tutorial and Objectives are inadequate in dealing with this. Thus, the purpose of this post is to create a new Tutorial system that will hopefully increase new player retention and competence in P&W (basic concepts and lingo). The best tutorials are those that integrate gameplay. Therefore, the tutorial system that I am aiming for is supposed to provide a sense of purpose through meaningful objectives for new players in P&W. However, the tutorial is not designed to teach you every single thing about more advanced gameplay. This is not a replacement for a proper Internal Affairs department in an established alliance. Outline Create an alliance solely for new players - The Orbis Defense Initiative (ODI) Create a category in the official P&W server for ODI so they can communicate Create an alliance solely made of bots - The Sibro Invasion Force (SIF) Sibro is just the reverse of Orbis 30-day tutorial that teaches ODI (new players) the basics of how to build their nation, use the market, and fight their "mortal enemies" in SIF. Note: These are just random names for referencing purposes. Details When you join this game, you get assaulted by player-created recruitment messages without knowing anything about the game. Many new players choose not to join any alliances because of this "spam." However, these same players soon lose interest as there is not much for them to do, or so they believe since they have no guidance. Furthermore, in-game communication isn't really enough to keep you hooked on the community, and that is a large part of the appeal to the game. My idea is to provide guidance via an alliance for new players only. All new nations will automatically spawn in The Orbis Defense Initiative. As the first part of the tutorial, they will be strongly encouraged, albeit not required, to join the P&W discord server where they can communicate with other players and ODI members. This way, they can get connected to the main P&W community sooner and be less likely to feel lost in the game. This is very important so that these new players can immediately interact with real people. This will increase the likelihood of someone staying in the game. Next, there should be a rival alliance to The Orbis Defense Initiative. I think this alliance should be an alliance made out of bots - The Sibro Invasion Force. The Sibro Invasion Force will have lore as the enemy of Orbis. They are a collective of nations that banded together to invade P&W’s planet of Orbis from their home world of Sibro. The Orbis Defense Initiative (new players) are a coalition of nations that have been tasked with the duty of defending the world of Orbis from this extraterrestrial threat. Why create the SIF? The idea here is to create a sense of purpose. We want our new players to have a reason to build military units and make sure they have enough income to support them. Before, the Objectives simply gave you a cash reward for buying soldiers. But, if you are a new player, there is nothing exciting about that. We need to create excitement. People play games to have fun. You want to teach new players how to play as well as keep them engaged. Throughout the tutorial, ODI members will gain cash rewards for completing their objectives. These objectives will be a combination of nation-building, trade, and war that will give new players a well-rounded P&W experience and tutorial. The final payout will be after they have defeated x number of SIF nations in combat. They should be able to reach 10 cities and 1500 infra and land per city, maybe even a few key projects as well. The entire tutorial will last 30 days. Throughout the 30-day ODI experience, players will receive notifications in-game telling them to complete objectives in preparation for their war assignment against SIF. The tutorial will show them the basics on how to build their nations. It should be easy to go back and access old parts of the tutorial, should a player (both old or new) need to. Eventually, at the 15-20 day mark, there should start to be war assignments against the bots in SIF. From there, the tutorial will teach new players the war system and they will learn by defeating SIF nations (which, again, are bots and so they are guaranteed to win). Neither ODI or SIF should show up on the Treaty Web or Alliance Rankings. Nations in ODI should be protected from other players. They can only go to war with SIF. New players should be given the choice to leave ODI, but if they do, they forfeit re-entry into ODI. After 30 days of existence, nations will automatically be kicked out of ODI and encouraged to join a real alliance or do whatever else they wish to do. Alternate Modification ODI might not have to be an alliance. It could just be the theme of the Tutorial. New players can still join any alliance or no alliance while being part of ODI and its initiative against SIF. So, if I were a new nation, I will have ODI Tutorial notifications. I can still join an alliance and be part of an alliance's community while learning the basics of the game. In this case, maybe new player beige should last 30 days. So, you will still have the protection from other players that the ODI alliance was supposed to give. You can fight SIF while in beige, but once you leave new player beige, you will be vulnerable to player wars as usual. Something like that. Only tutorial players should be able to attack SIF, essentially. Thanks @Lucianus for this modification suggestion.

I'll just get drunk and say it will start when TCW leaks something again cause they suck at OPSEC

Buck. This is a war mechanics discussion. Let's have ppl who actually war these days talk here, instead of 4k+ infra dudes.

So while there are more pressing issues regarding war in the game, these are some changes I think would make wars more interesting and realistic. 1. Locking ground battles by continent and relying transport units to facilitate offensive ground battles against nations on other continents: This change proposes that nations can only perform offensive ground battles on other nations within the same continent and requires the introduction/use of transports units to "carry" ground forces to other continents in order for nations to attack nations situated on a different continent. These units should have caps on the number of soldiers and tanks they can each transport, and the maximum number of transports (proportional to a nation's size) should be able to move an entire nation's ground force. These units should be able to be targetted by spies, and depending on whether the units are air-lifted or sea-lifted can be targetted by planes or ships. This promotes greater strategic flexibility; identifying nations in different continents and targetting these units enables one to choke/hinder the movement ground troops overseas thereby preventing the launch of ground attacks until the units are rebuilt. Ultimately, these changes should only prevent oversea offensive ground battles without transports, but should not affect armies in defensive battles. 2. The annexation/loss of land in nations resulting after losing a war: This can be implemented in any of the existing war types or an entirely new war type can be added to do this ("Conquest" could be the name?). Currently, nations can only get more land by buying it for their cities, however I propose that war should be a way to gain additional land directly. Following the loss of a war, players find that they lose some land that is instead given to the victor of the war. All other war mechanics remain the same. That way players can "expand their borders" through the acquisition of territory via war. In defensive wars, players that win do not gain any additional land if they win, but keep theirs. Gives a greater incentive for war; in addition to the money and resources that players gain after winning a war, they also get more land. There is a greater reward to the winners and detriment to the losers.

this man rlly gave Arghh the best score

I'm not sold on the transport aspect but I think the gaining borders through war idea is a fun one. What they should do is give a percentage of the land you own to be claimable but customizable so you don't get bordergore on the map. Overall fun idea but I wouldnt do the transports.

<REDACTED>

Your city count is the ultimate determinant of your maximum Military capabilities. The same alliance who has been bullying new players for years with low infra exploits and 10+ city count differences is now crying that they must fight people closer to their own city count and skill level. Cry me river, lmao