Leaderboard

If leaked e404 gov chan and personal accounts of e404 gov itself is anything to go by. I’d say worry about your own recruitment processes before ours.

I mean who really cares if a micro alliance wants to form? Top alliances pretend they don't exist half the time anyways. Let people play as they want, not how the players who have been here for years want just because they disagree with what's being done.

No. If a new player wants to create their own alliance we shouldn't stop them. Let others play the game as they want to play it.

Lmfao what are you smoking dude

I'm sure it has nothing to do with us actually having quality control, unlike SOME OTHERS IN THIS THREAD.

So why make them follow a specific path, what if they don't like your ways of doing things? Top major alliances are pretty much the same thing just a different theme. It shouldn't be a numbers game. It should just be a game where people play like they want. Wanna be a 5 city farmer go for it. Wanna be a 30 city raider cool. What's the point if having more active and involved players if all it is rinse and repeat the same thing every year. God forbid someone wants a little spice in their life.

Why should we be making it easier for players who don’t know what they’re doing to create alliances? All they do is just suck up new players that genuinely want to learn, inevitably collapse, and then those players quit, having never gotten to truly experience the game. Yes, new player retention would be greatly helped if they join alliances that know what they’re doing. Look at the retention rate of all the major alliances compared to retention rate of micros. And the game really, really isn’t that exclusive at all, there are dozens of alliances that would meet these criteria.

Step 1 you mention is something I didn't explicitly call out, because I wanted to give an option to people who wish to play in the small tiers but have some experience a method of doing so. I do not think I would be opposed to a higher score floor to founding an alliance though, and it is a relatively straightforward thing to implement. Whether that individually and completely addresses some of these concerns, I am not entirely sure. But I like it. I do also concur that there is some element of a community created problem at work here. Mid-market alliances do play a valuable role in the games ecosystem. They sign treaties on the fringes of spheres, or they create their own mini-spheres of influence, or they are able to align to multiple spheres. Some people will find more value in a smaller community of people rather than a large one. High-quality mid-market alliances would absolutely bring more intrigue and dynamism to the game, provide more options for flavor and community, and give more active leaders willing to make moves in the game. I am absolutely all for it. There are new people out there who will want a smaller community. I would like that smaller community to have more of a chance to succeed. Honestly I have never bought, used, transferred, or redeemed a credit. Not one. Making it more difficult for micros to recruit is part of the entire premise of the post. As another commenter stated, "Why should we be making it easier for players who don’t know what they’re doing to create alliances?" I will concede that experienced players who want to reroll are a bit stuck in this situation. That is a fair critique. I would not be opposed to someone providing verification to Alex as to a previous nation in order to bypass some of these proposed restrictions. I stated a bit above that mid-sized alliances are absolutely critical to this game and its ecosystem. The point of this post is not to have like two alliances in the entire game. That would be ridiculous. The point also is not to discourage alternative paths to an alliance. Do I particularly like dealing with Arrgh (or insert your own pirate alliance here)? Not really. Does Arrgh (or insert your own pirate alliance here) bring something unique, valuable, and interesting to the game? They absolutely do. Or look at an group like Taith. They bring something different and unique to the game. They aren't traditional alliances like the major powers. This game needs more of that, and it needs more competent mid-level alliances to complement the major powers which will always have an outsized say on the greater game as a whole. But for brand new players to the game, there are many instances of "Weeb alliance #30482 that lasted 1 month", that saw brand new players come in, do some things, get bored, and leave. There was no wider interaction with the greater community. The point is for a game that isn't brand new anymore, like PnW, that without other community imports, new players need some kind of nurturing from us as a community.

Things like this hurt player retention. Things were much more fun when people could make alliances at 300 score. If i had to wait to 3k to make an alliance, i wouldnt have came back, id just go to A&O when it releases.

Politics and War is a game with a bit of a learning curve, a somewhat slow daily set of mechanics for average players, and a place where getting solid advice on playing the game can be difficult if you are brand new without knowing existing players. PnW also has some issues with player retention, and I think there are some changes that can be proposed to assist with this. I am proposing a series of changes to the creation of alliances to better improve the quality of community gameplay. There are numerous small micro alliances out there which take new players, get beaten up, and then leave the players frustrated. These players do not interact meaningfully with the game, and thus they quit without seeing the full capabilities of the game itself. Restriction 1: Alliance Creation Should (Once Again) Cost A Credit(s) This was something from the original restrictions on alliance creation. Credits provide a monetary benefit to Alex as content for the game, but you do not have to pay for them with real life money. Credits also have some actual price attached to them, to prevent the creation of frivolous alliances. Creating an alliance is, or at least should be, a serious venture, and thus it needs to be treated as such. Instituting a price in the form of credit(s) again to create an alliance will be a deterrent to players who do not think through the process of creating an alliance. Restriction 2: Alliance Creation Should Be Restricted To Player Nations With At Least One Year Of Game Experience Frankly, new player micro alliances do not provide much value to the game. Most brand new players (not including re-rolls) do not have the capability to immediately be successful with the mechanics of the game, or know the politics and culture of how the game operates. While I am not going to make snarky remarks about the low ability of some established alliances out there to seemingly play the game, I at least hope and assume that people in those alliances have played long enough to be comfortable with the Orbis community and the mechanics of the game. This process will take some time to learn, and so new players should be prohibited from creating an alliance until the reach a certain point of game experience. Restriction 3: Newly Created Alliances Cannot Recruit New Players Unless They Meet A Minimum Sizeable Standard While creating a new alliance can be done by anyone who meets the above criteria, just having one person go off and and then recruit new players to the game after joining somewhere else is probably not an indicator of success. New players does not mean new members, however. If someone were to create an alliance, and then find other established players to join them, they would likely have all of the skills they need to at least pretend to know what they are doing. There should be a minimum threshold, of members and/or total nation strength, which is required to form an alliance capable of recruiting players who are new to the game, as outlined in Restriction 2 above. Alliances can be created without meeting these criteria, such as as in the case of pirates, financial services groups, pet projects like Fraggle, but those alliances should not be able to recruit players who are new to the game. This does also not restrict established players from going in and out of those new alliances, even if the alliance itself cannot recruit brand new players. Addition 1: New Players Should Receive Automatic Direction To Alliances Which Wish To Recruit Them While the tutorial does encourage players to join an alliance, and there are alliance recruitment pages, advertisements, and in-game messages, there should be more guidance and funneling for players to join established alliances. An alliance like Grumpy which is not going to recruit new players does not have to be forced into this. An alliance that would be fine with new players joining but might not explicitly actively recruit (perhaps one of the pirates?) does not have to actively participate, but passively could. Alliances that wish to actively recruit will need to have the human players to do this, which encourages broader community building and active daily play. Note 1: All Existing Alliances Are Grandfathered In Have your own alliance or group now that does not meet the above standards? Great, you can keep it. I do not think it is fair to enforce alliances that do not meet this criteria currently to have to immediately comply. However, creation of new alliances, including by the same people in the grandfathered alliances, would have to be under the terms presented above. Over time, this restriction will be redundant as the number of affected players will diminish. Note 2: Players Should Still Feel Free To Build Nations And Play As They See Fit Want to stay at one city and build nuclear weapons up to the sky like Fraggle? Want to just raid indiscriminately, and do your own thing? Want to stay in an alliance as a small nation, and then when you get out form a small city raiding team with friends? Want to build a financial services alliance? Want to grow as fast as you possibly can? Do it! I do not believe there are any issues with those methods of play style. There is a variety in PnW which is good, and should be encouraged. Micro alliances with new players who do not know what they are doing, and do not engage with the game, however, do not fit something that is good for the community or game. Note 3: New Players Can Leave To Join Another Established Alliance At Any Time Within The First Year Not everything works out, and not every culture is a good fit. If a new player does not believe they have joined an alliance that fits them, they should be free to leave it and apply to be a member of another established alliance. We do not want to promote alliance hopping or trying to cheat the promotional systems of alliances, but there are times where a new player would rather try to join another community to find a better fit. That is fine, and should be allowed within reason. Note 4: We Assume That If You Can Create An Alliance That You Know What You Need To Do To Survive You probably would not create a new alliance without treaties, or know that you will actively raid, or however else you want to play the meta of the game. If you are able to create an alliance, we assume that you will know what to do and how to do it in order to stay protected, or engage with the wider community. It is true that there are some established alliances out there that are truly sorry excuses to be playing right now, but by this point if you have played the game for some time then you should at least have a bit of a clue as to what you are doing. Brand new players, for the most part, will not have this understanding.

If it helps, I pledge that Grumpy will never accept and then corrupt or destroy new players in the game.

what if i want to stay a small raider and have fun fighting these micros, why do you guys want there to be only 2 alliances in this game. I dont want to be in a old boring alliance that has wars once a year

Poor thing. Is your cross heavy?

An ape can muster together the money to buy a credit. There is enough crap that shouldn't cost credits as is. This doesn't do much. One year is too long. While most people shouldn't be making alliances without experience, some people pick things up faster, and you'll naturally drive out people that might have been good leaders by forcing them to wait an entire year. The key issue is people who go straight to making their own alliances. 4 Months and 10 cities (or perhaps more) minimum if you are going to go that route. You risk killing many middle tier alliances and splinters this way. If a person can rise through the ranks within an AA and form a splinter in under a year, they should be able to follow through. How would this be enforceable if the formation of those alliances isn't restricted for pirates, finance groups etc? Would players under a certain age simply be unable to apply to them? If that is what you a suggesting, seems fine. Game has needed something like this for awhile. Preferably some sort of keyword/tag system to allow alliances to define their identity and attract like-minded people.

My first alliance was NPO. I left a few weeks later to make a shitty micro with friends. We often didn't know what we were doing but it was a good learning experience, and more importantly, it was fun. Seems a bit contradictory to say you want to give new players freedom, but then only suggest mechanics that do the opposite. This would serve to funnel players to alliances with strict membership requirements. I get that alliance hopping is annoying but that doesn't mean we need mechanics added to prevent players leaving. Do better vetting, roll them a few times, or be less careless about throwing money around. Preventing people from creating their own alliances just because t$ have a recruitment problem? Improving the tutorial would be great. Maybe we could also try to encourage people onto the pnw discord and have more dedicated help channels there (for various aspects of the game). Also some PNW server index which showcase communities (like news servers, banks, or ones dedicated to helping noobs)

You can raid enough cash to get to 3000 score in a matter of a couple weeks if you really wanted to, not to mention established alliances usually having great growth programs.

While true, the single most damaging part of the problem is "black hole" alliances; alliances that are completely unable to provide a compelling gameplay experience for their members, unwilling to improve themselves, and just constantly chew up and spit out genuinely new players that don't know any better and never will have the chance to. That's why I like this one of the OP's ideas: If we ensure that new players are explicitly only recruitable by established and capable alliances, then they'll be given a much better introduction to the game and will be far, far more likely to stick around and far far more capable of forming their own alliances later on. It is only addressing a symptom of the problem, yes, but you gotta put out the fire before you buff out the ashes. Meanwhile, new alliances can absolutely come into being... if they're able to bring in at least a solid core of people that in theory at least know what a not terrible alliance even looks like. If a group of entirely new players want to come in from somewhere else and make their own alliance, they can do so by temporarily joining somewhere, then all leaving at once. Only problem I can see with this is if all the alliances that meet the standards of recruiting new players refuse to let them go, but even then that's no different than the status quo of you beating them down for existing sans protection anyway, so it's impossible to really take any steps backwards with this idea.

If any reputable alliance tried to slow down growth, they would first be shamed, and then second absolutely blasted by other alliances in the recruiting game. Not only that, but by limiting your new players you are deliberately harming your own alliance by either delaying their time clocks (which means they can't catch up as quickly), or you are limiting the overall potential and strength of your own alliance. I would absolutely use it as a recruiting tool to say that I grew new players faster and more effectively than anyone else out there. The return on investment is worth it. I do not really want to put lower-performing established alliances on blast here, because that is not the intended point of this post. I do believe that poor-performing historical alliances are a detriment, but there is a high bar for this. NPO lost a lot of wars while they were here, and yet I would not consider them to be a poor-performing alliance. They were a major force to compete against. Granted some of their methods were found to be in violation of the game rules, and while I will not condone that I will say that just because an alliance has a losing record in wars does not mean automatically it is poor-performing. The same is true for alliances that may stay at 10 cities or whatever among their members and cause havoc in their own tier. Endless alliance growth does not always equate the best path forward. I absolutely agree with your point on improving the tutorial. And maybe a year is too long of an initial suggestion. I threw it out like that because it was easy to measure and showed a healthy rate of commitment. There do need to be some barriers to creating an alliance besides just any Tom, Dick, and Harry just deciding they would create one because they can. That is partially why i suggested some of those requirements, as I thought they might be the most neutral to both accomplishing the task but providing options to players who wanted to do something other than just be in a Top 20 alliance. There might not be a solution, per se, to this issue. I am proposing this not because I claim to know what it actually is, but to put out something that might be closer to solving the problem.

Yes lets make this game more exclusive than it already is...that will help attract new players to this game for sure...

While some of the restrictions are sensible others are outright fricking stupid. Maybe you want the price of credits to go up so whatever I’ll give you a pass for that one but it’s already hard for micros to recruit and restricting that is the pinnacle of clownery.You also fail to consider experienced players who want to reroll and then create a alliance.

There's a simpler solution to this. One that doesn't require anything but a tweak in the code, but requires a massive community wide consensus. Step 1, raise the score required to even found an alliance. 3000 should be fine, that's around the area of c18, I was only c19 when I started my own. If you're an alliance who doesn't have anyone that big to, say, offshore, this is what you have allies and protectors and Yarr for. Make relationships and use them. Step 2, the community needs to simply stop enabling the people you describe. When I ran a micro I made a pointed habit of striking down anything that dared breath without protection, because I knew it was only there as it was an ineffective entity needing to be dealt a death blow. There are many other micros like this that's existed and continue to exist, run by people who've failed time and time again and yet for some reason, this community supposedly so toxic and hateful of micros, continues to enable them. Why is Nokia constantly permitted to runabout tossing players into a fire with his asinine shenanigans? Why does minesome always seem to find someone willing to enable his 3,047th attempt at pretending he matters? We don't just enable the clueless we enable those who should know better but never learn because they are never forced to. At the end of the day, this is a community created problem, and can be solved by it.

Please don't associate yourself with the rest of us Canadians.

After a short 2 week conflict between the alliances that compose tCW sphere, and the combined alliances of Hedge and Swamp. We have agreed to the following terms for peace between our Spheres, which will take effect starting at update tonight. 1) tCW sphere formally surrenders to Hedge and Swamp Spheres. 2) All existing wars will end to conclusion, (peace will be granted if both warring nations agree), no new wars to be declared after peace officially takes effect at next server update (aka 2 hours). New wars declared after peace is declared, will be worked out amicably between alliances. 3) 3 month nap between Hedge/Swamp, and TCW sphere, which includes all protectorates less MicroPock. This NAP will end at update on December 1st. Signed, Members of Swamp, Hedge, and TCW's Sphere... I am too lazy to get signatures for everybody. On behalf of the members in Hedge, I want to thank Swamp for their hard work and dedication to this fight, and I would like to thank the nations we fought in tCW's sphere. Despite your overwhelming odds, you were all classy opponents, and its nice to have a war where we are not at each others throats and can fight with at least a little bit of humor and grace. Let's hope this becomes the norm and not the exception in orbis going forward. Note: Morningstar is not included in these peace terms.

I'll also go simple: Black hole alliances are a real problem in this game. Alliances are responsible for keeping members interested in the game by providing them protection, [proper] guidance, and community. Therefore, alliances that cannot handle such a responsibility, should be forced to disband or merge by the community. Stop protecting black holes.

There are more walls of text in this thread than the recent war declarations... I'll go simple: No thank you to alliance creation restrictions.

Really only one loser this war. Pathetic.

So I think you're being a little melodramatic that the fact you can't make an alliance day 1 would turn you off and make you quit the game...again.

Speedrunning challenge but it’s how long it takes someone to bring up NPO in a completely unrelated thread

Is anyone gonna tell him that the fact that they were not fully militarized hurts this argument?

It's really not. The last time nationalism was a big thing, we had 2 world wars. Now it rears its ugly head again, and how is the outlook? Just look at what it has done to Iran or the US, for example. "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson, 1775 What 'racist bullshit'? I have only ever spoken out against it, and counter trolled racist trolls. And, apparently you give a shit.

Grumpy would like to sue you for trademark infringement.

🙏

Considering there is already an artificial project timer in the form of the infra requirements, which require you to buy more cities over time to meet them, I don't see any reason not to remove it.

1. Ground v ground - the soldiers casualties are far too low, someone did 300k soldiers vs 200k soldiers and only ended up killing 10k soldiers which imo is way too little. With tanks being 0.5 steel instead of 1, the casualty there is looking fine. 2. Planes v planes - looking good with how it is rn. Maybe increasing the casualty tad bit would be better. 3. Ships v ships - it’s trash. You kill way to little. casualty needs to be increased by alot. 4. Plane v soldiers - horrible, casualty needs to be increased by alot. 5. Plane v ships - it’s not bad, but increasing the casualty would be better. 6. Plane v tanks - planes kills no tanks at all, casualty needs to increased. i dont have time to go into depth, but im sure others could do that for me.

Why is the LGBTQI flag a term?

Both these transphobic comments happened on platforms that PW runs. This shit should not be happening in your game. OOC attacking people in the community should be scrubbed out entirely, especially when of this nature.

Next time the nap 1 month, 3 is a lot

lol

Thanks. Yeah I guess it is. I have gone down this path so long, I realized I became as callous as some of the people I sought to excise from Orbis, and in the end became indistinguishable from them. I am now captain of my destiny, living deliberately, and willing to be the fool for it. This is what Orbis needs and will still be standing when my current woes are at an end.

🌠. 🎀 𝒶𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝒾𝒹𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒻𝓊𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝓁❀𝓌𝓃 𝒽🌞𝓂🌺 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑔𝒶𝓎 𝒶𝓈𝒻 𝒶𝓁𝓁𝒾𝒶𝓃𝒸𝑒, 𝒾 𝓌❁𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓇 𝒦𝒯 𝓃💗𝓉 𝒶𝓅𝓅𝓇💮𝓅𝓇𝒾𝒶𝓉𝑒 💮𝓊𝓇 𝒾𝒸♡𝓃❀𝑔𝓇𝒶𝓅𝒽𝓎 𝓉💮 𝓉𝓇𝓎 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓁♡𝓌-𝓀𝑒𝓎 𝓂𝒶𝓀𝑒 𝒻𝓊𝓃 💍𝒻 ☯𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝓅𝑒💙𝓅𝓁𝑒. 𝓎😍𝓊 𝒽𝒶𝓋𝑒 𝓈𝒽💙𝓌𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓎🌞𝓊 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓃🍪𝓉 ☯𝓊𝓇 𝒶𝓁𝓁𝒾𝑒𝓈 𝓈💮 𝓀𝒾𝓃𝒹𝓁𝓎 𝒻𝓊𝑔 🏵𝒻𝒻 ~ 𝒽𝓊𝑔𝓈 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓀𝒾𝓈𝓈𝑒𝓈 𝓍♡𝓍💞 🎀 .🌠

Based on the experience in our blitz with mixed leadings, this is completely false. Air is by no means useless or weak, but ground is absolutely stronger. We noticed something, especially at CoTL where alot of our wars lead with ground. The DC after blitz, our targets were dead. Half ground, 70%, 100%, 0%, it didn't matter what they started with. They were dead all the same. If they had any ground left it was under 20%, their planes were in the 30s-40s at best and their ships were being hammered away. Meanwhile we noticed, those who lead Air, including you folks in TJest, at this same period in time had opponents with about half planes, and with their ground and ships mostly intact an still at extremely high levels. A 1v1 like you described is, frankly, kind of irrelevant. This is a team based game at the end of the day. You can't balance around a 1v1. Even in this 1v1, ground still has edge. It kills ground faster than planes kill planes, and when it ITs it kills planes faster than planes kill planes. At max tanks I kill 234 per GC. Every GC. No RNG. I average like 200-210 in an Airstrike. And don't forget, the RNG is wonky because the casualties are different. It used to be 2:1 air would IT every time. Boyce got a moderate on me, 2400:1100. Even when gauging people my own city count, having a plane advantage of 800 still have me at 45-50% IT odds. Meanwhile having nearly 50% greater ground, about what I had in planes, gave me something like 75% IT odds. Even when forces are equal, Ground RNG is kinder. These differences in a 1v1 aren't massive, they're definitely noticeable, and they're painfully and blatantly noticeable when team play and offensive action comes in, as we noticed in our own action. Planes are still viable, they're just slower. Alot slower. Cheaper too, but so, so slower. Ground and pound now can and will end you as fast as dogfights used to. It's not as one sided or unstoppable as that (memph mathed it out with me, in an equal numbers conflict with a blitz, the defenders focusing air can push back with some luck from RNG, and this accounts for no counters. However, the advantage again, still lies with the attackers using ground. We also found if the attackers hit with air against these same equal number equal size equal activity opponents, who responded focusing ground, the advantage would be pushed back from the blitz in their favor more often than not). This can be mitigated by going very close to DC, but since we assumed both sides were extremely active, that still might not be enough. Ground is absolutely the stronger of the two now. Planes are relevant, but are more of a supporting class.

Good fighting you all in tCW. Twas a nice change of pace

tS and friends rolled in on Grumpy and Guardian last war, and we were able to pretty soundly beat them until NPO rolled in and turned the tide back in their favor. back in the day, when people knew they were about to get hit in a war they had no chance of winning, they would strike first to try to take advantage, and would still lose.

This post ended up being a lot longer than I intended but this is a massively complicated and nuanced subject. Thanks Hodor for replying to me and here is my response to you. I believe I take an adversarial position to you and I hope to use this post to explain why I feel and think the way I do. Your post was respectful and reasonable and I hope mine comes across the same way. It will only be through proper dialogue between reasonable people conducted in good faith that issues like this can be resolved and a pathway into a brighter future can be established. Anyways, here it is: - The cops don't go around killing black people extrajudicially for fun, though. Officer Derek's knee-neck thing on Floyd was unjust and should be punished, but that example is the exception and not the norm. In Alabama, Rayshard Brooks resisted arrest, stole a cop's taser, tried to flee, then shot the taser at a cop. In response, the cops shot and killed Brooks. All on camera from police body cams or the cameras outside the Wendy's this took place at. Rayshard Brooks had a criminal record and was committing a crime at the time of the offense. In response to this shooting, the Wendy's was burnt down by a mob and other rioting occurred. In Kenosha, Jacob Blake got in trouble in the first place because "...Blake wasn't supposed to be there, and that he had taken the complainant's keys and refused to give them back." (Source on quote) He ignored the police as they told him to stop walking to his car. He went to the driver's side door and reached in. That's why they shot him. He had a warrant out for felony sexual assault. He's still alive but paralyzed from the waist down. In response to this, Kenosha had riots, looting, and another high-profile shooting. Even with George Floyd, he was a felon for pointing a gun at a pregnant woman's belly. He acted weird during his arrest and was restrained for it. Derek did put his knee on his neck for longer than he should've and that did probably kill him, but Floyd also had meth in his system alongside 3 times the lethal limit of fentanyl. In response to this, the country has been on fire and racial tensions are the worst they've ever been. If you don't want the police to shoot you or use force against you, then don't resist arrest and cooperate with police. I really don't give a shit about criminals who end up dead or injured because they didn't listen to police. It isn't a race thing either. If a local white guy around me ended up dead because they didn't cooperate with police, I wouldn't care. The police don't shoot people for sport. They shoot people because they have to make split-second decisions on rather or not someone presents a threat and if they make the wrong call, they're dead, their wives become widows, and their kids lose their father. Yes, you have 'bad cops' (I use quotes because sometimes I wonder if they're all bad) that will shoot for fun and that do use excessive force when it's not required. Those cops should be punished and lose their jobs (like Derek in Floyd's case). For a good example of how split-second these decisions are, check out this video of an activist and news anchor going trough use of force training. These are the situations cops are in and they have to make the best decisions for themselves, their families, and their communities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g Police Activity is a YouTube archive of notable police footage (usually from body cams). Most videos are of cops killing/shooting people. I've watched lots of videos and the people in them would still be alive if they cooperated with police and didn't reach for things or use weapons against cops: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXMYxKMh3prxnM_4kYZuB3g Now, with all that being said, I have disdain for the police. I don't like police and this post isn't me playing Cop Internet Defense Force. All cops should wear body cameras and be charged should they commit a serious screw up (Like Derek in the Floyd situation). I can go into the many reasons why I don't like cops and why reform is needed, but that's another 3 paragraphs I don't want to type out. This post is long enough. It sucks that we can't have a perfect police nationwide that doesn't do anything wrong, but we are imperfect creatures and we don't operate at 100% reasonable efficiency all the time. I've personally never had a bad encounter with the police and hope never to have one (I also don't plan on breaking the law and I have never broken the law. I would assume there's a strong correlation here). As for BLM, I don't give a shit about them either. The Kentucky/Lexington branch seems fine (I saw their list of demands and it was just stuff about police accountability). It's a mostly decentralized organization anyways so it's hard to criticize broadly. However, I am disgusted and angered with the state of affairs. In cities all across the United States, there is rioting, looting, violence, and nothing is really done about it locally. Minneapolis, Portland, Chicago, New York City, Kenosha; all of these cities have been torched because of 'muh racism' or something. In all these cities, people chant BLM slogans and the unrest occurs as a result of these perceived racial-based killings (which I already explained why I think that's faulty thinking). The local governments do nothing to stop the unrest. President Trump has offered to use the National Guard, and the local/state politicians either whine before finally letting them in or completely reject the help. I don't even know why those businesses are paying taxes if the government isn't going to do anything about the crime. Speaking of the politicians and government, they all love the unrest. The American left is almost completely complacent in it all. I think Biden recently finally said 'hey knock it off' but the leftwing in this country either don't speak up about it, nominally endorse it, or are completely in support of all the unrest. What kind of clown country do we live in that our politicians are endorsing widespread unrest in their own communities? The Black Lives Matter and/or Antifa sticker is attached to all of this chaos and I am against it completely. Let's reform the police. Outside of police interactions, let's find ways to raise up the American black community from the troubles they face in their communities. Let's end racism. There's nothing wrong with those things. However, don't make martyrs out of criminals, and don't go out and burn down the town because criminals get shot or killed for not cooperating with police. TLDR: Police violence and abuse is a problem. It's not just a black problem, though. Police violence effects everyone and should be addressed. However, the cases being pointed to are horrible examples due to their circumstances and the 'victims' are not sympathetic and are bad people themselves. The violence and unrest occurring in major cities is a much bigger problem I'm concerned with and it appears BLM/Antifa are behind these and those organizations are tainted because of it.

It's amazing for new players who may not know what discord is, but for players who are more established It's kinda useless imo

During trial of tiers, bk sphere full blitzed us, specifically bk near slotted rose. We flipped the war on them within a day and we very clearly won the first round, we had less members than bk. I guess we're the 1%? The aggressor should have a clear advantage, with the chance of a defensive comeback through coordination and planning. If there isn't a clear advantage for the aggressor, there would never be any global wars. But im sure you would be happy with that coming from RnR. Also, you're saying I have a 9th grade education? Dude, you have crazy long run on sentences lolol.

Dudes just salty because he's being blown up

There's a balance here between making growth to slow and making growth too fast. My gut feeling is that this is on the side of making growth too fast. We are seeing a cycle of inflation, where cities and projects are easy to build, so they have less perceived value to players, and they get bored of building them faster, so admin makes it even easier to build them to account for people getting bored of them quicker, and the cycle repeats. And I think this hurts rather than helps new alliances. New alliances generally don't have as many big nations to fund faster lower-mid tier growth. With my 33 city income, in one week I can completely fund one new nation getting all the way to city 15. With city timers, there are limits to how fast alliances with deep pockets can supercharge a new nation's growth.

From the Desk of Gobo Fraggle The Best Nation Fraggle Rock Greetings Friends!! It's been fun. Many Hugs, Gobo Fraggle