Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/28/20 in all areas

  1. This is Shifty, reminding you of the earlier fiasco with Epi v Lossi legal battle. After publicly calling out the situation and bringing it to light, the thread was mysteriously deleted. Note: That is not regarding forum moderation here, therefore, I am not breaking any rules with this post. I did not request this thread to be deleted so it's a case of 'just who is pulling the strings?" That being said, why would someone who is supposedly right/telling the truth, want to hide the truth? Perhaps there's more wrongdoing to each side? Maybe only one side is guilty and is able to use forum moderation to censor this? This is Shifty reminding you, you can't silence the truth or scandals. Yippee Ki Yay
    12 points
  2. Greetings Shifty. Your thread was hidden by me personally and is under review by the rest of the forum moderation team. If you are looking for the truth behind this action, I can name at least two reasons due to which this happened: 1. You posted a thread in Orbis Central, so according to the forum's label, "Out-of-Game discussions of the politics of planet Orbis" are supposed to be posted here. Your thread had nothing to do with politics of the game. It was just about personal drama between two individuals on Discord, that had nothing to do with P&W. 2. If you read the forum rules, you will see the following: (Moderation Staff): "Creating posts "calling out" moderators or the game staff is prohibited. Instead, if there is an issue with a warn received contact a moderator or use the proper forums to request appeal." & "Any concerns with the moderation staff should be addressed with the game administrator, Alex, via pm." Moderation staff includes both forum, Discord and other social media staff, as well as in-game staff. 3. The final reason from my side was that your thread was related to the real identity of a member of the community and concerns about doxxing them. If you really want to protect the said individual, the worst thing you can do is bring up this issue to the public. Regarding your accusations about the "weird' motives behind hiding the thread, the Discord and forum teams have no interaction with each other, mainly due to the fact that forum mods' identities are not known even to Discord moderators. I've locked this thread too, since it also breaks two of these three rules. I will leave it around so that I make sure you read the response and then will probably move it to the forum reports area or just hide it. Have a nice week.
    9 points
  3. It has been stated time and again that discord and the forums are completely separate and one does not have to do with the other. Deleting the thread in its entirety draws more attention to the convoluted disaster that is this games moderating system on both the forums AND discord instead of it just sputtering out on its own or being overlooked once locked. Now, we're all twice as curious as we were before. Delete one thread, two more shall take its place.
    6 points
  4. The original poster is literally describing a Nazi flag, the swastika is being used in a Nazi context. The use of the white disc and red background with the swastika is in no way, shape, or form being used for non-Nazi purposes. There is literally no reason to be debating whether or not the swastika should be ok to use in P&W as it's explicitly prohibited in this context. All of the people here arguing to normalize the swastika seem to be either unable to read the context, or seem to possess some suspect ulterior motives. like bruh
    4 points
  5. Honestly, I find discussions about changes in mechanics pointless and they kinda kill the fun. I want to play the games, not to "optimize" them or discuss how they should be played. In a game you get some rules and adapt accordingly. Sure, some of them may suck for a specific playstyle. Just don't pick that playstyle then or deal with it. Discussing every 3 months about changes in THE core mechanic of the game (war) is becoming ridiculous. The game is 5 years old already. The best thing we could do is just leave everything as it is. It doesn't matter anyway. No matter the war mechanics, alliances will just use FA to get more power to balance whatever weaknesses may appear.
    4 points
  6. My ancestors are smiling upon me Moderators, can you say the same?
    3 points
  7. Ogaden always used to post in his DoWs was basically just "Arrgh, lets drink rum and have fun! Yarr!" So Just have fun is like a pirate code of Arrgh tbqh. Not gonna lie I was gonna join/retire in Yarr but then Ockey said he would loan me cities/project or w/e tf I wanted interest free so I joined my bud in Oblivion.
    2 points
  8. If you hit someone whose single buy is enough to offset it, chances are either you hit an AA with a ground MMR on the higher end (admittedly, more common now due to ground's greater importance), couldn't declare that much lower for xyz reasons, or airstrikes were used to bring the soldier count low enough to where it'd make a substantial difference. If you're going with a double buy to offset it, the defending party would be exposed to as much as six GA's until that went in (assuming you either dec'd right before or after a reset, assuming standard), which can then be potentially translated into 60 res damage, which in turn makes gunning for a beige much easier. It'd obviously depend on the other means by which you could shave off the remaining 40, but it's still a consideration. Ground of your own is less effective at removing soldiers than air, and arguably less efficient if no cash is looted. It's a very good deterrent/shut-down to keep you from being GA'd further, but the soldier casualties, which is what you were concerned with and is what I was addressing, aren't actually that high. Wars should be a resource sink. (Counter) raiding, however, isn't war (at least, not conventional one). Raiding and war are fundamentally different practices, with fundamentally different priorities and goals Cue soldiers being much better for raiding than war, and beiging someone being a priority in raiding but something to be avoided in war. Resource efficiency is one of those parameters which are more relevant for countering than for full-blown wars. The game has far more resource sinks now than it's had, due to the ultra expensive projects which are both desirable relatively early on (A/UP) and for whales (Telecom) and in between (SP/SS). The market has only now crashed after a period of very high costs, and that can be attributed to people liquidating stocks as war is not expected for a while. Resource cost shouldn't be a secondary thought. For example, it's a main contributing factor for which ships are garbage at actually killing ships, and their lack of use other than as a last resort or for blockading (or racing beige, but for that resources used doesn't usually matter since it's often done with one ship). The other reason being that they're also, in terms of total units killed, worse at it than planes, provided a sizeable enough plane advantage exists. Those sorts of costs should be adjusted at least to some degree relative to the reduction in casualties so to at least make it easier to make these attacks cost effective, and making it an incentivizer for carrying these out in the first place. Soldiers are more relevant than ships, so far conventional controls go. Ships become an argument once you factor in blockade (which mainly matter for securing loot; a proper alliance won't have someone run out of resources R1 due to a blockade), beige and loot. The issue being that beiging the other guy is not something that you want to be doing in proper war in the first place. At least, not indiscriminately so. So it becomes far murkier and complicated a conversation than presented it as being. I don't know if raiders are being targeted directly by it (though yes, a party which makes a higher/more predominant use of soldiers is going to be affected more by it); however, the argument that people suggesting it because they are upset that plane-only isn't enough to deal with it (and it'd never be, because if they sat with 0 ground then the raider could just get a fraction of a single buy in and GA to burn resistance) is contradicted by part of the suggestion being to increase casualties taken from other ground units as well. In fact, the suggestion is for tanks to have it increased by 15%, in contrast to planes' 10%. If I had to guess, people took a look at soldiers' casualty rates compared to their recruitment rate and expense, and thought that they were a bit too tanky relative to that. They're certainly much tankier now than they used to be, both due to the direct reduction in casualties taken, and due to the max hangar capacity being reduced to 15 instead of 18, which was an indirect (and frankly, unintended because Alex certainly didn't think that far ahead) nerf to their gross killing potential simply because the current max is only 83% of what it used to be.
    2 points
  9. Name idea: Community Outreach Project
    2 points
  10. mfw bad raider tries to tell #3 raider how2raid
    2 points
  11. Situation: Game’s economic system is fairly active and somewhat working well. Meanwhile, there doesn’t seem to be enough wars. Complication: How do we create more of ‘friendly’ wars where both sides know what they are getting into (I.e. they choose to fight a war). Idea: Discovery of mineral rich yet disputed territories. Mechanics: Game randomly creates a notification announcing discovery of mineral deposits in some disputed territory. Whichever alliance eventually owns the territory benefits from a temporary increase in mining (e.g. 25% increase in coal output for 1200 turns, numbers are placeholders). To own the territory, alliances need to claim the territory by clicking a ‘claim’ button on the notification page. Game randomly picks two alliances that ‘claimed’, to fight for the territory. Whoever wins (basically one side clicks ‘accept the loss’ button) gets the reward. Some territories can be claimed only by Top-20, some by 20 to 50 ranked alliances, and some by non top-50 alliances. What are your thoughts?
    1 point
  12. I've made an expensive project in my day, but daym. Considering the theme of your project, you might want to consider this project providing an improvement slot for each city above 1k Infra, it also helps work in with the cost more than maybe the population density part of it. Since you have a floating real-estate, a new place to build an improvement.
    1 point
  13. All rule-breaking ingame actions are relevant to whether or not you are unbanned. This is a no-discussion forum, so avoid further replies unless there's specific evidence to add.
    1 point
  14. Hi, I was government of the alliance Sam here applied to, and I wanted to throw something in. The banned user was calling users pedophiles and other slurs both in-game and on discord. I believe you can look at his embargoes for further evidence.
    1 point
  15. Don't get confused with the ancient symbol and the nazi one, they do face different directions. If one is using the nation one specifically then they have poor intentions.
    1 point
  16. If you really wanted to copy something from the other game which shall not be named, then making the existing color blocs stronger with elements of Senators and Sanctions would be one of the few things I would port over. There are, in my opinion, enough color blocs as it is. There should be more intrigue around the ones that do exist.
    1 point
  17. With recent score changes, people are sitting in a "tighter" range. Lower city counts in your war range often have very high military. High city counts in your range often have less (but can out-buy you). There really isn't the presence of the old "golden range" of people who have low military AND are lower city count than you anymore. So no, a single buy offsetting it has very little to do with MMR or bad luck these days. With score ranges being so much tighter with the recent update, you're almost always fighting someone with the capability to fight back. The combination of buying a full compliment of soldiers/tanks for the day is almost always enough to flip a raid in my experience. It's simply the cost of doing so that presents the harder choice. That is a good gameplay element called a strategic tradeoff. Sit back and get raided or spend resources for military. Double-buying has its own strategic tradeoffs for a higher payout. I'm not sure how to word this properly so don't roast me if I get this wrong: I agree resource costs should be balanced like any other mechanical part of the game, nothing should be prohibitively expensive or "not worth it"... I think you're taking it too far to call it an incentive though. I agree raiding and "real" warfare is different though, a point I'm trying to make here with these changes to soldiers. Staying power in soldiers is a good thing, for the reasons I've listed above and in other posts. There is no one launching global wars thinking about the soldiers on the other nations. They are a supplemental unit, at best, to tanks for most people. They are a vital unit for raiding. Nerfing soldiers will hurt a subset of the game's population without benefiting balance or other players experience.
    1 point
  18. Too bad he’s in your ally E404’s alliance. And I thought t$ had a recruitment problem.
    1 point
  19. Without trying to be rude, why is that a problem? From my perspective: 1. Soldiers don't win wars. You can achieve effective ground control on people relying mostly on soldiers very easily with a single daily rebuy or doublebuy of soldiers & tanks. I know this as a pirate, most people know it as counters. It takes very minimal coordination to ruin someone's ground control, the only barrier is tank cost (which literally just got cut in half in the last update.) and cost is a part of war. That's called a strategic decision - spend the resources to flip the ground war or save the steel. That is a good piece of gameplay. Leading me to... 2. Wars should be a resource sink. As unpleasant as it sounds, resource efficiency is not the first consideration in war balancing. Airplanes should have a cost to use, wars shouldn't be exceedingly cheap. The economy of the game already struggles with resource/cash sinks as-is. We can agree to disagree on economics but the bottom line is that military units, casualty rates, and warfare needs to be balanced within itself as a priority. Resource efficiency is a secondary thought, at best. 3. These changes disproportionately target raiders. Soldiers aren't a very "meta" unit. They're primarily utilized to bolster tanks in normal warfare. Tank count and plane count, even arguably ship count, are all much more important in warfare than soldier count. These changes seem to be actively targeting raiders because people are upset planes-only isn't enough to defend themselves with. See point 1 for why this isn't even true. Soldiers already net-die quickly enough to zero someone in a single round of wars, just like any other unit right now. It's disingenuous to try and mask an attack on raiders as an argument for better resource efficiency or worry about soldiers somehow being too strong when the same people are literally calling them "meat shield units." Sorry if this isn't the most eloquent post, but I hope this gets my points across. At the end of the day, this feels like a spiteful addition due to Mythic's recent raid on Yarr. Changing soldiers only truly harms one group, the rest of the game may not even notice. I feel like affecting a group's gameplay experience negatively to a complete lack of benefit to anyone else is selfish and stupid.
    1 point
  20. I can see the reasoning for this, but personally I think color blocs are functioning as intended. They were created to encourage drama, politics, and war, that’s what they’re currently doing, makes the game a bit more exciting, especially during peace time when there’s not much to do.
    1 point
  21. Yeah, I have to say I like the little dramas (KT-UU anyone?) that color blocs make. I think adding more would eliminate that aspect of the game.
    1 point
  22. Seems like there are two camps on this. Camp-A is themed around specialization by requiring players to put more thought into which projects to build, and could yield into each nation being unique. Camp-B is themed around joy of building more by making projects and slots more accessible for more players, resulting in many nations looking the same. The idea above adds a little more depth into the game, which makes the game more fun.
    1 point
  23. Is it possible to get these numbers in the context of the current formulas and what the new formulas would be? That would make it easier to evaluate what the actual impact is here.
    1 point
  24. New Colors: Clear Rainbow Roulette (changes weekly to another color and copies their bonus) Alex's Skin Tone (on a makeup palette, because maybe their nations are created with it, maybe it's Mayybelline)
    1 point
  25. Yarr used to be ex-Arrgh mostly until Pre joined I think but regardless Pre himself raided a ton of times and raided Arrgh as well. I still remember Justice League just wiping us out so I think saying Yarr has mostly ex-raiders is accurate. Though I disagree personally that being a raider means you have to support Yarr or something. I was a member of Arrgh for years and raided people endlessly and literally just a few days ago Arrgh raided and looted me and I embargoed them. If TKR would just go to war again I could care less about Arrgh. : P And tbh everyone in Yarr is a massive pixel hugger and deserves to be raided, still love Yarr and all my Yarr buddies. I think you can like the people in an alliance and still attack them because they are fat pixel huggers to rich for their own good.
    1 point
  26. Just like private banks should not be bailed out for making terrible decisions on loans, I would be against bailing out players who invested in projects like Spy Satellite. There is a really bad road ahead with doing things like that. Projects like ITC take a long time to recoup the investment on, as do some others. All the people who bought land ahead of the reductions in land cost will want their money back, and have a justification to ask for it if projects like Spy Satellite are refunded. I even spent hundreds of millions myself on it, and while it is disheartening to see that money be blown up, it is a decision I made and one that should be dealt with. The meta of the game changes constantly, which is probably what it needs to stay somewhat balanced overall. Project slots should be a difficult choice for nations to make. It would encourage diversification in playing styles. I do not really like the bonus project suggestion, but most of the other tweaks here are okay enough I would think. The real thing in the meta is that aircraft do not have a viable counter from another unit directly, whereas aircraft themselves can hurt other units. Until that is addressed somehow, there is not much overall that will change.
    1 point
  27. Mate you were raiding people and then abandoned your alliance and hid in vm when CotL came knocking, and you wanna call yourself a raider? You're pathetic, a disappointment to pirates, raiders, and your alliance. Check yourself before you start slinging mud again bud.
    1 point
  28. I believe the point of contention is to leave spy sat alone, Like, dont even change it. It hasnt been used much yet like Adrienne said and people who've built it easily have spent a half billion if not more.
    1 point
  29. I agree with Adri.Spy sat costs a lot, people invested in it with the intention to use it (i presume, i may never know for sure) and there hasnt been a real global since it was implemented.
    1 point
  30. Ah, time for the monthly rebalancing of the war system.
    1 point
  31. pal even the dude getting hit is having more fun and is less salty than you, maybe you should just git gud instead?
    1 point
  32. you're a lost cause pal. There is no saving you now:( Founded: 12/30/2017 (1,000 Days Old) Noob player You're the definition of still being a scrub after years of playing this game
    1 point
  33. This is an extremely important announcement from your favorite pirate alliance. We’ve been the subject of a brutal hacking campaign carried out, likely, by the Syndicate. They’ve targeted us where it hurts the most, out of pure jealously that we are the masters of the Caribbean and their Nassau Office is a rental leased to them by Ripper. The YouTube video featuring Arrgh’s former alliance anthem was taken down resulting in a new anthem being chosen. Behold the new beauty of our alliance anthem: Though the jealous Syndicate tried to break our spirit, we preserved and came through this incident stronger than ever. I’ve spoken to Ripper and we’re definitely raising rent in Nassau as revenge. Thank you for your time. Arrgh!
    1 point
  34. Hi, love you Mythic guys. Have fun!
    1 point
  35. I dislike Facebook more than half the alliances in PnW
    1 point
  36. Not cool Syndicate unsubscribed.
    1 point
  37. Hello I would like for my banned nation to be unbanned because yes it had parts of it that were against the game rules but so did other nation and I was new at the game so I tought it didn't matter because no other nation with nacism was banned and if you allow communist governments you need to allow nazi ones too if you didnt know the Soviet Union killed more people then the German rich and it don't make sence for communist country to be okay but not a nazi one anyways if my banned nation is unbanned I'm willing to change everything about it that related to nacism. my Ban ID is (1911)
    1 point
  38. You people voting for the 10-day war are so fricking boring its sickening.
    1 point
  39. The nUPNberg Trials is elite. Has to win
    1 point
  40. No, treasures would thus become infinitely stratified at the extreme top tiers and leave even less often than they already do.
    1 point
  41. Ill be honest, I don't care much for how you layed it out mechanically but something like this or a change to the treasure system could work if implemented right.
    1 point
  42. Christmas definitely came early Hohoho
    1 point
  43. User Name: Nguyen Hoang KhanhPunishment: Ban from gameDate of Ban/mute: February 5, 2020Reason for Ban/mute: Selling money in-gameLength of Ban/mute: 365 daysBanned By: Game ModeratorReason for Appeal: I understood what I'm trying to do is illegal, but can you please unban me? I missed the game, I swear I won't violate any section of the Game Rules again.Additional info: Please unban me
    1 point
  44. Hey everyone, Just wanted to share GW15's war stats with yall: https://tinyurl.com/piggystattracker I hope to update this daily (Alex should give me infinite API key so I can do it per turn :P) around midnight CST. If yall spot any bugs or want any features, let me know Offshores and smaller alliances I unfortunately didn't include because I didn't have time to find all of them, but if you were in the alliance at some point, it would track all your wars while you were in it. In that case, your name might show up as your ID because you left the alliance (i.e. if you want to check Sphinx, go to TCW and it is under the 36419 sheet). Anyways, have fun burning pixels and enjoy the stats!
    1 point
  45. 1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.