Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/13/21 in all areas

  1. At the moment, in order to send the contents of a bank to an offshore, you have to manually copy and paste each resource amount into the value column, which is a very tedious process. I understand that there are scripts or bots that can skip past this process, but you shouldn't need bots to compensate for something as basic as this. Therefore, I'm proposing that a "select all" button be added that automatically pastes all of the resources of the bank into each value. You would still need to fill out the nation/alliance name and the withdraw button in order to actually send the resources, but the select all button would serve as a much needed shortcut. Very quick edit I made to demonstrate what this could look like.
    3 points
  2. They have already been banned.
    2 points
  3. I'm Trans and go by Denise Now
    2 points
  4. Does the dev team play the same game we do?
    2 points
  5. I don't expect many people to know but on the nation edit page, Aqua trade bloc being "alphabetically" is the first choice to select your trade bloc and is hence, more likely to be preferred by new players over the other blocs if they do not end up joining an alliance. Well, its a public fact that you cannot play the game without an alliance, the result being these nations tend to go inactive pretty much immediately after they are created. We're talking about C1s here, beginners who make close to nothing and just stop playing; a horde of inactive nations just on one single bloc, Aqua. At this instant out of a 160 active nations in none 50 out them are on aqua. Literally one third of them one a single trade bloc which is more than 1/4th of the nations on the bloc itself..... We have 1/4th of the bloc as inactive which makes nothing but only drags down the bonus drastically. Now, one can make an argument here that the nations are automatically moved to gray after 5 days on inactivity. Yes, that's true although, this is a constant cycle of nations being created. So no matter what, this has been the case for a very long time. Whatever is done, it's just literally impossible to have a decent bonus with a fourth of the bloc that makes absolutely nothing. It is also unfair to the bloc itself. Red; the bloc with the most nations has only 21 people in no alliances and is more than twice the size of Aqua. Lime with more than 300 people has 6 people in None. I have checked every bloc and none of them has even close to as many inactives to that on Aqua. Which is why I suggest that the color trade bloc selection should be randomised. There is no use to have it alphabetically in the first place because we have custom names for the blocs now. Also, we're talking about 150-160 nations distributed over 14 blocs. Its like 12-15 per bloc, it hurts no one. That's the best solution I could come up with, its fair and makes sure everyone has a chance to improve their bonus. If you have a better one do comment on this thread. Thank you for reading~
    1 point
  6. Posting this here because we've rehashed it 1,000 times on the dev team. We'd like some public opinion on the matter, try to stay civil, love yall mean it. Reworking Beige attempt 69 There are multiple pieces to this proposal and they all work in concert to provide a new and improved beige experience that not only provides military reprieve for the loser but also provides a decent enough “punishment” for losing. The thought is that beige is currently a good thing in the war meta. Victors do not want to give it, so they sit and time out their wars instead of finishing them. Losers desperately search for loopholes in slot-filling rules and every global we see people declaring offensive wars on Arrgh to bait beige or the Knights Templar declaring “raids” on their friends to give beige time. This is such a widespread practice that is basically part of the war meta itself. We need to rework beige in order to close loopholes, simplify the meta, provide consistent relief for people who have their military wiped, and give incentive for people to want to win their wars in-game. Every war will end in beige or a peace deal. Beige will be given by reducing an opponent to 0 resistance or by wars timing out. If a war times out, the person with the lowest percentage of their nation score coming from military will receive beige. Beige now deals a flat number (potentially a range?) in infra damage instead of a percent. Every beige reduces infra in each city by 300 or 10%, whichever is the higher number. A full round of defensive beige will drop you by 900 infra in every city. The current 10% damage for most people right now roughly claims between 150-250 infra in the first few rounds of war, just to give you an idea of the increase. This is to help keep the pressure on people to either rebuild infra to keep military running or to help the winners pin down their opponents economically and force them to pull from warchests. The reason for this is that I believe politics should be the deciding factor in how or when a war ends. Right now it’s a purely economic question: If you’re losing and have taken a lot of damage, the incentive is to keep fighting until you can equalize that damage because there is little-to-no pressure on you to surrender. Most older alliances are barely dipping into their warchests to fight an entire global war. We need to make wars more expensive in large conflicts but without adjusting individual price points so that new players and raiders can still do their thing. The beige team current gives an income bonus (probably to help new players). This will be removed and refactored into a flat -15% net income reduction that affects cash and resource production while on beige. I thought about making this harsher but I think starting with 15% is good. The point being: You do not want to be on beige, you definitely shouldn’t be getting bonuses for it. You cannot leave beige until you have 18 turns or less remaining. This provides a further incentive for the victor to want to beige their opponent: It keeps them out of the fight for a bit and allows people to “divide and conquer” so to speak. With this rework we see beige allowing people to rebuild their military - earning beige time from every war as long as their military score is a low enough percentage (again, potentially encouraging war-time minimum infrastructure spending). This also provides a new framework for beige to be an economic and strategic negative rather than an economic and strategic bonus to the losers of wars, without getting overtly harsh. I would also like to note that due to the new economic tweaks to beige, we should allow new players to start on any given color team but simply be protected from wars for 14 days through a different mechanic. Also just to pre-empt some comments I know will come, if you have an alternative system to pitch other than the current beige mechanic and tweaks to said current mechanic, I kindly ask you to make your own thread. I'm strictly looking for input on tweaking beige itself.
    1 point
  7. Thanks - that player already had 90 moderation points and just found themselves banned from the game.
    1 point
  8. This person: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=368932 messaged me with the below message after I responded to their denouncement with an embargo: This is probably a transphobic attack given the context that my nation flag shows a trans flag among other pride flags, and because projecting transness as a mental illness is a typical transphobic argument (this is while ignoring the word "freak" tacked on at the end). If nothing else, it is a gross and inappropriate OOC attack.
    1 point
  9. If this is such a huge problem for you, leave aqua, eventually what will happen is the pop in aqua will get low enough that it may actually make sense for a larger alliance to jump in there and see a drastic jump in color bonus. I know we had a time when we were jumping around to a few different colors trying to find the one that was best for us.
    1 point
  10. UI should never be randomized, the proposed solution makes the game objectively worse for everyone to benefit a small portion of the player base. That being said, I can certainly see the issue. A better fix though would be applying outlier exclusion to the math behind the scenes. Such as tossing out <c5s and inactives
    1 point
  11. Nation: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=369829 Nature of violation: I believe this is the same person that was doing this months ago but, either way it is clear that they are only here to be an unwanted nuissance.
    1 point
  12. Making raiding better? Well now I've gotta' scrap it.
    1 point
  13. Haven't read this in its entirety to be able to address all points but I've said it before and I'd like to reiterate: forcing people to stay on beige is a terrible idea. Why force them to stay in beige if they don't want to and discourage them from warring and participating in the game?? They should be able to leave whenever they want.
    1 point
  14. can i just remind you guys that raiding has been killed enough already.
    1 point
  15. I am sorry to say but none of these suggestions make sense. 1. I don't think you're considering the extent of the infrastructure damage you're pushing for. 900 infra damage for someone at 3k infra is just too much and it'll way more easy to get someone at 0 infra. It'll just take like what 2-3 rounds for people at 2k infra? Even lesser for smaller nations. And it just makes it impossible to rebuild post war. Most alliances wouldn't be able to afford a rebuild after a war then other than the alliances who've been around for while and have a large warchest 2. Then there is the 15% reduction in income, like first off the easy way to zero out someone then reducing their income so they make even lesser. This just makes the wars way more easier to be won. Don't know how that makes sense at all. 3. I don't think forcing someone on beige helps with divide and conquer. If they have 6 days of beige they'll just use it to remil and counter like how it is done now. It just gives us more of a reason for not beiging them. Idk man, this doesn't make any sense to me.
    1 point
  16. I have a solution, don't touch how the current beige system works and rather bring back the old war mechanics....also gib 50 score per city instead of 100
    1 point
  17. Alternatively just give players the ability to filter what range of alliances are shown. So we could have only top 10 or top 69 for all we care.
    1 point
  18. Well I was on board with the initial sentiment but now imma suggest Error 69420 next war just to spite u
    1 point
  19. Best Holiday Flag Aurora's Christmas Flag Error 404's Christmas Flag House Stark's Christmas Flag Rose's Christmas Flag The Knights Radiant's Halloween Flag @zigbigadorlou ^
    1 point
  20. Best War Flag Children of the Light's ChangeupUwU Flag Children of the Light's spoof of The Syndicate's flag Quack (not included in the poll at the moment) Quack's Flag Coordination The Syndicate
    1 point
  21. Alliance of the Year: The SyndicateMost Powerful Alliance: The Knights RadiantMost Improved Alliance: The ImmortalsBest Rookie Alliance (must be an alliance formed in 2020): Amarr EmpireMost Missed Alliance: Church of SpaceologyBest Alliance for New Players: The Knights RadiantMost Honorable Alliance: Arrgh!Most Immoral Alliance: E404Most Controversial Alliance: E404Biggest Warmongers: Arrgh!Biggest Pixel-Huggers: GoBWorst Fighting Alliance: Shrute FarmsBest Alliance Growth: EclipseBiggest Alliance Decline: UPNMost Likely to Succeed in 2021: Carthago Most Likely to be Rolled in 2021: The Knights RadiantBest Economics Department: The SyndicateBest Foreign Affairs Department: The SyndicateBest Internal Affairs Department: TKRBest Milcom Department: TKRBest Government Line-Up: TKRBest Bloc (can be a bloc that disbanded this year): NexusBest Foreign Affairs Move: Rose, HM, and Swamp all having paperlessWorst Foreign Affairs Move: Rose, HM, and Swamp all having paperlessBest Treaty Announcement (please link): N/ABest Declaration of War (please link): N/ABest Propaganda Post (please link): N/AAlliance with Best In-Character Posts: N/AAlliance with Best Propaganda: N/ABest Alliance Ad (please link): N/ABest Flag (peacetime/standard flags only please): N/ABest War Flag: QuackBest Holiday Flag: N/A
    1 point
  22. I would second Kurdanak’s nomination for Best Holiday Flag belonging to The Immortals. Look at it! Look at it! In the history of vexillology I do not think there has been a flag as awe inspiring as this. We throw around the word “awesome” too frequently, to denote a good thing like a tasty cheeseburger. But this flag, this thing, is awesome in the traditional sense: it is to behold the face of an uncaring diety as we watch the Earth crumble under the weight of a ravenous Sun. If one were to imagine a contemporary take on Shelley’s poem “Ozymandias,” we would not behold the decaying monument to a forgotten Pharaoh. No, it would be The Immortals Holiday Flag. Pablo Picasso is to have once said: "The chief enemy of creativity is 'good' sense.” Is this not true with the Immortal’s Holiday Flag? A cretin, on first blush, will remark that the Immortal Holiday Flag has no good sense, no redeeming quality. Is the field supposed to be a pixelated simulacrum of wrapping paper? Are we supposed to see the Santa jumping out of the ankh as a friend, ushering in the bacchanalian merriment of the holidays, or a threat about our transient place in the universe? And why the unnaturally large snowflakes? But these incongruities, the inherent heterogeneities found within the Immortals Holiday Flag are the literal embodiment of the adage: "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.” Individually, each aspect is a betrayal to all good sense. But as Picasso knew full well, the Immortals Holiday flag, in bravely subverting the good senses of existence, has made the most creative of creative endeavors. When I first witnessed this flag, I knew I was looking at a work of sublime genius. If there is any evidence for the existence of a benevolent God, is this not it? Thomas Aquinas had nothing on the Immortals Holiday Flag. Indeed, one wonders if art is at an end. Once the summit of the highest peak has been surmounted, what else is there to do? Indeed, once perfection has been reached, why bother? Was Fukuyama right that the end of history is at hand? Maybe not with regards to the fall of Soviet communism, but certainly with the Immortals Holiday Flag. I feel a melancholy that we will never see anything like this ever again. I grieve for us as this flag is both a culmination of human achievement, but also a clarion call that there is no better future out there. But yeah, totally best holiday flag for 2020 👌
    1 point
  23. 1 point
  24. One that I'd like to get out of the way right now, is Best Holiday Flag: Now, I know what you're thinking, "holy shit is that flag awful," and you're not wrong. But just take a few minutes to really take it in. What on Earth is that texture on the red background? The rendering is uncanny. The gold on red contrast is poor, but I can get over that - however, it should be noted that the snowflake colour scheme is consistent except for one single snowflake. I get the ankh, because, you know, The Immortals. But centre-scene, the early 2000s CGI Santa popping out through Christmas wrapping paper background? Truly astounding. It's so bad that it's practically a work of art. Whoever made this, know that I'm so very disappointed in you, but I also have a deep, immense respect for having created an atrocity of this scale.
    1 point
  25. Gayest Alliance in Orbis: Carthago that's the only category I care about
    1 point
  26. Biggest Alliance Decline: Schrute Farms :c
    1 point
  27. Since there are some kiddos who feel proud to exploit the bad luck and carelessness of others, i propose the following change:
    1 point
  28. but it could be much more easier to name next wars. We can name previous war Error 1 and next one Error 2 and so on. When war will be similar to previous one then we can call it simply remastered, Enchanced or Definitive Edition.
    0 points
  29. I mentioned this over a year ago when the beige mechanic was being looked at last time. At the end of the day, you want to encourage winning the wars but need a mechanism for people to be able to recover. So the mechanic that was introduced to take away beige was good - start with that, it eliminates any incentive to not win wars then. Now that doesn't address the ability to rebuild though, so here was my proposal: Just think about in real war, a nation surrenders then has a period of reconstruction - so this mechanic would be a "SURRENDER" option. A player can select this, and when they do so, any military they have left is destroyed/removed (sold effectively) and the wars they have currently they automatically lose (meaning loot/4% infra destroyed - i'd push the infra destroyed to be a bit higher w/ this). They cannot declare any new wars during this reconstruction period and they earn no income and produce no resources outside of their daily login bonus, no trades, nothing. You do want to make it punitive for using this, so not used to avoid big losses - but they'll always have an option to do this if they want to rebuild. There should be a minimum time of "reconstruction", say 3-5 days where the nation can't do ANYTHING. Then, after day 3-5, they have full control again to rebuild their military/nation. However, wars still can't come - either offensive or defensive. Then, when the period of reconstruction is over, say, 5 days later - they are eligible for DEFENSIVE wars, but no offensive wars for 1 or 2 more days. The reason being, you don't want an alliance to have everybody go into reconstruction the same time, fully rebuild military and all come out and strike immediately, that would game the system. As part of their surrender they lose the ability to declare an offensive war for 1 or 2 days when they're back on the market. So yes, nations can be built back up, but it is punitive as it should be and doesn't screw over the side that's winning the war. This makes it a lot harder to keep big nations/alliances down though compared to the old cycle beige tactics - meaning wars would be a lot more expensive if people were to fully rebuild their military. May consider lowering the resources needed for war or up production as a counter to that. Anyway, just an alternative thought to consider to address the issue.
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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