Leaderboard

Polaris has always been at war with Hand Of Fate Polaris Prevails /s/ Emperor - Cobrastrike Regent - Deja Ministers - Bohemond, JadenStar10 Deputy Ministers - Dendarii Imperial Staff - EaTeMuP, AlmightyGrub, Kriegskonig Directors - MoN, Upwardthinking

just a raid bro

I was trawling through forums a few weeks ago and found this pretty neat post that I think would be fun to bring back: Anyways, just copy-pasting that here, no clue how many ppl care but feel free to fill in however many y'all want to ig Alliance Categories: Best Fighters: Worst Fighters: Most Surprising Entry: Best PR: Worst PR: Playmaker (In other words, who had the largest impact): Most Improved: Failed to Meet Expectations: Best DoW: Best Blitz: Worst Blitz: Player Categories: Best Fighter: Most Friendly: Most Salty: Best Rookie (for those who popped their war cherry): Best Troll: Best eLawyer: Community Categories: Best Post: Funniest Post: Saltiest Post: Best Propaganda:

Only Active HM member just posted

Roberts: "This community is so toxic." Also Roberts: gratuitously dunks on a bunch of AAs to make a point.

Oh no! Not peace between br and clock! They hit our achilles heel @Sweeeeet Ronny D- the treaty- I can feel my throbbing hegemonic power whittling away! Noooooooooo.........

You should totally be the moralistic leader and invite GATO to join green instead. 😉

>HoF and Polaris

But that’s my whole schtick

WOAH, HOF IS NOT KT. DON"T EVEN TRY TO MAKE THAT ACCUSATION.

Polaris Prevails, huh? How did the Northern Crusade go, again..?

This is going to sound very counter-intuitive and counter-meta but I promise there's some nuance here so bear with me. A current problematic trend in the community, especially the FA community, I've noticed is a hyper-fixation on competence. I can't believe I'm on "this" side of the argument, as usually I'm a very gitter-gudder type person, however I think as with many good things we have taken it a little too far and gotten a little too elitist with it. It's not even the focus on competence that is the issue, it's the attitude of superiority or "skillfulness" that some people have taken to the extreme. Politics and War is a trash game with no skill involved, if you read the worst war guide in the game you're probably a master of the war system. If you read one econ guide, you can probably get your nation setup correct on the first try. It's not hard, skillful, or even impressive that you're playing the game correctly; it just means you know how to read. Instead of helping people "git gud", we utilize news servers to constantly mock and deride people to the point where they don't even want to interact with the community. Including people who genuinely want to help. We, as a community, are incredibly toxic to new or perceived-bad players. It's now a "rare" thing for even an individual player, let alone a coordinated group, to reach out and even attempt to help people. We should, both as alliances and as players, be reaching out at least to offer help to groups who are lagging behind. It leads to a more interesting game across the board. I've made other posts about how important protectorates are and why we should utilize them to the fullest (not simply drop a treaty and occasionally fend off a raider, but actually work with and train groups so they are at least aware of the meta.) On the complete flip side of this argument, if you're in an alliance that is willfully ignorant of the meta, "community focused instead of militarily focused", or otherwise getting repeatedly clapped in wars but refusing to read a guide or ask for help.... You're the other half of the problem and I promise you this community won't leave you alone to suck-in-peace. PnW is built on punishing bad players and bad communities - your best defense against getting rolled every 2-3 months (looking you WTF, Fark, Polaris, UPN, TFP, etc) is to achieve baseline competence and then you need to actually suck it up and start doing the very minuscule things you need to do. Members won't comply? Boot em, send them to another AA that you're not treatied to so they can get rolled by themselves. just my two cents. tl;dr - stop being mean to people and help them git gud, or if you're being bullied then git gud yourself.

Guess I'll try Alliance Categories: Best Fighters: Cataclysm Worst Fighters: Order of the White Rose Most Surprising Entry: The Cosmonauts Best PR: Nobody Worst PR: HollyRo$e (for the MDP) Playmaker (In other words, who had the largest impact): Most Improved: GATO Failed to Meet Expectations: The Legion Best DoW: Best Blitz: Cataclysm Worst Blitz: The Cosmonauts Player Categories: Best Fighter: hidude45454 Most Friendly : Razgriz24 (only me can know) Most Salty: Best Rookie (for those who popped their war cherry): Daedalus/Apollo/Serpentis (#trainingalliancelivesmatter) Best Troll: Goober Best eLawyer: Sweden Ball Community Categories: Best Post: Funniest Post: Saltiest Post: Best Propaganda:

on the advice of legal counsel i have been told to refrain from expressing my true thoughts and opinions on this matter

I kinda agree that a cultural change to something less brutal and less mocking would be beneficial, and it does get tiresome watching people being mocked to the point they no longer wish to interact with the community. I'm not sure if news servers are the cause of this but rather further ingrains that culture, it was certainly an issue way before those servers got popularised. If I was a new player and on the receiving end of that treatment, I sure as hell wouldn't stay. On the broader argument that we should be helping out individuals or groups - I don't really see the logic of why we should be expected to compromise our own FA/security. The game itself needs to do a much better job at explaining the game mechanics to new players. That would be a better place to start in regards to player retention. Hasn't that been on Alex's agenda for at least 2 years? 😛

Sounds like a skill issue

Yes. They want our under c12 in a blue alliance to ‘help build brown’ and we are forced to split GATO in 2. When they say ‘work together to build brown’ that is what they mean… It’s absolutely true. Keep watch. You will see GATO split in half very soon. You are correct, I did vote against it. I personally would have fought to the death instead of accepting this shit deal

Violating an alliance's sovereignty, so you can make more money... Pretty big scumbag move. Eclipse, you want to make more money? have your offshoot Test go join brown.

75% of this game is just showing up. If every member in your alliance can do that, then you can become a real force of nature.

Locking this thread. I'll talk with Alex once he's back in town and we will announce coming changes to Baseball after that. Thanks

When a war is super short (a week) people get disappointed/sad when a war is a decent length (2-3+ weeks) people still Get sad in some cases some people get upset because they didnt get what they want and start to throw a hissy like a child, it’s fine LB. Maybe next time:p

"I am upset that I am not named in the peace agreement even though I didn't have anything to do with it." All you needed to say.

How about this. Split baseball into two leagues, Minor League and Major League. For Minor League you go ahead and do the nerfs you want but for Major League you leave it just the way it is right now. Minor League would be free as it is now but Major League would be like VIP, 1 credit for 60 days of access. That way sheepy gets paid as well. There should be 1 addition to both leagues though, a 1 click button to upgrade your players. Please don't complain that this would make P&W pay to win as it already is when you can make $400 million per month by cashing in credits for cash.

To give some context, the focus will be on how this impacts alliance warfare. The Goal: Reduce the global wars are won in the first day (barring many alliances joining later) Reduce the amount of times players have to sit on a nation effectively doing nothing but absorbing missiles/nukes Thus promoting players who win the war, actually winning wars. Those are the main two elements of what we'd like to address with the beige system. Currently through tactics it's possible to blitz someone down to low military and the effectively sit on them so they can't rebuild. This results in the winning side of the war not being able to win many of the actual battles to avoid beige. Allowing enemy's to be beiged allows them a chance to rebuild military strength and risk causing some damage to the winning side. The concerns are that allowing rebuild mechanics makes it "purely a numbers game" and that the smaller side, or less wealthy side will never defeat the larger numbers. While the smaller side rarely beats the larger side regardless, it does allow for the fighting stage of war to be prolonged and more resources to be used if the alliance chooses a strategy that isn't selling off all units and soaking up damage until the enemy is tired of kicking them. There's no current mechanic to stop alliances from playing the refusal to fight card. The concerns of a partial rebuild are that it's effectively the same as no rebuild as having 50% of your army likely means you're just going to lose the resources needed to make those and will be unable to do any significant damage. The original plan is to have test server tournaments with these different concepts. This thread is for general feedback. Gauging the temperature. Summary: No Change allows for blitzes to determine the whole war as nations can sit upon the defeated party. This promotes stagnate wars in game, but more politically decisive wars. The aggressor is often the victor unless they perform poorly or are attacking sizable outnumbered odds. Something in the middle allows for partial rebuilds. This will guarantee a break from the war, getting out of blockade, but only a partial rebuild of units. Players will come out of beige status with less than full fighting power and likely no rebuilds. Risks being tactically pointless. If your side lost of the opening wave coming out coordinated as a weaker version of yourself likely does nothing Full rebuild. Allows for the possibility of the side who wins the first round not winning the whole war. Allows alliances to coordinate meaningful second or further rounds of warfare. Sitting on nations stops becoming a predominate strategy. Risks becoming a "who has more" resources or members battle. Risks wars being longer as nations may continue to fight back as they can no longer be held down.

I don't generally reply to allies or indirect allies regarding these subject matters however you caught my attention for your lack of overall understanding of how these processes work. 1. Firstly we lost mate, we were going to have to make some concessions in the end 2. I personally fought for yall very hard on this subject matter until we reached a middle ground. At the end of the day alliances and spheres have to measure the worth of staying at war vs the peace terms on hand, so once we found a soultion that worked for the majority of your alliance and clock, it was taken. In fact these negotiations took up the better part of a whole week, so effectively the entire sphere was fighting on your behalf for a entire week. Stomping your feet is just disrespectful to not only your alliance but every member of Br who argued and fought for you during this time 3. Lastly, the economic benefit from the gain if the color bloc will allow GATO to grow faster and recover. The rules for getting members back to the main AA are very simple and fair. While I understand it's not exactly convenient or preferred, it is the term your alliance overwhelmingly agreed to

If Polaris has always been at war with Hand of Fate, you wouldn't be an alliance.

Roberts, I find the overall idea behind the ending portion of your post commendable. I also think that we as a community should try our best to help out the alliances that need it. However, at the same time, I find it rather weird that you juxtaposed this idea with your opening statement, that the game is so easy that anyone could obviously do well if given even the barest minimum of support, doesn't that mean that, if in your opinion, the game is so easy, that no one should need help? At the same time you're over here telling the community at large to take in and help these alliances that need it, and critcizing people who are harsh towards underperforming alliances, but you undercut your own point when you, in your own post, start literally calling out alliances, more or less shaming them for not having the 'decency to take simple advice'. No wonder they don't want to participate in the public discource, even when people are trying to take up for them, they still get called out. I want to draw attention in particular to this portion of your post. You're over here trying to tell specific alliances what to do, and saying "Well it's so easy to fix your community, just do x, y and z." If it was really that simple, don't you think that they would have done those things already? If it was really just that easy to fix an alliance, don't you think these alliances would have fixed themselves? You're up here on your high horse, in a priviledged alliance, trying to lecture the underpriviledged by telling them "It's easy, just do what we do." Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps they can't do these things? I feel like you, someone who recently had an alliance fail on them, would understand their plight, and see how a post like this, telling them to just "do something" doesn't really help much at all to address their problems. Your post makes no sense, and is doing nothing to actually help the alliances that need help. You want to help them? How about you go join them, and recruit and raise new members for them for a good week or two. That will do more than anything else you've done in this thread.

This post makes little sense. Where's the part where you actually explain why only wanting to sign competent alliances is a bad thing?

Not to drag up old news, but they were given numerous chances from myself and Partisan to stay on green so long as they helped Syndi do purges, as per an existing agreement, and they failed to follow through on their end. All it would've taken is them hitting green nations on none/small micros that dragged the score down to be able to stay, and they refused. I even gave them another chance during the war to agree to it before I added that to the terms.

See, that's just it. There is a very small number of players that make money from baseball but some of the dev team (pre) just have a hard on about it and think everyone should play the game the way they think it should be played. The dev team should stop worrying about things that may not be perfect but they work unlike certain aspects of the war system that are broken and have been for a very long time. They should be after sheepy to fix those things first. You know, things that affect every player in the game.

Honestly what annoys me the most with this post and many others of similar nature is after the first page or two of discussion the dev team just goes radio silent and seemingly ignores everything else that happens. It feels like at times they take one or two suggestions, implement them as a "Hey we totally considered your opinion" and then changed it to what they desired... Want my honest suggestion? Go join Doc's baseball server and start some dialogue with the real people who play the game. There are probably over 20 players with max teams there and even more without who still play. It would serve as the perfect way to negotiate a change that players can accept while still achieving your goals.

It's not being exploited but it is driving a great deal of activity in the game.

Why isn't USN on maroon? Why isn't@CoraMcstrap queen of it? 0/10 worst version of USN

This. 💯

Making sitting harder could turn out to be a big whale buff, making it harder or impossible to harpoon and keep those threats down, if they are guaranteed a rebuild. I think it could be worth considering other ways to help the losing side that don't detract from that goal by widening the tiering advantage. Alternatives: Buffing missiles / nukes (e.g. have the damage scale with cities, so they don't become increasingly irrelevant at higher city counts) Changing blockade mechanics so that there are more options to avoid running out of funds Allow utter failures to inflict at least some damage to infra

I want to add to this. First of all, there is something as blitz advantage, and I think it's good. This game should encourage taking initiative and going in balls first. Should it be the main decider? Perhaps not but I don't think it is either. I think currently tiering / numbers is equally relevant. Removing blitz advantage by allowing a (full) rebuild (for all intents and purposes) makes the wars decided purely on a tiering and numbers basis. Did a great blitz and knocked down their whales / numerical superiority? Good job, good luck doing it again, and again! A blitz is currently the hardest part to pull off successfully of the war. And this proposal is planning to kill it. (or at least nerf it significantly) I am all for making wars less decided from day one. I want longer wars if that means longer wars will be a sign of skill (and in extension not just numbers / tiering). Sadly enough I do not believe this proposed change will make the game more skillful, quite the opposite in fact. In that light I can not encourage this proposal. And I hope others can agree with me on this.

I like your ideas BaseBond and im not trying to disagree but this suggestion should be corrected if this would happen it would cut half of the baseball community's earning and most likely more bc no one would like to play aways there is a solution to this get the tips to 50% but that way homes still more profitable i wont write the reasons down here tho bc it would be too long but here is what i suggest instead you would have 250 max games you we should make it that 250 games is only for homes and we should make a absolute cap for aways too wich should be twice as much the home cap is and it wouldnt mix with the games that you played in your stadium i hope it was understable

Pre just has a hard-on for baseball and has for a very long time. Quite frankly he should just be removed from the dev team because of his constant desire to kill something that anyone in the game can use equally. He seems obsessed with killing something that new players can use to help them boost their nations quickly which is something sheepy seems to desire.

In a game where people complain consistently about Whales and the lack of any meaningful catch up mechanics, nerfing something that can serve as a potential catch up mechanic to me is seemingly foolish. I don't think there is any issue with people who want to get some extra effort in can make a little extra cash. Also, let's not act like Alex isn't getting a bit of money coming in for these baseball games. When I play my two fifty games, I get an ad every time I click! Cap it if you want it, but 1million a day is only going to hurt smaller nations who are looking for a chance to catch up with a little effort. At least make it comparable to rewarded ads, which I notice no one is complaining about.

I remember reading in a previous post that part of your negative view about baseball was due to some players making exorbitant amounts of money out of it. I also know that most (if not all) of those players are whales. That said, I understand baseball can be unbalanced when you have multiple whales profiting millions daily. But it is important to mention that for new players (who are extremely important for the game's future), baseball is a way to close the gap between them and the older nations. So, don't you think it would be smarter for the cap to reduce according to the player's city count? You could set a base gap of $100mil a month and after c15 it reduces $2.5mil per city built until it reaches $50mil. I think it would be a healthier way to handle this issue.

To address a few more points other than the refund: 1. Investment in maxed stadium and baseball team costs about $40M. The home game player typically pays the away player 30% of their earnings (tips), otherwise nobody would play aways. If the daily earnings were capped at $1M, daily profits would be $700k, the return of investment will be 60 days. Even longer if we consider players retiring. This will change baseball from a mechanic that somewhat affects the game, to something that is completely inconsequential. If that is indeed your goal, why not just remove baseball? 2. To clarify, we use a script written by Doc because the game UI itself is really bad, requiring a few clicks and a page reload to play a game. Even worse are the thousands of clicks needed to fully upgrade the team. The script in no way automates the playing of games, it just allows us to play 1 game per click. The person who crashed the game edited the script against the game rules, and was rightfully banned. 3. It's not as if the $8M is free money. I am one of these players and I have decided that spending a few hours clicking mindlessly (for about $2k a click after the daily 250 limit) is worth my time. I don't mind some mechanic stopping my competitive self from doing this though. I have no suggestions for the actual changes because that's not my job. But the idea of a scaled monthly cap sounds ok, the increase in player lifespan and income per game are good too.

Something like this sounds interesting.

I agree; fairness and stability of investement is fair and important. Just like we wouldn't nerf expensive projects if people have them without compensation, the same should apply here. I propose once the details and bits have been finalized we enter a thirty day grace period where everything keeps going as it does now. Once this grace period starts we place a fancy announcement at the top of the baseball page, saying baseball will be nerfed on X date, then people can decide to keep investing or not doing so (obviously knowing the risk ahead of time). A grace period of a month should be more than enough to return the 40M and even make some good profit. Will also be easier to code than a whole refund.

I know you already have your mind set on nerfing baseball, so I'm just gonna raise up something else which I think is also very important. Over the past few weeks, there have been a lot of new players joining the baseball community. If you were to implement such a massive nerf to baseball, you should consider having an option that allows a player to get a refund for their investments in the stadium (perhaps team members as well, although it might be more iffy). It's not fair for players who dumped in $40M into baseball, and then you suddently change the income to $1M a day.

A cap of $1M/day makes it just not worth doing. If its going to get capped it should definitely be higher than $1M. Perhaps a monthly cap that makes it still appealing to those with the time but not feeling mandatory to those without the inclination?

So I've been playing this game for a very long time and we've gone from little to no bots to having a bot for everything. Some of the things bots can do for the game as a whole are overall positive. They can make recruitment easier, post things from the forum onto your discord server automate banks, readily pull up a nation's info, etc etc. I've taken notice now that there are bots that tell you when alliances or individual nations are militarizing now. That should be a great thing given knowledge in a very powerful tool in this game right? I don't think so. Bots tracking militarization completely take out any element of surprise blitzing or catching your enemy off guard in general. I personally feel like bots that interfere with how the war side of the game plays directly are a problem. But where if at all do we draw the line with bots? Just kinda throwing my thoughts out there. Lemme know what yall think

Favorite: This is a bit of a cheap shot but it's the longest thing I've written about basically anything and I'm still pretty proud of it to this day. It was also basically what motivated me to do a lot of what I do today on forums and in my news server shows and stuff. Least Favorite: This post actually was pretty popular among my peers and not my enemies but I still think I screwed up a bit here. At the time I was going through a bit of a sanctimonious moral high ground phase (cringe) so I leaked on some friends in Arrgh for conspiring with Partisan to try and cause an interesting war because I thought it was immoral or whatever. It made a lot of people lose trust in me and looking back, especially given my persona I think it's a bit dumb I tried to stop an interesting war from happening lmao (and like, who cares if it's moral or not, it's PnW )

Actually, according to the damage dealt stats, AC and Arrgh did a combined grand total of 47.3% of the damage while FSO, SoL, UU, and Rome (UU and Rome being subsidiary allies of FSO and SoL, respectively) did 47.45%, with the other 5.25% being done by periphery alliances like TF, HoF, and Sunray. In other words, while AC and Arrgh were certainly important and did a lot of work, the contributions of TBC Proper are very much comparable to those of the raiding AAs. Now, obviously there's more than just one variable to consider there in terms of tiering, but if we're talking about "FSO and SoL get none of the credit because they did none of the work" or some garbage like that, that's just not supported by the data.