Leaderboard

You like everyone else agreed to follow the rules when you first joined the server. You then agreed to them again when you evaded your first ban. Those warning points on your nation do not expire for a reason, that warning is a very serious thing. There is a base level of trust given everyone when they join a community, you however have already broken that trust. As it is I can not trust you to follow the rules or show even basic respect to others. I have no path for you to rebuild that trust, so unless you can produce something beyond promises to rebuild it yourself we are done here.

It's going to end like treasures, people will "sell" the land by intentionally losing a war. Wars are expensive and it only benefits the higher tier more, we need something that would balance the tiers because realistically, a new player will never catch up unless they are fine with mass raiding and the cooldown which only serves to slow them down

Man is living in the past

its gonna end like people finding a piece of land that gives the best stats and people going to it, adding nothing in the game other than an even more inflated economy, otherwise I see the intention behind it

What is the most baseball games played in a single day? I know bee's record is 13k but is there anyone that got higher than that? I have 14k games in a single day now so if no one knows ill just say its the record.

I suggested at the beginning that your alliance has a capped amount of land depending on their score or something. There's probably a different answer thats better It could only change at day change so it doesnt have to constantly update it? Even that might strain the servers. I'm not sure. It could become a seasonal event that goes on for a week every month or 2 and the winner gets loot and an alliance badge. That way it might not strain the servers that much?

I actually like this idea, more Alliance Oriented, and a sort of "Alliance Event" Problems could arise due to Larger Alliances winning all of the time, but the "land" to fight over would be global and could give resource production There's another thing too, how the servers would handle it. Alex doesn't take heavy updates due to server issues, and this update involving a new land system constantly changing with Alliances that have hundreds of people participating could heavily strain the servers

Yes, I think that would be a very good solution, I think I kind of meant that but didnt know how non-aligned people would be able to join in. This feature could be alliances only as realistically, non-aligned nations wouldn't have much of a chance When I said strongest person, that's defined as most land controlled, but I think if we scrap the concept of individual wars and have alliance wars instead it would be way better. I thought that by possibly implementing a league reward system, it might reward players and incentivize newbies to take part and benifit newer players aswell. Looking back, this isn't a very good solution as newer players would not have a chance, compared to experienced raiders and such. By winning an alliance war and taking part of an alliances 'space' you would be earning more money as an alliance, I think that would be pretty cool. It would also fix the issue of people possibly selling 'space' as it would be your alliance that controls it and would be worth a considerable amount to them. Looking forward to your feedback, Adam

the feature is not vip exclusive

Strongest Person is defined how? Is this about Nation Location or "Leagues" This will increase war in a tier that is all war, which the main problem is the High Tier being too "dominant" meaning that New Nations have a very small chance of making it to the High Tier and contend with other nations. Could this feature be for alliances, like Colour Trade Blocs are? The goal isn't Individual Wars, it's Alliance Wars, that is what keeps the game alive

You stated 3 problems each of which were very well thought out. The only answer to them were to magpie some stuff from my second idea. Basically there are tier, gold silver bronze etc. You move through them as you more space and go down if you lose a war. Targets daily that are close to your score. 1. People would sell land by losing a war on purpose It would be worth more to proceed to the next tier than lose on purpose. The land that gives you extra loot would be automatically owned by the strongest person. Best person in 24 hours proceeds to next tier? 2. Wars are expensive and benefits the higher tier more There could be a fixed amount you get after you move up a tier eg. 5m,7m... This would help smaller players to be able to recover. For this feature you have to be 7 days old or smthng Possibly a Legendary arena in which you stay unless you're inactive 3. A new player wont catch up The raiding parameters or targets would be very close to your actual score The resources they find would possibly encourage them Obviously this idea has flaws, I'm just suggesting that the dev team try think outside the box and make updates that we're excited for. There are loads of different way the map feature could be optimised

I get what you mean about how it might cause inflation but people could find a bit of land and fight over it. Think of all the excitement? A land called whatever the victor wants to call it and getting a lot of bonuses. Wars would be fought, thats the whole point. Or you could even remove that certain land gives more loot. Just more land more loot. Inflationwise you could nerf commerce buildings or smthng to counteract it idk

$85m……..?

All this sounds a little too "Cyber Nationy" to me.

Maybe just have the project, call it National University or something similar, that makes certain improvements like hospitals more effective? Could go a different direction with this and have a War College project that, for example, increases the maximum number of units in a mil improvement. My reasoning is these additions will be easier to implement if they affect pre-existing variables rather than introducing a completely new metric.

@Dark Emperor @Alex @Dr Rush I think its fair that he get a formal response; I don't know him or what he did, but he's being polite and quick to respond. I think it spits in the face of all players for anyone who is legitimately following the process and asking for reconsideration to be treated to a wall of silence. It sets a standard and a precedent that this is the norm. If y'all won't lift the ban, then don't, but at least have the integrity to tell him.

@UnclaimedTry this

I agree with Nyx, the original is 'cleaner' or easier to look at

Signing a treaty with us was so bad they had to rebrand.

>DEUS VULT! >The people of Orbis: PS: I called it.

sounds like you don't think for yourself.

how bout you think bout moderating your business, im expressing my intelligence

Alliances counter people who attack their members. I don't know why this is so baffling to you.

Your city 11, literally you won't even have any part in the fighting regardless. 🤣

This one is a first, and hopefully a last, for me. I've never written a political wall of text, and don't intend to ever do it again after this. In fact, I usually try to avoid political flamewars altogether, even in the more extreme cases of scummy behaviour that need to be addressed for the health of the game. But I do care about this game. And this situation right now, I cannot in good conscience ignore. Anyway, here goes the first ever Horsecock political wall of text. This is an open letter to the Syndicate. First of all, the simple fact that I never did this kind of post probably means that many people (barring Alliance leaders I've worked with in the past) might not know my mentality and moral stances. So let me start this by giving you some more context. For the first time in the history of this game, we actually have a political landscape comprised of a set of (5 before Oasis disbanded, now 4) roughly equally-sized minispheres. That's obviously a good thing for healthy political dynamics. In this climate, I actually don't want Clock (or any sphere, for that matter) to ever team up with a second sphere against a single one (take notes, Tyrion), as that would be a despicable dogpile. These spheres are very much able to pick fair 1-on-1 fights, wars that are certainly more even than ever before. And yes, I did oppose the Clock+BW vs MysOasis war, that was very much not a war I consider fun. The war we had planned was Cata+HoF vs Mystery, a bloc far larger than our 2 alliances. As far as I can tell, there also aren't any "secret treaties" between any spheres at this moment. Sure, Steve (rest in piss) pretended Clockwater was one sphere, but we both know there was no love lost there. I also hope no one takes this post as evidence of any Clock-EMC cooperation. Until the extremely recent Oasis break-up, our 2 spheres actually considered each other obvious rivals. And at the risk of painting a target on my back for revealing this, I personally suggested that EMC should be the target of Clock's first global (instead of Rose). Why? Because at the time, they were the largest (certainly in the mid and upper tiers) and considered the most competent sphere. I place the utmost priority in striving for unconditional competence and in pursuing war as a means of testing and proving my group's skill at the actual game. Proving something to myself, most of all. I am a proud man with a straight shaft back, and taking on EMC would've been a challenge worthy of the Horsecock. That's why I play this game. I do not ever pursue war for political motivations, and I believe my track record very much shows that. And it's quite possible that I have personally started more wars than any other alliance leader in the history of this game. I know that many people don't share this mentality, and that some major alliances enjoy a playstyle more focussed on public grandstanding, finger-pointing and moralising, especially in times of war. I respect that, and I don't want to discourage it in general. In fact, these things do add spice to the political landscape and can make the game more interesting. A good number of alliances do also try to take political advantage in order to dogpile, instead of relying on ingame skill. But you, t$, take it way too far these days. The only other major alliance in my PnW history to act in a comparable manner was NPO, and I would've thought the overwhelming community opinion on NPO would be a useful pointer for shaping your own behaviour. It came as no surprise to me that, when I made a throwaway comment during the last global war about the surprising lack of political drama from either side - a comment responding to TKR and not mentioning any spheres or alliances - the only one who even noticed and got salty was a t$ gov member. Here's the problem: You habitually and aggressively dispatch your keyboard warriors (most of which are current or former high gov members) to every public "forum", be it this one or any major Discord server, in an effort to control the public conversation, spread your own spin and propaganda, and drown out the spectrum of nuanced opinions from all the other people. Both they and your FA leader's public announcements make use of the full arsenal of all the most toxic and disingenuous methods of political drama: Gaslighting, blatant hypocrisy, bare-faced lies and misrepresentation, malicious accusations, paranoia, conspiracy theories, self-entitled boasting, and of course simple flaming and insults. In fact, they do little else. That is the most common behaviour I and many others have seen from t$ over the past year or so. I could compile a long list of public shitstorms that t$ has sometimes caused, always amplified, and often taken centre stage in. At the same time, you act disproportionally insulted and outraged any time someone makes a negative remark about your own alliance. Unlike the vast majority of even small alliances, you seem to conduct yourself with a complete disregard for moral integrity, I'd go so far as to say even a complete disregard for personal honour and honour of your alliance. Of course this shapes the way your alliance is perceived and judged by others, and to pretend otherwise would be evidence of profound social ineptitude. While these behaviours were present in t$ gov for some time before that, they only became intolerable after the most recent resignation of Partisan. I had a lot of respect for Partisan's style and mentality, even if I did not share it. But he did actually try to talk and act with the purpose of making the game more enjoyable, and he put a very presentable public face onto your alliance. When he left, that veneer of moral integrity dropped, and t$ seems to have lost any temperance in controlling, and self-awareness of, how you conduct yourselves in public. You're not the only alliance that likes to dogpile, and you're not the only alliance that is afraid of getting rolled. But you ARE the only alliance that doesn't really even try to hide just how fragile your egos and just how petty your methods and motives really are. The events of the past year, leading up to this war, made it painfully obvious to anyone with even a shred of public awareness where your behaviour would lead you, and we all knew that you would reap your just rewards for it. In fact, I never even bothered to consider your sphere as a target for a Clock global war - not just because I never use political drama as a reason for war, but because I knew that other spheres do and would give you this war, without any actions from Clock. And honestly, this is a rather evenly-matched war, much unlike the 3 dogpiles you did in 2021. And once again, you act publicly outraged and resort to all the same PR behaviours that got you to this point in the first place. And yet you still made the decision to immediately give up and not even try to fight back militarily, despite being in a good position to put up a meaningful fight with real strategy. Do you really just want your wars to be as cheap as possible and never to even cause meaningful damage to your enemies, other than by dogpiling them when it's easy? You don't even want to be taken seriously anymore, in terms of competence, military might or even honour? Barring actual cheating, this is quite possibly the most pathetic display I've seen from any major alliance, ever. Please, t$, if you have any modicum of self-respect or concern for the health of the game left, I urge you to rethink your entire mindset. Reverse this escalating course of childish behaviour, and try to become the great alliance you once were. The whole game would thank you for it. If you continue on your current trajectory, then I strongly suspect that this game's community will increasingly respect or even tolerate you less and less. People are judged on their actions, and no one else ever cares about what you personally feel you are entitled to.

I have been nuked, struck by missals, and raided. Pirates seem to constantly be at my nations door stealing, while I am perpetually stuck feeling unable to fully recuperate. Being attacked so much led me to investigate the classes of nations and see if this was a skill issue, or a game mechanic issue. Is there a source for this problem like attacking mechanics or class mechanics? There's learning curves to any game, but this is more than a learning curve. Turtle nations really can't realistically be comparable to Pirate nations that started at the same time, given my findings. The difference is actually quite ridiculous. If you take the time to look at nations made on the same date, the variance between a pirate nation and another type of nation is absolutely noticeable. Today on 3.31 I looked at nations made 1 week ago 3.24. The best pirate nation has DOUBLE the score of every single non-pirate nation made on the same day of 3.24. The Average Pirate nation is 200 score points above the average non-pirate nation. THIS IS NOT A SKILL ISSUE IT IS A GAME MECHANIC ISSUE. The math doesn't lie, the averages don't align, thus the Pirate class is in an OP class zone, as it has basically a guarantee to give a +50% bonus to score for this given period of time. If we find the average money looted for the pirates made on 3.24, the pirate nations have already made an average of $39MILLION between them, if we look at the GDP for all these nations made on 3.24, the GDP is between about $70million to $777million. So In 1 week the pirates made 5% to %56 of the ENTIRE ECONOMIC QUARTERS worth of Money!! Certainly, by looking at nations for yourself and checking these facts, it can be seen that this is not really a reflection of politics and war, this is basically "Pirates: a national simulator." These are just the averages by the way, the best pirate nation in this is basically superior in every way to the other nations below it, by huge amounts, seemingly an unstoppable force. Sure, we can give credit to the Pirate Nations strategy for doing well military wise, but this gap in economic revenue means that almost every turtle nation that started at the time of the best pirate, working together, would probably have a 50% chance given that all the turtle nations together could economically equal the Pirate Nation, and it would be a possible fair fight. (that's assuming they can build a military with that money given the time frame to amass a force equal to that pirate... basically assumes they don't get attacked for a few days). So really, in my humble guess work, the odds to bring a pirate nation back into a similar size as its compatriots, it would probably be something of like 20% chance... that seems a tad low to be considered fair. Part of this imbalance also comes from how a nations score comes from infrastructure and military. So one nation that focuses on healthy cities with a sizeable army can have a rank of lets say 600, while another city can have poor cities with as much focus as possible on a military and also be 600. This puts them into war range of each other. So, how can this be fair as the player who wants cities with no crime, no pollution, and no disease is at a military advantage as those products also add to the nations score? For two nations of equal rank, the pirate and military focused player will always have a larger army than a player who is city focused. One prescribed solution is often to join an Alliance. This has been many people answer for a while, but it has a tipping point. Alliances if they grow to encompass all to most players basically turn P&W into Axis vs Allies. Also alliances can make huge stock piles, adjust currency, start nuclear wars, all of this really makes the game unbalanced towards anyone that want to do their own idea and forge their own path. Alliances often also tax and force war upon players joining, why should this be the only way to survive pirates? There are many things dealing with incoming attacks, especially as a new player, that are a part of this balancing issue perhaps. 1. An attacker can blockade a nation on the initial attack. -It leaves the defender without options for gathering supplies impertinent to a defense. It's not always possible to have enough gas and ammo in a stock pile; banking on it's use in a whole entire blockaded war. It is essentially economically not possible for many new nations. -Normally in war, a naval blockade doesn't magically appear without any sightings, notice, or response. A naval blockade takes time, resources, and many placement points to be done. This means that there should be some turns worth of warning that a naval blockade is forming. This can give the defending nation a moment to respond and purchase supplies for the war effort in case the defender loses the naval blockade. Solutions: 1.Make Naval blockades form over a time that represents the distance between countries. -More strategic and realistic. (if a country is 500 miles away, perhaps it takes 1 turn to get there... this could mean depending on distance a naval blockade could be instant or take up to a few hours) -A defensive Project for national shore line defense -Could cost something like 5,000,000 currency and 1000 of steel. -Gives some % chance that a blockade doesn't form after the blockade war action is activated. -A black market trade project -Allows for a nation to trade up to some % durring a blockade. - Creates a secret trade route possiblity such that a certain ammount of resources can be traded durring a block ade -Could cost something like 5 to 10million currencies. -Alternatively this could open a new game mechanic where by nations with this project complete can enter a new trade page. Where they can perhaps trade certain pre-set Amount of resources without tarrifs, taxes, limits, and irrelevant of naval blockades. 2. The Pirate Class is relatively Over Powered. -Alliances aren't always the answer to defend against pirates -blitzing can seem to be to all powerful, and not realistically true to tactics (how does a blockade form instantly from a nation so far away without any pre-set notions before the attack is decided?) Solutions: -Perhaps the loot reward could be something like 20% instead of 40%. THe pirate class seems to get the largest boost for economic rewards. Other classes offer 5% economic rewards often... this seems like quite a difference in balance... -The Turtle Class deserves to match the pirate class... Perhaps giving the turtle class a boost to possible escape a war through a dice roll for some kind of evaision? -Exodus Option: If being attacked by pirates an exodus option could be used. Perhaps by investing in this as a national project, any nation can move to a whole new area (same continent probably) and escape a war. Immediately ends war and moves nation to beige bloc for some amount of turns. 3. Bounties but no request for help? -When under attack it seems very difficult to recruit allies, other than the hopes of an alliance. Solution: - bounties are a great offensive and retributive feature as an incentive to attack certain targets that may grow too powerful otherwise. Yet, for a nation under attack with money to spare, surely there can be a 'request help' feature? It can have a cash reward provided by the attacked nation. There could be a whole page dedicated to nations under attack that are requesting help. Perhaps by accepting a request for help a new war tag could be added denoting the attack on the attacking nation is in aid and that if the attacking nation resigns from the war that the "request for help" attack can also end. Like a truce all around feature if the attack is ended. 4. Defensive Land. -City infrastructure is easily damaged, many civilians are killed during raids which further makes it hard to heal. Solutions -project to build underground banks, bunkers, and anti-tank ground features. -Martial Law project: gives civilians the right to bear arms during war, they can defend city infrastructure.

Man everyone's got optional ties now. Doesn't this mean its way more risky to make a move for fear of getting rolled to heck? HoF is causing stagnation. How ironic.

Y’all are mean xD

Need an alliance that can help you win wars and support you? Join Camelot and dont worry about losing again