Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Greene

  1. The Holy Sea was built on the founding principles of friendship and trust. We were built to be a place where new futures could be built, where the past could stay there, and where we have each others' backs. As a smaller, “micro” bloc, we have always recognized that we are not capable of winning all wars. We have always seen, known, that there will be times where an enemy will come to our shores and we will not succeed. In these times, we would fight together, give it our effort together, burn together, deal together, and grow back together. Today, Sanctuary’s leadership failed on all cylinders. In the face of attacks by DR and RIE, they sought peace separately from the bloc. When first attacked, Black Skies, doing what an ally should do, began milling up to defend a member of the bloc. Black Skies is now fighting on two fronts in defense of their allies in The Holy Sea. Sanctuary requested that the Lazarus Order ask for terms of surrender, and after direct disagreement that this was the best course of action, at the request of Sanctuary, 770 went to DR and RIE and asked for those terms. Lazarus, against its own self-interests, put the interests of the bloc and allies first. Today, in the absence of their leader, and being led by their second in command, Sanctuary accepted terms of surrender and notified the bloc. A friend who stands in your limelight and hides when you’re in the shadows is not a friend but a parasite. On the grounds of breach of faith, trust, and responsibility in such a grotesque fashion as it eliminates any doubt as to the character of Sanctuary’s leadership, 770 motioned, and Black Skies concurred, that they be immediately severed from our bloc.
  2. Neo has, for the past few weeks, been actively engaged in a plot to harm the Lazarus Order of the 770, to generally usurp any authority from the leaders of this alliance, before summarily departing and creating a new alliance with our allies. Against the wishes of our allies, he has also been attempting to foment discord and disunity within their respective ranks so as to make a forced merger easier. For these and other reasons, he has been banned from the Lazarus Order of the 770. The long and short of it is that a single member of our government decided he could do a better job of leading everyone. He has from the onset, been trying to force the Archs into completely changing how we operate. 770 was built on a freedom to play the game the way our members want to play, and that is incompatible with the way that Neo wanted the alliance to operate. We launched the DEFCON-5 wars as a means of testing certain readiness and other things. It has been eye-opening that one person would be able to damage our abilities so soundly. Neo was instructed to help everyone learn the war system against a more competent (as in coordinated), not inactive opponent. Up until now, our members have only gone against inactive targets. He didn't do his job. Instead, he tried to force us and other alliances into a merger with him at the helm. There is documentation backing this up made public on our discord. He got the swift kick out of the monastery. As per Duncan Croford, of the Waffle House, they were intending to sign DEFCON-5 all along, however wanted to hold off to see how DEFCON-5 was able to defend and hold up before hand. Indeed, there is a common history and background shared between both alliances. Equally, when 770 withdrew from The Johnsons to form our own bloc, the treaty that existed between our two alliances was always merely a nominal one that was destined to be cancelled. It was purely that neither of us got around to doing so. With the Waffle House merger, it was now time. There will be the deluge of individuals who doubt my representations. That is their choice. 770 is built on personal choice. With this, I shall now return my attention to the people and congregations of the Most Right and Holy Lazarus Order of the 770. Go in Peace, + Rev. Greene Arch and First Priest of the Order
  3. Oh holy meatballs, those walls of text are just entirely unnecessary @Firwof Kromwell. I mean dang, I went cross-eyed just looking at the monstrous amount of text I would have to read, and came to the conclusion of nope, not gonna even bother reading it. Short and sweet, no one should need to have the attention span to read that on here. That said, just gotta ask the Chocolatiers: Want to walk me through how one of your heirs just threw their hands up in the air and took one cruise missile and three nukes. Folks with a memory know I have a penchant for bdsm jokes, but really, four missiles? Four. That's not even a joke anymore. That's rolling over and purring.
  4. You lot asked for Taith to hit the floor. Be careful what you wish for. We submitted a solution to TOSE that would pay out folks equitably. They refused to do their job. So if you have problems, go speak to them. GNPI, MERC, SKYF, all gone. TGIF? We were going to honour it however TOSE tried to hold us hostage. They believe that they hold all of our wealth, so let them figure it out. We are arranging trustees to run our Banc Cymru, and we aren’t leaving the game. Bring on the declarations. We dropped all our treaties. I’ll edit this to add our flag shortly.
  5. He asked me, I said go for it. Confidentiality waived.
  6. The first special giveaway was paid out yesterday. Congratulations to @Viriato
  7. No goods or services are being traded for in-game money or other in-game currency. There is no cost, and the only requirements that are being placed on participation is the necessity that participants join the server, be verified by the Locutus bot (which costs the player nothing), and then react to the giveaway message.
  8. If you win open a ticket in our server and I’ll change it to Steam.
  9. In the absence of what I could determine as a more appropriate category, I post here. Taith is hosting a special giveaway. Since this one has real money attached to it, I wanted to put it in front of as many people as possible. To be clear: no purchase necessary, there is no exchange of goods, services, or favours. You join the server, be validated with @Borg’s Locutus bot, and then react to the giveaway. The current giveaway ends 7 March 2021. Giveaway ended 5th Feb: the winner will receive $0.02 × Locutus-verified server members. This will be paid as an Amazon egift card. Open to all members and not just PW players. Award capped at $20.00 (1000 players). Enter in #giveaways on our Discord https://discord.gg/FGS7jr7
  10. @Adrienne could you provide a list of all the entries that didn’t make the cut and why?
  11. Best Alliance Theme: Taith Best Alliance Page: Taith Best Alliance Discord: Taith Most Engaged Alliance: Taith Best Business (news outlets, banks, graphic design companies, etc): Taith
  12. True story. Alliance of the Year: Taith Most Powerful Alliance: Taith Most Improved Alliance: Taith Most Honorable Alliance: Taith Most Immoral Alliance: Most Controversial Alliance: Taith Biggest Warmongers: Biggest Pixel-Huggers: Taith Worst Fighting Alliance: Best Alliance Growth: Taith Biggest Alliance Decline: Most Likely to Succeed in 2021: Taith Most Likely to be Rolled in 2021: Taith Best Economics Department: Taith
  13. Implying that’s spam is so last season. Player of the Year: Greene Most Influential Player: Greene Most Likely to Succeed in 2021: Greene Best Alliance Leader: Greene Worst Alliance Leader: Greene Most Missed Player: Fraggle Best IC Poster: Fraggle Poster You Most Love to Hate: Greene Best Villain: Greene Largest E-Peen: Greene Most Controversial Player: Greene Player You’re Pretty Sure will be Playing in 2050: RobApIoan Player that is Worst at Responding to DMs: Greene
  14. 1. Right now, there are two buttons (2k and 20k) that allow you to increase your players' stats. Could we have a button that would merely 100 that stat? Perhaps make it a pure 0.25x gain since the range is 0.15 to 0.35? Implementing this suggestion would reduce the number of clicking necessary to get a player to 100, which could make the game a little less cumbersome. edit: I want to be clear, that I'm not advocating the removal of the two existing buttons, but instead suggesting the inclusion of a third "max" button. 2. Allow those who have donated for a custom baseball logo also to have a custom stadium image? Rolling out this suggestion would be along the same lines as the City Headers that are customisation through VIP but would be pegged instead of "team customisation" which comes through the logo change donation. This customisation could make donating for a more customisation team more attractive. Perhaps also allow players to upload their team jerseys or at the minimum a minimum allow them to configure customised hex colourings? 3. Auto-hide the blow-by-blow table that shows how the game went. While a lot of folks may find that enjoyable, some don't need to see the granular details and instead only want to know the final results. Alternatively, relocate the play next game to above that table. 4. Change the current random challenge to instead allow players to set a random bounty on the challenge. For example, if I wanted to set a 100k wager on a random challenge, then some random challenger would be able to automatically play against me and one of us would win that money. This would make it easier to play challenge games and also make it more fun for folks who want a more random chance.
  15. In connection with my suggestion regarding utilizing alliance projects to make Alex's suggestion to cap banks workable, I'd like to roll out a few more possible projects that could be used to create more specialization at an alliance level. I'll edit the OP as I come up with additional alliance projects to suggest. I also hate that I'm calling them alliance projects, so if someone can come up with a better adjective, let me know! Membership Soft Cap Right now, alliances are allowed to have unlimited members. One suggestion could be to have a soft cap on that. Let's say we set the default cap to 20 members. The first 20 members to join the alliance are free, but anyone who is accepted after the cap costs their alliance (RNG up to ncount over cap)% of the alliance's bank. So if you have 24 members and still only have the cap of 20, you would lose between 0 and 5% of your alliance's bank when you bring them in as member 25. The cap could be raised to offset that. This creates a more decision-based approach. Is it worth it to bring this new player in? Also creates something more for alliances to spend their money on. At a lower level, it would not likely be cost effective to buy a project to increase member count cap, but at a higher level, it would undoubtedly be. If combined with the suggestions to improve bank capacity, this would force alliances to consider whether it is better to diversify or centralize their members. Taxation Efficiency Right now, alliances have perfect efficiency. If they set the tax rate to 20%, it's 20%. That's what goes into the bank. My suggestion for this project is to implement a variable efficiency. So lets say that instead of guaranteeing that 100% of what you're taxing actually makes it to the bank, have it be RNG 80-100%, with the rest of the funds remaining on the nation. No money is actually lost, but it creates an incentive to check your nation more often, and gives raiders a chance to make money, especially if the suggestion to protect bank balances goes into effect. The Taxation Efficiency project would significantly reduce (but not eliminate altogether) the chance of nations inadvertently retaining a portion of their taxes. So something like (10% chance of the nation keeping 5-10% of the taxes that turn). This suggestion also helps reduce the efficacy of 100% taxation and requires alliances and nations to actually pay just a little more attention to their balances.
  16. So as I understand it, your suggestion is to have [if trade is unsuccessful, charge 5%] right? If we're going for a full revamp, I'd love to also see something implemented where you could also lose an extra 10% to have the source be kept secret. So like no one knows who listed the trade, just that it's listed. And that 10% would come out time of trade creation, and be tacked on in addition to the 5% penalty for having a trade fail after n hours timer or being cancelled.
  17. Conversely, have the "Western" titles as the default, but since we all know Alex likes it when we spend donation credits for customization, let you basically utilize VIP to change the titles (and character names) to whatever you want. Position would still be, but having like 3 government positions, and each month (?) the bonuses randomly reset due to elections, but you can pay to reshuffle early, or contribute to a "re-election" fund to increase your chances of keeping them.
  18. Seems like the lion share of complaints are directed at having a cap on the bank's balance. The issue is that any formula will inevitably be too low for some and too high for others. I have the easiest solution in the world: let alliances implement their own cap. Someone mentioned alliance-level projects in this thread already, and I'd like to expand on that in greater detail. Alliance projects would be significant expenditures that would yield awesome benefits to the alliance. For the purpose of this thread though, let's lay out an idea. Repeating Project: Bank Capacity Increase Banks start with a cap of 1n. Whatever Alex determines to be the final resting place for that cap is mostly irrelevant to this suggestion. Each time the alliance wants to increase their bank's "safety cap" (I'll explain why shortly why I am calling it a safety cap), they pay a exponentially increasing price (similar to city count) for +0.1n cap. So if an alliance did 5 increases, they'd have a total of 1.5n bank capacity. This solves the issue of larger or more affluent alliances needing to retain their larger bank balances safe, while creating a greater level of flexibility in alliance management. Alliances can decide if they want to have that money simply retained at a nation level and susceptible to wide-scale looting, or if they want to spend capital to safeguard future monies in the bank. But wait, there's more! Remember when I said "safety cap" - I have two suggestions that could either be implemented separately, or in tandem. I think these will sufficiently mollify at least a few detractors. The alliance cap is just an immunity or safety cap. What that means is, up to the aforementioned capacity balance that's protected, the funds cannot be looted. Once the alliance hits that cap, anything above that cap becomes susceptible to looting. To balance out the fact that banks now have safety caps, anything above the cap is able to be looted at a factor of 10 (I support even higher factors, but again, I think x10 seems reasonable). This helps encourage alliances to stay below their cap or spend funds to increase their cap. The second part is what I really like. Again, allow banks to receive monies above the cap. The difference here would be that bank efficiency or graft (we can play around with wording) applies to this mechanic. Once the bank hits their cap, any funds going in would find a random (RNG) percentage go poof. So if you were at the cap and someone deposited 100m into your alliance's bank, you might only receive 68m of that deposit, since the other 32m (RNG of 32) was stolen en-route by the Sheepanostra. In both add-on suggestions, the alliance cap is implemented, only as more of a soft cap with serious side effects to exceeding it.
  19. Or give the person the option to either Buy to n infra or Synchronize to n infra. If the former, it will only make infra-related changes if the infra is below that point. For the latter, it would function as it currently does. Additionally, you could upgrade the Synchronize function to allow to auto-resolve issues if that option is selected.
  20. Since I'm neck-and-neck for most wars lost, I was wondering if I could get a little pip for that once I do achieve said "achievement"
  21. Psh, that exchange rate is insane! More like $10 for 100m in-game, at least the time I did it back in May. Which reminds me, I had a convo with Alex just yesterday, in which he confirmed for me (again) that this isn't against the rules. But go ahead and try to use the mods as a weapon against in-game politics.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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