Danzek

tl;dr micro drama BoO freezing funds of multiple parties without cause. BoO departing from independence/neutrality and acting as a political entity of Rome / Tiberius Hostility by Tiberius toward others Blank: translation- “Blank” In regards to our gathering within “Redacted”, yes you heard that right Folks. “Redacted” is always prepared to bring more baby. With that being said we have gathered here today as concerned citizens of Orbis to ensure that no business of Orbis infringes upon the rights of the people, the people of Orbis, the very group of people that this game could not exist without. The Bank of Orbis(BoO) has closed off funds to people who have them there simply for being busy with school in real life. As well as not being available to slave away constantly with gov work in their residing alliance at the time. In the view of Blank and Affiliates we believe it to be an injustice to the poor individuals who have not received their deposits from The Bank of Orbis. BoO is an entity which for all intents and purposes should be operating for the people they serve and not for the interests of external politics. Being that the deposits of the said individual are being held in BoO and are not being held in any alliance of orbis we've decided to go through our due diligence in vetting all evidence that was in the public space of Orbis. Through this vetting process we came to the conclusion that BoO is indeed without a doubt at fault for freezing the funds of this individual without cause, as well as other parties. These “illegal” actions were perpetuated by the manipulative words and actions of an executive named Tiberius Aurion with the title of “Director of Fiscal Securities” at BoO. Being that the “President” of BoO is Daxxus DeMarco and the fact that he has approved of the actions of Tiberius in representation of BoO the following statement will now be going into effect. “Blank and affiliates have enacted “redacted” against Daxxus DeMarco the acting President of The Bank of Orbis.” Evidence in the doc below will be used as reference to pages 18 to the end but feel free to read the whole doc. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BeqHDPamqzkdu0KvZSKLRCHpIaORYyu9ubU6z3yGO2c/edit Signed Anonymous

Sphere size is a political issue. Was mostly just trying to mock you since your running theme seems to be that every problem is a nail that can be solved with the appropriate application of military force. Granted you are milcom, so that checks out. I'd point out that building an even bigger sphere to take down a sphere you think is too big is how we got here, but that's blasphemous thinking.

Meanwhile, I encourage all critics of the EU, instead of discussing and engaging in irl politics, why don't you just build your own union of countries and militarily force the disbandment of europe?

Piracy doesn't need another nerf. There are still pirates, and pirate alliances but a lot less at higher city counts now. Anyone thinking it's as profitable as it used to be at higher city counts hasn't been keeping up with game meta. An active nation in an alliance usually isn't much at risk from pirates. They might give you a tap if you have no ground, but even if fully militarized, they can be countered. A pirate can pick off exposed targets if someone is at war, or a micro is lacking useful allies, but often it's easier (as a pirate) to drop everything but soldiers (and thus drop score), so you have more inactive targets in range. I would assume you have difficulty countering since your alliance is retired from the game (a graveyard or whatever you want to call it), as well as your protector (TKR) being on the losing end of a GW. Forgetting about piracy (since it's a niche playstyle), the issue with down declares in alliance wars is that ground attacks kill planes now, meaning if a whale down declares on you, both their ground and air need to be taken down to get the upper hand (rather than just planes). I dont think it makes sense to have score be non-linear. A c30 attacking a c20 has the same ratio of troop advantage as a c45 attacking a c30.

dont know a lot of the alliances all that well, and some of the icons were duplicates or I had no clue

Minutemen were militia in colonial US during the revolutionary war. They appear in fallout because of Fallout's retro post-apocalyptic US theme. I assume they were in the Time Variance Authority because the comic writer thought `minute` was a clever reference given the time travel theme.

Thanks for the war. Well fought.

Damn, 104% turnout, with 42 out of 35 members voting. What an election!

Hello, I'm Borg, your #1 source for top tier investigative journalism. Here at Borg's assisted loot liberation services, we don't just report the news, we make it! Join our news server to stay up to date on the latest hits: http://discord.com/ (guild invite) According to a highly trusted source, 1 in 4 Arrgh members rarely or never seek out peer-reviewed research to learn about the best topics. Had this not been the case, Arrgh members would know about facts like this: Regarding Borgs assisted loot liberation services demands: For Arrgh to be released, Arrgh, their co-workers, their relatives, or their alliances shall provide $150B in cash. Should the demand not be accepted, Arrgh will be keelhauled. Anyone who defends Arrgh, will be considered part of their group and Borgs assisted loot liberation services will have to assume their ill intentions towards us. The Arrgh shall not attempt to release the captives. Should any kind of escalation or mobilization be identified (militarization, ghosts joining the alliances, allies initiating militarization, etc.), Borgs assisted loot liberation services will extend hostilities accordingly. Delays in negotiations or non-acceptance of the above demands will result in a steady increase of the demanded ransom.

Some notes: For more evenly matched coalitions, this would extend round one (which is good) Ground control is already only useful after two attacks (the first one gains ground control, only the second attack destroys aircraft) Gaining superiority in a war will break the enemy's superiority in other wars, but getting a non utter failure will only break enemy control it for yourself. It is counter productive to make it more difficult to break enemy superiority, since that generally disadvantages the losing side. Blitz advantage is useful to allow a potentially weaker coalition to punch above its weight. Making starting a war less viable may lead to less war, and thus a less engaging meta The issue is fundamentally wars often being decided after round one. This change does not solve that, and may be irrelevant if other changes to solve it are implemented. Blitz advantage is only a problem because war mechanics in general mean the winning side usually snowballs until the gap in military is insurmountable. It is harder to get superiority on updeclares, given the higher chance of moderates against a stronger enemy. Making it more difficult to drag down whales may be detrimental to game balance. This will widen the advantage of any enemies with higher tiering

Right... If I'm FA in an alliance it's always that I can't be trusted because I have a self interest in that alliance. If I intentionally avoid FA because I get shit for it, both because of the bot and generally sucking at it anyway.. then I'm not accountable to anyone. I'm part of the community just as much as anyone else. Maybe motive or reasons don't matter to you, but any rational person has reasons for doing something. I've spent countless hours creating tools for the community, helping people with said tools, helping the game devs fix a multitude of critical vulnerabilities and giving my feedback about changes to the game - because I genuinely care about it. To ruin that kind of investment and enjoyment for someone else is horrible. I haven't built a city in over a year. Locutus and offshoring is what I do. No one is forcing you to use it. It's open source, so you can even host it yourself like Simons does (although perhaps not the most convenient). But, if you want to do actual risk assessment, that would be better than shouting fire. Banks get looted, couped, governments have disagreements and splits etc. People in your alliance and their human error etc. can be just as much a liability It's not exactly a clear thing to me that the kinds of alliances that offshore with me are worse off by having an independent offshore with a track record, and access controls. Also, micros exist. I realize you don't think a lot of them should, but imo that's a rather toxic position to take. I've spent most of my time either solo raiding or in micros, and it's a more appealing playstyle. Alliances should have the tools to better manage themselves so new players dont have a bad experience.

i can be your gov too. i dont mind

Yes. The whole post is sarcasm. Rose / T$ can get themselves rolled for their ineptitude for all I care.

there weren't enough chromosomes in the thread, so I'm doing my part

Such hypocrites. hollywood said chaining was bad. that there was no interest in fighting celestial when signing the MDP that you wanted a fair fight then hollywood violated the militarization agreement in the guise of fighting pirates / coa and cancelled the MDP to chain that into a war you couldn't lose. Celestial is justifiably upset about the lies and betrayal. So.. congratulations. You can claim the moral high ground by saying HW split and there are no secret treaties. And you can label some run of the mill war theory crafting (which your coalition would do too if your chats ever leaked) as celestial wanting to dogpile, even if it would be comparable to the advantage HW had in the last GW. GG is the rEal HEgeMoNy. When yOu all reAlize this, and need T$ or roSe's help, you caN get a WEll eARned "i told yOu so" and "not my pRoblem any more" P.S. Those leaks are FAKE nEws!!1 /sarcasm

Interesting idea, but I think a flat bonus of 1 billion dollars per turn for green would be better.

I figured it was unnecessary if it's limited to the resources you have. Maybe not.

Trade confirmation Trade confirmation doesn't really help, because it is identical and appears for every trade, so after a while you just automatically accept Only have the trade confirmation when you post for the wrong price (and it's not a private trade) (e.g. selling for less than a current buy offer) Have it the prompt really obvious e.g. Red alert style, "You are posting a trade for less than you can sell on the market. Consider adjusting your price above $XXX or accepting an existing offer <link to trade page>" -> button "Post offer anyway" Allow creating trades via the alliance bank instead of using your nation Alliance bank -> bank trading is already a thing. It's inconvenient to find buyers/sellers for large amounts because there is no centralized market. No one wants to put many billions of resources on a single nation, because it limits who can trade and it's riskier, especially leading up to a war Current trades e.g. food, have a cap of 1m or something (which doesn't need to be there) Change the buy/sell offers per resource restrictions Restrict it so that you cannot place offers (in a resource) more than the amount of resources you have If a seller/buyer no longer has the required funds to back a trade, remove it from the trade page (it's annoying to accept a trade offer only to get an error) Remove the arbitrary 3 trade limit (denison says it would be abused still, so keep the 3 trade per resource limit) Trade notifications When you get a notification for a pending trade, include a link to accept/reject it. (suggested by Vanek) Merge functionality of the buy/sell page into the create offer page e.g. When you go to buy, enter an amount you want to buy, and the ppu you are willing to pay. If there are buy offers available, accept those for the lowest price. Otherwise it creates an offer (or does both) By default, show a table of the top price of each resource on the create offer page Add a dropdown to show the price history Price history graph Dont use a stacked line chart. It's terrible. Basically unreadable without hovering over each price point and reading the prices. At which point you may as well have a table, since that'd be easier to read. Maybe separate it into three line graphs (non stacked): Manu prices. Raw prices (not food), Food.

The move to have more posts along the process has been good. People in the game like giving their suggestions. My feedback would be to embrace that more and continue including the community. So use the community to help prioritize what game issues are most pertinent. Have the dev team continue to brainstorm and workshop ideas. Update the community about what goals you want to address. And when you present options to the community, more info is better imo; notes from the dev team about things you've considered, any calculations you've done, the benefits of an idea, potential drawbacks etc. Here in the stands, the feeling is that often times we have polls which get ignored or "discussions" when a single solution has already been discussed and ingrained itself within the dev team. And sure, it's great to have a discussion about an idea, but realistically once you've picked a solution, the most common community feedback you'll get is either approval or disapproval. Maybe that's all you want, but if you want more constructive discussions, then getting feedback before a chosen solution would be better.

It's still too significant for this change to be accepted by the player base. You'd likely be better off watering down changes, even if you don't personally agree, just so that things can be implemented rather than repeating the same cycle of suggestion -> player mass downvotes -> nothing happens. It's easier to adjust mechanics at a later date based on feedback when everyone is more aware of how it affects wars. Yeah, I had to get the score to fit though :P. Just trying to show how it was theoretically possible. I dont think i've seen it much. You could bump the infra above 2.5k or have the c40 part of a rebuy lower i guess.

theoretically doable, but probs not likely unless you sell/lose all your infra

I'm generally in favor of this kind of change. Some things to note: If a coalition is losing, they will typically have less infra (from it being damaged) and units (from being killed). Thus, with current score ranges, the losing side will generally be fighting nations with less cities than them; increasing the advantage for the winning side. Downdeclares are problematic if both nations have military. This affects the war regardless of that. It also affects updeclares. (e.g. a full mill c20 ganking a zeroed c30) In the c1-10 range, buying cities isn't a too uncommon strategy. There would be issues if the modifier is determined upon declaration and the nation buys cities. (incorrect, didn't read) edit: More thoughts Score could be more based on military strength (including possible rebuys) not cities, infra, or projects that are militarily irrelevant 50% seems a bit large, maybe reduce to 25%? It would make more sense to base the modifier on score, not cities, so as not to disadvantage the losing side.

Yep. Also, as SRD put it "buy him up to 20 cities" isn't exactly feasible given that there's a city timer. brb, gonna spend 10x more time complaining about how much i dont know than it would take to click a link and see the alliance's treaty

I think occasional spikes in food price are fine. A month long war isn't that hard to plan for, and it's fair to reward the people who think ahead. If its an actual crisis of the game not having enough food imo it'd be better to boost peacetime production instead of wartime. Maybe add fishing.

checking the linked war timelines: War Timeline | Politics & War (politicsandwar.com) War Timeline | Politics & War (politicsandwar.com) The first thing the nation did was blockade the rose member. Can't buy up if you don't have the funds. Do credits bypass blockades? (also, you need more than pure cash to buy up, you need manufactured resources for units & buildings)