Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Ketya

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Leader Name
  • Nation Name
  • Nation ID

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Situation: Game’s economic system is fairly active and somewhat working well. Meanwhile, there doesn’t seem to be enough wars. Complication: How do we create more of ‘friendly’ wars where both sides know what they are getting into (I.e. they choose to fight a war). Idea: Discovery of mineral rich yet disputed territories. Mechanics: Game randomly creates a notification announcing discovery of mineral deposits in some disputed territory. Whichever alliance eventually owns the territory benefits from a temporary increase in mining (e.g. 25% increase in coal output for 1200 turns, numbers are placeholders). To own the territory, alliances need to claim the territory by clicking a ‘claim’ button on the notification page. Game randomly picks two alliances that ‘claimed’, to fight for the territory. Whoever wins (basically one side clicks ‘accept the loss’ button) gets the reward. Some territories can be claimed only by Top-20, some by 20 to 50 ranked alliances, and some by non top-50 alliances. What are your thoughts?
  2. @Prefontaine thanks for putting these together! Many of these make sense and having more projects at varying cost levels adds more variation to the game, which is good. one counter thought on extra project slots: Having more project slots allows many players to build several projects, without the need to think which ones to prioritize, evaluate trade-offs. Especially with larger alliances, these projects will be granted with nations having more slots. In exchange every nation will start to look the same, kind of boring. Alternatively, having more project but not more slots drive the need for nations to specialize, which makes the game more fun for many. ,
  3. Interesting idea. a twist on this idea could be that the alliance level bonus gets unlocked when X number of nations within the same alliance build the same ‘super’ project. The concern around smaller alliances not benefitting could be managed through some sort of sliding scale? For instance, the bigger the alliance is the the lower alliance level benefits are. good idea in general though!
  4. I wonder whether shortening or removing city timer would result in an immediate increase in activity, then followed with a mass inactivity. if there is no city timer, many will rapidly build cities, often through alliance grants. Meanwhile, they will enjoy the rapid pace of the game. Once they max their grants, etc, then will enjoy their nation’s large production for few days. Finally, they will start to fade off in few days, since the initial rapid pace will be replaced with the usual pace of the game. in comparison, with city timers, all of us wait, but also chat with others within our alliances, discuss which projects to build, chat about what is happening around Orbis. I think the city timer paces the game and this current pace helps to build a community. The community then becomes what many players like about P&W.
  5. It might help to have a purpose statement for these different suggestions. It could just make it easier to react (I.e. does the suggestion serve for the purpose)
  6. I prefer not to increase the number of project slots available. I think the limitation in project slots drive each nation to make choices on where to focus (especially now that we are having a bunch of new projects). I find the game more fun when nations are differentiated in what they are focusing on. More specialization makes it more fun. H
  • Create New...

Important Information

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