Jump to content

Edward I

No Matching Nation
  • Content Count

    399
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Edward I last won the day on January 28 2019

Edward I had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

661 Politician

3 Followers

About Edward I

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Leader Name
    Edward I
  • Nation Name
    Seleucia
  • Nation ID
    33413

Recent Profile Visitors

1116 profile views
  1. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=132805 I really doubt the first word is a typo.
  2. Edward I

    Peace

    A tentative welcome back to the realm of non-slot-fillers.
  3. Ground units aren't unviable now and that's not what I said. There are three big ways to balance the game that I typically see referenced: 1) "Realism" - This gets roundly criticized every time it's brought because it's a pretty dumb way to conceive of gameplay. 2) Balance around individual nations - This seems to be what you and Pre both had in mind for your respective proposals. It's definitely a relevant consideration, but probably isn't the most important and certainly isn't sufficient on its own. 3) Balance around groups - The main meta of PW centers around the actions of groups, namely alliances and coalitions of alliances. Balancing the needs and strategies of these larger groups is of paramount importance when considering mechanical changes, and this is precisely where both your and Pre's proposals fall short. As others outlined extensively in the thread I linked, "balancing" planes by nerfing them would unbalance the game by neutering nations' (and alliances') ability to effectively updeclare. The nominally unbalanced role of aircraft isn't a good enough reason to nerf updeclares. That line of thinking is analogous to demands to make the game more "realistic": where that complaint fails to understand that the game isn't meant to be a realistic simulation, the "planes are overpowered" complaint fails to understand the importance, if not outright primacy, of group play compared to individual play.
  4. Yeah, no. CN was harmed secondarily by people becoming apathetic and inactive (this trend long predated NPO's supposed destruction of the game), and primarily by crappy mechanics (tech in particular) as well as the rampant cheating incentivized by them and disregarded for years by CN's moderation (specifically multi rings farming tech). NPO was one of the loudest voices opposing that type of cheating and played a prominent role in the outcry which precipitated a change in moderation practices towards a harsher, more punitive line on tech spawned by multi nations. Incidentally, the player accusing us of cheating over there (despite there being no evidence to support that claim) signed NPO's demands to the CN mods.
  5. The last time a suggestion to "balance" planes by allowing them to be attacked by ground units was made, the OP was probably the most downvoted post in the history of the forums. This suggestion isn't identical to it, but the glaring balance problems associated with it are similar enough that I think most of the objections to that suggestion apply here as well. I'm strongly opposed, and I suspect most of the replies to that suggestion would be as well.
  6. This seems like a clunky mechanic that's more or less redundant with war policies. I'm not in favor. If it were to be implemented, the disruption to a nation's color from switching between beige and an original color would need to be addressed. There would also need to be a clear, user-friendly way of determining which nations on an alliance get the bonus. Finally, and for the umpteenth time, you cannot utilize static alliance affiliations when designing mechanics. There are no meaningful restrictions on joining, leaving or creating alliances, so trying to restrict the use of a mechanic by referencing a nation's alliance affiliation makes no sense. Also, again for the umpteenth time, large alliance memberships are not a balance issue. It is not "unfair" that mass member alliances have more players than small alliances.
  7. That's incorrect. The total net profit from baseball is roughly $60 billion, yes, but that wasn't all generated yesterday. It's spent at the same average rate as all other money in the nations in which it is generated, which means that most of it has been spent already over long stretches of time. The relevant number to compare it with would be the total money generated by all other economic activity since baseball was added as a feature.
  8. So? By this formulation, if these alliances split up and had smaller GDPs than [insert arbitrarily chosen alliance here] everything would be fine. Like I said earlier, baseball is played by nations, not alliances. It’s not a “balance problem” that some alliances have more members than other alliances.
  9. Why does it matter how much baseball money was generated per alliance? Baseball games are played by nations, not alliances.
  10. Ah, I see you're once again feigning illiteracy regarding non-chaining clauses. Regardless, you can rest easy now that we actually have an MDAP with BK. Your complaints have been received, and we believe this solution satisfies all of them.
  11. Sounds about right. Just remember that the TKR hierarchy of treaties is ODoAP > NAP > MDP and things should make more sense going forward.
  12. Another way to get basically the same thing would be a single checkbox to indicate that any cities above the specified infra level should stay as they are rather than sell infra down to the specified level. In other words, mass infra purchase becomes a "greater than or equal to" function instead of an "equal to" function.
  13. Unless your community is based on getting your way all the time - by winning wars, by seeing your preferred rules for diplomacy and warfare implemented, or in other ways - then there's no way any outsider can destroy your community. No one is entitled to see any particular style of game play adopted game-wide. The "health of game in general" isn't defined or dictated by you. Although if you disagree, Changeup, I suppose you're right. We probably don't give a damn about your enjoyment if it's predicated on any of that stuff. To answer the OP's question, I'm enjoying the drama the camaraderie in NPO and Coalition B as a whole watching whale pixels burn demolishing some of the worst parts of the old metagame, and possibly laying the groundwork for something better to replace them
  14. Not quite an event, but the suggestion has been made:
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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