Jump to content

Kastor

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2514

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Kastor

    [Cancellation]

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted · Edited by Kastor

    6 minutes ago, Utter Nutter said:

    ..

    They leaked their own plots and machinations where they were planning to chain into attacking Eclipse and Oreo after they were done with Midgard.

    Stop feening for it Gaddam.

    • Popular Post
    • Popular Post

    Why is Keegoz still in charge anywhere

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    Who made him leader and why? Why do you keep following him. I love Keegoz, but he’s gotta be one of the worst all time leaders in PnW. 
     

    He was leader of Rose and several other alliances and while he was leading he’s lost like every war. He’s deadass 1-8 in wars or some shit. Someone go to the wiki and get the numbers I promise you its one-sided as !@#$.
     

    Also, I’m drunk and may regret this in the morning. Oh well. 

    • Haha 10
    • Upvote 1

    [DOW] Midgard declares war on Withheld - Enough is Enough [DOW]

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted

    14 hours ago, Lord of Puns said:

    We could sit here for hours about how this cb (and all cb’s for that matter are invalid) the fact remains this: Kan and Toxic have decided that the entirety of Midgard is going to get rolled for their failure to coordinate FA. 
     

    Not that I wouldn’t do the same petty shit, I’m just not sure I’d like them as bloc partners or in control of my gov

    The propaganda lmfaooo. 

    • Haha 1

    Bombardier Declaration of Existence

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted

    “We’ll raid you out of existence unless you play the game our way”

     

    ignore all these people threatening you. If people attack you defend yourself. You do not need a protectorate you just need to be able to defend yourself. Recruit nations, grow, prosper, have fun playing the game your way. 
     

    hope it all works out 

    • Thanks 3
    • Upvote 2
    • Popular Post
    • Popular Post

    Create a time-limit on Captcha

    in Tech Support

    Posted

    Look @Alex, these are really getting out of hand. The other night in order to declare 2 wars I and run attacks I had to put in 3 captchas in order to get through. Not to mention MAJORITY of the time when I go to trade I get them. It’s ridiculous that one needs to identify themselves 3 DIFFERENT times in 10 minutes. ESPECIALLY why do I need to put in 1 to declare war and then ANOTHER ONE to run attacks on the SAME TARGET I JUST DECLARED ON. 
     

    Please fix this in some way, it is by far the most annoying thing in this game. I understand that we need to catch bots, but it shouldn’t be at the expense of ACTUAL players.

    and yes, my opponent was able to run 2 attacks on me in the time it took to do the captchas. I know other players have been upset about this too. 
     

    thanks for reading alex and others o/

    • Like 3
    • Upvote 10
    • Downvote 1

    Iron Dome Nonsense

    in Game Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Lord Tyrion said:

    Yeah when votes are this close, a poll like this shouldn't dictate anything.  You can basically cherry pick whatever result you wanted anyway.  First of all, 158 votes is hardly a statistical sample given the thousands of people who play.  One AA could have told their members to vote a certain way to influence things pretty heavily.  Secondly, the vote to change or not change was separated by SIX votes - hardly something that screams a problem needing to be addressed.  Furthermore, only 71 people voted that the percentage should be 25%-35%, whereas 77 people voted no change.  How does 30% win out?  If anything, you'd say 87 people voted 40% or higher (considering the no-change people remain at 50%).  And at that point, 40% isn't significant enough to warrant a change really.

     

    Missiles need to be seriously nerfed given the amount of damage they do, resistance they take and how cheap they are, and without any proposed changes to how they function in war, making missiles stronger and making a project effectively worthless isn't the way to go.  The vote doesn't even really support a change to 30%, unless you want to try to cherry pick it a certain way to make it seem like it had community support.

    You can’t complain about people show didn’t show up. There was a poll, an outcome you wanted didn’t happen. Do not criticize the vote.

    • Upvote 6

    There is no real incentive for war

    in Game Discussion

    Posted

    On 2/19/2021 at 12:04 PM, Alex said:

    I agree with you, but Treasures *were* way more powerful in the past. Instead of war, we just got collusion where everyone teamed up to reap the bonus and it was way OP.

    I like the discussion here, and I'm open to new ideas on this as I agree, it is a bit of an issue.

    In the past, I had pitched a system for "Control Points" which were kind of like bounties. They were an in-game mechanic where each nation has an amount of Control Points (starts with 0) and over time, when you are at peace, your Control Points increase. Control Points themselves offer some sort of a bonus to your nation. When you defeat another nation in war, you take their control points (or perhaps some portion.)

    The result is that over time, nations that stay at relative peace build up a large swath of these Control Points that make them juicier and juicier targets for other nations.

    The difficulty with anything like this though is figuring out how to balance things and prevent people from abusing the system.

    Control points would be cool, it could be an extra 0.01% of your income for each control point that you have. The more you win, the bigger the boost. This could be interesting.

    Treasures need a buff, I think we all know it we just don't know where it could be. 30 treasures are entirely too high.

     

    We could do a resource cap, with a deteriorating number for each resources after that just gets lost after. OR a hard cap where resources don't go higher, if that was the case, the cap would have to be high enough that alliances could do long-term wars.

    So if we go with the hard cap, we could do: (manufactured)

    800 per city

    500 per project

    So if a city had 20 cities, and 6 projects. 

    You would get 16,000 Resource space, and then GRANT your alliance 19,000 resource cap. You could then get projects that increase the resource size.

    First Project- Add 500 to every resource cap per city.

    It would increase your cap to 1,300. It would increase the cap to 29,500

    2nd Project- Add 500 to every project cap. It would increase the cap to 34,000

    3rd Project- Add 250 to each project and city. 11,250 for the project. 31,000 for the Cities. 42,250 total.

    An alliance of 50, 20 city nations, with 6 projects each would base have 800,0000 from cities and 150,000 from project base. 950,000 total. 

     

    Obviously these numbers would need to be buffed a bit, maybe doubled to allow enough to build up. The best play is to find the sweet spot where you have a lot of resources but want more to be fully comfortable.

     

    WHAT WOULD THIS SOLVE:

    -Bank hiding would cease to exist. The caps would be tied to cities and projects, meaning you could no longer hide your bank. 

    -Wars would increase. There would no longer be any incentive to sit because your resources would be useless, you would use them to build, or fight, not sit and stockpile. 

    -Nations become more important, now alliances need nations more to project power. This would mean more people in and more activity within alliances. Also it would potentially create more alliances with the renewed activity, which is always good within the game.

     

    BAD/DOWNSIDES

    -Potentially too many wars.

    -Game would become get to cap and fight.

    -More treaties and pacts to form together to protect 

    -Resource prices would go higher.

     

    Only things I can think of would be positives/negatives. However I think if we tested this would be more ideal than the stockpiling for months/years we see.

     

    • Upvote 3

    There is no real incentive for war

    in Game Discussion

    Posted

    9 hours ago, Avatar Patrick said:

    Perhaps drastically speeding up rebuild will allow for more frequent wars like in the old days instead of this predictable cycle. But like Borg said I think a lot of the problem is a cultural mentality of pixel hugging and no mechanics are going to change that.

    There is no cultural mentality of pixel hugging. Every time we have this conversation, everyone literally screams that they want more wars and more fighting, the reason that we don't is because its too expensive.

     

    Also, this comment irks me, you insinuate that doing anything would not cause any change because its the way players are, if that's the case, why even comment? You just slow down productive conversations when you come in here and say absolutely nothing. Kindly, please stop doing things like this, you give nothing for the conversation.

    • Upvote 1

    There is no real incentive for war

    in Game Discussion

    Posted

    On 2/17/2021 at 10:35 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

    It's the politics part of politics and war that ignite war.

    wars are too expensive to go to war over a mechanics issue

     

    But there should be a game reason. 
     

    for example, in real life, nations would fight over positioning or military balance of power. This may be too difficult with the current premise of the game, however the real issue is Treasures and resources.

     

    Treasures aren’t enough of a buff to go to war over, and resources are unlimited. 
     

    Treasures should supplement the cost of war, so nations will want to fight over them, or buy them to avoid war. Perhaps a LONGER guaranteed buff(60 to 90-120 days, and more per day to make it worth the war it will cause.

     

    If a buff will give out $15.5b over the course of 120 days, that’s enough to start a big war. 
     

    Resources shouldn’t be unlimited, you should have a finite number before they start to deteriorate. For example, the base hold is 1,000 per city per nation, a 20 city nation would be able to hold 20,000 steel, after, they would lose 3.5 a turn everyday until it went back to 20,000.

     

    this is just spitballing numbers/ideas, obviously it’ll have to be a number that is reachable easily, and need to be defined.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
    • Popular Post
    • Popular Post

    There is no real incentive for war

    in Game Discussion

    Posted

    I’ve been thinking a lot lately, there is no real incentive for war in this game at this point. All of our reasons for war have been OOC based. 
     

    I believe this stems from all major alliances adopting the same policies(no raiding top 50,  switching to color, maintaining peace, etc) There are no mechanics for the game to successfully bring out war by itself.

     

    To negative those who would come into this thread and say “to keep your enemies from growing to fast, to stop a whale-tier alliance like Grumpy from dominating a tier” when have we, as players, consistently and fundamental used that without ulterior motives being at play? 
     

    All in all, the game needs more features that would force or give reasons for alliances to go to war.  
     

    Something needs a buff, or resources need a cap or to expire over time through degradation or something, to make alliances feel urged to do things. 
     

    what were other’s thoughts on this matter?

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
    • Upvote 15
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept