Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

95 Excellent

1 Follower

About Senatorius

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Leader Name
  • Nation Name
    Nova Utopia
  • Nation ID

Recent Profile Visitors

1074 profile views
  1. Starting a war is great.... deliberately attempting to kill the game not so much.
  2. Online games tend to have a problem of trying to balance making the game easier for casuals vs not upsetting the hardcore players who love beating casuals. PnW is no different.... wars in PnW are fun if you are highly active and are in the right alliance and able to have some imput in what is going on. If you happen to be less active and less connected or in an alliance that doesn't dominate in your tier wars can result in getting sat on for weeks at a time.
  3. What would be the value in lying... if Alex wasn't asked then the who am I gonna fool.... Alex???
  4. So your whole issue is that you perceive it as breaking the rules?? If it turns out that Alex did approve of it then you don't have an issue?? I still think that Alex made the wrong call with it but my position is that I think most alliances would have done the same thing if they too had Alex approval and that is based on previous statements and actions by other alliances.
  5. Genuinely serious and not just on this matter, the thing is broader than just this. Why do both sides here only cry about fairness when they have lost out? I am yet to see even a hint of it this whole conflict except with possibly the withdrawal by tS who's best interests were served by continuing to fight with an overwhelming coalition but felt that it was unfair or deceitful. Both sides reserve the right to look after themselves despite the affect on the game as a whole... and for the record I fully agree here that Alex made the wrong call on this one but a call was made (a rule was set) and the alliance did what was best for them... and damn the enjoyment of everyone else. Standard PnW.
  6. Isn't it Coalition B's stance that an alliance isn't supposed to be concerned about what is fair and only concerned about what is in the member's best interests? If Alex gives it approval, then it is in the games rules but complaining that an alliance works for its best interest within the games rules odd considering that NPO etc have consistently said that fairness is not their concern. People need to make up their minds either we play realpolitik or need to be good sports.
  7. As a Grumpy member we would absolutely pinky swear never to abuse this mechanic at any time! Immediate implementation should occur with no thought or balance needed Alex.
  8. Wierd thing is the SRD's abs do actually look like this.... the rest of him is all wrinkly and droppy but those abs....
  9. I think the question was more about the 'frick with plans' by going to war than the guessing we had heard about the plans. Who hears that they are going to potentially be attacked and thinks I need to attack the other alliances that will be on the defensive..?? If I cripple Chaos then BK will find it some much harder to roll us?? Is that a strategy that NPO has ever considered?? Would you do that??
  10. Hang on is this on PnW's discord server?? Genuine question... I don't spend anytime on it. If it is then who is the mod for that server???
  11. And that they are giving the entire game an easy CB against them....
  12. Yeah what about the Panth members who massively lost out due to this bug??
  13. Though the difference in votes could also be based on the merits of the proposed changes. I voted yes for the second proposal because I want new players to grow and ideally have a chance of one day being able to be the biggest and baddest nation out there. The extra cash in the second proposal is negligible to me but significant to a new nation. The first proposal I am not a fan of because of retroactively changing rules in any game and without the retroactive part the proposal is terrible for the new player.
  14. ^^^ Sheepy: if you want to make it fair to the people who haven't already built these city levels versus those who have you can require the next city to have a retroactive amount to build the next. ^ This ties into a larger problem of enabling new players to engage and compete in the game which should be encouraged. A player starting today should be able to catch up to a whale for the game to be fun. Retroactively charging players however undermines the choices they made while playing the game. It is better to boost new players than to nerf older ones. You could tie resource costs to the next tier of cities 40+ (unsure if anyone has reached that yet but start the increase at a new unreached level) that will tale longer to have an impact but truly be fair. The difficulty of retroactively in the name of fairness is that it fails to actually be fair... some alliances choose to tier rather than build cities. It was a smart choice but needs to be considered when desiring to close the gap between city counts.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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