Senatorius

I think the problem is nukes are already kinda the worst weapon out there. Maybe just nerfing them so hard no one can ever mistake them as useful is the kindest thing to do?

Orbis: Grumpy needs to split! We should dogpile them. *Grumpy players get bored and leave Orbis: Grumpy players are ghosting! We should dogpile them. Still at least stuff is happening.

Probably not.... Arrgh doesn't really defend anybody. They raid wherever there is nations with inactive players and money to be taken off them. If TKR becomes full of plump semi afk players then Arrgh will raid them too.

Would actually like to know.... why didn't Rose mil up? Since it was raised.

You also turn away a lot of players that would bring the average down. No one in Grumpy wants to get into a war to find out some guy on his 10th city grant doesn't want to fight. It is why they are in Grumpy.

It isn't incompetence for econ.... most other alliances want to tax the bigger nations for small nation growth. That is fine but usually that means that your big nations are not going to grow as fast. Lets be honest if you are going to be a big nation and are going to be taxed then you want to get some good value alliance members. I can only think of a couple of alliances that use that sacrificed growth well.

It is about not paying to grow some small nation that logs on 12+ hours after being attacked. It is about knowing that peeps will log in come blitz. Mass recruitment alliances will always struggle to retain big nations if they make big nations pay to grow some nation that wont even show up for the war.

Not going to lie... this one made me chuckle.... love Mitchell and Webb

There has to be more to Quacks CB than Sphinx logs... I mean the guy plots 30 schemes a day and only a third of them are aimed at Quack. The only reason any sphere has only 4 or 5 plots against them now is because Sphinx is in vacation mode. At least there is something happening tho.

Sheepy, I think you meant well but we have all been hurt by the NPO cheating so unless everybody is going to get compensated singling out the bankers is very unfair. Remember when you said there was no way to undo the damage done by the cheating??? Why are you trying to help some but not others? I do think this reflects part of an ongoing issue that involves the rather underhanded strategy of admin manipulation that is involved when people are privately messaging you. It most definitely feeds into NPO accusations that suggest that certain older players have more weight in the say of admin decisions than appropriate. This situation reflects an ongoing problem in which admin decisions are made in the dark during a conversation between the admin and a party with an invested interest that is putting forth an agenda and possibly only half the relevant information. This isn't the first time. Remember when NPO messaged you and attempted to get clearance for what was effectively cheating when all the facts came to light? Remember when Seb attempted to convince you that his attacks on Grumpy's bank wouldn'tbe slot filling and get you to sign off on it? I don't think this is something you can fix or make fair because unfortunately now the only real options are cash for everyone hurt by NPO and removing the money sent to bail out banks because any other option is unfair on your players to whom you said you couldn't couldn't undo the NPO cheating and by extension that you couldn't compensate them for their losses. I say this because I do think NPO in a blind rage have stumbled upon a truth... you can gain advantage with a private message to the game admin or at the very least perhaps mitigate some damage. Ultimately this issue will harm the game NPO is right about that and you do need to address it.

Starting a war is great.... deliberately attempting to kill the game not so much.

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.

What would be the value in lying... if Alex wasn't asked then the who am I gonna fool.... Alex???

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wierd thing is the SRD's abs do actually look like this.... the rest of him is all wrinkly and droppy but those abs....

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??

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???

And that they are giving the entire game an easy CB against them....

Yeah what about the Panth members who massively lost out due to this bug??

Wow

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.

^^^ 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.