Kihansi Haley

Explains the gains, doesn't it? Special De-Larding Operation

I always thought it looked like a really long pretzel.

Rush moved this post from Alliance Affairs to Orbis Central (Which took me a good few minutes to figure out smh Rush you should make the banner bigger for my tiny eyes!!!). I don't think what Fine was saying could be considered "backseat moderation" since this conversation quickly devolved from Fine's original message on Natia's comment.

Main conversation got hijacked by someone who updated their nation description to talk about touching grass whilst also being active as I write this and is going into VM... I find it difficult to convince people that this is the main issue plaguing the game, or many can't think of a solution. I think many of the players, especially gov, are far more comfortable with the current system even if it can be considered boring or is killing the game. I had a discussion with a friend who is MA and based on some other comments a consensus I'm seeing is that players are always going to adapt to the game and find the meta, making this issue inevitable. A radical alteration of the game's fundamental war and econ mechanics is needed to shift up the meta permanently and to keep war a viable option to gaining power. I don't know if this something worth continuing to chime in about as I have largely abandoned both alliance and RP politics, and public discussion of the issue seems life-less except for Alex regularly butchering actually good feedback.

Note: I am aware that suggestions such as these have been mentioned before, but this is relative to the recent discussion by Alex and Sam Cooper. This is fully with the intent of proposing a solution that can work to make the game better for everyone. I am not paid by Rose nor am I a nano-keyboard-warrior In my opinion, something that PnW could really benefit from is investment based war mechanics. Not cities, but military units/generals/training. The idea would be, generally, the more you invest into your military, the more powerful each of your units is. If those units die, if generals retire, if it's been too long since training, you lose that investment (either in one fell swoop or gradually.) Imagine 50K Troops could have a 50/50 chance at beating 150K Troops. However, the 150K troops cost $1 per unit, and the 50K troops cost $3 (maybe even 3.10 to tax tryhards); You're still using the same resources, but you've managed them in different ways. You can forgo city growth to focus on your military. This isn't perfect, but it would guarantee a few things, and would avoid some trade-offs as seen in the dynamic-slots proposal. 1. A Prepared army can overcome a blitz 2. Blitz's are still viable (if you need to re-enforce this you can buff war policies or add different types of training.) 3. A Prepared army can overcome a larger army (offensive up-declares, defensive down-declares) 4. Potential for more strategic and complex war mechanics such as buffing fortifications but allowing for unit types/training/policies that can counter-act fortification. 5. Improved (NOT FULL) viability for independent nations. A bulwark high military cost defense oriented independent nation could be able to survive raiders or attacks from larger alliances. Ofcourse, attackers with similar or better training/etc will be able to compete, but is it worth it to invest that? My Philosophy regarding this: The current war system in PnW is not very flexible, it is effectively a numbers game, with war policies and espionage being effectively the only appendages to it. Blitzes are apart of the number game, get higher number initially, destroy the units. I don't think that is bad, I'm just providing that as blitzes are one of if not the main strategy in war atm. Most other notable fighting games have more complex systems. Pokemon, for example, has strategy with non-offensive abilities, different types, Pokemon levels, and varying moves. Super Smash Bros forgoes a health system (mostly) but has a meter which determines knockback, meaning even if you're at a severe disadvantage you can still win, unlikely, but possible. I don't think these examples are unapplicable to PnW just because it's a text game (Pokemon battles are effectively a text game but with fancy graphics.) Finally, the Dyanmic slots solution is not very great, someone who I initially disagreed with gave a very in-depth analysis and ultimately, it's like cutting off the head of a hydra; Two more (problems) will grow.

I am more specifically referring to Cooper's flowchart at the beginning of the post. There are obviously going to be exceptions, this game isn't as simple as that, but that is the rule (and more importantly, the advice) given to basically all new players when the join the game. The first thing you're bombarded with is recruitment ads, afterall.

AFAIK Problem: Join major AA or die (Edit: Cause raiders and alliances will destroy your nation) Solution: Make it easier to survive without AA (Edit: Dyanmic slots does this by decreasing the amount of attackers, not to say I agree with the current proposal)

I think you're mistaken by grouping "nerf aggression" and "things shouldn't be decided day one". There is a real need to make wars last longer and to give defending nations a fighting chance. Albeit, Alex is effectively doing the same thing here, and this change is just going to make it so raiders and blitzers can get dogpiled whilst farmers can just sit back and pick off a few raiders with the help of their friends. It's going to make having large blocs and large alliance even more essential to being powerful in wars.

It seems more ideal for this: Minimum of 2 slots Maximum of 4 slots 0 - 2 1 - 2 2 - 2 3 - 2 4 - 3 5 - 3 6 - 4 7 - 4 8 - 4 9 - 4 Perhaps 1-3 (Min-Max) is the best way to go. We want to prevent people with no wars from being dogpiled, but we don't want to dis-incentivize war and dog-pile raiders. This seems to just be reversing the dogpile from the defender to the attacker.

Honestly, It would just be nice to see more stuff being able to be done in the game. Now, fair warning, I *am* getting ahead of myself, but I do think a large problem with PnW's politics is that there aren't many avenues for aggression. Raids, Fun, and anything power related (Hit an alliance before they become stronger than you or form a massive BLOC). I think treasures were made to kind of expand this, but they don't help that much especially because of the threat of large alliances. I think more exotic stuff (with benefits) should be added, and make them alliance specific or very exotic so that its worth fighting over. Why not add a giant mech-suit that gives your alliance a 5% plane buff or something. I also have an idea regarding espionage being allowed to be traced back, in exchange for terrorism (economic) being buffed (like destroying a civil slot). Tracing it back would return like 3 suspects (2 random generated). Purely an idea to generate conversation though. So while what you're talking about here (join major AA or die) I do agree is the biggest problem with the game at the moment; However, I don't think that's going to offer an adequate incentive to do more war. I really like what someone else said about alliances having "cold war FA" with micro alliances. Also @Alastor , as someone who spend quite a bit of time in RP (Bulletins), I can confirm it's pretty frowned upon and in no way serves as a place to RP the main game, it's become its own little biology expirement.

Oh Cmon, we get two major blitz and you guys decide to peace just when its about to get fun, this is a robbery!

Player of the Year: VeIni Most Influential Player: Keegoz Most Likely to Succeed in 2024: Nukey Best Alliance Leader: Shwin Worst Alliance Leader: N/A Best In-Character Poster: N/A Best Villain: N/A Nicest Player: Nyx/Iuna Most Controversial Player: N/A Most Missed Player: Redarmy :Best Nation Page: N/A Best Fighter: Nukey Best High Government Member: VaIentinos Most Online/Likely to respond in 1 minute: Mega Best War Criminal: N/A (As Someone who rareIy interacts with this game outside of buIIetins)

Hasan

Build Alexio Pumpkin in Minecraft, Got It. No Copy

TLDR: Add a Follow Feature that notifies following players of when a nation posts a bulletin (or even other things like exiting beige) Bulletins are not the most popular feature, and by no means a priority. However, players involved in the writing of bulletins and active rp are nonetheless dedicated and represent a small but sizeable (and engaged) portion of the game's player base. With no statistics available on the readership of bulletins, considering the amount of daily bulletins (10-25) it's safe to assume that around 500 give or take 200 people find themselves actively reading, or occasionally checking new bulletin content. And while there are no metrics as to the growth of the bulletins community, posts have consistently received more likes in recent months. (Four of the most liked bulletins are from 2023, with the third, fifth, and sixth most liked being posted 5-6 months ago, and the fourth being just 3 months ago.) The point is, if the bulletins community continues to grow and more bulletins are posted then the page will become cluttered and there will be less opportunity on average for each individual bulletin to receive engagement. Thus, as a general quality of life feature, and a potential way to combat future clutter, I suggest a Follow Feature for Nations. In the proposed feature: Players can follow nations by pressing a button and will receive a notification (either in a separate feed or system activity) every time the followed nation posts a bulletin, you might also have optimization for when a nation declares a war or comes out of biege etc. This would also lay a groundwork for reducing dependency on third party applications for PNW communication. (because the in-game messaging system is basically useless, and either let me put up a giant sign telling people to contact me on discord when trying to message me, or make it useful, because right now its annoying having to respond to people through there, lol)