Jump to content

Zed

Members
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

330 Excellent

1 Follower

About Zed

  • Rank
    Poopposter

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Leader Name
    Zed
  • Nation Name
    Paradisum
  • Nation ID
    13861
  • Alliance Name
    The $yndicate

Recent Profile Visitors

1277 profile views
  1. Wow Shifty sold out smdh. Can't believe you'd do this.
  2. t$ topped out between 10-12 during early 2017 (my exact memory is fuzzy, but it was definately low double digits). My recollection is that TKR had a similar number at the time (low double-digits), and possibly had a similar number around the beginning of Knightfall. I also do recall GotG and BK having nearly as many themselves, and my assumption that the total record was held by either TKR or one of GotG/BK, with t$ right behind them. But on the record of the latest upgrades, we held both of these treaties around the time of the end of NPOLT, and simply have upgraded them after being in the works for months. As opposed to a case like Aurora, which did not work out for either of us, BK and Eclipse did. I do not see the harm in upgrading these treaties at this point. Crafting a sphere is difficult work, as I am sure most of us who play in active major capacities can attest to. I know first-hand how difficult it is to make a radical change in terms of foreign affairs without alienating friends and allies you are moving from, and I have also seen up close the opposite side of that from former friends too. t$ is currently in a somewhat unique position of being connected to three plus smaller spheres, with previous work in nurturing protectorates and quasi-protectorates or flipping other alliances around being recognized. Eclipse is a part of this success, and I am very proud to have seen them progress to this point. As long as we got that pre-nup though...
  3. I discussed some of this in the thread below recently. It is a change I would support.
  4. This is essentially the Treasure mechanic, just changed to resources.
  5. Hopefully no one is giving out Asian graphic novels now, so the overall score at the bottom end doesn't have to be too high. I do agree with the general principle that someone who gets to 1000 score is more likely to stick around than 500 score, even if score can be inflated relatively well.
  6. Even if you count the Enterprise/Firm protectorates in this current assessment, it still is fewer than the record t$ itself has had in the past. t$ is also, if I recall correctly, not even the holder of the overall record either. Of course I was MoFA then, and people didn't seem to like the way I decided to go about changing it a few months later either, so...
  7. Please, can we try to avoid replicating more of the mechanics of that game here? CN trading circles were an interesting thing, sure, but PnW has a dynamic market system and far more options for players to try to obtain a better setup for themselves and their friends. CN trading circles, even after they were changed to allow nations to set their own resources, were a mess to deal with, and certain national combinations were disadvantaged simply from the luck of the draw mechanically to even begin with (I had Lead/Oil, which doomed me to a half-decent inflexible circle if I wanted anything halfway decent, instead of something truly good for any situation, but even that was more palatable than people who drew something like Furs/Lead which was totally useless). Fortunately, we do not have a similar mechanic in this game which can advantage or disadvantage nations on the sheer luck of RNG from the founding of your nation.
  8. Zed

    Annexation

    I would echo Scarfy here. If you have suggestions for the game, you should feel free to bring them up. That is part of what makes the community great.
  9. If that is true about missile calculations, while it does solve things mechanically very easily, it is a solution that does not mean that the individual user of a Project gains its benefit as a total whole. I cannot say I like this as an idea. Personally, I would make it much harder for nations to use or obtain nuclear weapons. But that ship may have already sailed. Missiles are, in my opinion, much more readily available and should theoretically be much more accessible to nations than nukes.
  10. This style of announcement looks familiar. Seems like some soft power influence might have rubbed off along the way. Good luck.
  11. The high drop out rate is a problem, yes, but we know it will happen. These games can be slow moving at times, even if you raid. What I would simply rather not see it people subjecting themselves to a hardship when they clearly do not have to. There are alliances out there that will recruit nearly anyone with a pulse. That doesn't mean they are always good at what they do, but there are options out there. I have never said I want every new player to join a Top 10 alliance. I do not want this. I have spent my entire career here in a Top 10 alliance; I have previously served as its MoFA, and I made great efforts to promote and nurture some smaller protectorate alliances during part of my time there. I was very proud of that; when they formed a bloc of their own with some friends who were not all in our sphere I was very happy. That is the kind of success that is good in this game. Those smaller alliances add value to this game, and they interact with its wider politics and community. This is what I want to see more of. Not every alliance can be a 100+ member alliance with 500k score. And not every alliance should be. The suggestion you make in the last paragraph would even be a start, in my opinion. If that happened, honestly, I would be pretty happy with the proposal achieving its overarching goal. The bonus for micro types is that if you keep Beige protection as is, then I suppose theoretically you could form your own alliance as a new micro. This is not what I would want to see happen, but it would be a possibility under this idea. I actually disagree a bit with the 50k score requirement. If I got two experienced players to form an alliance with me, and we wanted to recruit new players, even we would not make that threshold. The 6 month requirement, or something similar (Sketchy proposed 4), I think is fine. My original proposal of a year may be too punitive. Akuryo states a lot of what I would say in response to this. However, yes - I do want new alliances to succeed. Success is not always to be the next Top 10 major power. There are many successful alliances that are not in this range. That is fine. There have been several more moderate proposals here to what I originally described that I think would be a good fix. There are other suggestions to improving the tutorial and providing more guidance and integration for newcomers that I did not say myself, but which I think are awesome ideas. There a lot of things I hope that you and the administrative team take from the thread in regard to that and implement. Many of those do not propose any new mechanical restrictions at all, but they hopefully would better educate and inform new players about the game and community they are coming to. This, exactly, is the thing I wrote this post about. I agree entirely.
  12. Scarfy elaborated some of my feelings here. I would prefer to see inexperienced players have a chance to have a better game experience by playing with established players at the beginning. We do not expect primary school children to know how to conduct grand scientific experiments or formulate economic policy. We teach them foundational principles in a supportive community, and hopefully they go on to do those things themselves somewhere. They are not hurting anyone, per se, but they could have a more integrated game experience than they do. That is, more or less, what I proposed in the OP. But, as I have written here, it does not mean it is the best solution, and perhaps there are alternate paths to achieving a solution. That seems like a problem with the recent war declarations, and not this thread. Spicing up the alliance join confirmation page is something that I think is a good idea. Even a little more information on that page would be helpful.
  13. One of the things I wanted to refer to in the original post, and some of my other commentary, was that different sorts of alliances are needed for the game to thrive. I do not particularly want every alliance to be a major blob. That does not offer a lot of spice to the game. There will always be people who want an alternative path besides just joining a major alliance and being a drone. I completely understand that. My critique is levied at the numerous small alliances that are created by players who have no experience in the game, only to fail as they have not the means to climb up from their position. Starting out can be difficult, and without an introduction to the game and its players, it will often lead to players disengaging. I worded some of the original post and suggestions to not exclude players who gained experience and then wanted to go off and recruit new players to form their own community. For example, an alliance founded by you that stayed small for awhile under this premise, to be closer in NS to new players when they start, and would gradually either grow or stay where you were, is something that I think is great. NPO, classically, is one of those communities where if you are not an Imperial Officer, then it can be difficult to see what all is going on. But even then, there is probably something you gleaned from your time there. There may be things they did well that you liked. There may be things that you found off-putting. There are elements of style and culture that you probably learned. That line of experience that you did in joining an established alliance, and then going off on your own, is something I think is a good idea for those people who want to lead. People find friends and create alliances with some regularity here. Not every community has to be large to succeed. People who are brand new to the game might not always see what might be the best community for them. It can be overwhelming to receive all the pings and messages from alliances that want to recruit. It should be a competitive marketplace, in my opinion. There are people who are going to look at an alliance like BK and love the memes. There are going to be people who are drawn to the democratic ideal that Rose has. Arrgh will appeal to players who want to raid and plunder. The low taxes of Pantheon might be something that someone thinks is an ideal that fits with theirs. There are all sorts of alliances themed around references in pop culture that may be appealing. Or maybe they just like a theme like Children Of The Light has. But there is a two way street with alliances and players; at the end of the day, alliances worth their salt will want to invest in people who come there and have some protections in place for that. Not all of those investments pan out in the end. I think improving the PnW Discord would be a good start, especially if we are going to integrate its features into the game more. I like your server index idea. There is the game-help channel, but perhaps that could be expanded a bit with some of those ideas you suggest. The community has had hubs like this before, but to my knowledge never really centralized into an official place like the PnW Discord. Every single bullet point in your Improving Guidance For New Players piece is something I would very much welcome and encourage. Every one. If none of the proposed changes I suggested happened, but all of those did, then I think that would be at least some kind of start and a positive change. I agree that explaining the specific best mechanics isn't something that is for Alex to do, and the meta changes too much for that to even be true all the time. But all of these terms are from the administration themselves, and hopefully educate players in a way that benefits both them and the community. I will admit that circumvention of rules and terms of service is something that can be difficult to enforce. We have even seen recently fluff mechanics like baseball be circumvented on a mass scale. There were many people who were very upset about the treasure mechanics, which led to them being nerfed. I do not have a good answer for how you would stop circumventions like this. Regarding moderation loads, there are times that I wish Alex would slightly expand the administrative and moderation staff of the game to relieve some of the burden on him. There will be alliances out there, even in the majors or mid-market alliances, that barely have any application process besides clicking the button. I remember years ago when Kastor created Lordaeron and grew it like wildfire. They might not have lasted for a long time, but they did have an easy-to-join model, and they became an alliance that was notable in the wider affairs of the game. There are other examples. I can see some enterprising startups try to do things in this way even with these proposed changes. No application hassle, just smash the join button and come on in! And I think, as long as there is someone there to manage the internal affairs of the alliance who has some game experience, this is totally fine. It is not how I would want to create an alliance, but these types of alliances do have a place in the game and do often have some say in its larger affairs. I have seen what has happened, first-hand, when alliances run out of new players to step up and serve in government roles, or when they have not managed training players for these roles well. It is not good. I have seen this happen in other alliances, large and small, as well. Even the major powers need to find ways to invest in their players, and upskill them to take on the next generation of leadership roles in the alliance. Any alliance that desires to remain relevant needs to address this problem, and provide those accessible opportunities in government or adjacent spaces. i would like to hope that we can provide ways in the greater community to do this with experienced players guiding new ones. One year might be too long, and I do not want to get to tied up on the exact specifics of the OP. You address what I am trying to point at in the key issue being people who go straight to making their own alliances without any experience. Three of four months is a decent amount of time too; for example Borg did not say how long they were in NPO, but they shortly left to found another alliance. They did not wait a year, and with the pace of the game, a year is probably too limiting. Players under a certain nation age would simply be unable to apply to those small-player pirate and finance-groups in this example. But they would be able to apply to people who just created an alliance and have a few others there to help grow a small community as a more traditional alliance. A keyword or tag system to encourage better recruitment and foster community would be a useful addition, I think. Akuryo addresses much of my feelings here: a lot of casual players will find an alliance community and settle into it. Would I want to play this game that way? No. But there are other people who do. Building those communities across the board is ultimately the end goal.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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