Sir Scarfalot

See, I disagree in that even if the war names are just memes, so are the wars themselves. Neither are important on the scale of life-altering IRL events, obviously... but they're still just as important as each other, so there's no way to argue the irrelevancy card while simultaneously making any other argument. Either you support a name, or you don't; saying that you support one name because the name of the war doesn't matter is logically invalid. Furthermore, Dial Up was explicitly a placeholder name set up unilaterally by a wiki moderator I think? Which means that it wasn't something ever formally decided on at all, and never meant to be more than a candidate name at the most even initially. Also, while it might have been frustratingly slow for a long while, the game has broken down plenty of other times and sometimes more spectacularly. I hardly need to describe examples of that to someone that's been playing 2k days And as I said before, the extent of the issue that predicates the name "dial up" accounts for less than 10% of the wars' length and less than 1% of the wars' drama, so naming it for that is misleading on a grotesque level. Lastly, it totally is a stupid name, and I have more planes than you do 😎

m8, the historical label of a war needs to be relevant to the whole thing and chosen with hindsight. Otherwise we get shit like ww1 being "The Great War", as if there couldn't possibly be any greater. Historians should hardly be expected to only consider the opening week of a war in how it is named. Besides, "Dial Up" is and was an objectively stupid name even then.

Heh, I remember how >Bloc had cheat codes. Like, you really could just go to a specific secret URL while logged in and you'd get access to OP nonsense. Like getting tanks when you didn't have the requisite technology, or a beta version of crop yield improvement that was cheap as heck and never scaled upwards... Sadly the "nuke" code didn't work. Ah well.

Consolation Prize: Lose 100 wars At Least I'm Fighting: Lose 500 wars Keep 'Em Coming: Lose 1000 wars

Well, in fairness, you *have* set up the $100m bounty, so I'd have to agree that you've put forward enough of a down payment to warrant some trust here. 10% insurance is better than none ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And you obviously want people to work for you with zero insurance that they'll get paid for it. Works both ways fam.

What I really don't understand, actually, is why you refuse to accept the target selling down his own infra as acceptable? He'd recover $225k per city. That's negligible. The damage would be nigh identical to having it burned away by airstrikes or whatnot.

Alternatively, you could post 50 bounties of $20m each on Nuclear. The nuke physically has to land for the bounty to pay out, and that will result in as much damage as you're aiming for, easily. Better than that though would be 10 $100m Attrition bounties; losing 10 attrition wars should bonk his infra down to the 1k range off the beiges alone and there's no way to claim a bounty without at least the beiges, so it is a perfectly secure investment.

Words, words, minor (though welcome) changes, whale projects, words, somehow you want kudos for a lack of actions, words, promises promises. Look, you can either accept that people have a right to be concerned, or you can keep shilling hype for an entirely theoretical and as yet unrealized future. If you'd like to work on being above concern, then fine, but don't deny that it takes time which has not yet elapsed. If you want to hold onto the mindset that you and Sheepy should be blindly trusted without reservation, then it's that much less likely to happen. I understand that you want to move forward and that it's difficult to be patient, and I do agree that improvements have been made which have gone a long way towards redeeming the past drama, which is why I'm trying to explain that your being defensive is not helping either you or Alex towards that redemption. As I said above, people have a right to be concerned. If they have a right to participate in a meaningful way, then that logically means they must have a right to express their concerns. I hope you consider them for what they are, and stop overreacting to something that should have ended with just the first sentence of response rather than derail into drama over a second unnecessarily hostile sentence. For someone claiming to have years of professional experience in the field, you're really bad at de-escalating customer concerns tbh.

Beige roll-back is a start, but since it was in response to the beige thing in the first place that's hardly a favorable mark, and apology is again just words. So tell me, what major actions have been taken since then that do echo what you've said? Words, words, cosmetics, words. I'll grant that there's been progress, and that is good. And I'll grant that it is reassuring that the stupid beige change presented ITT isn't real. There haven't been any major lapses in judgement since the beige drama, yes, but neither you nor Sheepy have progressed so far as to be above mere concern. Asking for that level of faith is just plain unreasonable, and rankling at not being given it is doing neither of you any favors. You've got to earn that, if ever... and either way, faith of that magnitude definitely shouldn't be expected. The thread is communicating a concern. The concern itself has been dashed, and that's good. It is reassuring and while not necessarily a positive step, it at least prevented any steps backwards... but the existence of concerns shouldn't be unexpected or rebuked when presented. That's all I'm saying.

Yeah, that would be more reassuring if there was actually a history of Alex communicating with the playerbase instead of literally just communicating with you alone. Saying that things are better now doesn't actually undo the past, Pre, no matter how much you would like it to. What I'm saying is, your words don't matter at this point. Sheepy's actions do.

Well, to answer this one, if the approval rating is meant to shift by 1% per day then that's negligible compared to how far it moves due to warfare. Given ±1000% approval rating, it would literally take three IRL years of pixelhugging to even shift back into sane levels. Meanwhile, each war won or lost (which can happen at a faster rate than one per day given intense raiding or global warring) counts for several times that much. Outside of the most legendarily cowardly pixelhuggers, and most of the time even for them, war is the real factor that dictates approval rating and easily transcends such trivial concerns as nation-wide starvation, economic collapse or blackouts.

No he wasn't. He was right, too

Well, it is reassuring to hear that the cheeseable mechanic of forced pacifism won't really happen. That said, they're reacting to quite readily apparent evidence: That's not fearmongering rumors, that's actionable data? Lest we forget, you have rammed through changes similar to the one described in the past. Some amount of concern is far from unjustified 😕

Personally, I start an airstrike in order to rapidly check my opponents' military. I don't have to go through with the airstrike, I just do it because it's the most convenient way to get a snapshot of where their military is at right now. It's still not ideal, though; having that information up front in the wars page would be optimal... though it could get cluttered, unfortunately.

Y'know, this is the sort of thing that can only help player retention. I know back when I started that the leaderboards presented a daunting obstacle that I never imagined I'd actually breach, and it was a disheartening thought, but when one sees visible progress tracked like that then there's something to feel good about. This suggestion has my vote for sure~

Aaaaaaaa yes yes yes yes yes yes pls pls pls pls pls pls gib gib gib yesthis It's always a pain since my calculator doesn't have a backlight, so I have to actually walk all the way over to the light switch to do the arithmetic 😕. This would make it so much easier to be lazy in my chair ^-^

Aw heck, do I gotta be Qyburn? Heck heck.

I for one am quite happy to not be likened to any of those irredeemable flat stereotypes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Begging your pardon, but wouldn't a botter want their script to be stealthy and therefore set it up to emulate a player's input by simply using a randomized delay? I'd still say that 27 seconds is indeed basically sufficient to take actions using stacked MAPs, yes, but I'd rather you be cognizant of the potential workaround to your decision here.

As ever, half of these are polls over things that are just plain objective fact. Ah well, I think it's alright

True, but when it comes down to it the stats speak for themselves; why would we particularly need to reiterate information that's already publicly there? Well, there is the acknowledgement, but we're doing that right now anyway.

Ayyy I got on the list~ I'll allow it ❤️

I'm sorry to hear this. My condolences

Pfff, you think that's some kind of hot rebuttal? Because yes, both of these hypothetical "someone's" words are worth the same: both individuals' statements are nothing intrinsically and are only worth what can be verified from an evidentiary perspective. If you're unwilling to accept that, then you are the one failing to value the truth. You are, again, the one valuing your own pat judgements of character over concrete and verifiable data.