Reagan

Have fun out there, Aiden. Glad to have you.

Best suggestion. Simple.Clean. Efficient. You want to sell higher or lower than your last offer, just remove previous offer. I'd like to see the game mechanics inform you that you already have an existing trade for "x" resource when you attempt to post another offer for the same resource, and reject the attempt to post another until the previous is sold or removed.

I agree with Sheepy's concern. I don't want alliances having the ability to up taxes to 100% for inactives so they can collect their revenue. I know that's not the intended purpose of the suggestion, but it is the reality of the situation. If a function such as this were to be added, I would rather see it happen with a fixed variable. In other words, say you can only adjust the tax rate by 5% higher or lower for some nations. That's not much, but it makes a difference. Overall, probably not worth implementing.

In regards to colonies, that's something I recall that (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) added late in the game as a result of top tier nations essentially having no way really left to grow. I wouldn't mind seeing a similar option here, but no time soon. Maybe revisit the idea in a year.

Not a bad idea, particularly the edit feature. I'm not sure that a delete option is necessary, but it couldn't hurt anything, either. So, why not?

I grew up on the Star Wars films and suffered through the prequel trilogy, but the Star Wars franchise will always hold a special place with me, being one of my favorite original trilogies of my lifetime. Saying that, I never read any of the novels, comics, or other expanded universe material. I'm content sticking with the films, but hearing some of you talk tells me we've got some passionate Star Wars fans here!

There is absolutely nothing serious about my avatar. Welcome to PW.

Until it does become part of the game, could you remove the line about a meltdown from the description in-game?

It's early man. A lot of work to be done before the film is even complete and ready for release. I've seen 3 trailers and after watching them all, I'm also nervous. Just really hoping those trailers were rushed and that the film will have a strong story supported by a solid cast. I know I'm being wishful, but it's too early to make any judgments based on the little bit we've seen.

Don't get me started.

I tried googling icons for resource, trade, commerce, etc. Didn't come across much I cared for. I'm toying with making some individual icons and scaling them to size, but the problem is that they wouldn't have the same look or consistency, which I dislike. Looking at (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)'s icons, for example, they all have the same color palette and look while bring different and identifiable. I'll see what else I can come up with but hopefully someone better than me finds or creates that perfect set first.

I love the authentic and real look that effect gives the flags, but I guess for consistency, it's better off without in-game.

It's called GPA.

True, but to be honest, I've gotten lost along the way concerning exactly how the alliance color stock bonuses work now. I was thinking less members in an alliance meant higher bonus for others. Is it solely based on the number of alliances, or does member count in an alliance have anything to do with it?

You could attack them. Win and you send them to beige. If they are truly inactive, shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks, Ragnar, and I should probably clarify. I'm a member but not a very skilled gamer. Anyone can join and find people to play with, but what I meant was that if you're going to be in one of the specific game groups over there, they are typically for the higher skill players. Hence, I'm a member of PGN, but not in one of the game clans. lol

thanks bud. same to you and everyone else here hope you all have a great day.

I took my kids to see it. They loved it.

I like that gif banner, Ragnar. Who made it? Also, if you're a serious and competitive gamer, PGN is for you. They play a lot, have fun together, and they're good at it. If you're not very good, you should look elsewhere. You won't find any groups for average gamers over there, but you may still inadvertently meet some while visiting.

I liked Cynic's logo a lot, but I wouldn't have chosen anything that changes the name of the game. Google, for example, comes up with creative banners but it's still Google. Also like the suggestion made, if possible, to code an option to auto switch the banners.

That would be pointless. I'd rather see a system where there is no way to calculate how many spies a nation may have beyond launching a successful spy attack to find out.

Star-Lord, man! The legendary outlaw? Guys?

You might know him by another name.... Starlord!

You guys assume everyone here is a math wizard or took the time to locate the formulas and discern how to make sense of them in order to calculate these things. I've played since November and I can tell you I don't fit in either category. The average player would benefit from my suggestion. According to your logic, why not just go ahead and display the war results of a battle before it's fought? There's something to be said for putting it on the players to figure things out rather than the game handing it to them on a silver platter. It's what makes it more challenging and fun. We talk about how politics are dead, but we refuse to do anything to make it more dynamic.

Not everyone will understand how to look at the score formula and assess a nation's military size. More incentive to join an alliance and learn from them. Beyond that, I strongly disagree with being able to see how many spies another nation has. Spy effectiveness is countered by how many spies the nation being spied has (correct me if I'm wrong about that). The decision to launch a spy attack should favor risk/reward. Not only does it make more sense from a RP perspective, but it increases the risk of a failed operation, or exposure, which can heat things up politically. I'll have to reference (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) here because it's one thing they got right. When you know exactly how many spies the enemy has, you're less inclined to spy on them unless you build up your own spies first. Finally, a nation may gamble on not bulking up their spies, hoping their poker face holds and using their funds towards other things if no one knows how many they might have. It's a gamble each side takes and it's more dynamic gameplay.