Fox Fire

Also, this has been the case throughout numerous updates. Seriously old !@#$ news. Oh I know!!! Let's change the mechanics for the ten billionth time to realize we are still left with the same problems, just like old times!

So then crush the raiders yourself? You can't stop war unless we remove the mechanic so suck it up, buttercup. Consistency needs to be had here. We can change the mechanics but I promise you that immediately someone will start !@#$ing about how the mechanics need changed yet again because of raiders or some shit. Take this thread for example:

No, no man, it's great. Like perfect. Nothing screams perfection more than spontaneous randomness. Tune in next week for another update.

I bet I could build 200 planes. Though I haven't tried since the update.

Why is this temporary solution needed? As my parents would say, "do it right the first time". I call bullshit. I don't think this is a temp solution. I think it's a spontaneous solution that backfired. No shit? I just came out of war. No actually, my whole alliance just came out of war. What makes your penis unique?

So wait, you're basically complaining that this was implemented in the middle of a conflict? This begs the question, do you think this update would be fair if implemented pre-conflict? Or if your enemies were now facing the same situation? It also begs the question of how the !@#$ are your own members, Rose, #5 in the game, not benefiting in the same fashion? Stroke of bad luck, or just bias complaining about an insignificant situation?

Dude, IDK what you're smoking, but I can only buy about half the soldiers of a nation with 1 less city than mine solely because he has more infra: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=25693&display=war I'm pretty screwed so I just sold my military. Even with several days to build military, I simply cannot produce that amount of military. Conclusion: This update was completely useless. A nation that's able to build a military twice what I can, was able to declare war on me. My improvements are useless so I'm not even going to bother trying. It's a waste of money. No, I'm reading and responding to your post as I know your stance on this already. I've seen it. It's not a step in the right direction. It's a spontaneous idea. We don't need any more of those.

I disagree. I don't think these changes are an improvement by any means. Which brings me back to consistency. There is a reason you don't see monthly changes to Cybernations. And I quite honestly don't think it's lazyiness on the part of the admin. Very few suggestions make into (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and usually only after an extremely long conversation on any specific change. The biggest problem I see in this game is inconsistency. Something like what you're saying right now: "Oh it's not the best change, but it's a change, so it must be an improvement. Even though it may not be the right solution, it should be implemented and kept because eventually someone along the lines will find the right solution". When I was a kid my parents told me that if I do something, I should do it right the first time. Not the second time. If there is an issue with the game mechanics then please, suggest improvements. However, accepting the first idea someone comes up with and keeping it only to change it several times over leaves the game in a state of never being able to play out. The game simply cannot play out when you don't allow it to. The fact that the war system has been a constant debate and has constantly been changed from literally day one of the very first war system in this game, tells me this path is not working. Perhaps the PaW is fundamentally flawed on a gamewide level? But if changing the games mechanics every month is really what the players want, then who am I to argue?

The point is that he's using other peoples art in a logo type fashion. By that I mean that the first thing I see when opening this thread is art made by other people. It gives the impression that you are using someone else's art to represent yourself. I understand what he was actually doing and that he isn't trying to steal peoples work, but that doesn't really change the initial impression. I personally would not open a thread like this (and I have one), with anything but my own art to represent myself. I mean it might not look as bad if it were non-game related art in the opening, like maybe a photo or drawing by a completely unrelated artist. However, throwing the flags of the top alliances into an opening about "your art" gives the wrong impression. It literally says: "Graphic Work By Robert IV" directly over the top of work that isn't his.

This is a fair point. It is indeed his game and he has every right to do whatever he wants. However, I recall memories of Pixel Nations, where the admin really did simply do whatever he wanted. It was a very great game until he stopped listening to the players. Then everyone left. As they left, he tried making it $2W and continued !@#$ing the game up until what was left of the player base absolutely hated him. Eventually he decided that everyone hated him and he sold it. Then smack in the middle of ownership transfer, the game was suspiciously "hacked" and wiped out. Could have been the old admin or maybe someone else. Nobody really knows. But either way, he ruined it for everyone. So sure, he can totally do whatever he wants, but I imagine that people are allowed to make suggestions because Sheepy wants to hear them. Thus, here they are...

What is this westburough case? You mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps Pfft. !@#$ that idea. That's just ridiculous. When I drive to work, I run the risk of dying in a crash, yet I still drive to work. The world was not created to kiss the asses of oversensitive, babied, or over sheltered pricks. I mean I think I can safely say that nobody wants to see the KKK holding a rally in their town square, but I also don't want to see Glen Beck having his own TV network. I don't want to see rain or wind when I walk outside. I don't want the neighbors dog trying to attack my dog. I don't want green eggs and ham. Unfortunately, the world wasn't placed here to solely not do things that I don't like. Countless Vietnam vets came home to "you're a baby killer". Should we sue every protester from the 60s and 70s? What if it's the government that "doesn't want to hear it?" Free speech > Privacy Peoples feel goods.

Honestly, I agree that most people make their decision whether or not to stay at about day 1. However, a decision to quit on day 1 is not related to military at all. It's a simply disinterest in the game itself. It's just not for everyone. In regards to militaries and alliances, what is chump change to top nations is a fortune to small nations. So your assumption that aiding nations can't defend aided nations because they run out of money is just silly. Not to mention the fact that there is a war range. So aiding nations wouldn't be fighting for small nations anyway.

I'm not sure what the question is. Why does there have to be a line between two unrelated things? Are you asking if I find it OK to tell secrets or something?

Actually, looking at my current war, my nation can have about a max of 30 something thousand troops with this new change, under my already crushed condition. The nation that attacked me houses about 70 thousand and it doesn't look like he built up after declaring. Real helpful for small nations, I must say. Can I safely say this update did nothing to help anyone anywhere? It did go $2W though.

Sure as !@#$ hasn't helped my small nation. In fact, I haven't made an in game action since. I sold my military because who cares? Grealind owned a game once and he certainly had no !@#$ clue what was best for it. That's a bad argument, Sheep. Brilliant post. YES!!! For God !@#$ sake, please! Please try to retain some kind of !@#$ consistency. If you want to code some shit then go work on some perks ffs and stop changing the game every month!!! That type of shit makes me want to leave far, far, far more than anything anyone could possibly to to my pixels.

Indeed.

You mean like the last update to the game?....

I didn't pursue anyone for a rule violation. I clicked on a thread and witnessed the staff either ignoring their own rules or being unaware that a rule was broken. This isn't a witch hunt, it's a simple observation. My standards do not apply here. The game rules do. This: National socialism is Nazism. Plain and simple. Google any combination of those words and let me know what you find.

Free speech protects you from the government. Not the Sheep. Can we stop making that argument now? Private property is private.

The problem is that it is against the established rules. I mean if I owned this game myself, I wouldn't even have the same rules as Sheepy. I would allow people to suffer their own social consequences naturally. However, that's not the case here. As it stands now, Nazism is clearly banned. The alliance Nordreich was banned for using an Odal rune combined with general "Reich" imagery, such as variations of the imperial German flag or editing old Nazi posters to have different flags, symbols or text. Overall, even Nordreich is less Nazi themed than this (they just have some good artists). In fact, I don't even consider NoR to be Nazi themed. More like a wide combination of Germanic-Nordic themes combined into one. Flying a Black Front flag and saying your "national socialist" is a bit more directly Nazi IMHO.

I've literally never ran a negative income. I'm not sure how people manage that. This is a good point however. I completely agree with this. It's quite difficult to really break out of the lower tiers without either massive financial aid or no threat of being raided. Conclusion: I have no idea.

It's an open discussion forum, actually.

Seriously, I'm pretty confused. What are the actual rules of this game? By that I mean, which ones are actually enforced? Or do we just give a free pass to anyone who has the initiative to post on the forum? I mean, we have a guy who was reported for blatantly spelling out, and I quote: But it doesn't even end there. He then gets on the forum and denies being a Nazi all while having a blatant Nazi avatar! Yes, dear mods. This symbol: Is the symbol of an organization known as Black Front: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Front Which is literally a direct branch off of the NSDAP. It can effectively be described as "slightly more leftist Nazis". Or basically just Nazis who didn't think Hitler was economically left enough (they still hated Jews and "undesirables" all the same). They followed the idea of "Strasserism", created by devout Nazis, Gregor and Otto Strasser. An ideology that is still heavily part of the Neo-Nazi scene today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism I mean our little Nazi friend even had the decency to put the symbol into a nice little Nazi flag styled background. So please clarify for me, how is any of this not against the rules? Because it's kinda blowing my mind how things like this are constantly being brushed aside on the excuse of "Well, he didn't quite cross the line far enough because he denied the accusations". I mean, if you're going to ban NoR for a !@#$ Odal and then ignore this (not to mention blatantly ISIS themed nations).... I'm sorry Sheepy, but that's completely retarded. EDIT: For the record, I'm referring to this: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11231-nazis-yes-more/

And as an artist, I agree. Cody is not wrong at all. I don't use your logo to advertise. Why would you use mine to advertise?

This is probably the worst update yet. >Rape Militaries >Pay 2 Win BRB, gotta go dump 20 million on my nation to raid noobs.