Dwynn

I mean... no Rose member had even responded to you. Are you sure you're aware the meaning of defensive?

oh wait.. I'm a space lord now?

Then why post shit suggestions? Go to bed and save us the hassle?

That's a valid point that they would just drop infra and improvements. It could be said that a city should have X amount of support improvements to support the military improvements but that would require even more complexity. However, if a nation were to simply sell down and go military only improvements, they lose a good chunk of their income so I see that as a fair trade off. Though I don't see how it would cause homogeneous city blobs to avoid the negative consequences of infra lost. In fact it would cost them more making war more strategic for the smaller city nations.

But... with all that production is there really 0 pollution? I mean even the greenest of industrial zones puts out some pollution.

I've thought about this and believe I even suggested it ages ago, but I think this war begets it to be resuggested. Infrastructure needs to play more of an impact in a city's operational status. This is going to probably be a very poorly received suggestion, but right now this war has demonstrated again that city-count is a huge indication of which way a war is going to usually fall. This is because military units are directly tied city count, so those with the higher city count should have a distinct advantage. However, as we see people are eager to get infra shaved off their nations so their higher city count advantage becomes unbeatable. I mean a 22 city nation declaring on a 14 city nation, pack it up. There's no point in even showing up for the war. So my suggestion to try to combat this? When a city's infrastructure is below the slot-requirement, improvements randomly go "offline" for a turn. Then the next turn it's randomized again. Think about it, infrastructure is literally the logistics of your nation. If a city doesn't have the logistics to support the amount of improvements that you have in it, shouldn't there be some sort of penalty for it? Now, I know what you're thinking.. "This gives the attacker the advantage right away!" well.... maybe? I mean defenders can destroy infra just as well. This may alleviate some of the lopsidedness of wars because it will require nations to maintain their city infrastructure to be at peak operational status. Maybe an improvement doesn't go offline, maybe instead it just functions at a penalized rate. Also, power plants could be put at a lower chance (but still a chance) of going into offline/penalized mode because most cities would make sure their power infrastructure is sorted and good. I'm just spit-balling, but I think it might add another dynamic to the war game as well instead of the "hey lets rush to get each other close as we can to beige then sit there for 12 turns" that war basically is now.

It's not slotfilling. Slotfilling was very clearly *cough vaguely cough* defined (formatted for highlight): "Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike and additional punishment for multiple violations. You are not allowed to declare war on nations to prevent them from being attacked by other nations. This same rule applies with spies and espionage operations. Knowingly participating in having your war or spy slots filled is also considered a violation of this rule." If they're declaring or paying for beige and the other person is beiging them, there is intentional fighting. Now if the person getting beiged doesn't fight, is that slot filling? Because if that's the case, there are nations that get declared on all the time and are inactive and don't fight back, they would then be victims of the slot-filling rule. This isn't slot filling... This is something else. And if it's going to be a rule, it needs to be very clearly defined.

I actually like this idea and it needs to be explored and fleshed out more. And this would be a better change to the beige system than removing offensive beige.

Wars are lost and people need time to recover. The beige system is broken? Then fix it in general but giving it only to defensive wars lost is just silly. Sometimes people over-extend either intentionally to help the war front, or unintentionally. Either way they usually get defeats. That doesn't negate the fact that the nation would need time to recover from the war just as a defensive nation might. What's really at the heart of the problem here is that the war system favors the attacker heavily. An attacker comes in and immediately gets air superiority and then badboom badabing usually wins the war. Usually being the wording used because sometimes the defender can coordinate or the attacker messes something up and ends up losing out. However, that being said usually the attacker is going to win the war simply because of the fact that the down-declare range and the city counts allowing for quicker buy-backs etc. Removing attacker beige won't fix that. Fixing beige system won't fix that. It's still going to be a mis-balanced war system with quite a bit of weight given to the attacker.

"Could have"... i mean if we're playing that game the entire war "could have" played out differently. I'm merely talking about what DID happen. And sure, they "could have" sold down, but really, what do you think the likelihood of that "could have" been? Guardian and GOB have always prided themselves on their nation building ability. They have done that since I was a part of them long ago.

It could be argued that t$ were actually harming BK's war effort by knocking the whales further down the score count putting them in to range for more of BK-sphere's targets. Anyone assuming that t$ was doing more than being opportunistic really wasn't looking at the bigger picture.

Not gonna lie to was bound to play out this way. And for everyone crying that "IQ never broke up" let's be real... They were in a block together, they formed relationships. They didn't end on a bad-note break up. They were more of a "hey this is getting stale, let's try seeing other people" scenario. So even if their ex deserved to get punched for starting a fight, they still got them feels. They can't sit by and do nothing. It's just a shame they weren't upfront about it.

I can respect starting stuff simply for the sake of starting stuff. However, this is really more of an attack of opportunity than anything. If this really was a "no grudges, just business" endeavor it could have been done when your opponents weren't already engaged in battle. I would agree that human nature is absolutely that way. Human nature wants us to be safe and to survive, but this isn't human nature. This is a game of pixels. If I wanted a safe space that didn't involve a war I could possibly lose, I'd play Nationstates or something like that.

Ah yes... the age old "fair fight is pointless" argument. Sure, if your entire purpose is to create a powersphere great enough to dominate the game so you can sit in circles telling each other how great you are, then yes going into a fair fight is pointless. However, if your purpose is to create some atmosphere of uncertainty about war or to create an atmosphere where war is more abundant so there is more activity in this world, fighting to break apart the powershperes and allow for more dynamic war structure that doesn't rely on who can pull the most treaties is actually more useful and productive. So the real question is what do you want to do? Sit in a circle jerking chains on how awesome you are, or actually playing the game and proving how great you are?

I mean, it depends on the wording I suppose. The whole purpose of treaties is to document what will happen if someone attacks etc etc. If it's an optional defense pact, then make it an ODP. I never liked how loosey goosey the treaty system has become. "Back in my day..." people honored treaties even if it as a losing battle.

I'd possibly have more input if I followed the politics of Orbis, unfortunately I don't. I'm just here to grunt and hit things these days. With that said, enjoy smacking things around!

In these times of trouble (and lag), feel free to take out your frustrations on the battlefield of Duskhorn! See you in the arena! ?

Oh now it all makes sense!

It's not in his basement.

Nobody is downvoting you because those that are vocal about this want the right thing done. Nobody wants to play a "broken" game, and without dealing with this in a proper manner it is broken. Economy is broken, Alex *thinks* he's fixed the bug. He says it was a hard exploit to pull off, but the sheer amount of resources done shows that's not true. He's made changes to the code to patch the exploit, however he's giving those who were part of the exploit or benefited from the exploit the greenlight to do it again as they've received very little punishment.

I get that the smaller members didn't understand where the money came from for their cities, but as has been said many times we can draw this to a logical realistic analogy. If money is stolen in real life, and police track it down, whether or not the individual knew the money they were given was stolen or not, it's recovered. The ABSOLUTE LEAST that needs to be done, is all resources generated by the exploit removed, and anything generated by use of the illicit resources needs to be removed as well. IF you don't do this @Alex, you've broken your economy, you've sent a very clear message to the community, and given the green-light for people to attempt to find other exploits or to attempt to recreate the current exploit. As has been pointed out, the "punishment" is a mere 10%'ish of the total amount generated and benefited from the illicit resources.

So they can disable notification emails, as it is we already receive the "don't forget about your nation" emails An addition to the discussion that brings much content and flavor. I like it.

So right now, there is no real reason to log in to your nation regularly other than to avoid the nagging email and update activity to deter raiding. I think this is a perfect spot to add a new mechanic to spice things up and encourage more player activity. Here's my thoughts on why this would work. If I were a citizen of a nation and the leadership went missing for X number of days without being heard or seen, I'd begin to get worried. If the trend continued long enough the nation begins to lose confidence in their leader. Slowly the nation would slide from a well-ordered nation into a pile of anarchic chaos. Maybe rioting events that cause resource losses. Right now we have an "approval rating" that is garbage and means nothing, but if that were somehow tied into the system then it could mean something. Here's my ideal timeline: 2-3 days - Nagging email "Your citizens have begun to get worried by your absence from the public spotlight" 7 days - Nagging email "Your citizens have lost confidence in your ability to govern your nation and protests have begun" 10 days - Rioting/Looting begins with some sort of random effect such as resource loss, income generation lost, etc. 14-21 days - Nation plunges into complete anarchy. Income/Resource Generation stops completely, "Government Collapse" government setting. Infrastructure decline/reductions. Improvement failures, etc. Now, I know this will receive some "WHAT? NO WAY!" type of responses, but please discuss rationally why you don't think it's a good idea. Possible counterpoints: 1. People will just login and logout to avoid nation decay - Good, let them. The more often they log in the more chance we have of generating activity. 2. But what about my raiding targets - As a sometime raider? Find better targets. Inactives shouldn't just be a bank for people to withdraw from anytime they want. Raiding shouldn't be profitable in a nation that's not being run properly. 3. What benefit will this have? - Well like I said in point 1, it's really all about getting people to login more regularly and possibly become more active. So, let the hate mail begin. Discuss.

I'm just confused as to when trade bots were allowed. Because according to these here game rules available to everyone to read, automated trading is strictly prohibited. In my opinion, if @Alex was to properly enforce this, anyone who profited from the use of this trading bot needs to be banned. Plain and simple.

It's a reference to the Politics and Snore that happens at the top of the hour on turns. If you've ever tried to battle, declare, trade etc during those times it's blocked for a few minutes while the servers process things so there's no bugs. There were issues in the trading system etc if I recall that created a need for that. And to all those saying Sam was robbed... Shake it like a salt shaker...