[Because TEst and Imperium of Man Weren't Enough]

Super secret ones

[Because TEst and Imperium of Man Weren't Enough]

Hahahahahahaha

perfect.

[TOXIC MEGA C****]

I agree with 1/3 of the persons listed above. Dunno what Sval did, but he seems all right. Mitsuru is awesome though, he says what he wants to, without beating about the bush and doesn't bullshit his way through conversations; that's an admirable quality to have. pls no bulli da cute seal

[Make Ground Forces Great Again]

1 hour ago, Rok Semloh said:

Pretty straightforward: (1)very few wars bother to use ground forces, and certainly not on the scale (2)they used to.

(3)In a real war, ground forces are absolutely key to a true and complete victory, yet in the game (4)the first person to spam the most ships (and (5)sometimes aircraft) wins the war.

(6)Make the three types of victories, Naval, Air, and Land all do the same amount of resistance damage (12) so that strategic decisions incorporating more than just 80% navy and 20% air are viable.

(1): Uh... no? Every single war I've been in, ground forces have played a huge part in bringing the enemy down.

(2): Used to...?

Hmmm, something is wrong there. If you are a re-roll, and are referring to the '6 Ground to Win a War', I think that that's so far in the past it's almost irrelevant to really talk about that.

(3): This is not real life. It is a nation simulation game. Realism is pretty much irrelevant.

(4): If you lose to someone spamming ships, you are either not fighting a well balanced war, you don't have a suitable navy, or the other guy's retarded. 

(5): Airstrikes actually reduce the least amount of resistance per MAP out of all conventional attack types, not sure what you're getting at there. If you mean to say they are the most OP, honestly, I've seen someone with 1440 jets have a hard time taking down someone with 800 jets, simply because the 800 jets guy had ground control. If anything, ground offers an already solid counter towards air.

(6): lol

[FUUUUUUSION-HA!]

34 minutes ago, LordStrum said:

blue moon

 

[Orbis Open Source Initiative]

Having had been in contact with various players of P&W struggling to truly keep up with alliances that have to a great degree automated data collection, analyses techniques, and thus predictory power, and after reading jroc's previous thread about Prometheus (A Saner API), I thought that such an initiate would be a good way to both educate, facilitate and help others along their way when it came to programming.

I encourage all players willing or wanting to learn more about programming, or simply being there to ask questions about our aims, to join the Discord. o/

[How far we have fallen]

The payoff for allowing non-friendly elements to take up your slots is:

a. you are dealt damage by the enemy (-1),
b. you pseudo-provide the enemy with money (-1),

The payoff for allowing friendly elements to take up your slots is:

a. you are dealt damage by friends, (±0)
b. you do not provide the enemy with money (+1),
c. you deprive the people/person who targeted you of their money by it basically being returned to you eventually/kept by friendly elements (+1),

So the damage dealt to you by friends (even if it is greater than the sum of applicable bounties) is still preferable to allowing enemies to take up slots.

[How far we have fallen]

24 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Yeah, this is a thing that was called out as a likelihood from the start of the bounty system as a concept and was proven to be a thing during the tournament (albeit usually in order to circumvent the trade restrictions there).

Who could possibly be surprised at this?

I think the trend in this thread is more proving a point, rather than being surprised. However, I can definitely see players that have never heard of the bounty system before being surprised when the potential exploits are shown.

[FUUUUUUSION-HA!]

That's kind of his point.

[Eliminating the Double Buy]

Idk why I always reply to these topics at 5 AM in the morning but here I am.

For those posting new suggestions, Sheepy will probably say, "Suggestions in different threads please."

Back on topic:

Let's first understand a bit about double-buys. 

For one, they are not merely a defensive tactic you employ when you have been jumped, they are also a method through which you gain military for offensive maneuvers, I think that's something important others miss out on.

(a) In the current meta, alliances perform double-buys to both avoid getting in range of opponents without proper military (if you're semi competent you'd have standing military already), and also because they're simply more efficient (in 10 minutes or so you could get mostly war-ready if you had a day or so worth of military prior, compared to an enemy that doesn't. With the way space control (air superiority, ground control) works, this tactic of building up quickly before your enemy does would allow you to establish bonuses and deal penalties so you can perform say, another buy without getting your current military demolished.

On one hand, this does allow defenders some leverage, in the context of there being no such 'sneaky' build up. (You would need to spread out your buy across 24 turns, each at the interval of the 12th turn; if the defender's military guy isn't retarded and tracks militarization increases, and their FA has sufficient contacts to know they're getting hit, they should have plenty time to militarize). 

On the other hand,  this just prompts higher military builds all-around, which means that the issue would come full cycle back to defensive power being reduced. It only gives more power to the more prepared, not by increasing their damage, but by limiting the ability for the defender/less prepared to turn around the war. Alongside the nerf to Fortify, I don't think this would be a good addition. To summarize, double buys are an integral part of defending against a militarily superior opponent, or multiple opponents at or slightly below your level. 

This provides a good segue to my next point:

(b) Down-declares use double-buys too. You drop down, usually hit as many targets as you can, and buy twice to make sure you stay on top of those enemies. In counter to this, submarine stats have already proven to be useful if applied appropriately and not idiotically; my personal view is that there needs to be a better way to transition between tiers. For one, it isn't entirely balanced for an alliance like, say, Grumpy to be incapable of truly countering the people that hit them, nor does it truly provide a way for the people who use a 2-day beige timer to get 3 days worth of military (barely enough to re-engage, but better than the alternative of being pinned down for the rest of the round) to appropriately build up their defenses. Similarly, they work for medium-range updeclares too. 

(c) This works somewhat against what I perceived as your goal: making wars shorter, and not longer. That is one of the reasons you nerfed fortify, no? This only makes it so that you can not deal the same damage within the same time period. Then, there is also the issue of fundamentally proven-to-be-good war tactics not being as effective.

Coming to the point of effectiveness, there are some myths revolving around double-buys:

For one, they are not all-enabling methods of making people git gud. If you're in a war with the opponent having, say, Air Superiority, your tank rebuy would generally be enough to get you an edge, and not a full-blown assured win. Secondly, the amount of cash and resources that nations in the middle tier (c17-c21, where most of the drop downs occur) use up via double-buys is ridiculous. A byproduct of this change would be not using resources up as quickly, and while that may sound like it's a good thing (reduces war costs) it really only is so because the time required for people to start with x military in this mech system, and in the next, is less. Expanding wars like these where tier segregation is so high you end up at a pseudo-stalemate is not fun for anyone. They really aren't. You'd end up in a scenario where lower tier nations can slowly work their way up, wear targets down, and the upper/mid tier can't legitimately counter by down-declaring. (If they do, and they can't double buy, they're going to be shat on hard).

-----

With respect to update timings, I do think that allowing some leeway for players in TZs that make update time inconvenient (for example, it is 4:48 AM right now and update is in 12 minutes for me as I am writing this) is a good idea. However, if you are to implement such 'leeway' via this change, you definitely need to tweak your numbers so the act of double-buy isn't entirely killed. That just won't be bueno in several settings.

-----

Having coincidentally glanced at the conversation above about test server/trialing there, while that is definitely what you should do, I'd like to note that you can not replicate or appropriately judge the meta of live in test, unless you port the same expectations/objectives/alliances there. Having said that, it is a suitable enough model for the playerbase to judge what the effects of x change would be, ceteris paribus.

[Introducing....]

12 minutes ago, RightHonorable said:

There is an aspect of electomagnets that Dio seemed to have forgotten here, they can be turned off

Papa Roq controls the switch; only time it's being turned off is when there's    A B S O L U T E     C O N T R O L, 1984 style

[Eliminating the Double Buy]

As a refresher, why was this put on the back-burner?

[Introducing....]

...Electromagnetism!

 

Above you may see electromagnetism explained via a graph.

 

We are all aware of the various buzz-words surrounding the magnanimous consolidation Papa Roq has ordained for Orbis, and while some may seem catchy, do not be fooled: they are all misleading. What may truly encapsulate the act of consolidation is electromagnetism.

How so, you may ask. 

To quote @Senry, the man capable of coming up with such a term: "Dynamic makes everything move, sure, but everything moves in unpredictable directions, so everybody ends up far away from each-other, making it effectively static. Kinetic only increases the speed of this process but ELECTROMAGNETISM (that draws people nearer to each other!)"

What makes electromagnetism special? For one, it requires no medium through which it acts! That means no diplomat teams, no embassies and consulates, no FA ministers, no relations needed! Doesn't that sound like paradise, a world where we may live in our bubble and continue to grow around each other? It sure does to me. Above that, all electromagnetic waves travel at 3.0 x 10^8 m/s, thus forcing consolidation upon each other ultra-fast! No need to wait for pesky FA ministers to deliberate and discuss, you can simply blink, and consolidation will occur; what a world, eh?

As scientists dig deeper into what electromagnetism provides to the world, they also found out that salt makes as good an element w.r.t magnetic properties as Iron, as evidenced by the "discourse" on the OWF.

Truly, the discoveries being made about this force are stunning, and mind warping...

 

Stay tuned as the Orbis Committee of Discoveries (O.C.D) reports on further progress made by our brilliant team of scientists... 

[Tax records are not visible?]

You have 10 members. 3 of them are under the 2-day tax limit. (Their seniority is less than 2 days, which means they can not be taxed). 5 more are on gray, which means they can not be taxed either. So, you really only have 2 people (one of them is you) who are eligible to be taxed. Maybe that's the reason why the latest records only show two members tax records?

[Names]

Nation Link:
1) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=104708, 
2) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=105165
3) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=105360
4) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=105669
5) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=105551
6) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=102031
7) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=106400

Ruler Name: Shouldn't post it here.
Nature of Violation: Inappropriate names x7

 

Edit:
More inappropriate names:
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=105691
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=102169
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=102063
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=101367

[3/5/2018 - New War Changes Implemented]

What's making me, and a significant quantity of other people, pissed off about these changes, is not just that they don't seem like a fix that the community asked for, not merely the fact that these are things we'll need to adapt to: it's more so that you threw these curveballs at us without much consultation. and expect us to adapt. Let's assume we don't adapt for a while, and these changes stay for a month: we're losing out on optimal builds. Let's say we do change, but these changes get reversed after a month: we're losing out by investing time and funds into something clearly not worth it. That = no bueno.

i) 25% more casualties for the opponent. While it may seem as if this is useless, and can't be used, it certainly can. Assume you're in a scenario where you have greater standing forces, but have just been updeclared upon. The key to updeclares is to eliminate the opponent's airforce. By doing so, you're exploiting the extra day taken to max out jets (slow recruitment rate, as compared to others). With the 25% bonus on, you could spend the next few turns without logging in, because opponents that are already suiciding into your nation are going to get f'd even more when they launch an air-to-air.
-
ii) 5 MAPs as start-up. This eliminates the "Ground then air" strat, or, alternatively, the "air then ground" strat. Second, it punishes updeclares even further. As I mentioned above, the key is to eliminate the opponents airforce by slowly wearing it down. It becomes far slower this way, and because of this, gives the bigger guy more time to shoot down his opponents jets. At the same time, it swings towards giving the defender more time to prepare. I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea in and of itsel
-
iii) Slot changes: oh man, again, more time for defender to react, and reduces a key component of updeclares/bringing down a larger opposing enemy: you'd have to invest a greater amount of time to wear him down.
-
Combine this with all of the above, and you have this meta that's really hard on not allowing submarine strats to continue. There may be an argument for why this was needed. Now, moving on to something I think is so hilariously exploitable (assuming this beige takes away your loot, which it should)

The "no beige if you're engaged in an offensive" change.

Let's say you're on the losing end, not looking to get back into the round/can't by this point. Beige takes away too much of your resource stockpile. What do you do? Declare war on an inactive; they don't log in, don't deal damage to you, and you're free to stay the way you are. Looking at it from the angle of a game theoretic model, the payoff for engaging in an offensive war means your stockpile doesn't get affected by beige loot. (Here, let's note that loot has been nerfed since the last mech setup, so it, proportions wise, is not as big of an issue as before). At the same time, you aren't allowed rebuild time.
-

TL;DR: Test that shit out before you push it to live.

[Silence of the Gods]

40 minutes ago, Blair Waldorf said:

what's with people signing alliances that aren't in the same tier as them

Sign treaties with people in the same tier as you for defensive power. Your ally consisting of nations in a lower tier can work for countering submarine. If the ally's nations are mostly in a higher tier, down-declares on your alliance can be defended as well. Different tier for offensive power as well (initiative to hit an alliance whose ranks you can't fully reach). But then again... this is Pantheon, not an alliance that is known for beginning wars, xdxd.

 

[Yo Sheepy, what is this math]

I'll keep it a bit short, it's 4:53 AM as I'm typing this.

"Expected Daily Profit per improvement at a market value of $4,374 PPU: (3 Uranium/day * 3990 PPU) - $5,000 Operating Cost = $11,470"

Let's go by this:

 

Here, you say, "it assumes you're selling all generated resources at average trade prices."

The issue, as can be clearly seen, is that uranium has two prices attached to it. I cross-checked, at the time the screenshot was taken, $3,390 was indeed the average. price. What is the $4,374 price in relation to?

I included food because that functions 'fine'.

---------

Let's assume the profit figure (which will be wrong if you don't take into account pollution -> potential disease inc -> increase in deaths -> less comm income) uses $3,990 as it's avg. price. 3 x 3,990 = 11,970. Upkeep is $5,000, Sheepy, not $500. Your end result (11,470) is what you would get if you subtracted $500 from 11,970, not $5,000.

Fix dis.

--------- 

If I didn't know better (maybe I don't), I'd say this is a ploy for more people to produce uranium, and thus bring prices down, xdxd.

[TJ vs IQ: who won?]

7 minutes ago, Godwinson said:

Also gib reputations

Negative ones? Sure.

[Alex, its been 9 months, I think its time to deal with reality.]

3 minutes ago, Queen M said:

I would love to see what this game would be like if @Sketchywas the admin for 6 months...anyone else?

It's called paradise. I think some dusty old books written centuries ago mentioned it.

[Inappropriate Names]

30 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/unique/id=106048

jfc

[Alex, its been 9 months, I think its time to deal with reality.]

Just now, Them said:

I think the real question is as to how a student in one of the best econ programs in the US didn't see this coming.

Easy. He made a model based to increase market prices, but didn't account for side effects, and eventually created a world where there was no real limit to what price producers could charge consumers and still sell their produce. He also didn't think of long-term eventualities, opting to tweak supply rather than demand. At the same time, he vastly overshot the 'solution' by nerfing commerce. And uh,   because he's Sheepy and I've yet to see more than say, one update that doesn't do something retarded.

[Inappropriate Names]

Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=106048
Ruler Name: Royce
Nature of Violation: Inappropriate name. 

 

Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=106047
Ruler Name: Skylark
Nature of Violation: Inappropriate name x2

[Alex, its been 9 months, I think its time to deal with reality.]

3 minutes ago, Seraphim said:

Don't get me wrong like the Brando guy. Im not typing to counter anyone at the forum. As a player of PnW, I view this forum and comment my view. 

Some people get over exaggerated and question me like I should agree with someone elses views. I believe I have a right to my exercise my own views.

You are free to do so. You are also open to getting called out on what you post.

[Alex, its been 9 months, I think its time to deal with reality.]

27 minutes ago, Seraphim said:

(1) I'm sure Alex has his reasons to stay put with the existing update. For one, PnW is growing even without investment into ads unlike the past.

(2) Secondly, I think Alex feels loosening up Econ mode could just make top 2-3 Alliances simply swell faster and continue to create a stagnant ice peak that continues to chill high up and not flow down.

(3) Let's face it, there's hardly any alliance wars happening. The Alliances that do go to war are the lower tier Alliances.

(4) What Alex needs to do is bring some vigour and vibrance to the game to promote some long awaited action among the silent ice cold Alliances. 

Then... Loosen up on the Economy mode, which more active and veteran players in PnW are yearning so much for. 

War, you seriously can't believe the economy or market prices (5) are konked just cus of some update? The larger nations, (6)who can churn out large production also has part to blame. Plus these (7) rabid prices are ridiculous when there's wars happening or smell of some disputes catching fire. And BTW, (8) smaller much younger nations will always depend on help irrespective of updates interfering. That's what Alliances are for. Unfortunately, gluttony knows no boundaries and top level alliances expect quick results..

(9) Can't blame Alex for that.

(1): Yeah, but his reasons are fricking retarded. Second... where did Sketchy mention growth rate of the playerbase?

(2): You've missed the point. It isn't the top 2-3 alliances losing out, it's the new guys. Go learn the mechanics first.

(3): And why do you believe that is so? There is a common assumption that is made (which I believe is perfectly rational to make). The lowering of costs attached with wars will lead to more wars. So... sit down, and think about what you're saying.

(4): Sure... I'll see that "vigour and vibrance" when steel prices hit $10k when war-time hits. 

(5): sigh. That is exactly what happened. 

(6): ...you know that output and production was nerfed heavily right? My, and a whole hella other people's issue with the update was that it tweaked supply as opposed to demand.

(7): Yeah? Then change this shit. 

(8): So your justification for new nations struggling is to make it harder for them to get by? Cool beans.

(9): I blame Alex. There.

 

13 minutes ago, Reagan said:

One of my biggest issues with this game (and contributed to my loss of interest) was that the mechanics were constantly changing. Used to put a lot of effort into creating guides, teaching others how to play, and so on. It was a lot of work and I didn’t mind but then things would keep changing. Time for revisions, relearn what you’ve learned, throw out the play book...here we go again.

(1) To Alex’s credit, his commitment to his game and constantly listening to the community and trying to improve it should be commended.  I also understand that with so many pieces that need to work together, it’s very difficult to achieve balance in a game like this.  You also will never satisfy everyone’s expectations of how they think it should be. Having said that, this game has been around since late 2013.  At some point, you have to reach a point you can live with that makes the game worth playing and enjoyable for the majority.  Minor tweaks and refinements should be encouraged, but the focus should shift to enhancements, not reworking the core gameplay.  I hope the day comes when it can get there.

Lol. 

You uh, been reading this thread?