Jump to content

AwesomeNova

Members
  • Posts

    295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AwesomeNova

  1. How would this address the problem? This will just make the most boring part of the game mandatory in order to be competitive (I know wars are technically not mandatory with the suggestion, but a penalty is large enough that the technicality doesn't matter).
  2. There's a trend towards that, but the suggestion would be the final nail in the coffin for any organic politics this game would have, aside from "special cases" like Epi.
  3. What assumption do you disagree with? It seems like you're dismissing my post over small details, rather than actually responding to it at large. The larger point that I'm making is your second suggestion solves the "no wants to do wars" by killing the politics that lead to wars. It kills the politics because the only reason most alliances would go to war is to remove an "stagnation" penalty. You said it yourself, no one wants to go to war right now. Alex not wanting a rework on mechanics is really telling. He seems to much rather have the game slowly die than put any more effort needed to maintain his bottom line.
  4. And you're saving one half of the game by what, making war contrived through a game mechanic? Like another poster has said, this would make the politics leading up to war more towards pointless theater to hide the true reason, that being "I need my econ penalty gone, man." The organic, emergent politics surrounding war is what makes war interesting, not war itself or the game mechanics, because the war mechanics are too shallow on their own to be engaging (unless you're raiding, I guess). I know this isn't within the scope of these suggestion, but the game needs its war mechanics to be reworked to be more engaging and, y'know, fun. Heck, there isn't much depth to any of the game mechanics, either. New players bounce because their contributions to the wider politics is constrained to war and micro AA politics, which doesn't have much impact on the rest of the game, and the old guard has a tight grip on power. On top of that, it takes months of city growth and projects to even be considered impactful in war. Without anywhere to meaningfully participate in P&W's politics, the fun part, they end up copying optimized builds until they get big enough or quit, and most just quit. I'm not asking for a silver bullet, just a step in the right direction, but I doubt a "stagnation" mechanic would do that.
  5. I forgot about the "bigger number better" part of war that has been an issue for years. I agree with the rest, too. The fundamental game mechanics hasn't change all of the time I have been playing P&W, just more tweaks bolted onto it.
  6. Wow, people would literally do anything but make the actual war mechanics engaging and fun. As is, you just play a slightly complicated version of rock paper scissors (and superior numbers) against a stranger because of some events outside of your control. In short, wars are boring. Winning them is boring, losing them is boring, and the only exciting part of war is the first 15-minutes after day change. The foundation that half of this game is built on top of is broken and rotting from the inside, and the design team can't provide anything but bandaid solutions and half-measures. If you want more wars, make them worth waging in the first place, not contrive it with a soft timer.
  7. From what I'm gathering, the debate isn't happening because Epi wanted exclusive streaming rights to said debate on a PRIVATE server. There's no point in having a debate in the first place if one side has full control on how people view it. Also, I do not care about what Epi has to say about this. No reasonable person would want a debate with the terms outlined by him, and I'm against any debate like that on principle. Either everyone can view it from any source or no one can, no in between.
  8. At risk of acting like a jerk, this sounds like a weaker form of spying. In warfare, spies are primarily used to destroy military units without having to be at war with other nations. Merely disabling improvements is not an appealing option when you can just kill large chunks of someone's military or, if you're at war with them, just lob a nuke or missile to destroy their improvements.
  9. It's already humiliating to them to not even muster 60 votes last round. They're sore losers who are mad at Rose being voted out of the first round, and their boasts about their net damage in the early stages of war shows that they have no endgame other than throwing a tantrum. And to any Cam members who downvoted this reply, you just proved my point. Edit: grammar
  10. Military is the thing you need for net, but whatever makes you sleep at night
  11. That's a lot of words for someone that's losing a blitz your alliance started
  12. This event single-handedly brought me back to the forums. What a clever event to host
  13. Damn, it really is like an election Edit: grammar error
  14. GDP per capita does affect gameplay, at least in any meaningful way. Commerce and rss production matters more than GDP per capita or even GDP
  15. Yeah, the mobile version of the web page isn't as optimized for smaller screens as it should be. I say that as someone who spent most of PnW on my phone
  16. Join Rose. It has one of the best growth programs in the game and, it more importantly has a vibrant community.
  17. This is arguably worse than wardodging. They panicked and broke trust with their alliance in order to hug pixels, which ironically result in them more losing pixels than they saved. Kinda a hot take: if you leave an alliance to preserve rss or infra without withdrawing your rss from the alliance bank, the alliance does not owe you the rss you forgot to withdraw.
  18. If the purpose of this project is to promote cooperation between alliances, then it isn't a good way to do that. From what I understand it, you have to find nations with a government type and social and economic policies that are most compatible with yours to make the most money using this project. If that's the case, then the most profitable types and policies will be found quickly and become the meta for the rest of the project;s existence, and alliances will mandate certain government types and social/economic policies to be chosen by their members, thereby ensuring the benefits of the projects stays within the alliance. Considering that there are plenty of projects that either boost a nation's income, this projects seems unnecessary at the moment. I'm not sure how this adds anything to the game. Is this supposed to be a source of income without adding money to the economy of Orbis?
  19. This seems like just more bloat for the game. Commerce serves a similar purpose to what you propose, and there are other projects that boost rss production. I'd rather have the devs improve existing mechanics than add fluff. Also, IQ isn't a good measure of one's intelligence, and I think "education level" is a much better term to because fits more with your suggestion than "IQ."
  20. Why did this topic about someone's attempt to peddle their NFTs get necroposted twice? NFTs are becoming less relevant as they plummet in value, assuming they are still plummeting (they might already be worthless)
  21. What can you buy with $200?

    1. Thalmor

      Thalmor

      40 soldiers. Which is still not enough to do a ground battle.

  22. Yes, but you get less money back than the amount spent on the same units of infra
  23. I guess you can say that the Johnsons’ side is soft implementing the new beige mechanics that’s being discussed
  24. I've never really thought about this. For being such a useful feature, I'm surprised there isn't a dedicated button for the Bulk Import page. It's poor design to have it buried i every city's "import" page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.