[Game Development Discussion: Military & War]

1 hour ago, Conald Petersen said:

I came back to this game after a 5 year hiatus and I promise you its not a trend, its a reality. How is keeping everything the same going to change the dead politics. I see people here and on discord saying that pOlItIcS sHoUlD dRiVe WaRs but those same people do everything they can to avoid fighting and do nothing to create any sort of interesting political situations. Why would anything change now if nothing is done to address the problem?

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).

[Game Development Discussion: Military & War]

13 minutes ago, Conald Petersen said:

Aren't the politics already "they have been growing faster than me for too long so I need to declare war to catch up." Sure some people may slap a copy and paste CB on top of it but no one is being fooled. There are pretty much no beef's anymore or any drama between majors. The only real politics that have caused a war is your little situation with Cam and Sam, but apparently that threatens the health of the game as well? This take is brutes cuzzo

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.

[Game Development Discussion: Military & War]

4 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

I don't agree with your first assumption tbh. 

I've been told I cannot rework the game in the way you wish it to be. Alex ultimately does not want complete rework.

Catch up mechanics are a different debate and not the basis to refuse any different changes.

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.

[Game Development Discussion: Military & War]

38 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

I think it's a good idea because the game relies on war. It's what creates politics and community engagement half the time. Wars have increasingly become less and less frequent as time has gone on, and the game has become less active as a result.

You don't need to attack me personally for having a different point of view, I am yet to do so to you. I will refrain from responding to you from here on out and I suggest you accept that you have had your say on this proposal and move on.

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.

[Game Development Discussion: Military & War]

3 minutes ago, Ozwyn said:

This honestly, i dont care for them focusing on war so much in general but if theyre going to they could at least make it engaging. Rock paper scissors would honestly be more interesting than the current system, this shit is mostly just bigger number wins and i think thats reflected in the fact the majority of all these updates theyre doing is just ways of getting out more units rather than something new and interesting

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.

[Game Development Discussion: Military & War]

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.

[Rose vs Camelot Debate: Epi & Gorge Showdown]

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.

[[Nuke Event] Total Drama Orbis - Round 2]

Team Gardening Grandmas

[Introducing Cyber Warfare Mechanics]

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.

[[Uno Reverse] A Dance Of The Dragons]

17 hours ago, Avatar Patrick said:

It could be that or maybe they just thought it'd be to humiliating to lose the vote.

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

[[Reverse Nuke Auction/RoH] The Voting Game - Election Interference]

4 hours ago, AustinH said:

Militarily? Yeah. In net we will win

Military is the thing you need for net, but whatever makes you sleep at night

[[Reverse Nuke Auction/RoH] The Voting Game - Election Interference]

6 hours ago, Siegfred the Free said:

Seven people additionally seething publicly, downvote me harder peasants. Absolutely serfpilled. 

That's a lot of words for someone that's losing a blitz your alliance started

[[Reverse Nuke Auction/RoH] The Voting Game - Election Interference]

This event single-handedly brought me back to the forums. What a clever event to host

[[Reverse Nuke Auction] The Voting Game - Round 2]

4 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

Fairly difficult when Camelot is blitzing you, I imagine.

Damn, it really is like an election

Edit: grammar error

[How do i get a higher GDP per capita?]

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

[Buying National Projects in Mobile]

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

[Alliance that has high tax]

Join Rose. It has one of the best growth programs in the game and, it more importantly has a vibrant community.

[The bank]

11 hours ago, Kalachthefirst said:

wardogers shouldn't get a single penny imo

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.

[Tourism Project and Crypto]

Quote

Tourism Project:

Proposal: Introduce a Tourism project in Politics and War where nations can engage in tourism activities with others, both within and outside their alliance.
Mechanism: Small nations can link with 3-5 nations, while larger nations can link with 1-3 nations. The key aspect is that the boost in revenue per turn depends on the linking nations' government types and policies.
Incentive: The variation in boost percentages encourages nations to actively seek better deals, promoting diplomatic interactions beyond mere alliance considerations.
Purchase System: Make the Tourism project available for purchase using credits, restricting boost benefits to users who have purchased the project. If both linking nations have the project, they both receive the boost.

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.

Quote

Crypto:

Concept: Introduce a new dynamic by incorporating 10 cryptocurrencies into Politics and War, each with fluctuating values similar to in-game resources.
Purpose: The cryptocurrencies would not have a direct utility but would serve as an additional element for players to engage in speculative trading, adding an economic dimension to the game.
Entertainment Factor: The introduction of these virtual cryptocurrencies aims to keep players entertained and engaged, offering a new realm for strategic decision-making and financial maneuvering within the Orbis world.

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?

[Schools as an Improvement]

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."

[Benefit from your art/memes! NFT in Orbis are now a thing!]

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)

[How can i sell a infrastructure]

13 hours ago, Elementia said:

Do you get money back when you sell infrastructure?

Yes, but you get less money back than the amount spent on the same units of infra

[Johnsons vs. HM Tiering Report]

I guess you can say that the Johnsons’ side is soft implementing the new beige mechanics that’s being discussed

[Make "Bulk Import" city builds more easily accessible [QoL]]

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.

[A more dynamic war system]

I'd much rather have the beige mechanics be reworked than add more nation-v-nation war outcomes, though this suggesting isn't bad.