Sam Cooper

Funniest Event : Cam hitting Rose/Arrgh Biggest Controversy: alex raising credit value Best Declaration of War (please link) - anything from goober Best Wall of Text (please link) - I didn't read any of them Best Leak (please link) - don't remember Best Meme (please link) - the cat for rose war Best Discord Server - RON (was better under Krampus) Best Ad (please link) - Best Community Contributor - goober Best New Player 2024 - El Domo Sexiest Voice - zig

Alliance of the Year: Eclipse Most Improved Alliance: TSC Best New Merged Alliance: mergers are sign of a dying game Best Rookie Alliance: I tried going through the alliance rankings but the website didn't load Best Alliance for New Players: the page still didn't load, it's been a couple minutes Most Likely to Succeed in 2025: still no Most Likely to be Rolled in 2025: Eclipse Most Honorable Alliance: no such thing Best Fighting Alliance: war system is trash Worst Fighting Alliance: war system is trash Best Alliance Growth: TSC Best Foreign Affairs Team: Arrgh Best Foreign Affairs Move: not doing FA Worst Foreign Affairs Move: doing FA Alliance with Best Propaganda: goober (eclipse) Most Missed Alliance: Mensa Best Alliance Flag (please link): this game is trash Best Holiday Flag (please link): this game is trash Biggest Alliance Decline in 2024: Pokimans Best Alliance Theme: grumpy

Player of the Year: this game is trash Most Influential Player: vein Most Likely to Succeed in 2025: this game is trash Best Alliance Leader: vein Worst Alliance Leader: too many Best In-Character Poster: CAPSLOCKIUS Best Villain: alex Nicest Player: many Most Controversial Player: this game is trash Most Missed Player: ripper Best Nation Page: this game is trash Best Fighter: the whole war system is trash Best High Government Member: hatebi (high gov in 2024) Most Online/Likely to respond in 1 minute: this game is trash Best War Criminal: hatebi

Leave the Rose matter for me and Rose to resolve. You are cherry picking the one line I said there after almost giving up with that guy, I also said I take those attacks from Rose as an act of war considering the circumstances around those wars and the lack of regard for norms on Rose's part after that, it's barely the same thing. You probably don't know everything so no point in talking about that with you. But if you think one hit from Hatebi should also be taken in same way then by all means you're free to take it as such, I can only disagree. I would have let one or two ops slide because it was you, as I had left you last time when you were killing our spies because hatebi nuked you and countered hayden instead for doing it unprovoked, and even those counters were peaced because ockey said you would leave our spies alone. In any case, can't have every guy that's being nuked by Hatebi kill my spies for a week, so here we are.

So you were supposed to counter Hatebi instead of spending your week killing Arrgh's spies every day, calling a whole series of ops on multiple people across multiple days "a measly spy op" sounds more like twisting facts, esp when this was not the first time it was happening. An act of revenge is not a counter and is a perfectly valid reason to get countered.

Yeah you seem to be going ooc with that much desperation, this will be the last response, in appreciation of your clown show, any peace talks will only take place after none of your cities are above 4k infra or you leave Rose.

Because Rose lied about countering for Oblivion, Oblivion said they didn't ask for a counter. I can then only assume it was for Eclipse, they needed my ground killed so they could save on planes and turn my wars around with ground instead. Rose declared, did 6 grounds, their objective was done at that point, so any immediately peace offered wouldn't matter. I'll also immediately offer you peace when I am done. and cut down on random bs you're saying man, the radiation has either fried your brain or you're some sort of experimental psychological warfare weapon of Rose that attacks enemy braincells. It's annoying.

Except Rose is not individualist. Let me explain again because you have to be trying real hard to not get it, I don't think anyone can be this dense. This is between Rose and Arrgh, Rose chose to illegally defend an Oblivion nation from Arrgh so I take that as an act of war on Arrgh and we are fighting back, now you may not know this but any war needs to be declared on a nation, you can't declare on alliance so I chose you, for 2 reasons. 1. You're FA for Rose, so you are bound to be held responsible for their FA actions. 2. If I hit only the folks that countered me, Rose will still send anyone from their alliance to defend them, so if I am going to be fighting anyone in Rose, I will declare on anyone I want to begin with. @wasteking @Lucianus revoke his forum privileges before he embarasses you further.

Untrue, Rose is the aggressor, any war declared on Rose will need to be on a nation, that's just how it works, Arrgh is fighting in its defence. If you disagree with your alliance's actions you should take it up with them or consider leaving to a better alliance. As for "loser", I think being loser would look more like hiding behind 200 nations for protection and whining on forums when you get hit anyway, or complaining about only the part of war mechanics that don't favour you. but whatever I would prefer not to use forums for petty arguments. so DM me or use Arrgh server for further complains, this thread is for a different purpose.

You chose the worst possible person to throw that argument at, I am possibly the only C50 who hasn't used any alliance help to get there, maybe apart from the UP Immortals gave me at c11, which I offered to pay back but they refused out of respect for my milcom services there not sure what to make of the rest of the post, you seem to have a shallow understanding of sociology but you're using it too generously. This arrogance is exactly why I love doing this, you think you should be invincible because you are in Rose but I disagree. So by all means keep whining while you get burned to the ground. Or take the whining to your gov because they're more responsible for this than us. but congrats on missing the whole point of the post ig.

I think manus can be left untouched for now, only food needs fixing and reducing the bonus production somewhat does that, we can tweak that further with more changes sure but manus are directly connected to wars, instead of reducing their production which may have bigger unexpected effects on wars, we should rather have changes that encourage wars and increase consumption of manus that way and we can take some time with that since only food needs any urgent change.

unironically yes, if you think it's a zero cost endeavor you can also have zero rebuild cost by never rebuilding, effectively taking zero damage. If that doesn't explain what I'm trying to convey then I guess I am lost as to what even your point is. Attacker bears virtually zero cost by having virtually no income, if that's acceptable to you then I can also argue the defender can simply not rebuild to have same virtually zero cost of eating a nuke. Logic checks out.

one per day - takes 12 MAPs. 2 will take 2 people In any case, that in itself is no argument, debate is not about whether someone should be losing a day's income or not because people do, very often and much more than a day's income. It was about the cost to inflict that damage which I have already said (proved?) is quite high already if the attacker wants to be in a position to take practically no losses. Attacker not losing anything is because he didn't have anything to begin with, it's an illusion, you can also zero your losses by not having infra, at which point I may argue to buff the nukes since they're not doing any damage anymore and that argument would still make more sense than whatever is being discussed here. Even if I were to consider your "it's too op to be able to kill one day's income" it simply does not happen often enough to be worth any concern, the top 100 most nuked nations, the most extreme example you could possibly take, ate a nuke every 21.73 days on an average. Most of which are eaten during GWs so the actual impact is even lower, and again this is for the 100 most nuked nations, for the average guy it's non existent. If you're interested in numbers: most frequently nuked guy is ironically a pirate. maybe later I'll delve further into numbers.

so is the damage incurred by the nukes, what's your point? your ability to nuke gets better with city count, but so does the target's ability of soaking the damage. In lower city counts, the attacker takes more risk going the nuke path and he gets more reward as the targets he can hit have low income and suffer more. In higher city counts the risk is less for the attacker but the reward also goes down since his nuke will barely do a day's worth of income in damage at best. I'll make it even easier to understand, look at these 2 things here: 1. the cost of a nuke stays the same while income of attacker increases (kind of, because generally he'd have no infra) with his city count, this is your point of complain, this helps the attacker. 2. the damage dealt by a nuke also stays the same while income goes for the target with his city count, you are ignoring this, this helps the target. if you're still not convinced I can give you some numbers.

ok let's call it that but the question remains, what's stopping you from enjoying the infinite upsides of nukes? by all means Singularity could've utilised this unstoppable meta and conquered orbis by now. take this idea to your econ nerds and maybe they'll teach you about the trade offs and whether it's worth it, because I'm failing to do so.

and that's why you are trying to gatekeep a war mechanic for a few wealthy alliances? It does not mean that there is no downside just because you do not understand it. Take the simple rule that "you lose nothing if you have nothing"; in order to be in a position where you can inflict damage without taking any, you need to already be zeroed, so your problem is that YOU are not getting to destroy anything in return while you get nuked, this does not mean they are in a better position than you. If it was actually an infinitely better position, anyone with a crude sense of logic would expect you to also follow the same path but you don't do that, you always buy the lost infra back and keep farming despite eating nukes once in a while because you know having infra and getting nuked (the losing position) is far far more profitable than the "infinitely better position" of having no infra and nuking and you are here trying to preach me about the unending upsides of nukes. You also claim to be an advocate of equality so I'll ask you, who's having the worse time? the smaller alliances that do not have any way to fight back against a larger group whatsoever or you suffering with the mild annoyance of eating 4 nukes a month? what should be addressed first?

so true my friend, those pesky lone actors need to be murdered so alliances don't lose the 0.0001% of their income and the precious minutes spent on milcom can be better spent further minmaxing their econ. Needless to say it should be illegal to exist outside of the top 20 where you are not backed by a $400b bank.

not always, same as they shouldn't always win. The point is that numbers shouldn't have as much effect as they do now. You can see how grumpy had a winning streak while they had the most whales but someone came and built an even bigger whale farm and now suddenly grumpy isn't so invincible anymore. But what we need to look at is that the only way they could beat a mid sized group of whales is by building an even bigger group of whales and that's just poor game design because it puts certain mega alliances in a seemingly invincible position where they can only be threatened if you somehow manage to be bigger than them.

Yes actually, and if you're confused as to why I think they're related, I believe that players resort to nuking because there is no other viable way to fight a larger group of enemies, you are always going to lose against numbers. In an ideal game where players will be able to fight conventionally without being overwhelmed by sheer numbers there wouldn't as much need to go on a nuke spree and we'd only have players like Hatebi who'd nuke regardless doing it. Most players nuke because they have to not because this is an op strategy with no counters or repercussions, this is why CoA chose to nuke Hollywood for their MDP with Ro$e or UU had to nuke KT for their raids, if they had any chance on conventional they would have done that instead. That is all. Yes alliances have differences but that the top the alliances that dictate the game they're more similar than different.

Turreting is not the subject of the post and is only mentioned because that is what got me to write this post. I am not sure how else to explain, I would be writing the same thing. I made this part bold.

Very expectedly being mass downvoted, surely we can come up with better solutions 😛 This again creates more problems than it solves (and it barely solves any in the first place). I still appreciate the intent and I also appreciate that people disagree with solution proposed not the problem it aims to address. Then how come you are not in Arrgh to enjoy the buffs? Apply today! That is the reality yes, but this reality has given us MDP between 2 largest spheres and 6 month NAPs so can we not try to experiment a little for a reality where it may be possible for individuals to survive in a team based game?

I agree a new player should not be able to get ahead of someone that's invested time, effort and skill in getting where they are, I have never been a fan of catch up mechanics that allowed players to quickly build up because it never helped with the retention problem, it just created a whole set of clueless players who were only useful as cannon fodder and would still eventually leave anyway. This post is not about that, I am talking about the incentive of large groups and a lack of fairness in current war meta, a nation who has invested a great amount of effort and time into the game and built up to c40 stands absolutely no chance against a c40 in a large alliance and this kills any possibility of interaction between these two nations (by politics or war). Both have been equally faithful in their efforts but only one has any chance in the game. This in turn encourages players to form huge alliances and blocs for a chance of survival and leads to a game where anything that happens, happens between blocs or spheres or sometimes alliances.

Context There has been a recent debate (or an attempt at it) in the community about "nuke turrets" and while everyone talked about how they function and if they have any possible counters I am far more concerned about why "nuke turreting" is even a prevalent play style in the game and I tried to explain to Buorhann but his ignorance in response was anything but surprising and as I said to him, this ignorance, willful or otherwise is a fairly common trait among veterans which makes sense since we are all part of a community whose favorite insult is "who are you?" So I'll make another attempt here, with more words. The Problem Stagnation, dead game, falling player count call it what you want. The only problem this game faces is that you simply cannot accomplish anything here out of the template set by the major alliances because the game by its design forces you to comply with what they want or be driven out of the game or if you are stubborn, stick around and nuke because that is quite literally only "war" thing you can do without being part of a larger bloc. And the fact that many (not all) old players have a problem even with that shows the bubble they live in. The only way you can play this game is by being a government in a major alliance, if you are not there you are either following orders or doing something so insignificant you may as well delete and it wouldn't affect the game one bit. The Bubble An ideal game is where everyone gets to participate on equal terms and has a fair chance at success, but not a chance of that in PnW, as the alliances grew in the last few years and consolidated more and more power that can't be easily challenged this game has become more of a spectator sport if anything where it's just the top 20 alliances and their governments actually playing the game and everyone else has to sit and watch them play hoping they some day get to be a part of this group. Another problem directly related to this is that the group that frowns at the idea of having to engage with lower beings (micros) and wants to play in their exclusive bubbles is more or less in-charge of shaping the game development with their feedback, game development that is basically these players giving their grocery list of what they want to alex and him adding that stuff to the game accordingly. We can never expect to see a change that threatens this status quo, coming from here. What even is "playing"? There is an argument that new players should just engage in "politics", and this is so brain dead I was at a loss of words responding to Buorhann. It is like saying "don't be homeless, just buy a house". Your potential at politics is largely dependent on your prowess at war, your words don't mean anything if they can't be backed by actions. I don't see why it comes as a surprise to some but the game is quick and chaotic on smaller scale, there's not much space for politics as there is for war, unlike the FA folks at the top these new players don't make schemes, run perpetual propaganda or engage in that grand scale politics. In any case people should be able to choose what they want to do and this is not the topic of this post, if you disagree ping me in RON debate channel. The Solution Give the power back to the individual. A c30 should have a fair chance at any other ~c30 in the game, a group of 10 should be able to take on a group of ~10 around same tiering even if they happen to be part of the largest alliance or the largest bloc. Curb the extremely unreasonable incentive to be in a 200 man alliance. Are you saying we should kill alliances sam? No, same as today, you will join an alliance for a reasonable degree of protection, and more importantly to coordinate your actions with a larger group. An alliance should be a group of capable individual players not a huge blob that acts like a body of its own consuming the individuality of players. This is how an ideal alliance should be where the incentive is not with creating the biggest blob in the game but with finding good players that can do things on their own and drive game activity. Best I can do is mini spheres No you can't, it was a terrible idea since the beginning, you were going completely opposite to what the game mechanics allow and incentivize, sailing against the stream. The only way spheres and blocs and alliances the size of a bloc (🌹) can be encouraged (not forced, don't panic) to break into smaller more active groups is by removing the incentive of forming a large group. The 'How' Does this sound too radical to you? it's not. It may however require drastic changes to how wars are fought. Like Vicic has suggested dynamic war slots, something that restricts your defensive war range based on your current active defensive wars, if you get hit by a massive downdeclare, the remaining slots can only be taken by less punitive wars or restrict the slots to only 2. Just an example, I am sure there are people smarter than me who can come up with even more sophisticated solutions. @Alex I know you care about the playerbase enough to make coerced deletion illegal, but that is the least of concerns for PnW. This instead is what's holding the game back. A new player is not going to stick around if he can't do anything, it won't help to add a dozen projects, cosmetics or any other content if players simply can't play. This is especially important now as alliances are growing to a point where new players may take forever to reach, they need to be allowed to play freely in their own tier and the game as of now does not. Yes it is a big ask but can we please make fixing this a priority before anything else? because any other change means nothing. Please don't derail the topic.

Village are you going to consider the fact that there are more people in favour of increasing the range than against it? but the way this poll is posted there won't be any change because the votes in favour are scattered between 4 different options while votes against any change are consolidated into one option. And why is "no cap" even an option when it is so impractical that you cannot implement it even if it somehow wins the poll?

reminder that you have to dm for a qualifying bid, Arrgh reserves the right to reveal or hide the identity of target (not bidder) for any given bid. Current highest bid is 450m on Singularity. My discord status will have real time updates.