Jump to content

Bartholomew Roberts

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bartholomew Roberts last won the day on May 12

Bartholomew Roberts had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

182 Excellent

1 Follower

About Bartholomew Roberts

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Alliance Pip
  • Leader Name
    Bartholomew Roberts
  • Nation Name
    Isla de Muerta
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Dread Pirate Roberts

Recent Profile Visitors

289 profile views
  1. Bartholomew Roberts

    Changing Beige

    Beige as a mechanic is intended to shelter "losers" from further curbstomping. With my suggestion the less you lose, the less beige turns you get. Edit: your alliance's strategy would have to then factor in the new beige design. More beige would benefit you though, right? My thought is to improve the intention of the mechanic, not necessarily reinforce the meta.
  2. Bartholomew Roberts

    imgur links breaking from mobile

    Every image I've used is HTTPS but only the imgur ones were breaking. I swapped to a different image hosting wobsite and we'll see if that helps.
  3. Bartholomew Roberts

    Declaration from the People's Jest Resistance Force

    To be fair, they (Syndicate) have lasted and prospered a surprisingly long time given that large swathes of their membership have split off to form other semi-major alliances.
  4. Bartholomew Roberts

    Changing Beige

    Hi. Beige is meant as a savior mechanic for losers in a war. Regardless of if the community actually beiges people or not, the mechanic is slightly flawed. So instead of beige being a static number of turns based on a simple loss, I have a few changes that will determine how long you stay in beige. Basically the idea is that when you lose a war you get a percentage of the current beige time depending on your current military. It would use your maximum possible military based on your city count. Say you somehow go into beige with maximum military, you get 1 turn of beige. You go in with 0% military, you get your full 24 turns (I think it's 24 turns?) I also propose that damage (not loot) scale on the same principle. If you beige an opponent with max military you do 1% infra damage, if you beige an opponent with 0 military you do 10% infra damage (current max). The only reason I exempt beige loot/alliance bank loot from this is raiding is often meant to go in and cause as little actual damage as possible so it wouldn't be very fair to nerf loot to those people. tl;dr - make beige turns/damage a sliding scale based on how bad you got beat rather than a static number.
  5. Bartholomew Roberts

    Changes to score calculations -- Need input.

    If your goal is to help widen the war ranges in the lower tiers where you claim these changes will have the most effect, then simply increase the value of cities in the score formula. This change is overly complicating things and, as others mentioned, would cause a new problem in the upper tier. Increase score for cities flatly and everyone's ranges will widen out.
  6. Bartholomew Roberts

    imgur links breaking from mobile

    So I made my nation all cool and VIP'ish but my imgur links keep breaking every few days. Imgur allegedly keeps links active for six months so I'm wondering if the PnW mobile app is breaking them? My other pictures from other websites haven't broken once.
  7. Bartholomew Roberts

    What's the next move after the war?

    Honestly I think it's more of a meme / community circle jerk than reality to think that the game is stuck in a loop. Now, moreso than any other time I've noticed in the last few years, there's so many new alliances and faces. There's no one in the top 50 that should be considered irrelevant. There's also never going to be an onus on anyone to swap sides if they're met with downvotes and trolling when they come out in public. To give you an idea: Alliances #46-50 add up to NPO's score and roughly their member count. There's no reason why coalition building shouldn't be a thing but "minispheres" (4 or 5 larger alliances and nothing else) aren't going to cut it in this current political environment of dozens and dozens of smaller groups that need to be coalesced into a broader force to be effective.
  8. Bartholomew Roberts

    Let the trolling commence.....

    I'll engage in this because I've been bored not participating in OWF drama and this is vague enough to not be "picking a side." This whole argument is made under the assumption that an alliance takes the contract that is a treaty seriously and not as a superfluous document that can be scrapped at convenience. I personally feel that the exact reasoning you're expressing disdain for TFP's actions are the reason why Optional treaties should honestly be the norm. TFP doesn't have a contractual obligation to hide behind, they have to own their actions and to their credit they're doing just that. It also opens the door for other people to hold them accountable for their actions. Every Optional pact that gets activated is a debatable, and more importantly engageable, action. In other words, every time someone utilizes an Optional pact it creates an event from which metagame politics can be derived. Which I believe is healthy for the community and the game. It can also be said that the concept of Mutual (ie. binding) treaties is an inherently sovereignty-infringing pact. Someone else screws up and gets hit? If it's an Optional pact, you now have contractual reason to sit this one out and any argument is now centered around your actions. If your mutual ally got hit and you don't want to be involved? It's now an argument centered around contractual obligation rather than any actual action or reasoning. You lose face if you dishonour a Mutual pact, and the contractual obligation chains you into a much greater world than any one nation ever signed up to defend. Allies of allies of allies can hypothetically pull you into a global war where you get rocked and never recover. Not to mention political ramifications when your mutual partners are doing things you or your other friends disagree with. I know the norm around here is to say Optional pacts don't matter and shouldn't even bother being signed, but honestly I feel the exact opposite. I think mutual pacts are bad for the game because they remove sovereignty and accountability for the individual alliances and I think they create more problems than people think they solve (typically being able to defend yourself).
  9. Bartholomew Roberts

    P&W Balls: Arrgh edition

  10. Bartholomew Roberts


    It's so hard not to join in the arguments but at the same time it's so fun to just watch.
  11. Bartholomew Roberts

    Dial Up War: Propaganda

    I almost asked about several names on the list before I remembered we're in the meme thread.
  12. Bartholomew Roberts

    War Stats: Global War 14

    Unrelated war stat but was NPO the first to break 400k score in PnW?
  13. Bartholomew Roberts

    Ketog vs Chaos War: Name Poll Round 1

    I think it will be colloquially called "Surf's Up" regardless of the poll so I voted for that. Not sure what that actually refers to, but oh well. "That's Bait" is my personal favorite though.
  14. Bartholomew Roberts

    $yndicate Businessweek Update: Cessation of External Venture

    Congrats to all parties on a good fight and a good peace.

Important Information

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