Corvidae

Hey congrats on one year! Carthago delecta Est!

PnW is a great game that I’ve spent countless hours grinding, raiding, farming, politiking, and most importantly forming a core group of friends that has transcended this game. jk. Alex please don’t nerf raiding.

because the last war was just yet another example in a long string of wars that the mechanics are fundamentally flawed. It just happens to be the most recent and probably best example. There will be no update or mechanical change that can change wartime morale. You either care about your pixels or you don't, a healthy interest in a game that you play isn't a bad thing. We saw NPO+company repeatedly over the years reach a damage "threshold" that they didn't care if they kept 'losing'. Conversely last war they won but weren't satisfied with their threshold of winning so they sat on everyone instead. A toxic group like that could potentially rise again and abuse the mechanics, again. There's probably bad gov people out there right now discussing how NPO's attrition strategy was "cruel but effective." Changing the score formula to only hurt raiders won't help that. Changing rebuy rates to help the entire game as a whole will help that. You guys need to climb out of the echo chamber and do some of your own math sometimes. Lowering casualties and raising rebuy rates gives war a tactical meaning to it other than a quick blitz-and-sit for 5 days. There's more to this game than your once a year wars where it's only about the spreadsheet damage stats, the quicker you grasp this the quicker PnW will stop seeing 2/3rds attrition rate from global wars.

itt: the losers from the previous expressing how they don't want it be easier to fight back in a losing war, after being sat on for the better part of an irl year. But yes, we don't know "what the frick" we're talking about. Instead of a positive update for the whole game, Alex is now uploading a full nerf to raiding again onto the test server.

Could we get a numeric value for what "nerfing planes against tanks" means please?

Getting players from Swamp who barely understand the log in mechanics, let alone the war mechanics, to come brigade the vote doesn't mean the update isn't warranted. When the "majority" don't even go to war except once per five years, I don't think they should get a vote.

Two or three coordinated attackers can typically zero out an opponents planes in a blitz. So no, I don't see wars being a back and forth from this update. It will just help close the gap between skill/knowledge/effort and timing.

You do realize that more cities *should* give you an advantage in a war... right? Downdeclaring isn't some inherently game-breaking thing, and a score boost to cities would restrict down-declaring moreso than it already is. A faster rebuy is good for everyone because it helps nations get back in the game quicker.

I'm sorry, didn't we just have a year-long global war where your side won because the "whales" couldn't beat out the zerg-swarm of Roqbots with 18-20 cities? Where the whole game who wasn't on your side joined together and still got held down because of the broken war mechanics... Your premise is, sorry to be rude, stupid. I don't appreciate you trying to further worsen the game by attempting to block the first genuinely good update in two years. I hope Alex can see the results of the poll and finally recognize it's time for change to come to Orbis that benefits all nations, not just updates that nerf raiders or buff sub-10 city "players" in GPWC.

... who asked for this change? edit: no thanks to 1/4th.

It shouldn't be as powerful as attacking aircraft with aircraft imo. Just something that can help edge out planes. For example - two nations at war. One has the advantage in the air, the other on the ground. If the Air-advantaged nation isn't paying attention you can double-buy planes and do four ground attacks and suddenly you've evened the playing field.

100k per city seems relatively fair. It'll help the lower tiers more which is fine.

I honestly never thought I'd see the day when the war system would begin to be balanced. I love it Alex.

Great idea. Yes, this^ Soldiers are an effective meta for raiding but to be fair to the game, I don't think they should counter planes.

Honestly all of your advice is just to mitigate the risk of investment in shady banks with little or no transparency. Just don't invest in people you don't trust, you don't need to avoid banks.

Please take a moment to consider some of the suggestions in the first thread too edit: Upon further consideration, I actually voted no for this change. I think a major military update is needed, while this is a part of that needed update I think releasing things piecemeal will do more harm to the meta than good. I hope you can understand that I am voting as a player, not simply a raider. I believe the score formula needs to be changed, including raising the score value of cities, but I don't feel like changing the score formula without the requisite other changes will have a net negative impact on the vast majority of game experiences.

This increase in score based on cities would actually appear to worsen the problem that we saw last war - where the higher city count whales were being sat on by numerically superior lower tier nations with literally no chance of escape. Casualties, cost of units, and daily purchase limits need to be revisited before score ranges imo. I'd *like* to see cities count for more (like 75-100 score per city), but without additional changes put in place it would pointlessly worsen problems we already see. I feel like the complaints are really just people being raided who can't find counters quick enough to help them since it's been proven multiple times that multiple nations can beat a higher tier opponent just with coordination.

Maybe a completely self-serving suggestion but what if we made ground attacks steal between 1-100 rss from a nation as well as the cash per attack? So for reference if you completely beiged someone using ground-only and got perfect RNG, you could steal 1000 of each resource per war. Alternatively if you got the worst RNG you'd steal 10 of each.

Just to play devils advocate: - The only concrete goal in the game is buying cities. The less time spent "chasing" that goal, the less time people may maintain interest in the game. - Every time the limit is raised, it skews in favor of large/old alliances with plenty of funds to dump into new nations. This encourages people to join the rich establishment and contributes to political stagnation. Overall though I just blanket-oppose adding any more "catch up" updates until there's actual content in the mid-to-late game. We're otherwise just rushing new players into their own bored stagnation and eventual loss of interest.

Welcome back! You picked a good time

The only reason it lasted that long was because NPO had a resource/cash farm keeping them afloat. So you likely won't see one again.

Didn't coalition A surrender tho ?

I'm not upvoting the 32nd fake-retirement of Partisan. Sorry you have to do more work until Partisan feels like it again, eumir

10 days later: an average of 12 forum accounts voted for no changes an average of 4.5 forum accounts voted for less or no MAP's when wars start an average of 9 accounts voted for no superiority or blockading when a war starts an average of 31 support reducing casualties and increasing buy rates in some way. That's a pretty clear result. I'm sure Alex will be implementing no MAP's very shortly.

Agreeing with Akuryo here. The answer isn't to nerf raiding or wars, it's to nerf casualties and blitzes. We had that big poll that got 100+ responses by Prefontaine, I would make the next war update based on that poll and then see how that affects things.