Corvidae

Credits only give $150m per month for donating irl money to keep the servers online / voluntarily pay alex for his work. According to some in this thread, $150m is a drop in the bucket because it can't pay for city 40 by itself. Why are we talking about credits in the baseball thread again?

Is the infra cap really part of the terms or were you joking, I'm out of the loop

Is that an actual scene from the anime or a voiceover? "I swear my master, we're going to frick up all the !@#$es." Yikes that is some cringey writing.

This thread is a big oof from multiple angles.

I personally love how active GOONS has been in the community since their inception. Enjoyed the read!

Congratulations on defending your allies instead of giving into hegemony.

Your username kind of gives it away.

Very long standing treaty. Interesting move. Good luck to both parties moving forward.

Congratulations on peace guys.

I know it's weird for people to still care about the old school "rules" of nationsims, but I believe it's better for the game for wars to be declared publicly. You're old (in nationsims) enough to know what I mean. It's not crying, it's tradition.

Love u bb

I wonder how many times this will happen before it gets fixed.

Can I goad you into posting your DoW on Arrgh?

BoC has really not done well lately. Attacking someone over pinging? Yikes...

Congrats on peace. Hopefully this perma-war comes to an end soon.

It's hard for some people to accept their curtain call.

Exactly my concern. It would appear the "duplication" glitch may be a systematic problem that every action in the game is vulnerable to and fixing each instance of the glitch is putting band-aids on a dam breaking...

RIP the first fallen alliances brought down by Noctis.

Awesome work Alex. Excellent way to handle both the situation and the fallout/transparency. I do have to ask though... To me it's seeming like there may be a potential for every function of the game to be "duplicated" in some similar manner. First it was trades with Nova (I think), now it's bank transactions, I believe there are still a handful of reports about duplicate attacks and MAP's not being used... Again I don't truly understand how they all interconnect so this is just from my own layman's understanding of the situation. How vulnerable is the game to continued duplication abuse? Both of resources (cash/rss) and actions (attacks/baseball/trades)?

A lot of suggestions going on about offshores right now don't seem to grasp that these are a symptom of a problem for the community. Loot is too vulnerable and losing a war is too easy. But why? What things contribute to this problem? The real-time and persistent nature of the game itself. We can't stay logged in 24/7. It's been said before, if you can get the jump on someone you've effectively won that round of war unless they can get backup within the day. The war system makes it incredibly hard or impossible to make a comeback after a blitz (in a nation vs. nation scenario, not a multi-months long alliance conflict.) The ability to mitigate this fact will lend itself naturally to reducing or even eliminating the controversial practice of offshore banks. If you can defend yourself and your loot, you don't need to hide it. - Resistance: Needs to be able to be recovered. Perhaps regenerate resistance over time per turn or reducing the amount of resistance each successful attacks takes away. This gives time for the blitz victim to actually notice what's happening and react before the war is already decided. - MAP's: The cap on MAP's should be raised or perhaps generate more MAP's per turn. This allows someone to come back and be able to "catch up" in the war. - Unit Casualties: Could be reduced. Heavily. Wars aren't a fun PVP experience if your airforce is zeroed before you wake up and log in and you have to wait 7 days to fight again or spitefully fling a nuke. - Nuclear weapons: Could be given strategic use. Perhaps to help eliminate enemy units or reduce their effectiveness before an assault to turn the tide. - Buying limits: Could be raised or eliminated. Allowing for more of a comeback. Suggestions such as these or similar to these could also eliminate the need for beige entirely. Removing yet another archaic mechanic that organized fighters tend not to use. Realism note: The last time we saw modern nations go to war on a full-scale, we witnessed a multi-year long war of attrition where millions of people were flung headlong into each other. PnW's blitz-style wars where the victory is decided within the first day is not realistic at all. Modern nationstates have the ability to recoup and fight back. The only thing "close" to recouping and fighting back happens through the beige mechanic and organized alliances avoid actually finishing wars for that reason.

The looting formulas and one-man AA's are not the problem. The problem is the way war works in the game. It's too easy to lose, even if you're winning. Resistance, multi-day buy times for military, MAP's generating in real time and capping at 12... etc

>ranting about Rose >"Rose wronged me" >Hits pirates

Idea: Alliances have two slots where they can choose a "Subsidization", similar to picking a war or domestic policy (each "Sub" can only be active in one slot at a time, no doubling up.). Explanation: A Subsidization would boost the output of a specific set of resources or provide a similar benefit. Not a game-breaking boost, but a significant bump. Each Subsidization would cost in-game currency to unlock and similar to cities would be increasingly more expensive. You pick whichever one you want unlocked though, there is no particular order to unlock them in. Examples: They could all have cooler names but I'll try my best. - Bi-Lateral Military Agreements: Upkeep for military is reduced by 7.5% for all alliance members. - Subsidize GMO's: Farm output is increased by 7.5% for all alliance members. - Iron Curtain: Spy operations against alliance members have 7.5% less chance to succeed. - Standardized Currency: Each alliance member receives an extra 7.5% commerce boost per city. - Mining Conglomerate: Coal, lead, and uranium mines receive a 7.5% boost to their output. - Drill, baby, drill: Oil wells and Gasoline manufactories receive a 7.5% boost to their output. - Plowshares into Swords: iron mines and Steel manufactories receive a 7.5% boost to their output. - Space Race: Bauxite mines and Aluminum manufactories receive a 7.5% boost to their output. Recap: The examples are just a rough idea of implementation. Maybe they only give 5% buffs, maybe 10%. The idea is to allow alliances to develop alliance-wide strategies to growth and economics.

Just keep in mind that infinite resource accumulation is a problem with this game. Net amounts are still climbing in the largest (soon to be longest) war the game has ever seen. Removing bank looting isn't a solution in itself. Banks are a great idea and being able to loot them is as well. The reason people want to remove bank looting is for their own political advantage. In an MMO game (which is what PnW is), there shouldn't be a way that resources are mechanically impossible to take. Mechanically possible to secure? Yes. Banks offer that, offshores offer more of that. Just off the top of my head, you could add mechanics that give benefits to the entire alliance. Like a "Fort Knox" project that the entire alliance can contribute towards and it halves the loot lost from the alliance bank during a beige. Similarly, while no resource should become untouchable, no resource should be so painfully easy to steal that it makes your time/effort feel trivial if someone can just come in and take it away. This is the same problem with the war system btw. It takes a week to build, and a blitz to basically destroy you. No one wants to see their resources evaporate because they went to sleep. This isn't Rust. We don't want to be playing Rust. We want to have a long-term political simulator. So putting caps on banks is also a very bad idea because it will inherently force players to simply adapt to ways around the rule. More offshores, moving banks around, 0-score bank holding nations, etc. Capping resources isn't going to force people to accumulate less wealth or go to war more often, it's just going to cause frustration and adaptation. Instead, look at things that can take resources out of the game economy. Things like larger military caps (which would also solve the issue of score range being too tight and allowing city 30 nations to hit city 20 nations), quicker rebuilding of military (resulting in more casualties on both sides), nukes destroying military as well as infra, upkeep for infrastructure, a variable tariff on market transactions that simply takes extra money (but doesn't give it to the selling nation, just deletes it) depending on the volume of trades posted at once. Make looting destroy a % of resources as well as looting some. etc. I'd really rather he publicly discuss things with all of us. There's a lot of factors that go into major updates and they can affect different people in different ways. I'd rather everyone have at least the opportunity to voice a thought.