Corvidae

Now now, let's give the benefit of the doubt here. Mr. Lee, a confederate general, one of the most recognized names associated with the rebellious Southern States in their fight to retain the right to own people... wait. Well he probably just liked Robert E Lee, he was on the record as being "kind of" against slavery "in a very general sense, but not so far as to warrant political action to free them." So maybe he's just a fan of military history! Let's check the nation name... Oh. "Confederate Arkansas"... Well maybe he is a fan of the Confederacy but it's not like the Confederacy had explicit legal protections of slavery in its constitution!... Oh wait... Well his flag is just... uh... He's a fan of history, you see... and his alliance name is, uh, it's entirely a reference to something in Russia in the 1900's... Yeah... I forgot the point I was making.

I think your argument is sound in theory but once actual numbers are applied it becomes glaringly obvious that the data doesn't support your suggestion. I would be interested to see the numbers, not the theories, to actually see how it would impact gameplay. Questions like: 1. What is the current "disparity" between the "winner" and "loser" of a conflict? 1a. Is the "winner/loser" defined by the playerbase via forum surrenders or defined by who has less resources when the fight finishes, or by some other measure? 1b. Define what kind of conflict we're basing resource caps around. The longest global in the game's history? 90 days worth of every nation in the game using all their MAPs? Average data from every global war ever fought? Some other measure? 2. Is the current "disparity", once defined, greater than / lesser than / equal to the difference between 0 resources and the proposed cap? 2a. What should the difference between current and proposed disparity then be? 3. Ramifications on the playerbase once implemented? I could foresee a war, much like the current one, where no one ever "loses" or surrenders because they know their opponent will eventually run out of resources. Similarly, many people "lose" a war before their stockpile is zeroed out. Their infra (ability to generate income) and their military (their ability to conduct meaningful military operations) are both zeroed out while they still have plenty of gas/steel/munis/aluminum left but the buy caps and constant pressure from the enemy prevent them from using it. Therefore, the "winner" is still using more resources because it costs more to have 1800 planes bomb a dead city than it does to just sit inactive and be bombed. So will future "winners" just be whoever doesn't spend their resources first? Meaning I could have no military and no infrastructure for 364 days but on the 365th my opponent is bankrupted so I win by default? What kind of meta does that introduce? Even longer wars? Wars that never get decided? This is where "Game Suggestions" fail the hardest imo. It's why so many people become unhappy with Alex when he develops solutions. We spend all the time here theorycrafting but no one every bothers to put pencil to paper and figure out how it would actually work. I don't think the current game can handle a resource cap of any kind. The only solution that will work is a better economy of scale. Add more cost into the game at higher levels. Resources and cash need a way to drain from the economy other than burning in war.

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