Raphael

Glad to see the Legion find a home! Kiwi4ever

Well if a wiki mod says it, must be true

Seeing that we have seasons already, maybe we should consider adding in random events as well. What this would be is a game-wide global modifier to a specific resource production. Example: Unexpected Dry Season: Only fires during the Summer season, -50% farm output Warm Winter: Food debuff from winter season is halved Nuclear Reactor Meltdown: Radiation increased by [nukes x 10] on every continent [Resource] Rush: [Any raw resource other than food] output increased by 10% Comet Sighted: 1% universal income bonus for 5 days Harsh Winter: Food debuff from winter is doubled etc.

You can't spell Florida without GO.

Yarr should go back to being pirates tbh

Neat!

Most active players will probably notice a common trend: Older AA's and players have a significant city advantage, on average, compared to newer players. It takes roughly an IRL year or longer for a competent new player to catch up - during that year, just passively existing incompetently can likely grow your nation a significant amount further giving advantage to older players but I digress. New players already have many bonuses applied to their nations, and have had mechanics added over the years to help them even more. I believe it may be time to add another to level the playing field for the fresh meat: Give new nations cities on nation creation. I broke this down in a few ways that would make sense to me personally. 1. New nations start with 10 cities and the next ten cities don't have a timer. 2. New nations start with (average city count * 0.25) cities or some multiplier that makes sense, I have no idea what the average city count is rn. Next ten cities have no timer. 3. New nations start with (highest city count * 0.25) cities. Next ten cities have no timer. I think this change would benefit new players in a significant way, much better than a project that gives resources or a higher login bonus would, and still maintain the advantages of being an older player. Cost is the barrier to growth beyond about c20, not a timer, so I think this wouldn't really be that radical of a shift. Given that new players are required by most alliances to acquire the Urban Planning projects, I think this also offsets that additional burden on new players.

Village literally holding PnW together by his sheer force of will and duct tape: "Yeah Hidude's spreadsheets tho" To be fair, staff probably shouldn't be in the votes.

I know this is almost certainly bait for me, but I hope you actually do realize that the "sale" of the alliance was a series of badly-faked screenshots made by Tiberius&friends because they were salty that I was disbanding the AA after half of gov left due to his behavior. Even if you're just being lazy on fact checking, my nation still lacks a moon landing to this day, but I might just buy one for lulz at this point. Anyways I love this thread, please continue on-topic.

Lots of hate in this thread. I’m glad to see TCW and Fark both try to take a step in a positive direction. I hope this merge works out well for both parties and you guys achieve the desired change that this act seems to indicate. good luck!

That's actually hilarious, name and shame! Your allies fought for less than a month and just signed a NAP for almost half of the year. Your blitz was more like a suicide charge. Not gonna hate on you for picking a hard fight, but let's not spin it into a great effort. TKR fought Midgard in our own losing war for twice as long.

This but unironically. No one deserves a NAP.

Maybe I'm illiterate, but they have the most nations in every tier up til c35 in your chart. The myth that an advantage of like 10 c35+ while you completely lack a middle or lower tier to support it is somehow going to beat Midgard is laughable when it's abused to this point. They also have the most cities in the game in total so both sides I don't see what you're seeing at all. They've proven a willingness to roll smaller spheres and now are consolidating every alliance in the game. From personal experience - they don't just blanket beige or go inactive in their wars either like you might think. Underestimate Midgard at your own peril.

1. Make importing/exporting city builds a one-click action. Basically you build a city the way you want it and there's a button (with a little checkbox "are you sure?") and it copies to every city rather than the current model of clicking, copying, clicking, clicking, pasting, checking box, clicking. 2. Alliance and nation pages don't load by default. Since no one seems to care or enforce rules about keeping a reasonable page - please make it an extra click to load all the pictures, youtube videos, ten paragraph essays, and other page clutter. We shouldn't have to wait 30 mins to get to our alliance bank due to load times on background gifs, and we shouldn't have to scroll 3 full page lengths to find someone's actual nation info because the youtube embed is gigantic.

Building off of this, I also think a big part of it is that the major powers have stopped really participating in the politics of the rest of the world. There is no accountability other than verbal threat for most of the smaller AA's. Pay lip service and stay out of the majors ways and you're pretty much safe except from raiders. Get a protector and suddenly natural selection no longer exists. TKR, Rose, t$, Eclipse, Cata, etc. all only concern themselves with whatever TKR, Rose, t$, Eclipse, Cata, etc. are doing. If we stopped constantly slamming into each other over tiering issues and start going after grudges or loud-mouthed micros, I think the game would become more interesting and politics would flow a little more naturally than constantly arguing over tiering, size, or treaty chess.\ I can scarcely think of the last time I actually felt emotion from any given war against Rose or t$ or whoever.

If you've been in PnW for longer than a couple of years, chances are you've either created or joined a new alliance. Some of us have created many new alliances, some of us have been faithful to our original AA's since day one. Chances are though, if you're active and involved - you have at least tried to found a new AA. On the surface, this is a great thing. A fluid and engaged community that seeks to constantly upend its own status quo for the entertainment and interest of itself, sounds pretty great. I would like to present another viewpoint and then offer a bit of self-opposition: Active and engaged players constantly leaving established communities creates a two-sided issue that actually stagnates the game worse than it helps create a new political environment. The existing power alliances are not as stable as many would like to sell you, and many of our historically powerful groups often have long periods of internal stagnation due to a lack of engaged and fresh blood - even if they don't necessarily realize it. On the new alliance's side of things, way more often than not even the most promising new alliance stagnates due to a lack of political influence. What do you mean by stagnate? To be fair, dear reader, my definition of stagnation is probably a bit more liberal than typical. If your alliance is seeing very little growth, very little activity, and generally just hangs out attached at the hip to another alliance and that's the totality of your FA - then I believe you have stagnated and likely entered into a decline. Many people will define simple survival as success, and in many ways it is, but I believe the community has higher standards than that. So why do people still pursue founding new AA's when the success rate is so low? This is the other side of the coin that cannot go unrecognized: The large and powerful alliances themselves have abandoned democracy as a viable method of selecting leadership, low turnover rates as a result even when many gov may be too inactive to serve, and ever-shrinking government sizes as a trend have all combined into one fatal flaw: There is simply no room in most of the historic major powers for newer or more ambitious players to hone their craft and attain the influence they seek. So I guess it's a bit of a chicken or egg question as to what is fueling what. We have these larger and more influential groups in constant need of fresh blood, but unwilling to sacrifice perceived stability. Then we have these new groups with relatively no influence, but willing to take almost any warm body with ambition or charisma. I can confidently say through personal experience that a new alliance is the more appealing option to an active player looking to make their mark though, or it wouldn't be as popular of a choice. I'm curious to hear what you all think though.

I think rarely anyone purposefully seeks out to grief others, but if you think it doesn't happen at all then you're fooling yourself. NPO was very interested - as shown in publicly available discord logs from their highest gov chats - in ruining other player's game if it meant fewer political enemies to oppose their group. To the extent that they actively wanted and tried to get people to delete their nations by refusing peace deals and extending the war. This is to say nothing about inadvertently ruining the game via creating an unchallengeable force. Just to be clear: A hegemony is not a group with a tiering advantage or the largest bloc in a multipolar world. A hegemony is a force that cannot be challenged even if the rest of the game combined. People called Hollywood and Quack a hegemony, even though they both easily lost wars when coordination was applied. I agree with parts of this, and it's been something on my mind as well in this past year. TKR only sought out maybe 3 or 4 wars this past year, yet we were actively involved in some conflict or another for almost 11 out of 12 months in 2022. Be that from rogues, raider groups, Midgard, HoF, etc. We spent almost a full year at war, 2 months longer than NPOLT. I know you're in Guardian so maybe you'll empathize here: I was a proponent of splitting up Hollywood for a more interesting world - yet now that we've conformed to the minisphere meta we've seemingly been punished for almost a year since. Security is starting to appeal to me more than everyone else's "interesting" narratives. Solid WoT overall, even if I disagree with bits. Have an upvote.

You lost when t$ signed NPO homie

How is every raw at or under 2k but Bauxite is regularly over 3k sometimes 4k? Which one of you fools is constantly pushing the price up or why aren't you building bauxite mines?

It's actually scary seeing the small minority go "!@#$ yeah let's form a hegemony and !@#$ over the game" but it's also heartening to see most of the relevant players posting that this is a bad post lol. As usual I will begin by saying our game is multipolar but not made up of minispheres. Minispheres is a catchall phrase we've distorted from the original vision of like 250-or-fewer-nation groupings. Spheres work together, they break apart, alliances move between spheres - fluidity is what makes politics interesting. NPO as a villain wasn't interesting, you can see from the data itself that many people simply deleted rather than bang their head against some stubborn fool on discord for 9 months. In any other game you'd call what NPO did with IQ "griefing" and looked down on. NPO was cringey with how seriously they took everything. Frankly, this post calling for hegemony is too.

Congrats on the bloc, Paradise moving up in the world, etc

Keegoz was the hardest tinder match to woo ever

Minesome you've really set the bar for what it means to be engaged with the community while doing your own thing in an "outsider" alliance. In your own way, I definitely consider you one of the PnW greats and a revolutionary in the area of micro-alliances, even in the early game when most people stuck to what they knew - you were out trying to make your own thing. Happy 8 years, thanks for sticking with us. There. A rare Roberts nicepost.

The TKR flag is three pixels longer than NW's flag. What amateur did this? Wishing CTO the best of luck moving forward though.

The aggressor gave a double-digit list of terms for a surrender. How is that at all lenient?