Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Roberts

  1. Bump. I know the admin team has drifted away from these small tweaks in favor of a new, more complicated, more controversial idea... but I’m just going to continue lobbying for this anyway. This is an extremely popular suggestion that shouldn’t get lost to the depths of the forum.
  2. I’m just saying it’s been announced several times as an upcoming update. I’m not the one coding it though so I don’t have the exact ETA.
  3. I speak for the world when I say we're shocked
  4. Congrats on new friendships. Kudos for actually writing out a treaty. But burn all the paper.
  5. That's because you fight two wars a year. I agree though, all wars should end in beige. It's very silly that we had a working suggestion to fix beige from Azaghul and it got bumped off for... no discernible reason.
  6. Bounties only get delivered if you declared war prior to bounties being placed. I feel like this nullifies most situations in itself where abuse would occur. Additionally, if you need to circumvent a blockade then you probably don't have the resources to fight an additional nation and would only be further worsening your overall situation regardless of cash gained from a bounty. This weak "what if" reasoning doesn't justify effectively breaking the bounty system for raiders - the primary pursuers of bounties.
  7. It's not honorable to jump on a 4 man alliance. lmao. I can't believe a pirate needs to come tell you guys this. Rose is [probably] bored and looking for something to do. You know it's bad when Ace is countering raids with 3k infra. I guess Quack was too intimidating so they chose a micro instead.
  8. A day's worth of MAPs basically puts nukes into a "wait all day and do nothing else" situation. Usually if you're losing the conventional war or if you want to be extra spiteful. I think it'd be useful to allow nukes to be used and then at least provide some opportunity for the nation to take action other than launching a nuke that day. Nuclear weapon cost 12 MAPs -> 8 MAPs This still gives you 1 nuclear launch a day, but it doesn't leave you completely actionless for an entire 24 hours. I hold no illusion that this would be meta-changing in any significant way but mostly the benefit from this would actually be the ability to not waste MAPs beyond your storage of 12. I'm sure many people have waited til 12 MAPs to nuke someone only to forget to log in and lose two or three turns of MAPs to the void. Maybe one day nukes will do more than simply burn infra and we can see tactical nuke usage.
  9. Small tweak that I think would provide better balance to missiles. Basically the iron dome can block 50% of missiles and (I believe) planes doing airstrikes can blow up comparable amounts of infra so I think 8 MAPs makes missiles too expensive. My thought personally has always been: If I'm using missiles, I might as well wait til 12 MAPs for a nuke. If I'm not using missiles, I'm probably winning. The only thing that can be said is that missiles are fairly cheap. Anyways. Missile cost 8 MAPs -> 6 MAPs is my suggestion. This way you get two potential missiles a day. Giving an actual purpose to the +1 build limit the space project gives you as well.
  10. Small QoL thought. remove the “alliance description” from any tab on the alliance page other than the main page. Especially on mobile, it’s an extra hurdle and probably extra load time to scroll past it.
  11. Which is perfectly fine. It’s not always about becoming a top ten 100+ member alliance with 500k score. sometimes people want to enjoy a game in their own way. Even minesome, annoying though it may be.
  12. 9pm? How young do you think I am? *waves cane around*
  13. I’m just saying I understand you logic, I don’t disagree with your thought but I disagree with your suggestion. If you want to take a look at revamping alliance recruitment and the tutorial that’s totally understandable. I agree getting into an alliance and the meta-game of PnW will increase player retention. I don’t think funneling/forcing players to choose an established top ten alliance will benefit the game. If it works, it creates unbalanced “feeder” alliances with inflated member counts. I think a good middle ground would simply be to rework the tutorial and make the very first suggested thing to be “pick an alliance to join” because joining an alliance can basically bring you all the knowledge and more than what the tutorial offers. Then you can simply put a seven day age requirement to make a new alliance. This “forces” new players to choose an alliance rather than make their own and get bored then quit but doesn’t take away their actual freedom to do so if they’re committed to that course of action.
  14. *tinfoil hat* This war was just an excuse to extend a sphere-wide NAP between HM/Swamp/tCW so that they can strike at Quack and/or Rose with impunity. The 90 day NAP was the goal, the 10 day war was the price.
  15. Agreed. *Looks at the treaty web* Good luck with this noble goal.
  16. There are more walls of text in this thread than the recent war declarations... I'll go simple: No thank you to alliance creation restrictions.
  17. Pretty simple. Either separate the timers OR remove project timers all together. I'm fine with either but I think they should minimally be separate. Projects are more about enhancing your nation than growing your nation and are typically a solid multi-resource sink. They also have limited slots based on infra which is semi-limited by city count unless you spend ungodly amounts of cash for 4k infra in a city. Makes more sense to remove the timer and allow nations to freely customize themselves but we could at least separate the two timers.
  18. ok I laughed. Nice bot account @Azrael
  19. AFAIK everyone else got blitzed in the... blitz
  • Create New...

Important Information

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