Jump to content

Raphael

Members
  • Posts

    1307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

Everything posted by Raphael

  1. This was my first question before I went to respond to it lol.
  2. I'm sad you feel that way buddy! I always felt the opposite, personally: I couldn't wrap my head around how people actively enjoyed this game without the additional staff/low/high gov/leadership stuff added in. That's why I'm always advocating for systems that are the most inclusive: Democracies, senates, councils, staff, etc. This game is very empty without the community element imo.
  3. I may disagree with the OP but I wish the community would do better about flaming anyone who dares share an opinion on anything.
  4. Other than lip service to this terminology and some very specific fetishization of realpolitik, what exactly do you see getting tossed aside? Furthermore, what does "pure realpolitik" actually mean in PnW? That no one cares about anything in this game other than the statistics, or just 'winning' any war they join regardless of circumstance or long-term consequence? I'm just curious.
  5. Only in the sense that an increasing amount of poorly written posts will encourage people to further avoid the forums. Otherwise, no this new Waffle House is not making much of a splash.
  6. Love this idea, but my very first thought is that a 20% potential buff to all attack rolls is way too strong. On a d10 system that's +2 to every roll, or +4 in a d20 system. That's way too strong and probably needs to be cut in half. Just remove the starting 10% buff and have it be based purely on the 1% per level for a max of 10% imo. Honest opinion: This piece of the idea makes it way too complex. Just cut this entire section imo or tack it on as a much later addition after playtesting of generals as a feature can occur. General suggestion to reduce these numbers to force player choice. 3 generals basically just means you constantly have generals assigned to all three pieces of your military, 6 seems superfluous especially if they add score. Maybe 1 general and projects or perks can unlock an additional general. Which will inevitably go air->ground->navy in priority anyway almost always but at least it limits you to making that choice. Almost all of these need to be reworked for balance and intention imo. You just spent a paragraph talking about consumption increases but have a ton of stuff on this list regarding reduced cost/upkeep on things. Pick a lane and don't worsen the problem if you've identified one. I would also echo others that generals probably shouldn't add score, or if they do then they should add a minimal static number like projects do. Overall a cool idea, needs some refinement on the hard numbers but I like the concept a lot. Cool stuff!
  7. Are you worried you'll miss all the other content on the forums? Why wouldn't a treaty be worth announcing?
  8. I think the question is irrelevant, as we're already moving away from capitalism. The world is transitioning away from business acumen, competition, freedom of choice, and other hallmarks of capitalistic society - we've been moving away from that for almost 100 years at this point but it's been slow, now we're seeing an acceleration due to a combination of factors such as service-based economics and AI. Homes, for the majority, won't be owned. You won't be able to afford to buy, and your inheritance (if you have one) will be taxed to the point where you can't keep the property. Choice will be (realistically already is for many) reduced to maybe 2-3 options at most, but most will experience a de facto monopoly - See: Walmart, Amazon. Competition has been and will continue to be crushed by virtue of offshore slave-labor in developing countries. etc. The world economic forum already highlighted the plan. "You will own nothing, and be happy" the entire world is going into a subscription-based / rent-based model for everything. We will be Neo-Serfs, paying our lords a yearly tax to live in their world. This is written dramatically for flair, but generally speaking this is how I see things going.
  9. You guys were what made Florida, Florida. You can't withdraw from yourselves! This post should've been Florida seceding from the union. Good luck wherever y'all go though!
  10. Two cool groups signing a treaty
  11. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=60967 Just to show a real example [again], this is a guy who declared on my nation when I had zero military. This one nation's total standing military exceeds my maximum military in every category right now. This came with two other similar nations in my defensive slots. Being in an impossible situation isn't engaging or fun gameplay. Even for the winning side, beating down on a dead horse isn't fun or engaging gameplay. It's half of why wars are so short these days tbh. Thus feeding further into the issue of city-gaps (between new and old players) and resource inflation (not as much stuff is consumed during wars). During this global, it was also insanely easy for the largest nations (the ones who "need" to take damage) to escape the fighting entirely after the first round. I couldn't even reach people at my own city count usually just to throw nukes or missiles. The score formula is woefully unbalanced and the recent change made it worse imo. It's never quite made sense in the first place and I know firsthand how hard it is to tweak in a way that makes sense, but I think changing city score was a mistake that actually served whales more than harmed them (unless they're raiders). Generally speaking, I think standing military should boost your score way more than anything else. When you over-rely on cities and infra in the score formula, you unintentionally give the top percentiles a place to hide from everyone else. You also unintentionally make a problem PnW already has worse: Losers stay losing until the winner decides to give up or give too much beige.
  12. Given how much pushback certain parties gave against individual terms on mine and others' behalf, it's sad to see them make it into the very next global peace terms. Targeting individual players is opening the doorway to a lot of toxicity, but that's nothing new for this community. Just new to some of people who signed off on the terms.
  13. Be very careful "hiring gov", I will just tell you now that is how most new communities get exploited by unsavory members of PnW.
  14. I swear this game operates on Age of Empires 2 AI logic. If Orange, Hegemony = Yes Get over yourselves, you drove T$ [and partially TKR] into a political corner and expected they'd just... get rolled? Do nothing? edit: Congrats on the treaty.
  15. Skull and Bones? More like Toast and... Scones. Radioactive scones.
  16. So while I do support the idea that all wars end in beige, I bolded all the pieces I think detract from the idea. Offensive wars giving such little beige time is pretty silly, a nation losing a war almost always means they've lost their military and need time to recover. You don't even give a full update tick (12 turns) to recover a single buy of units for losing a war. Five days of accrual is not enough and this has been said since the very first pitch of this idea. Beige should start counting down from the time of war's end, people should be rewarded for being able to stagger wars and beiges. Finally, expired wars shouldn't have a disincentive as again that is a strategic choice. Expiry should fully beige people the same as a win. I see what the team is going for with these caveats, but I think they're overly simplistic and fail to address the issues they're aiming for. It really feels like the team is overly worried about giving out too much beige and trying to half-implement this change. All wars ending in beige will change the meta regardless of the caveats, might as well fully embrace the change and flow with it instead of trying to stem the tide at every turn. I see this as insanely exploitable. If we have an issue with slot filling and beige baiting now... jeez. I don't want to sound overtly critical but moderation considerations are secondary to game features and balancing. This is a bad change and the fact that you didn't include an option to vote for "bad change" in the poll is disheartening. I voted for the least amount of time just because I wanted to vote on other pieces more than I wanted to abstain from picking a bad choice.
  17. Congrats on surviving through hardship, hopefully the next five can be a bit kinder to Camelot.
  18. To clarify my post: My main thought behind everything I'm bringing up is that the entire political system of the game is indeed broken. These established AA's with "nothing to lose" are already seeing the ramifications of their lackluster policies, some are adapting others are withering. Many of them rely on inertia to maintain their status at this point. Meaning many people sit on their AA because they have little interest in the game anymore and that happens to be where they're parked. The active new blood goes elsewhere, and time will tell on how long you can rest on laurels.
  19. To address you and @Lysander at once, I think response time is the weakest reason given and I didn't even bring it up in my post as such. Minimal creativity could solve this issue by having emergency positions or figureheads for certain roles like quick FA needs or war. Many alliances already have this built into their current model: the FA head will often make calls in lieu of a full government discussion. This is a good point that I think I glossed over too much in my post, thank you for highlighting it. This being essentially an MMO, minimum social interaction is required for every role. We could have Econ gods among us who are simply too introverted to ever check discord. I think this ties into some of the points I was trying to make about the entire system being stagnated. T$/WANA, TKR/Morf, Rose/Vexz, Cata/Keegoz, Grumpy/SRD, etc. many of the major groups have people who are or recently were the heads of their alliance/FA openly stating they had no time or no passion for the game anymore. Some of them have gone on for years in this state. So we have a bunch of burnt out people running almost every alliance that would sign a protectorate - and we're shocked protectorates don't get the attention they might need when the alliances themselves can barely manage their own position? It's all a connected issue in my mind. I agree but I think we need to step back and really ask is the state of our game worth what these people would consider "necessary" to prevent leaks? This is a game, stuff is going to be gossiped about. OPSEC is very important but perhaps we've gone overboard and sacrificed too much just to keep usually-obvious plans from being confirmed. Might be a good thing. Veins seemed to have more fun in Mythic anyway. Who are you?
  20. My brother in Sheepy, I'm in Arrgh. Every captain here is their own master, we are the definition of radical.
  21. To expand on this: IQ treated established/major groups like most established groups treat newer alliances and it caused an absolute meltdown of minds. I don't endorse such treatment at any stage of the game.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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