Wendell

An anniversary clock. My parents had one that eventually broke so the pendulum never rotated. However when it did work, I still remember the tiny metallic chime it made every hour and the ding it made every sixty seconds. I used to stare at the pendulum rotate back and forth sparkling in the light. They can most accurately tell the correct time for a little over a year on a single winding. DING!!

That reminds me of alliance leaders and ruling groups of nations that could learn from their mistakes and not blame others. Unfortunately, if we all did that there would be no fun and no politics: as it is now. (I totally agree with learning from mistakes but blaming others is actually a useful political tool). People get so upset when real politics leads to real war. I came into to the era when people had stuff to lose and really challenged each other. Now it's a little baby cry fest and I think it's done on purpose to prevent some powers from being touched. With new players joining and new ideas being created the older established schemes will be crowded out. And I will have my fun game again...

Of course ideals are dying. Several alliances have sold their ideals to instead become chromos. Alot of top ten alliances are there not because of hard work or ideals,they are there because of the date they were created and their relative popularity. You would seem legit too if you were hovering around for 7 years and most of the game supported you like the Royal Family. And like the royal family they have little legal power, own private assets and are generally unprepared when it comes to actual politics. They have no legitimacy to actually be considered in charge of anything but their own assets. Also, like the Royal Family they don't work hard. Micros (real ones and not noobs trying to boss someone around) provide safety, respect and help for their members. Being so small means you have alot to lose if a member leaves. Coming back around to the point: Is your alliance shit? Does member count actually equal a great alliance or is that just lazy people clicking the first alliance they see and assume it's great? Here is an example: There are Walmarts all over your city. They want you to buy their notoriously rotten produce. And you see crowds buying it. Do you buy it as well because everyone else is or do you go to Publix where there is fresh clean produce. 99% of the time people will literally buy rotten fruit because everyone else is. People shame smaller chainstore Publix because it's "not as big and popular as Walmart" however their products are similar in price but superb in quality. It's really your loss if you buy into the hype over at Walmart.

Mind if add this excerpt to the satirical "How to Run Your Goddamn Alliance" handbook??

You are still so uptight and serious.

Excellent idea! I think this should be coupled with removing beige.

Interesting thing to point out as well. Grumpy is an outlier in the opposite sense as the alliances to the far right. I think people say its hard to catch up to Grumpy in relation to vast amount of time it takes to build cities past 25. Being at the right of the graph means your econ program is geared towards production buildings/infra as opposed to city count per alliance. Most of the economic culture in Grumpy is production. People could catch up to grumpy if they grouped together 15-20 city 40+s. But its not enough in the game for this to happen. You all decided to group together under one umbrella and become a large production power for one sphere, which is what people must figure out how to challenge.

1. The money/person (6mo)vs Members graph is very interesting. I think it could be better represented with a bar graph. Anyway it tells you what kind of econ program they have. Members in a lot of alliances are left obviously left to pay for more of their cities. The outliers are of course top 10 alliances that can afford to pay for cities. But the interesting thing is I see a lot of older high tier, medium size alliances (OWR, ASM, The Wei, UPN, Camelot) to the left of the graph. Have they implemented a city building program at all? Where is their income going? Why aren't the further right?

Oh, pardon me for forgetting a forgettable alliance.

Nice original idea, no other alliance was computer themed. Hey at least it took you four years to stop using Golden Phoenix Coalition as an alliance name.

Who is Deulos? And what is this about GPC?

Chapter 128 MinesomeMC still can't run an alliance. Who was surprised anyways? Now on to chapter 129. (sneak peek: MinesomeMC is still running a shitshow there too but it's a different flavor!!!)

Only people on the market: Guardian, The Knights Radiant and Grumpy. All you are trying to do in this weak and obvious attempt is to monopolize more while feigning fairness... People have been undercutting and trying to get their stuff sold fast for YEARS. It shouldn't change because one sphere now controls the market. It's just selfish to try to change the game mechanics for only three people (literally). Just sad...

.

.

.

.

I'm glad you asked. Not just sell out (and quite unremarkably I might add) and join the biggest sphere in the game after spending years pushing minispheres. I've done the best I can to avoid giving up any of my tax income to alliances that think they matter beyond being the oldest or having the most people. These two qualifiers really don't matter in the long game. Dynamic politics matter, real wars matter, a great community matters. Exclusion, ostracization, name calling, middle school behavior and counting chickens only creates a crisis like NPO.

Literally nobody is saying that. Of course we can have allies. But when it's always the same 10-15 people choosing each other as allies and creating a bubble it becomes boring (yawn). Then sprinkle in some RON bias and forum shaming new players ideas it becomes a desperate attempt to save boring (yawwwnn) politics. Speaking of individual I think many newer alliances are very much autonomous instead of all agreeing on hitting this nation or that group because of many sad reasons, up to and including "The Syndicate is making too much money and isolated. We should hit them." and "Oh no, we need another global because the market is dying." Downvote from everyone in Hollywood in 3 2 1

Thank you wall of text. Very cool!

Yes, take away another feature that makes this game dynamic. "Now you can't down declare anymore guys". What's the point of that? To try and balance a change that was unpopular to begin with? Revert the score back to 75 (like everyone suggested and downvoted as soon as Alex doubled city score) or whatever and take the L. Also who would vote for a hard cap on less than ten cities besides the 30 or so nubs that think nobody below city ten should raid? Imagine how much that would change alliance policy...