BelgiumFury
-
Posts
431 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by BelgiumFury
-
-
On 8/23/2023 at 12:00 AM, Kurdanak said:
One-liner out of the way though, regarding terms directed at individuals, I gotta ask - whose idea was it to open Pandora's box?
Clearly someone with big enough balls to push for NPO like terms, but without balls big enough to own up to it publicly.
-
1
-
-
Thanks for your service Pre.
Although we certainly didn't agree on everything, you have changed PnW for the better. Thank you for that.-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Roberts said:
Cora from UPN is a good example of a potentially great player in an alliance fallen from greatness long ago, and now can only be described as insular on their best day. UPN, The Immortals and Mortals, Dark Brotherhood, TCM, USN, and Gods of Orbis -- just to name a few from the top 50 -- have over 400 nations between them.
Perhaps, just maybe Cora from UPN is enjoying her best life in a community she enjoys, and indeed perhaps are many others.
I am not against making this game competitive, indeed I don't mind that big alliances have advantages because that is how competition works and competition in a game is good (imho). But what exactly is the reason these people would care for your message? Do you truly think if these people hated their misserable lives as you think they do, they'd still be volunteering to do it? Do you think Cora (just taking her as you mentioned her by name) would not be able to find an alliance if she wanted to?Perhaps, just perhaps they are indeed living their best life.
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, Morgan Stanley said:
I've run some numbers on the RPC and the effects it will have on total amount of raws in the game. Currently there are 1430 people that are not in vm, have been active in the last week and are 15 cities or less. This below is the production for each raw based on continent and city count, the disparity between the production of each raw being the result of an uneven distribution of people picking continents.
This shows the total average production and the percent of the surplus RPC represents during the day following the update to RPC. This does not account for buying projects or nations deleting, just a general picture into how much of each resource is introduced into the game
Overall this would be a good change, as money has real sinks, that being cities. While without little exception all raws consistently grow in amount with no end and devaluing the price of raws which no one is using or needing as indicative by the prices the time following the implementation of RPC. Money on the other hand during the same period of time lost in amount by 10 billion a day, obviously being much more sinkable that any of the raws.
On an off tangent though, while this change will be beneficial for raws, there will continue to be continue oversupply of raws in the game. Since 3/1/2022, when RPC was introduced as an example, they was 2.5k coal per nation currently there is 13.9k per person. This will need to be remedied otherwise there will be far reaching consequences into other resources and ways to produce, with raws being worth considerably less in the past you'll see builds moving towards manus and commerce, manus will fall in value over time, not only because there isn't a large amount used but because switching from building some raws and manus to just making manus will be more profitable. It's a slow death of over abundance and the lessening of consequences of war as warring does not seem to ever reduce the massive warchests of every large alliance.
I basically agree with all of this.
In general adding more demand for everything is always good (you can always add more supply if needed), it was also my prefered way of solving this issue but it was not to be.I do not think the game would be waiting / excited for a lot of drastic measures in descreasing raws (think losing a percentage of raws every turn, making infrastructure cost resources in upkeep etc..). Do you have any interesting suggestions on how to do so?
-
Heya;
In general we have steered away from that because there would most likely be an "optimal" choice, which alliances would force on their members.
That would severely limit RP styles for people. -
8 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said:
Eith way, I suspect we'll end up revisiting it if the nerf is insufficient.
I certainly hope so.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:
RPC turns off after C15 so it won't impact whales/larger nations regardless.
What i said was refering specifically to this paragraph:
1 hour ago, penpiko said:I heard earlier the argument that nerfing this project will benefit older, higher tier players, who don’t necessarily have as many negative consequences if they allow themselves to go inactive. While this is true, I believe the way to remedy the issue and level the playing field isn’t to buff inactivity in the lower tiers, but to nerf inactivity in the higher tiers.
-
45 minutes ago, penpiko said:
In my opinion, anything above 3 days is unacceptable, you’re actively rewarding new players for not logging in which should be totally avoided and goes against one of the few clearly defined principles of this game, logging in is good. This is a great opportunity to create mechanics which will encourage player activity and hopefully increase new player retention.
I heard earlier the argument that nerfing this project will benefit older, higher tier players, who don’t necessarily have as many negative consequences if they allow themselves to go inactive. While this is true, I believe the way to remedy the issue and level the playing field isn’t to buff inactivity in the lower tiers, but to nerf inactivity in the higher tiers. Perhaps include modifiers with activity which reduce income, or something like that, I’m not sure. I think if the game wants to move in a direction where there is more activity it should be encouraged mechanically, not the opposite where we compensate for inactivity through new players bonuses.
[...]
If we want an active involved community, to continue this game, rewarding not logging is a clear step in the wrong direction. Therefore I implore all you misguided souls who vote for killing the game (5+ days) to rethink your choices, and the precedent you want to set with regards to the nature of new player accommodations.On a personal level i want to say I agree with everything Pen said above.
I want to note though that:45 minutes ago, penpiko said:pushing for more activity will not be a fan-favorite within mass-member alliances and tax farmers alike. But I hope that even those people can see the clear, objective, nature of the matter.
Isn't as simple as it sounds. A lot of push back isn't just mass member alliances, also whale alliances or bigger nations who know how to play the game very wel. They just dont feel like they should be forced to log in every single day (or every three days) because that's a luxury they have right now and don't feel like losing. They feel like there is no reason to ask that of them because "pnw is a pretty uninvolved game anyway".
I agree 100% with the solutions said here, and I do agree on a personal level that we should nerf innactivity across the board. Doing a log in a day isn't some huge time sink at all, and I think it is 100% fair to ask. I just don't think that it's fair to just blame mass member alliances. -
I believe a daily login is optimal (as mentioned in private before), we want to encourage (new) players to log in daily. It will also have the least disruptive effect on the economy.
I'm glad this nerf is comming and hope this might bring some relief to the raw resource prices.-
1
-
5
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Sorry you had to find out this way Cata
xxx
Belgium-
1
-
8
-
7
-
16 hours ago, Adrienne said:
Alternative suggestion: fix the "hide nation descriptions" option here on PnW. Last I checked, if you select it, it hide yours instead of everyone else's.
(P.S. one image per nation description is mean and I will cut you, Roberts >.>)
Yes this is what should happen; i DM'd @Alex about this and he said that is how it would happen, i'm not sure why it doesn't work like this.
-
On 11/9/2022 at 2:42 PM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:
Having no allies sets the game to Super Hard Mode, Until you get allies, you will always have a target on your back, because you are easy pickings.
Super hard mode might be a real euphimism here
-
I was gone for like 2 days and when I come back 75 global wars have started, and alliances are all countering over a relatively small Midgard vs TKRsphere war?
What in the name of the lord.
Glhf-
1
-
-
I personally just like the flavor of city age and the minor increase in revenue associated with it, i don't want it to be removed
-
2
-
-
yes.
ps: add nuke trading too kthx. -
1 hour ago, Velekk Hemlock said:
I like being able to build alliance wide-projects. I hear you cry "But Hemlock! That would ruin balance between alliances!!!" Alas, I say "Is balance already non-existent due to simple tiering?".
agreed
-
On 10/3/2022 at 6:42 AM, Velekk Hemlock said:
You should not have them bring their infrastructure to 1000. Bring it to about 500, have a small raiding build for them, and show them to use the @### tool.
Needs polishing. The tutorial should have less personality and be more straightforward. Try proof reading it further to make it as concise, descriptive, and easy to follow as possible. Following that, you should teach them specifically about opportunity cost and use examples. Explaining why farming isn't viable using actual numbers for what the tutorial nation template is would be way better than just saying "farms bad". So on and so forth.
1: Raiding with 1000 infra is easily doable; nothing too extreme. Agreed on the @ tool.
2: Sure, any concrete suggestions on polishing? We have indeed proof read this, im sure we missed things, that's why we asked here.
3: Agree on the farms things. Will do somethign similar for power plants.On 10/3/2022 at 10:55 AM, Leo said:I would like to add on that maybe explaining the acronyms and shorthand used throughout the game could be useful.
Nice work Belgium & crew!
1: How would we implement acronyms without it being forced, what would be the best way to approach this in your opinion?
2: Thanks!On 10/3/2022 at 2:08 PM, Zevari said:I'm going to run points as I read through the document so my ideas/reactions might be a bit all over the place, apologies in advanced.
Instead of telling the player to build up to 1000 infra I feel like offering them a "split" decision, something like "at your size raiding is by far the most efficient and profitable method to help you grow, however if you are more inclined to grow slow but peacefully then building to around 1000 infra might be more desirable. Click on the following guide depending on how you intend to grow, however raiding is HIGHLY recommended as you will fall behind other players."
The idea for this is to provide an option to players since many newbies enjoy roll playing a certain play style and 1000 infra is relatively bad for anybody who plans to raid, effectively wasting some of their limited early resources.
The rest of the guide seems pretty solid, however I feel like it is a tad wordy (then again, those who don't want to read probably won't hang around here).
I don't know if it was mentioned, but making this easily accessible (In such a way that specific parts of the tutorial can be found and browsed even after completion) would definitely be appreciated.
Also in regards to the "railroad" I think that would honestly be a horrible idea, the one thing I know people hate the most in games is being forced into doing certain things repeatedly. If it isn't a new feature there is no need to give new pop-ups, reminders or guides in my opinion, plus so many people hang out around c3-5 for raiding that this "railroading" could actually become more annoying/detrimental than helpful.
Tutorials are important, but you need to make sure user experience is also taken into account.1: I just checked 3 alliances that I know do raiding (Rose, the Wei and e$) both build up to 1000 infra, it seems to me like that raiding at 1000 infra isn't some impossibility, from that point on people still have a choice what to do (be it farm and buildm ore infra or raid).
2a: So in your opinion we should do a bit more hand holding after the tutorial to help them with raiding or am I misunderstanding you? Waht should we concretly do just explain it once and let them go do their thing?
2b: How can we help people further with farming, feel like the whole guide could be "wait" or am I wrong there?
3: It is indeed rather wordy; there is sadly enough also a lot to tell and we didnt want to bring it in the most boring way possible.
4:It will be accessible in that way.
5: The railroading would in no case be mandatory; but it seems like most people aren't in favor of "railroading" at all, so it won't happen.On 10/3/2022 at 6:09 PM, RicardoTherodoric said:Part of the beauty of politics and war is being taught the extra knowledge by veteran players or being the veteran who teaches it so I think a tutorial which is too in depth would take away from that. Some extra information on how alliances generally work and how they can differ from each other would be handy though so new players understand what alliance they really want to join.
At what point does a tutorial become too in depth?
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Hello everyone, It's me Belgium (not that all of you will know me, but oh well :p), and I'm here to talk with y'all about the new tutorial.
After a lot of work (which didn't always go as smoothly as we wanted it to, I must admit). I finally feel comfortable publicly releasing a first "draft" for community feedback.
I urge you all to read this little wall of text before jumping into the draft and leaving your (much wanted) opinions in the comments.-
First off, I want to highlight that this is indeed a draft. If everything here turns out to be bad (which I indeed very much doubt), the tutorial will be re written completly if needed.
- We are looking for feedback on small things (typos) to big things (re structuring of chapters, adding more parts etc..) I am sure you are all creative enough to give generous amounts of feedback, please do not leave a stone unturned.
-
I also have a few very specific questions to which I would like an answer:
- Do we need to add new player raiding to this guide.
- Do we need to guide players a bit longer? Maybe less intensive, but still a little siderail to city ten for example?
- I want as many people to leave feedback as possible, I (and others) will read every piece of constructive feedback, I will also try to respond as much as I can here. However if your feedback is pure flaming, or completly unconstructive criticism it might very well get ignored.
- The way the tutorial is presented will change. Currently new players acces the tutorial by going to "objectives". But in the future (when this gets implemented) it will be done by going to "tutorial". If you want to figure out how that will look in broad terms, I encourage you to check it out on the test server. The system there isn't final yet (bugs need fixing + the actual text isn't in there yet). It isn't too diffrent to what objectives is right now though, in practice it will be a pop up instead of a whole diffrent page and people will be able to switch freely between headers (everything with ##'s will be it's own header).
- Rewards are not yet in this version of the tutorial, once the text is (nearly) finalized we will get back to adding in the rewards.
- Im aware the outline / chapter overview in the document is broken, i'm not sure why, google docs is borking itself.
Thank you for reading my small wall of text, here is the tutorial itself, if there are any questions (or suggestions, critique etc..) please do let me know:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h7X6WFxVFwDymEjBB75AVBgf2zh0564-C5xcakFmqzw/edit?usp=sharing
ps: Although quite a few more people helped with this initial draft, special thanks goes out to these players in particular:- @zevfer
- Epimetheus (Sorry, could not find your forum account; nation 59381)
- @LachlanPnW
- @Ultraodan
- @Key
- @Ryks
- Magier (Does not have a forum account; nation 467871)
- Piglet (Does not have a forum account; nation 449456)
ps 2: I want to appologize to the wider community for the amount time this took; I hope the time needed to finalize this text is considerably shorter than it was to get to this point.
Much love, and thanks for your time.
Yours Truly, Belgium.-
3
-
14
-
1
-
Best of luck T$ & Wanna.
To be expected, sad it had to happen so soon, hopefully we can work togheter again in the future, someday.
xoxo 😛 -
This sure is an interesting post.
For me personally, it's dissapointing that we haven't won a war toghether with Celestial, dissapointing that we werent the one declaring but the one enduring.
Maybe if our paths cross in the future like they did in the past there will be a chance to do ourselves justice. Maybe it'll even be soon.
Best of luck Wana.
o/ -
The alternative for many alliances is having people like Taiga run your offshore, and we see how well that goes.
Is it optimal? Sure not.
Is it that bad? Not really.-
1
-
-
first
glhf to everyone 😛 -
On 8/31/2022 at 4:44 PM, DamienW said:
This is all fine and dandy. However if you actually looked at evidence instead of being fed bullshit you might find some interesting information:
1.) Poseidon said that the funds of the bank would be backed by your alliance. This isn't some off the cuff statement and had to be either approved or at least known by other gov members within Odessey.
2.) The funds were stored within your alliance. This means that at a bare minimum your EA department was responsible and was required to move funds for Gringotts and members of the alliance. Losing that money sucks but there's still responsibility for it.
3.) Poseidon stole the money and did everything on/before August 28th. However he's still leading and acting on Odessey's behalf???????????? Why would you allow someone who stole from you to run command on your EA? This has me scratching my head because Calypso should of taken the conversation with TLE elsewhere.
Somebody in Odyssey bears the blame as well. It might not be every single member but somebody in your alliance !@#$ed up. Severely.
Thanks for saying what we were all thinking.
Amen-
1
-
-
1: Atlan happy to see you back as commander in chief (first war since your return right?)
2: I feel like the damage dealt so far (and infra deletion lol) cost more for then than the loan itself x_x.-
1
-
1
-
Game Development Discussion: Project & Commerce Update Proposal
in Game Discussion
Posted
It did not get buffed at all?
I want to note I agree with this personally. Not everything needs to be objectively "good" it can also just be "handy".