KiWilliam

After consulting our in-house legal advice I was told to make this statement: "war crimes are only war crimes if u lose the war. If u win the war u just say the otherside did war crimes and what u did was fine"

If you want some unsolicited advice: Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak. Don't post that you have most of your government positions empty. Esp when you have a 2 tier system. Just don't mention the ones that aren't filled. We can extrapolate conclusions from incomplete

How do I contact trade negotiations or ask to join the alliance without a link? I need to find Order of the Stars leader.

You should merge into Black Knights. Where is all the relevant information in the OP btw?

Glad to see the peace. And I am pleasantly shocked to hear people care about the Purple Color Sphere. A personal interest of mine after all.

Stealing jokes from @Daveth? I thought you were better than this.

It's literally "test". Post on the test.forums

The fact 3 UPN people posted here out of the 11 (including my own) post, in the ~7 hours this has been up, actually shows UPN is plenty active. But I'm not obtuse and I understand your point Roberts. I think the question should be framed as; how can we involve more alliances into inter-alliance spaces or action. If it's just dialogue, there is evidence aplenty that there's something foul in pnw. No one wants to use the forums. I logged into my account here for the first time in a long time, because RON (which recently changed hands) posted a link in a debate channel which is a cross-server effort from another server that's not used, that itself was made because RON can't house everyone, and you have at least 3 other news servers (well one just disbanded/merged into RON/is now a radio show server), least of all other community servers or the official pnw discord. Most people do not agree about where to interact and even perform the most basic of actions that is informing the community of what your alliance is doing. We are fragmented, and people (rightly or not) are set in their ways after many years of this festering to the point where it's normal. Most people haven't been around 3, 6, 12 years; they've been around 6 or 18 months and the forums being dead, and them being in one of 3 or 4 "news" or community discords that all cover different sub-sets of Orbis is the norm. More effort to facilitate healthy dialogue and community events (such efforts to host debate in RON for example was a good effort by someone I know) or the recent dev-talk hosted on RON (I believe?) with Alex and community members was a great effort in bridging this gap. But there is no one sin to point towards.

I am just here so I don't get fined. Also hello everyone <3

It is no slight towards you. Thank you for opening this discussion. Regarding my project idea, I'd suggest not allowing players to sell (the) projects once they're bought. Remove any chance for funny business. I would also recommend changing project slots to be based off max infra instead of current infra. Players would never lose project slots and always retain some marker of success, or have room to change their nation's development should their situation change (I would like to see different types of projects as well, but that's outside this segue's scope). About this style of forum post: I hope there is some larger process behind game changes. Identifying problems, examining root causes, brain storming, and logically working through those suggestions in conjunction with the current game and other changes in order to improve the game. Between coding restraints, stylistic choice, and perceived community support, we seem to circle the drain on this sore subject. My question is if the original intention of changes are reconsidered after they are implemented. My original understanding of the City Planning projects (resource sink, catch up mechanic). If the team thinks they adequately accomplished those goals. What other effects, good or bad, did they bring. If they were a net improvement to the game. If that discussion is ever had seriously, and if that same process would be applied to this same topic of the Revenue Bonus/Activity Login, new player raiding rules. What's the feedback loop for these changes? My personal opinion, I reiterate I think the rote process of raiding inactives should be clamped down on. I'd rather see other ideas implemented to accomplish the same goals, or if we could reexamine what our goals are. Maybe an idea to give monetary rewards for certain achievements (e.g. winning so many raid or attrition wars, doing 2x damage, achieving ground+air+navy supremacy on the same target, breaking naval supremacy on another nation by fighting a *mutual* nation, winning a war without using any munitions, etc). More scenarios that players would actually come across in the game. Exploring different aspects of the game. Ideally this would be tied into any tutorial changes. And wouldn't necessarily be size based, so if a player ignores an achievement to make 5m dollars for doing something relatively minor, they could just earn it once they're a c30 if they for example never took the chance in their first year of playing to win a war with a missile. 5m is nice but spare change for a c30. Just one idea. For inactivity, if a war lasts up to 60 turns (5 days) I think activity should be based on that same number. And bonuses should step in a way so dummy's can remember the number easily. So 100k is far preferable to 50k, 75k, or 150k. If you did quarter million steps and capped at 1m (5 days to get 4 days of consecutive login) that would fit that 5 day number and be fairly easy to remember. I think everything should try to tie into other parts of the game and keep the numbers stupid simple.

Ignoring the impossibility of it being coded and implemented correctly without bugs. But gameplay wise, I've always wanted them to give retro active reductions on cities. So someone who built to c21 without any projects could then build all 3 (UP/AUP/MUP) and at the time of building them receive the reduction they would have gotten. e.g. at c21 building the UP would give the player (50m*10 cities) in cash. Turning them into a project that basically just converted resources into pure cash so long as you couldn't destroy it and remake it to abuse resource prices (again why I wouldn't want to see it implemented for real due to bugs). Which I thought was the original intention behind them. Now it's just a roadblock for players because it's hard to do on your own, and it becomes a necessary component of a good alliance econ differentiating between alliances. Instead of what its supposed purpose was.

Without thinking about it more, I'm not sure what if any combination I would want to see. I do like the idea to add more back & forth in wars. I like the idea that ships could be used to help supplement either ground or air (if the player could choose which to try and free up with an attack). Effectively giving ships a fleshed out utility in a broader war vs. how they're used now. I hope this wouldn't be a single change by itself though. To add some more ideas, blockades could be done on a partial basis by blocking either cash or resources from alliances. For nation to nation trades you could block either selling resources or buying resources. If you're stuck in a position where you can still receive resources to fight, still receive cash, or are sending it away to effectively deny a raiding party.

It may not be appropriate for this thread; but other ideas for helping new player retention & growth should be considered too so this isn't done in a vacuum. The meta has changed to raiding for new nations (c3 raid for c10-15 and urban planning). The game becomes log in everyday, raid 4 inactive targets, or find someone who made a mistake (and at this size they're all new players), grind until you have the cash. That's nothing like what the game is played as you're larger, or how it should be played to encourage politics & community engagement. Players should not be encouraged to over forest the same pool of inactive fish, or poor new players, in a barrel to play properly. This only means we need new nations just to feed the few that stick around, and that people's mistakes are punished to the point where they may be discouraged from continuing entirely. War should the way politics are conducted. It should not necessarily be monetarily profitable. I believe more focus in wars should be on the damage and less on the profits. I want to echo how much I like this suggestion: Giving players more wiggle room in missing a login. We should use these mechanics to encourage players to be active, as well as to encourage them to grow & have fun. Expecting people to play daily in a persistent MMO with a large punishment for missing a day hurts retention and makes the game too much of a chore to keep up with. The reduction should be a simple "# of days" reduction though. If the increase is exponential the decrease could be the same, but I think keeping the mental math as simple as possible helps everyone.

I wouldn't trust Borg & Yarr as far as I can throw the money they've stolen.

Doesn't this logic apply to using Yarr just the same, or anyone that's not your gov.

If it's not morf radio why talk at all? I've heard before silence speaks for itself.

pnw

Even if it's true, must every vote or post be verified? By nature of them posting or voting, that's their community voice. Either you should accept community feedback or don't. But stay consistent. That's my frustration. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Needs more Band of Falcon. Congrats on peace.

Thanks George. Back to you Steve.

I'm not smart enough to understand this level of 8d shogi posting. @roberts could you help me understand this, and how one might "defeat and break up hegemonies in the game" or how one could "add a level of complexity to internal alliance affairs or adding competive minigames that could make the time in the game past quicker and keep people online...."?

It's not ideal, but putting this up to vote feels disingenuous when they specifically call out the exemption for the naval changes. If it helps them emotionally to get community feedback, my one vote will mean nothing, but I'd opt for updates regardless if it removes the excuse. And if it's planned for an exact date (not something that was done) to drop, for example August 1st, I think that would be relatively fair. Better solution would be to just update as soon as the war is over/they are confident the update won't cause significant issues and it has been properly tested.

I'd rather if you plan something weeks/months in advance to drop, you just do it even if there is a war. We need something to scream and meme about. I just want to not see an excuse for why development is held up. And if the concern is over some catastrophic mess up; then the changes aren't ready anyway/you should have backups and we can do a rollback of a number of days.

https://tenor.com/view/the-toad-huzzah-a-man-of-quality-flushed-away-gif-21107851 I'm no hipster. I love frogs. Everyone else in here loves frogs. Man, I Rove Frogs.

I really liked the theme, the people, what you had going. But big respect for knowing yourself, and being able to actually face the truth. Rip the bandaid off. Not in a bitter way, but in a honest way. Instead looking to do something better. I hope all of you find good homes, and make them all a much better place. Waffle House is more than the sum of its waffles. It's a Home.