KiWilliam
-
Posts
244 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by KiWilliam
-
-
1m NS posts are so Two Thousand Eleven...
|| ❤️ ||
-
1
-
-
Merry Christmas!
Thanks for the
punplay on words. -
13 hours ago, 𝕰𝖑 𝕽𝖆𝖎𝖌𝖊𝖓 said:
Irl, policies are very important when it comes to ruling a nation, although in Politics & War, policies are treated as if they are not important at all. This is due to the fact that policies only affect your nation in roleplay. I suggest that policies should be given at least a little amount of importance. For example:
- If your Immigration policy is; "The government will accept all immigrants and grants amnesty to illegal immigrants", then your population increases.
- If hard drugs are completely legal in your nation, disease will increase in cities.
- If citizens are allowed to own and possess any and all types of weapons, crime rate increases in cities.
These are just a few examples and I wouldn't want every policy to affect my nation.
If we went down that route, it should be all policies or none. There should be no sacred cows. And the point (I presume) is to not allow personal political ideologies that one might use when choosing their policies, or when role playing (if one likes to do that) affect their material nation.
I would be strictly against anything like this being implemented. If anything I would like to see role play sections be further delineated and marked different from other parts of the nation page so as to not confuse new players.
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Mihlouw said:
I kid you not, you have stolen most of Vampyria's ideas for our Black Friday Night in the Vampire Den. I am a little suspicious
26 minutes ago, Kurdanak said:Come play with us! Promise it won't be rigged!
I love both of these jokes :)
-
17 hours ago, Justinian the Great said:
I'm certainly not defending the name choices here. Brawlywood is the best of the worst, in my opinion.
But every single war we have someone pitching, as Alyster points out, either a reference to an older war (Knightfall 2.0, Dial Up 2, Surfs Up 2 etc) which don't make any contextual sense - if anything, we could draw this war to Guns n Roses: Rose Strikes Back or something like that. But Knightfall?
Then every war we also have those people making the 0 IQ joke about server errors. I get the 522 error randomly while playing PnW at low-traffic times. Alex runs the game from a laptop in his basement that's probably simultaneously mining crypto. We get it, the servers are not as powerful as retail AAA game platforms. It's a horribly boring war name and it represents nothing about the war itself or the politics behind it.
At least Brawlywood allows inference to the participants.
Just to reiterate; I think just calling the war "The Hollywood War" or "Hollywood vs Bollywood" is 100x better than "Brawlywood". My severe disgust for the name aside; that name was never (someone please feel free to come out and correct me) used during the war or by anyone to refer to the war. It was designed as a "clever" play on the name of one coalition. But it's not cute or even informs about any of the other aspects of the war (back to your point about context as well).
I hate it. Knightfall 2 is also terrible but I feel is better than Brawlywood. If it was even "Rose Strikes back" or "Brawlywood Strikes Back" that at least gives some context; even if those are awful terrible names.
It's also everyone agreeing this process and these names are bad, yet we're going to go through this process, and act like it's democratic and that people who go against it are wrong. Dial Up war is Dial Up war because that's what it was called at the time, by the people who participated, by the people about the war, and by everyone now even 2 years later. Dial Up War is also different from The Long War. Which also has a bad (but not so horrible I won't use it) name. I usually refer to it as "that war" or "the NPO war" or "the long war". But the fact that people understand what I am referring to in a conversation is what matters in a conversation. No amount of peer pressure or fake veneer of democracy and "community consensus" is going to make me not call a spade a spade. It's the break down of these processes, spurred on by many things (this could be its very own interesting conversation), that leads to people just calling wars "Great War X".
I thought I was done posting about this, but this whole thing has struck a nerve.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Michael Gary Scott said:
Just to clarify I liked Whales I smoke, because it referred to upper tier consolidation and Grumpy's pixels burning
Fair. If we're just talking our personal opinions though; it's a dumb name :P
And I actually agree with the very brilliant meme above, Knightfall is also bad. The only similarity is that TKR was "brought down" but that's almost a stretch, in my opinion more of the attention was on GG.
That said, if votes are being split (FPTP) we get all these other names to lose against the stupid one that's winning. -
48 minutes ago, Michael Gary Scott said:
Because error messages are in no way unique to this war
Neither is "brawling". It's a bad play on words for the coalition name of "Bollywood" which at least is a direct rip on "Hollywood" which was the focal point of the war.
Bollywood vs. Hollywood is as simple as a name as can be. And acknowledges what happened in this war. The fact that Bollywood fought Hollywood.
What people call the war casually vs. what the wiki says, what's going to be remembered? People during the war called it one thing; to rewrite history to something that was never said before this poll is silly. And if someone can tell me that people actually said or called this conflict "Brawlywood" I'd like to hear that. Just calling it "Bollywood" would at least make sense, and again is a direct reference. Brawlywood is never going to be used to describe this war. It's GW19, (Error)522, or Hollywood (vs. Bollywood) war.
Edit: I just want to make it clear, jokes and snide remarks aside (not in this specific case directed at Mr. Scott), I hate the name Brawlywood. I don't care for Knightfall 2, but that's okay and honestly the best name as far as describing what happened. I think the name really should've commented on the axe grinding against GG (esp SRD), or that it was TKR vs. t$. Any other names that don't acknowledge those 3 actors (GG/SRD, TKR, or t$) are really just generic and meaningless. I also dislike using "GW19" except as a tongue in cheek or least bad option when wars have other stupid names. Don't even get me started on the number 19, but I digress. Just dropping a bit of my actual opinion. I think someone could easily come up with a better name if you just let someone that actually understood the war, or read even half the OWF posts. "The HW War" or "HW v BW". I'll digress. This whole process is grating to watch meander along as so many people grind their own axes, without any regard for what really happened, or any consistent process or logic. It feels like watching 2 different parts of your family try to plan some giant awkward birthday gathering and not one even really thinking about the person the party is for works a night shift, so they want to be asleep by 2 in the afternoon, yet you're having people making shitty pre-press burgers on their patio at noon, and they have to put up with it.
-
1
-
-
So I'm a decently active player of the game, and I missed this poll.
Not that such a thing should revolve around me and how often I check the forums, but the fact that you take such a snippet of the population of the game to "vote" for the "name" of something the good majority of the game participates in (the global wars), is just forum poster on head smart.
Just have the winning coalition make the name of the wars part of the peace terms and be done with this game. How many people do I have to pay off to slide into a dm to request another round of voting? Is that number 4 people? I could ask my friend(s) and pay 3 people a million dollars a piece to do that.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Not using a more sophisticated voting system just because we're stuck with these forums, and then trying to use this sham of a "democratic" "community" "vote" to force people to call the global war something as stupid as (honestly all of those names are bad), is just evil. Not to mention just illogical. But this is a game for [insert the worst insult that I am legally allowed to say on these forums, while at the same time being accurate, and not so bad that I can't live with the shame of also playing this game].
We should use a republican form of government; and hold a vote for the person who gets to name the war. An elected official will never go against the will of the people; and a single strong intelligent and wickedly funny representative is surely better and smarter and more clever & well informed than the common average Joe Forum poster. Just my 2 cents.
-
This space reserved for a calm & collected essay of my thoughts & feelings filtered through a politically correct sieve.
No Camelot below the rank of Templar should be posting.
Also;
Kero Kero in heck.
-
3
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Charles Bolivar said:
Pantheon remains undefeated.
Pantheon was always too strong. I only hope the curse is satisfied after this offering.
-
I'd ask why you didn't do this sooner but...
-
1
-
1
-
-
Ave Legio!
This space to be edited later.
-
3
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Lord Vader said:
Hehe, now TO has two love triangles.
Nice boat.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, zigbigadorlou said:
If you want the real numbers, I can DM you the Grumpy tax records as long as you promise not to leak them.
I don't know if anyone told you but they were already being passed around one of the news servers.
-
2 hours ago, Xi Jinping said:
okay so it wouldn't go away I clicked the unbold button like 15 times and nothing
You need to select all then hit bold/unbold.
You can do this with ctrl+a (select all) or on a mobile device usually long hold a word and then the popup will give an option to select all (or you could move the little cursors, but no one likes doing that)-
1
-
2
-
-
Long time coming.
Love ya
-
1
-
-
Respect the NAP.
Please don't attack my mental person. I'm not strong enough to think about that quite yet.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, Daveth said:
Who'd want to sign an alliance with @KiWilliam in it? Perish the thought...
Good luck to our folks at OWR with another group of Romans.I demand a very intense and extensive courting ritual.
*Very Intense*
10 minutes ago, Leopold von Habsburg said:Great to see you guys moving closer together!
Treat them right Legion...or else.
Do you not see the subtext? Chains? Medley? Redacted? DM? Aggression?
Please save us.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Shakyr said:
Yes they can drop money on the market, but is that no different to dropping it in the alliance bank and then it getting almost instantly shifted offshore? I remember the last global war that I participated in, nations in general were pretty quick about doing that.
So in this case, why bother complaining that people will abuse a new system, when they already have a way to abuse the system?
Personally, if you don't blockade the nation and they move resources out, that's your own fault. There's no reason to twist ourselves into a pretzel, trying to think of ways to give them free loot.
To clarify, I'm saying I think it's a fair game mechanic/you're right it's just like using the alliance bank. So I don't think my proposal is open to any "exploitation" more so than what currently exists :P
I was just asking if someone could think of such a way for that proposal to be used in a way I'm not thinking of.
-
Could the solution to fix possible abuse not just be if you lose a war all your currently standing trade offers are cancelled. Resources & funds are recalled as loot is divided up.
You could then have the mechanic where a person hides money for example using the market, but then can't use it during the fight. If the person is not blockaded they have this advantage, but once they're blockaded they're cut off from those funds/resources tied up in the market, and then can only access them if the blockade is broken, or if they lose the war and then they are automatically recalled to be divided up as loot to the winner.
So you can risk trying to stop your money being stolen in each individual ground attack, but you tie up your funds you may need to fight, and then if you lose anyway, you're not ahead of your opponent, and if you keep out of being blockaded, and then also don't lose the war, I would just consider that the superior force using its ability to protect some part of the nations coffers. Risk-reward. Any exploits there that I'm not envisioning?
-
1 minute ago, Cob said:
@KiWilliam Even giving the most generous way of saying it, A-dree-anne, it is still at *best* a bad slant rhyme because of the s. If you pronounce it any differently, then it doesn't work in the slightest. And still, what is the joke here? Truly I want to know
Thanks? I'd like to know what the joke is too.
-
How does one pronounce Adrienne. I'm at a loss.
This is where you defend with "I was taking the piss" and then drop the subject. That or be required to include a pronunciation guide with all of your posts from now on.
-
I like the idea of power not being calculated at the city level, but dislike it being something that is bought/sold. Mainly because power is something that is tied to the status of having enough during a turn or not, and not a quantity you can steal or stockpile. I'd like to consider & see more options for individual power before opening the flood gates to adding it as a market/multi-player one. I think making power less rigid would be interesting. Right now you really only have one meta that people follow, and it really doesn't change based on market conditions or war vs. peace etc.
-
1
-
Why we can't have nice things
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
A bloc is a multilateral treaty among 3 or more alliances.
A sphere is (traditionally in pnw meta) a major alliance and their allies+allies of their allies who coalition together; or (more in the micro realm) 3 or more alliances that hold multiple treaties among each other and other allies or allies of allies, without a formal organization, that have coalitioned together at least 2 times for the purpose of defense, political bargaining, or offensive war.
A bloc inside of a sphere, is not a sphere, but a bloc. A bloc which brings along their outside allies along with their bloc mates outside allies, act as a sphere. Rectangles can be squares, but only a square can be made up of 2 equally sized right triangles. There's nothing acute about flying off the handle here people. Don't sweep this under the rug.
||I bite my tongue hearing people talk about "bloc" level treaties. God they drive me up the wall. We have a name for those type of relationships already.||