Dryad

i agree with this. same with the sell button on the other market page.

keep this francisco dude blockaded, he keeps undercutting me on the market. thanks.

@KiWilliam i understand all of them except for ampersand

That tierlist triggers me. I'm also triggered by the absence of an E-tier in the last 3 tierlists.

Then i think compensating being difficult is a problem by itself. What if lets say you were to code a checkbox that if you tick it enables a mode ingame where people can sell their cities, and if you untick it the game returns to normal. You could be reusing that for any future game update that involves selling cities as a means of compensation and every time it would only take you a second to tick the checkbox. I honestly think developing means to easily compensate would absolutely be worth developing by themselfes and I do think ideally losers of a change should always be compensated. Ultimately you are doing development on the game to improve it, but if the ongoing development on the game by itself makes the game worse then that's extremely counterproductive imo.

i agree that this kind of stuff shouldn't stop you from making changes that you find will improve the game. However, there is clearly ways of going through with those changes without punishing people for what was previously correct play. Giving a 1 week period for people to sell their cities for the full purchase price as Vein has proposed would be a pretty easy way to save people from feeling like they spent 10b in a stupid way. Then a week later the game mechanics would return to normal, cities would only be destroyable not sellable, the changes would be through as you wanted and nobody would have to feel like a victim and complain about it.

very cool. comparison between the spheres as a whole would also be interesting.

here is mine

ok

The apparently popular idea that an expired war should give an attacker beige while the loss at 0 resistance doesn't makes little sense to me. Any defender would just zero your resistance instead of letting a war expire and if they wanna sit on you they will do so until the turn before the war expires. On the other hand if the defender can't defeat the aggressor then imo the aggressor also shouldn't get beige. I absolutely agree that there is an issue with beige time being hard to get but the problematic issue imo is that lost defensive wars don't give enough beige time. One thing about beige on expiry that imo is extremely exploitable though in the proposed state, is that you will know exactly when you get beiged and can declare offensive wars right before that moment. Any defender will never want to do any attack that brings the aggressors resistance below their own, instead you would have an aggressors military zeroed purely by means of counters and acquire beige time even if your military is completely unharmed.

The way I understood it this will actually be the case and only the infra damage and loot doesnt apply at expired defeat. @Prefontaine clarify? On a related note though, not sure if its great that beige time for one defeat is being decreased from 25 turns to 20 turns when all beige time acquired through offensive wars will also be missing going forward.

absolute madlads

What Shiho said. Imo this should, if at all, only work for a defender force-peacing an aggressor that gets beiged. Aggressors forcing peace on a beiged defender is just ridiculous.

I agree that Alex would likely not balance it properly.

thats not true though. i mean assume that there was no debuff at all. Now having no slots would be absolutely insane offensive wise because you could just get as many people on a target as you need to zero them immediately. Now with a buff it totally depends on the number. Some amount would be so low that it's irrelevant and some numbers would be so high that it disincentivizes aggression. Obviously there will also be a sort of golden middle.

whether it's a disincentive depends on the actual numbers. without slots you could also blitz a person with 20 instead of 3 people.

Since beige is gone now, I'm posting my idea for a replacement. Remove warslots as well and replace both beige and slots with a buff/nerf mechanic. The idea is if you declare an offensive war you get a nerf and if you get declared on you get a buff. You could declare a lot of wars but doing so will stack debuffs on you and at the same time hundreds of people could hit you but they would also stack hella buffs on you. As for the beige replacement, I'd say once a war expires it would just maintain any buff from a defensive war for another couple days or whatever after expiry. Important is the balance that the attacker gets a debuff similar to the buff the defender gets. This way an ally could attack an ally and their buffs would just cancel each other out sort of. Ideally this would just make moderating it unnecessary. It would address other stuff too e.g. balance out the attacker advantage somewhat by giving defenders the buff vs debuff advantage. That's the basic concept, obviously there is a ton of math that would have to be done to get balance right and there would be a lot of other stuff to adjust but I know people don't like reading so I'll leave it at this for now and not go super indepth. Idea should be clear.

absolute madlad

My favorite alliance returns

1. Administration (no alex, no game) 2. t$ (eumirbago wins forum wars solo, may cause war after NAP) 3. TCW (have a sphere, may cause war after NAP) 4. Camelot (Rose more stronk but Camelot will get the sphere rolled so more relevant) 5. TI (don't think swamp would exist without them) 6. CotL (hedge leader mens) 7. Arrgh (only raiding aa rn, keeps the raiding playstyle alive) 8. Rose 9. KT MAN BAD 10. Yarr (prefontaine game updates impact much) Honorary mentions: TKR (too much following t$ around, try again next year)

Got the same issue with the KT alliance page: https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=4124 used to be additionally to the type of characters named by OP

I have no insider info on what exactly t$ plans and I doubt you will get them here, but generally speaking there is bunch of other stuff that needs to be considered. If t$ does hit Camelot then who exactly is hitting Camelot, will it just be t$ or include some of their allies too? Justifying a dogpile is not as easy as a more even matchup. And now you get questions of the likes of "isn't it better if we get hit so we can activate treaties and drag our allies in?" So it may be the case that t$ is simply not worried about getting hit first and potentially even prefers it. Could also be something completely different of course, like I said, I know nothing. Also note that Eumirbago isn't gov and that word of mouth from members can usually not be taken as proof for alliance intentions, but yeah usually it's not ideal when members give hints of war plans.

That's fair @Eumirbago and I have absolutely no problem with you rolling them for a while to make up for it. I did say there is fault with them, the thing that I don't buy is the "Camelot is evil" narrative, and I'm not implying that's the narrative of leading figures of t$ but some people do think that way.

Alright, i'm gonna stop derailing with Mythic stuff, skip that part and really you can weigh my opinions however you want. Yeah I agree, I don't think people actually believe that, at least not in the case of Arthur. The one who is really being criticized is Epi, right? I won't defend any of the stuff he said, Epi has his own particular set of chromosomes. The point I'm really pushing is that Arthur I think is really cool and I just don't think there is really any need to worry about IQ stuff happening in the future caused by Cam despite the things Epi says, as long as Arthur is who he is. That's really something people need to realize, it's not Epi who is at the helm of that alliance. I have been in Cam gov for like 4 months or whatever and everything goes through Arthur, despite people not seeing him much in public. And Epi, if you read this, I like you too don't get me wrong, but yeah idk you just baffle me sometimes. Anyway rawr and everyone else, Arthur man good, Arthur man leader man.

See, Arthur is nice.