Dryad

@Azaghul Lowering bank loot amounts won't do much imo. As long as banks can be fully looted over time, because there exists no way to protect them, the losers will always lose everything. It will just take longer to loot them completely dry if the percentage per beige is decreased.

It being gimmicky doesn't seem like a very important reason to get rid of it ? Rid of something that's very vital to the survival of most alliances. If you do prevent offshoring then there must be an alternative to store stuff imo and it should be one that works for alliances of any size.

y u bandwagoning on my raids bro

Aye. Congrats on peace to everyone else though, well done enduring this long.

Banking strats will always exist. Bailing out Emerald bank isn't saving the banking playstyle but this particular bank.

edit: point C in that reply is relevant here

It's my belief that part of this bug has to do with sitting on 12 MAP for a while, as if the game actually stores more than 12 MAP. In both of these wars Akuryo did airstrikes after not doing anything for a few days so that doesn't contradict this suspicion at least.

Right, because both sides cant be playing unfairly at the same time. /s Baseball while unbalanced isnt wrong to use as a provided feature. Recruiting from outside the game is also not wrong, in fact it's great that it's being done; would certainly be a lot more balanced if both sides were doing it though.

My coalition B friends are being such meanies again Cmon guys, their whales peacefully co-existing at 3k+ infra doesn't mean they weren't at war!!!!!

because its actually cool gameplay wise

even better

i'm in favor of replacing baseball with the ability to redeem $2m once a day at any time of the day, which would replace the way you can use baseball under blockade to make some cash for double buys etc (the only cool aspect about baseball)

i'm pretty sure this doesnt account for tips which kinda falisifies the net value. 132570 is cloaca / birdonwheels5 who has mostly played away games. with the most games played i would assume if we account for tipping then their income should be at a comparable size to blighty and who me.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? was this a mistake? i cant believe this is actually the case and the graph doesnt show it this way. according to the graph blighty and who me both have made more individually than any of those 3 alliances (which btw is also kinda ridiculous)

As inst once suggested: Perhaps the term should be changed from "moderation as a weapon" to "rules-related blackmail"

cant wait for the 5 city nations at 2000 score because they got 10k infra in all cities this way.

When you get nuked it puts that overlay on top of your flag. I think it looks bad and I was never happy having it, in fact as someone who always has low infra, getting that overlay is the greatest damage the nuke even does to me, thus I vote for it to be removed. Not important obviously, just a cosmetic preference of mine, though cosmetics is really all that overlay is since there is no importance behind the fact you got nuked recently.

raiders won

You have obtained access to the account of Leo, pick your action: 1. Tell Leo about it and act in good faith. 2. Screw that good faith shit, steal their alliance bank then return it because you are a good person, but kick 60% of the alliances memberbase cause lulz An easy choice, who would even consider picking 1. for even a second.

well, GOONS stopped doing navals at the beginning of their wars and do dogfights instead now, so thats cool.

I like the general idea behind a protection time that you can trigger for yourself. It's an easy way to ensure that nobody ever remains permanently dead and has a way to get back up. I'm not sure though if I'm a fan of the exact implementation proposed. During peace time in particular I think this would be too easy of an escape button as you will see people getting declared on for the first time in 3 months and immediately use it which seems kinda strange to me. I dont know how great I would feel if I declared on some player to steal some money with ground battles but then have them simply end the war this way. Or in some kind of political scenario where a person gets hit to bear the consequences of their actions but then simply escapes and gets a week of negotiation time before they can be hit again; seems strange. Perhaps a system that would allow wars to be fought fully and then triggers a protection time after would be better? There is also possibility for exploitation with allies hitting each other just to trigger surrender mode, which maybe could be an issue.

lol. this is something you should most definitely not rely on. a bunch of people thought the current thing going on is super obvious slot filling, but Alex prove us all wrong. Also, you would get beige time if you lose and if the war expires but not if you win right? Then that's an incentive not to win obviously.

Pretty sure with CB he means the reason in your head with which you declare not the war reason that you write down ingame. Obviously there is rules to what you set the war reason ingame, but he can't moderate what people think so there is no rules on that.

The point is you can think that someone is [insert random insult here] and declare on them for that, but don't actually put that as the war reason ingame because then you are insulting.