Gudea
-
Posts
87 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Gudea
-
-
5 hours ago, Malleator said:
Thank you Inst and Gudea for answering my question of war length. I wouldn't be surprised if most who voted, "No," shared your desires for the war to only last 1-3 more months.
No problem....anytime, man.
The next vote you should put up is for the creation of two alliances - Thunderdomes A & B. This way, all the players that been around since the Crucifixion on Cavalry can hash out their differences.
Let's see......any ideas for the first match-up? Given the friendly banter in this thread, let's start with Boyce the Great vs. Aragorn, Son of Arathorn!
And look up Seb to handle any handicapping and handling the bets! Like the good ol' days....ah yes.....a day of gladiatorial combat in the Colosseum!
-
1 hour ago, Malleator said:
To those of you who voted, "No," how much longer do you want this war to go on for?
Perhaps I should have specified, "Do you want the war to end right now?" in the question. That was indeed the intent of my question.
Perhaps this will be PnW's first eternal war?
Can such a thing be sustained?
Is that what the people want?Ok, @Malleator, I voted no, so I'll answer truthfully and completely as possible.
1. How much longer do I want the war to go on for? - Not much longer, maybe no longer than the end of October or mid-November. A lot of folks have gone inactive or quit. It's hard to miss.
2. Will this be P&W's first eternal war? - Hopefully not. I doubt the P&W economy was designed with permawar in mind. Prices are already crazy.
3. Can eternal war be sustained? - See above answers.
4. Is that what the players want? - Probably not, and it would be illogical to assume so. If anyone likes war so much, there was always Arrg!, Mythic, or maybe some other raider alliance to join. 'Normal' nations/alliances don't benefit from wars, since their nations make money from infra, raw materials, manufacturing, loans and taxes. Logically, raiders should love wars (plenty of targets/ cheap rebuild!), but no one else should be in love with the idea. 'Regular' nations/alliances only benefit (materials prices!) from wars they profit from, ie. stay out of. Or they are trying to defend themselves, or accomplish some geopolitical objective.
That's my 2 cents, anyway.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Pop said:
2 weeks? That's pretty optimistic chief. I think 2 months is more likely.
That's fine. For myself, it's just a long, drawn out, and boring affair that goes on and on for no good reason anymore. When I get bored of it all, I'm out.
I've been war gaming for over 40 years, on boards, tables, and screens....and this is no war game; just a geo-sim with a way to handle wars. The war system is very dull, and, over time, very boring. I'm not complaining about the war system, since I don't expect much from a geopolitical browser game. Overall, I'd say P&W does everything well enough, considering. It's more about how the players themselves handle things. Maybe the meta's the problem.
I leave all the heavy-duty political wheelin' and dealin' to the Fearless Leaders on all sides....after all, I'm just an old, lowly Private in this war.
Something fitting for the War, since I've been dustin' off the vinyl lately, so to speak:
-
Of course I want this war to end. P&W isn't exactly an exciting war game, and I don't want to run a micro nation forever. If the war doesn't end, then a rebuild isn't going to happen.
Maybe not end the war tomorrow, but I'd be cool with the war being over around the end of October. I still have some personal objectives I want to finish.
Given I'm not in government, and my Alliance is ruled by a King, my expressed opinions are only those of this lowly Serf-Noob, and no one else.
Someday I might get lucky enough to get a promotion to Clown or Varlet!
-
4
-
-
-
3 minutes ago, Necrosin said:
ok...i think you need to look again at who is doing the whining genius. those of us quietly playing baseball did not come here and start this thread. we didnt go crying to the devs because we dont think its fair that we cant insta win a war. and as far as Alex and his servers go...i could care less. if he wants to print money he can add paid adds onto the baseball page. our daily clicks should be more than enough for to make him happy and forget about the idiot wallet warriors
I am looking at who's doing the whining. @Alex started the thread, and nobody's talking about insta-winning wars. And I'm not in the habit of crying to developers. I might provide input if requested, but that's about it. And, in this case, input was requested.
If you don't care about Alex and his server(s), then you don't care about Politics and War, or the little time-killing games in it. No Credit sales = No server(s) = No Politics and War = No Keno, Baseball, or Dice. Your statement, "I could care less" is obviously illogical.
You're really just feeling put out about the possibility of not being able to quietly spam free in-game cash anymore, right? After all, putting ads on the Baseball page doesn't correct the problem of large sums of money being spawned into the game out of thin air. You didn't address that problem at all. The quantities involved amount to something akin to a 'legitimate exploit'. $13 billion in one case?! Over a period of, say, 5 years, that's over $7 million a day profit! That's ridiculous!
What you call "idiot wallet warriors" are the reason Politics and War (or almost ANY game!) exists. Non-paying players ALWAYS ride free, but only on the coattails of Wallet Warriors. Somebody is ALWAYS buying something one way or another with REAL money to keep games going. You can call the headquarters of the NFL, NHL, NBA, or PM Alex to confirm that. In this case, Credit purchases need to be the only 'legitimate exploit'. It's not Pay-to-Win, but Pay-for-Less-Grind-Time. Your opinion of Wallet Warriors is unrealistic and irrelevant.
It's the real world, so face facts: In the end, it's all about the money. Get that, Einstein?
And there's nothing wrong with that. I don't work for free, either!
-
1
-
6
-
-
4 minutes ago, alyster said:
That treaty is gone by now.
There not shooting at each other yet, so......Idk.
-
@Alex - Spamming money into the game via Baseball, Keno, or shootin' dice is a really bad idea. If players want to make more money, then they can raid, or work out their city builds to be more efficient, ie. infra, manufacturing or mining. The games were supposed to be something to kill time between turns in P&W, not a money spamming machine, right? Therefore, the games are being abused. End 'em all.
If people want to spam money into the game, then they can buy credits, and keep your P&W server(s) going! It's not a pay-to-win game, since anyone can still do the grind. And never mind the whining - they just don't want to lose the free ride they've been getting spamming games. The only ones complaining are the ones getting too much free dough clicking a mouse button.
The whiners need to remember that it's the Wallet Warriors that keep the game funded...like it or not.
NB!: Alex make no $$$$ = No Politics and War!
-
1
-
3
-
-
I voted Black Knights, but just a downgrade from the hypothetical paperless MDAP to a MDP or maybe a NAP/PIAT. This way, NPO can still hang out with t$.
The new narrative will involve representatives from NPO's Ministry of Truth (Minitrue) making Forum statements 'proving' NPO NEVER had ANY paperless deals with BK EVER, and that NPO NEVER, EVER reneged on ANY of their treaty obligations with ANYONE at ANY time. And if NPO EVER DID renege on ANY treaty obligations, then NPO was RIGHT to do so.
Just a personal observation: What a 3-alarm dumpster fire this war turned into, ain't it?!
-
1
-
-
Maybe a re-balancing of raid/war booty takes would solve the problem. If individual nations were to lose a much smaller percentage of their accumulated wealth to a raid or lost war, then there would be much less incentive to shift wealth to a bank or banks. Individual players would probably keep more of their wealth in their nations, while raids or lost wars should yield in total (nation + alliance bank booty) about the same average amounts as currently to winners/raiders. This would entail making the percent total of bank lucre shelled out to war victors and successful raiders larger. This should cause a decrease in money and materials hidden in banks, and a decrease in bank numbers and their relevance, due to banking being more risky. Alliance banks will still take measures to protect Alliance assets, of course, but their bank assets would be a lot less, since they wouldn't have to hide the large amounts of cash or resources on deposit from member nations. I'm not sure this would work out for sure; I'm just kinda thinking out loud, and generalizing. I'm not sure about what the numbers should be to make this happen.
Alliances are made up of individual nations. An Alliance bank sitting on a mountain of cash and resources which are, on average, around double that of each member nation combined has on-hand is completely unrealistic. Current stats are:
Total $ in Nations - $208,990,453,036.68.
Total $ in Alliance Banks - $408,474,906,769.89.
Total number of Nations in game - 13,127.
Numbers as of May 23, 2044 Orbis Time.
Numbers like that are like the United States handing NATO or the UN around 2/3's of it's wealth for safekeeping! Never happen.
Players are incentivized by the current system to hide most of their nation's wealth in banks, which, in turn, has made Alliance banks and the Offshore Banksters way too important, not to mention way too numerous. Speaking for myself, I have a crap-ton more money and everything else sitting in a bank compared to the peanuts I keep in my nation. I seriously doubt it's just me operating this way. Not very realistic, is it? Only on the Planet Orbis, baby! What's sittin' in a bank ain't just the shekels and materials collected by our friendly, neighborhood Alliance Tax Collector we all know and love, now is it?!
Maybe this idea will also keep the, uh,...."Privateers", shall we say, operating normally, as well as slash the numbers and importance of the Banksters. There's just way too much of everything sittin' in the banks of Orbis anyway.
-
Wow!!! I remember that cartoon!! Thundercats.....HOOOOOO!!!!
-
10 hours ago, Akuryo said:
...
If you do talk about politics so much as you suggest, you really already should know who keshav is.
NPOs 2ic. Meaning if Roq goes we have Keshavbots.
Where in my post did I suggest that I "talk about politics so much"?
Ah. Now I know who Keshav is: NPO's 2nd. in Command. Actually, I haven't got a clue who almost any Alliance leaders are, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is what I said in my post.
@Sphinx - "My reasons were much more than just "war rep", its amusing you guys are still going on about that. Haven't you got new talking points yet?"
That's what the allegedly leaked log I read said, man. I wasn't "going on about it", nor did I bring it up as a "talking point", but as an example. Correct?
The point @Shadowthrone made about having a rational geopolitical metagame was obviously lost.
OK.
-
On 8/16/2019 at 12:37 AM, Shadowthrone said:
Not "fun" wars as your describe, but specific reasoning to war, to politics. Give specific ideological meaning to your action.
@Shadowthrone - Man, those words are pearls! I said about the same thing in a post weeks ago. Going to war over mindless stuff like boredom, fun, or a leader being dissatisfied with their Alliance "war reputation" totally destroys any potential for a rational geopolitical metagame in P&W to even get off the ground.
Dude, ya oughta be in government, if ya aren't already!
-
4 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
;the problem is 100% one of mindset and behavior, and also disingenuous suggestions designed by said mindset.
Sir Scarf is absolutely right. Wars are caused by the mindset of the players. Like Surf's Up, for example. I couldn't see the point of that war in the first place. It didn't seem to have any. It was pointless at best, and counter-productive at worst. Start a war over boredom?! 'Sigh'.....not a good idea.
This current war, for example, started over leaked info. The info leak involved discussion of an impending attack on both Blocs involved as combatants in Surf's Up. This resulted in both ChAoS and KETOG Blocs joining forces to strike the plotters first, rather than wait to weaken themselves through further conflict. Offensive Defense. A good idea. It's also a very rational and predictable response.
Yup. The root cause the wars in the above examples were both how players were thinking, which resulted in plans made, and actions followed. No way to deny it. That's just the way it is. Player thinking and strategizing IS the Metagame!!
-
2
-
-
27 minutes ago, Zephyr said:
I don't understand the relevance of your response. Neither the original poster or myself suggested that the proposed change replace existing game features, nor did we suggest that they affect other game features. Unless what you're suggesting is that you believe existing game features and the proposed change cannot possibly exist simultaneously, but you'll have to explain to me how you came to that conclusion.
It's not about replacing or changing game features. I explained to you what the game IS - a Geopolitical simulator. What you expect @Alex to do is a somewhat extensive redesign of P&W. That's like expecting Milton Bradley to redesign Monopoly to please an insignificant minority of people that want to pretend it's a RPG! P&W, like Monopoly, is not really a RPG. Get it now? If you want to pretend it is, that's fine by me.
Now, I fully realize that Alex is tearing off more $$$ with P&W than Buffett and Munger could ever tear down in a thousand years, but have some mercy on the dude. Balancing out a Geopolitical sim is work enough, especially after counting all the dough he hauls in per day. Seriously though - Trying to balance out the Political, Economic, and Military spheres is good enough, without worrying about adding useless fluff. Just that seems like it's still a work in progress after a bunch of years.
Maybe the RPG crowd can ask Alex if he can design a Geopolitical RPG. I'll bet he'll do it....and be more than happy to! Oh hell yeah!!! But, when he starts throwing price quotes around, I know you RPG guys are gonna fund it, right?
Personally, I outgrew RPG's back in the 1980's. They were fun for awhile....but always somewhat pointless.
-
@Zephyr - If you've played P&W for any amount of time, it's impossible not to notice that Politics and War is a down-and-dirty Geopolitical simulation game. Social policies of any nation have NO EFFECT on the only three things that matter in Geopolitics, in-game or in reality. The three things that matter are:
Political Factors - Associations between nations (individual players), alliances (groups of players), and blocs (groups of alliances). Of course, it's obvious that selection of leaders, advisors, etc. in Political, Economic, and Military affairs is also a Political matter;
Economic Factors - Monies collected through amount of infrastructure, city improvements, drilling and mining, manufacturing, banking and commodities/stock trading. Also maximizing city efficiencies through pollution, crime and disease control. At the Alliance level, setting levels of taxation, and the alliance bank turning an extra buck or two through trades, interest charges on loans, etc.;
Military Factors - Size and composition of national forces, national and alliance war stocks in money and manufactured materials, and effective protection of national and alliance monies and war materials.
All of the above have a DIRECT or INDIRECT effect on EVERY nation in P&W. Social policies have ZERO effect on ANY nation in Politics and War. I haven't bothered looking at my nation's social policies since I set it up. Why bother? For what?
-
Anyone who bought into NPO's pathetically, yet absolutely pure, pristine, and unadulterated bullshit needs to:
A: Never produce offspring;
B: Get to a Poison Control Center IMMEDIATELY for an emergency vaccination!:
-
3
-
-
That should work fine. New players would definitely be able to build/buy faster, and the standard bonus increase of 200k is not exactly a game changer, but would up my net income around 8.5% @ 11 cites and 106 days old. And who can say no to free coin?!
-
You're reading my mind, man!
-
Yup. Tech tree action. Always like build games. And wargames too....ah yes, ever since playing with cardboard pieces on maps with hexagons....back in the day.
-
@Prefontaine Ah, I get it. How 'bout new projects that cost a crap-ton of materials, and some that would be be obtainable if only if a previous project is built first. Example: If ya bought the Nuclear Research Facility project, then make an improvement available, ie. A MIRV Nuke Project! Multiple city targets for the price of one shot with a limit of, say, 4-6 MIRVs per shot (mat'ls price will be the highest for the 6-pack, of course!). The upgrade will also eliminate the original project from the players list. And make the six-shooter so pricey in materials, even the banksters would be scared! Maybe the same with the rest, except the manufacturing projects. A tech tree kind of thing.
-
@Alex, I think that the entire idea of being fixated on using cities to take care of what seems to be a material glut is kind of, well, pointless. Perhaps a better fix would be to reduce the amount of raw materials available. For example, maybe delete the 50% production bonus for having max mines, wells, and/or farms. This would have the effect of increasing the price of the 6 raw materials by around a third over time (after players use up the excess materials), since production of each would be 1/3 less efficient on all of Orbis. Processed materials would have to increase in price also, since the raw materials needed to manufacture the 4 processed ones increased in price, or takes more cities to mine/drill/grow. I'd predict market prices wouldn't be affected immediately, but it would increase slowly over time; nothing radical. Basic supply and demand. Maybe an easy fix to the program/game? Even the dead hand of Keynes would approve!
Something like changing productivity at the beginning of the supply chain (raw mat'ls) might be a permanent economic fix for all of Orbis. Just don't over-correct the food! No starvation!?
@Prefontaine, What do you think?
N.B. - I'm still kind of a n00b, but the Orbis materials market does seem to function on supply and demand.
-
I like the idea of using projects to increase demand for materials. If the project(s) is (are) relatively inexpensive, but cost a lot of resources, that'd do wonders for market prices. The only catch would be the project or projects would have to be a "gotta have that/these" to a vast majority of players. Just my 2 cents.
-
It was fun following this one, complete with a surprise war result in more ways than one. Call it a win for Soup, right down to the good sportsmanship! Well played, sirs. Well played!
-
3
-
peace talks
in Orbis Central
Posted
That log post was epic! Put Marianna in High Gov't immediately! Quote:
"Please say we can choose someone else, other than SK...."
I'll buy that! That line made my day!.....ROTFLMAO!!!