namukara

PNW would, however, be improved significantly if it didn't have this peculiar tendency to just...stop for months. If we agreed as a community to quit it with the stupid long naps, we'd improve player retention hugely. There are a few other ways of improving it (collectively stopping looking down our noses at smaller alliances and actually helping new players succeed in governing them for example) but I'm not Roberts and long political posts are not my forte.

The players of this game continue to get more pathetic with each passing day. If we did this, I'd lose all respect for gov. Long NAPs do not benefit the game, they don't benefit ordinary players and all they really serve to do is continue to improve the already over-inflated growth of a few players and alliances. I am sure a while ago we all agreed to have no more NAPS; of course, this idea died the moment the first person felt threatened, but it was certainly a lovely idea. Now somebody seems to have made a decision within the game that there should be no more war. I just hope it sticks as well as the grand commitment to have no more naps.

36. Namukara

I had a COA guy with no planes in front of me. I feel like pres just stole my dinner. I took yesterday morning off work for this. If I knew it would be pointless I would have saved the leave for something good.

I predict that food will get extremely cheap going forward as Village will give Alex access to the important buttons. Alex will 'accidentally' spawn billions of food into the game and cause the price to crash.

UPN will always be allied to TCW. Even when TCW stops existing and merges with Fark, UPN will still be allied to TCW.

Unfortunately Hilbilly mistook him for a passenger pigeon and shot him.

We must discuss this technology on the weekly grumpy msn messenger call to see if we may finally retire the IRC. I can't imagine it's much better but everyone must keep their minds open.

Why is there no scope for new player-submitted categories? I feel (as part of) the current academy could handle them.

What we clearly need is a public service broadcaster, with one leaker from each of the major spheres.

To be completely honest if there is an alliance which expects news servers, radio shows and forum randos not to jump on every single leak that they can, they need to get their heads examined. You're not entitled to not have your opsec spread around the game, once it's out it's out and you no longer own it. Only people a leaky alliance has to blame is themselves.

And people wonder why we have a pensions crisis?

Literally all alliances that rise from pure micro-ness, get onto page 3 or 4 and try to do FA then?

I recognise that this isn't a particularly realistic game, but it has always struck me as a particularly easy change to make it slightly more so that could be introduced. It is significantly easier for Chile to fight Bolivia than it is for them to fight Austria for example.

Haven't you just spent a long while in a small alliance which did pretty much nothing for its entire existence despite having a bunch of well known players?

Sadly it can also lead to people leaving the game. I've seen that in a few micros I've been in, especially ones which initially seem to have a bit of momentum and then just fail to get over the hump as it were. There's no more toxic environment than a micro in its dying days, because that's when the blame starts to get handed out and tired and angry people say things they later live to regret. I know I've been on both the giving and receiving end of this during my time in micro politics, which is partially why you've got me forever because I'm not doing that one again. Three times is enough.

It would likely have a role in less urgent FA matters, right? It'd give me an outlet every time I have a new and wonderful FA idea whose brilliance isn't recognised by the leadership of the alliance I'm in at the time.

I sometimes feel like one of the only non-raiders who agrees with this point, which is weird given that with my city count I live in Rose, Eclipse and T$'s kill zone should it come to it. My unpopular opinion is that the test server is a horrifically bad way of gauging whether changes are a good idea. You've got all of the nations starting at the same point with no head start, which is obviously not the way the game is. Instead a mirror of the game that periodically resets to the way the game is at x date prior to any tournament would be a better option. Would almost certainly require more server space/power however, which is why it's unlikely to happen.

The food clause, combined with immediate payment of a large sum, is frankly ridiculous. It's basically designed to stunt the growth of the defeated alliance and provides no real benefit to you. The only two things I'm unsure about are why Guardian is still helping you play this silly game and why TFP hasn't now been tempted to pick a side.

Most treaties have a lifespan longer than 3.8 days.

I'm not sure I agree with this take. There are a lot of alliances that don't want to be right at the forefront of political decisionmaking in this game, whether that be because they don't want the stress, they'd rather stay neutral or their members would prefer them to take more of a back seat. These alliances may however be very enjoyable places for members to be; I didn't leave TI because I was bored of it for example, I enjoyed my time there. Other players may find alliances like TI and UPN to not suit their play style atall which is also absolutely fine; alliances exist for those who prefer to raid for example. The diversity of possible playstyles is one of the few things that makes this game great.

This is way too many changes to be included in one post. Please split them to make it easier for players to critique each.

Find better people to take notice of. 'Top' alliances have a habit of looking out for their own interests 99 % of the time, though I'm sure youknow this all to well.

Your MA changes are distinctly odd. I know that, if I am not at war and somebody decides to even do a gather intel operation against me, they are doing it for a reason; probably to see what I have on hand for a potential future raid. Spy attacks are, in my opinion, an act of war...and I've been in the position of being caught doing them myself. If your members are getting a bunch of them it's time to worry.

A series of un-fortuna-te events