Arawra

Cuffs Strum

Lesson learned: never pay for peace, only incentivizes them and others to scam and raid you. (Also you should have posted this in Game Discussion I think)

I can understand keeping city score at 100 because it's a more attractive number. However, I would assume the proposed military score numbers were determined with the revised city score in mind, so you might want to slightly increase the proposed numbers here in order to account for the unchanging city scores and reflect what this change was set to accomplish and what people originally voted in favour of.

I don't think it needs to be a necessary evil. Your goal of game development as you said is to retain more players, and I really think that should be inclusive of your dedicated, long term players as well; the game needs the old to teach the new, and the game needs the new in order to continue thriving. Changes that push away your older players should not be considered a "necessary evil" in my opinion.

Lets be realistic, you won't be the ones protecting Taith here.

(In order from left to right) Yes.

Congrats to you both! Best of luck, Adam.

Your leader is "baiting" for your alliance to be hit more, and you're... praising him?

I think you ought to further consider basing the "meter" on unit losses, damages, or military score loss over time. I think that will disincentivize people from allowing themselves to be openly navaled either by enemies, allies, or random opponents, essentially stopping winners from being able to accumulate beige time since they will in most cases not be losing military, but can still lose infrastructure to naval attacks, missiles, nukes, ground double buys, etc.

Agon? More like Bgon.

I only watched the video, but as far as I know there was no mention of expiry for built up beige, so I would think they should have some amount of beige, enough where they can beige after their opponent and come out to re-blitz them.

At first glance the beige bank mechanic seemed workable and I really liked the idea and reasoning behind it. However, I think this might fail to accomplish your goal of giving alliances the ability to fight a counter offensive. When the losing coalition decides to enter beige en-masse and prepare for their counter offensive, the opposing coalition can enter beige a few hours or days after the losing coalition does. The losing coalition will exit beige, milled up, but unable to attack the other coalition who is still in beige and the winning coalition now have a 24 hour time window to exit beige and re-blitz the originally losing coalition, rendering the ability to counter blitz ineffective.

Nation: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=220149 Violation: Embargoed my alliance with what Urban Dictionary defines as a curse in Hindi, the contents I will not translate, but Alex can look up himself if he so chooses.

You're the last person I would go to for correct information, get it now?

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

People don't need to support a suggestion just because it benefits them. Regardless, this change is the right move, current war scores are fricked.

Why are you going OOC, I thought you didn't believe in fascism and were only "roleplaying" as one? 😛

I do agree, fascist alliances being perpetually rolled does add some flavour to the game.

The idea is interesting, but it would need some other changes alongside it to act as a counter balance. The crime increase does not seem significant, and I'm not sure tweaking the numbers helps fix that; make it too low and it's not a counter, make it too high and it's not worth using (especially in war). The counter balance I would propose is a change to the VDS percentage, maybe 30-40% (from 20%) so that it's more of a gamble, but a favourable gamble for the nuker. This is all assuming that the change is actually worth the time and effort spent, and I personally prefer the current flaws of the war system be fixed before introducing new ones.

Alex's reason for not giving the aggressor beige is slot filling, right? I think having all wars (offensive and defensive) end in beige, disincentivizes slot filling more than not having it. Why would people need to slot fill to receive beige if everyone gets it anyway? The only reason one might slot fill, is to occupy those slots and do minimal damage while the person whose slots they're filling can beat their opponents. However, I think that's a lot more detectable than slot filling for beige, and it is also still possible in the new proposed system.

Similar to the removal of downvotes, I think this could encourage people to instead reply physically (with malice), and the ND rules do not really stop people as is. As for reducing the likelihood of producing good faith reports, I'm not sure the reactions actually discourage people from making them, since downvotes don't have any baring on reputation. They're a tool to easily show dissent/disagreement, which you tend to see on reports made disingenuously, fall into a gray area, or a person merely disagrees with enforcement on whichever rule. Overall I think it is important to maintain reactions on reports because people will make bad faith reports regardless, and the community needs a way to publicly denounce them. Edit: Is is also possible that there isn't a lack of good faith reports as gauging the moderation subforum may make one believe, but that many of those reports are, instead, made privately, off-forum, due to the negative connotation associated with being a "whisteblower." I have personally received messages including nations to report because they don't want to make the report themselves.

People like Nazism even less.

For clarity, are these people who simply help code new mechanics, or do they pitch ideas too?

I feel like it would be your own fault for falling for such an obvious scam. It says "credits," "sell," "$1." Not to mention it should not be made impossible to sell credits for low prices like that since trades are the only method available to gift away credits.

Aged like fine wine.