Jump to content

Cool Bear

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About Cool Bear

  • Rank
    Casual Member

Profile Information

  • Leader Name
    Cool Bear
  • Nation Name
    Bear Party
  • Nation ID
    181361

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That’s a photoshop. Trust me, I can tell by the pixels.
  2. We’ve only had Bird Weed for a bit and a half, but if anything happens to it, we’re going to kill everyone in this game and then ourselves.
  3. It seems odd to put an alliance event into a nation-specific subforum, but sure, wherever is the right place for it. We just want more fights.
  4. Your meme is inferior because we already know Jazz is dumb. We literally have a discord emoji about him being dumb. FIGHT ME YOU COWARDS (3 at a time, please and thank you)!
  5. I don’t watch MLP (and also don’t usually watch youtube much) but wanted something that matched the Lisa Frank background and Gritty pic, both thematically and visually. If you have better suggestions, I’d be willing to consider them. Actually, Stronger Than You might be better now that it looks like cooperation is saving the day...
  6. Me! My numbers are too good and are starting to go to my head, so they gotta get messed up a bit. PS: If you want to dec on me, please find two other people to dec on me at the same time. Thanks! Disclaimer: This post is NOT a guarantee of your safety or the integrity of your electronic pixels (e-pixels).
  7. This nation: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=89681 His leader name in the forums is Elijah Mikaelson but that's not his leader name in game. Here is the screen shots incase he tries to change it.
  8. Oh! I see -- and it's still around 6-7k per turn. Thanks for the link! So maybe the bug is "on the first turn, you get the standard bonus instead of the '50k for matching your alliance color' bonus"? I've definitely been relying on the bonus being 50k to keep my cities powered.
  9. What were you doing (or trying to do): Earn 50k revenue in one turn, to pay my power bills, by changing my color from "grey" to "black". I was able to successfully change my color to "black", which matches my alliance, but I did not earn 50k for it on the turn change, so I was short $3 and could not power my cities this turn. This is unfortunate because after the turn change, I started a war under the mistaken impression that I would be able to attack my opponent. What happened (describe thoroughly please): The revenue page reports that my income just now from the color block bonus was: $6,614 Link to page: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/revenue/log/ Any other relevant information: It might be pro-rating the revenue, so that if you changed your color 30 minutes before the turn ticks, you'd only earn $12.5k instead of the full 50k. Does this mean if I bought 10 mines 30 minutes before the turn ticked over, I would earn 1/4 the resource income on the first turn instead of the full amount? Is this deliberate? If so, it might be good to clarify that in the place where you can choose your color (or on the revenue page or anywhere else prominent). Screenshot: n/a
  10. Can you explain the reasoning behind "an alliance with 1000 members willing to actively do something should make less money than an alliance with 30 members unwilling to actively do the same thing"? Wouldn't this also apply to raiding inactive players, where an alliance with 100 active raiders would make more money than an alliance with 10 active raiders, even though "farming inactive players for loot" isn't supposed to be a primary game mechanic either? Also, Alex's graphic shows that actually, four (4) nations spammed baseball at 22m a day for one (1) day, making a total of less than 100m, which is significantly less than the 6250m figure you are suggesting. 4 is also significantly fewer than 1500.
  11. What were you doing (or trying to do): Blow Up a Factory What happened (describe thoroughly please): I received a war report that said I had blown up a factory with 400 tanks inside. When I visited the opponent nation's page, it said they still had their original 3600 tanks. A guildmate reported the same situation (blowing up a factory but the tank count not going down). Link to page: Nation: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=180695 War: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=589031 Other War: (I think?) https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=589214 Any other relevant information: The message I got when I did the attack was " You ordered a naval attack upon the nation of Slade led by Lord Vetinari. The attack was an immense triumph. Your forces lost 0 ships, while Lord Vetinari's defenders lost 0 ships. You used 3 tons of munitions and 2 tons of gasoline executing the attack. The attack destroyed 0.65 infrastructure in the city of Diomira and destroyed 1 improvement, a factory plus 445 tanks inside." But when I look at the war timeline, it doesn't say anything about destroying improvements. I'm not sure if that means anything. Screenshot: (if available)
  12. I noticed that one of the threads in this forum is currently having a conversation on the subject of "Communism and Socialism (and also Stalinism specifically) are worse than Nazism". I reported this but the conversation was not suppressed, and a moderator later posted in the thread and joined in on a different conversational topic (indicating that they were reading the thread). This leads me to believe that the conversation and its subject is not against the rules. I don't understand, because I thought "promoting Nazism" (I'm interpreting "saying that Nazism is not as bad as other forms of government that are currently allowed", and expressing disapproval that the rules say Nazism is to be suppressed, as "promoting Nazism" (the opposite of "suppressing" it)) was against the rules. Can a moderator please help me understand what part of the rules I'm misinterpreting? Thank you! (I asked Alex in PMs but he didn't respond, but in some ways this is really more of a question to ask the forum moderators themselves, since they're the ones who approved it, so I'm bringing it here to ask for more information.) EDIT: If this conversation DOES break the rules, I would like to change my question to be "How can we, as players, know when a subject or conversational thread is disallowed, when the posts in question are not edited and the poster in question continues to discuss the topic of "Nazism is not as bad as Socialism and the mods were wrong to ban discussion of Nazism""?
  13. This didn't affect me personally, but I'm posting it on behalf of my friends who were affected by this. In accordance with the rules of the subforum, I asked my friends and they might later post " specific evidence as it relates to the technical support report " (I requested a screenshot of the error message). What were you doing (or trying to do): Send a PM to a moderator while muted. What happened (describe thoroughly please): Was not allowed to send a PM (to anyone). Link to page: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/messenger/ Any other relevant information: It gives you the same "You are restricted from posting content" as trying to do a forum post. Screenshot: N/A Anyways, if you ARE supposed to be able to send private messages while muted, can that be fixed or can an alternate means of contacting the moderators be given, for people affected by this bug (assuming it's a bug)? I know Olive checked herself for the case of "7 0-point warnings given to an account with no warnings causes the account not to be muted", but in this case, I'm asking about what happens when the account is muted, such as from a warning that gives points (not a verbal warning that gives 0 points). EDIT: also I know everything has a weird background but that's because I can't find where to remove the background color of the text (not just the text color)
  14. That actually brings up another question I had, if you don't mind answering it: If a bad poster makes a series of 8 rule-breaking posts in a one-day period, by the ruling specified in the linked thread, " We tweaked the warn protocols so that people will not be double-warned for the same violation basically in a 24-hour period. It has happened in the past and it shouldn't be. " This means: If User A makes posts A, B, C, D (all breaking Rule A) at the same time on the same day: User A gets warned for post A immediately (and is muted, so no longer posts). The user is not able to be double-warned for the same violation in a 24-hour period. 24 hours later, they get warned for post B (and get another point, because it's a different post). 24 hours after that, they get warned for rule C (and get another point, because it's a different post). Then they get their final and fourth warning point 72 hours after the first warning point. This gives a total of four warning points over four days, for one day of bad posting. But if Post B had broken Rule B, then it would have been: two warning points on the first day, and they would have gotten their fourth warning point 48 hours after the first, instead of 72 hours afterwards. Is that an accurate understanding of how the rules work? If you don't mind me asking, wouldn't it make sense to just give all the warning points at the same time? And do all four on the first day?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.