Baker_Harrington Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Good day, My name is Baker Harrington. I have had my nation for 427 days now, joined and created many alliances, and taken place in all three world wars (and sort of started the tS-FSA War). The thing is, I am now in the top 10% of nations, so I'm not too powerful, but definitely not weak. You see, overtime, being a larger nation in a higher up alliance, you have to follow a lot of common, civil rules. This is to be expected, of course. Yet, over time, I miss more and more the days of being a small nation, who can jump around alliances, raid some people, get beiged, and then rebuild. I could do that now, yes, but I know better not too with my only nation. Let me be clear, though, I don't miss it because of the raiding, I miss it because of the environment there is in small alliances, with fellow small nations. Therefore, what I am trying to suggest is that multis, well, be allowed to exist in the game. Of course, there'd be a limit of one per house, like we have now, 2 nations per. These nations would not be allowed any interaction whatsoever between each other, cannot trade, and cannot declare war against each other (this rule could be changed, just a suggestion). To confirm that you have a second account on P&W, you will apply on a topic created on our forums, so a database may be made for all legal multis. Now, could people exchange money using a middle man? Yes, they could. And can now, that is an issue that is very hard to stop. Enacting this suggestion wouldn't affect this. All this does is let people who want two accounts that have no relation be honest about it, and allow it. If this isn't allowed, people will continue to lie, and say they are two people with two accounts. I hope you consider my idea, as it would make many people, looking to have a small nation, whilst keeping a larger one, happy. Thank you, Baker Harrington P.S. This will be very easy to enact. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadir Aminu Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I honestly wouldn't mind this. Just as long as their isn't any interaction. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimitri Valko Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I want another nation, too... Smaller nations are more fun to play as. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Specter Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 haha no.... Because they will still be used for cheating. 1 Quote Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadir Aminu Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 haha no.... Because they will still be used for cheating.But they will be monitored even more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Haddad Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I do not think Sheepy has the Human Resources Available to do so soz Quote Caliph of The Caliphate of Arabia. Caliph of the Islamic State of Arabia. Principle of The Principality of Chechnya. Grand Emir of The Emirate of The Caucus. Emperor of the Empire of Persia. Sultan of The Sultanates of Turkey and The Crimea. Czar of the Tsardom of The Balkans. Archon of The Archonate of Greece. Supreme Consul of The Consulate of Italy. Shah of The Shahdom Of Khorason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baker_Harrington Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 haha no.... Because they will still be used for cheating. I don't want this to be a full debate. I will say this: People can still cheat. It's like bringing refugees in and saying there will be more crime. There will always be crime. There will always be cheaters. This suggestion doesn't change that rule. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwemyrn Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Everyone is sheepy's multi. Sheepy cheats at his own game. 1 Quote -removed by thor- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRBOOTY Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 So many people already have illegal multies. If anything this would make the game more transparent. 2 Quote MR BOOTY IN DA HOUSE http://i.imgur.com/R5WWAB1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Von Dietrich Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 So many people already have illegal multies. If anything this would make the game more transparent. I concur. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---- Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Another good way to prevent cheaters would be for the 'mother nation' to provide Sheepy with a written limit regarding the quantity of cities and infrastructure in the new nation. In such a scenario, there could be interaction between the 'mother nation' and the multi until the cap is reached. After that no more interaction. I personally have always wanted to play as a 'city-state'. However, the game mechanics are unfortunately against such a gameplay. Presently, there are two ways that a city-state could be created in this game. Either an alliance supports the project, which is highly unlikely, or a friendly nation helps the city-state, yet again, another equally unlikely scenario. The toleration of multis could permit role-play as city-states, since the 'mother nations' would be able to supply the multi without breaking the cap. This way, city-state role-play could exist and cheating could still be prevented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baker_Harrington Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 Another good way to prevent cheaters would be for the 'mother nation' to provide Sheepy with a written limit regarding the quantity of cities and infrastructure in the new nation. In such a scenario, there could be interaction between the 'mother nation' and the multi until the cap is reached. After that no more interaction. I personally have always wanted to play as a 'city-state'. However, the game mechanics are unfortunately against such a gameplay. Presently, there are two ways that a city-state could be created in this game. Either an alliance supports the project, which is highly unlikely, or a friendly nation helps the city-state, yet again, another equally unlikely scenario. The toleration of multis could permit role-play as city-states, since the 'mother nations' would be able to supply the multi without breaking the cap. This way, city-state role-play could exist and cheating could still be prevented. I guess that'd be cool. By city state do you mean a country that only has one city? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---- Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I guess that'd be cool. By city state do you mean a country that only has one city? Yes, by city-state I am referring to nations with one city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadir Aminu Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 We could build off of the city-state and maybe call it a separate colony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baker_Harrington Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 We could build off of the city-state and maybe call it a separate colony. Interesting. That could be done in two ways. Either you in game become an actual colony, which would take more coding and a longer update. Or, you could role play it. That, however, would probably lead to interaction between the two. My original plan makes it easy for Sheepy to enact into the game. However, if he does decide to accept it, allowing a colony role-play would be his decisions too, if he wanted interaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadir Aminu Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Interesting. That could be done in two ways. Either you in game become an actual colony, which would take more coding and a longer update. Or, you could role play it. That, however, would probably lead to interaction between the two. My original plan makes it easy for Sheepy to enact into the game. However, if he does decide to accept it, allowing a colony role-play would be his decisions too, if he wanted interaction.A city state colony, you could come it so that it is a separate small nation that is dependent, but it won't be able to grow past let's say 2000 infrastructure. And you could role play it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---- Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 I only agree with this general thread for one reason. The game does not allow for the de-commisioning of cities. I have no idea why this is so, since projects can be built and destroyed. Ideally, you could de-commission cities in the same way as projects, after selling all improvements, infrastructure and land. But if this cannot be, then I would certainly support the proposals of the original post. By the way, I know that I should not promote threads, but I have a related suggestion that I feel has not gotten enough attention. The thread requests an increase in the character limit for leader names. Please take a look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadir Aminu Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Also, maybe having a colony or a city-state could cost 4 credits. The colony is just to boost prestige, not score, and a city-state would be completely separate. That would stop it from being Pay-to-win and OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baker_Harrington Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 Also, maybe having a colony or a city-state could cost 4 credits. The colony is just to boost prestige, not score, and a city-state would be completely separate. That would stop it from being Pay-to-win and OP. Yes, that'd be cool. But harder for Sheepy. All I'm requesting is that Sheepy just make a rule change, not code anything new. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---- Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Yes, that'd be cool. But harder for Sheepy. All I'm requesting is that Sheepy just make a rule change, not code anything new. Exactly. I see no problem with a nation creating another smaller nation under two conditions. First, the smaller nation does not grow beyond a certain point and secondly, the smaller nation is not used to enrich the larger nation. In other words, the larger nation could preliminarily fund the smaller nation, but the smaller nation could not send funds to the larger nation. If growth limits are imposed, the larger nation could support the smaller multi achieve its desired size. This is especially applicable to city-states, since the game mechanics require the creation of new cities to increase income. The very principle of the present rule seeks to prevent farming by creating 'feeders'. I might be wrong in stating this, but if a written limit is sent to Sheepy or another designated monitor of activity, then farming can be avoided. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormrideron Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) How about... You can have one multi nation for 30 days time limit. You must send the confirmation to the player's email and that player must verify it in order to be able to play the small nation.Rules for your mutli nation is that it can't be in alliance, accept trading or anything. Just only yourself and you have to fend for survival.\ After 30 days, it becomes free target for 45 days until it is promptly deleted from the game. Then you can sign up another multi nation after it frees up your slot availability for multi nation. Edited January 25, 2016 by Stormrideron Quote Commander-in-Chief of Svalbard Island Badassery Rating: 100% / Popularity Rating: 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
---- Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) How about... You can have one multi nation for 30 days time limit. You must send the confirmation to the player's email and that player must verify it in order to be able to play the small nation. Rules for your mutli nation is that it can't be in alliance, accept trading or anything. Just only yourself and you have to fend for survival.\ After 30 days, it becomes free target for 45 days until it is promptly deleted from the game. Then you can sign up another multi nation after it frees up your slot availability for multi nation. It could be a good idea, although it would kill the role-play potential of tolerating multis. That is my biggest hang-up, since for me, the appeal of multi is primarily in the role-play potential, nothing more. I participate in this game for the role-play. I know others are not as role-play oriented, but I feel that I speak for the other dedicated role-players who would likewise enjoy the benefit of a multi. Edited January 25, 2016 by Klemens Hawicki 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baker_Harrington Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 It could be a good idea, although it would kill the role-play potential of tolerating multis. That is my biggest hang-up, since for me, the appeal of multi is primarily in the role-play potential, nothing more. I participate in this game for the role-play. I know others are not as role-play oriented, but I feel that I speak for the other dedicated role-players who would likewise enjoy the benefit of a multi. Yeah, plus Stormrideron's idea wouldn't let a multi be able to do much. Plus, it would be more work for Sheepy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimitri Valko Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 How about it's just another nation without limits other than it can't interact with your main nation? All the things suggested about them seem really boring, so this sounds like the most fun option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baker_Harrington Posted January 25, 2016 Author Share Posted January 25, 2016 How about it's just another nation without limits other than it can't interact with your main nation? All the things suggested about them seem really boring, so this sounds like the most fun option. Right. It would literally be like illegal multis, but legal, but no interaction. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.