Administrators Alex Posted July 31, 2018 Author Administrators Share Posted July 31, 2018 7 hours ago, Mikey said: I assume the 4 year birthday is referring to stable PW, after it came out of beta. But does anyone remember when PW first started in alpha/beta whatever? I remember it being on the tail end of 2013 but not the specific month, just out of curiosity. I honestly don't know when P&W first started, but I believe I bought the domain name politicsandwar.com around November/December of 2013 (or was it 2012? I guess I don't know for sure.) But the game was "officially" launched August 5, 2014. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oppilan Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Using the voting system to create embargo and/or tariffs would boost activity in general. This is a good update. I'm hoping that this will evolve into something better in future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Is treasure bonus added after the flat bonus or before the flat bonus? @Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 As the leader of Grumpy, I will always happily accept free money, maximizing income is how we get so big, and to all other alliances on our color, you are welcome for your bonus money. I am willing to listen to offers to have Grumpy move to your color to boost your income. Since the reason we are on our current color is to maximize the chance to get treasures that we never ever get. Please message me with your offers, and you can feel free to combine with other people on your color to raise more funds. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Overall I like the new update, motivates people to move around more, hire mercenaries to bully little alliances off your color (You are welcome Arrgh, for the idea), more wars between alliances of similar size to kick each other off that color, etc. Although as for the voting thing I do think there should be something like you get 1 vote for every 10 cities or so, just because that is generally how it works irl, larger nations get more influential votes, and setting it at 10 cities per vote is a high enough amount so that large alliances with a lot of 10 city nations can still out vote a small alliance of 30 city nations. Also Sheepy can you please add a leaderboard for land when you do this update, I would really like that ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 I think it's interesting that the big tier alliances can harm their opponents by merely swaying a low tier aa to join the opponent's color, this can cause a lot of tension in the upper tiers and may result in more wars, cool implementation. 1 Quote I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 8 hours ago, Alex said: I honestly don't know when P&W first started, but I believe I bought the domain name politicsandwar.com around November/December of 2013 (or was it 2012? I guess I don't know for sure.) But the game was "officially" launched August 5, 2014. What the hell am I doing with my life? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 22 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said: What the hell am I doing with my life? Honestly? Probably nothing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Cianuro said: I think it's interesting that the big tier alliances can harm their opponents by merely swaying a low tier aa to join the opponent's color, this can cause a lot of tension in the upper tiers and may result in more wars, cool implementation. The traditional tendencies in these games are for the largest players to collude not compete so it's a bit difficult to see why this change is beneficial in this regard. Edited July 31, 2018 by Roquentin 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted July 31, 2018 Author Administrators Share Posted July 31, 2018 8 hours ago, ivk said: Is treasure bonus added after the flat bonus or before the flat bonus? @Alex The treasure bonus is applied before the Color Trade Bloc bonus. In other words, the Color Trade Bloc bonus is not increased by any % bonuses (Domestic Policies, Treasures, New Player Bonus, etc.) Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Kell Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 I like these updates, keep working Alex... It won't be long before this game has reached the height of demonification. Quote Listen to J Kell's Album: About The Author An early member of Roz Wei in 2015, J Kell went on to stay within the paperless world of Empyrea before signing with Soup Kitchen while scoring a record deal in 2019. J Kell went on to release multiple Orbis Top 40 hits. In 2020, J Kell took a break from Orbis. He's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 (edited) "EDIT: I'll add as well that for naming Color Trade Blocs, you are required to include the color name in the bloc, to avoid confusion. But otherwise, there are no rules, aside from the usual no profanity, no nazism, etc." Why can't we have it really close instead? Purpalia or riot I honestly don't know when P&W first started, but I believe I bought the domain name politicsandwar.com around November/December of 2013 (or was it 2012? I guess I don't know for sure P sure it existed in october 2013 seeing as thats when the first forums posts are from Edited August 1, 2018 by Malal 2 Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skittles Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 3 hours ago, Roquentin said: The traditional tendencies in these games are for the largest players to collude not compete so it's a bit difficult to see why this change is beneficial in this regard. Could be wishful thinking, but I feel greed will find it's way to the upper tier. Quote I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culdee Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 So is it too late to donate to flags so that I can get the superstar award? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oppilan Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, Sephiroth said: Although as for the voting thing I do think there should be something like you get 1 vote for every 10 cities or so, just because that is generally how it works irl, larger nations get more influential votes, and setting it at 10 cities per vote is a high enough amount so that large alliances with a lot of 10 city nations can still out vote a small alliance of 30 city nations. ? 1 vote per player, it'll boost politics and activity, is better. We don't want a game with just old peeps dominating with their old and big nations. 14 hours ago, Cianuro said: I think it's interesting that the big tier alliances can harm their opponents by merely swaying a low tier aa to join the opponent's color, this can cause a lot of tension in the upper tiers and may result in more wars, cool implementation. Indeed isn't it. In addition, If color embargoes are implemented based on votes, big alliances might want to control theirs and other color. This can give more wars. Edited August 1, 2018 by Oppilan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oppilan Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 On 7/31/2018 at 8:02 AM, Alex said: You are right about that, and I did consider the multi issue as well. It seems like a ridiculous thing to me to risk getting banned for, but I'm sure people will do it. I will likely institute a minimum then yes, based on age or score or something to discourage multi abuse. If min is instituted, say score for example. Small raiders will have 0 political voice, but still end up affected by embargoes. Else, make it like nations which cannot vote cannot be affected by color policies. On the downside, someone can create a small nation to bypass embargo. But it'll be suspicious if a small nation buys large quantity from market and players can report them. So there is that, a check is possible. Still possible to exploit. Adding tariffs will solve the issue. 5% tariff means, $100 offer will look like $105 to the buyer. $5 will go to alliance Bank. High cost will discourage buyer and the offer will not appear on top in market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 5 hours ago, Oppilan said: Adding tariffs will solve the issue. 5% tariff means, $100 offer will look like $105 to the buyer. $5 will go to alliance Bank. High cost will discourage buyer and the offer will not appear on top in market. If you add a tariff then it doesnt go to an alliance bank, making it go to the bank avoids the whole point in making it more expensive to sell since alliances can easily bypass this, the only effect this would have is making trades appear further down the list and "look" more expensive, plus it creates a mess for alliances that have controlled tax systems or have 0 tax. 6 hours ago, Oppilan said: 1 vote per player, it'll boost politics and activity, is better. We don't want a game with just old peeps dominating with their old and big nations. Indeed isn't it. In addition, If color embargoes are implemented based on votes, big alliances might want to control theirs and other color. This can give more wars. Adding more votes per city limit doesnt make it easy for whales to control anything, most of the people in orbis are between 10-23 cities, whales that are 30+ are the minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oppilan Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 25 minutes ago, Sephiroth said: If you add a tariff then it doesnt go to an alliance bank, making it go to the bank avoids the whole point in making it more expensive to sell since alliances can easily bypass this, the only effect this would have is making trades appear further down the list and "look" more expensive, plus it creates a mess for alliances that have controlled tax systems or have 0 tax. Adding more votes per city limit doesnt make it easy for whales to control anything, most of the people in orbis are between 10-23 cities, whales that are 30+ are the minority. Tariff is a tax imposed by government on movement of goods. A direct implementation is, making it as a tax on top of the market price. Mostly everyone buys the top offer, mostly everyone sells their resources based on the top offer available. Adding tariffs based on color will make the market look drastically different with different prices. It will have effect on manufacturing profit margin and affect the net revenue. It creates a huge impact of used properly. How can alliances 'easily' by-pass this? It depends on how it is implemented I say. If the tariffs are applied from one color to another, simply changing the nation color will do. If tariffs are applicable from one color to another alliance, then members need to leave the Alliance to by-pass. If the tariffs are applicable from a color to nation/alliances, much like how the current embargo mech works, then it'll be hard to by-pass. Of course, having a middle man will bypass. But that's hardly the reason to neglect the suggestion of tariffs, since embargo can be nullified with a similar move, yet we are talking about adding more embargoes into game mech. Adding more votes based on cities, will make the game more dominated by whales. 20 city nation will have two times the voice than a 10 city nation, whereas a 30 city nation three times. Unequal votes mean, less participation from New nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 I dont really care about the vote thing, but you are assuming that there are a proportional amount of 30 city nations vs 20 city nations vs 10 city nations. My numbers are about a month old but 30-35 nations above 30, and about 400-425 nations at 20 cities and above, which means out of the 6700 nations playing this game about 6200 of them would have 1 vote. That vastly out numbers the upper tiers still. even if you get rid of the little guys that never play and haven't deleted yet, I believe that still leaves around 2500-3k people with a vote. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 13 minutes ago, Oppilan said: - snip - The only thing a tariff would do if its based on color would be motivate little alliance to jump onto the same color as large trading alliances, it will barely effect how the market actually works simply push people onto a single color more often. The only positive thing a tariff would actually do is motivate more direct trades from alliance to alliance, besides that it will just screw little players because they would have to be on the same color as large traders, otherwise they have to pay even MORE money for resources they really need, while most large players have so many resources stacked up that we can literally wait a couple months and just trade with an alliance for really large stocks. as for the votes well SRD beat me to it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 (edited) I mean with the Market Share tools already existing with alliances, installing a tariff system isn't difficult. Free trade with alliances your alliance picks and well they set a tariff on other alliances if they so wish. Extending that to colours would not be too difficult too. Edited August 1, 2018 by Shadowthrone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oppilan Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 3 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: I dont really care about the vote thing, but you are assuming that there are a proportional amount of 30 city nations vs 20 city nations vs 10 city nations. My numbers are about a month old but 30-35 nations above 30, and about 400-425 nations at 20 cities and above, which means out of the 6700 nations playing this game about 6200 of them would have 1 vote. That vastly out numbers the upper tiers still. even if you get rid of the little guys that never play and haven't deleted yet, I believe that still leaves around 2500-3k people with a vote. Stats should be nearly correct. However, I differ in the approach alone. I don't think we should group nations into various tiers and compare representation. Your alliance is big and rich, even if you don't have enough votes on your own, you can reach out to help smaller alliances, be friendly with em and get some political mileage. When I hear such suggestions from some old members, my biggest concern is the growing disconnect between new and old players. That's all. 3 hours ago, Sephiroth said: The only thing a tariff would do if its based on color would be motivate little alliance to jump onto the same color as large trading alliances, it will barely effect how the market actually works simply push people onto a single color more often. The only positive thing a tariff would actually do is motivate more direct trades from alliance to alliance, besides that it will just screw little players because they would have to be on the same color as large traders, otherwise they have to pay even MORE money for resources they really need, while most large players have so many resources stacked up that we can literally wait a couple months and just trade with an alliance for really large stocks. as for the votes well SRD beat me to it I agree with you on first paragraph. A targeted tariffs, like embargo, on alliances, nations and color, should fix that problem. If large traders have so much resources stacked up and small nations are so desperate of resources, then their respective alliances can drop tariffs. It will come down to the relations between those two alliances. This won't be the reason for a direct trade really. Imagine a situation where an alliance like TKR wants to micro manage resource exchange. With so many peeps there, it's next to impossible. At some point, alliances should talk with each other and reduce tarrifs (and set tariffs) according to their advantage. It might screw some broker though, but that will most likely due to politics and not due to the idea of tarrifs itself. Hope that gives an idea of what I had in mind while talking about tariff 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, Oppilan said: Stats should be nearly correct. However, I differ in the approach alone. I don't think we should group nations into various tiers and compare representation. Your alliance is big and rich, even if you don't have enough votes on your own, you can reach out to help smaller alliances, be friendly with em and get some political mileage. When I hear such suggestions from some old members, my biggest concern is the growing disconnect between new and old players. That's all. I agree with you on first paragraph. A targeted tariffs, like embargo, on alliances, nations and color, should fix that problem. If large traders have so much resources stacked up and small nations are so desperate of resources, then their respective alliances can drop tariffs. It will come down to the relations between those two alliances. This won't be the reason for a direct trade really. Imagine a situation where an alliance like TKR wants to micro manage resource exchange. With so many peeps there, it's next to impossible. At some point, alliances should talk with each other and reduce tarrifs (and set tariffs) according to their advantage. It might screw some broker though, but that will most likely due to politics and not due to the idea of tarrifs itself. Hope that gives an idea of what I had in mind while talking about tariff On that first paragraph you fail to realize that if we wanted to use our wealth to buy votes we would do it regardless of the voting system being split to city count, in fact keeping it at 1 vote per player makes it cheaper for us to buy votes since in total they would have less votes to offer: here is a little chart based on average city count of a couple of alliances to make it simpler for you to get what we mean: With Vote/ten cities Without Vote/ten cities NPO - 203 votes NPO - 148 votes SK - 69 votes SK - 39 TFP - 92 votes TFP - 93 votes Tesla - 34 Tesla - 24 Panth - 136 Panth - 152 TKR - 209 TKR - 141 BK - 198 BK - 158 TeST - 56 TeST - 25 CoS - 97 CoS - 41 BC - 71 BC - 54 Since there would have to be some kind of restriction anyway this would be the best way to motivate alliances into pushing their members into a certain size. As for the second paragraph if the seller is the one that imposes the tariff then trading alliances would simply set it to 0 and trade the cheaper resources as always, and if the tariff is imposed by the buyer then you are just throwing another tax on top of all the tax you already give your poor players. Cut them some slack man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oppilan Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Sephiroth said: On that first paragraph you fail to realize that if we wanted to use our wealth to buy votes we would do it regardless of the voting system being split to city count, in fact keeping it at 1 vote per player makes it cheaper for us to buy votes since in total they would have less votes to offer: here is a little chart based on average city count of a couple of alliances to make it simpler for you to get what we mean: With Vote/ten cities Without Vote/ten cities NPO - 203 votes NPO - 148 votes SK - 69 votes SK - 39 TFP - 92 votes TFP - 93 votes Tesla - 34 Tesla - 24 Panth - 136 Panth - 152 TKR - 209 TKR - 141 BK - 198 BK - 158 TeST - 56 TeST - 25 CoS - 97 CoS - 41 BC - 71 BC - 54 Since there would have to be some kind of restriction anyway this would be the best way to motivate alliances into pushing their members into a certain size. As for the second paragraph if the seller is the one that imposes the tariff then trading alliances would simply set it to 0 and trade the cheaper resources as always, and if the tariff is imposed by the buyer then you are just throwing another tax on top of all the tax you already give your poor players. Cut them some slack man. I've a feeling there is some sort of miscommunication, so let me stop with this last reply. Let Alex decide. I wouldn’t put it as buying votes for money with your riches. Rather, you are rich and that gives you plenty of facilities to help small nations grow, establish friendly relations and move on from there. With that being said, having spent time in IQ, I can say confidently that some alliances don't grow for strategic reasons. Down declares are too heavy and tiering became a norm in places which faced heavy down declares. (a different topic, but addresses your point touching motivation for alliances to push members to certain sizes) Having 1 vote per player will improve participation from all tiers, as for the game number of cities is less important than number of active players. There are many smaller micros at this moment in game than ever before, they can never build to same size as old nations. It practically take years for them to catch up. Having more and more mechanics favoring big nations will just make new peeps quit the game, because many will feel there is nothing significant to do. Especially the most competitive ones checking the game will. For the last paragraph, leave it to econ peeps. They can handle it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 Screw little nations, I don't even really like these little 21-22 city nations I got now. Help little nations to grow... what a waste of money. 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.