Jump to content

Fix for offshore banks


Buck Turgidson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since I pretty much invented the idea of offshore, and founded Yarr for that purpose, I offer the following suggestion to fix the problem that it now represents. When I left Yarr, we had over 60 bil in cash alone.

All that needs to happen is that when a bank officer is blockaded, he or she cannot access the bank screen or make any transactions. 

This will still enable the process to work, but make it possible to disrupt its function...

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 15

Are you originally from Earth, too?

Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now.

I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd.

Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see it is so effective an idea that there is no counter argument to it.

Are you originally from Earth, too?

Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now.

I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd.

Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, I agree with Buck's Previous statement if you are going to downvote at least give some criticism.

I think alliance banks are extremely broken, I mean any competent alliance with even slightly above average active people will be able to constantly transfer alliance bank to alliance bank to never get it stolen. Honestly for good alliances its probably more likely for someone to betray and steal their bank than an actual war getting it stolen.

That being said I think by doing this alliances will not be able to have low man offshore banks could result in them keeping alliance banks on their main alliance causing them to want all members to be super active pushing casuals who don't have time to constantly play out of the game if they get declared by raider.

Also being dogpilled or just outnumbered in a war would cause ridiculous amounts of damage if you don't have a way to keep your alliance banks safe, that might be too much damage as eventually there will be a time where it's unavoidable your alliance bank gets looted with this change. I think it would encourage dogpilling and making a shit ton of quantity pixel hugging blocs cause no one wants their bank stolen.

I think removing this would result in people quitting the game a lot more if they just lose everything so it's a necessary broken mechanic.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2020 at 10:11 AM, Adrienne said:

It's a bad idea not just for that reason but also - more importantly - because it has the potential to completely disrupt an alliance's entire econ system. If bank officers can't access the bank screen while blockaded, they can't get aid to their members. Members shouldn't suffer because of an officer being blockaded.

You can always change the officer in that case. It promotes giving people that experience and responsibility. It would help alliances not stagnate.

 

On 10/23/2020 at 9:04 AM, KingGhost said:

Lol, I agree with Buck's Previous statement if you are going to downvote at least give some criticism.

I think alliance banks are extremely broken, I mean any competent alliance with even slightly above average active people will be able to constantly transfer alliance bank to alliance bank to never get it stolen. Honestly for good alliances its probably more likely for someone to betray and steal their bank than an actual war getting it stolen.

That being said I think by doing this alliances will not be able to have low man offshore banks could result in them keeping alliance banks on their main alliance causing them to want all members to be super active pushing casuals who don't have time to constantly play out of the game if they get declared by raider.

Also being dogpilled or just outnumbered in a war would cause ridiculous amounts of damage if you don't have a way to keep your alliance banks safe, that might be too much damage as eventually there will be a time where it's unavoidable your alliance bank gets looted with this change. I think it would encourage dogpilling and making a shit ton of quantity pixel hugging blocs cause no one wants their bank stolen.

I think removing this would result in people quitting the game a lot more if they just lose everything so it's a necessary broken mechanic.

I didn't really think of the casual players, to be fair. That said, this would probably encourage alliances to mitigate in a few ways:

- stratify their membership more clearly, leaving casual players as Applicants, and committing to defending them. Citizenship in an alliance will have to be earned, and alliances would not be as bloated.

- Increase the overall size of an alliance, including the Applicants, so the losses as a percent of the bank would be less. There would be more effort to genuinely recruit casuals into more active players, because people would flee pressure tactics.

- It's already a broken mechanic. I founded Yarr on the basis of a broken mechanic, and what Yarr and others like them are doing is exploiting a loophole.

The problem is that the effect of the game is that Orbis' economy is at the mercy of large pools of capital, rigidly controlled by a very small number of players. Not sure what the stats would say but I would estimate that fewer than 20 players control 90% of the excess capital and resources in the game. Yarr, for instance, was infiltrated by the worst kind of players, such as Pre and Seb - both known liars and backstabbers, and they have turned others.

Nothing wrong with mixing it up and trying it out - by changing this smallest of details, the chance of an error is greater, so alliances will just have to manage the risks. We have been at a point of equilibrium on offshore banking for some time, just as Arrgh's move to hyperactive raiding settled the role of the pirate to a particular niche long ago. What I proposed does not stop this pattern, it just adds complexity and challenge. This is a game, right?

Anyhow, in a Howard Roark moment, I am mostly pissed that my successful creation was stolen from me by underhanded cowards. How do you feel knowing that a known cheater like Seb has his hands so close to a bank, again? Or that Pre, who is a known and proven liar is as close? I had to step down as I was starting my EMBA, so  let this happen - cctmsp13 and im317 have been fooled and taken advantage of, and Seb and Pre have been orchestrating what amounts to harassing me ever since I left.

I hereby declare permanent war on them until they leave or Yarr is disbanded.

Are you originally from Earth, too?

Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now.

I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd.

Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

You can always change the officer in that case. It promotes giving people that experience and responsibility. It would help alliances not stagnate.

Encouraging an alliance to shuffle random members into privileged banking roles just to remain functional is a bit ridiculous and an assault on their self determination. This obviously also exacerbates the risk of an opportunistic player gaining gov permissions and stealing the bank or couping leadership, which I'm not keen on.

The stagnation argument is weird to me as this suggests you think alliances can't grow unless they expand or change their gov regularly, but it is self evident that alliances grow and even make policy and treaty changes without gov changes.

 

I also notice that there is a flaw in this suggestion as alliances could maintain a few committed gov cruising about in a cheap to build range and reroll their nation if they are blockaded, then be embraced and reinstated to their gov role with a fresh 14 days beige protection. It does require a sacrifice on those members' part, but if it's the difference between keeping an alliance bank safe or dumping it into the hands of a random member that might knick off with it, I'm sure alliances would quickly design a generous development plan to put such devoted gov back on track upon retirement.

Another idea, much more inconvenient, but maybe some type of rotation of econ gov in and out of VM banging out aid as soon as they pop out of VM.

One more idea, undisclosed econ gov that only gets rotated into gov roles once wars kick off, as needed. Maybe even rotate them back out of gov roles once they pump out aid, just to make sure enemies have to go scouring through all the member bank transactions to identify econ gov.

I'd also like to point out that such a change would be most punishing to younger/smaller alliances with fewer trusted gov and members to draw from. Older alliances are more likely to have a bunch of retired gov sitting about to recruit back into emergency duties or long-term trusted members, but younger/smaller alliances have much less opportunity here.

 

Lastly, on the goal of this suggestion to make alliance banks more vulnerable, this could just lead to more punishing defeats and greater divides post-war. If one side gets thrashed and loses their bank, this majorly disadvantages them with a slower rebuild and slower preparation for the next war. Does this mean fewer and less frequent wars, or do the winners just get easy subsequent wars to perpetually keep the losers down? I imagine at least the whales and bankers would all gravitate to the winner's side.

EDIT: Grammatical correction.

Edited by Zephyr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good points, except the suggestion that random members be appointed. That would just be stupid. Alliances would have to cultivate more trusted members, and while that is a challenge, it promotes mobility in the game.

I have been on Orbis for a long time, and have noted the increasing importance of capital as the arbiter of economic strength as opposed to production. While there is nothing wrong with that in principle, the effect of it is that you have a small number of players whose influence over how that capital is employed draws some pretty firm lines in the sand. It determines the shape of the treaty web exclusively these days.

Now if anti-trust measures broke that up a little, the web would be more dynamic. It’s stale now and has been for a long time.

All of the workarounds you mention are feasible, but that is the point - however they differentiate their strategies for protecting the bank, each alliance will have to accept some trade offs. If you are fighting, it will be an important piece of information to protect, deceive, and find out about your enemy as well.

Smaller alliances can continue to use offshore banks as they do today - this literally only complicates matters for offshore banks themselves. It may be enough to discourage some of them...

Are you originally from Earth, too?

Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now.

I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd.

Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

All good points, except the suggestion that random members be appointed. That would just be stupid. Alliances would have to cultivate more trusted members, and while that is a challenge, it promotes mobility in the game.

I wouldn't suggest alliances recruit random members to gov roles, but I recognise that your suggestion could give an alliance limited options where this risk might become reasonable to explore given what's at stake (no war aid, or loss of bank).

Building relations and trust only goes so far, there are still going to be deceitful and opportunistic players that would betray relationships when they see a large enough prize to snatch up. Players can only interrogate one another's character so well before a long sociable relationship is interpreted as a trusted relationship that can be bestowed with important responsibilities. This means exposure to such deceitful individuals still largely comes down to luck and not necessarily the ineptitude of gov to identify them. Given the importance of banking to alliance success, I'm not keen for a suggestion which just further increases risk on a front where players have limited ability to reduce their risk.

2 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

I have been on Orbis for a long time, and have noted the increasing importance of capital as the arbiter of economic strength as opposed to production. While there is nothing wrong with that in principle, the effect of it is that you have a small number of players whose influence over how that capital is employed draws some pretty firm lines in the sand. It determines the shape of the treaty web exclusively these days.

Now if anti-trust measures broke that up a little, the web would be more dynamic. It’s stale now and has been for a long time.

All of the workarounds you mention are feasible, but that is the point - however they differentiate their strategies for protecting the bank, each alliance will have to accept some trade offs. If you are fighting, it will be an important piece of information to protect, deceive, and find out about your enemy as well.

Smaller alliances can continue to use offshore banks as they do today - this literally only complicates matters for offshore banks themselves. It may be enough to discourage some of them...

I know what offshore banking is, but I don't know who's doing what for who, or if there are private services available. So I'm not sure I appreciate what you're saying here.

If you're not amending your suggestion to address the workarounds I've identified, then I have to wonder "Why bother?". This suggestion would be more of an obstacle to smaller/younger alliances than larger/older ones as far as I can tell, for the previously stated reasons. I personally don't think smaller/younger alliances should have more obstacles thrown at them as I think it's probably healthy for the game to encourage at least some alliance rotation into the top ranks to keep things fresh and interesting.

If the objective is to limit capital, I'd personally be more receptive to exploring changes to nation and bank caps. It could be fairer to smaller/younger alliances at least.

Edited by Zephyr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 10/29/2020 at 12:58 AM, Zephyr said:

I wouldn't suggest alliances recruit random members to gov roles, but I recognise that your suggestion could give an alliance limited options where this risk might become reasonable to explore given what's at stake (no war aid, or loss of bank).

Building relations and trust only goes so far, there are still going to be deceitful and opportunistic players that would betray relationships when they see a large enough prize to snatch up. Players can only interrogate one another's character so well before a long sociable relationship is interpreted as a trusted relationship that can be bestowed with important responsibilities. This means exposure to such deceitful individuals still largely comes down to luck and not necessarily the ineptitude of gov to identify them. Given the importance of banking to alliance success, I'm not keen for a suggestion which just further increases risk on a front where players have limited ability to reduce their risk.

I know what offshore banking is, but I don't know who's doing what for who, or if there are private services available. So I'm not sure I appreciate what you're saying here.

If you're not amending your suggestion to address the workarounds I've identified, then I have to wonder "Why bother?". This suggestion would be more of an obstacle to smaller/younger alliances than larger/older ones as far as I can tell, for the previously stated reasons. I personally don't think smaller/younger alliances should have more obstacles thrown at them as I think it's probably healthy for the game to encourage at least some alliance rotation into the top ranks to keep things fresh and interesting.

If the objective is to limit capital, I'd personally be more receptive to exploring changes to nation and bank caps. It could be fairer to smaller/younger alliances at least.

I did outline how your objections fit into my proposal - the 'work-arounds' would differ, and the nature of the one chosen would determine competitive strategy. Anyhow, it seems like most people prefer to let the game settle into one where a few untouchable players have a disproportionate say on everything on Orbis. That's why this game never really lifts off, and will be the cause of its ruin eventually unless my proposals or something like it are implemented.

 

And HAHA I just looked at who downvoted my OP - it recalls the Jonathan Swift line "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this one sign: That all the dunces are in confederacy against him."

Edited by Buck Turgidson
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Are you originally from Earth, too?

Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now.

I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd.

Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

I did outline how your objections fit into my proposal - the 'work-arounds' would differ, and the nature of the one chosen would determine competitive strategy. Anyhow, it seems like most people prefer to let the game settle into one where a few untouchable players have a disproportionate say on everything on Orbis. That's why this game never really lifts off, and will be the cause of its ruin eventually unless my proposals or something like it are implemented.

 

And HAHA I just looked at who downvoted my OP - it recalls the Jonathan Swift line "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this one sign: That all the dunces are in confederacy against him."

I think in suggestion threads people just use the downvote as a way to show disapproval without spamming the thread repeating points already made. For instance, I think the problem with your proposal remains the potential for the losing side to lose its post-war rebuild bank. This is really a double hit as the winners presumably made better war loot, kept their bank intact and are able to quickly rebuild, while the losers will have a slower rebuild to get to a competitive standing and preparedness for the next conflict. We also need to remember that in a post-NPO Orbis we now know there are alliances such as UPN and Camelot that are perfectly comfortable with permanent war in an effort to try and force losers out of the game and claim a permanent victory (in fact Camelot even went as far as publicly supporting NPO's cheating, defending their actions after Alex's own report on the issue and administrative action). With alliances like these having outed themselves as supporters of such ruthless methods and even supporting large scale systematic cheating, I think it's reasonable people are sceptical of the proposed changes as a state of permanent war would be catastrophic for a loser's chance to recover and remain competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As good an idea as this is, there's no way people are budging on offshores. Imagine a world where wars had consequence and people had to risk more than cheap infra. Now stop because you're imagining a much better game than PnW currently is. Why make a good game when you can continue into slow-growth farmville and stagnation. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Hey Krampus, the signature edit is under account settings. Actually, here's the link.

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/settings/signature/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zigbigadorlou said:

As good an idea as this is, there's no way people are budging on offshores. Imagine a world where wars had consequence and people had to risk more than cheap infra. Now stop because you're imagining a much better game than PnW currently is. Why make a good game when you can continue into slow-growth farmville and stagnation. 

It's not a good idea because, as I said before, it disrupts everyone, not just offshores. It especially would have a heavy impact on smaller alliances who can't just "find someone else" like what was said when I first raised this concern. This would be a terrible solution to trying to end the offshore "problem", if you really consider it one, which I personally do not.

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an alternative, what about just putting a time-based 'lock' on transferred funds with duration based on volume? To prevent tons of small movements, maybe even a transfer limit per turn or to specific entity per turn?

Making it slightly harder to move everything around might allow for more exciting piracy when AAs get caught with their pants down without opening the alliance bank to wholesale looting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Adrienne said:

It's not a good idea because, as I said before, it disrupts everyone, not just offshores. It especially would have a heavy impact on smaller alliances who can't just "find someone else" like what was said when I first raised this concern. This would be a terrible solution to trying to end the offshore "problem", if you really consider it one, which I personally do not.

Yeah it disrupts everyone. That's the point. I'm of the firm opinion that no $ should be un-raidable. An alliance's safety should based on their success in FA and military, not whether or not they can exploit the game. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Hey Krampus, the signature edit is under account settings. Actually, here's the link.

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/settings/signature/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said:

Yeah it disrupts everyone. That's the point. I'm of the firm opinion that no $ should be un-raidable. An alliance's safety should based on their success in FA and military, not whether or not they can exploit the game. 

Being unraidable is one thing and we can agree to disagree on that and what constitutes being unraidable since we've talked about that before. This suggestion doesn't do just that though - it makes it extremely difficult to get aid to members at all if an officer is blockaded. That's my point. Any proposals to "fix" the offshore "issue" shouldn't screw with normal alliance operations as basic as providing aid.

Edited by Adrienne

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, zigbigadorlou said:

Yeah it disrupts everyone. That's the point. I'm of the firm opinion that no $ should be un-raidable. An alliance's safety should based on their success in FA and military, not whether or not they can exploit the game. 

Perhaps sheepy should make the up-declare range unlimited as well so whales can't build out of range during wars and thus be un-raidable.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2020 at 10:33 AM, Buck Turgidson said:

You can always change the officer in that case. It promotes giving people that experience and responsibility. It would help alliances not stagnate.

Econ staff are generally those who have earned the most respect and trust. A well targeted series of attacks would force alliances to use members they may fight with, but have not earned the trust to have a key to the treasury. This would cause internal dissention, open alliances to risk of thievery, and incite chaos in the game if it ever took root.

This idea needs to die. Either through disinterest or execution on the gallows.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2020 at 4:32 AM, Zephyr said:

I think in suggestion threads people just use the downvote as a way to show disapproval without spamming the thread repeating points already made. For instance, I think the problem with your proposal remains the potential for the losing side to lose its post-war rebuild bank. This is really a double hit as the winners presumably made better war loot, kept their bank intact and are able to quickly rebuild, while the losers will have a slower rebuild to get to a competitive standing and preparedness for the next conflict. We also need to remember that in a post-NPO Orbis we now know there are alliances such as UPN and Camelot that are perfectly comfortable with permanent war in an effort to try and force losers out of the game and claim a permanent victory (in fact Camelot even went as far as publicly supporting NPO's cheating, defending their actions after Alex's own report on the issue and administrative action). With alliances like these having outed themselves as supporters of such ruthless methods and even supporting large scale systematic cheating, I think it's reasonable people are sceptical of the proposed changes as a state of permanent war would be catastrophic for a loser's chance to recover and remain competitive.

Funny, I think it would do more the make the alliance system fluid - if you are on the losing side, you could try 5th column stuff to shatter trust in the other side's banking operations. It's very common for gov't members in alliances, for example, to award themselves gifts and such from the alliance tax revenues - right now with the whole system securely in the hands of a small number of players, the little guys don't have a chance, and that is the whole point of the suggestion. My suggestion is an anti-trust one.

On 12/11/2020 at 1:20 PM, Adrienne said:

It's not a good idea because, as I said before, it disrupts everyone, not just offshores. It especially would have a heavy impact on smaller alliances who can't just "find someone else" like what was said when I first raised this concern. This would be a terrible solution to trying to end the offshore "problem", if you really consider it one, which I personally do not.

I am going to give you more time to think about it. You clearly don't get the point. If you don't think it is a problem, it is because you are well outside the orbit of power on Orbis.

On 12/11/2020 at 3:00 PM, Haligast said:

As an alternative, what about just putting a time-based 'lock' on transferred funds with duration based on volume? To prevent tons of small movements, maybe even a transfer limit per turn or to specific entity per turn?

Making it slightly harder to move everything around might allow for more exciting piracy when AAs get caught with their pants down without opening the alliance bank to wholesale looting.

That might work as well, but good luck getting Alex to code that lol. 

On 12/11/2020 at 3:47 PM, Viriato said:

Wouldnt that just become a hassle to econ

Yes - that's the point.

On 12/11/2020 at 6:52 PM, Adrienne said:

Being unraidable is one thing and we can agree to disagree on that and what constitutes being unraidable since we've talked about that before. This suggestion doesn't do just that though - it makes it extremely difficult to get aid to members at all if an officer is blockaded. That's my point. Any proposals to "fix" the offshore "issue" shouldn't screw with normal alliance operations as basic as providing aid.

Think it though - if it makes it difficult to get aid to members when an officer is blockaded, how do you mitigate that to keep things running? You're almost there.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Are you originally from Earth, too?

Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now.

I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd.

Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2020 at 7:04 PM, Shiho Nishizumi said:

It'd just force officers to sit on beige to be able to do that tbh. Which would be quite boring for those having to do that.

Good point - if you are beiged, you should also not have access to the bank - does that solve the problem?

On 12/12/2020 at 4:03 PM, Who Me said:

Perhaps sheepy should make the up-declare range unlimited as well so whales can't build out of range during wars and thus be un-raidable.

That's a great idea. I wonder what would happen to a 3 city nation that attacked me?

All that would do is concentrate the military power in the hands of nations that meet the bare minimum to build and launch nukes. It would become some sort of populist movement, and I think all can agree that that is a terrible idea.

Are you originally from Earth, too?

Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now.

I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd.

Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Malakai said:

Econ staff are generally those who have earned the most respect and trust. A well targeted series of attacks would force alliances to use members they may fight with, but have not earned the trust to have a key to the treasury. This would cause internal dissention, open alliances to risk of thievery, and incite chaos in the game if it ever took root.

This idea needs to die. Either through disinterest or execution on the gallows.

That is the whole idea - to reduce confidence and increase the risks associated to offshore banking. It's an elegant solution to the overwhelming concentration of wealth in the hands of a few dozen players.

 

When I quite Yarr, we had over 60 billion in cash alone, plus probably 200 billion in RSS. And only 3 of us had access to the bank...

Are you originally from Earth, too?

Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now.

I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd.

Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2020 at 5:03 AM, Who Me said:

Perhaps sheepy should make the up-declare range unlimited as well so whales can't build out of range during wars and thus be un-raidable.

I imagine if the updeclare range is changed to unlimited there could be abuse of it for slot filling. "I swear I really thought my 3 cities had a chance taking down his 10 cities". Could really test Alex's judgement on what kinds of extreme updeclaring are permitted before it's obvious to him the intent was to lose and fill a slot uselessly.

1 hour ago, Buck Turgidson said:

Funny, I think it would do more the make the alliance system fluid - if you are on the losing side, you could try 5th column stuff to shatter trust in the other side's banking operations. It's very common for gov't members in alliances, for example, to award themselves gifts and such from the alliance tax revenues - right now with the whole system securely in the hands of a small number of players, the little guys don't have a chance, and that is the whole point of the suggestion. My suggestion is an anti-trust one.

I suspect your suggestion alone makes too many of us uncomfortable with the potential issues to see Alex actually implementing it (as to do so would probably fill his inbox with complaints rather quickly). Maybe if alliances had a guaranteed unlootable amount of resources based on alliance population or city count or something alike, then I think people might be more open to the idea as it simply makes 'excess' hoarding vulnerable while securing post-war rebuilds for losers.

Edited by Zephyr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well given who has downvoted my OP, I think this is a very viable idea, and clearly in against the interests of those who like staying on top as a consequence of years in the game.

Let's shake things up - the impact on the treaty web alone could be significant...

Are you originally from Earth, too?

Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now.

I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd.

Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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