Jump to content

Wall of Text


roberts
 Share

Recommended Posts

Meaningless wars is the subject that should be changed in my opinion. As much as we can be creative about next cbs imo it should be driven by game mechanics as well. There are no peace terms which would include any significant gain rather than some goofy ones. At this point it's better to just grow and not be involved in any wars as both sides will loose similar amount of money even including loot. If you'll get big enough you can harass rest of the game like Fear was doing.

 

I.The game is missing something we could chase. Maybe some alliance treasures(adding bonuses to resources) which could be stolen when war is lost( idk maybe add alliance resistance depending on numbers of members and their city count to measure their value, and keep it active that if anyone will leave during war this resistance will go down). - it could make wars faster as well - long wars sucks. 

II.Peace terms - please make them more significant, maybe even a game mechanic where you could set up your demands. For example 2 months of 5% of alliance revenue in taxes. etc.  Why most people are so afraid of its toxicity coming out of it? We need more heat to keep it interesting.

 

 

Other thoughts without any solutions but more likely problems I found out imo.

There is no point of being villain in this game except that it can be fun. You will be most likely targeted by the most of PnW alliances and not liked by many. Raiding alliances is exception as they are very persistent in what they do but in most cases its a struggle to be bad. 

If there is no villains then it's pretty boring. But no one will volunteer for such role if there is no room for any significant gain.

After NPO we became really afraid of making game more spicy I understand but that's why it should be room for being bad within game mechanics rather than cheating/doing sketchy things like stealing bank to be listed as villain.

 

 

To sum it up, PnW lacks purpose, heat and challenges. I've just started playing another game which I dropped like year ago due to boredom and I found out how addictive and engaging challenges can be. It gives you drive to play more not just mindless clicking itself.

And just last one thing which is my personal take rather than something should be put into consideration which I guess it's more like Alex's decision to keep game simple as possible rather than negligence. I would love to see more complex game mechanics at higher tier to keep it fresh. Keep it simple for lower tier for sure but doing same shit over and over from city one to city 30 imo is really tiresome.

 

  • Upvote 2

78be39c24ea9f3a0med.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Maia said:

II.Peace terms - please make them more significant, maybe even a game mechanic where you could set up your demands. For example 2 months of 5% of alliance revenue in taxes. etc.  Why most people are so afraid of its toxicity coming out of it? We need more heat to keep it interesting.

I like this a lot

Edited by Kevanovia
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Pre said tbh :P

I dispute that most wars are meaningless (and don't particularly care even if they were, ngl) and am not particularly a doomer on the state of the game, but re: forum use, agree 100%. Arguing on RON is basically the equivalent of arguing on Twitter -- meaningless short-form entertainment with a whole lot of noise. People should stop feeling obligated to respond to every rumor on Discord (similarly, does anyone think one should always respond to every hater on Twitter? I didn't think so) and take more debates to the forums or other semi-structured debate areas instead.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democracies are great if you dont want allies, and never want to get anything done.

I do enjoy that I basically disagree with everything you posted, Roberts.

The reason I try to keep terms light, is that terms snowball war to war.  You stick it to somebody with terms, they will then stick it to you even harder the next war.  It then goes back and forth until you find yourself in a losing war, and your opponent has a 10 page peace document that they present to you one line at a time. 

If you have done your job in a war, the damage you reap on your opponent should be sufficient.

Edited by Sweeeeet Ronny D
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meaningless wars - Nothing important to fight over, and in a "multi-polar" world, it's even detrimental, since fighting anyone simply sets you back in the city race with no compensation other than setting another sphere behind as well (since peace terms are also banned here), so you lose even if you win. (not to mention the possibility of a third party fighting you after you win).

Internal politics/democracies - Not enough players, or at least active ones, to run a democracy or any meaningful internal competition. The people who want to work in X department will always be working there.

Political RP - Well, if you're a nerd, nothing's stopping you from going for it. But obviously don't expect everyone to partake.

And forums are sooo 2000's
 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most Cb's in the game are window dressing. People go to war for strategic purposes and for fun, I don't see why they need to make a bs reason to do so.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2022 at 12:14 AM, Keegoz said:

Most Cb's in the game are window dressing. People go to war for strategic purposes and for fun, I don't see why they need to make a bs reason to do so.

I'd argue strategic reasoning is a valid reason and cb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2022 at 10:44 AM, Keegoz said:

Most Cb's in the game are window dressing. People go to war for strategic purposes and for fun, I don't see why they need to make a bs reason to do so.

14 hours ago, Tartarus said:

I'd argue strategic reasoning is a valid reason and cb

 

Completely fair, I'm not saying we shouldn't go to war for fun or for "strategic reasons"

 

I'm just recognizing that PnW is a spreadsheet sim. "Strategic reasons" literally boils down to arguments over tiering and ROI - stuff we've rehashed probably dozens of times just since NPOLT. It's stale AF.

When everyone is realpolitik and everything is realpolitik, nothing really matters. Might makes right, and even that isn't as interesting as it sounds.

 

I appreciate the efforts to self-limit by many powerplayer alliances and I understand those self-limits revolve around sphere size and tiering, but it's an old and tired discussion. We have to bring politics back into politics and war or risk losing the very reason most of us ever even googled the term "nation sim".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@roberts Buddy, that is no wall of text. Believe me, I know a wall of text when I see one. And this ain't one.

I agree that the political role play is weak, but that is because there are so few worthy causes.

Join me in this one if you like - I suspect that it has much potential:

 

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.

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.