The Problem at the Core of PnW

[Stanko1987]

22 hours ago, Zim said:

Is there any reason why you believe dynamic slot-filling is a silly idea? 
Capping alliance on members doesn't sound too bad of an idea. creation of multiple extensions, increase the need for larger governments and cause a need for more people actually to play the game. This with time can lead to more splinter alliances, civil wars becoming something more viable to happen, and more chance for drama, making the game more interesting.
Generally, a war or raiders will be quick to make paperless alliances fall apart or seek safety in papers.
If they are actual paperless and do not rely on secret treaties. Or else some game update eventually comes along and upends what they rely on. 
There is a reason Arrgh is the only alliance to survive paperless for a significant amount of time. But the issue here isen't paperless isen't viable, for most alliances.
It's the domination the largest alliances in the game have on every facet of the game. That's not only the individual player but even fairly large alliances lose agency in the face of a few top alliances. 

City discounts mainly benefit already established larger alliances that got the funds to take advantage of them. I might go as far to say they might actually discourage growth in smaller alliances, where saving up for city discount project instead of building more cities would take priority. Plus making this game all about rushing the highest amount of cities, would be a mistake. 
It's not often i am going compliment NPO, but they where probably the most effecient alliance in this game history and was number 1 alliance for large part of the games history.
And they didn't have a whale tier at all. They basely just had all their members always be on the same city count. Making them extremely dominating in the game mid-tier, and fully willing to do suicide attacks to the point i found extreme, made them able to easily drag larger players down. I wanna see more creative playstyles like that again. 

1. As i have previously said before, dynamic slot filling is a silly idea as that would effectively put an end to piracy, completely killing off piracy, it will also make younger nations who only just signed upto Politics and War, in which the only way to grow their nations who are starting of with 3 cities is to raid, and a nation raiding 5 inactive nations would pave the way of defensive slots increasing to 5/5 which your friend Sam Cooper is proposing and has proposed in the first, it allows 5 active nations to dogpile a newly created nation who is just raiding inactives and none member nations completely ruining the gaming experience of new people.

2. This is not to say any pirate alliances like Samurai, Racoon Squad, Apex, Black Sheep, The Ancient Empire and even Agora who are raiding inactives/applicants and would leave them completely open for 5 nations from an alliance to dogpile a pirate nation who is actually raiding inactive/none members and applicants. There is no benefits and would completely kill the game on the spot. 

3. In regard to trying to make it fairer on newer alliances and new members, how about we introduce two new city discount projects that allow further discounts after building C26 and another one after building C31?? This would allow younger nations to catch up to the whales, and give younger alliances a fighting chance at catching upto the bigger ones, which we are already seeing this with newly emerged Micros who a year ago started of as a nano and has worked it's way up to becoming a pretty large micro or a lower tier macro, The High Tables and Antarctica are fine examples of this.

4. In regard to city discounts mainly benefiting already established larger alliances is complete garbage, it pretty much benefits everyone, especially those who's economy and growth mainly relays on raiding rather than farming and being on 100/100 or 20/20 taxes.

5. Solo playing is already available and is allowed and we can see many out there who are paperless and solo playing, there is nothing stopping people playing solo in it's current gaming mechanics and meta.

6. Here you are self contradicting yourself yet Sam Cooper has proposed making nukes and missiles become more expensive as it already is. almost completely neutralising the losing side of the war from having any form of defending itself and trying to inflict maximum damage onto the winning side of the global/major/minor conflicts and wars.

7. We can cap alliance members but it is easy to circumvent by creating multiple alliances for example EVH 1, EVH 2 and EVH 3 with it's treaty being an extension treaty but basically act and it runs as one alliance. Silly idea again.

8. Good for Arrgh to survive being paperless, and i congratulate you guys, but one must accept there are more pirate alliances today, Arrgh cannot be and remain the only pirate alliance anymore, there are heaps more members today.

9. In regards to more likely being a civil war or the likelihood of being more dramas will not make a difference at all, it will only kill off the game and see many members leaving. If this proposal god forbids was to pass, all those skills, knowledge and experience that people have developed over the months and years of playing the game will go out the window, it doesn't matter how skilled you are, experienced you are and knowledgeable you are, fighting 9 defensive wars or fighting 9/9 and a total of 18 wars, you will never win, you will instantly get dogpilled, overwhelmed and zeroed out almost the first wave of attack. 

10. There is a reason why this has received so many down votes, including the one Sam Cooper proposed a while ago on dynamic slots which Alex later noticed and proposed himself, which also has received many down votes.

And final, why fix something that isn't broken in the first place??

[Zim]

On 6/14/2024 at 12:33 PM, Stanko1987 said:

 

1. You do know you talking to Arrgh's gov right? You don't think we would know what would kill piracy? You do also seem to be confuse Sam's suggestion, with Alex's suggestion. Maybe reread Sam comment would you. 
Sam suggestion would actually make it easier to raid, while giving the defending player better odds under most circumstances. While make an openning blitz in any war less devasting. 
There is also rather limited reason to focus down on a singular nation in the smaller city range, just with the amount of inactives around. Even if Alex suggestion is implemented, then new players can just compensate with a focus on raiding quality rather then quantity. 
Put more pressure on making the numerus raiding bots to get better at finding targets. While it can also draw more goverment oversight to new players, getting more involved in their growth, that might actually reduce the amount of inactive we dealing with, put more importance on the smaller tiers in wars. 
Or goverments can compensate their laziness with throwing money at new players and get them raised up quickly in score. 

2. I don't know any of does alliances, again criticism of alex suggestions, not Sam.

3. Already said this benefit mainly established alliances and players that got the funds available to build the projects. Actually new alliances, dosen't have the money to invest into this without ending up in a sunk cost fallacy if they try.
From an economic standpoint a new alliances is better of investing into it's smaller members first and formost when the cost to return is more in favor of return, where the cost would be paid more immediate. 
So this benefit long established alliance, who wanna contest the whale tiers in other alliances, not new alliance or new players.
While i question this constant race to the top. And kinda undermind the time and effort many current players have put into the game. 
Antarctica you mention dosen't even have any players that have 26 cities. While with the High Tables my surface level investigation, i shouldn't find a single Advanced Urban Planning built in the alliance.

4. Narh it dosen't, it only benefit alliance that already got the money and ressource storred up, and can use it without risking bankruptcy. Raiders don't gennerally just rush upwards, sudden city tiers have bigger benefit for a raider to be in. 

5. Most playing solo aren't actual solo. Or else they stay down in the low tiers where they don't have much competent competition. Not really much use of city 26 saving project. Or they stop being economically viable real quick. 

6. that not sam's suggestion, that's TGH. i think you mixing up quite a few different post. Again might wanna reread sam actually comment. 

7. Already adressed this in my previous comment, easy chance for splinters is frankly enough. giving alliance more stuff to manage, and creating a need to bring more people into goverment and start to actually play the game all counter point, you haven't adressed one bit.

8. There is always going be raiding alliances, come around in periods before they collapse and disapear.  Pirate alliances are bit more rare. I haven't seen any new alliance i would call as such. I know Arrgh is cool, but do try to forge your own identity rather then build atop of ours. 

9. Can't see how a more dynmamic game, that can see to rise and fall of more alliance would kill the game. That seem like an accusation you like throwing around for anything you don't like.
If you end up fighting 9 defensive wars in the suggest warsystem(alex suggestion not sam's) you wouldn't be very skilled.
9/9 wars, even in alex suggested isen't going happen unless, you yourself do quite a lot of shitty decessions. On the other hand you suddenly got a lot more options on how to act. 

10. This is the forum, i think most warname votes and community awards show you aren't going get the best results on here. Plus Sam suggestion has one single downvote, and that is you. Who seem very confused about who suggested what. 

11. Sam suggestion come in response to others (THG), wanting to nerf nuke turrenting. Who instead of just trying to nerf it into the ground THG wants, actually try to adress the problem in the war system that encourage nuke turrents as the only valid option in losing wars. 
The war system is broken ask anyone who played for a few years. Player numbers are in decline, monthly number of active nations has fallen by more then a 1000 players compared to last year, and more then 3000 compared to the year before that.
Something should be done to help retain player numbers and attention. Where current small patch works geared towards whales inconvienece isen't going to help. 

 

 

Edited June 18 by Zim

[J Kell]

3 hours ago, Zim said:

Something should be done to help retain player numbers and attention. Where current small patch works geared towards whales inconvienece is going to help. 

PnW for the last 2 years

[Stanko1987]

3 hours ago, Zim said:

1. You do know you talking to Arrgh's gov right? You don't think we would know what would kill piracy? You do also seem to be confuse Sam's suggestion, with Alex's suggestion. Maybe reread Sam comment would you. 
Sam suggestion would actually make it easier to raid, while giving the defending player better odds under most circumstances. While make an openning blitz in any war less devasting. 
There is also rather limited reason to focus down on a singular nation in the smaller city range, just with the amount of inactives around. Even if Alex suggestion is implemented, then new players can just compensate with a focus on raiding quality rather then quantity. 
Put more pressure on making the numerus raiding bots to get better at finding targets. While it can also draw more goverment oversight to new players, getting more involved in their growth, that might actually reduce the amount of inactive we dealing with, put more importance on the smaller tiers in wars. 
Or goverments can compensate their laziness with throwing money at new players and get them raised up quickly in score. 

2. I don't know any of does alliances, again criticism of alex suggestions, not Sam.

3. Already said this benefit mainly established alliances and players that got the funds available to build the projects. Actually new alliances, dosen't have the money to invest into this without ending up in a sunk cost fallacy if they try.
From an economic standpoint a new alliances is better of investing into it's smaller members first and formost when the cost to return is more in favor of return, where the cost would be paid more immediate. 
So this benefit long established alliance, who wanna contest the whale tiers in other alliances, not new alliance or new players.
While i question this constant race to the top. And kinda undermind the time and effort many current players have put into the game. 
Antarctica you mention dosen't even have any players that have 26 cities. While with the High Tables my surface level investigation, i shouldn't find a single Advanced Urban Planning built in the alliance.

4. Narh it dosen't, it only benefit alliance that already got the money and ressource storred up, and can use it without risking bankruptcy. Raiders don't gennerally just rush upwards, sudden city tiers have bigger benefit for a raider to be in. 

5. Most playing solo aren't actual solo. Or else they stay down in the low tiers where they don't have much competent competition. Not really much use of city 26 saving project. Or they stop being economically viable real quick. 

6. that not sam's suggestion, that's TGH. i think you mixing up quite a few different post. Again might wanna reread sam actually comment. 

7. Already adressed this in my previous comment, easy chance for splinters is frankly enough. giving alliance more stuff to manage, and creating a need to bring more people into goverment and start to actually play the game all counter point, you haven't adressed one bit.

8. There is always going be raiding alliances, come around in periods before they collapse and disapear.  Pirate alliances are bit more rare. I haven't seen any new alliance i would call as such. I know Arrgh is cool, but do try to forge your own identity rather then build atop of ours. 

9. Can't see how a more dynmamic game, that can see to rise and fall of more alliance would kill the game. That seem like an accusation you like throwing around for anything you don't like.
If you end up fighting 9 defensive wars in the suggest warsystem(alex suggestion not sam's) you wouldn't be very skilled.
9/9 wars, even in alex suggested isen't going happen unless, you yourself do quite a lot of shitty decessions. On the other hand you suddenly got a lot more options on how to act. 

10. This is the forum, i think most warname votes and community awards show you aren't going get the best results on here. Plus Sam suggestion has one single downvote, and that is you. Who seem very confused about who suggested what. 

11. Sam suggestion come in response to others (THG), wanting to nerf nuke turrenting. Who instead of just trying to nerf it into the ground THG wants, actually try to adress the problem in the war system that encourage nuke turrents as the only valid option in losing wars. 
The war system is broken ask anyone who played for a few years. Player numbers are in decline, monthly number of active nations has fallen by more then a 1000 players compared to last year, and more then 3000 compared to the year before that.
Something should be done to help retain player numbers and attention. Where current small patch works geared towards whales inconvienece is going to help. 

 

 

1. New players and players aside already have this opportunity to be able to raid effectively in a lower city tier system which has been proven with players who stay on C1-C5 for a month or longer has seen them earning upto 500 million in cash/resources within a month with having 5 offensive raid type wars, and if your unlucky, you may get attacked as well, by which you will be slotted having to fight 3 defensive wars while at the same time concentrating on your 5 offensive wars. By which that money that the new players earnt from raiding will help them grow their nation and they have the option to drastically grow their nation quickly jumping upto C14-C15 or staying in the lower city tiering system for longer and able to collect upto a 1 billion dollars in cash and resources in safe keeping. After that, they are able to decide whether they still wish to raid or perhaps grow their nation even further and go into farming. I do not mean to sound offensive and please do not take this the wrong way, but i believe this proposal if implemented, it would only benefit larger raiding alliances like Arrgh who for example have the numbers to be able to adapt and monopolize on piracy but younger and smaller raiding alliances would be limited and even neutralized . The only fighting chance they may get out of this is by joining a large alliance who's main focus and main source of income driven and economy comes from raiding only.

2. Dynamic slots, by which the number of defensive slots increase with the number of offensive wars the player declares on, it creates a vulnerability for bigger nations and bigger alliances to just jump on the player, dogpile him and disrupt his or her raiding making it pretty unfair on the player alone and doesn't give the player a fighting chance to raid or win any wars. The only thing that would happen is limit the players ability to raid, and also wars would become even more less and there would be less conflicts, and as soon as conflicts arises, what is to stop you from getting dogpiled and getting zeroed in the first wave of attack. It would not be beneficial as it would only limit the players capabilities. 

3. Which we already have, however not all alliances will survive, regardless if you keep the same gaming mechanics and meta or if you change it. Again i reiterate my last comment by saying why fix something that isn't broken?

4. What is wrong with that? 

5. It is the players choice and his or her discretion whether they wish to stay in the low city tiering or move up in a higher city tiering system. There is solo playing available and the game already allows it as seen, it also allows smaller group of people forming an alliance known as a nano. It's already available and possible under the current gaming system.

6. Dynamic slots? Not Sams suggestion? From what i understood, it is and dynamic slots would completely ruin the game and set limitations and activity would be slowed down, we wouldn't be seeing much raiding going on from smaller raiding alliances, it seems that this would only benefit a large raiding alliance and not a small raiding alliance.  Dynamic slots are a terrible idea and it would make it almost impossible, if not, fully impossible to even play and declare wars without getting dogpiled and zeroed out.

7. There has already been many alliances who have split from their original alliances and splintered off. Also there is already plenty that the alliances are actually doing, and the activity is big and the time that each gov member spends is alot of time managing the alliance alone as a whole with each head department member managing the department for example Econ, FA, MA, IA, Low Gov/High Gov/ 2IC/Leader. More roles can be created and nothing is stopping this in it's current gaming mechanic and meta. 

8.. You seem to be forgetting there is Raccoon, COC, Samurai, Black Sheep, Apex, The Remnants, The Ancient Empire, Agora, Vibe Reborn, 86 and a few more, actually you would be quite surprise that raiding alliances have been exploding lately and have been emerging. By going through with this proposal, it would be like throwing a nuke and obliterating these smaller size and mid size alliances to smatterers. It would only allow a large raiding alliance like Arrgh to monopolise and truly become the only raiding/pirate alliance in the Politics and War.

9. As mentioned previously in the other points, all it would do is decrease activity, effectively killing raiding as a whole for smaller alliances by setting limits and if you declare more than two offensive wars, your literally screwed and let's be honest with ourselves, what is to stop larger raiding/pirate alliances from dogpiling the younger raiding alliances who are currently blitzing a nano or a micro with majority having fighting 3-4 offensive raid type wars? Suddenly being attacked by 4-5 random nations and getting zeroed almost instantly? I am not throwing any accusations but merely stating the facts and the disadvantages of this proposal. 

10. I am definitely not looking to receive any yearly awards, nor do i care, i am just stating my strong opposition to this proposal as this would effectively allow a large raiding alliance to monopolize in raiding and second of all, would kill off large alliances and they would be able to circumvent this system by creating multiple alliances under a single leader anyway and in return creates clutters.

11. We should be focusing in improving what we already have and look to add other interesting features into the game, not look to drastically change the mechanics and meta which would only inconvenience players and set limitations.  

[Zim]

1 hour ago, Stanko1987 said:

1. New players and players aside already have this opportunity to be able to raid effectively in a lower city tier system which has been proven with players who stay on C1-C5 for a month or longer has seen them earning upto 500 million in cash/resources within a month with having 5 offensive raid type wars, and if your unlucky, you may get attacked as well, by which you will be slotted having to fight 3 defensive wars while at the same time concentrating on your 5 offensive wars. By which that money that the new players earnt from raiding will help them grow their nation and they have the option to drastically grow their nation quickly jumping upto C14-C15 or staying in the lower city tiering system for longer and able to collect upto a 1 billion dollars in cash and resources in safe keeping. After that, they are able to decide whether they still wish to raid or perhaps grow their nation even further and go into farming. I do not mean to sound offensive and please do not take this the wrong way, but i believe this proposal if implemented, it would only benefit larger raiding alliances like Arrgh who for example have the numbers to be able to adapt and monopolize on piracy but younger and smaller raiding alliances would be limited and even neutralized . The only fighting chance they may get out of this is by joining a large alliance who's main focus and main source of income driven and economy comes from raiding only.
 

1. yeah you can raid in the mirco tier? that always been the case. If you stay down in the small tier for months or years, you should also be able to fairly easily beat 3 random mirco counter with limited skill and experience at the game.
You mostly just summed up mirco raiding encouraged near universally by all alliances. You not really saying much of anything here. Beside reducing raiding as something you grow out off. And from that you jump to Alex suggestion(beliving it to be sam's) would ruin raiding, without really basing it on anything. It just mostly fluff. 

2. Alex suggestion again, but alright let me play devil advocate. Having 9 nation dogpile a player, when 3 players are enough for the job, isen't economicily sound. And would also leave the larger alliance more vulnerabel to being hit.
Reducing the amount of slots you have strenghten the defensive side in a war. So the blitz become a bit less punishing. You don't just have 9 defensive slots all of sudden.
You would only have 9 defensive slot if you yourself started 9 wars. 1 or 2 wars and you would still only have to deal with two counters and with 3 wars you would have to deal with the same amount you do now. 

While it's encouage one to raid fewer target, it also encouage you to hit higher quality target, if you only have to deal with possible two counters, suddenly a lot more people would be encouraged to hit inactives in alliances. 
It give you more option, and when you close to being beiged, you can then declare war on 9 inactives, which dosen't sounds bad at all. 
It put more pressure on individual players to perform better in wars, and reward being skilled at the game. War cordination and overstreching become more important, and would encourage alliance build tall instead of wide with it's broad membership. 

3. Except it's broken, that the whole arguement is based on the fact there is an of the playstyle nuke turrenting, TGH want to nerf into the ground. And Sam want to adress the reason for why this is the default playstyle for losing nations. 
When you haven't experienced the war system under different meta's then the current one, you would agree the current system is very broken. And not particually fun for the losing side in a war. 

4. That it goes against your arguement for why we need more city savings projects? while helping to cement existing larger alliance to keep being above smaller alliances. 

5. Allowing it and discouraging it aren't mutually exclusive. When the game mechanics encourage race to the top, that what most people choose to do. 
Most nanon's come in 3 flavors, offshore, raiders abusing the bank system, or inactive.
Still not adressing that city saving project wouldn't help them one bit. 

6. Sam suggestion boil down to reducing you war score range of who can declare on your nation, depending on the wars you already involved in, or redusing the amount of new wars that can be declared on your nation. 
Sam was purposefully leaving his solution fairly open to take in adjustments, or suggestions from others. 
Reread his actually comment, then reread Alex suggestion. compare the two, think really hard on the difference and now comment.
Frankly we can also just adjust the score so infra have higher importance on nation score again, so destroyed nations can only get hit by smaller built up nations or similarily destroyed nations. That would give more options then just turning toward nukes and missiles when losing a war.

7. The fact that splinter alliance can happen, isen't an arguement against policies that encourage them. You can't argue against reform for an healthcare system, by pointing out there already is a healthcare system.

Activity is slow compared to the past, goverments are also in general spending less time on the game then they used to, now that bot's have slowly taken over much of the workload. I remember having to calculate bank balances by manual inputting the data into excel spreadsheets.
While dealing with nations that was older then the ingame bank record system, worse when they where running on their fourth reroll. 

Department system i always found a weird inclusion, you can run your goverment differently you know. As a raiding alliance, you better of with a more lose goverment system that is quicker to react. 
Most alliances are fairly conservative in nature. there is a difference between the option to have more people in goverment and putting external preasure to encourage them do it. 
Other things this would result in would be alliances being quicker to remove inactive from the allinace, helping raiding. 
While creating splitners isen't the only option, going for quality over quantity is also an option, which would also encourage more alliances to be created, by encouring a bit of elitisme. Also be bigger source for drama and conflict.
While a cap of a 100 players would only effect a few, very large alliances. Frankly this should have already have been brought up after the monster that was guinea pig farm.

8. Not forgetting, never had a reason to learn their names. Can't see much raider in many of does, hitting inactives nations, without an alliance, with 0,0123 infra left dosen't make an alliance an raiding alliance.
Updates happen that harm raiding, happen fairly frequently looking back.
There have been period's, sometimes year long. When Arrgh was the only raiding alliance around, it not really a status quo that's to our benefit. 
When Arrgh have a monoply on raiding, means it not very functioning raiding system. The harm you surscripe to isen't set in stone. frankly i don't see doom being painted at wall and should very easily be a benefit.
Just take a bit of time to get used to, Arrgh have always been able to adapt, and surive. We been reduced down to as few as 9 people. And been able to come back up. 
What you need is an identity and a community, not size.  

Each time Arrgh have adapted, even it it took time, we have also been reduced down to as few as 9 people at one point.
Alliances should be able to survie hardship, 

9. Can't see it reducing activity, you again arguing against Alex suggestions, but even with alex suggestion don't see it. Fighting a war you losing isen't really an effective way to drive people from the game that isen't fresh meat, who is alrady half the way out the door as is.
Alliances might facture and dispand under the pressure, but players have more options. 
And just throwing that out there, if you right now was mass raiding an alliance, an another alliance came and filled out your exsiting 3 slots, you would also be rolled. 

10. You misunderstood everything i wrote here. reread it.

11. Small changes is only going leave this game slowly dying out, with the only people left being does that have investested to much into it to quit. Something new and fresh, adding new freatures that isen't just different shades of exsititing onces will undoubtly shake up the meta aswell. 
And Alex isen't in gennerally been shy about reworking the game, removing beige, to later retroudsing it, making fortify go from the strongest ability to the most useless, making treasure the most broken to barely worth the flavor text, 
one of the biggest missed opportunity i have seen, is still customization of unit's ability.
Why is now the time to stop making changes? and not many of the earlier years when the game was undoubtly more broken, but also way more fun.
Changes dosen't limit players, instead it shake them out their current stale meta, as everyone frail around trying to figure out what new meta get formed. 


 

[Stanko1987]

50 minutes ago, Zim said:

1. yeah you can raid in the mirco tier? that always been the case. If you stay down in the small tier for months or years, you should also be able to fairly easily beat 3 random mirco counter with limited skill and experience at the game.
You mostly just summed up mirco raiding encouraged near universally by all alliances. You not really saying much of anything here. Beside reducing raiding as something you grow out off. And from that you jump to Alex suggestion(beliving it to be sam's) would ruin raiding, without really basing it on anything. It just mostly fluff. 

2. Alex suggestion again, but alright let me play devil advocate. Having 9 nation dogpile a player, when 3 players are enough for the job, isen't economicily sound. And would also leave the larger alliance more vulnerabel to being hit.
Reducing the amount of slots you have strenghten the defensive side in a war. So the blitz become a bit less punishing. You don't just have 9 defensive slots all of sudden.
You would only have 9 defensive slot if you yourself started 9 wars. 1 or 2 wars and you would still only have to deal with two counters and with 3 wars you would have to deal with the same amount you do now. 

While it's encouage one to raid fewer target, it also encouage you to hit higher quality target, if you only have to deal with possible two counters, suddenly a lot more people would be encouraged to hit inactives in alliances. 
It give you more option, and when you close to being beiged, you can then declare war on 9 inactives, which dosen't sounds bad at all. 
It put more pressure on individual players to perform better in wars, and reward being skilled at the game. War cordination and overstreching become more important, and would encourage alliance build tall instead of wide with it's broad membership. 

3. Except it's broken, that the whole arguement is based on the fact there is an of the playstyle nuke turrenting, TGH want to nerf into the ground. And Sam want to adress the reason for why this is the default playstyle for losing nations. 
When you haven't experienced the war system under different meta's then the current one, you would agree the current system is very broken. And not particually fun for the losing side in a war. 

4. That it goes against your arguement for why we need more city savings projects? while helping to cement existing larger alliance to keep being above smaller alliances. 

5. Allowing it and discouraging it aren't mutually exclusive. When the game mechanics encourage race to the top, that what most people choose to do. 
Most nanon's come in 3 flavors, offshore, raiders abusing the bank system, or inactive.
Still not adressing that city saving project wouldn't help them one bit. 

6. Sam suggestion boil down to reducing you war score range of who can declare on your nation, depending on the wars you already involved in, or redusing the amount of new wars that can be declared on your nation. 
Sam was purposefully leaving his solution fairly open to take in adjustments, or suggestions from others. 
Reread his actually comment, then reread Alex suggestion. compare the two, think really hard on the difference and now comment.
Frankly we can also just adjust the score so infra have higher importance on nation score again, so destroyed nations can only get hit by smaller built up nations or similarily destroyed nations. That would give more options then just turning toward nukes and missiles when losing a war.

7. The fact that splinter alliance can happen, isen't an arguement against policies that encourage them. You can't argue against reform for an healthcare system, by pointing out there already is a healthcare system.

Activity is slow compared to the past, goverments are also in general spending less time on the game then they used to, now that bot's have slowly taken over much of the workload. I remember having to calculate bank balances by manual inputting the data into excel spreadsheets.
While dealing with nations that was older then the ingame bank record system, worse when they where running on their fourth reroll. 

Department system i always found a weird inclusion, you can run your goverment differently you know. As a raiding alliance, you better of with a more lose goverment system that is quicker to react. 
Most alliances are fairly conservative in nature. there is a difference between the option to have more people in goverment and putting external preasure to encourage them do it. 
Other things this would result in would be alliances being quicker to remove inactive from the allinace, helping raiding. 
While creating splitners isen't the only option, going for quality over quantity is also an option, which would also encourage more alliances to be created, by encouring a bit of elitisme. Also be bigger source for drama and conflict.
While a cap of a 100 players would only effect a few, very large alliances. Frankly this should have already have been brought up after the monster that was guinea pig farm.

8. Not forgetting, never had a reason to learn their names. Can't see much raider in many of does, hitting inactives nations, without an alliance, with 0,0123 infra left dosen't make an alliance an raiding alliance.
Updates happen that harm raiding, happen fairly frequently looking back.
There have been period's, sometimes year long. When Arrgh was the only raiding alliance around, it not really a status quo that's to our benefit. 
When Arrgh have a monoply on raiding, means it not very functioning raiding system. The harm you surscripe to isen't set in stone. frankly i don't see doom being painted at wall and should very easily be a benefit.
Just take a bit of time to get used to, Arrgh have always been able to adapt, and surive. We been reduced down to as few as 9 people. And been able to come back up. 
What you need is an identity and a community, not size.  

Each time Arrgh have adapted, even it it took time, we have also been reduced down to as few as 9 people at one point.
Alliances should be able to survie hardship, 

9. Can't see it reducing activity, you again arguing against Alex suggestions, but even with alex suggestion don't see it. Fighting a war you losing isen't really an effective way to drive people from the game that isen't fresh meat, who is alrady half the way out the door as is.
Alliances might facture and dispand under the pressure, but players have more options. 
And just throwing that out there, if you right now was mass raiding an alliance, an another alliance came and filled out your exsiting 3 slots, you would also be rolled. 

10. You misunderstood everything i wrote here. reread it.

11. Small changes is only going leave this game slowly dying out, with the only people left being does that have investested to much into it to quit. Something new and fresh, adding new freatures that isen't just different shades of exsititing onces will undoubtly shake up the meta aswell. 
And Alex isen't in gennerally been shy about reworking the game, removing beige, to later retroudsing it, making fortify go from the strongest ability to the most useless, making treasure the most broken to barely worth the flavor text, 
one of the biggest missed opportunity i have seen, is still customization of unit's ability.
Why is now the time to stop making changes? and not many of the earlier years when the game was undoubtly more broken, but also way more fun.
Changes dosen't limit players, instead it shake them out their current stale meta, as everyone frail around trying to figure out what new meta get formed. 


 

1. It would definitely ruin raiding for others, as i mentioned before, Sams suggestion with dynamic slots would clearly ruin raiding by setting limits on how many offensive wars they can safely use without being overly extended and risk avoid being dogpilled by 9 defensive wars. Sams suggestion seems to only be a whale buff for the C50 + and a good buff for Arrgh as this would allow you guys to have a very big advantage against players who are fighting 4-5 offensive type wars as this would equally open up the defensive slots, also if some nation is declaring on 9 inactive nations and is getting a decent loot, there is nothing stopping 9 different nations from the same alliance or different alliance jumping onto the player who is raiding 9 different inactive players and will easily find themselves fighting 9 active defensive wars, one wave of hit will completely zero out your units if for example all 9 nations do an Air Strike on you and then the next attack ground attack multiply by 9, your soldiers and tanks will get zeroed out and you cannot replenish enough units to be able to keep fighting as this has suddenly put you in a very big disadvantage but you will argue that i would be silly enough to declare 9 offensive wars or even 7 offensive wars as this would put me in a vulnerable position to be declared upon by 9 active nations or even 7 active nations depending on how many offensive wars you have declared.

 

2. It would be economically viable for 9 nations to dog pile on one nation because they do not have to use maximum units for the second time to hit you, since all 9 nations using maximum units to you is more than enough to wipe your entire unit for example Air or Ground as mentioned in point 1.

Also exactly proving my point, it would set limits to how many offensive wars a player can safely have, which is just a dumb idea and would completely ruin the game and force alot of people to just rage quit, again it kills off raiding and would only allow your alliance to capitalise on this by taking the opportunity to raid the player who is raiding 9 inactive nations, again it is just a whale buff and an Arrgh buff as partially stated in point 1.

3. I definitely strongly disagree with you in it's entirely, nuke turreting is the best way and the best form of fighting if you are getting dogpilled or if your alliance is getting dogpilled, or your sphere is getting dogpilled, it allows the losing side to inflict maximum damage, even equal amount of damaging to the winning side wiping out just enough infra that would put them in a disadvantage and if anything, into a negative revenue where your nation begins to go into debt and bill locked, giving the losing side an opportunity and a fighting chance to be able to change the tide and actually able to jump right back up and take control of the war.

4. I am actually advocating for more city saving/discount projects and have even suggested two more, one for C26 and above and another city discount/saving project for C31 and above, making it more economically feasible and viable to allow younger players to catch up and allow younger alliances to also catch up to the older and bigger alliances.

5. This is the whole definition and point of the game is the race to the top, encouraging more activities, more fighting, more nation growth, more raiding for those raiding and using the loot money to grow your nation, and all of this is done through it's current game mechanics and meta.

6. Again, it is a dumb idea and majority of the people are against it and do not want it, and by trying to eliminate nuke turreting, it only buffs up the winning side and it is just a whale buff and also that point literally makes no sense what your trying to suggest or what is the perception to that point.

7. Once again it is a dumb idea, and it is easily circumvented and majority of the people are against this idea. Also bots are here to make everyone's life easier and allow more freedom and time for those running the alliance. Under the current meta and gaming mechanics, there is nothing stopping you from manually able to calculate using Excel if you choose to want to do it, but to force others into doing everything manually will not happen, this is the beauty of the game is to allow people and alliances the choice on how they wish to run their alliances. Your proposal seems to only want to ruin this and take away the freedom of how they wish to run and conduct their alliances. Once again people don't want it.

8. Well fortunately and unfortunately Arrgh isn't the only raiding alliance anymore, there is plenty other raiding alliances now whether you like it or not, your proposal would definitely kill of smaller raiding alliances as it would definitely make it impossible for others to raid who are not members of Arrgh. This proposal and suggestion would only buff up the benefits for your alliances and a big buff for the whales but in the end it would screw up all the other smaller raiding alliances as this would effectively give your alliance the monopoly to monopolise and capitalise on this proposal, god forbids that it actually gets implemented. This is not to be disrespectful or anything but just merely stating the facts so please do not take this the wrong way. 

9. Players already have all the options available with the current gaming mechanics and meta as previously and numerously times stated and will repeatedly state it again in response to point 9 in your last post.

10. I understood everything and once again i do not care about yearly awards and nominations as this is only material only, doesn't phase me one bit, i am definitely not going to talk myself up, if people wish and choose to nominate me for an award or not, that is clearly up to each and every individual and to their own discretion. In that first ever response to your post, i reiterate i was merely only stating the facts regardless of our complete disagreement and completely having the polar opposite perception of things we both see differently.

11. By completely changing and rewriting the whole game would infact kill it and would see a mass exodus of players leaving the game, i definitely agree that there is always room for improvements, but i strongly disagree with fixing something that isn't even broken. I also disagree that the game has been dying out and that there are less people here today than there were years ago, i completely disagree, i believe there are more people actually here and playing the game than there were back a few years ago, yes there have been many that have left, but left because of IRL priorities, people just growing out of the game, and please do not say it's because the game is broken, the game has been able to replenish newer active players than actually losing a few older players, and many have returned back after leaving the game by either re roll or coming out of permanent vacation mode.

[Anarchist Empire]

On 5/13/2024 at 2:09 PM, Sam Cooper said:

The Problem
Stagnation, dead game, falling player count call it what you want. The only problem this game faces is that you simply cannot accomplish anything here out of the template set by the major alliances because the game by its design forces you to comply with what they want or be driven out of the game or if you are stubborn, stick around and nuke because that is quite literally only "war" thing you can do without being part of a larger bloc.
And the fact that many (not all) old players have a problem even with that shows the bubble they live in.
The only way you can play this game is by being a government in a major alliance, if you are not there you are either following orders or doing something so insignificant you may as well delete and it wouldn't affect the game one bit.

Mostly I disagree this problem exists. I don't follow a template any of the major AAs can control & can survive fine under current mechanics. Easy mode compare to CN, but shouldn't make it more CN like & harder. (Don't think mechanics should be changed to try making it harder, like some suggestions which have come. Like increasing defense slots on people who use any offensives slots or boosting nuke costs. Should be in other direction rather than trying to make it impossible. Some of the bigger alliances if they can probably will convince Alex to make it impossible if they're able.)

Defense slot change Alex mentioned to make it easier on people on their own, really that was to try doing so it's possible to beige cycle people forever easier if a big AA wants. Currently they can't if someone knows what they are doing. So some can be manipulative in why they want a change when telling Alex.

Edited June 20 by Anarchist Empire

[Zim]

2 hours ago, Stanko1987 said:

1. It would definitely ruin raiding for others, as i mentioned before, Sams suggestion with dynamic slots would clearly ruin raiding by setting limits on how many offensive wars they can safely use without being overly extended and risk avoid being dogpilled by 9 defensive wars. Sams suggestion seems to only be a whale buff for the C50 + and a good buff for Arrgh as this would allow you guys to have a very big advantage against players who are fighting 4-5 offensive type wars as this would equally open up the defensive slots, also if some nation is declaring on 9 inactive nations and is getting a decent loot, there is nothing stopping 9 different nations from the same alliance or different alliance jumping onto the player who is raiding 9 different inactive players and will easily find themselves fighting 9 active defensive wars, one wave of hit will completely zero out your units if for example all 9 nations do an Air Strike on you and then the next attack ground attack multiply by 9, your soldiers and tanks will get zeroed out and you cannot replenish enough units to be able to keep fighting as this has suddenly put you in a very big disadvantage but you will argue that i would be silly enough to declare 9 offensive wars or even 7 offensive wars as this would put me in a vulnerable position to be declared upon by 9 active nations or even 7 active nations depending on how many offensive wars you have declared.

 

 

1. That would be the players own fault, after a while it dosen't really matter how many declare war on your nation. just because  you got the option to declare on 9 nations dosen't mean you should declare on 9 nations. now you got options.
You aren't even using 1 slot right now, so you sure know that don't you? 
You still ignroing Sam actually post and argue against alex, i have mentioned this so many time. So i am going stop arguing against anything that is meant for alex. 

2. You commenting this on the wrong post. You have repeatly failed at bacis reading.

3. em wat?  

4. already explained why this is bad idea, you haven't brothered to reply to a single one of my point and repeating yourself dosen't make a stronger arguement. 

5. it really isen't. Fighting then to slow down the bigger you get. 

6. Can you say who is against Sam proposel, look at the first comment who exactly has downvoted it? is that the majority of people in your mind?then you should consult a mental health expert. 

7. Okay you either an poor troll, or english is really not your first language, and you rellying fully on google translate. Stop getting upset, and find someone in your alliance to explain this to you, because you are clearly not able to read.

8. how exactly would it make it impossible to raid for others? Target dosen't disapear, are you really saying other raiding alliance are that inferior to Arrght, that minor game change like this would screw you all over?

It's very disrespectful and ignorant towards other i say. 

9. Player clearly don't got all the options available, like the current resorting to nuke turrenting, is because of lack of ability to use any other option. There used to be other options when you on the losing side on a war. low effort.

10. How contractive of a nature, you refusing to reread texts, even when the energy required is a lot less responding with wrong info. 
Norminating you to an award got nothing to do with this discussion. Nothing at all, i am talking about the poor result we get from community votes posted here on the forum.

11. The game have been completely changed and rewritten many, many times. I don't think you realize just how many times and how radical things have been changed around before.
Do you know what fortify orginal did when it was first intruduced in the game? 
I expect new larger changes to be implemented on the test server first, not like the time Alex randomily removed beige from the game, because that was a thing he did. 

The game have lived through a lot bigger changes. 
You might diagree there is less people around today then there used to be. You can also disagree the Earth is round.
Dosen't make you right, there is a button ingame called "data visualization", amoung other thing it list active players over time, pick the month option, to remove the extremes and you see the how the game been facing declining player numbers in recent years. 

[Stanko1987]

23 hours ago, Zim said:

1. That would be the players own fault, after a while it dosen't really matter how many declare war on your nation. just because  you got the option to declare on 9 nations dosen't mean you should declare on 9 nations. now you got options.
You aren't even using 1 slot right now, so you sure know that don't you? 
You still ignroing Sam actually post and argue against alex, i have mentioned this so many time. So i am going stop arguing against anything that is meant for alex. 

2. You commenting this on the wrong post. You have repeatly failed at bacis reading.

3. em wat?  

4. already explained why this is bad idea, you haven't brothered to reply to a single one of my point and repeating yourself dosen't make a stronger arguement. 

5. it really isen't. Fighting then to slow down the bigger you get. 

6. Can you say who is against Sam proposel, look at the first comment who exactly has downvoted it? is that the majority of people in your mind?then you should consult a mental health expert. 

7. Okay you either an poor troll, or english is really not your first language, and you rellying fully on google translate. Stop getting upset, and find someone in your alliance to explain this to you, because you are clearly not able to read.

8. how exactly would it make it impossible to raid for others? Target dosen't disapear, are you really saying other raiding alliance are that inferior to Arrght, that minor game change like this would screw you all over?

It's very disrespectful and ignorant towards other i say. 

9. Player clearly don't got all the options available, like the current resorting to nuke turrenting, is because of lack of ability to use any other option. There used to be other options when you on the losing side on a war. low effort.

10. How contractive of a nature, you refusing to reread texts, even when the energy required is a lot less responding with wrong info. 
Norminating you to an award got nothing to do with this discussion. Nothing at all, i am talking about the poor result we get from community votes posted here on the forum.

11. The game have been completely changed and rewritten many, many times. I don't think you realize just how many times and how radical things have been changed around before.
Do you know what fortify orginal did when it was first intruduced in the game? 
I expect new larger changes to be implemented on the test server first, not like the time Alex randomily removed beige from the game, because that was a thing he did. 

The game have lived through a lot bigger changes. 
You might diagree there is less people around today then there used to be. You can also disagree the Earth is round.
Dosen't make you right, there is a button ingame called "data visualization", amoung other thing it list active players over time, pick the month option, to remove the extremes and you see the how the game been facing declining player numbers in recent years. 

1. Once again, it is a dumb idea, and it only creates limitations. if implemented, god forbids, what you use to be able to declare 5 offensive wars without any pirate projects, whether active or inactive or those demilitarized or partially militarized, fighting 5 offensive wars is manageable, whilst only having to worry about fighting 3 defensive wars if countered or declared on, and the same can be said if someone has maxed out their offensive slots raiding only inactive and demilitarized player and if three people decide to fill up your defensive slots and attack you, it is manageable and you still have a good fighting chance to win or itleast put up a really good fight against your attackers. If Sam's idea which you are strongly advocating and strongly supporting is implemented, there is nothing stopping 5 people from attacking you.

Yeah, you are going to tell me again that it's your own fault for declaring 5 offensive wars in the first place which leaves you open to being attacked by 5 nations simultaneously. I say no, because the problem with this is, it only sets limitations and slows down people who are wishing to raid and raid to fund their nations growth and raiding seems to be the only economy for the player and the only revenue, it won't be anymore as this will completely kill off raiding unless if you are in Arrgh which is a major pirate alliance, i only see this as a major buff to C50's aswell as a major buff to Arrgh as what will stop people from dog pilling a player who is raiding 9 inactive nations and suddenly finding themselves fighting 9 active defensive wars. People don't want it, Alex tried to propose the dynamic slot which has received heaps of down votes and people rejecting it and voicing their opposition. 

Point 2. 3. 7 and 10 I will definitely not respond and engage in it as these are just clearly insults throwing because you disagree with me opposing and slamming Sams idea and Alex/Sams dynamic slot proposal.

4. Because it doesn't give you the advantage as numerously stated and continuously repeated that it is a whale/Arrgh! buff. Again i reiterate, no disrespect or anything but just stating the facts.

5. Didn't understand what your trying to say.

6. As previously stated, majority do not support changing the offensive/defensive slot aka Dynamic slots and secondly they are also against capping membership to alliances as it is easy to circumvent this and it would just be a pointless change, actually a useless change.

8. As previously explained in point 1 as well as in all my previous response to your argument, actually repeated it like a broken record.

9. And what other options are you proposing Besides Dynamic slots and capping alliance membership?

11. If any changes are needed, should focus on improving the current gaming mechanics and meta. As well as adding new features which has been proposed in the past such as adding tarrifs which could infact encourage a trade war, an economic trade war amongst alliances, as well as adding new military units, new projects, new improvements, and add additional features in the war system without affecting the offensive/defensive slots.

[Zim]

On 6/22/2024 at 8:51 AM, Stanko1987 said:

 

1. Wrong place to post this. Again this isen't Alex suggestion page.

2. 3. 7. and 10. I reduced my response because it's clear you didn't actually response to what i said, I reduced my response because it's clear you aren't responing to what i wrote:
A. You either ignored what i wrote, and just slightly rewrote what you had previously written, before posting it again. 

B. Purpsefully miss intercepting everything i wrote, it's like you made up a stance you think i have, and then argue against that stance, rather then what i actuall wrote. An Troll tactic. 

If you can spend some effort in this arguement, why should i? 

4. You aren't starting fact, you starting an opinion, an opinion you post no arguement for. While your own "fixs" only really been pushing a case that help big alliances, which yourself have admitted too. 

With how much you saying you aren't looking to offend, the more i am starting believe you are. 

5. The more cities you got, the higher tier you have, the higher tier there is, the fewer wars there are. When we get 6 months NAP's, is because it benefit to the whales, not much else.

6. Majority isen't against changes to slot dynamic, they are against Alex suggested version of what that might look like. Again how many downvotes do Sam's comment have, and who does that downvote belong to? 
If capping alliances isen't going do anything, then why shouldn't be against it? 

8. You haven't explained why you think Sam's version would have negative effect on raiding. I feel like you mainly been aruging against Alex here. 

9. Reread Sam post and find out, why don't you? You have read it right? Because the more i see your response the more i doubt it. I also think i posted a long list of things Arrgh wanted implemented some years ago, under one of alex comments when he was looking for suggestion. You welcome to dig that up.

11. Most of what you have listed would have huge impact on the meta and game in general, just adding a new unit is sure to break everything, if not just going be a place to waste ressources. New improvement again big impact, new project is getting kinda meh. We gotten so many in the last few years, mostly it just money shink for whales, so they got something to do.
Trafic would also shake everything up. Frankly it seems like you just very against one thing, rather then trying to preseve the "meta", which i don't really think is worth preseving. 

[Stanko1987]

13 hours ago, Zim said:

1. Wrong place to post this. Again this isen't Alex suggestion page.

2. 3. 7. and 10. I reduced my response because it's clear you didn't actually response to what i said, I reduced my response because it's clear you aren't responing to what i wrote:
A. You either ignored what i wrote, and just slightly rewrote what you had previously written, before posting it again. 

B. Purpsefully miss intercepting everything i wrote, it's like you made up a stance you think i have, and then argue against that stance, rather then what i actuall wrote. An Troll tactic. 

If you can spend some effort in this arguement, why should i? 

4. You aren't starting fact, you starting an opinion, an opinion you post no arguement for. While your own "fixs" only really been pushing a case that help big alliances, which yourself have admitted too. 

With how much you saying you aren't looking to offend, the more i am starting believe you are. 

5. The more cities you got, the higher tier you have, the higher tier there is, the fewer wars there are. When we get 6 months NAP's, is because it benefit to the whales, not much else.

6. Majority isen't against changes to slot dynamic, they are against Alex suggested version of what that might look like. Again how many downvotes do Sam's comment have, and who does that downvote belong to? 
If capping alliances isen't going do anything, then why shouldn't be against it? 

8. You haven't explained why you think Sam's version would have negative effect on raiding. I feel like you mainly been aruging against Alex here. 

9. Reread Sam post and find out, why don't you? You have read it right? Because the more i see your response the more i doubt it. I also think i posted a long list of things Arrgh wanted implemented some years ago, under one of alex comments when he was looking for suggestion. You welcome to dig that up.

11. Most of what you have listed would have huge impact on the meta and game in general, just adding a new unit is sure to break everything, if not just going be a place to waste ressources. New improvement again big impact, new project is getting kinda meh. We gotten so many in the last few years, mostly it just money shink for whales, so they got something to do.
Trafic would also shake everything up. Frankly it seems like you just very against one thing, rather then trying to preseve the "meta", which i don't really think is worth preseving. 

1. I believe it is the right place, i as any other player and as a person have a right to voice my opposition just like anyone else does. This is the whole point of forum discussions.

2. I respond accordingly.

2a. I respond accordingly, actually repetitively, as you have been repeating yourself also but re writing it a little different, i been responding accordingly.

2b. Definitely won't engage in anything that has insults written in it. But will respond in partial. (I actually been spending alot of time and effort in responding back and countering your argument and your push to this proposal which would buff up both C50 players and Arrgh.

4. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it nonfactual. If you truly believe i was being offensive, then that is on you, not on me, we can both go through back to all our previous post and we will see clearly from whom the insults are coming from. As previously and repetitively stated, Cap on Alliance is easily circumvented by creating multiple of the same alliance, example would be, if such a proposal is implemented, Rose would see themselves being capped to 100 members only, very easy to circumvent this by Creating Rose1, Rose2 and Rose 3 to fill in all their members, whilst still running the alliance as one and as a whole, and managing the alliance through discord and in game. Easy to circumvent, and people are clearly against this. So definitely won't happen.

5. Nobody is forcing anyone to sign an NAP and nobody is forcing anyone to build more cities or to stay in the lower tier, again it is a freedom of choice.

6. Just as you up voted even Alex's suggestion to changes in defensive slots but that is just irrelevant anyway but wanted to point it out. Many haven't even paid much attention to this thread that Sam has created, if they did as much as they paid attention to Alex's one, there would definitely be a lot more down votes, half of these up votes here come from your alliance. Also point 4 is also my response to this point as well as in all my previous posts. You can keep rewriting as much as you want, but my response will be the same and in accordance to your post. 

8. I don't know how many more times do i have to explain this, but let me summarize it for you.

a. Sets limitations in fear of people getting dogpilled if they declare more than 3 wars at a time, even though they maybe raiding an inactive.

b. It would allow a massive pirate alliance the advantage and make them opportunistic to disrupt players raids who are not part of the largest pirate alliance.

c. Would allow the largest pirate/raiding alliance to monopolise and capitalise on this if implemented god forbid.

d. Smaller raiding alliances won't be able to survive, especially new recruit players who are in academy will definitely not stand a chance as they would open themselves to 5 defensive wars. Again it is just a C50 whale buff and an Arrgh Buff.

9. Sams proposal is just a watered-down version and a rewritten version of the original proposal which you have upvoted originally. 

11. Your one of the only one who seem to have a problem with this. If you are serious about making the game more fun, more interesting and about giving younger players and alliances a chance, you definitely wouldn't be against these proposals, in which half of them being proposed by Alex and the design team with the other half being proposed by other players.

[General Joe]

Alliances sound really Orwellian the way you say it.