Montgomery Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 It would be helpful to give alliances the option to form a "coalition" of military forces donated by members of the alliance to fight wars on behalf of the alliance and intervene when member nations are attacked. Alliances should also have the ability to form standing military forces to intervene when necessary, all formed by donations from supportive members who are willing to give a portion of their military up to the alliance. Also, it would make sense to have a formal voting system to allow all member nations of an alliance to vote upon declarations of war, truces, and leadership - Instead of having to use a separate forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Would this be a military aiding/selling type thing? There's currently no mechanism to donate military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montgomery Posted December 23, 2014 Author Share Posted December 23, 2014 Yes, that was my original thought. It would be a way to ensure that alliances have the ability to create international coalitions of military forces donated by individual members instead of relying upon individual military forces for all alliance conflicts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Who would be receiving and utilizing the military? Would they be able to exceed their improvement limits? If yes how? What would the individuals do for fun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Hm... it's actually an interesting thought! Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montgomery Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 All individual nations would still retain their own military forces, they would only donate to an alliance coalition to be at the command of the heads and leadership of the alliance if they wished to do so or if membership in the alliance required it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Ah, to distribute as they see fit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 oh I can see the multies now... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 (edited) Before you make any suggestion,, wont it be better for FSA to explain the many account on the same IP first? Edited December 24, 2014 by Vincent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montgomery Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 (edited) oh I can see the multies now... I see what your concern is, but why must we limit the capabilities of this game due to a small number of people who do not respect the rules? Edited December 24, 2014 by Montgomery Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 154 nation on the same IP isn't a small number. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 I see what your concern is, but why must we limit the capabilities of this game due to a small number of people who do not respect the rules? because you'be be opening the door to an exponential increase in exploiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montgomery Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 154 nations out of over 2,000 is by nature a minority number. I do agree that it should be handled but I see no reason to limit this game due to cheaters. If we choose to limit this game due to a few cheating players, then the future of PAW is minimal and other players will soon lose interest and will leave the game. The game needs to constantly evolve, adding improvements and giving players, nations, and alliances more capabilities and abilities to govern themselves and their nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montgomery Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 because you'be be opening the door to an exponential increase in exploiting. Fair enough. An exponential increase in exploiting is a concern, but it should not hold us back from advancing ourselves. I agree with your recent post to keep track of cheaters and permanently ban them through tracking multiple nations on one IP - We should look for innovative ways, such as your original suggestion, to keep exploiting to a minimal rate while evolving the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 (edited) I think more people will leave the game if nothing is done against the CHEATERS. Why should we be placed at an disadvantage just because someone think is ok to CHEAT?I do agree we should implement suggestion to improve the game but AFTER we have shown those CHEATERS the door out. Edited December 24, 2014 by Vincent 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montgomery Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 You just made my point: "Why should we be placed at a disadvantage just because someone thinks it is okay to cheat?" We should do all that we can to fight against exploiting and ban cheaters from the game, but WE should not be placed at a disadvantage because of their refusal to follow the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Which is why before we can confirm we have managed to purge this game from CHEATERS we should not introduce anymore stuff that those CHEATERS can exploit on and make us at further disadvantage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montgomery Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 I can agree with you on that. This was simply a suggestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 154 nations out of over 2,000 is by nature a minority number. It's nearly 10%. It's abnormally large, if anything. Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.