Masterbake Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 This is why we would have a vacation mode, so that if you know you're going to be deployed for 90 days or w/e, you could freeze your nation for that period of time and resume activities when you returned. You are kidding right?? Sometimes you have 24 hours notice, sometimes less. You are concerned about who is going to watch your children, who is going to pay the bills while you are gone and how your wife is going to take it. You may not have access to the internet for a couple of weeks. I don't think this has been thought through very well. The idea that someone is going to add putting P&W into vacation mode is insulting at best when there is so much to do in such a short period of time. The fact that they can get attacked and not fight back is punishment enough for having the audacity to put ones duty in front of a game. 1 Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDkykbBIJxI&feature=youtu.be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elsuper Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 This suggestion is that after 7 days, when a nation becomes gray, it gets automatically removed from any alliance that it's in. What if it were an option that the alliance could choose to turn on or off, and set the timeframe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chey Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Sheepy, kicking a nation out of their alliance after 14 days is every bit as final as deletion; if someone comes back after a couple weeks and finds their nation out of its alliance and raided all to hell, the odds of them still playing this game are slim to none. If you really are bound and determined to allow a "raid" period prior to deletion, I would say make 30 days the "kick out" date and 40 days the deletion date. Edited January 7, 2015 by Chey 2 Quote Commissioner of WWF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNG Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 No. Inactive players SHOULD subsidize active players. If inactive nations are kicked from their alliance and raided to death, then any active nations who do so will gain a lot of cash off them, much more than they would provide to an alliance through taxes. Either way, active players are benefitting, so I don't really see the point to your statement. 1 Quote "They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays. <Kastor> And laughs and shit. <Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooohu Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Auto kicking members from alliances after a set amount of time is going to make this game very unpopular very fast. I honestly don't see what would be gained from it in the slightest. If alliances want to have 100 members sitting on an AA paying taxes then that's their business, not yours. If other alliances have a problem with it they can take action on their own via declarations of war. I can't help but feel like this idea is horribly misguided thinking meant to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. "Fake scores" and inflation from it is absoultely meaningless; nobody cares about "score" beyond the people who play this game for stats (GPA) but for everyone else it's the politics that matter and that's completely independent from scores. All this proposal is asking for is to make a new requirement to log in to avoid being booted out and raided which is silly. I know I specifically got Chey and most other members of my AA interested in the game because it doesn't require a daily login to collect taxes and pay bills and really only needs minimal investment to see their nations flourish which is a huge benefit because it allow for casual play it instead of demanding some unhealthy devotion to a text based poly sim. Not everyone who plays these games wants to check on it every single day or week. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 PLEASE do not autokick members. That's not a good idea at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I fully support auto-kicking inactives from alliances after 14 days. It encourages alliances to keep their members active - quality over quantity. People who have a genuine reason for not logging in should be given a mechanism whereby their nation goes into stasis as if cryogenically frozen. If you're concerned about people exploiting it, limit it so that people can only go into stasis once per month. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
last187 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 mlol this thread is bollocks dont force extra rules on us that are useless you say that we just tax farm em but if they get removed they will fund the raiders without cost coz they wont rebuild military mlol Quote Going for top nation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chey Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I fully support auto-kicking inactives from alliances after 14 days. It encourages alliances to keep their members active - quality over quantity. People who have a genuine reason for not logging in should be given a mechanism whereby their nation goes into stasis as if cryogenically frozen. If you're concerned about people exploiting it, limit it so that people can only go into stasis once per month. Some alliances -- including the World Wrestling Federation -- believe in only allowing active, quality members. I do not think that opinion should be enforced for all alliances via game mechanics. Things like this which try to make in-game functions replace political decisions only hurt the game. Quote Commissioner of WWF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 People saying the vacation mode shouldnt have a minimum, and a time freeze isnt a peace mode are absolutely wrong. If a war was on the brink of kicking off, and people could tell, an entire alliance could go into peace mode for a week and avoid an ass kicking instead of building military. Fighting a war is much worse for a nation than not doing anything for a week. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conroy Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I highly disagree. If your stats are completely frozen, then it doesn't make an effective peace mode at all. It should work like this: Once you go into vacation mode, you are automatically logged out and remain in vacation mode until you log back in. Thus, as long as you are in vacation mode, you cannot access the game at all without being forced out of vacation mode. If you set a minimum like that, then some people might leave for a week or two and then be locked out for a whole month. As for inactives, why can't we just prevent grays from being taxed? This could work very well for a vacation mode. Just add a time limit for vacation mode and a time limit before you can go back into it. This will allow nations to still be deleted after a long period of time, but prevent people from logging in (to prevent deletion) and going back into vacation mode. can we make it 14 days till an inactive nation gets booted from an alliance. 7 days seems a little too short. I like to think im an active player in these nation sim games but there are times i go more thsn a week without logging in. I think a week is fine for going grey then another week before getting booted from the alliance which will still give 16 days to raiders to have their way with the inactives. I support the 14 day inactive alliance boot. Quote LordRahl2, on 10 Jul 2015 - 5:53 PM, said: "Imagine it. Lets say that Sheepy had an idea that was at lest questionable. As a way out there idea lets say he thought about adding T-Rexs to the game in some way." "As you know this is hypothetical since Sheepy has never considered adding T-Rexs to the game." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 People saying the vacation mode shouldnt have a minimum, and a time freeze isnt a peace mode are absolutely wrong. If a war was on the brink of kicking off, and people could tell, an entire alliance could go into peace mode for a week and avoid an ass kicking instead of building military. Fighting a war is much worse for a nation than not doing anything for a week. Just give them a bigger ass kicking when they come back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conroy Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Auto kicking members from alliances after a set amount of time is going to make this game very unpopular very fast. I honestly don't see what would be gained from it in the slightest. If alliances want to have 100 members sitting on an AA paying taxes then that's their business, not yours. If other alliances have a problem with it they can take action on their own via declarations of war. I can't help but feel like this idea is horribly misguided thinking meant to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. "Fake scores" and inflation from it is absoultely meaningless; nobody cares about "score" beyond the people who play this game for stats (GPA) but for everyone else it's the politics that matter and that's completely independent from scores. All this proposal is asking for is to make a new requirement to log in to avoid being booted out and raided which is silly. I know I specifically got Chey and most other members of my AA interested in the game because it doesn't require a daily login to collect taxes and pay bills and really only needs minimal investment to see their nations flourish which is a huge benefit because it allow for casual play it instead of demanding some unhealthy devotion to a text based poly sim. Not everyone who plays these games wants to check on it every single day or week. This changed my opinion. I no longer support the alliance booting, but I still support having a vacation mode. 1 Quote LordRahl2, on 10 Jul 2015 - 5:53 PM, said: "Imagine it. Lets say that Sheepy had an idea that was at lest questionable. As a way out there idea lets say he thought about adding T-Rexs to the game in some way." "As you know this is hypothetical since Sheepy has never considered adding T-Rexs to the game." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Just give them a bigger ass kicking when they come back That sounds easy in theory but, based on what's happened in other worlds, there is always a lot more whining when the peace terms include giving a beating to the cowards who sat out the war. The last thing we need is more whining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 That sounds easy in theory but, based on what's happened in other worlds, there is always a lot more whining when the peace terms include giving a beating to the cowards who sat out the war. The last thing we need is more whining.I thoroughly disagree. This world doesn't have enough whining. 2 Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) 1. Who cares if a score is inflated by useless nations. It's really a disadvantage and alliances that practice farming will gradually fall behind. 2. There's no advantage in farming because it's an advantage anyone can use - not an advantage. 3. Where do we draw the line? (many) alliances invest $$$in there active members in order to boost taxable income. Some of them go inactive. It wouldn't be good for the game to make investing in members so risky that it disappears. *their Edited January 8, 2015 by SoS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 People saying the vacation mode shouldnt have a minimum, and a time freeze isnt a peace mode are absolutely wrong. If a war was on the brink of kicking off, and people could tell, an entire alliance could go into peace mode for a week and avoid an ass kicking instead of building military. Fighting a war is much worse for a nation than not doing anything for a week. Read my suggestion. If done my way, you can't even access the game while on vacation mode. So unless a whole !@#$ing alliance wants to stop playing the game, then no. It's not a peace mode. See with my way, it's just more convenient for individual time scales. This could work very well for a vacation mode. Just add a time limit for vacation mode and a time limit before you can go back into it. This will allow nations to still be deleted after a long period of time, but prevent people from logging in (to prevent deletion) and going back into vacation mode. There shouldn't be a time limit for vacation mode. As for a time limit for going back into vacation mode, why? Why is it needed? I mean, are you guys forgetting the part where you cant access the game while in vacation mode? This means that if you want to try to use it as a peace mode, you won't be playing the game at all so you might as well quit, because that's all you can do from there. Also, the solution to anyone who would actually be stupid enough to try to use it as peace mode is quite simple: Just give them a bigger ass kicking when they come back Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenages Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) I basically agree 100% with Chey and TheNG. This is a terrible idea for all the reasons they've listed. It would be an excellent first step to killing off the casual playerbase, which is an excellent first step towards killing the game. Edited January 8, 2015 by Tenages 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatnate Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Alliances already have incentive to kick members at 7 days and 14 days inactive due to alliances that allow raiding inactives. Why should we auto-kick when strong social incentives are already in place? We also absolutely need a vacation mode, no income, no interface, and no war during vacation but your nation is the same when you return. If nations were booted after 7 days you couldn't ever go on vacation to a place without internet without quitting P&W, which seems ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 A better solution is just to prevent gray nations from being taxed. As for inactives, why can't we just prevent grays from being taxed? There are a lot of people in alliances who are active, but either don't know how to change from gray, or they don't care to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Jong-Il Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 We should allow grey nations to be exempt from tax after 7 days. If you make the minimum vacation mode 14 days, that would give someone 21 days to have a nice long time away from the computer for a vacation. 7 days after they go grey, it could be set to auto-kick them out of an alliance, giving them 28 days, so basically a whole month, to be inactive from logging in. As some people stated, if someone was going to be deployed, they are concerned about who is going to watch their children and other means than set themselves in vacation mode. It's a valid point, but this would also be saying that if they didn't have the time to go into vacation mode, or would care enough to, then they also wouldn't care enough to worry if their nation was being attacked during a fire-fight. If they are away from their computer because of deployment, then they will most likely become deleted. It takes more than one month to serve a full term in the army. As for people who aren't serving for our country, it takes a whopping 10 seconds to log in, so claiming that auto boot isn't fair, maybe you should be less lazy and log in on your phone for like, once a week. Quote The many forms of proof regarding Kastor's sexuality: - Kastor: I already came out the closet. - MaIone: I'm gay * MaIone is now known as Kastor - Henri: i'm a !@#$it Skable: the !@#$ is a codo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 3) Kicking inactive nations out of alliances will create more raiding opportunities for larger nations, and promote more activity in the nations that stick around. You'll be hard pressed to find a nation without an alliance with a score above maybe even 200, but if we start kicking inactives from alliances there will be a considerably larger number of these nations. The active players in those higher score ranges can have a little more fun fighting nations that aren't in alliances. I'm totally agree with you, Sheepy. I will get many raid targets if this comes with an implementation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted January 8, 2015 Author Administrators Share Posted January 8, 2015 Alright, after reading through the comments I think the consensus is generally against this suggestion, which is fine. That's why we (I) post things here, so that they can be discussed before any sort of implementation. Reading the thread, I had an idea for a separate but related suggestion, here: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/4341-alliances-should-only-be-able-to-tax-nations-on-their-color/ Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saeton Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I think 1972ford's suggestion of 14 days solves for this pretty well. I actually agree with you, I think that 14 days is a better length of time and would be less punitive for nations that were gone for only a week or slightly longer. This is why we would have a vacation mode, so that if you know you're going to be deployed for 90 days or w/e, you could freeze your nation for that period of time and resume activities when you returned. Some people are gone a lot longer than 90-120 days, though. Some are gone for over a year. Will you allow them to show you orders or a military ID or something saying "hey I hope to be back in X months" for a special circumstance? Or maybe someone's in a car accident and is hospitalized for several months. Also an idea, what if, instead of having nothing when you get back after 6 months, you get maybe a week's worth of income and resources to help get you back? That way you don't have to sit around for a couple of days twiddling your thumbs until you have enough to start doing something. I've also seen the idea of a nation sitter before, not sure how that goes, though. Quote (TEst lives on but I'm in BK stronk now and too lazy to change the image) 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.