Leaderboard

World Bank The PNW bank would work as a saving account for the nations of PNW. This would allow for nations that are not comfortable investing in private banks to be able to put money away and earn something for money not currently being used toward cities, resources, and infrastructure. Two ways this could be implemented. 1. With CD (certificate of deposit). These CDs would have a 1 month long contract, meaning the owner of this certificate can choose to withdraw or renew the contract every month. Each CD can cost from 10m, 50m, or 100m and earn the nation buying it 0.2% daily interest, that means that every 100m deposited, the nation will earn an extra 200k income per day. 2. Once you put money in the investment bank you will not be able to touch it until the time is over. You will not be able to start a new investment account until the first one has finished. A cap of 1 billion would be the max to invest every week or month. The interest rate would change and be determined by how much money was being invested in PNW and length of investment. These certificates and investments would be guaranteed by Alex. The PNW Bank should also allow for people to take out loans as well. Nations that will most likely use this will be smaller nations that find it difficult to grow on their own. How would the nation pay this loan? A set percentage would be discounted from the nations income in a daily basis similar to an alliance tax. Interests would be 0.5% of the loan per day. The French loan system can be used to calculate how much interest to take and also figure out a payback method for 30, 60 or 90 days. Money will not be given as this could easily be exploited. Instead the bank would buy their next city. This purchase would then become the outstanding debt the nation has with the World Bank. Those not wanting to take out a loan for the full cost of a new city can put a down payment down. Nations should be able to make a direct deposit themselves to pay the loan back faster and would not be able to build another city or project until the loan in paid. In case of small nations below 10 cities, the option to buy 2 or 3 cities without having finished paying their original loan could be implemented, then they would be able to grow to a good size while they figure out if they like the game or not. National Project: World Bank Cost: 100m/150m Increases investment cap to 5 billion Leave out Some may wonder what would happen to private banks, they would still exist, this type of banking offers very reduced interest rates to investors, 1.4% weekly, way lower to anything any bank currently gives with the only upside to it that their investments are 100% guaranteed. It also only offers services for smaller nations seeking help to grow faster, and it would be only available for 1 city at the time, the nation would not be able to take multiple loans to grow exponentially. Private banks would also be able to give loans to nations in need of resources to war, or to alliances trying to start an aggressive expansion in their ranks. Possible questions: -Why only 0.2% per day which sums up to 1.4% weekly while you can get anywhere from 2% to 3.5% in private banks? Because this is just an option to large economies that don’t want to deal with the hassle of having their money administered by third parties, their payback would be less, but also will their hassle. -Why the interests are so high for nations taking loans, there is a big gap between 0.2% and 0.5%? Because 0.5% interests match the 3.5% interests private banks give to investors looking to deposit money. This way we prevent any loophole in the system where nations would be tempted to take a loan at a lower cost for their next city while investing their actual cash in the private bank system. -why not just give money? This would tempt nations to take money out and attempt to exploit it. Why limit the loans to the value of their next city and buying the actual city automatically? This is to prevent a nation from taking out a large loan, sending away the money and deleting only to start again. Why not loan to alliances? Because alliances would need to take out liquid money and it would be open to be exploited. if you are interested to know how the french system works, I attached an excel sheet the example shows 100m to be paid in 60 days taking almost 2m a day as payment. french system.xls thanks to endiness for helping me polish the details

Never thought I'd see the day I had to post a recap, but here we are. So, as many have noticed we had a bit of a scuffle with some folks. Some spy issues had occurred, we threw a brick through the culprits window, the cops showed up, Insert climbed a clocktower with a rifle, Queen M and Cynic/Masterb8r got married in our discord... It got pretty rowdy. I know a lot of people wanted this all to blow up into something cool. To be honest, so did I but I have plans for heavy drinking and a bar crawl and I'm not going to let the lot of you !@#$ it up by setting everything on fire. Anyways, Rose and Hate Machine got together to sort out the dumpster fire that is ongoing and decided to just let it play out. We're going to let the wars expire, refrain from opening new ones in the mean time, and we'll walk away when its over.

I trust the private banks more than Alex tbh.

What have you wrought? You have me agreeing with these two. 1. This adds a new source of money without adding a method that takes it back out at an equal rate. The interest on the city loans even though its larger is going against smaller principle. So unless there is a massive uptake in the whale tier this system will add more money to the system then it removes. See inflation. 2. Any form of income needs to have a risk with it. Even infra carries a certain level of risk, this carries basically none. 3. Blockades? 4. Need to hide your alliance's rebuild cash? 5. I see newbies not knowing what they are doing taking out city loans right off the bat and not being able to grow properly as a result. 6. What if you have negative income? 7. What if the loan payments put you into negative income?

O god they're multiplying!!! Soon there will be more banks than micros!!!

You know, while your idea is all good and all, there's probably going to be a game breaking glitch in it...Also, what happens when a nation deletes, how is that money retrieved? Is this money generated out of no where, or by savings accounts? This would be a game breaking exploit...not in the good way either. (depending on how its implemented)

Just some love taps. Everyone should be able to agree that the weekend is exclusively for getting !@#$ed up.

I'm sure Rose is quaking in their boots right now at the prospect BK might come along and collectively downvote all their posts lmfao.

Smaller nations can actually BETTER afford higher rates than larger ones because they get a much larger return on investment. Buying a new city for $5m can increase their income by 20% or 15% or similar - for a whale, buying a new city for hundreds of millions of dollars is a measly 4% increase or thereabouts. It is disreputable for you to cast aspersions like this, and unworthy of this discussion for you to bring that kind of mudslinging into game suggestions. A lot of people are pointing out that this WOULD NOT make the community a better place. For my part, I think it would hamper involvement by players by taking functions that they can and do fulfill and making it something that the game can and will fulfill instead. Players cannot compete with a risk-free source of funding. If you only give decent loans to people who are friends with you, that's your problem. I can personally attest to the fact (as can many of our customers) that Stratton Oakmont loans to anyone we deem as credit worthy - whether or not we know them personally, or like them. Sounds like your policies might be the ones that need changing And if you think 4% weekly is insane interest (and that is the most common rate our customers get, I'm aware several banks are lower still), you're delusional. Much lower than that and the income derived is not worth the effort it takes to keep records and raise cash, not to mention the risk of default that always attends to the business. Speaking for SO (and I'm 95% sure we're the ones you're talking about here), the rates have not been that high in almost two years, and only ever got that high for very risky loans. Please don't comment on situations you aren't very familiar with. So "I think this will discourage players from doing neat things on their own" is biased and not valid? Get off your high horse, Seb. Just because some of us own banks doesn't mean our opinions are worthless when we disagree with you. Private banks will have no reason to exist if people can get better terms from the game itself. Small nations haven't had funding problems for their cities in a VERY long time. There are many banks willing to lend to them. Just because you don't think they're worth it doesn't mean that all bank owners don't think they're worth it. And this isn't even touching alliances, who pay for the vast vast majority of lowbie cities in the game. No, private banks have funding that was TAKEN OUT OF THE GAME in other places, either by players investing it directly, or paying interest on loans to it. The bank you're talking about would just flat out create money out of thin air without creating a significant sink for it. If someone invests in a bank, the dividends or interest they earn on it COMES OUT OF THE MONEY MADE BY THE BANK. It's zero-sum, in that respect. The bank you want to create doesn't MAKE any money, as such. It's an infinite well of cash and the interest people make on the investments with it are coming out of nothing. Consider for a moment - what if everyone in the game took out CDs with this game-bank, and no one took out any loans? What would happen? Everyone would be making interest income, but the game-bank wouldn't be pulling in any interest from the game. The game now has a ton more money in it, because there is no cash sink to counterbalance it. If this were a private for-profit bank, we'd stop selling CDs both because if no one's taking loans then we don't need the cash, and also because we'd have no income to pay the interest on them with! But that wouldn't be the case with the game-bank as you've outlined it. That's a SERIOUS PROBLEM. This tells me you have no understanding of economics. Risk is WHY the majority of interest exists in the first place. If everyone was certain they'd get their money back, they'd be happy accepting minimal returns, because those returns are sure things. This is why people irl invest in things like bonds and CDs when the stock market pays multiple times the returns on investment on average, and even within the stock market people invest in blue chips even though midcaps and smallcaps have higher returns. Risk is THE primary force behind interest rates. This is just you thinking like a whale and not understanding what other people can think up. I bet a decent chunk of Arrgh is at negative income at any given point, for example. Should this bank only exist for the benefit of people who are already established and are going the conventional route to nation building? If blockades don't affect it, it'd make blockades a fair bit less useful, wouldn't it? So what you're saying is that money scarcity should never be a thing, ever? Again, you're showing that you don't understand economics. Having money scarcity is a GOOD thing. It adds depth to the game and its economy. It's also very easy to circumvent if you're intelligent about it. Also, I can't speak for other banks, but SO is not generally in the habit of dramatically increasing rates after a war... Either you're speaking ill of your own bank, or you're pulling that out of your ass. Again, not all banks are political. Don't assume everyone is so filthy. You are free to change your own practices if you want to see this change.

Does Alex know de wae to not having a potato server?

Esteemed leaders and devs all. I apologize for the long-winded verbiage to come, but it is my wont. I think most of us can easily agree that the current espionage system is not in great shape. Currently spies don't have much use aside from killing nukes, and killing each other. They can occasionally kill other things, but not very well. And, funnily enough, they're TOO effective at killing themselves. If someone succeeds in landing a single assassination attempt on your spies, your defensive efforts are done for. There is no coming back from it due to the slow recruit rate compared to the enormous casualties the mission generates. I find this ludicrous. Not because spies are underpowered, but rather because spies in this game are assumed to be military assets used to achieve military objectives, and that's absolutely not what spies are actually for. When can you recall a massive spy war happening where spies were killing each other en masse? When was the last time a spy blew up hangar full of planes? When has a spy EVER been able to even mildly inconvenience a nuclear silo? More to the point, when was the last time governments thought throwing spies at enemy military targets to destroy them was a cost efficient and reasonable proposition? Spies exist to provide information, and currently they have a whopping one mission that actually does so. And that information, I think, is not overly useful in most cases, either. Espionage shouldn't be something you do primarily during war. It should be something you do *all the time*. It has the potential to be an engaging part of the game, not only for fighting wars, but for planning them, avoiding them, and starting them. My Proposition: Remove all of the military damage missions. Seriously, just trash them. Spies are not military weapons. The times in history where material damage has been inflicted on a force by actual spies are not very numerous - especially in the modern era, which we're assuming this game takes place in. Dramatically reduce the effectiveness of spy assassinations. It currently takes almost a week to recover from someone attacking your spies *once*. A concerted effort against your spies means you get zeroed with no recourse or options. Add in more info that can be stolen via missions. Messages sent and received in-game, for example. Allow spying on alliances to reveal parts of bank balances, and/or bank transactions. Implement the ability to anonymously conduct trades, and allow spies to uncover them. Show many spies the opposing nation has, of course. Show some recent alliance announcements (past month, maybe?), even. Make missions occur gradually, over time. Given the importance of the information and the curtailing of spy-slaughter, it would make sense if operations were more like policies than missions. You set them, and then the benefits (info) accrue over time. Depending on the spies and policies contending your penetrative attempts, you might start seeing small amounts of info right away, followed by larger chunks of intel... or it might take weeks to uncover anything at all. Uncap the number of spies people can have... but keep the low recruitment rate. Removing the ability to dramatically deplete your opponents' spies means that you need a different way to get a leg up. The way to do that is by recruiting more spies, which I figure is a simple abstraction of being willing to fund equipment, personnel, and training further. I'm sure that there are many holes in what I've proposed. Feel free to poke them, then we can find ways to close them up again!

One of the key issues is the rules themselves. They are far too open for interpretation and are rarely ever applied evenly because of this, but rather at the discretion of the moderator/s. This means a community member can read a rule, think hes not breaking said rule, break it based on the subjective standard of the moderator or moderation team, and be warned for doing so. If you define the rules more clearly, than even if people don't agree with said rules, they know they are breaking them and have no defense against punishment for doing so. According to the Flaming, Trolling and Name Calling rules, 70% of the posts on this forum would be considered against the rules. Unless its actual harassment (which you still have to define) it should not be against the rules. Then you have the Racism and Sexism rules, which are completely open to interpretation, especially if you pay attention to politics and see the wild degree by which people define those terms. It also doesn't even mention homophobia, so I could technically go around disparaging gay people without any justifiable punishment if the moderators were actually true to enforcing the forums rules. You should clearly define what you mean by sexism and racism (and homophobia) rather than leaving the definition as vague as it is. The rules should be a clear instruction manual for the moderators to read and enforce, Another rule that is too open. Obviously some kid coming along and posting about the weather in a thread about X alliance declaring war on Y alliance is derailing the thread, but there are plenty of times when a thread naturally moves in a direction separate from the OP. Especially in the alliance affairs and general debate sections. Also the correct way to respond to this should really be to warn the person and delete the derailing posts rather than lock the entire thread. I'm not even sure how you can feasibly enforce this one. This is probably the worst rule of all. For starters, what is considered a hate group is in many cases heavily subjective\, various sources will rule differently based on their own political ideology and in some cases pure political narrative pushing. Secondly, if you aren't going to list specific hate groups you can't really expect people to know which ones you consider to be hate groups etc. At which point it becomes at the moderators discretion and that isn't a good thing. Good taste is subjective. Realistically this should just include the stuff reference under "inappropriate imagery". As for the sexual rule, this one has been historically enforced unevenly. I had a picture of a chicks butt as a my avatar for like 6 months back in 2016-2017 and it wasn't an issue, then recently Durmstrang made a DOE with some ladies without about the same lever of clothing (swimsuit area covered) and it became an issue. I think the mods messed up on that one and didn't read their own rules on the subject. This should be removed or at the very least only apply to @Alex The entire crux of the issue is you give the moderators way too much discretion over ruling on things, and this is a blank check to rule anyway they want. The rest of the rules are mostly fine, since they are clear and you can obviously know when you are breaking them. I tend to agree with @Gabranth that the no call out rule is a bad one. I understand that the proper course of action is supposed to be to contact @Alex but as hes admitted already his oversight isn't 100% on point and he can't always be reached. Moderators should have accountability.

Congrats Queen and Cynic

Yawn. This is probably the closest thing we will get to a war in 2018. Don't get too use to this. Now.... back to sleeping and collecting pixels!

It has been a fun! I wish you best of luck with hate! Also grats to Queen M and Cynic/Masterb8r

Well, you can, but thats super shitty. But all in all those are some pretty good points. At the end of the day the situation is this. We were targeted by spy operations, dude got caught, we punched his ticket. Counters went out, which is a pretty standard thing. Counter counters deployed. Again, standard thing. I'm not gonna personally shit on someone for doing what most alliances do. BK and Zodiac wise, they agreed to protect us. However, that is dependent on if we request that assistance. I have not. We'll slug it out with people who come in, then go home. I know you guys are bored, but for !@#$ sake, pick your own fight if it's that bad. Or join someone who fights.

There is only one Wei here. Roz Wei.

Mad because bad. People told me this game was dying in winter of 2014. It's been 3 years and guess what? It's still here. Also I have spent money on this game and know many others who have as well - you complain about the game dying then discourage donations? That makes no !@#$ing sense. It is with the donations that Alex is able to upgrade his servers and produce new content, the only joke on us is that you were reaping the benefits of the donations that we gave (server upgrades, forum updates, etc.) while you didn't pay anything. Wow how will we recover - got us good. Don't need your type around here. Don't come back.

I'm out. Fark is awesome. Miss Terminus Est. Game is over.

Now Recruiting Discord New military alliance. Activity, coordination, and shitposting required. We keep it simple.

Hi everyone, I’m Helios, the leader of Sirius, now I finally start my journey in the forum, searching for new friends! You can contact me using discord or in game Message! Discord: Helios#5591

Greetings, Kyle N, and welcome to the forums! I advise adding your alliance to your forum profile. On that note, I wish you luck in The Commonwealth! Feel welcome to shoot me a PM if you need any help.

4 accounts with same unique ID. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/unique/id=99568

They don't. It's a risk they'll have to take. People need to be forced to take risks, or the game will quickly become even more boring than it is. Just like how I wish SO didn't have to take a risk when lending to people, but if we want to make money then that's a risk we have to take. Risk vs reward needs to be kept in balance. If you want to minimize risk, split it up and put it in many different banks. If any one bank goes under, even if it takes your funds with it, the rest of your funds will survive and you'll only be out that one investment. Diversification is a real-life tool to manage risk as well. Again, it's never happened yet, and SO has been around for... hmm. *Counts* Ah, quite a few wars. I don't trust my memory to count accurately. Every war that's happened since before Oktoberfest. Again, if you don't trust the major banks at this point, you have trust problems. It's POSSIBLE that they'll get screwed over, but removing ALL risk from the game is not the way to go about "fixing" this very real and complex issue. I'm afraid I don't understand this at all. Could you elaborate? I don't see what the connection is to people storing money safely and having more wars. People don't eschew wars because they're scared of their savings being stolen, they eschew wars because they don't want to *spend* those savings, and/or don't want to lose the war to begin with. Do you think whales got to be whales by throwing themselves into battle with abandon whenever they got the chance? How would letting them store away money risk free at a profit encourage them to have to spend that money instead of using it to grow larger still? Bank owners actually love war. You know when we do our best business? Yeah, it's right after a war. We actually have wait lists, there's so many people wanting loans. It's great! Not to mention those of us who do brokering often manage to make out fairly well during/before the war as well.

I get your point about risk regarding banks, but why on earth would someone want to risk their money they want to save for a set date with a player-owned bank rather than this proposed bank? I'm thinking from a point of view of me putting my life savings into this bank to save for when I'm ready to bulk purchase cities, I could just go away from the game and not worry about anything until the set date I chose to withdraw the money at. With player-run banks I'd be constantly worried about a global war breaking out and your bank's money being taken. It's a pessimistic point of view I know, but a valid one for a vast amount of players. Also this could set about more regular global wars, with the peace of mind that you have enough cash/resources stashed away in the proposed bank, there's absolutely nothing stopping people from making this game interesting again. With player run banks, the owners are rarely in favour of war because of their mindset towards the game which is in itself a problem that needs to be ironed out. Entities within alliances would be a great addition and one which I hope holds some weight with Alex when he reads through

Greetings, Teri, and welcome to Orbis! I wish you luck in... whatever it is you're doing. Feel welcome to shoot me a PM if you need any help.

An alternative to this if a nation had to repay to the bank manually could be Alex's new Bounty system that's in place on the test server, automatic bounties placed on people who have refused to pay their loans. Think of the pirates, they'd have a field day with that!

How can it run out of money, it has already been stated that the Admin would code in any lost money, so those who fail to pay the bank loses out as the money gets coded back in, so it would be able to loan out 100% more loans than it would ever have investors ?

I want to highlight what you're main point is because I think its important regarding already established-player owned banks. With player run banks, there is absolutely no guarantee of safety regarding a customers money/resources regardless of reputation. You are essentially putting your trust in someone who could quite easily refuse/ignore your requests to withdraw their own money and keep it for themselves, I'm not saying that it will happen just that its a possibility. Taking out the middle-man and having a centralised bank for the majority of the game would offer peace of mind when their hard earned money is stashed away ready for that big infra jump or bulk city purchases. There's already a bunch of 'alliances' that have been created just to keep others' money stored away, Yarr, Planet Reach & Stratton Oakmont to name but a few. This idea could somewhat render these shell-alliances useless and keep the alliance leader boards clutter-free. At the rate these shells are being created, there might as well be an option to setup a corporation inside your aligned alliance instead.

This was tried in another game and it was constantly out of money. It only takes a few whales wanting cities to tie-up everyone else's money. Plus I like that we have a bunch of player-run banks. A world bank would probably negate or lessen their impact and that's not fun. A neat idea, but in this genre of game we need to remember that a lot of things like this have to be handled through role-play and player-made things or we're just an iOS app game.

The choke-hold certain parties have over the happenings in this game is astonishing. You can only go so long with *nothing* happening before we begin to leave and never return. I hope you people realize that there's a tipping point where, even when you still have X amount of nations in the game, the game itself will be dead. Take examples from history and cast off the leadership that constantly tells you to sit and wait month after month. If you're confused as to who I'm referring: Anyone who presents "strategically waiting to be the defender to trigger treaties the right way" or "we need to build up more/we're outpacing their growth" as the grand strategy with which they are guiding your alliance.

I'm more worried about Forum Mod activity. I've spoke to Alex about this before. But it seems some Forum Mods like to disappear off the face of the earth. It'd be good to see you guys more often.

unless it is coded in to the game, this system will cause more smaller nations to leave than stay, secondly I personally have no idea who Seb is, by his profile he is not staff so i do not think this would be hard coded in, so do not forget bails man who will have to collect unpaid loans. if its built in to the game, the OP does not make it clear then why would anyone blockade they could simply take a loan,

Sketchy, Thank you for you feedback. I can personally tell you that as a moderator there is often that gray area of discretion that is exercised. Alot of times, when dealing with select reports, it comes to the point where we really can't determine a ruling because what you said, it's too vague. I do agree that rules listed should be more defined so that we don't run into that gray area as often as we have and are. Discretion is used on alot of things though and let me point out, most reports are discussed amongst the moderator team. As you could probably guess we do get reports that are post-argument phase. Where there is a discussion and someone doesn't like what the other person says and then boom, report. Then we have to figure out, you know, what exact rule was broken and then try and fit it within the vague descriptions of rule breaks listed. So, I definitely see the issue there. I think what led us to this error is the failure to grow with the community interior as well as the rapidly growing social world we live in. I'll personally check through the rules and hold a discussion with Alex and other moderators on what we can change to make them less vague and more defined as we move forward. In the meantime, I would gladly take any revised rules from you guys to use in those discussions, I just ask that you shoot them to my inbox here on the forums so we don't weigh down this thread with paragraphs of rule revisions. I'll also go further; once we get a discussion going and have solutions to share, I'll make a post with those changes so the community can also weigh in and be sure we are correct in those measures. I think that is only fair. One last note on discretion, albeit the vaguensss, I use and I ask other moderators to use certain discretion when it comes to handling reports. When it comes down to another member just trying to use moderators as a tool to one-up the other, I ask them to read the room, see what happened and what led to the report. Most times, the one reporting an incident has also committed the same rule break a few posts back, but it goes unnoticed. That has to change as well. Thanks again for your feedback, send any rule suggestions to my inbox and again I apologise for improper spelling and grammar - my phone autocorrect has been acting pretty nuts lately. Thanks.

I need a bank. This is good

So haydentoo (who had already been killing @Bambino's spies for about a month a while ago, while haydentoo was still in Dark Brotherhood) decided to kill Hit Girl's spies and Hate Machine decided to retaliate. Oblivion and Rose decided themselves to back up an aggressive action against Hate Machine. Care to enlighten me, Rose?

I agree with this. There is a disconnect it seems when it comes to someone stacking up warn points and then they just get away with it towards the end as warn points basically go away after a bit. So, they can refresh and start again. I'll look into our point system and see if there is something we can tweak that can cut that gap out. As far as consistency. That is something I'm personally working on with the moderators so everyone delivers the same consistent moderation for all forums and all community members regardless of personal in-game bias. Thanks @durmij for your input.

Actually moderate, actually moderate consistently, actually follow your own rules, actually get rid of repeat offenders.

Hm, would've loved to have seen a war break out so early in the year, maybe next time.

Cynic and Queen M? Lol, crazy.

The end of another politics and snore episode

So I can go drinking this weekend. God damn it, its in the topic.

:blepp: well done

Not sure what to think of any of the alliances involved. The Perfect time for IQ to roll Rose and see if EMC helps, if not, then they get a win and can splinter. If not, 1 month war and they win. BK redeems themselves, and no one messes with IQ protectorates again. Hate Machine, being a war alliance, doesn’t want MORE war? Meh. All you guys need to figure out what you want.

If anything, this hilarious thread has given me ad material.

@Sketchy where was rose when KT hit oblivion then...? seems they only want to protect oblivion when it's vs a small opponent to flex on

I think they just Hate you.

Apology accepted. [IC] The Monument of Friendship and Brotherhood between Vassili Dovgan, Sovietistan, and the Polish People has been re-constructed in Warsaw. This Monument is protected by a decree prohibiting its removal. [IC] I wish you the best, Comrade Dovgan, especially in your new professional endeavours. I too have been less active because of real-life, but out of vanity, I still keep Poland active. Alles gute, Genosse!

Greetings all, it's the 21st of December and as promised, the awards will now be given in the order the polls were released in. Player voting categories Player of the year: Roquentin Most Powerful Player: Roquentin Best Alliance Leader: Seeker Most Controversial Player: Curufinwe Best Player Signature: Eva-Beatrice Best Player Avatar: Jack3top Best OOC poster: Zeebrus Best in Character Poster: TheNG Nicest Player: Rache Funniest Player: Sval Most Active Player: Who Me Player Most Likely to Achieve Greatness: Aerys Targaryen Best new addition to the community: Thantos! It would also be unfair to miss out on Ripper who came very close, a mere 0.3% off of the win Alliance Voting Categories Alliance of the year: New Pacific Order Most Powerful Alliance: New Pacific Order Best Military: Black Knights Best Rookie Alliance: Cerberus Best Flag: Guardians of the Galaxy Best War Flag: Polaris Most Active Alliance: Black Knights Most Honourable Alliance: Cornerstone Most Improved Alliance: Guardians of the Galaxy Best Diplomatic team: Black Knights Best Economic System: Zodiac Best Recruiting Staff: Zodiac Best Propaganda Staff: Black Knights Best Alliance Growth: New Pacific Order Best Forums: Black Knights Alliance Most Likely to Achieve Greatness in 2018: Acadia Most Immoral Alliance: Arrgh! Most Controversial Alliance: Iron Guard Best Alliance for New Players: Zodiac Most Missed Alliance for 2017: Mensa HQ Part two will come later this evening folks, so keep your eyes peeled!