Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/13/18 in Posts

  1. 7 points
  2. 3 points
    From the desk of Uncle Traveling Matt Leader of the best nation, Fraggle Rock Greetings Friends!! We in Fraggle Rock hope all the nations of Orbis are doing half as well as us. It has been a bountiful and productive year. We are finishing up phase five of our grand plan. Once done, we shall shiftly enter into the final phase; The End of Fraggle Rock. It has taken time, money, patience, giggles, tears, plenty of radishes, and crazy Fraggles to accomplish this. It is now a good time to thank our friends who support us no matter how many times we have Fraggled them over. El. What a fella. Smokes weed all day and I make him laugh. He's been a good friend to the Rock. Zeebs. We are proud of you. You've grown up around a bunch of weirdos and somehow made it through. Congrats Daddy Critters. I got ya food Daddy. I won't be late. Soup: You're good people, nobody all the trash people say about you. Apeman/Hayley: weirdos that some how always back together. Ok. Jroc, SmithHole, Bet: Sure. Thrax: Bloodlines. Others: You know who you are 🙄 Now onto this year's fund raiser. The theme: Doggos of Orbis!! That's right, Fraggle Rock will be holding the first official dog show. Here are the rules: 1) Must be a picture of your dog. 2) Only one submission per nation. 3) No cats allowed. 4) Entry fee of 7 million must be paid to Fraggle Rock. 5) No humans in the picture. 6) Winners will receive cut of the entry fees. 7) If you win, be a good winner to the other Doggos. No hard feelings. Categories: Action, Sleeping, Silly, Creepy, Creative. That's all. Many hugs, Uncle Traveling Matt
  3. 2 points
    Pretty simple, make it so Utter Failures cost resistance. This is more realistic and makes the war progress more naturally. It would also discourage losing nations to cheat the system and send in a few planes or ships to waste the winner's WC. Nothing crazy, just a 5 resistance loss would do.
  4. 2 points
    Ronny I know you're new the the whole war thing, but NPO has actually fought in numerous wars since it's inception (and lost all of them) and is relevant to the game community, GoB has had the luxury of doing nothing for 780 days...stop comparing the two and stop spouting stupidity that makes me actually defend NPO.
  5. 2 points
    They were basically loot pinatas, so it was just inviting them to spend more. I don't think it's particularly more interesting, but it's a matter of perspective. TRF besides Oberstein and Big Brother are mid tier more or less, so there's virtually no risk in beiging them. It's a 27 man alliance so none of the avalanche effects are really there. A coordinated and experienced larger alliance can do a lot more when given a large beige as opposed to an alliance that isn't as capable. It depends on the loot percentage. I saw TRF across the board lose tons of resources in the initial wars, making the war not too expensive for you. If beiging becomes the point and the loot is increased it'll eventually impoverish losers further. I get being sat on isn't fun but there's no incentive to fight if you don't accomplish anything or basically self-own in a more contentious war. Edit: Here's an example. VE in SRD's day ran 5% tax, so that meant a lot of their members had tons of cash on hand. This meant people that fought them like TKR(They bragged about most cash looted in NPOFT) and then later Mensa made bank off them and it contributed to their future domiannce. It's a huge assumption that it wouldn't turn the tide of the war and it would make people less willing to fight larger opponents. People who are declaring up keep bigger people down so they can't build up again to their full capacity. Let's say everyone was forced to beige GOB and Guardian constantly despite the updeclares taking effort to do and put together, it would start to get pretty annoying. The updeclares on the remaining super tier are working their way up 1 or 2 a time. Can they do that if the ones already hit can't be kept down at all? A large part of the later parts of war are fighting double buys by a larger nation. If you have to beige and they can always go back to their original strength, it's a huge issue and becomes virtually unviable to updeclare. It eliminates the point of there being a limit on what you can rebuy each day.
  6. 2 points
    -spoilered for scarfposting-
  7. 2 points
    This seems like a more elegant solution. I'm not opposed to this by any means, but I would really like to see a lot of feedback before making such a significant change.
  8. 2 points
    Either wars need to be shorter or Res damage needs to change, ever since fortify was nerfed 5 day war lengths have become incredibly braindead and boring. Holding someone under a 5 day blockade and hitting their rebuys once a day is enjoyable for precisely nobody in that interaction.
  9. 1 point
    Seriously, why isn't "Total land area" a leaderboard? Pls add.
  10. 1 point
    BK have been on Brown since the color bonus changes. They took over Brown as it benefited them more than the Black color.
  11. 1 point
    Was fun liquidating infra gents. Would do it again. ❤️
  12. 1 point
  13. 1 point
    You've made many whiny and passive-aggressive posts on this topic, argued with several people, said Settra had the reading comprehenion of a squirrel, and made accusations of voter suppression. If that's not grieving and anger, I don't know what is.
  14. 1 point
    Players online: Ripper, Joshua Limpkin, Curufinwe, Blink, Vito, Hwan, Reuben Cheuk, Mitsuru, Prefontaine RNG: #4 - The Fighting Pacifists Result: We win and Pre gets to make a new flag for TFP, which they reject, again.
  15. 1 point
    It's baaaaaack. We completely redid the totaling to retain damage/losses in the event people move between alliances. Fixed a few minor issues in the brief time it's been back up so there may be others too.
  16. 1 point
    Players Online: The Mad Titan, Patrick Stewart, Buorhann, Micchan, Commander Thrawn, Frawley, TheRebelMan, Natalyia, Ziphy, TheNG Rising, Edward 1, Atempt, Japan 77, Mitaseu, Darth Revan,Flanderlion, Sepiroth, Statics Alliance RNG: 2, Black Knights Do we win: “If there is one among you who wants to kill his general, his emperor, here I am”
  17. 1 point
    Players logged in now: Buorhann, Princess Seshat, Patrick Stewart, The Mad Titan, Micchan, Commander Thrawn, Frawley, TheRebelMan, Natalia Poklonskaya, Zyphy, TheNG Rising, Edward I, Atempt, japan77, Mitsuru, Darth Revan, Flanderlion, Sephiroth, Statics RNG vs. Alliance: #21, GOB Do we win: We'll win the meme AND the bad posting game.
  18. 1 point
    It always comes back to Mensa
  19. 1 point
    I agree. Especially because there's already a "Largest Nation by Land Area" award ingame which is currently held by Rose/Endiness from Church of Spaceology. So makes sense to have a leaderboard together with it.
  20. 1 point
    I work 10-12 hour shifts each day when I'm at work, while I'm also working on my MBA. I'm at the end of a 9 day scheduling before I get some time off. I managed to get a vote in. It doesn't take much at all. If you can't manage to sneak a few minutes in within a 5 day timeframe, that's your own laziness. Not those who managed to vote.
  21. 1 point
    God, no, just no, and more importantly please heck off. The wars are just long enough to allow your cheesy bullcrap "pin" ""strategy"" to be countered by extremely efficient and dedicated play; doing what you ask here would make it COMPLETELY UNSTOPPABLE. So, to reiterate: Please heck off. If you actually want to shorten wars, then go ahead and do it; there's nothing stopping you from just taking that last hit and shortening the wars yourself.
  22. 1 point
    Uh... are you SERIOUSLY !@#$ing about that? Look at my wars you mouthy fool. What, you think a 13 city updeclare isn't just as bad for a 19 city as it is for one of your 14 or 16s? Well, it is. If you don't notice, even despite my targets being at low military, i lost one war, because i had to hold the guy without ships, because the other two blasted them to kingdom come. You're complaining about 8-10 city updecs, i just recently was fighting updecs of 12, 13, 10, 12, and 13, at the same time of course. Yet, here i am, doing it anyway. Following orders to harpoon the whales, even if i am fighting 10+ city updeclares. Oh, and the best part? THE BEST PART. I don't have like 150 other people right around my city range backing me up either. Actually between TEst/CoS, i'm pretty sure there's less than 10 of us below 20 cities. See, this ^ is what Sketchy was talking about when he said you're just letting your upper tier allies take all the damage. Woe is NPO if they have to updeclare 8-10 cities, but who gives a damn if Rose, Syndicate, CoS and TEst updeclare 8, 10, 13, 15, hell i might be in a 17 city updeclare in the future. My only complaint is that i'm very low on money to buy things, yours is that anybody would insinuate you do the same. God for-frickin-bid NPO has to build up and do the same as us huh? Thankfully for you we're much less selfish about our pixels while not being trash, so we'll just forcibly kick their heads down low enough for you to swat at them without ever having to build a tank. We know you couldn't Roq's disapproving glare for building such heresy anyway. A nation you shouldn't be fighting anyway. GoB targets are supposed to be speared down by your generous, non-selfish upper tier allies. You actually took that slot away from somebody supposed to be fighting them, who'd *only* be in a 14 city updeclare. He was rather upset about it too. Because you see we've been told to just drag them into 2000s range where you folk are cause yah dont like building tanks and ships too much, Ripper infact turned over all the GoB we slapped down there for that reason. I don't mind doing it for you, i'd just prefer nobody, particularly Shadow here, complains that anybody would suggest they do the same to speed it up. Not their fault they're tellin the truth.
  23. 1 point
    Congrats to Pre and condolences to INH. The future is bright for our protectorate!
  24. 1 point
  25. 1 point
  26. 1 point
    KT - Now with tech support. Join today!
  27. 0 points
  28. 0 points
    What about some option that allow the losing side of the war to reach some sort of autobeige? For example an anti-fortify where you can use your MAPs to cause some similar condition to beige Like 10 beige points and with 3 MAPs you can remove 1 beige point, but if you do any attack you lose all your beige points You can autobeige yourself in 2.5 days, you are happy with your beige time and the enemy is happy with the damage done
  29. 0 points
    Lol no. Also no thanks. Compulsory beiges is stupid and counterproductive for any side and lessens tactics to the point where any side with the bigger military units is just going to end up begging opponents and a constant cyclical nonsense of cookie cutter tactics. Also I've seen this thrown out a lot, but no one's abusing the game or exploiting mechanics. I didn't know valid military strategies are considered "abusing" the game now. Lmao.
  30. 0 points
    Or increase resistance to win - 100 for raid, 150 for ordinary, 200 for attrition.
  31. -1 points
    When we set out our FA path months back, WWF was one of the two cornerstones upon which we build. The venture has been profitable. Alas, the product life cycle must end at some point. WWF,it's been a pleasure. Don't touch. Syndicate protects.
  32. -1 points
    Because you are plotting against us. We know. We simply don't find your plots relevant enough.
  33. -1 points
  34. -1 points
    EDIT: I initially addressed Rahl in the post, but realized the post has become a broader statement. I've removed the quote as its no longer relevant to the post. Sorry about that. As Rampage mentioned earlier, I was added to this development group not too long ago. After spending a while feelings things out and simply watching how the development group operated, getting a grasp of the relevant topics at hand, I have recently begun sparcely posting and contributing. That covers the entire extent to which my involvement goes: I got added, and try to be constructive. The vast majority of guys in the Closed Development Group shares a similar sentiment. It goes without saying that this same majority, like me, has individually opted to stay out of this debate for a few select reasons: - Engaging in a shitflinging contest here is not going to improve the game in any way shape or form. It simply takes time away from more important matters - Quite frankly, it is not up to us to have this debate. From our end of things; Sheepy makes the call on who he asks to join the group and who he does not include. He also makes the call on how the group operates and how much transparency there is. We are allowed to bring suggestions, but that is the entire extent of it. - From your end of things, engaging the Dev. group members in debate is, I suppose, an understandable and natural reaction to finding out that the group exists. I can't fault you for it. It must however be noted that it is counterproductive: We have no influence and we are not a united body- we can not in unison provide you with any representative explanation on decisions made; because we did not make these decisions. The ony thing dev. members are able to provide you, is their *own* perspective and their *own* rationale. To that end, you are free to engage anyone you wish, but I would caution that it is a disservice to those who attempt to help the game, to generalize personal statements by individuals as being any 'official' answer or even as being a shared sentiment amongst this group. Ultimately, my personal suggestion to you would be to attempt to speak privately about the manner with Sheepy. You may have the greatest results that way. As a final point, I would like to point out that the generalized sentiment I see here is based on players trying to fight for their 'rights' to transparency, in defense against a perceived 'illuminati' that is supposedly attempting to influence Sheepy in order to swing the game into their favor. My question to you is: Why are we not discussing how to 'improve the game as a whole', instead of debating why the Development Group is supposedly biased? Personally speaking, I believe that to be a far more constructive approach to the game. Sheepy will ultimately decide what happens. Why not try to work with him, instead of forcing his attention to defending his decision to structure his operations in a certain way? EDIT 2: Typos...
  35. -1 points
    I do believe there is an argument to be made for transparency, and your points do hold ground. Community support is of importance and continuous improvement of business processes will ultimately increase innovation. The main counterpoint that seems to be brought up on the contrary, is the risk of politics seeping in via proxy lobbying, as well as political repercussions being brought to development group members over their opinion. Logical deduction will likely bring you to the conclusion that there is an inherent risk of this happening, associated with opening up the boards. I can therefore understand the apprehension for doing so. Personally speaking, I have no qualm with either side of the argument, and I will be content with whichever path is chosen. My main objective in interjecting into the discussion, was to provide a counterweight to the increasingly hostile undertone which was being taken to the game developers group as a whole (despite most of us being impartial when involved).
  36. -1 points
    The $yndicate declares war on male pregnancy.
  37. -1 points
  38. -1 points
    We would be happy to explore the prospects of a joint venture, upon that the treaty web may finally be broken by the sheer weight of our portfolio. You may inquire via private message with a request. Haiku form tends to go especially well with our Board of Directors.
  39. -1 points
    Welcome back. We may not always have seen eye to eye, but you do bring excitement to the game, so I'm glad to see this.
  40. -1 points
    Pretty much the entire aim of this is for longer wars before it reaches beige. In an alliance war where you're fighting to destroy your opponent, not for loot/to protect your infra etc. having the war stop and both sides have to sit and wait for the war to expire. The loot/infra loss doesn't really matter - beige gives your opponent a time of safety where they can build up. If it would unbalance unconventional weapons, isn't that an argument for them to be buffed like Ava was pushing for in another thread I noticed? Raids would be unchanged. Same resistance, same everything. Ordinary wars are usually when people forget to change to a different sort. Might be different for other alliances but I have very little experience with declaring ordinary wars except from before the choice was added. So I'm not sure why anyone would declare an ordinary as either you're there to loot them as they're less active (raid) or grind them and keep them down (attrition). Attrition ones are for alliance wars, where the entire point is to grind the opponent. Seems dumb to sit for a few days when you get a competent opponent when both you guys want to keep fighting one another but are forced to sit watching each other by a game mechanic that punishes your side for 'winning' a war. Given you go into an alliance war expecting 0 infra, once you're at the 0 mil state, it really doesn't make that much difference the couple more hits to your infra you'll get. I'm from an alliance which according to the wiki we haven't won a single war. I prefer fighting with a target rich environment unlike this war, and no, I'm not someone who runs to tech to get changes to buff themself. I think most of my suggestions (generally projects or stuff not posted here) don't even help me (I'm not a whale so new projects aren't that important to me specifically). With tech changes you've got to think of what's better for the OOC game longterm, not in the IC viewpoint of this war or the next one, but in the next few years etc. Just because you're in a losing war at present, doesn't mean you will be if this is implemented.
  41. -1 points
    People have different opinions of what is fun. I enjoy our methods just fine, I mostly hang around for the community. Our strategy is fun, because it involves long term thinking and the goal of actually changing macro political structures instead of simply banging away on a keyboard like a 2 year old and saying ooh look he went boom. You should really discuss this with someone who understands game mechanics if you don't understand the thought process. War is an expenditure of resources to gain an advantage over another party that is lasting. I know you probably cant differentiate between different posters, but I didn't complain about anything being boring. Narrow lead by what metrics? It is really important to look at the overall strategic context rather than just some pixels. But hey, from the group calling arguing for "if you want to have more fun, just run suicide missions." Its hard to expect deep strategic insights.
  42. -1 points
    Yeah, and your response was illogical and wrong, I attempted to help you understand why. Self-awareness? Of other people? The intellectual fortitude of you guys is truly astounding. There are more than one kind of damages. There's the short term, boom and there's long term structural ones. I think where you are going wrong is that you think this thread is about boredom. Its not. Its about fixing a game mechanic that has led to behavior that people almost universally think doesn't fit the intention of the game design. We are quite happy to continue to min-max and play the game as designed. But we have the opportunity to improve the game and make it function more in line with its design along the way.
  43. -1 points
    *scratches head* So the strat of holding off beiges comes in with the idea of beiges being stackable and thus leaving a huge window of opportunity where smaller nations can't effectively damage upper tier nations. We do it to maximise damage and ensure screwing with us for "fun" is going to put everyone else back a bit. The point here is, is there a way to shorten wars or change them around. There were three different proposals in here, and yet all of the talk has delved into evil NPO ruining the game for everyone else. Lmfao. Never change PnW, never change.
  44. -1 points
    We've been pretty clear about that. Qualitatively, we want to check the runaway upper tier growth of TKR-sphere and, hopefully, reduce their dominance in the upper tiers while we're at it. Name one specific instance in which NPO clearly attempted to do this, succeeded at doing this, in which NPO's actions in service of this goal directly contributed to the death of another nation sim game, and in which said NPO actions were the primary cause of that nation sim's death. You're the one making unsubstantiated claims. The burden of proof is on you - if you insist on attacking NPO in every substantive post you make about it, please at least furnish some evidence in support of your accusations.
  45. -1 points
    Resistance and War Length are different things my dude. And last I checked the other thread had devolved into discussions of a completely different game.
  46. -1 points
    Is there a PnW version of Godwin's Law that talks about the time it takes before somebody tries to derail a topic by attacking the NPO?
  47. -1 points
    There it is. Living rent free in your mind.
  48. -2 points
    Not really, seeing how I've used all the available military equipment except missiles/nukes, used a variety of tactics on a situational basis and done different things, including beiging my opponents if the situation so arises. There is much more I've done than basic cookie cutter tactics across my wars, so you're being intentionally obtuse here. Moreover, if autobeigd is the point of war, then the cycle is "big nation gets autobeigd, rebuys and wars are at square one, and nothing of value of was lost. So folks do it again and again and again for months on hand till any discernible damage is done." I've lost every war in this game, and been dogpiled enough to know most sides of war, from before the resistance change, to that system and the present system. To argue I'm being disingenuous is an outright lie, since I've faced multiple opponents and done different things to survive at different city ranges. During all of this the biggest problem has always been the mechanic where all my efforts go down the drain because of the large beige cycle, leaving wars needing to be dragged out for 50-60 days, just because you think its more fun? Lol. Auto beiging is a terrible idea, and hands down will kill any war unless its for months for any valid damage and only push wars to long cycles, because well, theres no other way. Your proposal does nothing other than leave tiered/ bigger city nations at advantages vs multiple opponents and leaves the tactics, of whaling up and nothing can be done to you. I'm sorry if you're annoyed when someone calls that whole scenario bullshit, but thats literally what you're suggesting. Its even more cyclical cookie cutter nonsense and makes wars absolutely pointless in this game.
  49. -2 points
    I already explained why I didn't get a chance to vote before everyone from polaris decided to call me lazy repeatedly. I wasn't in the country. Believe it or not logging onto to forums for this game while in Asia for work wasn't a priority to vote in a poll that I expected would be open at least as long as the first poll. But I would also like others to have the opportunity to vote instead of arbitrarily closing the poll without reason since no deadline was given. But we all know why you all don't want others to vote, its because your choice might not win.
  50. -3 points
    I don't think you read the thread correctly in that case.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.