Leaderboard

Why just leave the peace terms on *seen*? They're quite generous. We're not even asking for anything, really. Just publicly declare peace and admit what everyone already knows from those screenshots in my previous forum post addressed to The Arch Trinity of 770, as well as the screenshots I posted in the comments to your lying response post about an illuminating and holy learning experience. If it really was such an illuminating and holy learning experience, then just do the right thing, accept the terms, and show your members that you might actually care about them just a little bit. Why do you not care as much about your members as I care about your members? If you do, show them you do, by ending their suffering that you created.

This isn't a suggestion or anything, more just a call for everyone to vote for LITERALLY ANYTHING EXCEPT ERROR 522

770 isn’t even a real alliance. Just a horde of new players with poor and pretty much no leadership

elder abuse

I accept these terms

Collapse in the nursing home (credits hari)

Whales I Smoke

The whole site, game, everything.

While I'm sure you all already have picked your pet names. Still gotta run through the motions. Make your suggestions for the official war name.

Because they have their own opinions? And because we have no relevance to literally anything you've said except a random jaw smacking we gave him for no real reason other than we felt like it? I don't even know what the hell story of whatever you're on about in the OP here but it's Greene so I assume it's his fault and he deserves it.

Why not use discord?

234

It's threads like this that make me want to come back. I love a good argument over pixel burning.

The War on Whales KT's Fault The Harpooning The Syndicate's Last Time (you'll understand next year :wesmart:)

smh my head where's the creativity Jaden. Couldve at least thought of something with a pun like "GoBstopper" or "GoBsmacked" idk

Get outta here.

I guess anyone who played Hearts of Iron is now a NeolibNazbol.

I had an account that was deleted for inactivity. Can I recover? I am willing to pay for this privilege. Asking for a shot Alex.

A majority of wars till date have been dogpiles. While there are few examples of how a side with superior activity and "competence" in general have been able to "win" against dogpiles, dogpiles are generally hated by the community. The reason for the hate is that it is extremely hard to win a dogpile. While there have been a number of changes to solve this problem, none of them seem to have been effective enough. The most notable among these failed changes has been the reduction to causalities for defenders in the war compared to the aggressor. While such a system looks good on paper in a 1v1 situation, nations have 3 defensive slots and hence we really need to look at a 3v1 situation, sometimes at 9v1 situations even. The biggest reason for the failure is that to oppose an invading force, the defender needs to attack the aggressor as well in which case the causality nerf applies to the defender. Plus, having already lost units in the opening hits by the aggressor, the defender is effectively already fighting an up-hill battle.The topic of this forum post however is not to criticize past decision - it is to provide a solution and maybe influence any future ones. Potential Solutions: Ending all wars in beige: This has been one of the most suggested changes to fight back against dogpiles. Dogpiles always rely on two things-Manpower and Beige Cycling. Ending all wars in beige makes Beige Cycling extremely difficult. Even at the current rate of 2 days of beige, at worst, the person on the losing side of a war would be able to get into a situation where he is being sat on by a single player alone and has upto 4 days of beige. Double Buys and coordination by the losing side could easily subdue this single person sitting on a zeroed person, letting them build up to at least some days of military buys and rejoining the battle against the enemy. Moreover, since both beiging and expiring the war would result in beige, players would be more inclined to beige their wars for the loot and infra damage than to just sit around and let a war expire. Ending all wars in beige do have some abusable points like where pirates could use this to get beiged before raiding new targets or slotfilling being hard to detect because the person is doing attacks. But such abuses would be easy to notice and punish. To make getting beiged by expired wars punitive for the defender, the target would lost 4% of their infrastructure as they would in case of being defeated. To make it punitive for the aggressor, a war beiged due to expiry will not give any beige loot to the aggressor. This would also stop abuses by pirates who might attack an inactive player, do a single attack to get their resistance below 100 and then expire the war without doing any more attacks but looting the target. Increasing Resistance Loss due to attacks: A second way to stop sitting would be to increase resistance loss due to attacks. Currently, the least number of attacks needed to beige a person 8 attacks. This implies that if you are attacked, the attacker would be able to do 8 battles against you and you will lose units 8 times. Now, if say the number of battles a person could do to you was reduced to 5. You would in theory lose 37.5% less units. The attackers would have to attack you more to zero you. This makes it more likely for the attacker to beige you and give you time to rebuild. This plus the lower causalities to defender would mean it is harder to zero a nation out without beiging them and giving them time to rebuild. The proposal hence is that the resistance lost per attack be increased. A new resistance table would need to be drawn up for this. However, that is something a person good with numbers should do and not me. The theory is if more resistance is lost, sitting would be harder and beige time would help people recover. It is also possible that the players would enter beige with some military leftover. Decreasing defensive slots: This might be a controversial suggestion and might not be liked by all. However, a 2 defensive slot system could immensely help a smaller side. In a war with say an opponent 10 times larger than you own, the odds would always be 3v1 since that is the maximum number of defensive slots you have. Any person other than these 3 would just be sitting out there waiting for their turn. However, 3 people attacking 1 person might actually be overkill. A 2v1 might be more manageable. Not only this, since 2 people would kill less units, it might be more difficult to sit as well. Plus, upon getting beiged, it is possible the defender would still have a part of their military leftover. As to why this would be a bad thing to do, this would make the whales in the game extremely powerful, especially since it would be very hard to drag their military down and inflict much damage on them. Increasing daily buy limits: Another way to let dogpiled nations fight back is to increase daily buy limits for nations. Being able to buy more military daily(say 25%-33%) of your military daily would allow nations to easily fight back their aggressors, even if they have more military. Even though these attacks would probably be suicide attacks, a well-coordinated team attack could easily help beat down or even zero the aggressors in such situations. The downside to this is that since the aggressor too can buy more military, it might become more of a stalemate war with the winner being decided by whoever has a larger bank or more willpower to keep fighting. To implement this however, causalities would need to be increased to make it worthwhile to fight and double buy against the aggressors. Different kill rates depending on whether you are the aggressor or the defender: I opened with how reducing causalities to make wars even didn't exactly work out the way it was intended to. This is a patch to that change. Basically, depending on whether you are the aggressor or the defender, your causality rates would differ. If you are the aggressor, you would lose more units and kill less units in offensive wars compared to what the defender would. That is to say, if you lose 100 soldiers and 10 tanks and kill 200 soldiers and 30 tanks in an offensive ground battle as an aggressor, the defender would lose 50 soldiers and 5 tanks while killing 300 soldiers and 50 tanks in an offensive ground battle as the defender(the numbers are just examples). The difference in numbers signifies the "Home Advantage" of the defender. This could make chipping at the aggressor by defenders more worthwhile than they are now and give a better way to fight back.

237

236

Correction, they're a new Greene tax farm.

I do not, just have a nation ID and a prayer. Nation ID: 22899

Why are you fixated on a single downvote from a single member? Go bug someone else.

235

Actually i didnt react

Ghost Busting or along those lines due to ghosting claims *The Ghost Bust Paranormal Activities

Big mistake, writing this. Enjoy the inevitable bombardment of Discord PMs.

Join an alliance if you want some quick growth for your early stages. Most alliances (especially the top 10) will offer you sign on bonuses and grants to quickly build up to at least city 10, plus they offer training to help you understand the game better. (such as how to raid, optimal city builds etc)

233

232

Not gonna lie, GoBstopper is pretty good. Alternative name: Shut your GoB

Excuse me? Don't you mean GrumpyStopper or GrumpySmacked?

COVID-19 Cause it's GW19.

231

Dwights holiday

I'm actually struggling to get this to work - nothing changes in how the outputs are supposed to be formatted, but it's just not working in a sensical way. Perhaps someone with more Invision Power experience could reach out to me on Discord?

We upgraded the forum software, which I think made this changes automatically and inadvertently. I'll see what I can do to get it sorted out.

Am I misreading your stats or do yours say that Pascal has done net 620 mil damage and SRD did net 4.18 bil damage...? Also implying spying someone to see their warchest is effective, while also in the same post hinting at the fact that you understand how offshores work is very confusing...

It sounds like y'all are okay if we make Epi our Empress then. Could have just asked. "Epimetheus is no King, Queen or Emperor and is to blame for this"

This space reserved for a calm & collected essay of my thoughts & feelings filtered through a politically correct sieve. No Camelot below the rank of Templar should be posting. Also; Kero Kero in heck.

Welp, someone had to do it sooner or later. Good luck to Nexus on their war endeavors!

You're missing the whole point of this war here. We are dogpiling you (read : Grumpy) to rebalance the game and I think we already argued enough about how a 1v1 against Hollywood is pure suicide & pretty much guarantees another dogpile in favor of Grumpy where they would be *again* untouched. You want fair wars ? Sure, you may not believe it but me too. Just start by not allying alliances with an incredibly strong whale tier unkillable in 1v1 "fair" sphere wars then ? You're asking for fair wars but you are one of the main reasons we can't have fair wars currently, that's quite paradoxical. The ""short and fair"" wars that Ronny promotes are utter bullshit which only benefits Grumpy, basically roll & destroy all your opponents in the space of 2-3 weeks then go back home. Yay, fair wars !

inactive moment

Forum is love, forum is life

Well to be honest this was a smart move. This way SoS at least can do more damage than they do on battle field.

Are we supposed to be concerned? TI has done this the last two wars 😛 I'd be more impressed if you went after green but since t$ and Grumpy can't agree in game but can agree on color politics and no one on their side wants to piss off them off by tanking their bonus, it'll never happen.

As one of the loudest proponents of the split, allow me to get involved. For the sake of keeping things clear: This response is fully OOC. Let's start with this. As literally anyone in t$ or anyone who knows me outside of the game can confirm- I'm an extreme leftist. I'd leak some of the politics chats from t$ to "prove" it but frankly I can't be arsed because the claim is so innately outrageous it doesn't warrant the time and effort. Let's look into why the split exists in the first place. We all have to play characters to genuinely enjoy this game. Do you really think Partisan is as eccentric, wild, and outspoken IRL as he is IC? Do you think that I actually stand by my "old people are bad", "all communists deserve punishment", etc rhetoric IRL? Do you think @Denison dresses up in a half-assed crusader halloween outfit everyday and goes around to call people weak and cowardly? If you do, re-evaluate a bit. The internet's an escape - games like this even moreso. It's an excuse to put IRL junk aside and be someone you're not. It's no different from if I were to go play DND with some friends, or jump on Gmod for some StarWarsRP. It's something you use to separate from your IRL self for a minute, because let's be frank, the world's in a shitty spot and we need something to go to to get away from it. Let's point out a prominent example of where this can quickly go wrong, especially when certain people are attempting to cross that line and use it for something else. Again, a reminder that since this is an OOC post from me. Also a pre-emptive I'm not here for sympathy or other bullshit, I'm just wanting to make sure this sort of attitude doesn't permeate and ruin a community. From January to right at the start of April, I was dealing with a situation where members of the game were insinuating t$ was a !@#$/!@#$ sympathizing alliance. I dropped character for this, as I believed it (and still believe it to be) a dangerous accusation to make. During this time, I was dealing with helping my mother and my grandfather deal with my grandmother, who'd been in the hospital for most of 2020 and had, in December, been put on hospice care and given a few months to live. I tried to use this game as an escape from the day to day I was dealing with, only to find out I was being accused of being a !@#$ because I was indirectly tied to a group of, let's be frank, trolls. So, to clarify, one of the few escapes I had at the time (thanks to COVID ruling out a lot of other ones), was being actively ruined because of the accusations that were being pushed. Eventually I got screenshots of these and to top it off, it seemed to be an attempt at getting some IC gain (the person leading the accusations was attempting to get a prot of an ally to join them and drop their current protector). I had a few friends involved in the situation that believed the accusations, which lead to us, obviously, drifting apart. In March, logs of/from the main accuser dropped. I read through the logs a few times before, justifiably in my opinion, getting pretty pissed off. I had lost more than a couple people I'd considered friends over the accusations, as well as had to deal with getting questioned about IRL morals by IC folks. A week later, my grandmother passed. I was dealing with the loss of a few friends, my grandmother, and trying my damndest to keep my shit together for my family that needed me. All that shit at once was, frankly, bad for my health and ridiculously stressful. If it weren't for a few folks (you know who you are, and I appreciate y'all a lot), I probably would've completely dipped out of the game with one last "go !@#$ yourself, Orbis". Dropping the OOC/IC line helps nothing. Get rid of the blatant racists, homophobes, etc, but when you drop it entirely you will inevitably make a bad call and cause undue stress and harm to a community and/or person. The game is just that - a game. Let's keep it that way. Let moderation handle the bullshit. Witch hunting does nothing good for the game. Frankly, if this kinda stuff doesn't stop, it'll lead to the death of the game. And you'll be the only ones to blame. OOC over. Adam out.

To be honest I think expecting some separation is reasonable as to not devolve the game into complete toxicity and/or make the game unenjoyable for those who simply want to craft a separate political landscape because that's what the game is supposed to be about. In the same vein though, people who target other players either directly or indirectly and make the game unenjoyable should be liable to face IC consequences from others for such, without chastisement. At the end of the day, we all just wanna play this game and enjoy it~

It makes more sense to just delete you instead