SleepingNinja
-
Posts
271 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by SleepingNinja
-
-
49 minutes ago, hidude45454 said:
...what? Why do some people in this game always take everything so personally rofl.
I'm glad I still clearly remember this happening so I can pick apart everything you said. I pinged you in DNN because 1. It wasn't worthy enough to be a forum post, nor did I feel like distracting from that thread, and 2. Discord was the easiest place to reach you and get a quick response. It was in no way my intention to pile onto you, nor do I have a "clique" ready to attack whoever I want rofl, but if you want to come at me so hard for your preconceived notions then piss right off with your condescending attitude lmfao.
This is the EXACT PROBLEM I am referring to. First off, literally no one is telling you to act the way you are most of the time, YOU are choosing to act the way you act. In fact, a lot of the time I see you as the one instigating. Second, if you don't like the energy of a conversation, you have every right to WALK AWAY. This is exactly what I do when I feel an argument is fruitless and so you have no one to blame but yourself. Sure, dumb conversations happen on DNN too; it's 2022, lots of overlap in membership, etc. But RON was the one to pioneer the model, and I could go into many more reasons why I am in DNN and not RON but that would be to the detriment of this thread. In any case, focus your ire somewhere else -- I've worked harder than most to bring the focus back to forums and respond to serious discussion with my show and WoTs. The other option is not just "to be a nameless player". The other option is make discussion worth responding to on your own and stop sinking to the bottom of the crap along with everyone else.
So pinging me in your public news server was easier than just sending a DM my way? It would have been just as easy so that's pretty disingenuous at best. I have every reason to believe that you wished to publicly embarrass me. Secondly it was on topic of the conversation at hand within the given thread, perhaps a sub-topic of the actual topic at hand but it was in no way derailing towards the thread at hand. Given that I do have reason to believe that there was at least a bit of a personal stake in it. Given you & probably most of the users in DNN have no idea who I am and vice versa there's ample reason to believe you wished to pull me into a situation which would be uncomfortable for myself.
Secondly, I brought this up because of posts like this
By this point in the thread the only person working at RON that posted was Monti, and he didn't say anything worthy of making this comment, so please elaborate on why you've been taking these kinds of potshots at RON every other post you make when RON literally has nothing to do with any of the subject matter in at the very least that thread there. Unless for some reason your associating myself with RON since I was more or less the only one as you would say 'instigating' in that thread, so anyone in CTO = RON? Now I'm not saying you haven't tried in respects but your also guilty of what you've said about me, your content in this post added absolutely nothing in an alliance affairs thread that had nothing to do with RON and was completely off-topic. Which is odd since you'll ping me over when you think we're derailing a thread that wasn't really all that off topic then jump into another one and do exactly that? Do you see why I decided to engage now?
Now that all being said I'll agree with you on a few points, firstly I absolutely despise news servers. But I'm also forced to participate if I wish to be an active member of the PnW community. Your also correct about not engaging in the first place and walking away as well but if I just did that then you wouldn't see anything wrong with your own behavior since nobody else will ever tell you otherwise. The real difference between us, your respected and known throughout the community, since I've joined I have always found myself or the alliance I'm in being shit on by the community at large.. The other difference being as we can see clearly in the screenshot posted by KindaEpic, my writing skills are simply not on the level of those of other alliance leaders or players of influence [Skill issue?] while on the other hand yours are. You are in a position to set the example while I am not. So it's disappointing seeing you flip-flop on this. I do apologize for the 'Clique' comment though, but the fact is your friends are more than happy to step in and defend you as evidenced here, and those screens KindaEpic dropped for us all to read, even though you clearly don't need it.
-
4
-
-
17 minutes ago, KindaEpicMoah said:
The conversation:
The "clique" that jumped on you:
*conversation ends*
I get the need to improve forum activity, but not every comment requires a forum post.Luckily I had a reasonable explanation, but the intention was the point. 🤷♂️
Either way why not just post on the forums where the conversation itself was going on in the first place, what other reason would there be?
-
17 hours ago, hidude45454 said:
My biggest gripe with politics is how dumbed down it's become. There's always been people throwing salt accusations around but when it's basically the only thing that happens these days (and I blame RON entirely for this) alongside just snark one-liners there's really no incentive to participate.
Screw it, fine I'll bite. How is this entirely RON's fault? Really please explain how your news server is any different than RON? I'm in both and the way I see it the same garbage goes on in both servers. And your hypocritical ass contributes to it just as much.
Remember this post? Instead of continuing the discussion you went out of your way to ping me in DNN just so you could have your whole clique jump on me along with yourself instead of just continuing the public discussion in public. Give your head a shake hidude, how you can point the finger and not realize your also part of the problem IS THE EXACT PROBLEM WITH THIS GAME.
Read that again, but slowly before you reply.🤷♂️
Edit : Just for clarities sake your damn right I'm also part of that issue, I simply matched the energy that's given out everywhere I look. It's a shame but the other option is to be a nameless player that never contributes at all, which might be the better choice frankly.
-
3
-
-
14 minutes ago, Leftbehind said:
I'm just a humble fool but wouldn't delaying superiority hurt updeclaring?
I dunno. I didn't really think that through to be honest. I'm prepared to eat the mass downvote, it's probably a bad idea.
@Prefontaine yeah your right. Probably one of my worst ideas. please ignore my foolishness lol
-
2 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:
An idea to delay the "Wars being decided in the blitz" the idea to make ground superiority and air superiority to be gained after multiple Immense Triumphs instead of just one.
Please vote in the poll. Thank you.
Alternatively how would you guys feel about a 12 turn timer, IT's will work but no superiorities until after a full 12 turns has passed? Or perhaps 6 instead. Might be worth considering.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Cooper_ said:
Do y'all not have lives? You blitzed on a Friday night in Summer...
So starting a global at the start of July = not summer but starting a war at the end of August = summer. Okay then.🤔
-
6
-
-
-
4 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:
The silence from celestial is deafening.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Joe Schmo said:
Is orange man no longer bad?
I am here to assure you that orange man still bad. Good day.❤️
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 8/4/2022 at 10:39 AM, KingGhost said:
I would argue for 6 days of beige time as the cap instead of 5.
otherwise, declaring offensives after your alliance gets blitzed is JUST strictly bad.
Your alliance is already at a blitz disadvantage might as well AFK take the 3 defensive losses then blitz back round 2. Declaring offensives and getting sat on by your offensive wars is the only way to “beige cycled” with this system. And it’ll create a cycle where the optimal way both sides to play is to literally eat the blitz each time and just wait for next round.
And if you somehow you are able to get away with declaring offensives with this new system then it doesn’t matter because it must mean you outnumber/tier/etc the enemy hard enough where you can literally suffer the blitz disadvantage and just stat check your way through the war new system or old.
With 6 days, even if your offensives sit on you, you should at least get 4 days of rebuys. I.e. defensives beige as fast as possible (2days), your offensives should have to beige within 3-5 days. Let’s say 5. Worst case. Still gives you 4 or 5 days to rebuild (depends on when the wars were declared. Also assuming you only declared 2 offensives. Also depends on if they eat the expiration beige or beige you.)
EDIT: Grammar.
This mostly but wanted to add that if the point of the new beige system is to allow nations time to rebuild military then we should at least give them a day for their alliance to have the opportunity to try and organize a counter-blitz. 6 days is necessary in that regard.
-
Nation links in question
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=448325
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=439983
Sorry about the confetti getting in the way.
Also going to include war timelines showing similar log-in times for attacks
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1401914
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1401920
-
2
-
-
On 8/1/2022 at 1:14 PM, Prefontaine said:
@SleepingNinja while it's a good idea, there is a major problem which Zig was getting at, and the larger side already has the advantage of being the larger side. You've effectively just doubled that advantage. You've also made it so a single player just starts their own one man AA and holds full reserve units, declares a raid on a small nation and then sudden has full mil and insurmountable strength without outside help.
Some ideas to help address the above issues:
3 tiers of alliance, small, medium and large. Lets say small alliances are 10-25 members. Medium alliances are 26-75 members. Larger are 76+. You would likely need an activity counter on this which risks board alliances from being misrepresented. Each tier has it's own pool of alliance based units that it can deploy. Small alliances can have 500k soldiers, 50k tanks, etc... things like that at their reinforcement disposal. While it's not perfect it helps from one group really running away with things. It also stops the 1 man alliance issue I mentioned.
Upkeep for these units would have to get paid from the alliance bank as well. If that was said somewhere I missed it.
Again this would be extremely powerful for whales. If they could regularly get a refresh on the unit that is trying to be ground down, then whales can only be countered by more whales. DM me on discord if you want to talk more about it.
Thanks for taking the time to read my thread and I appreciate the response. I'd love to DM you and discuss this further however it seems I am not allowed to DM you nor add your account as a friend. Please feel free to DM me whenever you get a chance as I don't have restrictions on who can DM me. Have a good day friend.🙂
-
No. Fix the game first.
-
6 minutes ago, hidude45454 said:
Literally no one said fishing for beige was illegal. Copy-pasting from another of my posts here:
Not really my concern. My concern is with players who aren't as interested in the game that might answer a ping to declare following orders and forgets about the game for the next 3 days. I guess in a sense that proves the point but it doesn't seem right either to punish them for inactivity. Well in any of the current cases you posted that scenario doesn't exist so it wouldn't apply to the now anyways.
-
7 minutes ago, Avatar Patrick said:
Admittedly this part makes it seem like that would be against the rules. Although it could be interpreted that ro$e intends to fight but not win. Either way, trying to get beiged when you're losing is a key part of the game's meta.
I was honestly just concerned to see if I was doing it but going by the last global I was in that's not the case for me. I know I ignored wars but looking back they were all defensive slots.
-
1 hour ago, hidude45454 said:
Love ya Clown, I'm not a hypocrite and admit my beige history is pretty much the same for reasons I don't need to get into here, but seems a bit suspicious you'd pick this target if not to stack beige, doubly so given he has a 1000 infra average, hmm?
Is.. is it against the rules to fish for beige time? I could have sworn it wasn't. Not tryin to be troll I'm actually a bit confused on this atm.
Edit : nvm, pablo's reply wasn't on my screen when i posted this.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, penpiko said:
Ikr, extremely annoying to have slots filled by people on attrition who either do nothing or nuke my 800 infra (apparently that helps them close the damage gap with Hollywood idk I’m not milcom). This all just seems like pointless complaining, sure there were a few wars that shouldn’t have been peaced, and I hope admins are taking action with that and reversing mod points if any were given out, yet it remains that most of the wars (that were peaced at least) were probably just an attempt at beige fishing from Ro$e, considering HoF and Arrgh arent part of HW’s coalition afaik (Inb4 sekrit treaty), and therefore shouldn’t really be counted in Hollywood’s stats the nuke spamming argument makes little sense as there are plenty of HW nations with a lot more infra to blow away if that was the goal.
that emoji seems to have left a misunderstanding. That was more of a "i don't !@#$in know" as it seems pretty pointless from where I'm standing too, that was simply the only logical reason I could think of if you would call it logical.
-
18 minutes ago, Horsecock said:
Not sure if I agree with that one, so let's clarify what's happening here: Ro$e did NOT intend to slot fill, they did not specifically want to benefit the people they declared on by filling those people's defensive slots. The problem is that what some of them are doing is, strictly speaking, against the rules that have been well established for a few years now.
It's almost like Celestial might actually know this and are declaring attrition wars just to be annoying and spiteful. Kinda like how they're probably annoyed you "sided" with HW in the opening rounds.🤷♂️
-
Alex friend.. you are making a mountain out of a molehill and frankly there are much bigger issues right now that need your attention. Let the players worry about moderating actual slot filling and the like. If hollywood players thought there was an issue they'd make a game report.
-
2
-
-
Why did Alex hire a mod that doesn't understand how the rules work..? 🤔
-
27 minutes ago, Denison said:
The war system in Politics and War is utterly broken at the moment. Over the last 24 hours I have seen it only get worse. Some I know have compared it to the sinking of the Titanic, although laughable it almost seems true. I will list below just the bugs so far that I have seen or encountered over the last few weeks, many of which occurring within the last couple of days.
- No new map at day change for myself, but a new map for my enemies
- When you do a beige snipe you get an extra map from the turn before even though you declared this turn
-
Someone who had two wars on the same person
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=60760&display=war -
An absolutely bugged war timeline in regards to the new feature Alex added the other day, just look at the time stamps
- Being able to use maps past 12 saved(5 airstrikes(20 maps) at once is the most I've experienced)
-
An instance where maps were conjured out of thin air and I was beiged because of it. This was not the map bug where they sat on 12 maps for a long period, they had 0 after they nuked(used 4 navals(16 maps) within 13 turns of launching a nuke)
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1378717
I for one am demoralized. Once a fan of war and a proponent of it, I feel myself wanting to stop or simply delete my nation. The amount of bugs and as a result stress I have dealt with because of this are just something I would not expect from a game that has this very concept included in its title. My most accurate comparison for this feeling would be the stress or anger someone feels as a result of their internet lagging in a competitive online game. This is not a dig at the moderators or developers who are seemingly doing their best to solve the above problems, but what they are doing is just a band aid solution, individually going in and fixing wars. Alex needs to seriously take lead and solve these issues from wherever they source, as I fear many players will soon leave the game if this continues or even gets worse as I expect it will. I did not want to make this thread because I hate to feel that I have undermined those who I have spoken to, however this needed to be said publicly and I think there needs to be a place where people can openly post war bugs that they have experienced in hopes of finding some sort of solution faster. It is my hope that this thread will serve as just that. If you have experienced a bug not listed or if you just want to cope(like vein), please post below.Just gonna leave that there since apparently there's a bug that doesn't register air superiority?
Also ha I've done 7 GA's in a row before, which costs 21 MAPs. 20 MAPs is rookie numbers in this racket!
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said:
So you want to buff TKR? If I'm reading your suggestion right (which I probably am not), this idea preferentially buffs the top 3 who have a ton of cities. Having a communal military preferentially benefits the small nations that share an alliance with many big ones. Especially when opponents are poorly tier matched, the one with out-of-range whales would have a distinct advantage over the micro and mid-tier alliances. Right?
TKR was used an an example because they were at the top, nothing more. Individual timers per nation as well as blockading should keep things from getting too out of control. I don't think the numbers I used are something that should be set in stone either as Monti pointed out we can adjust how much an alliance can hold on them in terms of balance as needed.
Lets say for example these past 2 globals (yes yes, GW24 is not real, not big enough blah blah) of Hw vs Celestial and Clock vs BR as examples and assume each alliance was full up on their reserves. The HW-Celestial war would be going down way different for a few reasons ; 1st would be that Celestial could have saved their first round since they weren't running 5/5/5/3 however if this were actually a thing HW would also know that they could/would do it and than initiate blockades to prevent it. This would also have a slowing effect on the blitz since they'd have to allocate MAPs that would initially be used for GAs / Airstrikes into Naval's that would prevent reinforcements and fighting them at full military which would give Celestial more time to decide a course of action and members to login & rebuy. At the same time if they ignored blockading then Celestial would get free reign to re-up at their leisure. Now would this change the outcome of the HW-Celestial war? Maybe, maybe not. It'd be a hell of a lot more interesting to see.
On the flip side if BR tried to do it against Clock in that war it simply wouldn't have worked out and it would turn into a waste of resources, that said I'm probably overlooking some fun new strategies that could have come with having the options. But it would have been wasteful for the most part for BR to try using it. Basically Tiering and numbers still matter. It's up to the individual alliances to decide if it's worth using them or not. These reserve forces are protected so nothing can actually destroy them, which the point being is it wouldn't really change anything from the now of turtling after the 1st round in a lost war. But in cases like this HW-Celestial war where Celestial actually outnumbers HW in some of the higher tiers it gives unique opportunities.
-
2 minutes ago, Codename V said:
If you can't send to inactive or blockaded people this may be a decent suggestion.
Yes that's sorta the idea by way of the nation builds needing the military improvements to receive soldiers and yeah, blockading + 5 day cooldowns on anyone that did receive reserve troops, even if it's only 1 soldier or ship. I'm sure we could also add in a required log-in like if someone is red or purple diamond they cannot receive troops until they log in even if they meet the improvements required. So nation X is inactive for 5 days but is running 5/5/5/3 however nation X's military on hand is only 0/2/5/0, because nation X has a red diamond nation X cannot receive reserves until he logs in and the diamond changes.👍
-
3
-
Commentaries on the War
in Orbis Central
Posted
Not at all. I'm upset because the one player I looked up to has been acting more and more immature with his posting recently and I simply had enough of it and said something. I already know that I cave to my own immaturity so it's disillusioning to see it coming from the player I saw as a role model. You should know I overreact in most of my posts by now lol.😅