Jump to content

Rok Semloh

Members
  • Posts

    270
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Rok Semloh

  1. Generally speaking, the game developers position on this has been: no.

    The reason isn't so much that you're cheating as much as it's a huge hassle to setup a manually operated system to prove it isn't cheating. People have cheated a lot in times past and claimed to go to school together etc.

    I used to try trading with a nation that, while we weren't on the same network at the time of the trade, we had at times past been on the same network at the same time. The trade was blocked. I understand why, though. 

    Not sure if Alex will weigh in or not, but just based on previous responses to questions like this, the answer will likely be to find other people to trade with. 

  2. 6 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

    You didn't even mention how ground battles give instant cash, straight from the opponents' liquid currency. That mechanic is far from negligible at any level, and it therefore requires that the aggressor, defender, weaker, and stronger nations consider that in their build, strategy, and tactics. You also completely failed to mention that the single fastest way to beige an opponent is 5 naval immenses and three ground immenses, and speed is of the essence in profitable raiding (every action point not spent beiging is an action point not making profit, to a pirate). Sure, that level of speed isn't as important as doing as much damage as possible in the case of alliance warfare, but once down you're down and raiding/surviving raids is the name of the game after that.

    I guess you're a reroll or something, but how about you fight at least a few dozen wars before you call yourself "one of the most vetted players in the game"? I wouldn't even rate myself higher than 'above average' in terms of war expertise, and I've won twenty times as many wars as you.

    While your 5 naval IT/3 ground IT point is valid, it isn't utilized by raiders, so go tell them that. The instant cash benefit of a ground IT isn't as significant in wars with nations who have warchests, and if naval blockades are up, that cash can't be used for trading.

    As far as wars go: I have fought more than a few dozen wars in my time.

  3. 6 hours ago, Alkaline said:

    I can guarantee I have been here longer than you, fought in more wars then you, and led alliances during more wars than you. I created one of the only alliances that has fought since the first global war, I played during speed round and beta, I had a protectorate with WWF (TKR v.1), t$, and pantheon when they were founded. I have been interviewed for a news piece on Alex and his game - because of my experiences in the game. Tell me how are you more vetted than me. Go for it. 

    You have been here about a year longer than me including beta, but you aren't God's gift to PnW as you seem to think, and you're wrong if you think ground forces aren't  under-powered. They aren't useless as some are trying to say I'm claiming, far from it, but they aren't the fulcrum of strategy in warfare in this game like they used to be and should be again.

    With naval IT's you can knock down 3.5 resistance per MAP

    With air IT's you can knock down 3 resistance per MAP (with IT), but you can not only half the effectiveness of tanks but also destroy large quantities of whatever else you may want to destroy, such as ships or tanks.

    With ground you can get more bang-for-buck on resistance per map (3.33 with IT) than air, but beyond locking ground in order to decrease the effective use of air against you, it would be silly to continue using ground unless you have to re-lock it or are out of other options.

    Air can still be effectively used long after the effects of locking air aren't an issue anymore (i.e. enemy tanks are gone or severely degraded) so it will probably be used again unless naval superiority over one's opponent is so great it doesn't matter and then the most effective use of your MAPs is continuous naval attacks.

    If we kept ground attacks at 10 resistance per IT, but made it so that six consecutive ground IT's in a row equals victory in war regardless of where resistance stands, then we have mixed it up to the point where that has to be a serious strategic consideration for both parties.

    Conversely, if we raised the amount of resistance damage per ground IT to 11, it would become the best bang-for-buck IT available, and would again become the fulcrum of strategic making in war between two or more players (as it used to be, as it is in real war, and I am arguing: as it should be).

     

    • Downvote 3
  4. On 3/13/2018 at 11:17 AM, Alkaline said:

    You are arguing with some of the most vetted people in this game and refuse to accept their opinions. You MUST be correct while all of them MUST be wrong and stupid to disagree with you.

    Logically speaking, in a "real war", if anything should be buffed to follow real life situations then it would be ships. A real navy is capable of anti aircraft; but that would be game breaking here.

    Claiming that naval spam is the war tactic is silly. Why do you think so many alliances sit at max planes in peace time? Must be to spam naval attacks. :thinking:

    You just assumed, wrongly, that you must have more experience. 

    You are arguing with one of the most vetted players in this game and refuse to accept his opinion.

    Ever thought of it that way?

    I was also one of the first to suggest having different types of ground troops and would advocate for more complicated units within each system of battle; ADA troops/ships, Bombers/fighters, etc. and that would still be great to see, although would require extensive testing and balancing and would take a very long time to design, create, and implement and PnW will likely never get to that level.

    • Downvote 3
  5. 20 hours ago, Buorhann said:

    >people don't use it as often

    >it's broken

    I don't get this logic.  Just about anybody worth their salt would use Ground Attacks to establish complete control.  After that, they'll use what they need to.  If they're looting, Ground Attacks helps with that.

    If they're looking to destroy Improvements, either Ground or Naval does that.

    If they're looking to zero out military, Air will do that.

     

    Plus you're just spitballing out there that people don't use Ground Attacks.  You haven't provided any statistical evidence of it.  I can assure you, I war/fight more in this game than you do on worthwhile opponents/targets, and you can look through my recent battle history and see me splurge on Ground Attacks.

    5 Naval, 3 Ground is the quickest way to beige someone.  Not Air, not straight Naval.

    Let alone, in the event your Air is knocked out - you have to then rely on Ground and Naval to carry the fight.

    At this point, I'm starting to think you're just trolling this topic.

    You aren't wrong at all when you say people should use ground attacks. Of course they should! But the majority still don't. Neither of us has hard metadata from the game to prove it; although I would love it if we could get data from two years ago on ground attacks as a percentage of warfare and now. I would bet my left nut they were far more prevalent when warfare revolved around them (as it should) than now.

    18 hours ago, Conner Temple said:

    You should know I'm ex-GPA and still a neutral cause. You can't really use me as an example. Also I rerolled.

    Yeah I'm just busting your chops man you aren't bad at all. Impressive growth for a nation that young even for a reroll.

  6. 9 hours ago, Buorhann said:

    There is nothing wrong with Ground Forces attack.  There's nothing to fix.

    Who were you before?

    No.

    Ground forces attack is broken as evidenced by the fact that people don't use it nearly as often as they used to. It used to be the main staple of warfare in this game and has been reduced to a side thought. Currently, in-game war is operating in one of the least realistic ways possible.

    That's what you'd call broken.

    6 hours ago, Conner Temple said:

    A person who didn't understand how to war.

    I just looked at your nation's war record.

    LOL

    Edit: Okay, that was harsh, but I still have yet to see one single detractor actually make a case for why the broken ground attack system shouldn't be fixed. Still no takers on day 3? 

    • Downvote 7
  7. Still nobody who has a real rebuttal to the obvious need for fixes on ground forces.

    I have fought over 100 wars in this game, had 22 cities when 26 cities was the absolute maximum anyone had, and comfortably sat in the top 50 for about a year before quitting and re-rolling.

    Ground forces simply aren't viable for sustained continuous attack. They're good for perhaps 1 immense triumph to get ground lock against an enemy who knows what they're doing, and if you run out of ships, planes, and nukes then you could resort to ground forces if that's what is left, but the majority of people don't have strategies centered around ground forces triumphing over their enemies anymore. That's the problem here.

    Even if the 10 resistance damage was kept in place and the 6 consecutive ground IT victory was brought back, that would make it much more viable again.

    • Downvote 9
  8. The detractors above must be high if they actually think that most people use ground forces frequently in war. You're also delusional if you think the majority of wars aren't naval spam.

    One person above actually said realism doesn't matter in a game that is trying to mimic real world politics and war... 

    The 6 consecutive IT ground victory was actually pretty true to form for a real war's victory criteria in real life. It would be great to see that brought back. The current resistance elimination is way off, gives incentive for some very unrealistic strategies and tactics, and is all around broken. 

    • Downvote 11
  9. Pretty straightforward: very few wars bother to use ground forces, and certainly not on the scale they used to.

    In a real war, ground forces are absolutely key to a true and complete victory, yet in the game the first person to spam the most ships (and sometimes aircraft) wins the war.

    Make the three types of victories, Naval, Air, and Land all do the same amount of resistance damage (12) so that strategic decisions incorporating more than just 80% navy and 20% air are viable.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 17
  10. At just 37 days of age, Valenwood is one of the youngest nations on Orbis to receive a nuke from an Arrgh raider in defense of their alliance.

    On 12/06 at 0639 game time, Mayor of Calondia (Arrgh) sent a nuke into the Valenwood town of Elden Root, killing over 130,000 Elven civilians, and making the area a nuclear wasteland for days to come.

    After the bomb was dropped, Valenwood accepted the peace offers of Calondia, and it's citizens immediately started rebulding the town of Elden Root.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  11. 3 hours ago, Zeebrus said:

    There’s going to be a new vote, don’t worry about it. I talked to Bezzers and he said he’s alright with it. I’m also pushing for the voters to be public so if another vote trolling happens, certain votes can be nullified, and the rightful people will get their awards.

     

    It should be within the next few days that the new polls are opened

    Yeah, no.

    The original vote still stands. Nobody has the power to nullify it after it's already started, and it if it is "cancelled" by some baby who only agrees with a democratic process when they and their people win, then we will just honor the results as they were just  before it was "cancelled" and those will become the new results.

    • Upvote 2
  12. On 7/10/2017 at 4:35 AM, Gabranth said:

    The fact that they've done this so repetitively just lends to the fact that those names would have all the more reason NOT to be on INQs side

    You do realize that INQ and Syndi have only gone to war once, right? Once.

  13. No you're not making the case that Orbis is cancer, that message is trying to pin it on people you're fighting. There is a very clear distinction between the two. Look who created this thread, he isn't even in the war, half the people who commented in this thread aren't even in syndisphere. How hard is it to keep your message consistent?

    Eh there must be confusion, I'm not personally blaming those who we happen to be fighting this war for him quitting. I'm also not blaming Zeebrus specifically or INH specifically or any one other person. Generally speaking, it's the community insisting the game be played according to their rules and who will do anything in their means to ensure it's played the way they want it to. To me, that's far removed from this war. This war is just a war, there will be more wars (as there should be) and sides will shift a lot for a great many, but if, as a community, Orbis doesn't loosen up a bit, then I predict it will die faster than Bob.

  14. All I know is that Cornerstone was depending on the cash LPS had on him for their rebuild, like after pretty much every war your alliance fights.

     

    Furthermore, I never insulted him once. I may have called him a pixel hugger (which is what he was) and I made a bunch of lighthearted jokes. On the other hand he called me a coward, a dick and a censored word. Do you think I give two shits? No, sunshine, I've even turned that into my new forum sig.

     

    But I mean, if what you said fits your and Cornerstone's narrative, by all means don't let me stop you...This show of self-pity from Cornerstone is degrading af. You guys have been spewing BS since the start of this war and have been trying to make excuses and blame others for everything that goes wrong.

     

    You guys should do what LPS should have done: grow up, own up to your mistakes and grow a pair.

    Dude your response further proves us right; the case we're making is that Orbis and the OWF are cancer. You just wrote 12 pages of a thread just to harass the number one player in the game and then turn around and claim those saying it's cancer must be crazy. We'll always forgive those who are being cancerous here, but Orbis as a community has had far more members leave than stay and I started seeing why just before Paperless and it's gotten a lot worse since then.

  15. All I know is that Cornerstone was depending on the cash LPS had on him for their rebuild, like after pretty much every war

    Yeah, no. LPS hasn't been infusing raw cash into the bank after wars. The extent of his contribution is our 4% tax rate. We have given our friend huge loans for cities in the past and he's repaid them, and that's the extent of what he's contributed. We didn't keep him around just to hand us money because that wasn't happening. As said earlier, we just really like him.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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