Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Wayne

  1. Shit kicked off a last month... now we have 3 months of peace in the world. Except for Arrgh!, we don't know what that word means.
  2. I think he meant to say that Arrgh! is running the game!
  3. There are other ways to make life hard for us, you won't 'beat' us, just like we won't 'beat' you, defeating us in battle is just one way to make our style harder. We rely heavily on the market, why not use some political clout in embargoing us on a mass scale, try to raise our cost of living, while at the same time making more of an effort to protect your resources and cash. Kick inactives to give us raiders more targets without stepping on alliances toes. Have players build standing armies, instead of spending 90% of the time unarmed. Changing mechanics in my opinion should be the last resort. oh and Pre held us down, due to us not being even close to fully built... had we been built up more, he would have struggled to have been as effective.
  4. Sheepys mechanic is not broken, it's just poorly designed. A broken mechanic implies that it's not working as intended. The mechanic is working, it's just not having the outcome some think it should. How should Economy builds vs Military builds be weighted? This I feel is the real issue, people expect too much. What are the disadvantages of being a low level raider? I lose more money a day paying my bills then I ever made each day in Mensa due to upkeep, I need to be more active and online frequently, I'm closer to my army limit, meaning one good kicking and I'm totally out the fight, thanks to Sheepys new mechanic. I need to constantly rebuild and restock. The advantages? It's fun living on a knifes edge and on a good day I can make a tidy profit, I can be pretty invincible unless drastic actions from the other side are taken. What are the disadvantages of being an high infra econ player? You are punching above your weight in terms of score, making you a big fat juicy target. If you are too fat, even holding onto a full military may not be enough to save you. What are the advantages? Making dollar and growing by doing nothing at all, you don't need to be as committed to the game and if you feel safe enough, you can leave for a week and come back to the game richer then when you left! You can last longer in fights due to your infra cushion, you have the means to fight without relying heavily on a war time market. Once you are too fat, you are pretty much out of harms way. The balance is broken, the time and effort = reward mechanic is all borked.
  5. You say that, but it'll require people to actually build and maintain large armies over long periods of time. Orbis don't like doing that...
  6. You have 1600+ infra in your cities. You have not sacrificed anything at all, you are still fat. Why should you be able to dominate economic wise as well as be able to compete with guys that are pure military? Being able to do both does not seem overly balanced to me.
  7. 99% of the time you will lose to 3 guys if they hit first in a coordinated way. We took the decision to have an advantage in warfare, at the detriment of income. You choose the path of having higher daily income at the expense of security. It seems to me that people want to have their cake and eat it. They want to be big and fat as well as being as strong as the purely mil guys! You can't have both. Stop being greedy.
  8. !@#$ me guys! I think it's finally starting to sink in. Weve had a breakthrough the light bulbs are starting to go off!
  9. Imo they should be hidden, successful spy attacks should be able to make it visible.
  10. Just have score based on military and projects and nothing else. Take the infra out of the equation altogether. That way the [email protected]#$s that wanna farmville it up can do so well out of harms reach of the big nasty men wanting to come take their stuff. The big nasty men get to fight those that have consciously entered the ring, looking to do battle, everyones a winner, baby!
  11. We'll only find the optimum build and strategy for our playstyle and you'll have to rewrite shit in a few months time.
  12. Wasn't the barney between Arrgh and TEst a 'war', you did after all make a thread acknowledging the tickling. It shouldn't then come as a surprise to people that we were going after built accounts. Also Arrgh have been at 'war' with numerous alliances for the past few months and those at the top of the boards are pretty much the most active guys that do the majority of the lifting for Arrgh. Until recently Mensa dominated the leaderboards using Arrghs 'tactic' of low and wide. They just haven't gone to the extremes Arrgh have. They chose to sacrifice score for more money during the peace times. Yet the tactic is the same. Minimise your score while maximising your army. Mensa get acknowledged as being one of the toughest, if not the toughest alliance around. You won't get a balance in this game. You'll get advantages and disadvantages. The most imbalanced part of the game imo is the first strike advantage. There is no way to counter it. Other then praying the RNG gods are kind to you. Whereas people can and have countered low infra, max army accounts. The fact you need to go an arse about tit way to accomplish it does not mean it's a bug or an imbalance problem. Probably poor design. As I've already stated, the game has advantages and disadvantages, the player then needs to weigh up what he wants. If you have massive amounts of infra (money) without adequate protection. Don't be surprised when guys that would rather, take then make, come knocking at your door. I've already said in other threads of this nature, that military should have more weight on score total. Being one of these low and wide raiders now (I was while in Mensa too, I just made the choice of having 1300-1500 infra due to the protection Mensa could give and the lack of targets, meaning I wasn't able to raid as much so needed higher income to offset more peaceful times), my opinion still hasn't changed on this matter. Nothing stopping people being high infra, high producing, raid accounts. A dangerous life to live and very expensive, but if that floats your boat, you can do it. No matter what you do to the game, there will always be a build that is the most efficient for certain play styles. Mensa in my opinion have the most 'balanced' accounts. Enough infra to make money and resources, but low enough in score to be a pain in the arse to fight. Pretty much the best of both worlds or as close to as we can get with this poorly designed game.
  13. Changing the scoring system has been discussed many times. It's not as though Pre has suddenly came up with a winning idea. As I've stated again and again, mechanics are not the issue. The issue is the player base. The advantage of having high infra/econ builds gives you a disadvantage when it comes to fighting. Having a fighting account has the disadvantage of much less money. This is the choice the player has to make. Do you want security or do you want to be greedy? If people think that mechanics will alter people's play styles, they are sadly mistaken.
  14. I'm actually perfectly fine with losing improvements in line with Infra. I don't understand the thinking behind not implementing it in the first place. Regardless of the changes made, I will still raid. The alternative is waiting around building up my account until my leadership orders me into battle. I don't find that overly fun. I've lead browser game communities in the past so have no desire to do that. So what is left for a guy like me? Either quitting the game and playing something like Travian/Tribal Wars or playing with the war mechanics. Until I get bored, ill be playing with the war mechanics. Also, my comment about it being a draw was tongue in cheek. Everyone who paid attention could see you tied up 4-5 of Arrgh ' s top tier singlehandedly. Browser games encourage cooperation and team work. So I find it quite normal that teamwork solves the problem. That is how it should be.
  15. Guys from Arrgh (and Mensa) have repeatedly stated that we can be beaten, you even showed people how to do it! But instead of putting in a bit of effort and thought into how to do it, they would rather cry to Sheepy to change mechanics. No one in this game is unbeatable.
  16. You are 17 dude, you, yourself are still coming to terms with hair growth in strange places. You can't even purchase cigarettes or buy a beer yet and from the personal messages I have seem you send to various people leads me to believe you are younger then you claim!
  17. Probably to do with the dogpile mentality coupled with the aggressor advantage. It's pretty much suicide to go it alone. Not to mention the seemingly endless supply of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) players bringing (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) friendships to PnW. This is why INCI and the Serbs should come here... The 'politics' need to change, the only way I can see that happening is through sheer brute force of numbers. Hate and rivalry need to come to the forefront!
  18. We have nothing to fight for. Its no wonder that the 'politics' of the game stagnate when we have nothing but IRC and PM arguments between alliance leaders that fuel the 'tension' and the action.
  19. This is where game choices come in to it. Which is always good for the game. Do you, as a group (alliance), forgo the economic benefits of a no Military build for the safety and benefits (not being raided, being able to help teammates/allies at a moments notice) of having a large standing army? Do the costs of being raided and rebuilding outweigh the costs of having an army on standby? It isn't the games problem, it's only a problem for the players and alliances that can not or will not adapt. Who do you wish to save? The souls of the guys raiding or the save the guys being raidied from leaving the game... neither need saving. Most browser games in which you can attack each other are 'survial of the fittest'. Maybe the problem is with the leaders of these 'large' alliances and how they run them? Having a buttload of inactives (tax farming) and pretty much zero armies in the alliance will always attract people such as me. There are numerous ways an alliance can protect themselves from raids, if leaders aren't prepared to implement changes then that is where politics come into it. Get rid of them and install people that are prepared to minimise the temptation of raiders targeting them. I'll take my old alliance Mensa as an example. Very few raids are conducted on Mensa, this is for a various amount of reasons, but namely it's due to knowing what the outcome would be. When I mistakenly hit Cornerstone, although lacking in substance, the reaction makes me check and think twice before raiding them. Simple things, implemented on the alliance wide scale can go along way in protecting you and your alliance. If you, as a leader, are not not prepared or willing to put the effort in, maybe you are not fit to lead.
  20. All some people will do is work out how to be effective within their playstyle regardless of game mechanics. Sheepy had already given us the mechanics to deal with the 'raider' playstyle, without the recent change (which didn't even come close to sorting out the 'problem'). People are either 1) not bright enough to figure it out or 2) not brave enough to implement it. Maybe even a bit of 3) not organised enough to carry it out... Changing shit just moves the goalposts, it doesn't solve your 'problem'. Mechanics are not the problem, it's the mentality of the players that is the real issue.
  21. Everyone should be paid $10 an hour and have heathcare...
  22. From what I hear they are a bunch of !@#$s that dominate through treaties... they should fit in well here.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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