Jump to content

Aerys Targaryen

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Aerys Targaryen last won the day on June 11 2017

Aerys Targaryen had the most liked content!



  • Member Title
    Bot user

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
  • Leader Name
    Aerys Targaryen
  • Nation Name
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name
    The Enterprise

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name: Aerys Targaryen#0759

Recent Profile Visitors

3387 profile views

Aerys Targaryen's Achievements

Veteran Member

Veteran Member (6/8)



  1. Better don't mix rl politics with the themes of alliances imo. Every nation has committed massacre at some point. This is why I miss partisan, everyone else sucks with their text wall.
  2. Enjoy your retirement Shiho and congratulations to Gray for the promotion. Man I missed these Syndicate forum posts 🤣 Just need to see Partisan's text walls and I'll be fully nostalgic.
  3. I have a bot for this purpose. Good work on the program, but here are some of my comments. Even if an alliance is going for an offensive war, they may or may not have max military of all types. Sometimes it could be because of strategic reasons. Do you plan to make this bot usable for successive attacks or only for the initial attack? If you want to make a bot prepare targets in alliance wars, then you need to take the following into account 1. The current wars they engage in and the progress in those wars (in case it's not the first round). A nation should at least lean towards winning the current wars (depending on the support it receives from others) before expanding to the next targets. 2. Attacking and defending nations' rebuilding capacity for that moment (this is based on how much they lost military in that day as well as their military improvements/number of cities). Attacking nations can go for slightly riskier defending nations if they are attacking just before update. If this is happening after the initial round, then you need to take their rebuilding capacity into account. If the city count difference is huge, then some couple of losing nations can turn the tide by building military twice near update. So it's useful in more than one instances. 3. As SRD said, you need to allow the facility to set priorities. Then match up highly rated attacking nation with highly rated defending nation wherever possible. Else more often than not, a high priority defending nation will have all the slots filled up and will fight unopposed in 2+ days from initial war declaration. You can also add more features into how you match different nations. I run simulations some 1000 times, then see the percentage of immense/moderate/utter/pyrrhic/, then make matches. What kind of blasphemy is this? Humans are the worst On a related note, which language do you use for programming? We have a channel for programmers in PnW, we work together in some interesting projects, so if you are interested, then join us. link: https://discord.gg/FRwrZT9
  4. ah just to clear this one up, I was just pointing out Buorhann's timing. That text, I was replying to the part "I said bias was irrelevant to a proposal", I hope that clears up @Senatorius. May be I shouldn've quoted more properly to make the point clear
  5. Oh come on, I said I was questioning his timing of this post and why he didn't say anything on previous occasions. Can you just check the old posts before posting new ones? Fine, good day !
  6. Didn't you read the previous post? We moved on, you are bring it back now for some reason. Also, you are spinning it in your own narrative. I pointed out his timing, he said he was busy and didn't have time to check that sub-folder, I said he already posted in that same sub-folder, then we decided to move on, as this kind of discussion won't lead to anywhere. So if someone is going to propose that new members shouldn't be allowed to vote or members who are not active in forums shouldn't vote, that doesn't matter? This particular suggestion came because Inq members are not active in forums. And I don't care about your list.
  7. Why shouldn't I address the motivations behind it? (I'll do both, yeah, but not without pointing out this one) I mean, if a group of people are going to make ads boasting how honorable they are from an opinion polls in the previous year and they are butt hurt this year and say things that "some votes shouldn't be considered", thats what I was talking about. regarding the actual proposal, I'll be up for it, as I've said before. Regarding Buorhann, I was questioning the timing of his posts, about how he never reacted to old polls or how he didn't react to this poll before Inq votes started to come in, but yeah we are past this stage now, no point in arguing about it if you are not going to address it directly. I didn't misunderstand your post, you said in your previous post that bias is irrelevant and I disagreed. I mean, TKR was reacting differently to the polls last year than now, some people are even going to an extend of saying absurd things, there is nothing wrong in bringing it up.
  8. This is how you usually respond, so I'll leave at this stage. Great
  9. How come bias is irrelevant, esp if it's about opinion polls? It's going to decide the outcome, since it's based on everyone's perspective and opinions. It is relevant and if we are going to have some rational discussion on the topic, we need to first act neutral, not biased, that's the first requirement. How do you define good one or a bad one in this scenario? If it's biased against you, you'd definitely call it as a bad one. Kindly check below for a reply for your second para. There are just two (or three of you consider a tie) outcomes that can come out of this poll. One is, TKR getting the usual awards or the other thing is, Inq getting our members to vote. This is my point, try to understand it, till you saw the Inq votes, you didn't say anything, you were posting in the sub-folder of PnW awards, so what were you thinking so far? Were you thinking that, just like last year TKR members will vote for TKR and everyone will remain calm and TKR will get all awards? In addition to the above, this is not the first time such a poll is happening, we all knew what happened in previous polls, so it's not really a secret how the poll works, yet you didn't mention a word till you saw the outcome. Oh don't mistake me, I can very well contribute if the discussion is really civil and rational (I haven't seen such discussions so far on forums involving Inq by a EMC fellow, esp from you, thats another case), but I'll point it out when someone is going to put up some statements full of bias against our alliance, I don't see anything wrong in it. We can have rewards based on actual stats, for sure. I can help out my best if someone is going to collect huge sets of data and I'll be open for a discussion if that happens in a decent environment.
  10. Proposals can be biased, since you didn't quote, I assumed in general while giving that reply. Take Micchan's proposal for example, or Zeebrus for example, those are clearly biased, if you are going to see some votes as valid and others not. Bias is inevitable, I agree. As for Buorhann, we can certainly discuss though, what I find striking (as I mentioned earlier) is the way he is bringing it up by remaining silent so far, which is what I've pointed out and he refused to acknowledge.
  11. Why shouldn't we talk about who is or isn't biased? The way a lot of people are reacting is disgusting to me, so I'm giving my opinions on why people are biased, esp if people are going to talk about restarting the polls just because they are not winning in a few categories. About the proposals, we certainly can implement something solid, but can't accept if it's going to come up in a biased manner from someone. (Didn't I just reply to your post with a few proposals?)
  12. lmao this is laughable. You were in the nomination thread when the nominations were going on and we are talking about the yearly awards sub-folder here, not any other. That little statement is fine, what I find as a problem is, the way you are bringing it up. You'd have remained calm if it was TKR getting a lot of votes, I mean this is not the first time we are having this poll, it happens 2-3 times in the past, it's not like this is the first time and you missed your criticism because of your work
  13. Nah I didn't miss anything. This is for next year's post, that's very good, we can all discuss and see how we can create a (near) unbiased situation for polls, but what happened to you before Inq votes started to come in? Why now? And how do you see all those people who say there should be new polls and the votes by Inq members are invalid or we rigged the voting?
  14. You didn't utter a single word about how flawed the process is, till Inq votes started to come in, then start a post saying we need to reform things, this is what I called bias. Ofc you were diplomatic like usual. Show me any forum post that you made regarding reforms to be made about how these polls are conducted before this.
  15. What I'm doing is pointing out the bias that you (and others from EMC) are showing. May be I'm biased, just like everyone else, but tell me this, if you are genuine about any change, why didn't you utter even a single thing till Inq votes started to land? You were assuming we are not going to participate? The burden of showing the proof falls on you, show me a similar thread that you made in previous years about how flawed the process was. You can call me anything, paranoid or pessimistic, I don't mind frankly about those names. Also, when did I ever complain about rig voting in the past? What I find disgusting is, EMC members are complaining about something which we were all doing in the past polls.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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