synthesis
-
Posts
53 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by synthesis
-
-
11 hours ago, Majima Goro said:
I'm not exactly sure why treasure trading was banned but if the objective of the game is to have more smaller wars, treasure trading is the way to do it. Once someone steals your treasure, it can be a cb for war against them or their alliance. If the treasure is stolen with the purpose of selling it to someone, this can be a cb for war against the buying alliance. Once someone has sold a treasure and has some money on their nation, raiders can come in to steal that money as well. Treasure trading can be a dynamic way to keep treasures moving about in the game even in peace time which I feel is lacking in the game. This also makes piracy a tad more interesting.
It was banned because as with many features of this game, it was not fully thought out before implementation, and so it was used in ways other than intended. Lookup the history of Treasure Island which started all this...
For the rest, this this makes absolutely no sense...
If you get a treasure during war, why would that be a valid CB on the "buying alliance"? For starters, they haven't "bought" anything - they won it during war, so that's just tough on the losing alliance. Plus, you would have no way of knowing if they were to sell it onwards and if they were, it is already against the rules, rendering this whole thing moot.
Lastly, anyone selling a treasure isn't going to keep hundreds of millions on them - it would be deposited into a bank or used before then.
Pointless.
-
1
-
-
Can you add the GNI field into the Nation API?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, James II said:
@Zeebrus I found LPS for you.
LOL.
I could say the same about you.
But I wouldn't, because of course that would be as ridiculous as your comment.
-
1 hour ago, Buorhann said:
Wait, what
I meant, we're not rebuilding the newer cities, which is the entire point of his accusation and there is no proof that we are anyone else is or was doing so.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Buorhann said:
Keep in mind, you're still doing damage by making them rebuild those young new cities to preserve their other cities as best as possible.
Which would be great, IF that was indeed happening...
-
3
-
-
Basically.
This is outright slander, without any actual proof that you have failed to provide. If you weren't already in the hole, this would be enough for a CB, or perhaps we'll keep it for the next one....
-
5
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, kosmokenny said:
No, they gimped 3 of my slots.
If you mean, those attackers also gimped their ability to attack you as well in those 3 slots, then you are correct.
I fail to see the problem here.
-
9 minutes ago, James II said:
I thought you knew. Wasn't that your CB?
I thought you knew, that was your big mouth.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Caecus said:
You'll have to forgive us, Alpha has been dealing with !@#$ since our inception. For whatever reason, every war we go into, the opposing side feels the need to throw three times the number with a 5 city advantage at us, so we've all collectively decided to turtle and make y'all eat nukes. If people had the balls to fight us on relatively more even ground, we wouldn't have to use nukes. But alas, tS calls in TEst and Guardian needs at least a two on one advantage with game exploits.
lol the "exploit" nobody knew about...yeah right....
-
- Popular Post
47 minutes ago, 8mrgrim8 said:how are we suppose to know this exploit when we never launched nukes?
Basically this and I am personally insulted that you even thought we were using this to cheat, in fact I would even go as far to say that this thread title is outright slander.
Your entire OP is based on the fact that we knew it was a "bug" in the first place. We never launch nukes, so how could we know?
We literally just based it on the simple context of security through obscurity, hoping that you wouldn't notice you were hitting a younger city and the fact it always worked never crossed our minds that it could be a "bug". There was certainly no malicious intent behind it.
I can promise you as someone that has been playing this game for a long, long time that this "bug" for want of a better word, was used without knowledge that it actually prevented nukes from hitting the intended city.
If we had known, we would have rebuilt the same city over and over again (as you mention) - but this was never done. Look at our nations and you will see that infra was built in many of them as more and more were nuked. Had we known this, it wouldn't have been the case and we would all have simply kept rebuilding the same city - please give me examples of that otherwise as I would be interested to see them.
Whether you believe this or not is up to you, but it's the truth.
-
11
-
1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:
I think its pretty unfair that my naval strikes on ordinary would only do 700 infra damage instead of 1400 infra damage... you know how expensive naval strikes are?!?! Its not fair that I spend so much time building up a solid warchest just to have to spend it all on half damage!
Sheepy you are a giant jerk face!
(Am I doing this right?)
More salt required....
-
3 hours ago, Micchan said:
If you put Kosmo in a pool you can walk on the water without sinking
Comment of the year!
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:
NB people posted in the War Changes thread, so they were aware of the war types being a thing. The confusion stems from them (and others) assuming that, since nukes and missiles are basically dedicated infra-killing tools, they would be exempt from the same variables that affects how much infra damage is caused on a conventional strike, because picking raid or ordinary as your war type when going on the offensive reduces M/N's effectiveness by a good margin (thus rendering them obsolete)
It's something that could've been cleared up by asking Alex about it (I don't recall that question popping up in the thread, people were mainly complaining about the last-minute trial changes). Still, it isn't so much that the strategy itself was rendered moot by the update, but that it simply weakened a fallback plan/strategy which value was questionable to begin with. That TKR and co. went in on NB now, of all times, has more to do with the fact that there's no one else that can blindside them while they are fighting NB (IQ and Coalition are busy killing each other), more than with the war changes reducing the effectiveness of nukes. The reduced infra damage from missiles/nukes is, at most, an additional factor.
Thing is, everything has been halved in Ordinary. So really, nukes are just the same compared to other attacks as they were before, it just takes longer to do the same amount of damage compared to Attrition.
-
1 hour ago, Micchan said:
But even the defender recives 50% of the damage so the nuke bloc is losing half of what they would lose with attrition
What do you mean? Attrition, means nuke and everything is the same damage as it was before. Ordinary is where everything is halfed...
-
9 hours ago, kosmokenny said:
Go frick yourself sheepy, you pathetic sack of shit
Weren't you meant to be put on a leash...
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, Johnny Costello said:
coming from a washed up leader? funny.
Also, ONLY 865 damage... what a waste...
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:
Honestly, TKR should sign like 6000 treaties, considering they actually listened when people said they should change things up and are now getting flak for it. Realistically, if they were cowardly they would have had little reason to toss away a winning hand.
These are obviously some pretty spazzy FA moves, for sure, but to me they are indicative of trying, which is more than some of the people haranguing them can say. Way I see it, 9 months of bore is on everyone at this point, and jumping to bite at a major alliance who's trying to change that earnestly isn't really a good way to encourage others to stick their necks out.
I'd comment on some of the speculation about my own alliance, but really, if anyone is curious about my alliance's FA they should probably contact me rather than post flawed conjecture about it publicly.
couldn't have said it better myself...
-
yes nothing like a nice one sided war... Even if the numbers match, everyone knows the first strike advantage makes a big difference, and this is besides the fact you were all maxed and they weren't.
Any calling this fair is talking out of their ass and needs a nuke shoved up it.
P.S nothing like a bit of cowardly ghosting to add to the dog pile...
-
Spamming and trading are completely different things. Everyone else is able to trade successfully on the market without spamming with a dozen or more offers all separated by a single dollar.
I have nothing against trading, and if everyone else can do it, why is that 2 or 3 people feel it is necessary to flood the market with their offers.
Abuse is perhaps a strong word but it certainly goes against the grain, and at what point does it just get silly? 20 offers? 50 offers?
-
I've never seen this happen. Every time I have done so it has stacked. Please show proof that this happens?
I'm not saying I don't believe you but it could just be a bug so am genuinely interested to see it happen.
-
well perhaps it is time to ask again?
I can't believe I'm the only one.
If nothing else, it should be added to the game rules regarding market abuse.
-
I assume that was Food? which i've never seen it do. It will always just stack. Failing that, they should just up the limit on food only.
-
Can you do something about the ridiculous amounts of market / trade spamming on the global offers. - This is prevalent by a very small number of players who abuse the system and we all know who they are.
There is absolutely no reason to have multiple different prices for the same resource on global offers.
This would be an easy fix, by limiting a trade to one per resource on the global offers, and even better, if you attempt to list something which you already have on, it gets replaced with the newer price (perhaps with a warning before you do so).
-
3
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:
Depending on your alliance you can get ripped off, it's another layer of tedium in a game already still pretty hefty with captchas.
then find an alliance that doesn't rip you off. simples.
『Game Rule Change』Treasure Trading
in Game Suggestions
Posted
I have no idea? Was it? I don't follow CBs - they are generally all BS anyway.
Agreed - but the problem, is that everyone that didn't think of that intelligent thing will cry and whine until the rules get changed to stop those that did. It happens in real life and it happens here. On the other hand, if it had been thought out properly in the first place then this would never be an issue, and the rules would be half the length they are now. i.e. what they actually say is that you can't do X, Y and Z because it's too difficult/lengthy to put technical measures in place to stop you.