Jump to content

King Olafr of the Faroes

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

About King Olafr of the Faroes

  • Rank
    Active Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Alliance Pip
  • Leader Name
  • Nation Name
    Faroe Islands
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think you missed something. Sounds like you need another reason than "We don't like you" or "Welcome to Orbis" to declare war. I think.
  2. I seemingly got it soon after, as well as a four others.
  3. Is there a topic somewhere to suggest new achievements/improvements to achievements? And also, I have the Fat Man achievement, but not Nuclear Capable. That should probably be looked at. Unlike most or Aragorn's posts.
  4. It'll end when all the kids needs to go back to uni. Also Justin, pretty sure the last war(s) have been dragged out, not because of BK, but because someone doesn't understand just surrendering and moving on. Being an eternal dick will get you eternally dickslapped. Izi pizi.
  5. I liked a post from a KT member. Thank you Nove Riata, for helping us all bond. Peace bruhs. 💜
  6. Time to invest in whoever we're going to fight next war. Dis gunna get ugly. Btw, did anyone see Felkey?
  7. Ho ho ho! Santa Olafr is in town bearing gifts from Relic Entertainment. Want to continue fighting? Hook up on Steam and shoot eachother to pieces in Company of Heroes 2. 🙂 https://store.steampowered.com/sale/coh2_giveaway_weekend/ You're welcome. Best of 365 to determine the peace terms.
  8. If you're bored, quit. Don't tell me I should vote for shit because of it.
  9. Your suggestion as to how a balance is created is just very, very bad in my opinion. Again; I would much prefer people were given the opportunity to go to war, rather than have the issue pushed on them by decaying resources. Most (loudmouths on the forums) wants more wars. Increasing supply, one way or the other, means it's easier to fill war chests. Full war chests along with people who dislike eachother for whatever reason mostly lead to war. The only downtime we have is rebuilding nations and war chests. An improved war UI would also be amazing, like being able to set alliances as enemies and thus easier being able to search for targets, check war stats in game (easily trackable) and generally see how everyone stacks up for the common member of an alliance.
  10. If anyone were "robbed", it's the 3rd place guy. It's by far the most aestatically pleasing pumpkin. I don't know what it's got to do with P&W though. Don't really get what's up with a Snorlax (?) next to the P&W logo, apart from someone mixing Pokemon and P&W. TKR Sucks on the other hand, that's pure P&W (afaik). I voted P&W related, not "who-is-best-at-pumpkin-origami".
  11. They don't complement each other though. One accelerates war chest building by allowing you to meet goals faster, the other hampers it.
  12. The only part of that suggestion I can back is the lowering the cost of war. Whether you lower cost of tanks, muni and gas useage by a percentage or increase amount of gas/muni produced. It's no big difference to me. First two parts of the suggestion are doing the exact opposite and is utter bs. No matter how you twist and turn it, it's up to the people to (find or have reasons to) declare wars. Having enough resources accelerates that, not the threat of a small portion of it disappearing magically. Please, for the love of God, don't do multiple suggestions in one post. Make an overview and individual posts for each suggestion, so it's easier to see which suggestion has support and which don't. I had to downvote, as 2 of 3 suggestions were the worst bs I've seen on these forums for a long time, which is no small feat, while the third is the exact opposite. But it's a downvote, so if I hadn't written anything, nobody would know that I supported the 3rd part. I would like more action, but none of this will ultimately lead to more (high end) action. It'll just mean it takes longer or shorter for people to get ready for potential action.
  13. While I agree with your reasoning, I disagree with your solutions. People need to make informed decisions. If anything, the game should inform new players what it means to be in an alliance and that it, typically, is better to go look for an already established one, rather than start from scratch while not knowing the game. Also, I'd remove the alliance part from the tutorial. When I started July 28th 2017, it was a very small part of a rather fast paced tutorial. It should have tutorial of it own, since it's a major introduction to the politics part of the game. 10-15 days and a relatively low score, along with a proper introduction to what alliances do in this game, that's something I'd rather see.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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