Jump to content

Qin San Shi

Members
  • Posts

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Qin San Shi

  1. 51 minutes ago, Boosted said:

    So I gave a shot at this and made this far.

     The first image translates to "good you but might have to guess out this next one" using three different Ceasar cyphers. I don't have a clue about the second image though ?

    The top line is base 64 for "Good Luck"

    Ugh I found "good" and "guess" with one Caesar cypher and got stuck trying to find a substitution cypher haha. How did you go about using three? PM me on Discord (I'm at Qin San Shi#1562), maybe we can talk about the second image.

    The second image seems to be visually the same as an already existing sunflower image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunflower_from_Silesia.JPG. Using an online program tells me there are a lot of single pixel differences though, so maybe there's some sort of steganography encoded message within. Not sure though, I've been way too busy with other stuff to give this a lot of thought ?

  2. 18 minutes ago, Bezzers said:

    SK has a player called hope in their alliance

     That's not cheating its just stillhard being dumb and sending money to the wrong place. 

    (also if SK only has 120 million in the bank I urge them to leave the war now) 

    Yeah, that's why I put the actual transaction under the failed one, I'm not saying SK is hiding their bank :P

    • Upvote 1
  3. "There is a message hidden in this image, find it and reply accordingly."

    "Well done. Please wait for further communications."

    Is this a cult?

    EDIT: Well I tried searching the image itself for hidden messages in case there was intentionally something misleading and didn't find anything. Wrote a program that highlighted all the deviant pixels but all I got was the border to the text, lol: https://postimg.cc/DJNcYpgN

    • Like 1
  4. 1 hour ago, element85 said:

    Listen here you little punk ass mother fricking !@#$ 

    What a person says about another tells us more about the speaker than the person they said bad things about. Everything you say or post is a reflection of yourself and is ultimately an outward projections of your own character and personality. Nice confession of your own toxic drama-stirring behavior. 

    XjhV1hW.jpg

  5. On 10/11/2018 at 2:01 PM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

    The Commonwealth, I know we are not allies, but in your hour of need, I am willing to put the full military might of Grumpy behind your war effort.

    Eastasia recognizes hostilities with Brumpy Gold Oastards and is pleased to announce that both parties have agreed to a white peace, given BgO pulled a Spanish Armada 2: Electric Boogaloo and VMed all their members:

    stats.png

    score.png

    The score went up because they forgot to tell you they actually had a -30 city average instead of a 30 city average

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  6. On 10/2/2018 at 1:04 AM, Bot said:

    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.

    I wasn't aware of the new meta till recently, so this is something I'm working on changing. I'm interested in the logistics of what you proposed:

    On 10/2/2018 at 1:04 AM, Bot said:

     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.

    Is the best way of accomplishing this comparing attacking and defending militaries, and removing attacking nations from the target list if the military ratio falls under a certain threshold?

    On 10/2/2018 at 1:04 AM, Bot said:

     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.

    I'm not 100% sure how to sort based on both city count and nation score, but maybe I'll figure something out. Any tips would be appreciated ?

    On 10/2/2018 at 1:04 AM, Bot said:

     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.

    Being worked on right now too. With how you're doing it, do you have a UI that sets high priority nations, or do you modify your code manually? Or is there some automated stat you use to determine priority?

    On 10/2/2018 at 1:04 AM, Bot said:

     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

    I joined the channel! What now? :)

    I'm not the greatest programmer and to be honest, I wrote this more as a learning experience, so it was all in Java (ew, right?) I'd be more than happy to learn more about writing a similar program in another language if you have any tips for that as well.

  7. 17 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

    You really want people to hire your services, dontcha? :P 

    I mean, I wasn't really thinking about that, but that would be nice :S

    I really don't care about money at the moment, so if someone asks me in the next few days to be honest I'll just let them use it for free!

    17 hours ago, Buorhann said:

    You must be new.

    I think I participated in about 11 alliance wars on my old nation, but yeah I did miss the last few. I admit I'm pretty new to this long attrition grind sort of thing, but I'm gonna put on some nostalgia glasses and say that wars used to be more enjoyable and meaningful the old way (plus these new NAP times, blech) :S

    1 hour ago, TheNG said:

    C'mon now Buorhann, let's not scare off a potential member of the No Tanks Gang.
     Now that it's *current year*, all the cool kids in Orbis know that ground forces are for boosted-up noobs and pixel huggers who probably just log in to buy credits every month.

     Not us in the No Tanks Gang though, we rule these mean streets like Sheepy God intended, with beige and airpower. REPRESENT!

    I'm an irrelevant nation in a paperless micro now, does that mean I get to join the no tanks gang? Please?

    • Upvote 1
  8. 37CNjim.png

    Short and sweet:

    We guarantee alliance wars every month at the most. That includes participating in global wars, individual wars, mass raids, commissioned wars, and civil wars.

    There's a 0% tax.

    We have unrestricted raiding rules.

    We are home to Orbis's best raid finder and alliance war target picker.

    We have high member standards and a member cap. Believe me, this is especially not easy to have for a micro :v

    Sitting around all day in a big alliance is no fun. Why not try out something totally different and give us a shot?

    • Upvote 1
  9. smh I reported this to Shifty first and no credit

    The rabbit hole goes really, really deep for this one. So deep in fact that I had to create a spreadsheet just to make some sense out of the whole thing. I present 41 total nations that are accused of using multis or profiting from funneling money or resources through multis, many of which are operating on spam names, are allianceless, and have infra slots resembling a resource farm.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gOgR62OATv3bUlwzZUgMKK63rN8R6UqPaE-nb-xV254/edit#gid=0

    "Suspicious trades" includes the selling or buying of food at 100000-20000000 ppu and the selling or buying of resources at little to no cost. I'd be happy to clarify further if the admins demand it. Otherwise, happy banning!

  10. On 9/3/2018 at 2:43 PM, Qin San Shi said:

    Message me in-game or on Discord with the total number of offensive and defensive nations involved and additional specifications that you may need. Alliance names can be disclosed after confirmation of services, and the price can be paid right around war declaration time in order to ensure confidentiality. I'd be more than happy to engage in a back-and-forth discussion if necessary!

    If an alliance is going to war then I really hope I don't have to take offensive standing military into account, haha. But as quoted I'd be able to specify for that as necessary.

    Note it also says the price can be paid right around war. I 100% acknowledge that there's simply some things humans are better at then programs, so this clause also suggests that if something doesn't turn out quite right (or totally wrong) in the process, then we just renegotiate the price so that whoever commissioned me pays a reduced amount, or nothing at all.

    I am probably leaving a lot of room for people to scam me by including that haha. But as long as it still causes a war, I don't mind as much ?

  11. 8 hours ago, TheShadow said:

    CAn we get a free sample?

    Last sentence, you can find a link to a spreadsheet with some random micros as examples (names of alliances are listed at the bottom) :)

    If you're a bit confused as to why certain target nations have less than 3 attackers, that's because their slots are already filled by raiders. Similarly attacking nations are limited by the number of wars they've already declared.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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