Zim
-
Posts
202 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Zim
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
This might seems rich comming from an Arrgh member, but @Alex i would like to suggest a 7-14 day Christmas truce, where you either turn off the war system completely, or give everyone a set number of days in beige, all after which is easier to implement.
The game have turned increasingly toxic in the last few months, that can be seen most clearly here on the forum. But instead of symptom treatment(like removing the downvote button)
i would suggest going directly after the source of this toxicity: the war.
A Christmas truce, would allow players to take a step back from the game, and hopefully let cooler heads prevail so Orbis can return to peace.
And if not, it would be possible for the losing side to rebuild troops, making the winning side more inclined to start negotiation in good faith.
While the losing side would have a reason to spend ressource, instead of just collection it for the post war rebuild.
If the truce where to fail in bringing forward a armistice, we can atleast bring back the fun part about warfare, the blitz, the back and forth fighting.
Instead of the current status of one side just blowing up rubbles, that is worth less then bombs that blow it up.
After 5-6 months of war, the longest in the game history. I would like to believe that an admin would be justified in intervening to stop actions that can be seen as harmful to the game continuously existence, overfor dwindling players numbers and increasingly toxicity and radicalisation of the players that is left.-
3
-
3
-
5
-
5 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:
Snip
My god this is sad.
Goons for the first time, i kinda feel pity for you neckbeards. -
16 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:
Snip
What is it with you and low quality bait?
I can't see how you didn't get sick for posting worse bait, then the lowest trolls on /pol/
I really hope you a monthly subscriber on Something awfull, if this is what you call quality contest.
Else i can honestly say that Reddit have a higher standdard for posters then your dying forum.-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, Thomond said:
I know this is old but getting tired of CKII if anyone has any cool mod suggestions id gladly hear them here!!
Well beside game of thrones that is alreadry mentioned, there is an amazing Avatar mod, it is gigantic different way to play, like a whole other game.
There is of course also "After The End" that is just Amazing. Set in North America after a nuclear apocalypse, this is such a wacky mode, you can conqour the world as disney world, while worshiping Cthulhu.
If you into current politics, the old Modern Times mode is also a lot of fun, so you kill, sleep and marry all of your favorit world leader(not necessary in that order).On 3/3/2016 at 4:15 AM, Godfrey said:Does anybody play the Game of Thrones mod for this? It's amazing if you are a fan of the books/show.
Of course, i an actually in the middle of game as Stannis, currently trying to reconquer the north, so when Shireen sit on the Ironthrone, it will be over a unified westeros. Or atleast i was until the fallout mode for hoi4 updated.
-
8 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:
Snip
Can you stop lying?
You repeating yourself, a troll with the same nuance as a parrot. Like seriously people have explained the answer and provide proof why your statements is wrong repeatedly. And you always return with the same tired argument in a different wording.
All what you doing is collecting downvotes, and dragging out the puplic debate, with statements that you know is wrong.-
1
-
-
@Kastor what about a voting system based on Eurovision?
A system effectively designed to make it fair for countries with different sized populations, to compete against one another, in a democratic way.First of there is a popular vote, where there is no voting on ones own alliance, or members.
Then the popular vote is converted into percentages, over how many of the total voters voted on an alliance to the desired category, where that is easily converted into point, by 1% of vote, equal 1 point.
While each participating alliance provide a Jury.
The Jury shall rank their voting, as in they have to rank a list of alliance that fit best into the voting categories. An example, "the best flag", they assign let set 10-12 alliance, with 1-10 point. With the most point to the alliance flag they like the best, second highest point to the alliance they like the second best, and so on.Then the point from the popular vote and jury would be added together for a final score.
That seem the most fair to me. Where you can ague over allowing alliance members to vote for their own alliance, how many members an alliance should have to provide a jury member, and how many point the popular and juries should be able to provide.
-
8 hours ago, Roquentin said:
lol. Get off the pity party. There is no better time to be a new player than now. The current situation only harms people who have had entrenched advantages for years. There is functionally no difference between a longer war and losing two wars in a 6 month span. It will have the same result in terms of attrition. For the new players it makes little difference and they can have a blast at the lower levels raiding.
It's like turn of the century robber barons complaining about some temporary hardship.
I don't think you should comment on the health of the playerbase, so long your alliance advocate for people leaving the game.
"Entrenched advantages for years."
Who are you talking about here, specifically? and what are these advantages you mentioned? I like to know.And do i really have to explain the effect of attrition, on a war that last 6 month, compared to 2 wars in 6 months, on a more responsible lenght?
Plus there been other wars, after the global started, that have already ended.
The 6 month war is far worse for the member count. It kinda saying something that not even the Guinea Pig farm, is hiding the fact that the playerbase is shrinking.
And new players aren't sticking around long enough for them to change that. I don't believe we far from the number where Cybernations started counting down.
We need to do something for new players, to keep them here for longer, to make up for the older nations that have been disappearing.
Even you most agree with that, because i don't believe you would like to see this game actually die.-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:
The other solution could be that your government actually surrenders and ends the war. There's nothing mechanically wrong here, it's just that your side is losing.
Would your side let our side surrender? Because the constant leaks from your coalition, seem to say otherwise.
That new players get discouraged from playing the game, is a problem that should be addressed if you actually interested in the continuous long livity of the game, or are you saying that you prefer to see the game die?-
1
-
-
I would upvote it if i still had reactions. Even thought it need to be an option for new players, way earlier then 25 days. Way to many is currently leaving the game in the first week. Because they get jumped by 3 people. Maybe lower the number of days according to city count?
-
6 minutes ago, Akuryo said:
More arrogant nonsense
OK, Boomer.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Akuryo said:
Arrogant nonsense
Thanks for ones again proving you can't read. Arrgh wasen't my first alliance, which you would know if you actually read my previous post. And "in your life", really? This 'game' seem to have consumed you an unhealthy degree.
I talk daily with people form other alliances, people who able to read, and actually able argue their point veiw, without having to fall back on attacks on a person character, but i suppose you find it easier to dismiss people, then argue against their points, because you simply are to simple.This is a game, and a not very complicated one at that, pick up Elite Dangerous if you wanna see complicated game design.
That elitist attitude of yours is fairly unhealty, i would really recommend you to read the Law of Jante(you need it)
44 minutes ago, Akuryo said:i was on the first page of this thread. My post is the one that changed Skitz's opinion on the matter, because he didn't consider it.
You proud to have changed the opinion of one your own low gov members, that i had to track down to find out who was?
But do tell which of your "nobody cares" post did that? i am curius now.
But before you answer please learn this is a game, before speaking. As learning about the game seem to be a lost cause to you.-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Teaspoon said:
Why is anyone in power? You're talking about Communism, the very first and most important criteria of which is the abolition of the state.
Oh wait you're one of those dipshits who thinks that generic totalitarian dicatorships are Communist because the ruling body calls themselves a communist party. lol.
I have couple of question about your view on communism, if you don't mind.
First of, have there ever been a country you believe have succesfully been able to implement communsime?
Second, if no country have been able to implement communsime succesfully, why do you believe that is?
Third question, if you where to succesfully implement communsime in a country, how would you fixs the answer to the second question?
All Goons are welcome to answer, even though i am like 90% sure that the number of real communist in the goons is around 2% at most.
With your alliance just being here to troll people. And that if the game allowed Nazis you would most likely be roleplaying them instead.-
4
-
2
-
-
@Akuryo So what i am getting form you, is that you can't read? Your add ons to this thread have mainly been repeating the point of other people. Not really addressing question given to you, and to finish of, you sumed up a longer post, with a laughable wrong conclusion.
Thanks for letting me know you not worth the effort of addressing. -
7 minutes ago, Edward I said:
snip
I took offends to @Akuryo comment about the "clueless majority", which is more a bacis on our different in real life philosophy, rather then ingame alliance politics. And basely me seeing him as being in the wrong, that the majority of people would be against a politic that gives them more anatomy.
You also seem to be hung on game mechanics standpoint for people ability to leave an alliance, rather then the reality of people facing. Being attacked for leaving an alliance is a thing that happens, fairly often with alliance that give alot of grants to a members when they join.
Arrgh have in past received people like that.
I never brought up tax rates, at anytime doing my argument, i get the feeling you just skimmed it thought, which is fair as it did get a bit longer then i intended. But somehow i can't help to feel a bit disappointed by it comming from a man of your reputation.1 minute ago, Akuryo said:snip
I been in 3 alliance, including Arrgh. The second alliance i was in attacked me for leaving, admittedly that was more a single guy, that took personal offends rather then the alliance as whole. But several players have arrived on Arrgh doorstep, having their counter slot filled out with members from their former alliance.
Arrgh open door policy, and no waiting time for becoming a member. Have in peacetime made us rather popular place for refugees. Even if they only are here temporarily.
You yourself seem to have bit of vague understanding, only going after one of my points that that was already addressed by another person.1 hour ago, REAP3R said:Isnip
Good man! i applaud you for spending the effort.
Now to your points, you are correct that the main one we get are nations getting attacked by people chasing after lost money.
But it also quite common for alliance to demand quite a bit(lot) more then what that person got in grants, and often ignore the part they paid throught taxes.
Even thought we have also seen more personally reasons in the past for attacks. Many mircos do have happit of taking things a bit personally.
Fleeing to a strong alliance, is often not possible, simply because most of the top 40, with a few exceptions have rules against
"war-dragging."
Wars that was declared before a nation joined, will normaly not be countered. I am speaking for expereince here, as an attacker of players that have done as you suggested, when they got raided.
Of course strong alliances will counter follow up attacks or beige cycling(within reason).That alliance is unable to tax beiged nations is quality of life improvement for raiders. We been hit hard over the years with several nerfs. You have well noticed that the number of raiding alliances left, is rather small. Most have simply deleted, or they have changed away from raiding like Typhon and Empyrea.
Beige taxing of inactives have negatively effected our income. By taxing inactive nations, that really shouldn't be able to get taxed in first place.
While i can see this being a great stepping stone in the direction of rebuilding the war system that hopefully should leave raiders in a better position afterward.
I can't see how people in a beige cycling can end up with a worse experience, for having extra cash in their nation?
Plus beige cycling is hard to pull of, i haven't seen it work on anyone fighting back, beside a few new players. Like i have alreadry explained in my previous answer with beige cycling is not a thing that happens that often. And in any case it is temporally.
Paying taxes is probably not seen as what keep a member in an alliance by the member themself either, so i don't see how this will remove them form the alliance community.Your point about doing the beige cycling en masse, when the victor have basely been decided, falls apart because of one thing: "nation score"
Nation that declare on you get gradually weaker, with no effort on your part. To a point where a simple double buy, let you crush them. Or atleast bring them in a position where the cost for an airstrike is more then the cost for stuff it blows up.
I feel like i am repeating myself here a bit, when i keep having to mention that there is ways to fight against beige cycling by the nations being attacked.
1 hour ago, REAP3R said:Spending your daily bonus and turn bonus on infra will be ineffective, even when you get to the point that the people holding you down have many less cities. You will not scrounge enough money in your bombed out nation to make an effective double buy on your opponents. If your infra is destroyed, you probably don't make any income from commerce, you might possibly even make negative income, and get bill locked. More on that, you cannot make any money prior to day change to build your infra substantially enough, same with buying the physical soldiers.Your money will run dry too quick, especially for larger nations, meaning you will never pull off a successful double buy if your opponents play smart.
I understand the benefits that this change has for raiders, stopping beige nations from being taxed means that their money will stockpile within the nation to be raided, rather than be sent to the alliance bank, but please realize this change has more dangerous effects that needn't even exist.
Sorry for quoting you directly here, but this is not true. Arrgh member here, we have member functioning at 400 infra and still have a netincome.
We are able to win wars being after being zeroed.You sell of most of the commerce building if they not generating an income, even thought they also work nicely as an extra stockpile of steel and alumnium, that can't be looted. If you nation can't generate an income you raid nation that can. 20-50.000 infrantry you can put in the feild is more then enough to raids 5 inactive. Get a couple of mil, rebuild infra to 700-1000 infra. Doublebuy what you need, and then fight back against aggressors.
1 hour ago, REAP3R said:but please realize this change has more dangerous effects that needn't even exist.
Please, all the problems it causes is more work for a few gov members. While giving players the option to think a bit more for themself(i know someone see this as a problem).
While it prevent one of the ways alliances is able to abuses game mechanics to effectly cheat.
Beige cycling, or attempt at it anyway is a problem for the game health, but you are seriously blowing it out of proportion. It isen't going be an alliance ender, more then it already was(not at all).
I enjoyed your response @REAP3R even if i had to repeat myself. -
1 hour ago, Akuryo said:
-snip
I feel sorry for your members, i really do. Do you really have so little confident in their abilities, that you think they won't understand a change to the game mechanics on their own? a browser game? If they been here for more then a month, they would know what it means.
That ego of your aren't healthy, i feel you really need to do some self reflection, and a good read of the Law of Jante.
Don't assume you better then other people, don't assume you smarter then other people, don't think you are anything special.Give your members more autonomy, and they will surpise you, with what they able to do. You most likely alreadry promoting th people that do go against you. The ones trying to change stuff, does that take the initiative.
You need to see that people as a general rule are good people, that they try to do good even when they do bad.
Let your members self-organize. Give people the opportunities to learn and grow, the means to keep themself informed.
If you think people are good…you let them figure it out.Your job isen't to give your member opinions to follow, your job is to give them the ablitity to create their own opinions.
40 minutes ago, REAP3R said:snip
I hate to be that guy, but several alliance don't allow their members to leave. I would have thought a well travel guy as you would known that?
I know of atleast one alliance that have openly said so on the forum, that they would beige-cycle anyone leaving their alliance. They not the only one.
Another alliance, that i have fairly close ties to would do similar unless they are a paid 180 mil by the nation leaving.And disgreements over tax policy is often not enough for most players to turn their back on an alliance.
You do know the biggest reason we stay in this game, is the community.
The friends we make and have here.
Most of the time the game only require people to log in a few times a day. But we still have people that spend several hours just hanging around on discord and talking.
It why people are willing to stay up in the middle of night to cordinate attacks, it why players blow real money away, or are willing to suicide their nation into a stronger player. And even the reason why people spend a shit ton of time creating memes and comics about the game.
While the war system is in need of a revoke, i don't particularly have a problem with beige cycling, when it comes to the cost in pixels.
It not that devasting in damage to a nation, normally it even cost more for the people attempting it.
And i mean attempting, try to actively fight against person long enough for the war to exspire, i dare you. Either he will be beiged, or you will be.
Then imagine trying to that against several hundred nations, you will fail.
Beige cycling is a problem because of it inpact on moral and wear down it causes on a player.
If you gotten to a point where an oppenet can effectively beige -cycle you, you will already have lost. And just a reminder IQ is still not able to do that our coalition.
Players won't delete because their alliance bank lag money, they delete by the wear down it cause mentally to be beige cyclied, specially for newer players. It is a tactic that is devastating for the game health, but not by it's cost in pixels.
For alliance that is in a state they being beige-cycles, basely where they have stopped fighting anyhow. An alliance no longer have any expenses either. Why send money to nations not fighting, plus they probably blockade anyhow.
So just maintain the alliance stockpile, what you going spend it on, if your members aren't able to use it?
When it comes to your own income, you can now spend it on infra. You don't maintain infra to see a return on an investment, you need to have it built up to a level where you can fully recuit your units that is what it is for, millitary units.
If this is their second or third attempt at circle-beiging you, the new nation declaring on you, they will have quite alot less cities then you.
A double buy here, and you can make them the ones being beiged. You need to be tactical on when you buy and use units. You can still get outside souce of ressource and money by attacking other nations, inactive or smaller members of the alliance trying to circle-beige you, that they have carelessly pushed you range of.
It seem to me you exaggerating the economical problems it might cause. I can probably understand why, this seem to be a problem for North Point, as you are the only alliance to left war because of economic reasons.
-
2
-
2
-
-
32 minutes ago, Papi Salamander said:
lol thanks
u got over 200 mill for over 12 cities? i didnt think so
Yeah score is kinda wacky, been fighting alot of players with half my city count in this war.
By the way, it cute you think you can buy up to 20 cities from 8 cities, for only 200 mil. If cities where that cheap i would be at whale size by now.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Akuryo said:
-snip
Why in the world he talk about post war? alliance expenses falls drastics when there no longer is a need to buy over priced war chest resources, or need to keep members in a fighting shape(even thought i have seen many alliances giving up on both).
Specially for does alliance that pulled out of the war early, should even be able to play on market to a higher degree then us fighting it.
While anyone with an idea on bacis level of economic would be able to set up rebuilding on an exponential model. Given more then enough time to rebuild an alliance economic potentiale, long before the next war breaks out.
The money dosen't disapear it stay in their nation, where if they active they can deposit on their own. It only punish does alliance relying on people that only log in ones a week, or directly inactive. Hardly much wealth get pulled out of does anyhow, at this point where we have active people at 0.00 infra levels.
Having members own their own bank account quite frankly help massivily in getting people to deposit stuff on their own.
As it is their own ressource they burning if they not doing it.
And of course alot people don't see this as a problem, because fixing it hurt them more, or atleast forces them to do more work. It return beige to be a punishment as it was interned, instead of goal for alliance to reach.-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Kazlandia said:
Like WHAT THE HECK Is going on???? Raw materials and manufactured goods PRICES ARE GOING CRAZY and literally there were 51 NUKES in the past 24 hours at the time of recording this... PLEASE is there something I'm not getting, a major alliance war or something??? What the actual heck is going on?
Only 51 nukes, a weekend? no wonder food prices have fallen so far down. To answer your question the longest and most devasting war in the games history is currently being fought. We in the 4 months of uninterrupted fighting.
https://politicsandwar.fandom.com/wiki/Global_War_14 -
9 hours ago, AntMan said:
Snip
But your alliance member dosen't need help rebuilding or atleast they will need less help rebuilding. You have the information over what all your members have currently in their warchest, or atleast the majority(thinking of the few that turned it of)
So it shouldn't be hard to adjust for the different. It not like rebuilding is particularly expensive in wartime. So long your members aren't idiots that would rebuild past a 1000 infra.
And if a beiged nation is active, they can still send stuff to the alliance without issue, which you again can regulate, as you can see the ressource your members have in their nation.
If they refuse to hand it over, then cut of aid. It gennerally a sign your members aren't okay with the level you normally tax them at.And it not like it would hurt you wareffort to switch to more Arrgh based model in wartime. We still the alliance with the highest netdamage of all times, with the best individually fighters. We can supstain the wareffort indefinitely, if needed be.
Warfare should be able to produce an income on it own. So long your members is actually using all the warslots they have. And dosen't wait around for the enemy to jump them.
See this as a test of adaptability.A lack of adaptability...is a lack of survivability. Survival is not based on who is the strongest or the smartest. It comes down to who can adapt.
Ps. it is really stupid that you can tax people that is being blockaded.
1 hour ago, Frawley said:The change was a poor fix to a non existent problem.
Oh please NPO is one of the biggest reason why this needed to be implemented, your alliance normally tax inactive nation when they get beiged, at a 100%.
And it not like you can't take the hit economically, having control over the two biggest tax-farms in the game, have given you enough income to fund the war effort of other alliances.-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, CitrusK said:
Look to my previous response.
But he really should update his post to your formate. His front page is what that get looked at first, and if it hard to read, it will not be read by a lot of people.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:
-snip
Funny, is an NPO member seriously accusing others of using drones?
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, AntMan said:
The new patch to fix exploitation of inactive nations for taxation is indeed needed. HOWEVER, the current form isnt the way to go about it.
Currently, ALL beige nations are exempted from paying taxes. However, in reality, this should only affect inactive nations. This can be exploited to mass-beige and cycle-beige alliances to kill off their entire economy. Agreed it will make wars shorter but with malicious alliances hell-bent on killing of their enemies, they can effectively keep the cycle-beiging going on for months.
My suggestion is: Add another condition to the new update so that beige nations INACTIVE FOR X DAYS are exempted from taxes. We can have a discussion on what this X should be. Although generally, it should be a time limit between 14 days to 28 days.
Honestly i can only see this as a direct upgrade. Beige taxing of inactive, have had a huge negative inpact on the income of us raiders.
It not like the money disapear out into the blue, if it is not being taxed. It will stay with your alliance members, and if they active they would still be able to use it as they see fit.
And would be a benefit for their rebuilding and rearming effort. If you decide not to go around demanding your members to hand it over manuelly.
This would just encourage a more active playstyle, and on a leadership level would mean there is more benefit in fighting aggressively, instead of rolling over. It will reward more independent thinking players, and is much needed nerf for alliance run on a plan economy, making other alliance playstyles more viable.
Plus in a case of a mass-beige most alliance should be able to adjust between expenses and income without any problems.
Again the money dosen't disappear.
When it come to cycle-beige, or rather attempts as i should say. As against competent players that is atleast somewhat active, it dosen't work.
I say that a person been dealing with GOONS attempt at doing it to me for the past 3 weeks. So long you able to fight back, you get to a point where they forced to mass beige you. Specially if you start declaring on their weaker members that they so carelessly pushed you in the range of.
Even for worse and less active players there come a point where you score is so low, that the new set trying to cycle-beige, you can beat down with a double buy.
An a cycle-beige, does normally include cycle-blockade aswell, and correct me if i am wrong here, but dosen't a blockade also remove ones ability to pay alliance taxes? I have no experience in dealing in function of alliance taxes, so i might be wrong here. But i would find it weird that the tax man is able to get into your country, but the food to keep your popultion form starving can not.But i seriusly doubt that a cycle-beige would be able to destroy an alliance economy, that have made their precautions. Afterall Arrgh is able to function without alliance taxes and we still maintain a net income. Just lower your alliance expenses accordingly, to your income. Your members should still be generating money.
My main worry for cycle-beige, is the inpact it have psychological on our members, rather then the effect on their economy.-
1
-
1
-
-
Basely what happaned is from 03:15 pm to 03:17 pm, the same nation was able to attack me with 2 airstrikes(8 MAPs) and 2 ground attacks(6 MAPs). How is this possible? -
1 hour ago, Yuno said:
I don't know how this works but I *really* like war and couldn't fathom why anyone would be sick of war.
Please keep fighting XD
This game is already stale enough. Why make it worse by opting out of the war feature?
Peace is overrated; there'a barely anything else in this game; same old *Resources.*
If the game had cuter art, more people would play. Right now the only entertaining feature are the War features (besides trading the same old 12 resources over and over.)
this is my own opinion and I'm sad to hear that some people are actually considering Peace Offers. So, that means no more raids of players in alliances and everyone has to go back to fighting "None" alliances? :<
once you're above a simple city level (like 20,) targets in "no alliance" simply do not exist <.<;;
#rantover
Your problems seem to be more NPO focused, then general focused.
If you believe war is the best thing about the game, then join an raiding alliance, like Arrgh.
There even less extreme raiding alliance out there, that allow raiding of some alliances instead of mostly all, in peace time.This game have other play styles, if you getting bored in NPO then try another alliance(after the war).
It not like we locked down in the first alliance we joined.
Else try an alliance that have less taxes, so you have more economic freedom, that give you another field to play around with.
Or you can try to become part of the goverment of an alliance, and i will guarantee you, that you will have more things to do, then you have time for.-
2
-
1
-
Is the definition for "Using moderation as a weapon" too narrow?
in Moderation Support
Posted
To be fair, your nation name does seem to be have it origin, in a derivation from an alt-right type of memes, that is currently in widespread use, as a respond to increased diversity in popular entertainment, like does brought forth by Netflix.
One of course should get the false impression that you might be using the name for the same derogatory meaning, against people who are homosexual and/or muslim. Thereby you can make a case that you are discriminating against these groups of people, while making fun of them.