Salt Meat
-
Posts
214 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Salt Meat
-
-
8 hours ago, Etatsorp said:
I'm not so sure it's that dumb. IMO wars cost a lot of money, especially when you keep buying your way out of trouble. As an aside I wonder if you've had any dealings with loan sharks? Anyway, imo net damage, though not the whole picture, can provide a useful yard-stick to measure relative cost. For instance, of the 7000+ attacks made against TKR you've managed a whopping great $118 mil net damage! I do indeed recognize you as a high performing military alliance (for sure you are doing well against an opponent already outnumbered and militarily depleted), though how your exceptional abilities will translate to long term economic management remains to be seen. Love your work guys, and spare me your notoriously humble responses!!
Did you just completely ignore what I posted?
You're not going to have much net damage against an alliance like TKR that's already bloodied and beaten down. There's nothing left to "damage", you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.
The difference, as I already said, is that we can afford to maintain it. We're generating income at near peace time levels and continuing to grow our nations, while our opponents aren't.
So yes, net damage is a dumb way for a nation reduced to glass to claim they're "winning", just because they're so destroyed that the opponent is spending more on keeping you down than what your nation is worth.
-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
-
5
-
2
-
2
-
Net damage is a dumb thing to measure anything by.
Fighting hollowed out shells of nations with 5-10 more cities than you is going to almost always be a net loss, especially if you're counting resources spent doing so as "damage" for the opponent. You can't come out ahead on net damage when there's nothing there to destroy.
The real value is in the opportunity cost. Sure, they come out ahead when you twist the stats to show we're spending more to maintain the war than what's available to destroy, but the difference is that we're able to sit here at normal infra levels generating income and building up nearly at peace time levels, while the 20 city, 0 infra nations just sit there being paperweights generating nothing but dust.
-
1
-
3
-
-
15 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
Right, he "works to maintain it", when right above you he declares that he in fact does not, on account of not having time to do that. Which is absolutely the only reason why he's not bothering to accurately represent who's on whose side, and it surely has noooothing to do with attempting to downplay IQ's self-cannibalism. Absolutely. /s
Furthermore, lest we forget, bank looting was not counted for a LONG time. And what caused that to change? Acadia looting a bank. I submit to you that Frawley would never have "fixed" that "glitch" if the loot gap hadn't gotten at least that much smaller.
That said, I mostly accuse Frawley of being dishonest with the stats on account of him refusing to address his "workload" by the simple expedient of Github. Literally the only thing validating his stats is NPO's word, and anything said by IQ automatically casts doubt on the statement's validity. If I looked at a clock, I'd know what time it is, but if an IQ member read the same clock then I'd have to find another clock to double-check.
So, yeah, I absolutely disrespect you and your trash 'community'. Shame on you for being a part of it.
The problem is that this new site became the "standard" because of its supposed reliability and apolitical accuracy. I was all for it, and very thankful when it first came out, and for the longest time I absolutely believed that Frawley genuinely was willing and able to set aside all political drama in favor of mathematical fact. Sadly, that was apparently an error in judgement. Mistakes happen, yes. Those have indeed happened in the past, and for the record no mistakes have ever cast doubt on the integrity of the stats site. What has cast doubt on the integrity of the stats site is, as stated above:A. The extreme dishonesty from IQ of late, but mostly NPO itself,
B. The extremely convenient timing of the bank loot 'glitch' being 'fixed',
C. Frawley's either inability or refusal to accurately list the sides of the war, citing...
D. The incredibly convenient excuse of "being busy at work", while refusing to address that problem and simultaneously solve all prior problems with the obvious solution.Each of which are CHOICES, deliberately made. The solutions exist, but have been chosen to not be used.
I'd much rather have a clusterfrick of competing standards then one insufficient, abuseable, private, intrinsically 'trusted' yet unverifiable standard.
Maybe stop being a whiny leech then and make your own??
You don't need to use his stats, yet you seem to be obsessed with them.
Maybe a little less time playing forum detective and a little more time doing something useful for the community yourself?
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Buorhann said:
No one in their right mind would have their members do spy ops when 1) They’re newly established or 2) They do it on alliances in the middle of a major war.
Thats just stupid, and the fact one of the justifications used was “We’re a raiding alliance”, well...
But that's the thing though. Nobody "had" anybody do anything.
Yes, we are a raiding alliance. Newbies are not only allowed, but encouraged to raid.
They're told to only target inactive, small, or unconnected nations and alliances. Sometimes they screw up and target someone they're not supposed to. When that happens, our government deals with it and makes amends.
Most are happy with an apology and/or reparations, others apparently decide to drag us into a global war and cause billions in damage to their allies.
-
3
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Alex said:
And it's only on Naval Battles?
Correct.
-
16 minutes ago, Etatsorp said:
I think you'll find our point is embedded in your post. You require our surrender as a token of our intent to peace, but lets be clear about what this token implies, it is trust. If it is our trust you seek, then you must earn it. If you are not interested in our trust, then I suggest you reconsider your approach to seeking peace as this way hasn't and most probably won't work for you. You have of course made a rod for your own back with this one.....
If our leadership do trust you, then there are presumably other reasons to refuse this precondition. In this case the argument can be made that despite your claim to victory, we have our own notion of victory (which I might add really isn't subject to your approval, but would ordinarily be up for discussion), or some other ideal ending to this war. For what it's worth, the only way to reach an agreement in this instance is to engage in a no bs chat with our leaders, which has yet to occur. That it hasn't occurred speaks more of your own motivations and/or the absence of our trust in you (I'll refer you to my first point).
On a final note, this is not a shitpost trying to trigger your latent AVM to rupture, it is but my point of view (not necessarily that of my government before you rush off and start adjusting your secret terms), and hopefully for you an insight into how many of the TKR rank and file perceive you and your terms, and why you won't break us.
You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar my friend!! Be nice and make progress ?
There's no trust required. Nobody is asking you to take any sort of leap of faith.
The coalition leadership just wants you to admit that you've lost.
There's been a lot of talk from your coalition about winning the war, even in your own post. That's not something I'm here to take away from you. It's fine, if you think you're winning, more power to you.
But that's the rub. They don't want to negotiate terms until you no longer believe you're winning, because they believe they've won, and that you've lost.
Legitimately all that they want is your coalition to come to them and say, "Alright, you win. Let's talk peace."
That's it. No unconditional surrender, no blind trust, just acknowledging that you've lost, be it now or however long it takes for you to believe that you have.
-
1
-
-
I'm also getting this error very frequently when attempting to do a naval attack, and only on naval attacks.
It's just the error showing up though. Doesn't affect anything or prevent me from attacking, it's just there.
-
1 hour ago, Deulos said:
What about there are over three billion people in the world and someone other than me knows how to code, dunce.
That's cool. Stop complaining about the community contributions of someone else then and put your 3 billion people to work making your new unbiased stats site.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Deulos said:
Facts are facts, and you may have underestimated some of the other people abilities in the game. Frawley and Comrads LLC aren't the only ones that know how to code in the entire universe?.
such a small mind
Cool, do it then.
Or would you rather sit here and whine about biased stats.
Maybe you'd prefer the term lazy then, rather than incompetent?
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:
Stop being so ironic about this.
I'm trying! It doesn't help that apparently the meaning of the word has changed!
Is he trying to say I'm bad at programming?
Is it a cry for help? Does he need someone to set the time on his microwave?
The world may never know.
-
2 hours ago, Rygus said:
I don't find "surrender first and find out" reasonable at all to be fair.
Hoo boy, well have I got some good news for you!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, San Fortunado said:
Here we have a GOONS member in its natural state, failing to see the irony in its own statements.
Is this supposed to make sense or something? Are you just quoting random Goons and calling whatever they say ironic?
-
If you feel like Frawley's stats are biased or inaccurate, you are more than welcome to create your own database.
Though I doubt most of the complainers are competent enough to program the time on a microwave.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
If you'd rather end the war, then we're coming out ahead since we'd rather not end the war. You're not getting what you want while we are getting what we want, and that's what I'd call a victory in my book.
Why ask for peace terms then if you don't want to end the war?
It's really starting to get mesmerizing.
"We want peace terms offered to us...but we don't want to end the war"
"We won't admit defeat until we see all the terms... Also we're winning"
-
1 minute ago, CandyShi said:
I’m pretty sure someone born 3 days ago knows that someone claiming to “loot and pillage to build my nation”, yet doesn’t loot or pillage or build his nation is just being told to say that.
We're not that organized. We're more like a pack of rabid dogs let loose on the forums posting whatever we can to give our leadership headaches.
-
24 minutes ago, CandyShi said:
Big talk coming from someone who either rerolled (making your point irrelevant) or joined 3 days ago (so you would know nothing about the war except what your alliance told you, proving my earlier point entirely).
I'm fairly certain someone born 3 days ago would know enough to understand the peace process being presented to you.
-
1
-
-
I find I'm less attentive to my resource levels when on mobile with the new layout, and it's somewhat annoying to have an extra click to check(It sounds trivial but in game design the amount of clicks to do something is actually a major focus and something that you try to keep as low as possible at all times).
But that said, it certainly looks better, and I'm sure I'll adjust to it with time.
-
Sleep well, friends.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Buorhann said:
Please explain how we lost again?
Well I mean this is the crux of the whole peace issue right here.
You don't think you've lost, and that's fine, but the coalition doesn't want to discuss terms with you until you have "lost", in whatever way you choose to define it.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Buorhann said:
This is false, there was a pretty big change in maintaining one of the advantages we have.
What advantage is there though?
The only difference I can see between preemptively bringing us in and us hypothetically entering ourselves is the mass spy killing campaign against us before we started combat, and considering most of our nations weren't old enough to even be at half capacity yet, it didn't really make a difference.
As someone who had mine killed, the end result is someone once or twice a day blowing up 5-10 of my planes.
Not really an advantage worth dragging in a potentially neutral alliance over.
And on the other hand, you've allowed an alliance of 100+ new nations on "the other side" to gain valuable combat experience in a winning war where the stakes are low and mistakes can be easily learned from without much consequences.
-
31 minutes ago, Buorhann said:
As we had discussed, you admitted you could see our perspective and I admitted I could see yours. Doesn't mean either of us was right, or wrong, since there's a lot of unknowns. Don't know who you are, so why would your word be taken?
I don't see why you wouldn't take it.
There was absolutely no strategic advantage to dragging GOONS in against your allies.
There were 2 possible scenarios.
A. We were lying, and planning to enter the war against you, in which case you changed absolutely nothing by dragging us in early.
B. We were telling the truth, and did not intend to get involved, in which case you've caused a ton of extra damage against your allies for no reason whatsoever.
-
1
-
-
Drunken radio, the cause of, and solution to, all our problems.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Michaellaneous said:
shut up gon trash grrrrr
GOONS:
Garbage, Outdated, Offal, Necrotic Swill
-
1
-
[MULTIPLE] GOONS On Vacation
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
"Winning" seemed to be a common thought amongst your coalition, based primarily on stats such as the ones you brought up, like net damage. If that's not your own view, perfect. I'm just explaining why net damage is not a good indicator of how the war is going.
I'm not touting any sort of great military prowess. I know full well that TKR had already been through months of war before we even existed, and you can thank your friends in TGH that we're even involved in this war, but we were given a strategic task to perform, and I'm confident in saying we've done it well.