Vali
-
Posts
103 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Vali
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Dear fellow leaders,
I have amassed a large amount of troubling evidence that suggest Alex is controlled by NPO
In recent months, Telecommunication providers have increased 5g towers by 10fold, amid a global pandemic.
Everything is shutting down, yet these towers are still going up.
Now, you may ask, what does this have to do with Alex?
As many of you may have noted, Alex has been more active lately, which leads me to question, what is the source of this newfound activity?
I have many friends over at the Congressional Library, and the NSA, and their finds are startling:
NPO has taken this time of absence to conspire with 5G tower manufactures to emit radioactive waves from these towers to influence Alex's decisions. I believe I have found the source of these waves.
I have tracked the waves down to a sweatshop in Wuhan, China, the same one used for Manwha production by IQ
Coincidence? I THINK NOT
Has the coronavirus been used as a cover to convert all of Wuhan into a Manwha production site, a material known to emit the same waves used in the 5G towers?
The gig is up. It is time Orbis confronts this menace to create a better future for our children.
God Bless,
-Q
-
1
-
28
-
1
-
18 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
Unfortunately, your argument is wrong on at least three foundational levels.
First, neither the score formula nor the rebuy rates nor the unlimited cheat resources had or even could have had any effect on the toxicity. That much is inevitable in competitive environments; as long as people hold onto their backwards and utterly immoral mindsets of "winning" and "losing" as things to be achieved at any cost, then no amount of mechanical balancing nor moderation will stop them from being as monstrous and despicable as can possibly be imagined by the most damaged minds mankind has to offer. Whether the mechanical abuse is bending the rules, using poorly balanced mechanics or just flat dishonesty is quite irrelevant and isn't something that we can possibly stop on a mechanical level.
Perhaps more importantly, it was in fact not effective. Many players left... and all of their side did, either entirely turned into pillars of salt as they looked back upon the godforsaken city of theirs burning behind them or simply put themselves into quiet exile, nursing their hatred still. One might be tempted to attribute that state of affairs to the act of god smiting their foul works, but do recall that their GWPC was merely a logical extension of the 'tactics' (I use that word in the most ironic and loosest possible sense) that they had been abusing for over 14 years. Nothing about their specific heresies changed the core reality of their deliberately crafted engine of intolerance, bigotry and hatred, which has failed them time and time again even before they arrived on Orbis at all.
Third, the rebuy rates suggested and tested really are far too much of an overcorrection. Like I pointed out before, on the one hand sure this makes it harder to sit on people... on the other hand, it makes raw wealth and number of nations able to throw into the meatgrinder more important than even militarization itself, to the point that there are legitimate defensive merits to not having military at all.
Consider, if you will, that the main thing limiting IQ's ability to deploy their cheated crap was the score range limitations, the score value and the speed of militarization. With these changes, shit like GWPC and for that matter an IQ style blob could be just plain that much worse, not better.
Your argument is wrong for multiple reasons
1. War is already about wealth and nation count. This does not change that fact. However, it slow a smaller group to win by being very clever. hence, making war less about wealth and numbers and more about skill
2. People keep bringing up how last war is not a good reflection of war in the game. Id agree with that, most wars are dogpiles. You should NOT be penalized as an alliannce for refusing to sign half the game to win. This addresses that. It gives you an alternative of getting really clever at when to rebuy to do the most damage to your enemy, making them more likely to peace with you.
3. There is no way for Alex to combat toxicity with mechanic changes. However, that shouldn't be an excuse to never implement new things into the game like you are trying to make it.
4. At the end of the day, this game is about willpower. If you want to win, you will find a way. If you dont like another "IQ" like group coming to power and policing the world, there's bound to be other people who also dislike them. Form a coalition, take them down. Thats how its always been, remember papers please the test got too strong, knightfall when TKR got too strong, etc. However, Alex shouldn't be used as a weapon to kill good players because the rest are bad at the game. Like, people talk about unfair advantages.
"Using infra is unfair cause it lets people make more money than me"
"using just planes isn't fair cause its too effective"
"guerrilla isn't fair cause its too effective"
Not an argument against Alex rebalancing, however, good players will ALWAYS find the meta before others. Meta shifts are good for game so it doesn't get stale, but dont fault ppl like IQ for figuring out how to tier before the so called "milcom geniuses" did. Its a result of one side having competent milcom
-
1
-
-
I thought after this last war we established there would be no more hegemonies.
-
3
-
-
19 hours ago, Douglas MacArthur said:
I disagree with these changes with regrades to aircraft damage to tanks because if we look at real conflicts such as ww1, ww2 and the iraq war it shows that above all air power was very important and that i believe that this importance should be reflected in the game. Since when have tanks destroyed aircraft in real life?
It’s about balancing the game, not making it similar to real life. Well, for historical reference, one airstrike never killed 18% of a nations tanks. And during war, ground units attack airfields, and blow up planes. Like, not flying planes, ones just sittin there
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:
Minimum is meant so that you can't get cycled in perpetuity due to going broke. It's not meant to give raiders a free pass for their loot.
Production can be taxed 100/100 unless if beiged.Okay. I'll be blunt because apparently what I've said isn't getting through.
You can't fricking pretend that this would've made a god damn difference in a war where the other side was fricking trying to exterminate you. And you can't fricking sustain a trade with a side that was cheating nearly a billion worth of resources per god damn day.
>1/3 was good for perma blockades but actually isn't so it doesn't hurt to add anyways.
Not an argument for adding it.
The rest of what you've said is already done as is, with no infra pads being a thing to keep people in range. I also think that you overestimate the amount that was being looted towards the 2nd half of the war, the odd Polaris bank loot notwithstanding. At any rate, as I said:
Arguing that it'll be the same as current is an argument for the current system, not the one you're arguing for. Since it doesn't make sense to make mechanical changes if an end result is the same. You're just wasting time and effort, and are at risk of implementing bugs.
It doesn't even solve these issues. That you've opted to ignore what I've written, or side step it with unrelated matters, doesn't change that.
The actual answer is that I'd have them not beige, and simply whack a mole their buy attempts until expiry.
well, yes, they were trying to exterminate the game, and sadly, all the good milcom minds were on their side, fighting a horde of cripples, so yea, that was doomed from the start. and cheating is not allowed, so Alex will ban people who cheat. That is irrelevant. Thats like me saying "this wouldn't prevent people from using a glitch to max their planes out whenever." No, it may to have made a difference in the outcome of the war, and neither would the 100 score city change, but your looking at this from a "side vs side" perspective. there's nothing Alex can do to make an incompetent side beat a competent one. However, look at it from a different lens, player vs player. A thing a lot of ppl forget is wars benefit smart players on both sides. this change would help facilitate that. It would allow smart players to win, not necessarily old and big players , but smart, active players., now, what does this do on a bigger scale? well, terms dont mean anything. if your side blows up twice as much stuff, and steals twice as much, you win. no one gets "pinned", but the side that is more competent will be able to work together to pick and chose good battles. now, I admit, the 1/3 wouldn't fully accomplish this vision, but pair it with something like being beiged, you give part of your military capacity to the victor, would cause a meta change, to a more exciting war. It wouldn't be about the numbers or tiering, the victor is determined by who coordinates better, which helps small alliances compete in war.
-
1
-
-
@Sir Scarfalotwell, just my perspective on it. Cities have always been 50 score. Why suddenly reevaluate what they are worth? 1/3 buy has been talked about for some time now, if that is implemented, then yes, cities are more valuable, so score should reflect that. like if you raise city score to 100, and dont make cities more valuable, the entire environment is completely changed.
or like, make the first 15 cities worth less 15+ stays 50. the main goal is to shield 10 cities, who just have planes and 1k infra and soldiers form getting wrecked by 20 cities. that would solve that problem. however, you still have the whole slew of other issues, that can be addressed later, like perma rolling people, which kinda makes war boring for both sides. after week 2 everyone just sits around waiting for big wigs to make peace.
-
permanent blockading is bad cause you cant get any of your raided/ produced resources off your nation.
cant be solved by minimum unlootable refine
um, w 1/3 getting "rolled" is pretty hard unless your incompetent. like, you can mobilize efforts to get back up, really easily actually. because of that, pinning is pointless. so uh, technically both sides would be getting rolled, specifically, the bad players on both sides. it would just be two heavyweights landing punches until they agree to peace.
and yes, exactly, if you dont have resources, it doesn't matter what the buy is. so 1/3 really doest influence that. now, what it does do is put an emphasis on resource management. not burning resources air striking infra, stealing stuff. you run out of resources? raid. if you chose not to, its the same result as it is now. you get rolled till you peace. Does this make resources burn up quicker? sure, but alliances will have to adjust to this. the meta will shift to net damage.
and yes, it is in no way a fix all. it solves these problems, but there are others, like how losing a war is better than winning a war rn. 1/3 would get alliances to place a bigger emphasis on looting, but like you said, they could still beige cycle, but your a milcom guy. how many days could you keep 1000 people perfectly beige cycled before getting burnt out?
-
I mean, all the alliances left participated in varying degrees of slot filling to get back up to fight npo. also, how do we address the issue of permanent blockading. Like, goons Strat killed hundreds of players. players being rolled for months is not good for game retention. Also the issue of having to teach players to not win wars. Also isn't good for retention rate, makes the game a chore. 1/3 rebuys solves all three of these problems. it wouldn't necessarily "force" people to stop beige cycling, but, it shifts the goal of war to net damage, so its more about killing units, stealing stuff, and conserving resources. Which sounds alot more dynamic and promising than the current meta
-
well the current meta established at the end of this war is: slot fill
I don't see how that is a good thing. Alex would have to spend hours to sort through it all, and quite frankly, its really hard to prove, esp now with all the marauding alliances.
So, what do you suggest to end this problem? @Shiho Nishizumi
-
well it limits peoplein war to a certain degree. like, you cant dec on more than 2 people already, esp w this, cause say a 25 city took down two 18 cities, those 18 could double buy too, and slot the 25 city. Really, think of all the situations you can, this doesnt benefit a tier. It benefits good players. This isn't the fix all to the war system no, but it is somewhat balanced. Cities are more useful, their score goes up. a good pair to release together.
war is boring cause you can drag ppl down in one week then you sit around for two months while the big wigs talk it out. This would make war a constant thing, no pinning, just people fighting
-
1
-
-
if a whale double buys, he has no more buy left. it is stupid easy to slot him with 3 15-20 city nations, who do have buys, and completely kill him by update. However, It does make the ppl sitting on them have to work a little harder to keep the whale down. yes, the whale will initially blow up the smaller nation they attacked, but with quick response, that damage is minimal. If your aa is good, the attack will be thwarted. basically it leaves space for the whale to win if the defenders suck, or the defenders to win if they coordinate well. NPO showed us first hand how weak whales really are. basically, in the current meta, 20 city nations are the whales. They can declare on people who cant declare on them, and drag them down 1 by one. This would make that still true, however, it would give whales a chance to drop down and fight back. Again, whoever would coordinate better would win. And this update kinda fixes the beige issue. It turns war from trying to kill the other side, to trying to conserve resources, and steal stuff from the other side. So really, this helps new player growth. Instead of having to sit on people, they will be able to focus on raiding in globals, and just from first hand experience, at 15 cities, with max tanks, you can make 200m a day for the first month of a war. for reference, thats enough to buy like city 25. so, a pack of 15 city nations even, with great coordination could not only beat whales, but raid all their money and use it to become a whale.
Again, under 1/3 buy, its a more chaotic battlefield, and its less about tiering, and more about how you coordinate.
This update does not help old players or whales. It helps smart players. And yea, like Valk said, beige is another big issue, cause having to train players to not win wars hurts retention rate. This kinda solves that, like, making pining players harder, so might as well beige. An additional change would still be needed, perhaps, if you get beiged, you lose x amount of your military production and the winner gains it? And about planes being OP, Alex posted a thread yesterday about ground attacks killing planes, which is realistic for all the history enthusiast, and balanced. basically, in his original post, every immense triumph would kill 5% planes, and if there were 4 or so nations that worked together to beat up the players ground, they could wipe out a HUGE chunk of their planes
-
1
-
3
-
-
friends that would have to decom planes to get in range of city 20s. basically, nothing would be able to be done halfass. 30+ cities would have to all drop at once, while 20 cities would have to all counter to hold back whales. the tiering would be less important than the coordination, cause its really open on who could win.
-
^^. What alot of people are forgetting, is when its 1800 planes vs 2700, the casualty rates really arent that far off. so like, 3 20city vs 1 30 city , the 1/3 gives the 3 20s a huge adv, cause their 1/3 x 3 is greater than the whales 1/3 x 1. Basically, it breeds a war system where coordination is necessary to win. and it makes pinning enemies alot harder, however, uncoordinated efforts to rebuild planes will be a catastrophe. an absolute slaughtering of planes and other assorted units. coordination is king under the 1/3 rebuy
-
4
-
-
the 30 would be a sitting duck. There is a feature called defensive war slots, and you could fill his with 3 counters, all who have their 1/3 buy, while the whale already used his buy on dropping down
-
2
-
-
but, however
2 minutes ago, SixSadistic66 said:It's a war situation I'm talking about:
Well you imagine 3 nations with 30 cities declaring on 3 nations with 15 cities, what would the outcome be? Easy fight
Each of those with 15 nations would be taken down real quick, and being pinned down there and most likely blockaded and zerod - the 3 nations with 30 cities could drop again, and double buy and hit another 2 targets.. You get the point?however, by dropping, they are exposing themselves to counter attacks, if you'd slot them with 17 cities they'd probably be toast.
and your forgetting the 1/3 buy applies to everyone. like, the ones attacked could buy back 400+ planes, while after doing those attacks, the 30 cities would be at 1500 ish, the they could be slotted by other ppl w 1/3 buy and destroyed
-
- Popular Post
raiding is pretty much the only way to catch up besides winning keno or making a huge tax farm aa and embezzling the money. just from my experience with raiding, this is a 50/50 update. if the raider is good and the defender is bad, raider has a huge edge, but, however, this basically makes raiding active nations impossible, as a raider, you are almost always slotted, so the buy doesnt help you that much. Your fighting 8 people who also have improved buys, so no advantage there. This update really helps smart players across different parts of the game. First time in a long time we havent had a "me suck at game, nerf everyone around me" update.
correction: keno has been disabled.
-
8
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
10 bucks Alex doesnt read any of this and implements it regardless.
anywho, what is making you suddenly reevaluate the score of cities? they have the same function they always have had. it would make since to pair this update with a 3 day buy update, cause you are making cities more valuable, so the score should reflect it. Also, like others are saying, just evaluation cities is bad logic. you should look at the whole score formula, and compare cities to planes, and other units, to conceive a fair score.
-
8
-
and to echo Akuryo, fixing beige should be the focus. Imagine how much fun war would be if you didn't have to beige cycle to win the war! Having to teach new players to lose wars really isn't great for the games retention rate, making war less fun and more of a chore. Not to mention the moderation time Alex has to spend finding slot fillers.
-
1
-
-
yea, I dont think the issue is the mechanics or whales down declaring. tbh, any dedicated group of 20 city nations could kill 30+ city ppl. and I like how the current war system rewards good fighters. Like, even if you get taken down, you can still fight back with soldiers and win alot of wars against incompetent people. This is another "I suck at war, so nerf the good players" update. Part of why wars used to end quickly is because everyone knows once it gets down to a soldiers only side vs a maxed plane side, the soldiers only group will do more net damage. This update erases that, allowing groups to pin whole sides of the game more effectively, with no incentive for peace
-
1
-
-
this would be a great project for newer nations who are trying to get off to a good start, that extra slot would give them 20% more raiding income and help them catch up
-
4
-
-
3 minutes ago, Epi said:
We need to get the average player more involved.
possibility a corporate version of baseball? a lot of people like the idea of playing with stocks, running companies, you see it on discord. maybe make in game possibilities to do this, except they would actually have impact on game, instead of being a discord kiosk. It would also allow newer players to grow faster if it was set up well, cause old players dont tend to spend as much time on stuff like baseball, trading etc.
-
1
-
-
What if resource production was like food, and had a radiation factor, maybe not named that, but like as conflicts rise, % of resources made drops, instead of hurting resource production of nations that need the resources to fight. Hurt everyone in the game, making sitting wars out less advantageous, and fighting wars less alliance destroying... Along with this idea:
11 minutes ago, Leo said:Alliances are very one-dimensional.
Alliance Challenges could change that. Random challenges that are assigned to each alliance with a goal to achieve by a specific date/time, e.g: Your alliance challenge is to declare X amount of wars today....something along those lines, with achievements/resources as rewards. With challenges changed daily/weekly/monthly depending on the scale of given challenge.Maybe give certain bonuses for fighting wars, like xp boast to nations who fight a lot, or even just money/resource bonus for hitting certain kills per city goals, further disencentivising sitting wars out
Id also like to add, winning wars should be the goal. It is counter intuitive to have to train players to lose wars, someone should be able to join the game and enjoy winning instead of having to lose "cause milcom said so" Plus, it makes the game less of a chore for gov leaders organizing war efforts.
-
On the topic of soldiers, if you attack 400k vs 150k, you do not kill that many soldiers, but if you get airstuke, they all die. Maybe balance this better, or like, I saw people suggesting different tactics for units, maybe make spreading out forces to lower airstrike damage a tactic. Cause really, units being able to fight back is irrelevant, cause by the time they are airstriking your units it’s gg.
-
1
-
-
The best times have been when no one knows whats gonna happen next. Hopefully players are brave enough to do the unexpected and push the boundaries on what is possible.
-
1
-
2
-
Alliaces harboring cheaters
in Alliance Affairs
Posted · Edited by Di Vali
Alex will not get rid the wide spread cheaters in this game. As a community, we need to band together to draw a line in the sand. This is our community, instead of moaning about Alex not doing anything, how about we actually do something about it?
Embargo every nation/ alliance that is harboring the cheaters
As a person in a position of power, refuse to work with alliances harboring known cheaters
Its not like this is a false accusation at this point. We know who they are.
If we allow cheaters to get away scot free, what kind of precedent does that set for the future?
Pledging to never ever be a cheater is not the same as actively hunting down cheaters.
Do your part to take down the cheating establishments in this game, every act of protest is advancing the cause of making politics and war cheater free