Jump to content

Unknown Smurf

Banned
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,022

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Unknown Smurf

  1. Malik Shabazz

    Posted

    If this is regarding the conversation on IRC about healthcare (pills for "fake" diseases) I just want to say that I was just ..being me. I do not actually believe depression (or whatever other things I listed as things people take pills for-- I think I said anxiety too? But can't remember and it was on my work comp) is not a real thing people suffer from.

    I just believe that people are overmedicated.

  3. Keelah

    Posted

    3081 tech of 15480 tech received by Cuba in the last year according to Lyricaz is from nations that have been deleted. They could've been deleted for other reasons though.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11Q729TWET6gnOrw0WRfSbq08bZBUViJuYHzZ7Tb6T6k/edit#gid=0

    Lyricaz also only has him receiving 15,480 tech for the year, which seems low though. Idk.

    Looks to me like the person who said Cuba received illegal tech just made that up.

  5. Keelah

    Posted

    1. You say that the top cheater guy gained 24,5k tech in a year by multies alone. With perfect slot effiency you can get 36x600=21600 tech in a year. If you are right that someone gained 24,5k tech in a year by aid, then you have bigger problems than multies, if not then your calculations are wrong.

    I agree with your point but not your logic... You are using 36 because it is 365 per 10 days, but if you start on the 1st of the year, you get 37 cycles of incoming tech (last cycle is only the last 5 days of the year but lyricaz records at the send, not the expiration of aid slot).

    - Pink received the +1 slot 3 times this year.

    - Using similar logic to the 37 cycles, in a +1 slot event one could get +4 aid offers per event => 400t.*

    Still 37 cycles * 600 tech/cycle + 400t/event * 3events

    This still would leave the ABSOLUTE maximum at 23,400 tech.

    The only explanation of the 25.4k tech number would be if it included other sources of tech. This could be the 720 tech (60tech/$30 donation * 12 donations a year), 100t / referral, raids etc.

    * = your refute would be that once the event starts you get that 7th slot, so it'd be impossible for you to get 4 7 slot offers in because your 7th slot started on the 1st day would expire on the 31st, which seems to be sound logic however the way the 7th slot is coded is that it allows for 7 slots total at any given time, so if you have full 6 slots and then get that event, you could hypothetically use your next expiring slot as a 7th slot during the last week of the month.

  6. Keelah

    Posted

    Here's some fun numbers to look at:

    The multis deleted in a sample period of one year sent out tech resulting in 364 nations receiving more than 1,000 tech each from those multis alone.

    In the same time period of that aid being sent, there were 116,644 nations total that received aid.

    The top 10 nations who received tech from that sample group of multis, received a combined 144,401 multi tech. The #1 having received 24,501 tech from multis.

    Heres something fun to look at: That nation hasn't had any tech removed.

  16. YOLO SWAG

    Posted

    My point still stands. Did DBDC attack SPATR after SPATR raided WAPA?

    Yes.

    What happened is actually very simple. CubaQuerida declared war on my nation and launched destructive attacks. At the moment of the attack I was on DBDC AA, but I was still a member of SPATR (for about one year already). Cuba had his reasons when attacking me, as he promised to defend an alliance of WAPA (not to mention his land holdings increased by about 3k land at my expense). However we (SPATR) are of the opinion that ally should not attack ally. Period. Thus the attack gave rise to treaty dissolution.

    No. Firstly he wasn't an ally, he was a DOOMBIRD at the time he attacked WAPA. Secondly, we had literally JUST stated to our own allies that we were sorry for having hit WAPA not days/weeks before and we would personally nuke the next person to try. Just so happens it transpired within days of that statement. So yes, it was a harsh disciplining, but the conventional attacks sufficed and we didn't end up nuking.

    Also as to the italicized part.. isn't DBDC all about dual memberships? I guess maybe I should be asking someone else.

  18. YOLO SWAG

    Posted

    That would be why I see you as attempting to manipulate them. As for the rest, I can't verify or refute that, but that seems exceptionally convenient given the circumstances.

    I didn't say that they were in NEWs sniper scope.. that is GantanX. And he has been extremely inactive. (His nation is in inactivity mode even atm).. he was saying we should warn NEW that DBDC might hit them because of the NEW/SP&TR treaty... but as I said above, NEW was already 100% in the loop prior to this post on our FB group even being made.

    Based on the way you're speaking it seems as though you only have the comments on that thread. Not the OP, which should help. http://imgur.com/lyim6Z5

    By reading that alone, it confirms what I said above. Look at the tone. This is aimed at catching up inactives, not actual strategizing.

    Note that it says "BONES reckons we're next and I agree.." Again it's not me initiating anything, just reactionary. For the record I don't think Bones or SP&TR was planning on fighting DBDC/ever was. Again it was reactionary to DBDC hitting THEM.

    Note the date also. That is when DBDC hit SP&TR for the WAPA stuff.

    All of this is just people overreacting. The BIGGEST of whom is DBDC attacking their ALLY SP&TR after they raided WAPA. You getting mad at me for potentially planning getting our ally to hit our NAP partner (which didn't happen -- at least not in the way you've been implying it for the past monthes/DBDCs spin of it) and not getting on DBDC for that is extremely hypocritical. Now I dunno about these DNR lists and whatever but it's definitely been violated before... and the nations were never attacked the way SP&TR was.

  20. YOLO SWAG

    Posted

    That still doesn't change the fact you intended to isolate your own ally to hit your NAP partner.

    Hell, hitting the NAP partner would be reasonable, in that scenario.

    But attempting to manipulate your own ally and force them to isolate themselves, rather than just explain the situation straight up? That's just sad/pathetic

    Why do you believe I attempted to manipulate anyone? I've always been 100% open with NEW. When I set up the treaty between them and SP&TR they were completely aware it was incase of a potential hit by DBDC. The communications between SRA/Kaskus/NEW/(and the majority of)SP&TR is unparalleled across Bob afaik. We know exactly what everyone else is doing and planning to do (in the realm of CN) at any given moment.

    The stuff that stonewall posted from our facebook group wall is only for the very inactive players... like most alliances our most active guys communicate via more secure means (text/fb messenger/skype)... I'm not sure exactly what was "leaked" but you should read it through that lens I reckon. Things like the FEAR/WP merger attest to this.

    These convos are more about catching people up to the decision that the active players agreed upon and the logic rather than going into every detail.

  21. YOLO SWAG

    Posted

    (Smurf) What do you think of putting SP&TRs entire upper tier on the NEW AA? I don’t think DBDC will attack until they rebuild from the WTF war so we have like 3 months… and they won't attack NEW because of the FTW (FEAR/WP merged) treaty..
    15 hrs · Like
    (Person) I am aware..
    But i think we need to sound to new that they are also in dbdc's sniper scope..
    14 hrs · Like
    (Smurf) III%, FAN and NEW probably ..maybe could get the others DBDC has raided. We would need FTW to come with NEW.
    12 hrs · Like
    (Person) They can be beat. Hitting them with WTF, NEW, SPATR, KASKUS, etc... they couldn't hold up.
    1 hr · Like
    (Person) They would have allies join. Its never one.
    1 hr · Like
    (Smurf) With FEAR we'd mathematically have the advantagem
    56 mins · Like
    (Person) And we are friends with FEAR and so is NEW so they won't attack.

    Yeah. That whole conversation is in response to Bones telling me that HE BELIEVED that DBDC was going to attack HIM/SP&TR.

    Which everyone conveniently ignored because omgomgomg it had bones' name in it.

  22. YOLO SWAG

    Posted

    Okay, so clearly you're retarded, Smurf, so let me break down the statistics for you.
    830,484.25 dealt by DS vs 531,059.67 dealt by Invicta
    DS 877,005.84 overall damage taken vs 1,916,867.18 dealt
    482,370.73 taken by Kaskus vs 662,738.92 dealt by Kaskus
    So we took double the damage, but tripled the damage dealt.

    I'll admit my previous statement about invicta was based on wrong information. I went to RIA warstats http://rialliance.net/warstats.php and did a ctrl+f on invicta and used the numbers that came up first. Namely 254k by DS and 348k by Invicta. I didn't realize that was just their declarations on you. Meant to get the number totals at the bottom. My mistake.

    P.S. I'm not sure why you've got kaskus in there, that was after a war if you remember if you're trying to compare your numbers to ours.

    Clearly Kaskus needs to put a tighter leash on you so you can stop emberassing them, especially considering you actively plotting to isolate your own allies(NEW) to attack a NAP partner(DBDC)

    You're so paranoid its hilarious. We've never discussed having NEW hit DBDC (except in retaliation to attacks by DBDC ON SP&TR, NEWs ally). I believe that you are trying to say that I'm doing this so you have an excuse to hit NEW later. Or maybe I'm giving you too much credit. Perhaps others in DBDC have convinced you of this so that they can hit NEW later and you are no more than their ...pawn.

    There is no leash on me. Kaskus and I are completely on the same page, always. If I wanted to be president I would be.

    Ontop of the fact that the only war that made sense was the one that occured, unless we intended to just sit by and let a war not happen this year, which would be absurd.
    Absurd indeed. I'm glad you took the burden of the entire world on your shoulders. We're all in your debt forevermore. I have no issue with the war itself -- your delusion about DBDCs involvement is hilarious though. If you had every treaty you have minus DBDC you would never have been able to pull that war off.
    It wasn't DBDC's political clout that made the war possible, it was our position in the treaty web ontop of the usual war boner.
    I said DBDCs political clout/the threat of DBDC made you victorious in the last war; not that they made the war happen. Do you understand the distinction?
    Try harder son.

    Doom Squad: Independent woman who don't need no DBDC

  23. YOLO SWAG

    Posted

    Because we needed DBDC during the last global war.

    Oh wait, that's right, we didn't.

    Are you that deluded or do you think we're that dumb?

    Without DBDCs political pull you never would have been able to pull something like that off. Invicta wrecked y'all and if it wasn't for half the world being scared of DBDC you and your allies would be the ones coming off a loss right now.

    And before you go cry omg smurf hates us etc. etc. I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with you being a DBDC vassal state but pretending you're not is ridiculous. The only reason you're insulted is because it's true/I'm not saying it nicely.

×
×
  • Create New...