Nick GhostWolf
-
Posts
767 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Nick GhostWolf
-
-
Which was a surprising choice. I mean, I liked Eurasia.
EDIT: I like Eurasia, for it exists; it has always existed....they were easy XP...
EDIT... are easy XP. transcendental existence. and stuff.
-
Oh right. That was us.
[spoiler]
[/spoiler]We are allies with Eurasia. We have always been allies with Eurasia.... er, wait.
We are part of Defcon 1. We have always been part of Defcon 1.Wait, that's not it.
Eurasia does not exist. Eurasia has never existed.No... One more time:
Eurasia exists. Eurasia has always existed.
Also,
Eurasia has not signed on to the gentlemen's agreement. Eurasia has never been part of the gentlemen's agreement.
Am I getting good at this Big Brother thing?
For any practical purpose, Eurasia doesn't exist. Most of you absorbed into D1, we all know that.
-
Roman Empire has always followed the unknown gentlemen's agreement in good faith. It's why we admire alliances like Defcon, where Cowboy has fought endlessly to ensure that our planet steve is a safe-haven for fun and activity.
Of course there are other alliances out there like TDO (cough cough Cazaric) who do not view the gentlemen's agreement as a neccessary step to maintain a fun and active field for all participants.
And while RE is not the 'moral police'... by any stretch, we hope that other alliances will follow suit on a convention that has been abused in the past rounds.
Here are a couple of golden agreements I would like to highlight:
1) No Down declares the first 30 days. Down declare meaning,NMT 80% less than your NS.
2) No nukes the first 30 days... back a few rounds ago, TDO pulled a fast one on D1 and RE and bought nukes day 1 and we had to push through the round. dirty bastards.
3) No picking on Misfits
4) Do not abuse the privilege (krabz, although you're not here this round).
5) Alliance wars should be fought based on AA NS and history. For example, Citidale, find new targets outside of a tag team on OP/misfits or your NLoN war.
6) Always keeps a warchest. Not just for defense, but because it's fun when your opponents fight back.
7) no join-or-die accords (atlas did this a few rounds ago, it didn't work out)
8) no dirty spy ops... or blockades
9) It's OKAY to haze Cazaric, he's been the poster child for dirty/unfair war fair.
10) idolize Cowboy for sticking up for your rights as a nation.
11) if the Nighmare movement ever come back to planet steve, it is okay to gang up on them as a world unity exercise.
1, how about no downdeclares?
2. i will buy my nukes whenever the fuck i want.
3. i don't think this will be a problem this round, seeing as the reason Misfits was always getting smashed (kaboom), is no longer their leader. i for one am glad to see the regime change, it's long overdue.
4. "abuse the privilege"? could you elaborate?
5. as per the NDO charter, "we roll who we want, when we want". we try to keep it fair.
6. great rule. it would be nice if people followed it.
7. don't think we're gonna have a problem here
8. this rule is going to get broken immediately and we'll have the customary 5-6 threads of bitching about it that we always do, it's like a TE tradition at this point. i don't like dirty spyops or blockades, and i don't use them unless in retaliation.
9. Cazaric's cool. after reading this rule, i started seeing your thread as a troll thread.
10. Cowboy's cool. but, no, he's not going to be idolized.
11. Planet Steve's low population seems to preclude this.
-
Longer than I'll ever admit to any woman I'm considering dating.
-
Funny story, this last round I found a nation called "United States" and thought to myself, yay! unaligned and ripe for raiding! Then I caught myself because I had 65k NS and they had like 200 NS. That's what happens when the ruler is Bernie Sanders. I should've gotten a screenshot.
-
As a reminder this is an in-character forum, so there are no nations called Russia or United States. OOC tags would need to be used in this situation as long as the whole paragraph didn't contain all OOC stuff.
<ooc?>Really? I've fought nations called either United States or Russia probably five times since round 25 Gotta admit, the political irony of a Corporation named after a cat dominating a nation with such a namesake. I was trying to avoid self-promotion of my own wars to not seem braggy. This whole topic is very meta-game and the line between ooc and ic has been blurry the whole time.<ooc?
-
I don't see any reason for that. you would still technically have to disable xp when fighting friends.
it really just depends on what the awards are given for as to what is scrutinised.
there shouldn't really ever be a need to fight alliance mates as there will almost certainly remain an alliance award that you could abuse by fighting eachother. think of the other previous awards like infra destroyed. I'd still question your strategy if you thought this was a sound idea. the reality is you can do more together.
I think keelah has kind of cleaned it up. slot filling is the primary enemy. and xp does not have to be disabled in end of round. that doesn't necessarily mean you can fight inter AA end of round if it could be perceived as attempting to win an award perversely.
also. can we please stop saying alliance casualties. it is soldiers killed. there is a huge difference."If it could be percieved". The devil is in the details there, Stevie - and in giving people ideas using your posts. Let's do a thought experiment, in TE mechanics. Say the United States and Russia are the biggest nations in an alliance. They decide to have an end-round infra fire sale involving nuclear weapons. A pariah state that wants some attention like North Korea can then accuse both nations of casualty farming, since they have enormous amounts of infrastructure, and enormous amounts of infrastructure results in a proportionally higher casualty count. You'd only really need two or three pairs of enormous nations (>6k infra) going at it to produce a net gain of over a million casualties - and every single one of those casualties would be recorded as a soldier killed as both are in the same alliance.
That brings the draconian solution of introducing an optional "casualties disabled" checkbox with a game rule mandate for use in intra-aliance wars to the table. This could be used for denial of casualties during legitimate alliance wars, and I can see that going a million different abusive directions right off the bat as an elitist-favoring "bet-hedger" for flag runner alliances, with no utilty to alliances not in it to flag-run. So what do we do then? Change the game mechanics to not record intra-alliance casualties? That would be outright paranoia.
-
With kaboom out for a couple of rounds, I will be running the Misfits, with the help of all our membership, until he returns.
We are looking to bolster our ranks, so if you are new, inexperienced or experienced you will be welcome to join.
Team colour will be black, TC's will be completed for every member by myself(so no changing resources until told to) and guides will also be given on a daily basis for the first 2 collections. As well as guides for building your army/navy/airforce
Our members actively use our announcement board and will help wherever it is needed,so you will always have help building and fighting.I'm actually excited to see how Misfits does this round. Good luck guys.
-
Is there an award that land raiding would cause a win in an award category?
If not, that would be an exception to "no attacking same alliance nations."
TE is indeed a different beast in which attempts need to be made where winning an award is done by loophole is blocked as much as possible for fair game play. It is one of the reasons TE still only allows one nation per IP where SE allows multiple players from one IP.There is a "Most Land" flag, and it seems theoretically possible to raid your way to that flag although you'd still need to work for it. In order to get that amount of land only through warfare a nation would need a huge warchest, a willingness to take risky fights (unaligned nations/micros are almost unheard of in the high NS tiers), and most likely a WRC to loot large amounts of land. Even then, it's not a guarantee. I would say that raiding for that using intra-alliance warfare would be inappropriate, but going outside one's own alliance to raid for land would be quite fair. That actually seems like the hardest way to go about that...
-
I hope some of you guys decide to continue in TE. You've left an indelible mark and set the standard by which greatness is judged here. I don't think anyone could fill your shoes. You'll be missed. If you guys ever are on IRC look me up. You know where to find me :)
-
I completely disagree here. My favourite part of the endround is fighting my friends, because the war is nothing but a test of strength, and amusing for all. I know the Krabz guys are the same, as they enjoy hitting each other. Being in an alliance with someone means you're not going to be fighting them during the middle of the round. The endround is a chance to change that.
When I declare on a friend at the end, my intentions are not to break the rules. It's to have fun with my friends.
That's a fair point. Perhaps we could do a moratorium on intra-alliance wars, period, until 1 week before the end of the round.
-
Some SE alliances do attempt rounds to teach warring to newbies or people not fine tuned on game mechanics, like me. They would just have to ensure to separate between multiple alliance groupings or stay on none?
I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for NDO. NDO takes on people who want to learn (as I think most alliances do); we usually aim for a full-contact war with another AA (either offensive or defensive in nature) before the nukes start falling to get people oriented to the war aspect and to get some initial XP. People who set their alliance affiliation to "None" are universally raided. Last round, NDO found out the hard way that even dividing off a "noob AA" will still result in their being raided, as too few people read the OWF to know that despite the differing AA they were still considered full members of NDO. It'd be impossible for an alliance to prevent raids on members temporarily on "None" or in a micro-sized training AA; this makes these strategies impractical and thus they're rarely attempted.
-
Intra-alliance wars only have rule-breaking purposes. Otherwise, all an intra-alliance war does it needlessly burn warchest and NS. We may as well simply block intra-alliance wars from occurring, and have the game administration take people who leave their AA and declare wars on former alliance mates on a case-by-case basis.
-
This seems to be going towards "wars between alliance members are bad no matter what". If you're not XP farming, you're casualty farming. If you're not casualty farming, you're filling war slots. Those are the only reasons to go to war within your own alliance that actually benefit the nations involved (outside of that, it's basically just burning NS for no reason). Since all the reasons for intra-alliance wars seem to be in violation of the rules, we may as well just ban intra-alliance wars totally. Which I would go along with, it does make sense.
-
That would be a great suggestion for the TE suggestion forum, and very goood idea.
I think this would still be exploitable; all that would need to happen is that one alliance member breaks off and forms a one-person micro. It would have to be watched very closely. One way to do this would be for the entire state of TE be saved as a snapshot each day, although this would result in more server strain.
-
The guns have fallen silent on the battlefield.
After many rounds of being one of the pillars of TE, The Phoenix Cobras are announcing that after a glorious day, the sun has set on our time in TE.
All great empires must come to an end. We hold our heads up high as we all lay down our arms and retire to our individual kingdoms.
As many of you know, TPC has been around for years. We have seen the highest of the highs, and achieved things that were rarely rivaled in the game. Even until the end, we had the greatest concentration of elite fighters and builders in TE. With TE fading, we decided that it was time to undertake an honorable exit.
To our friends--you were always there for us and we are grateful for your support and wisdom during the darkest days.
To our enemies--thank you. It was you who pushed us to greater heights, and taught us what it meant to lead in an unstable world.
There are more TPC members than I can count who should be recognized for what we built together, but here are a few.
Dogbite
Burning Glory
Bibliotech
Dealmaster
Jonboy
Wired
E
Rock n Rolla
Rambozo
CDS
Hagdang Bato
Utown
I am proud of who we are and what we did.
o/
Congrats on a good round, TPC!
Did you manage to get the record books for this round before it ended? I'd like to see how everyone made out, which records were shattered (I'm looking at you, StevieG, and your insane casualty count)
-
I play TE, but don't know the answer to this so help me.
Does XP carry over from round to round?
And does this type of internal alliance warring help to achieve one of the awards?
If it helps in any way to get an award, the current rule that has always been will have to stay, since the point is attempting to win the award by using a loophole in the system.There are no awards for having the most XP. And no, XP doesn't carry over. Most of the time, by the end of the round, everyone's already got plenty of XP. Disabling XP for "war games" isn't going to stop anyone from achieving an award based on "Most Alliance Casualties", which is an awardable category. Furthermore because everyone's in the middle of nuclear wars, econ benefits from XP don't even matter due to the massive economic penalty from nuclear anarchy.
If you replace the word "XP farming" with "Casualty farming" then everything you just said makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't. Not trying to be a poophead here, but when I see stuff that makes zero sense I call it. Even for you, Keelah.
-
NDO joins in the chaos. Everything must burn!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xaZNZPSjXg
-
You're trying to make this about your alliance, it is not, it is about you and methrage specifically. You know this, and no amount of spin you attempt to put on my words is going to change the fact you're going to continue to make the situation worse for yourself so long as you continue to believe that you are not one of the problems here.
Arguing with him is like playing chess with a pigeon, etc etc you know the rest of the comparison.
In all seriousness though, this would certainly invigorate the mostly mothballed team color politics on planet bob.
-
Exactly military use is suppose to affect economy. There should be nothing off the table as far as options in war.
If that's how you want to do things then that's how you'll do them. Just understand that there may be consequences for it that you don't like. There are many, many people who are perfectly fine hitting you until you start squealing about how it's "unfair you're getting attacked all the time". That's the ironic part of choosing to use dirty spyops, those who do invariably get all huffy and mad when they're subjected to dirty tactics in retaliation.
-
Good luck to all involved and enjoy the bloodshed and senseless nuclear slaughter!
-
seconding StevieG's re-suggestion.
Five day cooldown would sync up really well with the wonder-clock driven rhythm of the game.
-
can only receive aid of you have less than X amount of cash. let's say 5 mil. AND have less than your peak infra. perhaps a percentage of your peak infra. but Id still like to see a nation who can maybe hit 80 percent still able to get that hand up.
if you have less than 5 mil you can be aided another 5 mil. that gives a bill locked or broke nation a chance at getting back in the game. or even a nation who can't quite fully rebuild after a hard fought war.
along with ns criteria and nation age criteria the numbers etc can be tweaked etc. foreign ministry fac etc can come in to play if you like to offer more or 1 extra slot.
obviously start up cash from round to round can vary what the numbers should be.
there is easily a way to allow this without it being able to be abused or used for other than the intended purpose
with 25mil as it is. 5 mil seems to me a decent aid threshold as well as aid amount.i'm thinking rather than block nations who aren't at peak infra and anyone with more than 5 mil, we stick with a wait time, a wonder requirement, and a "lower NS requirement". with a limited number of slots (say maybe, 3 total) and a sufficiently low aid limit, you COULD game it but the profits wouldn't be high enough. StevieG mentioned 5mil; i think even lower would be more appropriate. maybe even make it so that only nations in Anarchy could receive aid?
-
Someone stole the leadership after you left, corrupted everything that you stood for, and then committed a bunch of illegal acts? I think I know who did it and where they live:
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
if they're here on planet steve it's our patriotic duty to kick their ass! on to the casualties and nukes and... wait a second... they're going to suck at econ and they won't grow past 10k apiece...
Re-establishing the gentleman's agreement. The Dos and Donts
in Cyber Nations Tournament Edition
Posted · Edited by Nick GhostWolf
my concept of the gentlemen's agreements...
1. don't do dirty spyops or blockades unless you're okay with getting spied or blockaded yourself.
2. if an alliance declares war on you and asks for a "clean war" without econ ops or blockades, accomodate them.
3. if you use spyops and blockades as a first strike in the war, and then !@#$%* on it on the forums when it happens to you, you are raid meat for the rest of the round.
4. remember that most people here screenshot everything
5. remember that most people here save IRC logs too
6. "talk !@#$, get hit" is very much in effect.
7. don't turtle during war if you have a warchest
8. don't declare on someone until they've had a week out of war; people have friends here and friends like to help turn your nation into a crater.
9. do not rogue formal alliances. formal alliance is hereby defined as "an alliance that a. has 6 or more members (enough for 1 complete TC) and b. has posted a DoE on the OWF
10. if you are an alliance leader, instruct your alliance's members not to launch rogue wars. if you don't you risk forfeiting your right to at least 7 days of peace after a war.
11. if you are an alliance leader and you fail to keep your AA's members from roguing, throw the rogue under the bus. otherwise, we drive the bus over you, too. ask USSR.
12. Lord Hitchock is, from now on, barred from using the letters "a", "e", "i", "o", and "u" from his ruler name or nation name.