Nick GhostWolf
-
Posts
767 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Nick GhostWolf
-
-
Posted 17 November 2015 - 11:09 PM
Building on what Eddy said, after the peace, we could divide up all the major alliances into two equal teams, and scrap it out.
The idea was hatched two days before it happened; we do this in our free time between our work, school, families, etc. And, we made sure to include you, it just wouldn't feel right without you guys in the party :)
-
Let the casualties pile up and...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HORkT4a2MhQ
o/ NDO
o/ TDO
o/ KrAbZ
o/ Casualties
o/ Mushroom Clouds
o/ 10 pages of complaining for me to laugh at
-
o/ UPN, here's raising a drink to the end of one era and the beginning of another.
to those who join us in Polar, we totally allow pet penguins.
-
I wouldn't mind a big war starting on the jan 2/3 update. let's let people finish traveling home/recovering from the new years hangover, then get right down to reducing the worlds' pixels.
-
This should make for an entertaining show. You should post the relevant stats of both SNX and Animalz when you launch these wars; always enjoy reading those.
-
I'm not going to waste time explaining low-tier (ooc: CNSE) military doctrine on here. I only discuss that with treaty partners.
that, and it's completely irrelevant to most people. everyone knows you are hiding from those who want to curbstomp your nation.
-
Cool, lets do this.
I sit in the low tier for two reasons: first, at this strength my nation is a perfect command bunker, I don't have to waste time dealing with a constant stream of rogues trying to gain reputation. At this size, no matter who engages me, the damage done is meaningless and certainly offset by my own capabilities.
Second, it allows me to control the activity of our low tier more effectively, as I can directly intervene in wars that are disruptive to tech production without having to rely on noobs and a delayed bureaucratic reaction.
And yes, infrastructurism is a thing in SNX. Maybe if you studied it, Polar would not still have asinine warchest requirements for low-tier members.
1. so you're saying, "nothing risked, nothing lost" is your modus operandi? coward. by your own logic, the damage you do is also meaningless.
2. there shouldn't be any bureaucratic action, if you're the leader. you are the leader, right? you give the order, it gets done. or are you having trouble with that? Polaris certainly doesn't have a problem with wars disrupting tech production.
3. 30 days of bill payments is not "asinine". or are you trying to say that you couldn't even meet that very minimal requirement? and slow it down there sparky, i was talking about TE - and yes, you do need to have infrastructure and you're on a limited time frame to get it.
-
I reject your Infrastructurist mentality. Nation strength is not the ends, its the means.
look, if you're gonna sit around and act like a bad-ass because you hide at an NS reserved for the newbies you like to prey upon to boost your ego, i got bad news for you: nobody is buying it.
also, did you actually just use the word "infrastructurist"?
-
I get in two wars a month here :awesome:
yeah, i know, you brag about each one like they were the battle of the bulge. i build your NS in one day in TE.
-
I rather like the sheep waiting to be told what nations to hit from a list provided by some random gov official. Sitting on an AA waiting for the annual war is the equivalent to rotting. Apathy wins and more people depart, then you get the horrific conditions of alliances who simply exsist for the formality of supposed online friendship.
Its an anguish cycle that should be destroyed as soon as possible for the benefit of the world as a whole. It wont be of course but waxing poetic is about all thats left, 3 min of your life you will never get back.
quit whining and play TE if you want more fights. while you sit and wait for the "yearly war" we get in two wars a month. the people who are capable of changing the status quo here in CN aren't going to because they stand to lose if they do.
-
Ummmmm, so wtf just happened? An entire alliance of rogues? Someone help a noob out over here? I've never seen that.
Lot of people suspected it was a mutli ring because of the similar builds and naming convention with nation, ruler, and slogan.
-
Nick they looked fishy to me also.....
oh look, they're all gone. what a surprising twist. /sarcasm
-
:v
i don't think it was Defcon 1 that completely annihilated Haganah, but i'm sure they got some easy XP out of the deal :P
-
It's not new. Looks like renamed War Doves. I don't even know what's going on. :P
I have a pretty good idea of what's going on there, and I really doubt it's War Doves.
-
I'm starting to think he is a robot whose sole function is to whinge. If so, kudos to his manufacturers. They've succeeded admirably!
nah. i think Apple made a nihilistic version of Siri as an inside joke, and predictably it started malfunctioning then it got leaked here by 4chan trolls.
-
Without the Misfits this would be a dead and utterly boring end of year faux war.... NAY, this would be a dead planet. You should all JOIN THE MISFITS. Even when we are getting Molly Wopped (o/ Citadel), and our nations destroyed (namely my own), MISFITS HAVE MORE FUN!
Oh and since I do not believe a Misfit member has called any one trash or scum today........ YOU ARE ALL SCUM. LOL (All is right in the world again) :)
Not. A. Chance.
-
Maybe I just need to drink more as I keep getting shocked every time I get on here. I know I shouldn't, but can't believe the amount of !@#$%*ing that goes on here, lol.
Citadel has some new leadership in place this round. Kong stepped down for RL issues a couple of rounds ago, I stepped down this round as RL has caught up to me, so our new leadership was giving it a shot. Was this war a perfectly even one or an updeclare, probably not. Was it way out of proportion in our favor, no as well. NloN got some peace from us because they didn't !@#$%* and moan about the war and frankly, we needed some available slots to counter Krabz DoW on us.
As for Misfits leader continuing to say "tried to recruit us"...you must think, at least a little tiny bit, highly of us enough to ensure that everyone on this forum knew that I tried to recruit you, as you have said it multiple times in different threads, lol. As I am seeing your completely uncalled for reaction to our DoW on you, I'm honestly really glad you turned me down. We don't want a bunch of complaining members in our AA. So, can we just pretty please just shut our traps now and finish out this war with some dignity so I can go back to drinking heavily. It would be much appreciate.
Come to think of it, I can't recall every seeing you NOT !@#$%* about any war declared on you, can anyone else?
Whining in TE still shocks you? Huh. I guess it's made me cynical enough that I just expect it by now.
-
A lot of these gentlemens' agreements were made to reduce the back-room dealing. Back when that was the primary way of flag-running, everyone was angry about it. Looks now like maybe the pendulum's swung too far the other way. Now the complaints are split between "this is boring" from the more adventurous and ambitious types, and the oft-repeated refrain of "this is unfair" from those scared to lose their pixels. The gentlemens' agreements were always ethical in spirit, that was never the problem. The problem is that most people simply don't follow them. The gentlemen's agreements are used as cover for activity that directly contradicts them.
Let's look at a little case study here. Alliance Y declares an "unethical" war against Alliance X; Alliance Z declares on Alliance Y using "violating the gentlemens' agreements" as a CB even while the war they declared violates the gentlemens' agreements - but somehow Alliance Z thinks they can claim to be ethically sound and Alliance Y are the bad guys despite the fact that they are behaving in the exact same manner. Let's take another gander at a different case study: Alliance W and Alliance X go to war with a big "no dirty spyops and no blockades" on the DoW. Before update even hits, one nation from Alliance W fucks up someone's tax rate in Alliance X; word travels through Alliance X and before the nukes even fall it's weapons-free on the spyops and blockades and the "no fighting dirty" ends up having been all for show (which, it typically is). If the rules are going to get tossed out so much, why bother having them at all?
I propose a more alliance-centric system of ethics, where the actions of individual alliances are undertaken with the primary motive of what is best for the individual AA coming first and foremost. The gentlemens' agreements were never enforceable. There were a few alliances last round that did take concrete action against a certain kind of unethical play (wars without DoW's) but the instant people realized they weren't going to get away with it, they shaped up. Alliance-centric thinking allows for downdeclares - with the built-in possibility that such a downdeclare may have consequences. So now, all the "ethical" pretense is taken out of the picture in both of those examples above. Alliance Y downdeclares Alliance X and anarchies them in the blitz; Alliance Z hits alliance Y because they have lots of open defensive slots. Is it "fair?" Nope. It also isn't fair that only a few players each round take home a flag and there's no participation trophy, and that's the point.
This is a competitive game, and the "gentlemens' contracts" are only a social construct with zero reflection in actual game mechanics. The mechanics allow for association by alliance fellowship - and that's where the social atmosphere should be based. War Doves should serve the interests of War Doves; NLON the interest of NLON, NDO the interest of NDO, Ordo Paradoxia the interest of Ordo Paradoxia, and so on and so forth. It forces you to face this reality: if you team up with someone early round to eliminate one threat, that same alliance you were all buddy-buddy with could just as easily put your alliance next on the chopping block so that they can win.
So what should be kept? On an individual basis, I think the moratoriums on dirty spyops/blockades should be allowed to stay, with their acceptability determined by the alliances at war with one another. Communication between AA leaders in the immediate time after DoW would allow opposing leaders to determine whether or not they want the gloves on or off. Ideally, the grace-period after wars would still be around. Not for fairness' sake, but to keep the game interesting. A bunch of turtled nations at or near ZI with fully depleted warchests aren't going to be much fun; hitting people to drive them into such a state may eliminate a rival but you've also made the round that much less entertaining. There are still backroom deals made, but my thought is that we keep this backroom deals in the back rather than move towards open treatying. Having public treaties eventually leads to more treaties. This leads to a treaty web like what exists on SE, and strangles the possibility of new wars except when done between emergent blocs. It's boring, and worst of all (especially for a time limited round) it's predictable. Even protectorates toe the line here; my thinking is that any alliance large enough to organize a full trade circle (6+ members) be considered able to fend for itself.
The spontaneity and risk are part of what make TE fun. This game, despite similar mechanics, bears a stark contrast to the Standard Edition it is derived from and that's a big part of why people play it. It's an escape from the tedium of alliance treaty webs and power blocs. It's a place where game mechanics that can take years to unlock in SE are available almost immediately. Instead of one or two wars a year, it's one or two wars per month. Players who will never even be close to top-ranked in SE can reach the #1 NS spot; players in the #1 NS slot aren't permanent fixtures like what happens in SE. Instead of alliances having weeks or even months of notice to prepare for war due to treaty-web cascading, a war can appear completely out of nowhere leaving you only minutes to respond. It's dynamic. It's fast-paced. TE has, also, been a place where admin has tested new features before porting them to SE. XP/Generals, the revamped in-game AA management system, and adjustable nuclear targetting were ALL in TE before SE. You can start around of TE and realize that the old rules and old strategies that worked last round, are obsolete this round.
This is not a game for diplomatically-focused, pixel-hugging war-dodgers. If that's your style, play SE. It's a good game. If you choose to play TE though, don't expect to be coddled because you won't be. If you want special considerations (early peace, no blockades) from an aggressor during a war, you take it up with them, not the community at large. Because the community at large, doesn't have the ethical track record we all like to think we have.
-
Can't say I'm against this in principle. The forum tears and butthurt should be absolutely delicious :)
-
I forgot, complaints are only valid if your allies are on the receiving end. You are obviously in denial if you don't think this is complete bullcrap
I also find it funny you dumped every misfit member with max wars with the exception of one declare on our weakest members. Seems you aren't concerned about NLON coming at you.
You have 26 declare on 19 NLON nations
20 declared on 7 nations
Somebody please take out the trashthe idea of Citadel and NDO allied is ludicrous. i certainly like and respect some of their members, but the only diplomatic interaction we've ever had has been blowing each other's pixels up.
edit: for the first time in history, you are correct about this, yung flow. this is some bullshit.
-
He is still taking it better than those loonies in Krabz did
I suppose if there weren't any crybabies, TE's forums would have died ages ago...
-
It's cute you guys pull stupid stunts like this. You really think misfits would want to merge with somebody that takes a cheap opportunity and pick the softest war known to man
and here i was thinking you were actually going to bear this with some dignity
-
o/ TPC o/ OP
May your casualty counts rise greatly
-
My point was they have a chance with 13k ns nations against 20k ns nations due to warchests. Nobody can have a solid warchest at that size this early in the round, not to say tour warchests aren't adequate, but they won't be the normal 40mil+ warchest of a 13k ns nation
idk, i went into war with 50mil at 13k NS and that was last week...
Limited Foreign Aid
in Tournament Edition Suggestions
Posted · Edited by Nick GhostWolf
We already solved this. Only one flag exists for the "pixel-hugger" - the highest NS record. You could argue land is pixel-hugging too, and that's an argument best done when you loot 100 land in one GA and kill off 350 with a nuke, which is easy, by the way. There's much more to building than what you call "pixel hugging". It's an art, it takes skill, and your argument seems to be based out of personal feelings of inadequacy. If you personally want to stop someone from taking a flag by "pixel hugging" you have war slots, use them. Alternatively learn to build and compete for it yourself. This game is a competition, and playing to win is not something to be discouraged or shamed. It is the goal. Out of the dozens of people who go for a flag each round, only a few win. And - here's a thought you may not have had - if you instead go to learn from the good players rather than demonize them, you might get taught HOW to build huge warchests and large amounts of infra. Attitude plays a part in who wins and who loses too. Blaming others for being "too good" isn't an excuse. Your options are get better yourself, or don't - and if you choose the latter, your right to complain goes out the window.
I'll further say this - if we make war the only way to win a flag, it's still going to be the best builders who are getting the flags. Max damage? Whoever can afford 2500 tech will take it - the builders. Most casualties? Whoever's got the most infra (which is the base value that determines how many soldiers you have) takes it - the builders. No matter how you try to spin it, it's people who can both build and fight effectively that will have the best chance and how well you build plays a huge role in how well you fight. This game does take skill, no matter how simplistic it may seem. Discouraging people from being good at the game is just plain asinine.
This attitude that people should be somehow shamed or punished for being good at this game is idiotic and reeks of this "everyone gets a participation trophy" nonsense. It has no place here. And yes, sometimes your alliance loses a war badly and is knocked out of the competition. I watched NDO get burned to the ground last round by TDO, several of our top players were ZI'd - but that's the risk of war. Didn't stop me, or the other NDO for that matter, from enjoying the rest of the round. That can happen in this game, and it should. Without that risk, there's nothing to gain by playing. There's no glory, there's no incentive, there's no reason to even play. Make flags that common, and we'll see them cheapened to the point where anyone can just buy one for 100 tech after two rounds when every 2-man micro has a flag, and nobody plays to get them anymore. From a practical administrative perspective, it also kills off the incentive for players to donate, which makes this financially pointless for the operators. In the real world, if a website is not profitable, it gets either shut down or flooded with obnoxious ads. Make all the "boo corporations suck" arguments you want, do you really think the people bankrolling this site and running this thing for a living care? Add those outcomes up and you get only one possible end: Bye-bye, TE! Furthermore, the topic was - if I recall - how to best place an aid system in the game, and I've said my piece, so I'll switch to that now.
Faux nations can be deterred by requiring not only a waiting period, but actual nation development. We had a comparable issue a long time ago with people building into the top 5% and shutting everyone out of the nuke race unless they built an MP, and the solution was to eliminate the top 5%, require the MP, and require an infrastructure/tech threshold. The FAC wonder's almost useless in TE anyway, so it could be re-purposed. Jack the cost up to $5m, require 2k infra and a nation age of at least 15 days - this forces faux nations to actually play. The other restrictions in Caz's OP would fit naturally with that - and it would also prevent people who create temp trade nations from being wrongfully singled out as "aid pumps".