Jump to content

Johnny Apocalypse

Members
  • Posts

    3,116
  • Joined

Everything posted by Johnny Apocalypse

  1. ruh-roh looks like it time for the JA show, guess it's time for you to die. Congratulations for now nATO, based on our respective trajectories we will see you when we acquire additional 0.0x decimal points in a month or two.
  2. Argent are going to be furious at this challenge to their relevance! Congratulation to you friends 🥳
  3. yeh these guys are prettttty dumb that is for sure you'd be even dumber not to join them though!
  4. One good thing I will say about Invicta: You weren't UPN. Goodnight sweet prince.
  5. Attention Duped Masses, unshut your eyes and silence your chattering gobs; The Stallion is talking. Well this has been a fun returning voyage that we missionaries of Boognih have found leading us back to this planet once more. I had almost forgotten how much more insanely pedantic lifeforms on this world can be whencompared to the other planet in our Solar System,, Myself and the other Cultists sure have missed watching and participating in the inummerable ways of saying "No U" to make it sounds more nuanced and very difficult to comprehend. The one difficult thing to comprehend for us has been how long it's been since someone has opted to jump on our heads from a great height! However as we find ourself a the halfway point for the planet's lifecycle; Wes we've decided that we're done with that part now and when the pedantry resembles a pagentary it's time to give it a rest. So we move on to pursuing a course of action which no one should struggle to understand and likely has long expected this decision with the battlefield pitched as being 3 alliances vs 1 alliance. We Cultists find ourselves in a truly new position; where everyone is too busy rebuilding from a previous attack/launching a fresh one against a less than fresh opponent or trying to bark loud enough to scare away a small platoon of men on horseback chasing what is clearly a pack of wounded animals. Not the most sportsman type of hunt for us, whatever floats everyone's boat I guess? By the grace and eternal wisdom of Dread Pirate Boognish; the cosmic Browner of all meats and destructor of fleets. The proud zeolots of the Boognish Cult hereby engage in another round of hostilities against the horde of unwashed residents of this planet, that we do this always with a baffling display of our love and kndness we feel for you all. Who we hope to convert to our ways and join us among the stars when this all ends as it always has done and will continue to do so. Boognish Cult dedicate this next round of fresh bullets, shells and other fiery forms of death forged in our compound for every living human on Planet Steve, one and all. To the Knights we dedicate a batch of heat-seeking artillery rounds aimed at the inferior Stallion doppelgangers for their shameless and unchilvalrous assault on the badly mauled puppies before they had been to see the vets. Had you swung at both the wounded animals and the much healthier look platypus it might be a bit more impressive. However we thank you for the mutual act of scratching each other's trade circle itches when we could both ignore them no longer. To Ordo Paradoxia, we gift you our hellfire in the form of our incendiary 12 Gauge Carrtridges. Seemingly a nonsensical way to thank a group who has provided assistance to the cult- oddly paradoxical you might asy. However we know that you are not yet true believers to our cause. Perhaps you never will be, which is all the more reason to shoot a few of these rounds at you weird Platypu-looking folks. As a group who seems to have a much longer history with the Wolves; we do not doubt you understand why we seek to exchange shots with someone else for a change. And for the last and of course least beast? To Alpha Wolves; for you we dedicate some of the leftover 9mm rounds we found n a cache buried in the rubble of the east facing wall of the compound from our last skirmish. We hope it will remind you of a better times earlier on this round when did a better job playing the victim than you presently do as the victim. We pray that as you remain in your now weakened state; Boognish sees fit to bless you with his mercy and that is is known we zealots can pull the trigger all by ourselves (and yes we know a number of us has self-inflicted bullet wounds; we're zealots running around in robes rather than body armor) Let the bodies hit the floor everyone! o7 Lots of love, Pandy and the Gang. ,
  6. dam i had no idea i was being so emotional thanks for the thorough and non-emotional debunk
  7. You were frothing at the mouth about aid caps being re-instated for starters. Your suggestions have been bad because they are so clearly laden with your own bias and you aren't being impartial. I think if you are a nation in position to be able to send foreign aid then 2k shouldn't be an issue to maintain. It makes no sense that a nation with very limited infrastructure would be in a position to send foreign aid to another. It solves the issue you consider widespread with "non-participating banks" by forcing them to participate to defend their nations and not turtle if they want to send aid out. For a real world example; North Korea doesn't send out foreign aid because they barely have the infrastructure to support their own nation. If this is a nation simulator then it stands to reason that to send foreign aid your nation must be in a fit position to do so, no? Again; didn't say admin couldn't figure it out, I question whether or not admin can be bothered with idoing it. If he can then great; if he can't then I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. "Just blocking" selling below 1k is too extreme. Why stop there, why not block selling infra altogether? Making it so a nation's economy cannot sustain 1k infra before selling it off is what could logically be done to prevent bill-lock, rather than turtle. By blocking the sale of infra from 1k you might see turtling come about in the form of getting another alliance to smash their infra right down so they can turtle without selling it. This would still be a possibility even with my suggestion linking the sale of infra to the total upkeep cost, which hopefully should demonstrate why the idea isn't a means of preventing turtling as there will always be a workaround for those tenacious enough to pursue it as a strategy. Turtling shouldn't be profitable, I'm not disputing that. Turtling is something you do when you are trying to mitigate damage done and financial losses from a war where you are outgunned. It is profitable only in the sense that it stops you losing too much, which is the proper use of the strategy in my experience. Turtling has only become literally profitable this round because of the extreme amount of cash and tech that can be sent as aid. That's why I suggested making it so you need to meet certain requirements to get full use of the aid mechanic. My point is that whatever suggestion is made and potentially implemented to stop turtling will inevitably mean someone finds a work around to compensate it. By imposing a rule where you cannot ever sell below 1k infra actually limits the ability of anyone to shrink down and whack some turtles. It's cutting your nose off to spite your face. Oh and as to your question about naming a game where turtling? It happens routinely over in Torn City where it is beneficial to hiding the trenches for a while if severely outnumbered until the opponent blinks long enough to take the opening and return fire on more beneficial terms to you. However the dynamic for strategy in that game is much more real-time whereas here it's more turn-based. Evading pursuit from your opponents takes on many forms in other games beyond CN, trying to remove this strategy entirely is a fools-errand. The best you can hope for is mitigating the extent of it being carried out without penalising those who might need to adopt the strategy for a legitimate reason.
  8. @firingline No I'm disagreeing with them because they're bad suggestions, my opinion of you has no bearing on it. A bad idea is a bad idea, you haven't presented any good ideas to set the precedent that you are capable of having good ideas that don't come across as being obviously working to your favour/the detriment of someone else. Admin isn't an idiot and can spot this a mile off. Some different takes; Keep aid but nerf the maximum amount to x1.5-x2 the amount possible to send in SE. Keep the 14 day age requirement for sending/receiving aid. Owning a FAC unlocks sending/receiving aid, requires 2k infra and a Foreign Ministry to be maintained so it can utilised for sending and receiving aid- can only receive aid if destroyed below 2k infra after purchasing the FAC. If infra is sold below 2k after purchase then the player cannot send or receive aid until they buy back to the 2k minimum. Buying a DRA increases the amount you are able to send/receive provided the other nation also has one (pick a multiplier), requires a Foreign Ministry, FAC and 3k infra to purchase. Stop people buying more infra after they declare a war to mitigate some element of down-declares. You have to at least agree with the fact it's kinda absurd that someone can hit you at zero NS and just buy all the infra they'll need to instantly anarchy you? There is a minimum and maxiumum perccentage of your NS bracket that allows for wars to be declared for a reason. The fact that this can be ignored by declaring first and buying up afterwards kinda negates the purpose of it. Removing one of the factors that necessitates turtling as a legitimate strategy (because it is a perfectly valid strategy in scenarios where you are outgunned and are being punched down on) It is a step in the right direction. Perhaps smaller steps in the right rdirection are worth considering instead of removing limitations and making drastic leaps. If there's a lesson to take away from this round, this seems like a solid one to keep in mind. Conversely; prevent people selling less than 1k infra after exceeding this amount, provided they have the money on hand to pay for the upkeep for x amount of days total infra bills at 1k. This will not stop people turtling outright if their infra is destroyed below 1k in a war. Making the distinction between the selling infra and having infra destroyed is important here for reasons that should be obvious. It would also encourage opponents to take a more controlled approach to demolition to prevent their opponent from turtling instead of going for the overkill curbstomp route without thinking first and getting frustrated that their opponent isn't getting back up. Add Spy Operation that involves Sabotaging Foreign Ministries that destroys a portion of aid sent; the victim is not made aware of this operation until the next time they send aid with the exception of secret aid (this is more of a suggestion for something to compliment the aid mechanic within TE so it's not just a copy of how it functions in SE) You can argue the case for an "anti-turtle mechanic" but it also does fall to the players to see what we can do about a strategic hurdle ourselves too. Getting angry at the sky hasn't changed much about CN for the near 20 years it's been up, call me cynical but I don't expect that to change.
  9. Oh so you do understand code now or is someone handing you notes under the table? I didn't say admin was an idiot; I said a lot of the math behind the code is decades old and by his own admission isn't something he recalls with 100% accuracy. So yeah it'd take likely require some value changes, perhaps you could outline what those changes would look like and to which variable(s) with a draft of code demonstrating this. Who knows, maybe showing the community and admin what you mean might yield better results than your incessant whining about it. The bolded parts are some examples of why "a good-faith conversation" isn't something you're capable of having. You either put words in people's mouths or you outright lie loudly enough to drown other people out. The only people who have openly said the game is no fun have been from AW and more specifically you at considerable length. I gave one suggestion which you have (as usual) overlooked that I think would be a means of working towards a fix for an issue; preventing people from declaring on someone with 100 infra from buying more infra than they had at the time of declaring their war. It would stop gratuitous down-declares (regardless of which alliance does them) and would be a step in the right direction to prevent turtling. It would also help you prove your case that OP aggressively turtle against opponents regardless of the odds because I haven't played TE for about two years and OP only existed as an alliance no larger than BC were at that time, so you'll have to forgive my skepticism towards your position. If you want me and other players outside of AW to see beyond the bias' at play with where you are coming from? Maybe try winning over the people who have been otherwise unfamiliar with how this side of CN has been instead of knee-jerk responding with a "JA BADMAN" mindset. Because I don't see any reason to believe what you're saying as being credible otherwise, nor any potential for a "good-faith conversation" with you. You won't engage with StevieG's counter-argument without dismissing it entirely, you won't engage with mine. Why should anyone bother with yours?
  10. The chaos is primarily you lot losing your god damn minds. Which yes, it is entertaining to watch but it's still the same old TE but with bigger numbers involved. Wow very excite. If this were true, they wouldn't still be wiping the floor with you using foreign aid. An introduction of "Anti-turtling mechanics" isn't going to happen because; a) it'd require admin to overhaul a lot of the code and math he's on record saying he's forgotten a lot of how it works nearly 20 years later b) if someone were to ask for the same "anti-turtling mechanics" in SE? Something tells me you wouldn't be as adamantly in favour of them. But you're right; overhauling the game code to your liking is indeed the only real threat to them at this time, because evidently you aren't one. Don't worry though, I'm sure someone competent enough will come along to challenge them. It's still the same game, you just have more tech and farm nations you recruited from your SE allies to make the bigger numbers. The charm of this will wear off soon enough. In summary; git gud or stfu
  11. "Non-playing banks" will not be a thing if the aid mechanic ceases to be part of TE after this round, nor would they be a thing if a reasonable cap was in place when the round started. The current cap is what it is because it is the average amount of cash/tech AW started flinging back and forth early on in the round. The incentive to turtle is a result of heavy-handed downdeclares (You know like when someone gets sent 10,000 tech to beat down on someone much smaller than them). If people punched at their weight instead of attacking and buying up to a ridiculous advantage, people would not need to turtle. So preventing people from buying up after they have declared war would prevent turtling. A better idea in my opinion would be to restrict infra purchases from the moment you declare. From that point onward you can only rebuy infra to the peak level you were at when you declared the war and you can only exceed that peak when the initial offensive war expires. Massively disparate wars are again something that AW perpetuate. AW initiated an attack on 3 alliances and act as though the consequences of making enemies with every other alliance in the game isn't a problem they have made themselves with their actions and attitude (save for a handful of members who are quite content to just fight, have fun and not complain about everything) Dirty ops are used at the discretion of the alliance in question. OP claim to not dirty op but when dirty ops are done on some of their nations, it is understandable they might reciprocate despite being given orders to tell them otherwise. Afterall, why fight with one hand behind your back if the opponent clearly will do you dirty anyway? I know that BC members dropped dirty ops as soon as they caught them, at that point the horse had bolted so while I urged people to avoid it unless it was done to them first? It was understood that AW would likely not have any scruples about dropping dirty ops on people first. I think OP would be wise to drop the stance of not dirty op'ing other alliances unless it is done to them first- at the very least acknowledge it is pointless to try and maintain that policy when fighting AW because the chances are you guys will do them whether you are hit by them first or not. Keeping foreign aid to some extent would be nice but with the very large amount that has been permitted for this round it would only really be viable to retain for the purpose of rebuilds with a much larger cap on the amount sent compared to what we have now (which again is only as high as it is because it's the average amount of tech and money AW were sending back at forth at the beginning of the round- another self-made problem biting you in the ass) You can prevent selling infra below 1000 but if your infra is blown up beyond 1000 that doesn't stop someone from turtling. Preventing people selling infra past 1000 only addresses the "non-playing bank" issue, one which will cease to be a problem if aid is no longer a mechanic in TE/nerfed to the point where maintaining such things is too inefficient and not worth the time or effort. Also selling below 1000 infra may be necessary for a nation in dire straits financially who is looking to cut their daily bills right down in order to recover with a back-collection to get back in the ring again. As for "mules"? Again, only an issue because of the amount of aid that is permitted. This is why it was a problem to allow to be uncapped and why it remains problematic because admin did not want to nerf the maximum aid limit early on in the game to a level where no other alliance could catch up to the amounts AW were sending each other. You wanted it uncapped and you got it, then you demonstrated why leaving in uncapped was going to be bad for the game and admin wound up setting the bar as high as it currently is because it actually would have been unfair to everyone else if he were to nerf it well below the amounts you were sending each other. If you want the aid mechanic to remain? Instead of outlining the numerous ways people are besting you with the mechanic with the parameters as they currently stand for the use of it? Instead you might be better off presenting a well thought out proposal for how the aid mechanic might be better implemented in TE for future rounds and how much of a cap should be in place for "non-playing banks" to be inefficent to utilise and ultimately too time-consuming to bother using, but for the aid mechanic to still be a helpful enough for rebuilds or for smaller alliances with 10 or less member (like mine) to be able to stand their ground long enough against larger alliances of 20-30 people by either receiving some support from a member of their own alliance or externally from a non-hostile alliance. All I'm seeing here are a list of things your strategy fails to address and the ways in which you have been bested. It isn't always a faulty mechanic that is utilised unfairly against you, sometimes it actually is a skill issue.
  12. OP is 26 people. You have simply made enemies of Knights and Boognish Cult by considering us such. You have made no effort to try and pitch things another way, no diplomatic approaches or anything like that. Just paranoid belligerence toward both Knights and Boognish Cult which culminated in you attacking us both along with OP. You are decrying a problem that your alliance created, one which you still refuse to try and address and insult both Knights and Boognish Cult by denying our existence as sovereign entities. Much like Alex being stuck in Nuke Anarchy unable to hit OP when they attacked? It is a self-made problem, yet you act like it is everyone else's fault.
  13. gestures wildly at your previous posts Yeah I'm playing the victim, smh. I'm merely pointing out that your continued war against him was unnecessary and could have been wrapped up easier. Then he wouldn't be taking up your war slots and using up resources seeing as you currently have bigger fish to fry
  14. Yeah and if I considered him to be a 'rogue' he would no longer be on the AA. Your supervisor was suspiciously absent when I asked to quantify how long was consdiered fair game for spying after the agreed time for peace and continued to pile on him for what is now the 3rd round of war, so if he received assistance from another alliance who provided tech to fight back against your downdeclaring? I have no qualms with it and it seems fair enough to me, along with further attacks on your alliance he may choose to launch. Perhaps your supervisor should have clarified this matter when I asked him 🤷‍♂️
  15. fairness? lmao are you for real? you guys fattened alex up with 10,000 tech to sit on one of our guys after he had alerady been in the ringer against you and you want to talk about what is fair and "detrimental to the game as a whole" christ almighty this is rich. your guys asked for pandoras box to be opened and now you don't like it. be careful what you wish for next time admin listens.
  16. Aid has been useful for those of us in a smaller alliance, the cap as it is is basically just an average of the amounts being thrown around by AW when aid began being sent. Presumably so the cap nerfed everyone across the board and didn't leave anyone in a positionth eould never able to keep up. I agree that if aid is continued within TE? The cap should be in the ballpark of 20m/tech as the limit. As for the pracice of turtling? That's only something we can do as the players. I only ever consider turtling as a viable response to a heavy handed offensive where it wouldn't make a diifference if I burnt my money trying to fight, back Keep in mind it is just as boring and frustrating being a turtle. So if you want to see less turtling? Cut out the excessive dogpiles and downward punching. Punch at your weight andyou'll likely find people more likely to punch back for the duration of the war. I suppose I can see this logic, but it's worth keeping in mind that admin 'came down harslhy on AW' with regards to the aid cap being implemented (which you now recognise is something we do actually need) because you were the onlly alliance spinning ever-growing aid packets to each other. I'm sure admin would have addressed it with them were they doing it at the same time as you. Admin 'came down harshly' by imposing a cap and preventing the opportunity for unapped aid to spiral out of control. You both seem to be ask guilty as the other with your famrinmg mehods and tech trees, the key difference being that your farms aren't just buying up for their collections and then selling off all the infra to avoid being hit- however it doesn't change the fact your members are farmning it all th same. OP are just minaaxing the method by reducing overheads and potential risks of their farms being burnted in between collecitons by keeping them well out of range but something like 23k troops at ZI. So like I said; if you self-nerf infras lower than the 2k needed to buy it? You have to rebuy the FAC to regain the ability to send/receuve aid. It's enough of a nerf it wouldn't be considered unfair and woul d mae people think tefwie
  17. Why would admin be playing favourites? I'm curious why you see it this way and what admin's motive would be tto act in favour of OP/against AW. I would agree that if there is a requirement to buy the FAC then that requirement should be maintained really. If people are selling off their infra to overclock their max troops/reduce bill count and stay out of range of any would be attackers then I'd agree that's cheesing the system (Much like porting tech around to people to prevent it being destroyed is cheesing the system) So perhaps a way to address this would be preventing nations selling infra below the requirement for building it in the first place without sacrificing the wonder first/making it deactivate. The wonder could still work if you went below the required amount of infra but only as a result of it being destroyed in a war, to me this seems a reasonable way to address the issue.
  18. Ah fair enough, I've not played TE for about two years so wasn't aware. So consider it belated kudos, it's a good addition to the TE mechanic that has been added.
  19. You were a fun opponent when we clashed a few years ago, so best of luck to you and Wayward Sons whatever it is you guys choose to do going forward. And I hope you enjoy the peace of not having to do anything!
  20. They'll need to re-close the gap between us again first. Seems there's been a shift. Careful what you wish for Smitty. Without the planet's traditional big bad around to rally against; who would remain and replace them as the new power to rage against? It could be you or one of your friends, it could be one of ours. I like uncertainties, not everyone does though.
  21. We know and we do apologise for this. We've got a recording for the weather forecast but it's been Rated R as it's primarily footage of the large birds defecating on your ally and it's therefore not suitable to broadcast on this medium. If you could clear some of them from the skies we might be able to resume broadcasting, the geiger counters our reporters are equipped with are pretty basic models which aren't any good in that environment and we've found that the shows ratings take a dip if a reporter's skin is visibly sloughing off during a segment as a result of acute radiation sickness. As much as we are committed to the pursuit of facts to create news, we aren't going to be risking the safety of reporters working for The Day Today if you're unwilling to address the climate disaster which we are sure you are more than capable of doing.
  22. A picture says a thousand words, or in this case roughly 300,000.
  23. Oh you were actually serious! Well damn, fair play to you both. I've butted heads with Bundy plenty of times but as the saying goes; don't hate the player, hate the game. Congrats to you both!
×
×
  • Create New...