evilgm

I was recently warned for bypassing the word filter. I am NOT arguing the warn level increase. I am curious why the names of banned people are forbidden to be written. I made the second post which resulted in a warn more out of curiosity than anything else. Any help? I read the mod page that filtered words are filtered for a reason. Just curious what the reason is in this case.

wow, I couldn't even spell the names of the guys without getting the script to kick in. Interesting. [ModEdit: Massively avoiding the word filter ftl.]

I was a member of GOONS for well over a year, fought in several wars (5?), and was regularly on iRC with banned member, banned member, banned member, Daemon banned member and all the rest (miniputt ftw). I know the people of GOONS, their temperaments, what made them tick, and how awesome they could be. I even played with GOONS in Astro Empires. I fondly remember when banned member sanctioned admin after he switched his nation to black to read his senator posts on Pokemons (a truly epic tale). I was a GOON and knew them all. You, sir, are no GOON.

Oh, I don't know about that... You just need to find the right people to let in.

congratulations to a successful peace terms agreement between your two great alliances. I wish you both well on the path to recovery.

I look forward to a fight with a worthy opponent. Hopefully those who were friends once can be friends once more. It gives me no pleasure to ride to war, but I have hopes that it will end well. To battle. May we drink together afterwards.

my hearty welcome to friends once before who are now allied friends again. It is good to be among so many people I have known for so long.

the dawn of a new day for the Order. All hail the Rose.

congrats to all. I look forward to increasingly good things coming out of ODN. <3 Joracy

As a member of blackwater that moved on to OBR, I can attest to its ability to bring merit and honor to those who enter its halls. Congratulations on your year of magnificent development.

surprised to see this thread alive after so long...

no nation, no matter how big, can ever stand against a collective foe alone. Even Matt Miller would eventually die if enough people could cycle in the combat.

on ground assaults i can do over 48 infra dmg per hit. that means my nukes can do about 360pts infra per hit. Several nations can do much more. Tripling the potency is not a good idea

idk, it used to be that using nukes was considered a taboo/red line for war. That is no longer the case. The game has certainly changed since back then. Immediate nukes allowed people to pull off surprises. I logged into my nation to find it glowing more than once. It made life more crazy, but I like living on the edge. To each his own.

do you want nukes? If so then the MP is the fastest way to get there. If you don't care, then focus on other things.

right now I see no deterrent to having nukes. Smaller alliances had a chance to inflict some surprise attacks in the past and really shake things up. It made life more exciting. Consider though that the game last for well over a year with nukes and first strikes allowed. What made the game so unplayable back then that it had to be changed? I think that the instant nukes would make the game interesting again.

getting to the level of owning a nuke is not easy now. At the very least it requires many, many months of planning. The only problem with it in the past was with people deciding to "go out with a bang" and nuke a ton of people on the way out. Not that I care about that so much. I've been hit with a few of those in my time. However, I will state that instant nukes make nukes a real deterrent. Now they are just one of many tools for warfare.

Quercus, I think that your point is well considered, and one that I admit I had no done. My mobility however is somewhat moot as I would be in the top 100's crossfire and no one else's, so my ability to go up/down isn't a big factor. However, I think that the idea of using the ranks again would be great.

fastest way to allow a catch up? How about a periodic reset? Perhaps in the reset you lose all of your infra and tech, but keep all of your wonders and improvements? You get to keep a portion of your cash. How much is what would make things interesting. So many bills from improvements and wonders that your cash might run out. Now you don't have the ability to keep your shiny wonders and have to choose which ones to keep and which to dispose of. Would be an economy of new people getting the chance to catch up, but still throwing a bone to the old coots like me.

I think that both of these things should be reinstated. I think that the 250 +/- and insta nuke rules were smart. I think that if any of these could be instantiated I would rather have the 250 rule, but if we got that I would also like the insta nuke option. I wasn't arguing for the insta nuke all by itself.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that attacker wins. That simply wasn't the case. Preparation meant more back then, and the most prepared alliance usually did well. What constitutes preparation today versus yesterday is very different.

I took a look at your nation and you're about as old as I am. Surely you remember the old days of warfare? Using nukes actually meant something. Now they are just a little bigger CM. It used to be in prep for war that many nations went into peace mode so that they could come out and attack higher ups as needed. There was more planning and strategy involved. Not every conflict was guaranteed to be nuclear. I differ with your analysis of how things were. Attacking first did not guarantee victory, even with the inability to declare new wars. Anarchy isn't the end of the world, it just means that you can't help others for a bit. Friends and allies are the saving grace. Also, bear in mind that the 250 rule was in effect. I really meant what I said about smaller alliances though. Consider a 30-member alliance of moderate size. They are all around the same nation strength and have nukes. With the instant nuke and 250 rank rule in effect, they could possibly defeat any alliance even twice their size with a well-planned strike. Use today's rules and even the element of a 3-man update attack might throw several nations in anarchy, but size would overwhelm them. Alliances meant more back in the day. Politics were more real, because everyone was a potential threat. Now the game appears stale. Reintroduction of these rules would make things exciting again.

You assume I wanted my poll to extract meaningful data. I was hoping to generate discussion, not numbers. The reason why people don't like a given option can be many and varied. The reverse is also true. I provided a limited number of options because I wanted to force people to actually talk about the issue. I'm glad to see you could be constructive.

You consider this a bad thing? Yes, you can no longer "declare" war until your anarchy is done, but in most cases people know when war is coming. And that's what allies are for. I think that this added an element of surprise that is sorely lacking from today's game. When a war starts today, there is no element of surprise. There is no "can alliance X take out alliance y." In almost all cases now the victor is the one who has the largest number of nations. There is virtually no other stat that matters. Money helps of course. If one alliance has 2x the war chest total of another alliance, all else being equal the ones with the most money will win. Nukes are game changers (or at least they were).

link shows a thread I posted on the old days. I place it here before you now for discussion. I miss the old ways. Anyone else share my opinion?