Jump to content

rand0m her0

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    145

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by rand0m her0

  2. Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    Is it really that difficult to believe that a mass alliance can maintain high activity levels or is IRON really that terrible?

     

     

    Given that we have no small number of nations who ran out of things to do several years ago? For something as utterly unexciting as this, we can reasonably expect a percentage of stragglers who don't give enough of a damn, and that it will take awhile  to get them all back on the AA  

     

    lol

     

    I don't overestimate them: I simply see the hassle as a necessary evil to get a much needed improvement: I have complete faith in my alliance's ability to survive this "ordeal".


    EDIT: let me rephrase... It won't get done in one day, nor in two. We are working towards assuring that all our people will be safe in the process, and by what I have seen your alliance leaders are doing exactly the same. Perhaps you are too pessimist in this regard.

     

    As do I in mine. We could keep a watch over all *checks* 296 IRON members as they make their way back to the AA, what I'm questioning is the value of the kind of effort that implies. AA hopping rogues are neither that common, nor a real problem, ghosts are simply a nice source of target practice. It should be entirely possible to switch over to the the new system without this much trouble.

     

    I'm all for it. It can only be a good thing that inactive members are purged from alliance rosters so that we can all see without a doubt who the strong alliances really are. No more being powerful just because of dead weight. At least for a while.

     

     

    Yes because there are clearly a massive pile of large alliances with massive activity issues hemorrhaging 40 nations a day to deletion but managing to buoy themselves with recruitment..... 

  4. Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?

    in Open World RP

    Posted · Edited by rand0m her0

    If it gets implemented how he's suggested- kicking everyone off every AA and letting the AA leader let people back on once it's created- the easiest way to prevent high NS raids (and any NS raids) is to just have your AA go into PM before the reset.  Once they're back on the AA, have 'em leave PM.  Easy solution which nullifies your concern. 

     

     

    Again, if you're concerned about inactive members, send them a message  before the reset to hit PM, then they can take as long as they want/need to join the AA without fears of getting hit. 

     

    Having inactive members shouldn't be a concern of admin for implementing this system.  That is not his nor anyone but that player's fault.  If they aren't active enough to be interested in these changes, it speaks for their interest in the game overall. Holding back improvements in the game because of those that care least about it doesn't seem logical in any way. 

     

     

    Regardless of whether it's admins job to worry about those players, it is the job of their alliances and this improvement to the game is a solution to a non-issue "affecting" the alliances who will be most inconvenienced by that solution. It is Admins job to not pointlessly waste our time. 

  6. Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    30 member or 300 member, whats so hard about sending out notices to your members and asking them to check their nations once a week? i imagine u already have a pre-made list that makes this incredibly quick and easy.

     

     

    If a fraction of your alliance can't be arsed to check the game in time, or just doesn't give enough of a fuck to keep track of what day a browser game they only kinda care about anymore, its 4-5 people, and who cares. The same fraction in a 300 member alliance has us spending a month running after 40+ people. Given that it's the larger alliances who primarily deal with the problems this is supposed to fix...

     

    No solution should take more effort and inconvenience to implement than the problem it purports to fix.

  7. Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    I'm always amazed at how quick we are to defend the people who play the game once every 20-25 days.

     

    At one point are you not even playing at all when you're unwilling to type one line to go back to the alliance you've been a part of for 4-7 years.

     

    Seniority is a stupid feature and a horrible argument against improving an actual worthwhile implementation.

     

     

    The problem is not the effort of typing in one line, but the clusterfuck of organizing a few thousand typings of that line over a freaking month while dealing with the idiots who think they should take advantage of the chaos. It's not worth it for the minor benifit stopping the odd AA hopper or ghosts, the former who can be dealt with by 5 seconds in a query and the latter by a few cruise missles. 

     

    I think the main issue people have isn't the system itself but the method of implementation. The transition period is gonna be chaotic as all hell, and if there's a way to mitigate that then I think it'd be fine.

     

     

    This. The new system is superior, unfortunately the planned transition will create more work than the problems its ment to solve ever have. 

     

    if alliance leaders start sending out advanced notice now to be on the look out for this change and advance notice when a specific date/time is finally announced, it shouldn't even take anywhere close to 25 days. really that hard to ask even the most inactive members to check in once or twice a week for the next 1-2 months?

     

     

    Says the guy in a thirty member alliance.

  8. Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?

    in Open World RP

    Posted · Edited by rand0m her0

    No. It'll create a massive amount of hassle, especially when dealing with large alliances; migrating 100-300 members and  then cleaning up the cockwads whole will go "Herp derp they're on None! TECH RAAAAAID" will be all kinds of not fun, for no gain. We've been successful in keep undesirables off our AA's for 7 years now, and it probably took less effort over that whole time than organizing this kind of clusterfuck will.

     

     

    Either find a way to port the current AAs over and then manually set the leaders, or don't bother.

  10. Nation Sitting Rules Question

    in Question Center

    Posted

    Was poking through the ntion sitting section, and a bit of idle curiosity hit me. The Rules for nation sitting state:

    You will never be allowed to aid, trade, or war with/along side of the nation you sit again. Any outstanding trades or foreign aid will be cancelled and marked as cheating as soon as the sitter logs on to the sat nation.

    Most of this is pretty simple, however it leaves open the possible (though unlikley) event of a nation declaring war on both players at the same time. Should that happen what would be the outcome?

  12. Wrong Wording?

    in Question Center

    Posted

    [quote name='Fizzydog' date='19 June 2010 - 04:15 PM' timestamp='1276978504' post='2343109']
    Yes, I believe it did for me. Though I exactly can't remember I think I actually got a small fraction of land.
    [/quote]


    What this fellow said.

    I've had a few "defeats" where I've still done the maximum (or near it anyways) damage. It's mildly funny when it happens.

  13. Aircraft Attacks

    in Question Center

    Posted

    Low level aircraft don't have bomb sights and the bombardier is permanently drunk it seems. Either don't bother with air attacks at your size unless you really need to or get 300 tech so you can buy planes that don't suck. With low level planes you need 20-30 of them to do semi-decent damage on a regular basis and that will get shot down by anyone with a fighter heavy air force. That and using them in a tech raid is all kinds of stupid.

  14. The New Grämlins

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by rand0m her0

    [quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='07 May 2010 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1273283209' post='2290890']
    Edit: Gre just lost two more nations totaling 130K NS. Anybody know who they are? That's with a 58K NS nation and a 185K NS nation sitting near deletion (23 days). Ooh, and Gre is only 1K NS greater than Argent now.
    [/quote]


    One fellow joined MHA, the other one is Bobdole and right now it seems they've ducked off the AA thinking we can't find em then or something.

    Edit: Actually that comes to around 175k NS, so looks like someone deleted as well.

  17. Improvments

    in Gameplay Discussions

    Posted

    Is that by rounding the cents or does it have to be at least $86? My citizens make $85.61.

    Yea 86 is rounded, the break even point is actually somewhere between 85.71 and 85.72. You can get away with doing it before that because of the banks lower cost, however how far depends on how long it would take you to get up past the break even point. Either way however if you plan on tech farming regularly (You should, Its not much work and a great way to grow your nation.) get factories prior to banks. The extra infra they'll let you buy will make up for the lower income

  18. Improvments

    in Gameplay Discussions

    Posted

    Basically, it goes like this.

    Harbor

    Foreign Ministry - If you're in an alliance

    Factories x5

    Bank

    Stadium

    Bank

    Stadium

    Bank

    Stadium

    Bank

    Stadium

    Bank

    Stadium

    The reason why you don't buy 5 stadiums or 5 banks at once is because it's good to have a combo of happiness and citizen income alternating between each other.

    Unless theres been some changes to the system I've missed, you should only buy a stadium in preference to a bank if your Avg. Gross Income per Citizen was lower then $86.

  20. IRON's terms end

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by rand0m her0

    So I'm basically saying that we don't have very many people in that range, hell those that are THAT small are probably ghosts or they won't stay that small for long. When we did run across a nation who was willing to and was in range we used them

    Like I said most of the attacks were sub-1k NS which leaves a very small window of people who can attack

    Also don't twist my words because I certainly would not do the same to you

    Actually I personally handled IRON's end of several of those cases. Outside of the really small ones the general rule was that you had about a dozen nations in range, for the most part different nations then the previous case. I find it hard to believe that in months period of time you had 7x ghosts cycle through your AA. It would be a good guess to say at least some of them were active no?

    also could I get an answer to my above post please

    Edit. Forgot a comma

  21. IRON's terms end

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    Fark is very mid tier heavy when it comes to nation strength and most of the attacks were on sub-1k nations

    We just don't have anyone who can fight them, our military is voluntary and we cannot just go and find some guy who's on our AA and in range and yell at them to attack. It's against our laws

    So they failed to respond to a reasonable request to do something by their officers? Isn't that exactly what your complaining about IRON nations doing?

  22. IRON's terms end

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by rand0m her0

    Since we're on the subject why dont you ask IRON why it was so difficult to control their members? it took the threats of more attacks to get them to start to decom their military per the terms..and this was a week after terms were signed

    May I point out that FARK had their own trouble getting members to respond when it came to your fulfilling of article 7? Perhaps you should have threatened them with ZI so they would have been more willing to declare war. You have your own problems with stubborn members who prefer not to listen, so do most other alliances. Stones and glass houses mate.

    edit: Grammer

  23. PZI list

    in Open World RP

    Posted · Edited by rand0m her0

    IRONs is up to date, even has the list of the guys who's ZI's have finished or council chose to let go.

    If you want to take a look at it you don't even need an account.

  24. An attack upon IRON

    in Open World RP

    Posted · Edited by rand0m her0

    * Jason8 waves his e-peen around

    If you don't want your boards to be attacked, don't give people a reason to attack them! ;)

    So all we need to do it not piss anyone off anymore?

    Guess no more alliance wars because that may annoy one of their memeber. No turning down a treaty offer for the same reason. Defend our members against random attacks? That may piss off the attacker so no more of that. Some random person demanded aid off you? Guess you'll have to send it no matter how rude they are; after all refusing them regardless of how politely you do it may offend them

    What warrants the attack is based entirely on the opinion of the attacker. It could be because of a war they don't agree with or an argument over soda pop. Or it could be just because their life is miserable and they find trying to inflict a small part of their misery on others amusing.

    Edit: Spell check failed me.

×
×
  • Create New...