Jodo

Shows over. Go home.

41 posts in this topic

Sure, but you also have to plan for after the war. Losing a big global now pretty much puts you so far behind you won't be able to catch up again. Sheepy's resource changes !@#$ed everyone except the whales.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much crying. 

I feel like, resource change really didnt mess with anying unless you're just a player that just sits there and expects shit to go your way. But anyway. 

Cool post. Nice to see a Jodo. 

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Holton said:

The choke-hold certain parties have over the happenings in this game is astonishing. You can only go so long with *nothing* happening before we begin to leave and never return.

 

I hope you people realize that there's a tipping point where, even when you still have X amount of nations in the game, the game itself will be dead. Take examples from history and cast off the leadership that constantly tells you to sit and wait month after month.

 

If you're confused as to who I'm referring: Anyone who presents "strategically waiting to be the defender to trigger treaties the right way" or "we need to build up more/we're outpacing their growth" as the grand strategy with which they are guiding your alliance.

Well that's happens when you don't backstab your own people and you have lame !@#$ as leaders. If only people would leak war plans, logs, and steal banks. We need IC terrorism in Orbis.

Conclusion to this thread:

I7RofaK.gif

Edited by Lucifer Morningstar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Who Me said:

Sure, but you also have to plan for after the war. Losing a big global now pretty much puts you so far behind you won't be able to catch up again. Sheepy's resource changes !@#$ed everyone except the whales.

I don't know about that, I know plenty of younger and smaller nations that have no issues waging war, almost continuously. Stunting the growth of your nation has always been an inherent risk associated with warfare in this game, this isn't something new. It's something almost all of us took into consideration in almost every war we've been involved in. Being unwilling to wage war because you don't want to sacrifice the growth and size of your nation or because you're worried about whether or not you'll be able to "catch up" after the war, are hallmark traits of pixel huggers, whales and wannabe-whales. The people who are willing to burn their own nations to the ground, who are willing to sacrifice every pixel and abandon any hope of keeping up with the rest, those are the people who have the most fun in this game.

If your leaders really wanted to fight, you'd be fighting. Where there's a will, there's a way. Plenty of other people have waged and continue to wage war, despite any changes to the game mechanics. If you're incapable of doing the same then you are.. incapable.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

honey dont complain about how the update negatively affects you when you have 20 cities and 2.5k infra per city 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Who Me said:

It's more the stupid shit sheepy does to the game that causes people to lose interest and leave. If he hadn't !@#$ed up the resource aspect of the game there probably would have been a war by now.

I understand that game mechanics have a huge impact on how politics play out... The thing is though, even if you get outpaced in growth by losing a war, this game was specifically designed to limit that impact.

In past worlds we saw people repeatedly winning wars for years that caused skewed growth and it was finally exploited to the point of unplayability because of certain mechanics.

 

In this world, if you grow too high you're actually at a disadvantage when it comes to war. It's why so many people are scared of NPO right now. Coordinated up-declares can overcome a larger nation. Those same larger nations can only sit and wait to be hit because of war range restrictions.

 

In short, no. You won't be "so far behind". It's a myth perpetuated by leadership scared to take the pride-hit of potentially losing a war.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Who Me said:

Sure, but you also have to plan for after the war. Losing a big global now pretty much puts you so far behind you won't be able to catch up again. Sheepy's resource changes !@#$ed everyone except the whales.

Not really; what you're doing here is planning for a theoretical worst case scenario and being paralyzed at its potential. You can't win a theoretical conflict, I've said that already.

More importantly the whales are whales entirely because they have a bunch of infrastructure and cities and resources. That's the definition of a whale, after all. That said, a spiteful, destructive, deliberate war of attrition can and will bring them down. Just go into it with the intent to kill whale, not to become whale. If you hate them so much, then keep them down after your attrition war.

It's not sheepy that's screwing everyone but the whales, it's the lack of wars and attrition that's screwing everyone but the whales.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Judge Dredd said:

“Whales” have been said too many times in this thread. I’ve been obligated to appear. 

Whale hello there

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Whale 🐳 hello there

Whale 🐳 said!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Altheus and Pre in one thread. Orbis better look out. Good to see you guys

 

Whale 🐳

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now