Search For Author: Mr.Silver - Earth Empires Forum

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jul 8th 2013, 5:17:31

there once was a puppy named clifford

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jul 8th 2013, 5:09:38

Originally posted by bstrong86:

Just cuas they r allies dont mean FA was sent.. ;)

Until it is public viewing knowledge one will never know...

White shadow....

it's easier than you think. ie: Dragon was sent 800k military units plus cash on June 5th from Big Rick's country @ 7:10pm game time.

not too hard to sort out. that took all of about 15 seconds to find, everything in the game is very much in the open

Edited By: Mr.Silver on Jul 8th 2013, 5:16:51
See Original Post

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jul 8th 2013, 3:57:58

Originally posted by LittleItaly:

Originally posted by Lucifer:

But looks to be a losing battle even with the FA they are receiving.

There is no mass FAing.

On average there are between 5-10 SOL countries with DK allies.

No biggy, just with the amount your guys post about RD receiving aid that only roughly equaled MD's aid to SOL last reset.... it reminds me of an Alanis song :P

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jul 2nd 2013, 17:43:09

My point is he's calling this reset unfair.. That's laughable

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jul 2nd 2013, 17:42:25

Lol remember to claim moral victory this reset too :)

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jul 2nd 2013, 16:48:05

EE watcher is too busy playing with sheep

Is a game, if someone's planning and telling others they'll hit you why not hit first?

This reset you whine calling it unfair, meanwhile it looks like lcn and sol have a number advantage plus got aid all reset long. Why not just call it what it is.... Losing

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jul 1st 2013, 20:55:38

It will be interesting next reset how you guys will likely try to claim victory in this war too lol.

Imag should have adopted your guys self esteem.... Then they never would have lost a war these past 6 sets :) and they'd be around still

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jul 1st 2013, 18:47:31

no buthurt.

Regardless of the sentiment on your guys boards, RD isn't "out to get SOL"

-RD Offered a pact renewal
-SOL said "No"
-RD said "are you planning on hitting us?"
-SOL said " Maybe, we're debating"
-RD said " could you just let us be this set and we'll do a friendly war next set so it can be fun for both sides?"
-SOL said " no, our guys wouldn't like to friendly vs you"

-SOL then started wargaining strategies and told numerous people they were planning on hitting RD.

-RD hit first.

-----

Round 2 was also your guys initiative, you were recruiting and mentioned to people you were planning on hitting RD AND Rival.

RD and Rival hit first.

Even though you've been hit twice in a row, you were the agressor alliance.

SO while your members seem to think that RD won't let them net or just have peace.... it isn't RD's choice.

if you don't want war then have your leaders message RD and I'm sure something can be worked out.

It's just interesting to hear the propeganda that members seem to be hearing and feel as though a "netting alliance" somehow wants to chase a war allaince out of the game by warring.... really? it makes ZERO SENSE.

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 30th 2013, 18:24:51

Sounds like a hoop dream :p

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 29th 2013, 19:46:30

"planning on hitting RD this set then?"

"maybe"
"we're debating a few options"

" how about not this set and we just plan a friendly for next set?"

" no, our guys won't want a friendly with you guys"

that's not really a "flat out told you no"

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 29th 2013, 19:41:22

but I have super duper A-1 war skillzzz, noone can ever compete with the power of A-1 it wins in every phone book!

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 29th 2013, 19:12:07

if at first you don't succeed try try try again?

last set they had a 20% number advantaged and received same amount of aid, they said it was unfair

this set DK has been aiding them all set long, they have a number advantage, yet will likely also say it was unfair.

SOL planned the war both times, RD just hit first. The whole idea for both these was is SOL's idea.... what's the point?

I plan on blindsiding Braden next set, he'll never see it coming *cackle*

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 27th 2013, 4:29:07

Originally posted by Tokyousr:

Originally posted by Mr.Silver:

Originally posted by mrford:

what if the heat win 6 in a row?

rodman > bosh (not even close)
pippin > wade (current wade to then pippen)
jordan/james are a wash, yet rodman can help wreak james inside game,i dont see anyone on miami ruining anything jordan brings
and id still take the bulls supporting cast,

and 72 wins ;P

birdman > rodman

wade > pippin u gotta be effin kidding me, PPG per season stats is enough, but just in general pippin doesnt have the moves like wade does.

King James > Jumpman Jordan.

James is well on his way to surpassing Jordan in every conceivable category – except one (scoring titles). Jordan had 10 to James’ one. His Airness won five MVP awards; James already has four; Jordan was a first-team All-NBA selection 10 times while James was just named unanimously for the seventh time. Jordan was on nine All-Defensive teams; James has already appeared on five while Jordan was a 14-time All-Star and James has nine selections.

Jordan finished with a little more than 32,000 points for a 30.1 average while James has slightly more than 21,000 for a 27.6 average. And while James will never approach the 10 scoring titles Jordan amassed, he’ll still score more total points.

Meanwhile, he’ll have significantly more rebounds and assists as James averages 7.3 boards and 6.9 assists to Jordan’s 6.2 and 5.3, respectively. While Jordan is clearly the more prolific scorer, James is the better overall player and more of a team player.

But no matter what the numbers say in the end, James will still come out on the lower end when it comes to branding, endorsements and likeability. This stems mainly from “The Decision” in 2010 when James made a much-hyped announcement that he was leaving his home town Cleveland Cavaliers for the Heat.

It depends on your own viewpoint whether this is fair or not but I would argue it is not. Why is James a bad guy in the court of public opinion when Jordan wasn’t exactly a choir boy himself with gambling issues and paternity lawsuits? He also has hardly distinguished as a team owner with the Charlotte Bobcats. Conversely, James appears to be a devoted family man.

My contention is that in roughly a decade when James is ready to leave, he’ll be regarded as the best ever to grace the hardwood

I would very much take Pippen back in 96 tover Wade this past year especially in the post season, he'd play some games and barely show up in others.

if you were to compare other year Pippens to previous years of Wade then yes no contest Wade>Pippen, but not right now. also defence wise I would much rather be guarded by Wade than Pippen.

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 27th 2013, 2:37:37

Originally posted by mrford:

what if the heat win 6 in a row?

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 27th 2013, 2:12:34

yet the heat still arent better than them :P

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 27th 2013, 0:10:25

96 bulls were epic.. And Rodman was better inside than any of the big men centers were

The bulls were a near perfect mix... proper amount of stars and role players,
Great defence and some major offensive weapons

I'd take that team over the earlier Lakers, piston, or Celtic teams.

Edited By: Mr.Silver on Jun 27th 2013, 0:13:03
See Original Post

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 24th 2013, 5:57:40

patty: oh he did? good stuff, I remember him saying he lived in Riverbend way back when.

dang, we're really close. should arrange for an earth meet one of these days. I don't drink, but I'm always up for some chicken wings :)

qz: have you seen pictures from there? I'm seriously shocked those homes aren't under water lol. but all the fields where the paths are right next to it seem to be under a lake now.

We were looking to build last year and it was an area we loved the way it looked but didn't think it would hold up to a flood so decided not to. LOL they actually had to keep announcing on the news "Chapperal Valley is NOT under evacuation" was the only community they ever listed in the "Not" catagory lol.

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 22nd 2013, 20:58:22

Good here, Auburn bay is high enough to be away from everything, I walked down into Cranston and looked over that chaparral valley area.. Holy crap, the water was like 4-5m higher than normal and the river was 3x wider.. Plus had created lakes out of most the areas down there.

Also drove past lafarg off the deerfoot and the water is high enough to be almost fully covering a bunch of cement trucks. My sisters place near Chinook got evacuated so she's here now.. She might be screwed being a low level apartment half below ground level

Edited By: Mr.Silver on Jun 22nd 2013, 21:03:28
See Original Post

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 22nd 2013, 19:55:38

Patty, osso, thumper, etc..

How you guys doing? Anyone in any of those evacuation zones?

Wonder how sanitary stampede is gonna be this year

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 22nd 2013, 19:51:42

I wonder where the flames would be playing if by some miracle they had made the finals this year..

LOL right now ow the place (saddledome) is submerged under water to the 16th row in the stands

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 20th 2013, 21:17:53

Most suiciders on alliance server are linked to an alliance of group of players, suicides rarely have anything to do with an ingame action and have more to do with that persons out of game interests. As such I'd say landtraders carry as much risk if not more than bottom feeders as they hold slightly less military

Scode:actually I was the victim of multi, suiciders, and cheaters more than just about anyone in the game.

I was hit for 4 years straight and the only resets I actually got to make it through a reset was leaking others countries as my own and playing under hidden identities.

I finally completely quit the game over the actions of a bot player from sof (he was playing in sof and ix and killing both with bots)

I left prior to the big rd problems so i csnt really comment on on them.

I am viewing this as unbiased as I can and seeing what I think helps the game.. I think much more then anything to do with landtrading that kills and dieing need to be changed in game... Landtrading already looks leveled.

As per your comment... I'd say 75% of your dislike of landtrading has to so with you liking war and hoping to lead to one and 25% is your blind hatred for rd and being as wee were the ones to most effectively use it over the past couple years ara you link it to us.

Any other reasons you're claiming you are lying to yourself.

If the reason you want it banned is an attempt to find reasons to war that's fine.. Just don't claim some random bs about spirit fingers and formulas you don't even slightly know

Edited By: Mr.Silver on Jun 20th 2013, 22:32:56
See Original Post

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 20th 2013, 5:16:06

Originally posted by locket:

Thanks for the thought out reply Oldman. That is what I was looking for. Why do you say destocking is harder for bottomfeeding than trading though? Seems to me they have similar options and decisions to make.

Destocking is easier with more land

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 20th 2013, 3:05:10

An edit I'd make there would be the landtraders that do well have to do a lot of communicating and be involved in the game...

Instead of it being things doing with database it is sending ingame messages, finding people on irc or in websites.

Any landtraders that puts in a minimal time will fail.

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 20th 2013, 2:56:43

5-5..flip

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 20th 2013, 2:54:51

Both bottom feeders and traders carry light defence, in fact all netgained carry light defence.. it's why topfeed policies were invented. Military expense costs make it that way

If your argument is players need to defend land... I bet I could grab you at any point until end game jump unless you're not trying to net and cashing/techibg/exploring out on 50m net or something silly

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 20th 2013, 2:51:41

1. 500mil? LOL
2.landtrading takes far more than 2min a day to do it properly. The ones that did well on it you will notice had to do a lot of posting, arranging, communicating with other players..if you look at the shared landtrade board you will notice the playera that did well put in a decent amount of effort and it was player interaction.

I'd say that effort is more fun, interesting, challenging, than getting a pal to run a landfarms, getting a text notification on untagged land gains, or setting alarms to come online after dr

Bottom feeding 'skill' is just attention to detail or finding a step above others.. Nothings changed in that aspect in years.. The only difference between now and 2000-2002 is now there's less countries so you have to be faster.

So attention to detail comes ahead, allows those who rather play in larger block periods rather than a few 30 second blocks throughout the day to compete.

If you don't want to play as a trader that's fine.. It's your choice. I don't see you enjoying playing a communist or an oiler either. Landtrading is good for extroverts and bottom feeding is good for introverts

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 20th 2013, 2:31:10

Or he teams up with spike lee again :p

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 19th 2013, 23:11:36

Originally posted by Forgotten:

Land Trading.

get op from other person cause u guys are working together
Grab 3 hits, build land, repeat.

Bottom Feeding

Guessitmate breaks to avoid using turns to get ops
sometimes fail ops then have to spend more turns
grab, build, have to buy more tech (SDI, weapons, military)
have to keep more military (expenses)
less effective from the get go,

OH NO, YOU POOR LAND TRADERS HAVE TO BUILD MORE!

Oh wait, IT COST A BOTTOM FEEDER JUST THE SAME AMOUNT TO BUILD.

it is NOT a legit point when it's the SAME for both sides

that's like a landtrader saying "Oh no, you have to upload your spy op to boxcar and send what it tells you :P

also building costs aren't close. consider number of acres grabbed and lost in both strategies.

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 19th 2013, 22:15:09

lol, or maybe if Duncan was on the floor then Bosh might have not even caught it lol..

coach=fail

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 19th 2013, 21:41:19

More so requires cooperation.

You could do it on another server if you gs afterwards but it's a hassle given the number of partners you need to have.

Team server it could be done too

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 19th 2013, 21:39:13

Why the crap didn't San Antonio foul bosh with 5 seconds to go when he caught that board.

Even highschool players would know to do that

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 19th 2013, 21:32:22

Originally posted by mdemon:

Everything would be fixed with the introduction of bots into the game. I remember the bots, back... back in the day and those were great days. Even a good netter had a chance to finish well on a fluffty clan.

Wars, and excessive farming pisses of people who become disgruntle. Those people in turn hold grudges and troll clans with their attacks.

Land trading is stupid because it gives a competitive advantage to those who trade their land. There is very little skill to land trading. Land trading creates insane records that undermine legit records by those who don't participate in it.

But everyone wants an easy top finish and they will continue to exchange land.

Once again confusing past and present.. There was a distinct unfair advantage before but now that's gone..

And even within the strat there are those able to play it well and those that don't. Those that put time into it and those that don't.

There is a reason why prior to the changes the networth were much higher the reset laf and rd traded nearly exclusively for. Or last set soda water was doing it better than others.

If everyone last set that was netgaining all resets were running all explores, including soda water it's likely soda water would have still been near the top or at the top of the list too.

If you have a semi inactive playing a trader his networth will still suck.

Trading in itself isn't a shoe in for a rank..

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 19th 2013, 21:27:46

Originally posted by Forgotten:

Originally posted by Mr.Silver:

Currently

It is what you think it is..

Wargaining techer
Bottom feeding techer
Landtrading farmer
Landtrading casher
Explorer

WHERE IS BOTTOM FEED FARMER!

A well played bottom feeding farmer? Above trader too.. Simply due to building costs and ghost change. There's a bunch of other strats too.. I guess I simplified my list :p

Once again it breaks down to who's playing.... Let's say you cancel out all variables.

You have xin playing on a ghost server and what networth can he post with different strategies.

I suspect landtraders ones aren't in the top 5 for networth the likely a ways lower.

If you start editing who.. Ie scode netgaining against bakku.. With bakku landtrading and scode bottom feeding, of course there will be a different result

But the result has very little to do with the limitations of the strategy

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 19th 2013, 20:58:36

Currently

It is what you think it is..

Wargaining techer
Bottom feeding techer
Landtrading farmer
Landtrading casher
Explorer

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 19th 2013, 20:57:05

Soda water was slated to win, but what alliances and players were not competing? The networth he would have got netgaining all reset wasn't much higher than warred half the set abed to nothing countries that finished at the top.

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 19th 2013, 20:42:50

Scode:the reason you're against it has very little to do with anything you've posted. You've netgained .. Err never since I started playing earth again therefor landtrading influences you in no way shape or form. (other then you like to topfeed)

The real reason you're against it is to find a war partner and it has nothing to do with anything else . contrary to what was written you actually don't have much more an interest in 'what's good for the game' or promoting activity, game play, or wnyrhing.. It's only to be able to war someone and fight over and over again. Your spirit garbage is about as believable as firebrick doing his cheerleaders spirit fingers impressuon

Xin:i know you're not personally against it currently however lockets question I believe was for those that are against and adding it in pacting

Edited By: Mr.Silver on Jun 19th 2013, 20:49:38
See Original Post

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 19th 2013, 20:01:37

Exactly,

It "was" unbalanced, but no longer is.

Which is why I find it so funny seeing alliances trying to stomp it out with pacting and the like (laf included if you've seen the additions to laf's pacts)

Currently it would be like me trying to pact saying I will grab anyone bottom feeding and expect 1-1retals no topfeed allowances.

Or trying to ban countries from building milt bases... It's goofy.

It needed to be nerfed and it was, but I really don't understand the big push to ban it now that it's already been nerfed

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 19th 2013, 19:39:33

Originally posted by Xinhuan:

@locket No. I just don't like the outcome of win:win, because the ghost acres system wasn't even designed for this to begin with. In my opinion, this is categorically an abuse of game mechanics that eventually became accepted, because the admins do not think it is a problem.

I think rather than 'abuse' a correct term will be it's different and provides a much needed change to the game.

Much like when new govts were added, bushel prices changed into double digits, oil added, etc
All changed the game and helped it evolve, with the lack of players in the game and activity waning... Even though it wasn't directly the original goal.. What's evolved is a new off shoot in the game that adds to the game

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 19th 2013, 19:34:27

Originally posted by Drunken Dibs:

i just see land trading as an abuse of a policy that was created to artificially generate land because too many people were yelling about the lack of it. oh lookie! free land! crap i should've made sure i was wearing my Depends before I got all excited.

What's the abuse? The game has since been changed to make it at par and even less than other strats. If you notice building costs have dramatically changed, ghost acres were also edited... They needed to be, but now they are.

Calling it an abuse would be like calling teching military cost tech late game is an abuse because it always goes up :p

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 19th 2013, 8:08:39

take a mulligan, need a better post with more fluff.

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 19th 2013, 8:00:38

just my own personal opinion but....

What is the point of being against Landtrading now?

- The game has been changed so that Landtraders can't compete with Techer/bottomfeeders (even Xin commented that a landtrader has been nurfed to the point that it's no longer competitive with the techer strat and I'd say he's probably near the tops of the calculator mafia types)

- It's interactive, promotes activity, and gets players communicating (more likely to keep playing)

- provides something different from bottom feeding/all exploring

The game mechanics were edited so that landtrading is no longer the dominant strategy. It needed to be fixed and it was. So really I don't understand the big kafuffle about it now.

if someone wants to do it, good on them, they can't win if a techer that even somewhat knows how to play is playing.

Bottom feeding is crappy, and is almost to a luck of the draw for most. There are a few players that have self texting notifications when untags gain acres or come out of DR. Then there's the group of semi inactive players that go all explore.

Rather than trying to figure out how to block a few way that has emerged that promotes activity and also doesn't prevent the "purest" text bot notified players from winning.... why not try to accept it, bring it in and do it better?

:P

Mr.Silver

Member
680

Jun 16th 2013, 16:06:18

also I don't mind you and your "logs" since as always you seem to stop posting anything further along in the negotiations. It's just jibber jabber and I don't really care.

it's like arguing with Dwight talking with you.

Fact! Bears eat beets