Messages

Here's the hypocritical part: being #1 is justification for a takedown. You can claim that all you want so long as Question has the #1 seat, yet once it's not Question (in this case, BLARG), it suddenly becomes wrong to takedown the #1? Interesting stuff. We didn't do a kill run on you, Firetooth. You were taken down, just like we were several times. Besides, turn-arounds are fair play, no? No?? Well then--you should have corrected your allies or even neutrals on their statements or actions. Now then--I'm also curious as to why Shadow would commit suicide in response to a kill of and then by Answer. I would have assumed you'd clan back up and join the fight on level ground.

And Firetooth, if you can't deal with aggression on Turbo, you ought to be careful on any server. It takes about 24 hours to return full turns, of course, so if someone dies they can be back the day after they revive. It's a big no-no to kill on Reg without either good planning or good reason. On Turbo, the rule is to do unto others as you would want them to do unto you. Clans and alliances and even good relationships can be reason to respond to all parties involved. You were taken down because you were in #1 and your mouth is a few too many sizes too big. However, if memory serves, Shadow justified taking down Question for being top-ranked, so we can justify taking down BLARG by the same standard. I think I speak for and with my entire team: only commit the crime if you're willing to respond to the punishment. #7 was killed for killing a member of Answer. That doesn't bother me: it's a legitimate response, and of course we'll help #7 get right back up on his feet as soon as he's ready.

I was just taking a look at clan ranking on Turbo.

Interrogations for Fun and Profit!     Question     6     $192,031,922     $1,152,191,529
Answer    Answer    5    $103,634,913    $414,539,652
Forces of Evil    F.O.E.    6    $30,231,667    $211,621,671

Two few issues with read-out...
1) There are 7 members of FOE
2) There are 4 members of Answer

I'm unsure what's happening with FOE, but with Answer it appears that #45's death and thus removal from the clan is still being counted as a member (and founder).

There's one for ya of me.

I just ran into a weird glitch. I was doing a few quick little studies into doing kills (I killed 1 warlord and then started on a second) and I ran into an issue. At 5 land, my target seemed to erect an impenetrable wall of defenses. I attacked with 22 million rats and I couldn't break at 100% health. I proceeded to do an espionage on the target's clan and I found something interesting: there were ~500k rats or so total, meaning that the maximum sized 200k rats shared were doing some real overtime: 20x overtime. ??? Further, I wasn't losing the proper rate of troops. No matter what I did, that warlord stood at 5 land and I only lost a few hundred troops.

ADD'L INFO: I proceeded to kill another warlord in the clan and it all went normally. The first was the clan's leader, the second was the clan's assistant, the third was a normal member in the clan.

FINALE: Turned out what I found was basically a land disagreement--so long as rounds are setup, this should not happen (unless onlined where there's a slim chance of something like this happening).

I found a fix for you; uncloak fully and recloak. Uncloaking is broken, however. The readout is broken, the spell only returns 1% at a time, though it's the only way to counter this code-gremlin it seems. Might as well ask for your stats (turns, troops, resources) to be copied for when you're done--it's a 400+ turn process.

On a side note: I tested it out fully on both antiquated code and right-now code. It used to work just fine on all counts, though now there IS a readout problem them IS a problem cloaking the first time, and there IS a problem uncloaking. Second time around it seems fine, for reasons unknown. Keep an eye on it--I tried from $40m to $170m or so NW on 100 cloaks the second time around, and it worked.

EDIT: I forgot; there's another issue, with Uncloak at least. If you run out of resources while doing that mission, you continue casting it. Only running out of loyalty seems to work--for definitely does not. I went to 0 food around my 5th cloak and it continued casting till 25.

Just my tip; stoats are of course a better troop type. You have 5OP/3DP of course and food consumption, while higher, is not anywhere as bad as rat or as bad as the poor-OP weasel.

Well before it was cloaking just over half of my networth then it just went away.
Im not sure what my exact networth values were.

May you PM me the networth you were at? I saw that before, actually, where early-game the Cloak was doing multiple times power, but later its effectiveness broke entirely. I'll bug-test it today or tomorrow or something.

Windhound and I were looking at the code for turns at the beginning of the round. General consensus is it needs to be fixed; neither of us are good at PHP (I'm not even a programmer--I'm working out code by logic) but there seems to be arguments that are factored in multiple times, and even broken arguments which would probably lead to issues like this, where stored turns are added to active turns but never removed from stored turns.

To Programmers: Remove any reference (replace them with "1" or "0" or whatever) to the NW brackets and cloak will go back to normal--back how it was and how it should be. Odds are a networth bracket is missing information--such as the >~$100M NW bracket. Whatever it's spitting out is wrong--most likely the majority of the equation is spitting out a flat-out zero. By eliminating any reference to networth brackets, this will be fixable. It is described to be a 1% decrease each time. Just like Murder is a 3% loss, that means that the equation should be something like

Code Select Expand

(Actual Networth) x 0.99^(number of cloaks) = (perceived networth)
Also check for lost values or whatever... as I said, something referencing networth brackets is most likely broken.

To Oblit: I know what you're talking about. I did that a few rounds ago but couldn't figure out exactly why it wasn't working. Can you give your appx. networths between start and finish of your run?

Reread what I said. I don't consider you or your more experienced compatriots as "pawns". If memory serves, I never once said it, especially as time passed.

OK, fair enough, why did you bring it up though?

Because it's always brought up, and I don't think the same way.

Now then--the other half of my decision to "switch" sides was I found the players to be more tolerable to work with. I'm not going to lie and say I get along perfectly with everyone. I get along well enough and I have more respect for them for various reasons. And what I was saying comparing Shadow's and my own leadership styles is that we're both leaders, though we have different qualities that make us such. I'm dry and I prefer to run a tight ship. If you want to have some fun and drama, hop aboard. I'm not afraid of consequence, especially when it serves my own purposes or a plan I support. I'm open to questions, suggestions, and general conversation from anyone I work with or teach.

I don't I even asked these questions...

No, you may not have, but they're answers none the less.

You never actually onlined me lol, I had finished 10 minutes before the attacks. Sorry ^_^ You kinda brought all this on yourself, lol. If it was just the clan minus you, I wouldn't even have started posting about it. But since you insisted on trying to online unprovoked and act like a twit, I am going to rain on your parade, with appologies to the rest of your clan, and since its you, a lot of other people are hapy to help. :P

Then I'll tell Shael that there is a glitch with Espionage giving information from 10 minutes before. When I last onlined you a few days ago, you had 200 or so turns and finished not too soon before with attacking. Last time I attacked or had a questionable member attack I knew you were already done for a few. That was 3 days ago, actually.

And Firetooth--just so you realize, I really don't care who I'm up against or specific names.

Meh, Bob really got on my nerves with his gloating messages and attempted onlines, so I fought back. I don't want to lock land, really, but I don't want land to be locked either. Nothing against you guys or what you are doing, but at least turbo is being interesting. This is more or less what I expected of a no barracks round.

I forgot to thank you for the responses to those onlinings? Oh--I'm sorry. Thank you--earlier in the game, you helped keep my costs and defenses better in check when I got to you 60% of the way through your run. It was really helpful to be able to take, use, and then have dispatched the extra land. More productive then standard attack+build, of course. So, thank you.

Love,
Bob-sama
:-*

And whoever Zulu is, I'm assuming, has done your innocence in, Firetooth. Look before you leap, lest you leap into your own trap.

Oh and the ironic thing is that Shadow's past complaint about Question being stacked. So we have 5 good to great players... what's your point? I can't see how you'd complain about our dominance now after Woodlander was almost all veterans of some sort or another? And how other clans typically had 3-4 veterans. My own clan, Army, had 1/2 the players disabled or dead. Of those that remained, half were in protection. Versus Woodlander--take a look at your own tally of players. Now the tables have turned slightly--we're all forced to focus on leadering. However, we by no means have the biggest group of talent. If all you want to do is take us down, realize you're fighting the battle against a steep incline, not to mention are quick to commit the same acts that you yourselves complain about, when you're on top. Fine--take us down if you really think it's worth doing. However, you could just as easily out-net us. We don't run all together as a clan--I just remind everyone to run, perhaps drop a few espionage reports in, and tell them who to send their stuff to.

A team of 4 that interrogate for fun and profit deserve destruction :P
And I need some goal this round
Finally, if you think they just plan to play nice, slightly defensive and try to hold the top 4 you must be on their side or blind. Eck, I'm not critizicing them. I'd try and do the same thing myself in their position.

You DO realize that with functional defenders, we're still unbreakable with individual troop areas? Yeah--didn't think you realized that.

No one cares what my stats are lol, I am not doing anything that hurts them, and my actions are actually helping everyone who isn't in question. Troop training my indeed be broken, actually, but I'd have to get exact stats on your clan to tell you for sure ^_^

Espionage them, then. I seem to remember Stoats having a +0% defense bonus and having more than 3.8m skiffs between various warlords...

badrang (#25)
Turns     25 (max 550)
Turns Stored     0 (max 150)
Rank     #4
Workers     186,123
Acres     72,742
Cash     $29,147,722,793
Food     662,982,865
Loyalty     28,959,885
Networth     $88,743,907
           
Location     Mossflower
Race     Marten
Health     100%
Tax Rate     11%
Rats     14,614
Weasels     6,034,795
Stoats     0
Skiffs     465,466
Leaders     6,009,396

If I'm right, troop sharing is broken still. I'll mention it to Windhound and Shael.