Daniel A said:
Then you said you didn't need a sub and I had other things to do that night, so I did those instead
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Then you said you didn't need a sub and I had other things to do that night, so I did those instead
Tonioz said:
Well that system will work fine if players don't play like exploiting buggers
Aladar said:
I did exactly that. The first popup I got that told me a state of war existed was a combat report. (Actually, my immediate reaction was to click the goto button and order retreats) Since he joined an existing war, there was no DoW popup, only a message in the log. The first message I noticed was a chat comment (from Absolut?) asking if the war was real in response to seeing the log message. Almost immediately afterwards the combat popup appeared.
My thought process went roughly thus "Daniel has achieved complete tactical surprise.
Don't stop to check the odds, you can trust his calculation, they are bound to be overwhelming, run away, RUN AWAY, RUNNNNN"
The Arch Mede said:I did exactly that. The first popup I got that told me a state of war existed was a combat report. (Actually, my immediate reaction was to click the goto button and order retreats) Since he joined an existing war, there was no DoW popup, only a message in the log. The first message I noticed was a chat comment (from Absolut?) asking if the war was real in response to seeing the log message. Almost immediately afterwards the combat popup appeared.
My thought process went roughly thus "Daniel has achieved complete tactical surprise.
Wasnt me.
I think it was KJ.
You mean, if there was a totally different set of players. :rofl:Dr Bob said:Well that system will work fine if players don't play like exploiting buggers
This is a game set up by exploiting buggers, for exploiting buggers, to determine who is the exploitingest buggerer.
The Arch Mede said:You mean, if there was a totally different set of players. :rofl:
This is a game set up by exploiting buggers, for exploiting buggers, to determine who is the exploitingest buggerer.
I know
Daniel A said:
SQRT is effective at reducing the high extremes, but it makes little to no difference at the low end. The most effective way of damping at both ends with a simple formula is to average with previous values.
MT(n+1) = xMT + (1-x) MT (n)
where n is the session number, MT is calculated by the current or any other formula based on what happened in session n, MT(n) is the value used to generate leaders in that session, MT(n+1) is the value used to generate leaders for the next session and x is chosen to obtain whatever degree of damping by earlier tradition is considered desirable. X=1 is the current system, I guess anywhere between 0.5 and 0.75 would flatten the extremes nicely, while allowing a reasonably quick response to a change in strategy.
I know you know that I know you knowDr Bob said:I know
And I know an infinite regress when I see one.
After enetering in the game as HEL player,
(just to know it)
was I in time or not?
(just to know it)
was I in time or not?
Neither Helvetia (Adam) or Brabant was in time. But you were. I would tend to say that since you take over Helvetia your nation was in time.
Just go back to using starting max MP instead of ending max MP. It was only a problem before because everybody started at 10 MP, ensuring that all got extremely good leaders. We've gotten past that now, so we don't need to worry about it anymore.
However, we should also reward victories of any kind. We can't keep track of how many kills you take, but victories are easy. Every victory should be worth another .5 MT(vs human players).
However, we should also reward victories of any kind. We can't keep track of how many kills you take, but victories are easy. Every victory should be worth another .5 MT(vs human players).
Daniel A said:... Since it is a test of skill ...
------------------
As for the attacks on my personal honesty I suggest you think about it for 24 hours and then come back. The attack in itself, regardless if it were true or not, is against the basic requirement of being nice. Being nice and reliable are the two foremost requirements we have on the participants.
If you then still believe that I may
"use that to cover an attack on you" or believe that I had seen your comments on the glitch and chose to disregard them or in anymore of your personal insults, such as that I "find it convenient as a player to deny having read the chat" then this game is not for you.
I must say that your character attack on me is quite beyond my imagination.
This is the crux of our clash, Daniel. Is this a test of skill, or a test of niceness. The two are opposites. As the Americans say "nice guys come last". Now, I can play nice and I can play to win, and most of the time I do a bit of both. My competitive streak can be aroused when I am supposed to be nice and vice versa.
Daniel, I think that your english is good enough, that you are aware of the meaning of "nice guys come last", that describing someone as "nice" is a mild way of insulting their competence. What I am not sure is, whether you realise that in the context you used it in the post I quote, it is strongly insulting. "Nice" is a very ambiguous word.
Your post might be "nice" in the sense that it is carefully crafted to be strongly insulting to me while not appearing to be so to others reading it. This sense of "nice" means getting something exactly right when a little bit either way would not be effective.
Nice can mean "kind" or "friendly", but it always carries the implication of incompetence and only lacks any insulting force when used to describe someone who is too young or old to be expected to be competent. "Nice kid" or "nice old man" can be purely complimentary, when the child or old man is not present. You may or may not realise it but when you say "people must be nice to play in my game", it means, "people must let me win to play in my game".
I will refrain from describing the hypocritical meaning of "nice". This is, of course, because I am too "nice" in that meaning of "nice" to do so.
I could go on but the key point is that there are ambiguities in "nice". I don't know Daniel well enough to know what he means when he uses the word but it is his game. I am not going to walk, that would be too unreliable.
Daniel, if you don't like me vigorously objecting to being strangled, you should not have set out to strangle Livonia. So, boot me if you want, I accepted that risk before you threatened it (though I thought you would accuse me of too much RP not too little niceness) but do it within the next 24 hours so that I don't waste too much time setting up an anti-Moldova coalition.
Thx muxh, my inflation increased: I could ask another deflation ...Daniel A said:Neither Helvetia (Adam) or Brabant was in time. But you were. I would tend to say that since you take over Helvetia your nation was in time.
About Dauphinè sold from Portugal to me in the session, let me know if You can't edit it ... we'll do it in the next session.
Aladar, what do you think of province edits? I think we should deny it. If we open up for edits like this, where will it end? Besides I have enough to do as it is. If you can do them, sure, why not, if you take over making the edits each week I see no big problem, only the small problem of setting a clear limit to what edits can be made.
The Arch Mede said:
It is not. You are confused. They are quite apart. As I wrote in my invitation
Aladar said:
Here is the link to that page.
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=243338&page=1
The Arch Mede said:
This is entirely inapplicable to the word "nice" as described by me above in the quote. As you can see I have defined what I mean with "nice" so there is no need for you to speculate about any other interpretation.
The Arch Mede said:
This is ridiculous. I ask for nothing but that you behave like when you go home to some friends for a nice board-game session. You will do your best to win the game, but you will be well-mannered. You will not accuse players of cheating, unless you have proof.
The Arch Mede said:Daniel, if you don't like me vigorously objecting to being strangled, you should not have set out to strangle Livonia. So, boot me if you want, I accepted that risk before you threatened it (though I thought you would accuse me of too much RP not too little niceness) but do it within the next 24 hours so that I don't waste too much time setting up an anti-Moldova coalition.
Of course you may vigorously object to me "strangling" you. I have not intended one sentence of my post as protesting against that. You have made several posts arguing for more nations to attack me. This is of course entirely acceptable posts, even more, they are welcome. I as well as anyone else want diplomatic activity.
That you so utterly misinterpret my post is a mystery.
To me, and I guess anyone else, a GM that uses his powers to enhance his own position in the game basically cheats. If you are of another opinion you may say so but then I guess you are alone in the universe and do not belong in our game. We want honest people in the game.
ArchMede said:
That I will use this glitch of yours to “cover” an attack would be exactly a cheat according to the definition above.
As I have written I did not see that you mentioned you had this problem and besides you had some 3 months notice before I attacked - plenty of time to ask for a rehost.
I expect an apology for this accusation of cheating.
ArchMede said:
Here I am not sure whether you mean
a) I deny although I have seen the chat
b) or that I merely intentionally try and avoid the chat to be able to deny
ArchMede said:
I pay very little attention to the chat for the simple reason that I focus on the game, not to be able to “deny” that I have seen what people write. And I can promise you that I will continue to do so. If you cannot accept this (and that Aladar assists in GMing) then this is not your game. If you need a GM then pause the game and call for his attention. Whether other GMs perform differently is up to them.
Item a) is an accusation of cheating while b) is merely insulting. Regardless if it is a) or b) an apology is again expected.
-----------------
Let me make this very clear: you may do anything in the game as the rules allow. You may do any diplomacy you want. You may portrait me as a devious, treacherous, megalomaniac player. But you may not make accusations of cheating unless you have proof.
You will be a fox and a wolf while playing and making diplomacy, but you will be a gentleman in your behaviour.
If you still, after reading this whole post, do not understand the wolf/fox-gentleman distinction and what is expected from you then I give up and you will have to leave the game.
Daniel A said:
Editing provinses is only a matter of skill for the modder, one which i do not posess, but gamewise it's not a skill. So no, no editing.
Go LORDI
OK, we continue with the present editing policy.
While you are up and reading the thread. WHat did you think about my vassal propopsition?
------------
Lordi's win is the end of the "song" contest. It is not song, it was a disturbance in the ether.
While you are up and reading the thread. WHat did you think about my vassal propopsition?
------------
Lordi's win is the end of the "song" contest. It is not song, it was a disturbance in the ether.