Recent posts by waraxe on Kongregate

Topic: Time World / Gem Raids- Shanks

Originally posted by Vinghiskhan:

Originally posted by nvillian:

Originally posted by Krazycat:

Without this helper, there is a chance the group could NOT beat the gem.

Rather have minimum or none whatsoever? (ofc this is avoided by having pillar coupons)

You are so dumb, really

So here comes a top player trying to scam newer weaker players and you are all for it? They end up getting more coupons than the creator. Yea, nothing wrong with that huh?

Add this to the never ending list or reasons why you need to just STFU

Nvillain vs Krazycat, once again

Originally posted by nvillian1:

I should create a newbie alt account and just post stupid stuff/questions in this forum to make it look like this game isn’t completely dying and going to hell.

Wait a second o.0

Damn, nvillian is next level.

Topic: Time World / Ore mines payback

Yeah, the CC’s return isn’t solely based off resource output over time unlike the ore mine. I think because of this, PM made the CC’s returns absolutely horrendous, I mean Shoe’s understanding of math level of horrendous.

Topic: Time World / Speed issue

Realize we were being sarcastic about the banhammer issue, the only matter of clarity was whether something was wrong and PM has conceded that by claiming there was a change.

Topic: Time World / Ore mines payback

Okay, no retraction. Time to embarrass you, first step: your own example.

You must evaluate profit created by the upgrade rather than raw production. The total profit of the upgrade across 10 days is 100 ore, not 1000, it doesn’t pay itself back.

Firstly, we construct two situations, one in which you choose to hold on to the ore and the other in which you spend the ore.

Person A (holds on to the ore)
Total Ore: 1,000 (he didn’t spend it on the upgrade)
Ore per day: 100

Person B (spends the ore)
Total Ore: 0
Ore per day: 110

After 10 days:

Person A
Total Ore: 2,000
Ore per day: 100

Person B
Total Ore: 1,100
Ore per day: 110

Clearly they didn’t breakeven after 10 days.

This is a clear cut example (your own, don’t bullshit about my analogies being flawed, I’m perfect in comparison to you) of why it is important to evaluate relative profit rather than gross production. While it is true that after 10 days, you are above your initial value of 1,000 ore, you are still behind the amount of ore you would have had if you had chosen not to spend.

I can just defer to the previous posts, but it is quite obvious how you are wrong.

Topic: Time World / Ore mines payback

I will give you time for a retraction. Vinghis provided the numbers, this argument about real world and not real world is irrelevant when you made up numbers. My analogies were a thought process and logic simulation.

Topic: Time World / Ore mines payback

Originally posted by hatemakingnames:

Once again, it can use improvements when CC38 is already 15m ore, but it all pays off eventually. When you consider how many people have 100-400+ day consecutive logins, it’s not that big of a deal to wait.

You can be earning back res spent for multiple levels at the same time (Can build 25/26/27 in a few weeks…25 will be profiting in x days, then 26 in about x+20, etc…and their profits can help go towards 27), you get bonus rates earning res, etc.

An overlooked fact is your hourly earnings (H) are used in many parts of the game. Res buys are 8H, Daily spins are 50H (0.5H*10*10 with maxed login/friends)

---

BUT an overlooked fact on the other side…you have to consider that for a L35 ore mine on every planet, you will also need a L35 CC on every single planet. Considering most people don’t otherwise bother leveling anything on P3-P6 past 20-25, that’s a HUGE added cost. (Yeah…you get some extra creds…but that’s not helping anything much with tavern exchange rates)

Leveling P3-P6 CCs from just L31 to L32 would cost 16.4m creds and 32.8m ore. Leveling P3-P6 ore mines from L31 to L32 is an additional 17.6m creds and 8.8m ore.

Of course it pays off eventually, any investment that results in increased output will pay off. The question is whether or not the time till it pays itself off is smart or not.

While veterans do have consecutive logins of hundreds, it’s important to note that most of these people have been playing for a long time and the time till payoff for an ore mine is still a significant chunk of that time. It’s a pretty good fraction of the game’s life in fact as of now.

While it’s true that there are other areas in which the output is used, I think we can agree there are factors on both sides (no pillar collects, etc.) that balance it out for the most part.

Topic: Time World / Ore mines payback

Offensive: The sheer amount of stupidity present is scary.

Logical: You guys are evaluating it completely incorrectly, the output of level 30 should not be taken as a sum total but rather as the relative increase. It’s like this, if you are making 10 grand a day and are offered a raise of 1 dollar at the expensive of 100 grand, that is not worth it. Yes you technically make the 100 grand back in 10 days but all of us can see why this is stupid right? You don’t actually make a profit until 100,000 days after this initial payment, 273 years. I think everyone with half a brain can agreement this is a bad investment because its rate of return is absolutely horrendous. Yet, you guys are willing to do that in regards to ore mines which totally blows my mind.

After Vinghis nicely outlined the math for you, I see two of the stupidest posts relative to how one should evaluate opportunity cost. Just because you don’t understand how mathematics works doesn’t make your perception correct. You would have made a large amount of that ore regardless of leveling something from 32 to 33, the question really is whether or not the UPGRADE pays itself off rather than the rest of your ore mines.

I’ve given you a concrete example of why your thought process is wrong so if you could edit your posts to: Removed, I’m stupid, it would be appreciated and help the community out a bit. Bad information is bad for a reason.

@Shoe, next time you try to condescend other people’s maths maybe get a high school education, this shit is ridiculous.

Topic: Dawn of the Dragons / Bugs

I think the idea behind the WR is that they:
Did damage to the WR, a decently significant investment.
Reopened and due to some reason, they don’t see the WR in active but instead in new where they have 0 damage done.
Not wanting to lose their investment they think to close it and rejoin, but instead this prevents them from participating in the WR.

Also, I think the issue of leaving guilds is major. Unless you kick yourself or are kicked by someone, the game won’t let you leave and instead will crash. This comes from multiple people as our guild did a merger recently.

Topic: Time World / Feedback and Suggestions

It’s a shame nvillian’s post was deleted because he was correct in that there wouldn’t be abuse.

Topic: Time World / Ore mines payback

Originally posted by Bolschewist:

Originally posted by stalliga888:

A 100% return for levels 25-31 will take around 6 years if you waited for a 100% return of each level of ore mine!

no it wont take 6 years to return 100% from 25-31
the roi from each level is not addided its the average of 25-31 to calculate how much the roi from 25-31 is (in case of no building time and having enough ress)

building time adds to the singel level upgrade time and waiting time also but not to total time
but waiting time is normally none and building time is very little too

He is saying if you wait for 100%. E.g. level 25 → 26, wait for it to pay 100% back THEN upgrade 26-27 and repeat.

Topic: Dream World / ...

Originally posted by omark96:

Waraxe, I only have one thing to say about what you just said and that is: No one needs biased opinions so maybe you should shut up. :)

I’ll take that as a concession, thanks.

Topic: Time World / Ore mines payback

Was talking with boredpoo, ore != credits. You can effectively cut everything by a factor of 2. It’s still bad but not as bad.

Topic: Time World / Ore mines payback

Originally posted by Bolschewist:

in a other game the roi is 10 jears so 1 jear is
not so bad

imagine in rl u get 100% in 1 jear

This is a game.

Topic: Dream World / ...

Originally posted by DeathStryke:

Originally posted by waraxe:

Originally posted by kwll:

Someone has got that nerd rage….this is starting to become a flame war…

Heh, it’s better than your addiction to contributing nothing though.

Actually, it is not. I’m not on the side of kwll, since he’s just a tiny troll on the forum. Though your arguing with omark, about freaking NOTHING is pretty much USELESS, pointless. You two both written a book about such a tiny thing, what has been cleared by nitroidman himself… It’s really just flaming. I know omark only kept arguing with you, because he always has to be right, but he’s like that, and he’s right most of the time. Though you… How should I express myself… Pathetic.

Actually if you read any of my post, I wasn’t talking about what was “cleared” by nitroidman, I say “cleared” because an accused party can never clear themselves. But I digress on that point, I was talking about the general brightlines that could be applied to what is deemed abuse. But you’re pretty pathetic too, my opinion of you is fairly low given your past escapades or whatever you call it. Fair weather friend and trash.

Topic: Dream World / ...

Originally posted by kwll:

Someone has got that nerd rage….this is starting to become a flame war…

Heh, it’s better than your addiction to contributing nothing though.

Topic: Dream World / ...

Originally posted by nitroidman:

Originally posted by waraxe:

Originally posted by nitroidman:

Waraxe, drop it. I’ve already clarified the situation. Omark, if he keeps up, just ignore him.

It’s nice to see you keeping up your routine of ignoring details whatsoever. The argument isn’t centered around you.

Damn right, it’s the best routine to have. Ignorance is bliss dude. I’m honestly just tired of reading paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of you two bitching at one another. Sure, the argument may not be centered around me, but it was fueled by shit involving me which i’ve already cleared.

Except you clarified no situation. Also a passive aggressive holier than thou is always appreciated. You don’t even have to read those paragraphs, hell, I doubt omark read any of mine.

Topic: Dream World / ...

Originally posted by RaptorKris:

What a brilliant Sunday night read. Thanks guys :)

You’re welcome. I aim to entertain.

Topic: Dream World / ...

Originally posted by nitroidman:

Waraxe, drop it. I’ve already clarified the situation. Omark, if he keeps up, just ignore him.

It’s nice to see you keeping up your routine of ignoring details whatsoever. The argument isn’t centered around you.

Topic: Dawn of the Dragons / Bugs

Leaving the guild is causing people to disconnect in addition to not being able to leave unless one kicks themselves.

Topic: Dream World / ...

Originally posted by omark96:

You need to understand that we aren’t discussing a general case. We’re not discussing something that could happen. Sure, before lf2ian’s post then it might have been about mystic abuses in general, but as soon as he mentioned HaD it all started to be about a specific case. My question was all about HaD and I wondered how it was an abuse by Nitroidman to just build a mystic all by himself. In fact, you make it very clear that we’re talking about the specific case of HaD. You base all your arguments on unfounded assumptions. You assume he had the intention to abuse something, which you can see isn’t true when you have all the facts.

I’m gonna do an attempt at making a similar example that you made, so let’s assume this happens: Person A talks to person B about A’s friend C. A says that C was out drinking last night to which B responds “He shouldn’t drive home drunk!”. A responds “Well, he didn’t, he walked home, which wasn’t illegal the last time I checked”. B reacts to this with “Well, if he had driven home then it would have been illegal and he shouldn’t do that!”.

It really is that. All people saw was a 1 man mystic which suddenly disappeared. They immediately assumed it was an attempt to abuse something and you continued it all by your attempt to add a possible event that could’ve happened in that specific case, but in reality didn’t happen.

However, let’s assume we were talking about a general case and not about the specific case of HaD then what do we get? Well… Your first post becomes invalid ‘cause if we’re discussing general cases then how can I be biased? Or is one of the assumptions that I’m related to every other person/guild in the whole game? No, but seriously, just let the whole thing go. The discussion was about whether or not HaD abused the MW which from what I know didn’t happen. No one else has posted anything that points at it either.

Except the specific case has implications that would apply to a general scenario similar. I don’t base any of my arguments on unfounded assumptions because I am not screaming punish. I am saying that if the speculated actions DID occur, they should be punished. Again, reading comprehension. I did not assume anything and that is why I made the conditional clause using the word ‘if’.

I don’t see anything wrong with person B here. Person B is just saying what could result if the intended abuse happened. However, the context is more like people are speculating whether or not person C drove home drunk and then that scenario resulting. In that case, person B’s statements become even more justified. Also, there is no guarantee that person A is telling the truth also because person A happens to be person C’s lover.

Perhaps, but I did not make any calls on whether abuse happened.

And no, your own analogy is fairly general and shows why my input was warranted.

Topic: Dream World / ...

Originally posted by omark96:

Maybe you don’t understand what I wrote in my original post. What I asked was “How is it an abuse to build a mystic all by yourself?”. The reason I could ask that question is ‘cause I know that nit wasn’t played by someone else aka being an alt. If you know that fact then you can look at things differently. All you’ll see is people arguing about a perfectly fine mystic. And also, that’s why I also precised my statement somewhat. Or at least so I thought.

So no, I’m not trying to fit my statement into a vacuum, I’m only trying to get you all to realize that every 1 man mystic isn’t built by alts. Neither does it instantly mean that the person who built the mystic will jump over to another guild to kill it themselves. So yeah, all I want to know is how people could be so sure it was an abuse and call him out as a cheater without any proof whatsoever.

Also, if you take some time to read my 2nd post then you’ll soon see that I haven’t said it’s ok with alts bringing up mystics. Here I’ll do the favor for you “Then what rules have I broken? What have I abused? […] It’s when you use an alt(s) to build a mystic on the last spot almost securing that your own guild will be the one dealing the most damage”. It might be poorly worded, but it still states that I consider mystics built by alts as abusing the rules.

So, if you have the facts that he isn’t an alt, he didn’t jump over to any other guild and he didn’t build it as the last mystic to secure that some other guild could have it almost all alone, do you still consider it being an abuse?

Sigh, if you aren’t going to read anything I post at least read this first sentence: Your reading comprehension is utterly lacking.

The entire dialogue surrounding this particular thread has been the potential destruction of fairness caused by using an account to secure a secret mystic and then disband the guild by merging into a single guild capable of hitting said mystic. Again, my input on alts was relevant to a point made that some people might have used alt accounts to do these things but some of input was regarding solo accounts doing this.

It doesn’t matter whether or not an alt builds the solo mystic to lock in some free shots. I realize not all mystics are made by alts but there is still ground for abuse but maybe you missed that whole section in one of my posts?

Again, nice try at being condescending but make sure you actually read my post before trying the same shit on me? I’ll link you to a few just like I did in the past:

“I’ll clarify the second one here, what I mean is that normally when a wing guild brings a mystic up, they don’t get to reap the full rewards of their effort whereas when someone can easily jump over back to the main guild, and disband the wing guild, it effectively means no tradeoff and also extra advantages due to the disbanding of the original guild.”

While I was providing clarification on a point about alt accounts understand that the same logic holds for solo accounts where there is no tradeoff while garnering such a massive advantage. It’s an exploit of a certain mechanic that involves the disbanding of a guild, and if you look to another one of my posts, I’ve established 2 significant points of precedence as to why it would constitute abuse.

“‘If you jump over to your guild and kill it thereby securing yourself an uncontested mystic.’”

The best part about this quote is that I already threw it at you.

The dialogue that existed was around the raising of a mystic then disbanding of the guild that brought it up to join the only guild that had hostiled the mystic. Anything else is not my burden to argue as I have only argued that specifically as abuse. Throughout this entire thread I have held that my arguments are to exist in a theoretical space with certain given assumptions. It’s no more than me saying “if he committed murder he should be charged with X” and then you ranting about how he didn’t commit murder. I understand there’s the possibility there was no abuse, however if said action happened, it constitutes abuse. This paragraph is probably fairly wordy so I’ll paraphrase below:

Define: if
“Introducing a conditional clause.”
The conditional clause being that one of the criticized actions happened.

Topic: Dream World / ...

Originally posted by omark96:

And you seem to miss my point. I’m trying to say that no person is unbiased and therefor is every opinion just as much worth. You told me to shut up if I’m in any way related and I’m just curious, if you’re inactive then why would you take your time to respond to my post? It would seem to me like you chose that for some specific reason, that you wanted to “attack” me. Hmm… Oh well, maybe that kind of bias isn’t the same.

Also, I made a mistake in my previous post… That mistake was to not include what RaptorKris said. It actually brings an important point to all of this.

Originally posted by RaptorKris:

HaD was up near the top so everyone had time to set them…

I hardly believe all the guilds in DW would have their diplos locked during almost the whole day. So, there’s no way this could’ve secured his own guild a free mystic which no one else could hit. Now, if it had been the last mystic then it might have been true, but yeah… That wasn’t the case. It didn’t create any advantages for anyone and no one lost something on it. It was just a mystic like every damn other mystic.

So, once again I’ll ask you, how is it an abuse to build a mystic all by yourself? (And counting on that you would jump over to your own guild without exploiting something doesn’t qualify since that’s a different case. The one I’m talking about is simply where you build a mystic and stay in your guild through the war).

Again, there are objective manners. Just because everyone has some degree of bias has never been a reason to reject any claim but at the same time the opposite is not true, having bias does not mean every input should be valued. Bias is not something black or white, you are just on the more extreme end of bias. Call it bored, but I like to argue on things like this that I have a strong opinion on. While relatively inactive, it is quite simple for me to take a few minutes out of my day to respond to forum posts as opposed to spending hours grinding away at my energy bar. And no, that bias isn’t the same because my bias is not affecting my input on abuse.

Therefore, there’s potentially no abuse? The problem is there exists the potential for massive abuse as seen in this instance, why else do you think no other guilds hit? Right, their diplomacy options were locked. A few decently easy guilds set up a mystic, people hostile them. Bring up the mystic to start the war and go after it. While the decently easy guilds are still feasible hits, their mystics will go down fast.

Now, again, maybe reading comprehension isn’t your thing, nor is decently long term memory but I made some major points on when it becomes abuse in several of my posts. I will copy paste them just to give you a wake up call that you shouldn’t respond until you are willing to read what I post:

“If there are alts or anything of that sort involved, then there’s a potential problem.”
" The problem lies in manipulation without an equivalent tradeoff (which is why alts should be restricted from doing this stuff)."

I’ll clarify the second one here, what I mean is that normally when a wing guild brings a mystic up, they don’t get to reap the full rewards of their effort whereas when someone can easily jump over back to the main guild, and disband the wing guild, it effectively means no tradeoff and also extra advantages due to the disbanding of the original guild.

“If you jump over to your guild and kill it thereby securing yourself an uncontested mystic.”

The problem is you are trying to fit your original statement into a vacuum. However, context is KEY. This is why your post is either unreliable due to bias or literally has no place in the dialogue of abuse. Take your pick.

Topic: Dream World / ...

Firstly, there’s absolutely no point in you talking about potential bias if you aren’t willing to point out any arguments that bias would skew. So first I’ll justify my attack on your bias, you were saying that you didn’t feel it was abuse but the point was that your view of abuse would obviously be defined in what keeps your friends out of trouble. Simple as that.

I understand the actual linkages of events however it appears you did a very excellent job of glazing over my post without actually getting anything out of it. Let me copy paste an entire paragraph that answers the whole “Btw, have you noticed how no proof whatsoever have been posted so far?” Keep in mind, the paragraph below is from my post above that you’re responding to. Oh, and the best part is that the first sentence is still very applicable:

“Maybe read my post before you comment, I use the word “if” in the opening of my post immediately showing that I am operating under the assumption that he made a guild to raise a mystic and in coordination with his guild took it down while nobody else could due to diplomacy being locked.”

Now before you respond again, read both of my posts over again. However, just in case you get lazy, here’s a brief overview:

1 – My arguments on whether or not it is abuse is premised off the assumption that he did indeed create a guild, raise a mystic with the plan to secure his own guild a free mystic.

2 – I argue that this is abuse given two different precedents from PM, that leads me to two subpoints.
2A – PM does not exhaustively define abuse and thus abuse is often left to interpretation.
2B – A previous situation with similar context has arisen in another one of PM’s games. The decision was that such actions count as exploitation.

Now, for CD history, I told you, that was a long time ago and was a situation that occurred after I became inactive. I am merely introducing what I believe is abuse.

Also, another quickie is how you’ve quickly demolished context whether via poor reading comprehension or something related. The quote I attacked in an aggressive manner was: “How is it an abuse to build a mystic all by yourself?”. Now I explained to you why it was abusive because it allowed guilds to secure free mystics for themselves and garner the EXP boosts without any struggle and also that diplomacy had a cooldown that would allow this abuse to happen. Given the context, I would argue that you come off as trying to protect your friend’s skin rather than make any meaningful contributions to the discussion.

Topic: Dream World / ...

Originally posted by omark96:

Originally posted by lf2ian:

We are just talking about something related to this topic. It’s fine if a small guild builds it up, but HaD just disbanded itself (or got merged) right after the war. There is just a possibility that he did this for his alt or he is an alt. I’m not going to complain because I could also benefit from it.

EDIT: Please make a footnote if it’s an edited post. You know what I say.

Originally posted by waraxe:

Originally posted by omark96:

How is it an abuse to build a mystic all by yourself?

If you jump over to your guild and kill it thereby securing yourself an uncontested mystic. I know you were on good terms with HaD so maybe stfu if you’re in any way related. Nobody needs biased opinions.

The thing is, no one has confirmed that he moved over to another guild to hit the mystic himself. And honestly if I build a whole mystic at the Guardian spot or anything else and then move over to another guild to hit my own guild… Then what rules have I broken? What have I abused? Sure, if you guild jumped using some kinda loop hole then it might be considered an abuse, but nah, not even then. It’s when you use an alt(s) to build a mystic on the last spot almost securing that your own guild will be the one dealing the most damage. You could argue about the fact that HaD’s now gone, but that’s not against any rules or have I been misinformed?

Oh and as for the biased opinions, you all seem to be biased enough already, so yeah…

Let me break this down a bit, I don’t go on this game too often which is why it’s a late reply.

But I’ll start from the bottom solely to establish some degree of credibility that you’ve attacked beforehand. Aggressive should not be correlated with bias, I am normally very aggressive in my forum posts but that does not mean there is an inherent bias. I believe you are more biased because you have some sort of personal relationship with the accused which is why I’d rather not see your input if it’s an opinion. PM has in the past viewed things as abuse even if these rules weren’t made explicitly clear if it appeared to be an exploit of some game mechanic (see: abz329’s abuse in time world). There wasn’t a banhammer, but the point is what constitutes abuse for PM is relatively vague so any opinions on the matter shouldn’t be biased so PM can gain objective feedback on what people think of the exploitation/usage of the mechanic. I have no inherent bias because all of the politics of this game are behind me and I don’t have any personal stake.

Now, going back to the top.

“The thing is, no one has confirmed that he moved over to another guild to hit the mystic himself”
Maybe read my post before you comment, I use the word “if” in the opening of my post immediately showing that I am operating under the assumption that he made a guild to raise a mystic and in coordination with his guild took it down while nobody else could due to diplomacy being locked.

Now on the second part asking about the rules, I am going to defer to my explanation above, PM’s definition of abuse is relatively vague but the mechanic in question could constitute an exploit. In Time World (an appropriate example because the developers are the same), someone used a similar tactic on their equivalent of mystics and was warned for it. Therefore not only is there a precedent for the definition of exploit being unclear but also a precedent for this type of abuse.

Topic: Time World / Speed Clarification

Originally posted by playmage:

I have verified that the speed calculation code is pretty much what boredpoo posted for the first time ((BaseShipSpeed + HeroSpeedSkill + ShipDeviceSkill) x NightMare x EnhanceSpeed), and it’s applied for all players. So from what I can see so far, the code is correct and there is no reason Adelaine shouldn’t fire first.

Did G42 have Nitemare when Adeline attacked Lolitops the second time in the battle shown in the screenshot? When the dev get’s back into the office, I will ask them to look for other possible factors and rerun the battle in their development simulator. But if anyone has any additional information on this, please let us know.

I’m pretty sure G42 hasn’t held Nitemare for a while. Nite had previously been held by G6 before G164, given the date that would mean that G42 could not hold Nitemare.