Leaderboard

I think we need to focus on the key issue here. Several times earlier I know you've shared similar feelings, and you had framed this as being a matter of NPO sovereignty (a term not used in this post, but several times elsewhere) when it comes to deciding to join the war contrary to the terms t$ had laid out. But I don't think anyone here has denied NPO's sovereignty. It is a matter of trust. As I've said earlier, I'm retired so I'm not actively involved in these convos or decisions anymore, but I don't actually doubt that there was, as you put it, 'no assurance of zero retaliation ever' that came actively and verbally from NPO. But is that all an ally should expect? It was known within t$ that NPO had different views on this war (though the degree of how strong those differences were was clearly not known), but nonetheless the terms of this war were agreed upon, even if just 'tacitly', as you put it, if in this context 'tacitly' means you allowed t$ gov to believe you would follow the terms while never overtly promising 'no assurance of zero retaliation ever' ('ever', an absolute term, which certainly gives an absolute amount of flexibility). But I don't think t$ thought that such an overt assurance was needed to avoid NPO not following the previous agreement based out of an assertion of their sovereignty. No one is saying an alliance can't back out of earlier agreements if they so wish, but the repercussions are that it will impact your perceived trustworthiness amongst both your allies and the broader community. That is why this isn't a controversy or matter of sovereignty, but trust. Ultimately, I think the calculations come down to that NPO always wanted in the war, but knew if they were upfront with t$ as to their intent, they knew t$ would never join. But they believed that a t$ hit on GOB and Guardian would garner counters which would prove the whole disagreement moot and allow entry without needing to be honest of their intentions to t$. t$ on the other hand believed that those counters would not occur if the terms were clearly communicated. NPO then acted as they did because t$'s prediction proved correct, which meant they wouldn't be able to enter the war as they desired. So this is actually all based in a strategic miscalculation of NPO in incorrectly predicting the response of Guardian's and GOB's allies. Yes, Hilme's unexpected inactivity caused issues and dynamics to change, but that doesn't change the root of the issue of how NPO traversed this whole process. If t$'s intent was flattery of the likes of CoS and their friends, then it is clear they never would have entered. But you do make an interesting point on not being informed beforehand to the exit from the war. But that is something that should go both ways. Though you had told t$ gov that you were planning to enter, which you then received a strongly negative reaction to (based on what I've already shared above), the timing of your entry was something that came as a complete shock and surprise to t$ leadership. NPO never informed t$ that they would be entering as soon as they did, as t$ found out about it at the same time as everyone else in this game. NPO did this knowing that it would result in an escalation of the war, which meant mass counters from the broader coalition on t$ and a complete alteration to t$'s war strategy, yet you did not inform them so that all of this, which meant t$ going to war with many more alliance's unexpectedly, was once again a complete surprise. If you had informed t$ leadership of your specific plans, and the timing, I'm confident t$ leadership would have told you what the response would be. I still see the gov channels and know that immediately before your strike, t$ gov was unaware and still ideally hoped to dissuade you from the attack. So yes, informing an ally of major moves is quite important. And I'm sorry you were so displeased that t$ took such a hard stance on following the criteria they had told the entire game of (truly a matter of t$ sovereignty) and of which NPO, as you acknowledged, had given its 'tacit' approval. But on the matter of being informed before hand, is it reasonable to expect such courtesies from others when you deny it to them?

Sometimes I wonder if Noctis, Inst, KKKosmo, and Sri Lanka have some kind of secret competition to see who can say the stupidest shit.

Except Chaos weren't weaker than us and could have actually won. We couldn't even blanket most of their nations but they used their counters poorly. This was repeated again by your side in this war. Numbers are extremely potent and that's exactly why we've been concerned about them. However we've been quite lucky that most have repeated the same mistakes consistently. Another thing to note, who gives a frick if you get hit in a quick war every now and then? If your only goal is to hug pixels then you're not going to do anything but hide as is. KT/TGH took the risk ages ago to go solo and got hit by TKR and co. We didn't enjoy a quick war either and they attempted to put some extremely distasteful terms on us. We endured, got back up and put ourselves in a stronger position. Sometimes taking a hit isn't the end of the world and just a good way to reassess where you're at. Quite frankly, you seem to be trying to clutch at any reason for why you've put your alliance in this position. If that is the case, there is nothing to be embarrassed about. Plenty of people have made the wrong calls (myself included). Just need to learn and change. The ones who change generally do so for the better and the ones who complain do nothing and repeat the same mistakes. Lastly, if you're that worried that we may hit you. Maybe do some diplomacy? I'm sure we could hash something out, more so because you would have been supporting something that we've been trying to get going (minispheres). If you had done so prior to this war, likely defs could have had an agreement but it's still not too late.

No.

Everyone will merge into Rose and declare war on Alex.

Meanwhile, on the last episode of Dragon Ball Chromosomes

Nobody: Inst: Look at this brand new theory I came up with while fapping at 3D anime tiddies!

So, IQ has basically gotten back together, the major alliances in the war are NPO, BK, TCW, GoTG, Acadia, and UPN. Besides TCW, this is basically IQ 2.0 now, so that makes me wonder and ask, regardless of the outcome of this war, where do we, as a community go from here? IQ basically got a renewal of FA after Knightfall, one they're most likely not getting again after this. Will the game only ever amount to NPO & friends vs TKR and friends? Because since NPO's First time, in 2016, 5/8 major wars have been NPO vs TKR, to some extent. The 3 globals that weren't were when TKR and friends beat up TEst, KT vs NPO, and Surf's up. Will we *EVER* see any difference in wars going forward, the mini spheres are going to basically be over and we're more or less going to go back to the FA world that circulated before(and somewhat after) Knightfall.

Well since @MinesomeMC decided to bring back P&W Balls, in an attempt to earn a profit on it. We here at Arrgh shouldn't let him flex all over us like that, atleast without us gething a piece of the cake. So here is the frist, of hopefully several comics: Comic 1: Arrgh! recruitment poster

Kicked and banned for leaking.

Memes and coordination.

You don't ever think before you post, nay?

Knightfall succeeded in rolling Grumpy and Guardian as well as heavily damaging CHAOS upper tier, was 3.5 months, everyone was fully built: 1 trillion damage. Dial Up War, CHAOS whale tier already beat to hell, Grumpy still kickin, 2 weeks: 600 billion in damage and counting. KNIGHTFALL WAS A FAKE WAR

Honestly? The alliance needs to instill a sense of community, have an active form of communication (ie active alliance Discord channels), and the capability of learning, adapting and developing its members.

lmfao pure gold.

LMAO INST SHUT UP. NO CONSPIRACY THEORIES. Just hearing KT and BK as allies sounds like a massive joke. You really think a competent war alliance (KT) would take in BK? You seem to be losing brain cells with every post you make, must be from the stupid conspiracy theories you're forcing your brain to pull out of it's ass.

No shame in exiting early, aside from FR this ain't your war. And to be quite honest, I'm going to guess that FR wasn't the mastermind behind IQ's plotting so no shame in letting them go. Glad that people have thus far clawed back against their IQ overlords and refused life as Roq/IQ meat-shield.

>tfw your ally puts more effort into cooperating with a completely unconnected alliance than you Being t$ is suffering

After careful consideration of the circumstances of the situation we're in, The United States of America(the good one) is formally withdrawing from this conflict and will no longer participate nor aid anyone involved in this war in any way. We apologize if this causes any inconvenience but this war has taken out of us more than we can afford and it's time to move on. Thank you to all those who fought for and alongside us and we wish you success in the future. It was a good fight to the end and we're proud to have fought all we could for what we thought was right. . Peace may not be easy but it is possible and more necessary than war and so we will always strive for and offer peace. To Progress and Country, DownvoteMe Meyer

Honestly I think it's more of a meme / community circle jerk than reality to think that the game is stuck in a loop. Now, moreso than any other time I've noticed in the last few years, there's so many new alliances and faces. There's no one in the top 50 that should be considered irrelevant. There's also never going to be an onus on anyone to swap sides if they're met with downvotes and trolling when they come out in public. To give you an idea: Alliances #46-50 add up to NPO's score and roughly their member count. There's no reason why coalition building shouldn't be a thing but "minispheres" (4 or 5 larger alliances and nothing else) aren't going to cut it in this current political environment of dozens and dozens of smaller groups that need to be coalesced into a broader force to be effective.

In my opinion, the lack of new, major political actors (as in, alliances) is not so much so a function of, "Enough people don't want to lead" or "Too many people want to lead" but a product of too few players being competent and being willing to lead an alliance that doesn't already have most of its foundations figured out. It's fair to chalk things up to competency, but I'd say the amount of time you're willing to invest, the energy/drive you have, and the vision you have are all necessary components of good leadership too. It's easier, in most cases, for one to assume leadership in an existing alliance and exert political influence of their own than it is to create a brand spanking new one, and lead for long enough/competently enough that something comes out of it. There are a few alliances that have succeeded in that regard, but they are not the norm. As for the OP: Identity (what're you here for? If you're just here to exist, then you're not going to go anywhere); Activity (self explanatory, but this covers day-to-day activity in Discord/slack channels, forums - if you have them); Community (this is more than just people talking shit in your private channels; how much does your average member actually care for the alliance and those who he plays the game with? How much do your leaders care?); A proper governing system (none of that democratic bullshit unless you can pull it off; even then, it's better to just not go that route. You end up with oligarchies); Leadership's investment into the game (you'll have 'active' leadership - as in they'll be around - but they won't care about the game/actually leading, which is just a big no-no); Military and Econ awareness (both of these can't be stressed enough. Knowing how to run a military is related to understanding game mechanics, but its important enough for me to highlight the difference. Similarly, if your Econ sucks - as in, isn't doing its best to maximize profit while still remaining in tune to how war works in the game - you're fricked when war time comes around); Keep your FA fluid. Be willing to work with people. Know your way around the joint. Some random shit: Having an alliance/theme gimmick. This is just 'fluff' but I've found having these things can attract more people to your grouping (...or turn them off massively. Their choice), Connections with other leaders/alliances. Be friendly to randoms. Cultivate ties (not necessarily political in nature) with people you wouldn't think you'd side with first thing next morning, Teach your kids how to play the game. Don't frick up and let new players run around free with no idea about how they'd actually progress. You do that, you'll end up with a shitton of new players who you invested a ton of money into that are worthless in war. Just don't. Praise Dio. There's honestly a lot more that can be said, but I guess at the end things come down to a few things: be willing to learn from your mistakes. Work towards a healthy balance of politics and fun. Try your best, and don't be disheartened when things don't go your way. Many of the serious - as in, major, not "serious" - political players today had a ton of shit not going their way in the past, but perseverance is a god-like quality to have. (Not to be confused with stubbornness or a lack of desire to change)

Also known as Knights Templar ?

Reunite EMC.

Mind you, the only people who knew about this Was BK and NPO. Its in bulletin 3, and its basically a conditional MDP to be activated if two spheres ever combine forces, and the MDP is to activate for the "sphere harmed in war", which is BK, because of course, nobody else in any other sphere was brought into this agreement. Have a nice day, either you're uninformed of your own alliance, brainwashed, or your government lies to you.

So here's a (new?) question for NPO people. Let's say that I'm willing to understand that rather than a faith-based, ideologically aligned sense of being allied, which is my personal preference, there is also a more calculating, transactional style of dealing with agreements that is governed more by explicit agreements. Let's say, for purposes of the question I'm posing here, both are valid, and NPO's style is more like the latter, and that's ok. Was it not then a violation of your intelligence clauses with t$ and Horsemen (for example) to allow them to enter into a global conflict while deliberately withholding information that pertained directly to the military and political ramifications of that entry? Even when I try to wrap my head around a more NPO-style gameplay it still seems obvious to me that your alliance is disingenuous and inconsistent.

If you're going to put my name out on the forums, at least make sure you do it without going through the spin cycle first. Let's start with the actual signing of Zodiac. It was very clear that they only intended to sign us to throw us into the war on your side. That was made evident when, the day after we proposed the treaty, they asked us to hit Mensa in an offensive strike. Our logic at the time was that we'll end up in that war anyways so we might as well enter on the offensive front and likely be supported by IQ. Our blitz on Mensa partnered with Zodiac was more than enough to keep them tied down until TKR entered against us 130 vs 35 with more than enough capabilities to cover our entire tiering at that point. When SK was drowning and we asked for help, all we got was "VE has wars with TKR too". Since both of us were getting pubstomped with no real plan to handle TKR and, by extension, bail us out, we decided to exit the war after a month of waiting for a real plan. During my radio interview with Thalmor, I remember Seeker confronting me about our early exit and being upset that we weren't dedicated to the war. I very clearly explained to Seeker that we weren't dedicated to a war in which we received no support. What we were supposed to do? Meat shield for a bunch of alliances who had no intentions helping us? Meat shield for alliances that we had no interest in garnering political capitol with and that we owed nothing to? I very distinctly remember the circle jerks in that server and, by god, it was the last thing I ever wanted to be apart of. So yes, maybe I was a little upset with the IQ coalition during that radio show but I think our actions were entirely justified due to the piss poor handling of that war by IQ and our lack of desire to help you push your agenda. To claim that we cancelled Zodiac just to plot against you for your criticism is a little too flattering for both of you. Nor was that the rationale behind lying to Polaris, which admittedly isn't my greatest move. However, we plotted against IQ because your consolidation was in no way healthy for the game, amassing the entire active lower tier and encroaching your way into the middle tier was nothing more than a choke hold. As an alliance leader, my ultimate goal is to ensure the health of this game remains dynamic and interesting for all players, not just for my own community. This seems to be lost on many alliance leaders, who look to "win" the game. This cementing of power is absolutely atrocious and will lead to nothing but a dead game. What happens when you do win, when you become untouchable, when you police the game to ensure that your alliance stays? Activity dies, players give up but, hey - at least you're number one right? Number one in a game where no one remains active due to your actions? Sounds amazing. These most recent actions by NPO have done nothing but re-solidify my beliefs that not only are you out here for your personal gain but that you truly don't care about the consequences of your actions. Good luck with creating your future hegemony.

There are a lot of WoT so let me help you all with a tl;dr

Sorry, posting this all from my phone. Frontier Records has spoken with the forces of Ketog/Chaos, and Frontier Records, along with The Fighting Pacifists, Kazoku, and Code of Honor hereby withdrawal from the ongoing conflict. FR, TFP, Kazoku, and CoH, will remain neutral for the remainder of the conflict. We wish our friends and allies the best of luck, and a speedy end to the conflict.

Hi, I'm TGH's FA head, you may not know me because Buorhann is a fricking tank of a man, but jesus fricking christ diplomacy is literally what moves this game. It's literally my job to seek out those we are antagonistic towards and see if there is legitimate reason and play devils advocate to our cause. I don't get fired up too easily, so if you're on my shit list you're there for a reason. If you haven't been in our DMs, you haven't tried.

Instead you get rolled every time TCW wants to prove that it's not a joke ?

I'd argue the problem is the opposite. This game sorely needs more competent leaders and alliances. The issue is some people aren't patient and rush to form an alliance after playing for like 3 months and don't have solid enough foundations or understanding to survive. The end result is a bunch of mid sized alliances that orbit around the major political players and never move until they eventually merge or disband. The major political players have barely changed in the last 4 years. The only thing that has changed (a few times) there is the sides they are on and who is in the advantageous position.

---------

Well, obviously @Kastor has to remake Lordaeron. Empyrea and Valinor will merge into it, right? Then, reunited, Kastor, James and Vexz will become a triumvirate of the alliance while Filip is an officer. Next step would be deciding on a bloc to be in, Chaos or K.E.T O.G.G and then boom! They'd join the Citadel. They, with their Citadel breathren will hit BK. And then instead of IQ vs TKR. It'll be IQ vs Kastor. Easy peezy.

I didn't realize some of these micros existed until these surrenders, lol.

Is it just me or did anyone else notice that the leak, the war, the drama didn't start until a certain snake came out of VM..... Just moving the peices around his chess board.

I'll engage in this because I've been bored not participating in OWF drama and this is vague enough to not be "picking a side." This whole argument is made under the assumption that an alliance takes the contract that is a treaty seriously and not as a superfluous document that can be scrapped at convenience. I personally feel that the exact reasoning you're expressing disdain for TFP's actions are the reason why Optional treaties should honestly be the norm. TFP doesn't have a contractual obligation to hide behind, they have to own their actions and to their credit they're doing just that. It also opens the door for other people to hold them accountable for their actions. Every Optional pact that gets activated is a debatable, and more importantly engageable, action. In other words, every time someone utilizes an Optional pact it creates an event from which metagame politics can be derived. Which I believe is healthy for the community and the game. It can also be said that the concept of Mutual (ie. binding) treaties is an inherently sovereignty-infringing pact. Someone else screws up and gets hit? If it's an Optional pact, you now have contractual reason to sit this one out and any argument is now centered around your actions. If your mutual ally got hit and you don't want to be involved? It's now an argument centered around contractual obligation rather than any actual action or reasoning. You lose face if you dishonour a Mutual pact, and the contractual obligation chains you into a much greater world than any one nation ever signed up to defend. Allies of allies of allies can hypothetically pull you into a global war where you get rocked and never recover. Not to mention political ramifications when your mutual partners are doing things you or your other friends disagree with. I know the norm around here is to say Optional pacts don't matter and shouldn't even bother being signed, but honestly I feel the exact opposite. I think mutual pacts are bad for the game because they remove sovereignty and accountability for the individual alliances and I think they create more problems than people think they solve (typically being able to defend yourself).

It's a little situational. When it's "defending" an optional ally that is being hit because they signed off on an aggressive war plan they did not initially tell TFP about, I'd have told them to buzz off, probably.

Believe it or not, our side is made up of multiple people who each hold their own opinions. I know it's hard for an NPO member to grasp this, but please just trust me on this.

>nebulous wording He said, omitting the details of the greater overall conversation that took place surrounding the decision and my clearly expressed intent to keep the war limited on our part and the effort I put into building a legitimate consensus on the expressed goal: which at the time was a strike at the upper tier consolidation. >tacit approval That implies tacit responsibility. If you had expressed your waffling conviction and conflicts of interest to me before I was committed to the war effort I would've never declared in the first place. I told you straight up it would be suicide if you declared. So don't act like your ass is all chapped now because I wasn't straight with you from the onset. I'm not the one who had to be so nebulous and vague about my goals that I can only refer to my commitment as "tacit approval" to maintain a shred of integrity.

Roq once again your paranoia is your downfall. You probably think this song is about you? dont you? You seem to think that we would be able to pull all three spheres together again to rally a hit on you. First, if you stay out, this current war with BK probably goes on for like 2-3 months, because Thanos is the worst, and he likes to suck the fun out of everything win or lose. Which means most of us have been fighting for 3-4 months. So when that ends, its probably going to be atleast another few months before anyone involved even starts thinking about war again. If you stayed out, you now have atleast 6 months to work on your FA, and probably pull one of the microspheres like say Chaos to work with you and hit us (i am sure they are not thrilled about us hitting them before BK showed up). Because we know you are separate from BK, and not nearly as large of a threat. Instead, NSO inserted itself into a war it really didn't need to, put a giant target on your back, reinforced the IQ ties, and now half the game is shitting on you. And you have shown that you haven't really broken from IQ, so to take you down we will probably all need to team up again, which basically undoes all the work we have been trying to do since the end of knightfall. Right now, credit to BK, intentional or not, they are doing what tS/NPO did during knightfall, they aren't all over the forums spouting nonsense. They are sitting back and letting NPO go nuts on the forums, which moves the target off of them. They are letting you guys feel the heat of that spotlight, which will probably follow you post war as well. TLDR: NPO joined a war they didn't need to, they are getting rolled, and are probably going to get rolled in the next one because of it.

Guess that includes defending BK after their plot to hit both spheres is revealed.

i already put a complaint in with the HOA

Being realistic? Well, first off, , and while more alliances are backing out, BK and NPO certainly don't want to surrender until Rose and Guardian get grinded down enough to hit the mid tier. After the war, I see a new BK-NPO treaty, KETOG/Chaos treaties, maybe Rose getting in on the act. So lots of consolidation, and then after 2-3 months of posturing and shittalking, somebody pre-empts the other and it's this war part 2. That ss is from NPO's forums, by the way.

I mean, at this point, we're just making it harder to ever meet this record again.

Couped for being stupid.

Good luck with the rebuild, I hope Rose and Ming drop TFP since they've shown where their loyalties lie