Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/20/19 in all areas

  1. 8 points
    Why not use the tags feature instead of trying to make it included in the title? It distracts from the announcement else.
  2. 8 points
    Yes, I have a concern. This is horrible for purposes of creativity, and makes alliance threads look incredibly sterile. That people have found clever ways to name their announcements and threads should be encouraged as it adds taste and flavour to the game. A far superior method of accomplishing organization would be to give players the ability to add forum tags to threads, like so: E: Surely you mean 'Thread', and not 'Threat'?
  3. 3 points
    What if the stories of our lives weren’t so unpredictable after all? What if all of the stories ever told were bound together by threads, what if they were all held together between the pages of one book? What if the stories we live and the old, old stories we tall weren’t that different after all? We are... The People of Tomorrow. We believe in enjoying life to the fullest without having to compromise everything. We are responsible for the generation of tomorrow and respect each other and Mother Nature. tl;dr = I made a deal. With myself, With New Pacific Order, with everything in this lovely community I joined in Late February 2015, this is my final alliance. My Final journey in Politics & War. So many great people in this game! Live Happy or Die Happy! I Like Today, But I'll Love Tomorrow! This is my final alliance forever. If this fails then consider it my retirement. I've learned the lessons of the past. Chose Happiness over all. I first started in Viridian Entente, now I've made a long journey through so much. Now it's time to lay low & be careful and go slow!
  4. 2 points
    Has anyone stopped to think about all of the news coming out of Coalition B recently? BK forces all the protectorates into war. NPO attacks OFA from their own coalition. Commerce Union disbanded because of their "buddies" in Coalition B. - I mean how thick do you have to be to forcefully disband a coalition buddy? The Originals were forced to cancel their MDP with House of Arryn, so that Coalition B could attack AH. Micros from Coalition B have peaced out and found new protectorates. As a result Coalition B has attacked them. NPO having to defend BK, because apparently IQ never disbanded. Lets just all remind few simple things here about who Coalition B is fighting: An enemy half their size Made up of alliances who quite literally a week before this global war were at war among themselves. What are you guys doing there? Suffering under reign of terror? Seeking couples counseling? How can anyone get away with that much and still keep half a coalition together?
  5. 2 points
    And grab yourself some drinks and snacks folks Too busy to get off your ass? It don't matter, we deliver. Still too lazy? It don't matter, we open 24/7. Unlike everyone else, we'll always be here for you: 7-11 declares neutrality in this conflict.
  6. 2 points
    I had a more elaborate post written up as to address the - somewhat valid, honestly - points you made, but my clumsy fingers deleted all of it (and then reloaded, so I can't even CTRL+Z, rip). Sorry for the delay. There seem to be two primary concerns you have: That (primarily new) players who frequent the forums are unable to understand what threads in Alliance Affairs are about, That tags will be used in other sections of the forum. While I agree with the idea that the integration of new players in the overall Orbis community is a good thing, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that, most, or even a significant amount of, threads are confusing. If a player were to read the first post, and then the few posts that come after, you would find no shortage of explanations with regards to the content of the thread. Moreover, some threads are intentionally confusing, and forcing players to add tags in their thread title - which, I suppose, is your prerogative, as is my duty to argue for what I believe in - simply make the point of those threads (to confuse and bedazzle) irrelevant. In my opinion, threads that are confusing to new players will largely seem so because they lack in-game knowledge and/or context, not that they aren't clear in their message. Let us look at the past, hm, 15 threads in this subforum. This thread is announcing the cancellation of a treaty. It says so in its first three lines. This thread is announcing the existence of a new alliance (it gives a tl;dr too) and the posts that follow make that point abundantly clear. This thread has some flavour content in the beginning, and explains what it's about in the last line of the post. This thread is Inst being weird Hyperion announcing their 'bonds' program and giving a somewhat lengthy explanation of what that implies. This thread, while somewhat hard to understand due to - presumably - the OP's level of mastery of the language, announces fairly clearly that they are recognizing a state of hostilities with BK and are confused as to why this happened. This thread is a DoW and contains the target's name in the first paragraph. This thread wouldn't fit your rules anyway, but I am including this to highlight my point about cultural references and why confusion will persist unless players actively attempt to integrate themselves within the community. It's a log dump that is fairly straightforward, however. This thread explains its contents in the title, anyway. This thread very clearly explains its purpose. This thread, yeeaahhh, we weren't too sure what was going on here either (It's a collection of inside jokes and memes that have gone for too long to explain just by the use of a tag, and is meant to be confusing) This thread says what it's about in the title. It's also meant to be 'confusing' (if anyone checks the alliance affiliation it would be clear as to what happened). This thread, while yet another part in a very long sequence of inside jokes/memes, lays its jokes out pretty clearly. This is the sort of funny thing that would be marred, not going to go so far as to say it would be ruined, by the usage of title tags. This thread was just click-bait. It didn't serve any purpose, as was explained a few posts down. This thread is hilarious and adds cultural flavour because it's "confusing" (it says exactly what it's about, people just need to read). Also, if you scroll down below you'll see further explanation. This thread is Sketchy posting Polaris' failure in guarding their bank. It provides an altered flag, a screenshot of the bank loot, and text to... explain it. My point is, the vast majority of the threads that people are 'confused by' are either spam, meant to be confusing (when in reality it takes only a bit of inferring to understand what they're about), or abundantly clear, they just don't say it in their thread title. If new players are confused with what is being said, they should, well, read the posts that come after the OP. More often than not it explains the thread's purpose quite clearly. As for the second concern I laid out in the beginning of this (now somewhat lengthy) post, there are three possible outcomes to tags being used out of this subforum: They spam tags, in which case a one minute edit by mods is all that is needed to remove those tags, They add one or two tags, which... isn't actually a problem. Why would it be? They don't use the tags, which is fine. Anyway, my point with this all is that it seems like artificial spoon feeding that won't accomplish anything but actually remove the one incentive players have to integrate themselves in communities (to understand what the frick is going on in Orbis).
  7. 2 points
    I am aware that this thread does not exist to entertain my back and forth with you, but let me ask you this. What purpose does it serve? If you believe it to be a solution to disorganization, additional text that needs to be read is just ungainly. What Adrienne and I have put forth will ultimately allow people to sift quickly through all threads with the same tag, and will occupy no space in the thread title itself. It is not a particularly big change, and I fully expect someone to come in a few posts down complaining about me 'whining', but I don't want to add [tag] when I can achieve exactly the same purpose with something far less obtrusive and far more useful. Thanks for actively working on the upkeep of forums, by the way. I appreciate that.
  8. 2 points
    What the shit is going on in this thread. Are we really debating basic facts of history out of blind hatred of each other? Can I try? Genghis Khan landed on the moon in 1226 and has been living there ever since.
  9. 2 points
    Now, I know there are a lot of criticisms of the Trump wall, chiefly that it's an outdated, expensive, and inefficient form of border security from before the birth of Christ. But let me remind everyone that the Chinese built the Great Wall of China hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, and to this day not a single Mexican made it across that border. That's quite an impressive record, and I think we should fund the 5 billion dollars. Just kidding, the wall is stupid and so are the fanatical idiot supporters of it. If you thought the border wall would work, you're an idiot. If you thought the wall was going to be paid for by Mexico and not your tax dollars, I know a Nigerian prince you should meet. Oh, and you're an idiot.
  10. 1 point
    If it was just the United States, yes, you're right. The problem is that it wasn't just the United States that would partake on such operation. Preparations had been made to bring the Soviets in and have them assist on the invasion of the Home Islands, with the West supplying amphibious landing vessels and the such, alongside Halsey going out of his way to bomb the ragged remains of the IJN in Kure, half of that reason being to prevent any sort of naval presence that could impede a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido. The entire Japanese take for an eventual invasion of the Home Islands was one of "well if we make them bleed badly enough they will cave in and let us surrender and keep our emprah", which was based off of how usually the American public opinion grew a huge stinker on operations which were particularly bloody. Well, for one they were underestimating how pissed the Americans were that an inferior Asian nation so dared to hit their stuff in the way they did (racism was obviously still a huge thing back then, that's the simple reality of it), and such hatred and disdain had only grown worse when reports of Bataan and other atrocities came in which were made worse by propaganda. Going back to the Soviets, the Japanese plans didn't exactly account for such entry, which not only would've meant substantially more soldiers to fend off, but also a foe that quite frankly didn't give much of a frick about casualties taken, and that threw their entire contingency plan out of the window. That's not to mention that the Russians were still mad about the Russo-Japanese war, which was evidenced by the Soviet ambassador demanding Mikasa be dismantled because it was a stain on muh Russian prestige, and only going back on such demand when he saw that the hull was nothing more than a sorry hunk of scrap that was serving as a pool and some cheap night bar for the occupying GI's, a fate he deemed to be worse than it being scrapped. So yeah, there was absolutely a bit of Japanese pride on that conflict at stake with a Soviet entry. That's also part of the reason why it's difficult to dictate whether it was the nukes or the Soviet entry what caused the Japanese to finally fold. Given they both occurred very close to each other (if memory serves me right, the Soviets invaded Manchuria the same day Nagasaki got nuked). I'd say that from a public standpoint, the Japanese preferred to attribute it to the nukes, both for legitimate reasons of how overwhelmingly powerful of a weapon they were, and because it allowed them to save some face on their surrender by both surrendering to the Americans, and to a weapon of overwhelming power, rather than to the Soviets and conventional means. This would sound like an exaggeration, but the Japanese went out of their way not to include the word "surrender" on the speech they gave to the natives.
  11. 1 point
    I had a much larger response on regards to the technological aspect, which quite frankly it was dumb for him to claim that they were subpar in that regard, when in reality they were more or less even with the other greater powers. But I scrapped it when the bombs aspect came to the table. Regardless of the express intent of dropping them (Japanese unconditional surrender vs spooking Stalin), I think it's fair to say that the Americans simply wanted to see what sort of tangible impact they had on an actual target, as morbid as that may sound with the power of hindsight. However, I wouldn't say that it's surprising if that were the case, given the aftermath of Unit 731.
  12. 1 point
    I'd have to check but I think you've already said that one
  13. 1 point
    Did someone say no protector or allies?
  14. 1 point
    Goes to bed: this is a redundant thread about IQs failings. Wakes up: we're discussing the merits of the Soviet Union. K
  15. 1 point
    No. From my understanding of the issue, House Arryn activated the defense clause. When you sign M-level defense treaties, you do not get to back out of them with justifications as pathetic as "we just didn't feel like it". You don't get to cast aside your obligations simply because your would-be enemy outnumbers you. Your word is as good as anything else, and you've, quite frankly, reneged on it in the most pitiful way. Have fun, I'll be looking to see what your allies do when you get into an unfavorable war and need their help.
  16. 1 point
    Terrible economies, unorganised war efforts , egomaniacal leaders, severe victim narratives and a huge hatred for the wealthy upper class. I think we may be onto something here...
  17. 1 point
    Wow. A. The USSR was part of the coalition that defeated the Nazis, yes. This was despite their tactics, strategy, and ideology; the objective deficiencies of each compensated for, inefficiently I might add, by raw economy of scale. B. The USSR lost the cold war, due entirely to the same kind of shenanigans that you're so proud of right now. C. Sure, you might only care about the result... but does everyone else you work with appreciate the means?
  18. 1 point
    Will wait for the next alliance
  19. 1 point
    A peasant revolt? Dude I want some of whatever the hell you're smoking.
  20. 1 point
    "Half their size." The rest I could resist replying to, but this point I really dislike. We basically have the equivalent of two City 10 nations vs one city 40 nation, and you jackals are saying it's an unfair fight all the time, true, it is, but not at all to the disadvantage of City 40 like you so commonly assert: the city 40 of course being the analogue to KERCHTOG in this analogy. This war is a peasant revolt, not the nobility cracking down on dissidents. Coal B has the numbers because they require the numbers to stand a chance against the 8k score whales and their reign of terror, and it bothers KERCHTOG members to no end that their whale hegemony isn't enough to curtail the peasant horde, and they clamor and they wail that it is impossible for them to be losing against mere peasants, so it must be unfair and rigged. I am here to tell you today that it is, in fact, not unfair or rigged. Coal B simply has four city 10 nations for every city 40 nation you have.
  21. 1 point
    smh the memes are literally making themselves at this point.
  22. 1 point
    Legit question. Do you need to have a treaty with someone to protect them? Is it not possible that IQ doesn't exist, but NPO and BK are just friends, and NPO saw a massive dog pile on their friends and wanted to step in to try to level things out? On a different note, isn't this like.... the 100th forum post that has said the same thing? "BK is bad, NPO helps BK, IQ exists, what is the future of Orbis?"
  23. 1 point
  24. 1 point
    To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand House Arryn. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical politics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Serva's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Google translate's literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike House Arryn truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Serva's existential forum post," which itself is a cryptic reference to IQ's Knightfall. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Serva's wit unfolds itself on their forum pages. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, i DO have a House Arryn tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 score of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎
  25. 1 point
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.