Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/02/18 in all areas

  1. 25 points
    So a more serious breakdown of why the VM needs to happen in the opinion of our coalition. Start by taking look at these links: TCW TKR GoB TCW obviously loses the most in this arrangement, and its obvious these VM nations are the rebuild plan for their side. Allowing this to happen is simply unacceptable when addressing the economic disparity of sides. Those TCW nations can generate over 300 million a day for TCW's rebuild, something that we won't allow to happen. You can argue some of the VM is legitimate reasons, but the simple fact is it doesn't matter. We don't care if it's legitimate. I fully agree that it's their responsibility to decide if they want to keep deserters in their alliance or not. However, this occurs after we equalize the damage dealt to them, not before. The argument is we are "punishing" them, which is flat out wrong. Lets start with the definition of punish: Punish VERB Treat (someone) in an unfairly harsh way. Their VM nations are not being treated in an unfair way relative to their alliance mates. All members still fighting are below 1k infra, or on their way there. In fact, most are substantially below that so VM nations are being treated less harshly. Then the argument that the winning side should do the same is also frankly ridiculous. This isn't a Global Summit building a player consensus, this is a war they lost and that's the demands for peace. We are holding their members accountable, since we don't trust them to do so. The winners can deal with their own, and owe nothing to those who lost in the most complete loss in a global since NPO's first time. Sure they can stay at war, but it's a lot harder to maintain a losing war than a winning one. If they want to keep going so be it, but it is easier to sell making sure perennial war deserters lose their infra to the winning coalition's members than protecting them to the losing side's members. Ultimately it will come down to their membership to deciding when they no longer want to protect pixel huggers at their own expense.
  2. 20 points
    From The Desk of Uncle Traveling Matt The Best Nation Ever, Fraggle Rock Greetings!! This peace accords is trash. Many Hugs, Uncle Traveling Matt
  3. 20 points
    If only my private negotiations had come through, we would've had peace, but alas. My gracious terms were rejected, shown here in an re-enactment.
  4. 19 points
    Lets go through the terms in a condensed form Article 1 and 2: Obvious end of the war. Article 3: cosmetic terms for various alliances. I can tell you the TEst ones come from the Mensa guys forcing people to write a Dio-based essay, so this is just a jab back. I fully expect something mocking Khorne. The GPA one is a result of our love for GPA, and the fact that it's what tCW effectively is in our opinion (and it's only a week). Article 4: Color names, if you care about this, you deserve more war. Article 5: War dodging, the main problem apparently. Some people VM'd legitimately, some people did not. During papers please TKR and friends issued a "no nation above 700 average infra" clause in the wars peace terms. This is basically no different. The people who tried to hide from damage, legitimately or not, need to have a certain infra level. Article 6: The answer to fake paperless alliances. Article 7: Arrgh was in perma-war with TKR for being pirates. Call it square and let them pirate, unless they pirate you, then defend against those pirating you. There are no "harsh" terms anywhere in there if you look at the history of terms imposed by alliances in this game. If any of these terms are too unacceptable, a coalition wide payment of 10B per term that needs to be removed could probably be arranged.
  5. 18 points
    All good things come to an end. So does my time in PW. It no longer fits with my RL and so i'm moving on. Shit's been fun. Sometimes vexing. No bad blood to anyone from me- it was all cool. Thanks for playing, maybe i'll see you around. Uhh, i've VM'ed and will be deleting from discord after i've said my personal goodbyes (no public shoutouts SORRY).
  6. 18 points
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No peace terms, only white peace (cit.) Also fixed
  7. 15 points
    A misclick is usually fixable on trading just simply deleting right after after it's posted. With the bot, they don't have that option and it's constantly retrieving the information. Point of the matter is, we don't like it and we're rectifying it. You're free to continue posturing against IQ but I don't care. Your analogy is trash as leaving your bike unattended doesn't excuse the theft. Feel free to make the thieves into the good guys. It's totally not transparent.
  8. 13 points
    We are making some fairly significant changes to take into account the ever growing number of bank AA's and AA switches that are causing the stats to get spread out and less meaningful. Unfortunately LoD and I have been bogged down with RL work today, but we will get back onto it ASAP. The changes are at a db level which is why we had to bring the site down, but all your stats are still being tracked every 30 minutes.
  9. 12 points
    Buy me city 24 and I'll buy up nukes and nuke 'em post-war. Shifty is a butcher for sale. Also my boi Leo/Thanos dropping truth bombs like a B-52 over 'Nam. The losers are losers and have zero say. Drive the knife in deep and twist. TKR sphere deserves this. "Omg but you're making this CN 2.0." "Omg, you're making bad enemies and bad blood." TKR needed their ego and teeth kicked in. Guardian is smug, but they ain't that bad. (Exception) TCW, who cares about pissing them off? They can't fight their way out of a paper bag. GoB had it coming. Tesla is basically dead and proved to be a useless offshoot of The Chola/Zodiac. Statesmen, Nova Riata, Silenzio, and any other micros are irrelevant and should just be tossed to the raiders anyway. Idk who the frick came up with this idea that this game doesn't need drama. Your stagnant shit filled minds keep coming up with ideas on how to kill any fun and conflict. Y'all rather have passive aggressive, "listen here pal" wars that end in nothing instead of salt filled, humiliating, and punishing defeats. The weak should fear the strong. Shifty says what's on everyone's mind, but they're too afraid to say it because they're playing model UN. Prove me wrong Protip: You can't.
  10. 12 points
    I would like more something like this So I don't have to open their nation page to see their units
  11. 12 points
    No one is going after them. They have the option to sell their infra, as you can see in the terms. If their alliance loves them so much, they can just rebuild them with their own funds. Sell down to 1k and then just rebuild. That easy. I see no reason (from an IC point of view) to let nations again and again VM and then get "punished" by their alliances by getting taxed. These taxes are used to rebuild faster the alliances that were hit. Believe it or not, some alliances want to cause as much damage as possible to the opposing side and having VMers coming back post-war to rebuild the rest is not really appreciated. Also... these nations are not punished. They get exactly the same treatment as their team-mates. The non-VMed TCW nations are at 1k infra level. The VMers will get to that level too. "Punishment" would imply that they get special treatment and worse terms than their team-mates, which is not the case.
  12. 12 points
  13. 12 points
    No no no, we can't have peace yet!!! ... the war dodger clause should absolutely count both ways, IMO. frick ALL the deserters, not just the ones from the losing side; at least they had a reason.
  14. 11 points
    Dear citizens of Orbis, Since the terms that are the main topic of the peace negotiations for the current on-going war are no secret (and the corresponding document has been circulated openly to the membership of several alliances), it has been decided to officially present them to the public. This thread is by no means a part of the official negotiations, for which a Discord server is already used by leaders and representatives of alliances participating to the war. Enjoy debating. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article I - Cessation of hostilities Article II - Official Surrender Article III - Public Statements / Announcements Article IV - Color Blocs Article V - War-dodgers Article VI - Fairness in Trading Article VII - Secret Treaties Article VIII - Giving Piracy a Chance Apendix I- Coalitions Apendix II - War-dodgers
  15. 10 points
    So the quality of life problem that I have with the war screen is that there is no timeline link to the war on your war screen unless it's finished. Now, this isn't a mechanic or a necessary change, but it just makes it a lot more convenient and saves time, rather than having to click on every nation you're fighting individually and check the timeline for your stats for that war. So all it would do is have that timeline link at the end somewhere next to your current wars so you can check out the stats for the wars you're currently fighting straight from the war screen. I can't be the only one that would get on their knees for this addition.
  16. 9 points
    Fark and WTF at the beginning of the war
  17. 9 points
    Yes, it can be. You're a gov member of an alliance who's only meaningful tie is being protected by the Syndicate, an alliance fighting on the side you are currently criticizing for their terms. Not to mention the side which will possibly be the top sphere post war. Putting you're opinion out there can be a dangerous thing if it goes against the powers that be, or popular opinion. First thing I did when I saw you posting you're highly misconstrued statements which were pieced together poorly, was look at your alliance. I looked to size you up, to see if you were worth hitting. Thankfully, for you, none of your alliance nations are in my range so I lost interest. But now your alliance is on my radar, are probably on others as well. It's what happens when you come here talking the nonsense you have. You get noticed, and not in good ways. There is zero parallel between a bot which patrols the trade market for mistaken trades in to profit off of those mistakes and BC being held accountable for leaking sensitive information. You're flat out wrong. Bot's for that sort of advantage are widely frowned upon in these sorts of circles, and to claim we can simply "tell our members to take 5 seconds", is asinine. What about other nations? What if a member of your alliance lost 100M worth of resources by mistakenly clicking to post a public trade when they meant a private one, and an automated bot sprung into action to snag those resources before the person could delete it seconds later? Perhaps we just want the removal of them all together? Regardless it doesn't involve you, because it's what we want. It also doesn't have any connections to BC. You leak intel, you run the risk of paying the consequences for it. One's a conscious choice, and one's a mistake.
  18. 9 points
    Bye Partisan, glad to see things went out on a high note. Good luck out there.
  19. 9 points
  20. 9 points
    Sort of pointless for it to oblige side A to do so, since it's already on their best interest to cleanse their own deserters.
  21. 9 points
    The war will continue until TheNG recognizes that I am the New and Improved Pigeon
  22. 8 points
    From The Desk of Uncle Traveling Matt The Best Nation of Fraggle Rock Greetings again Friends!! This was quick. On the authority of Ripper, I, Uncle Traveling Matt, am taking over this process. First off...all of what Ripper wrote is out the window. New Terms: Fraggle gets 85% of all reps. So our starting point is as follows: Peace for all for the low price of 19 billion cash, 200k Gas, 200 Alum, 200k Uranium. Wire it all to me. The war is over. Many Hugs Uncle Traveling Matt
  23. 8 points
    I'm a simple man. I see Ripper, I upvote.
  24. 7 points
    Ah, it's the old "Everyone in the coalition submit the terms you want and we'll just forward them all along"
  25. 7 points
×

Important Information

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