Hodor

HODOR!!!!

hodor? lol

I mean, I won't say this isn't disappointing in the same sense any young alliance surrendering after less than a week is disappointing. There is a lot to be learned from a real war experience, I've said as much to other new leaders asking for advice, especially in this case where you were arguably in a coalition with some of the strongest military minds (lol) in the game. Nothing will replace war as an experience. If you want to be an economic powerhouse, whatever that means, do not declare offensive wars and do not sign treaties. So, while Coalition B runs to say that a new alliance peacing out after 5 days is the equivalent of an more established alliance fighting through the roughest parts of the war and then suing for peace, there is in fact a difference.

At a certain point numbers matter. 1700 vs 400 is definitely in that arena. Nothing disingenuous about that, sad you see it that way. Tiering certainly has a lot to do with it but you’ve shown yourselves to have the grit and determination to turn a much smaller numerical advantage into a slog with effective coordination. So forgive me for being threatened by an active, coordinated alliance with reasons to wipe us off the face of Orbis. To your other point around the “hatred” part, sure, lots of people hate y’all on our side. Sure, they’ve been vocal. But there’s also been a significant faction of folks on our side who feel they have the freedom to break with whatever party line you all give the most attention at any one time. We act significantly less like a monolith than you all. That could be a testament to your discipline, or something more telling. I’d rather have a diverse coalition that allows dissent, than what, at least from the outside, your side is experiencing.

Bruh. Before all these new entries, our block was beaten blue and down to less than 400 members, half of those being in TKR and t$/enterprise. Between you, BK, and GOONS, you've got 400, not to mention the 1k in GPWC and assorted 250+ that have stayed with you for the longest war in Orbis history. The battle for the neutrals was anyone's game once this war was over, but y'all shot yourselves in the foot at every turn, not only losing the neutrals, but also allies.

*her *her *she *she I guess not all that play know her.

Fraggle is a Sheepy multi.

Methinks you don't understand the English language, but it's okay, we're in the same boat. HODOR!

Okay, so you still don't see how that is different from Scenario 1 (this thread)????

So like, here's an analogy. Scenario 1: Hodor is playing handball, a fun game where he hits a kickball against 3 walls of a square. He enjoys it, but it would be more fun if he had people join him. Hodor posts on a popular forum of ball game enthusiasts and asks if anyone would like to play. People get mad, so Hodor goes off to play alone once more with no impact on anyone but himself. Scenario 2: Leo is playing handball, a fun game where he hits a kickball against the heads of 3 other people who rather don't enjoy having their heads hit with kickballs. He enjoys it, but it would be more fun if the heads stopped complaining about being hit. People get mad, so Leo continues to hit the heads with his kickball. See the difference?

I've said this in the discord, but I'll repeat it here. Just let others have fun. I thought this could be a cool little distraction from the absurdity of this war and the forums for the past half year+. We could've had some fun discussion about alliances, members, wars, etc. but in an atmosphere that removes many of our IC motives. When is the last time we had some light-hearted inclusive FUN in this game? I sure as hell don't remember. If you think that's silly, broken, naive, etc. Okay. But for Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake can we just stop frickin arguing about every damn thing?

Same here, though it will require yall recognizing me as gov and not just Buor and Sketchy I'm also happy to initiate 😘

Wow. This took a turn since I last checked.

First off, 😘 Second, I think you fleshed out in large part what I said in short form, so we see eye to eye. Our respective histories heavily color the way we interpret the actions of our adversaries. That being said, do you want to change this? I do. I don't think this silly grudge match system is fun in the long term. Additionally, are we at a point where we can now agree on the above points and discuss peace in a manner that isn't tainted by our worst parts?

I think we've addressed this earlier, but given the length of responses and in keeping with the cordial tone of this thread I can offer our rationale. The fact of the matter is, in a minisphere environment 2v1s are not to be forbidden. In fact, it's a component of this game that sheer numbers lends a significant advantage in many cases, so it might even be common in a minisphere environment. What we were hoping for would be that the opponents would be an ever shifting landscape. So the fact that Surfs Up happened would not preclude the chance for KETOG and CHAOS to work together in the future. Similarly, if N$O and KETOG worked together, hypothetically, it would not preclude the chance of them being adversaries down the line. It creates a more dynamic environment, almost king of the hill, where you can have a myriad of wars and a myriad of coalition combinations. That being said, we felt that we were signaling with Surfs Up our commitment to the above future. When we received actionable intel that BK and perhaps NPO were going to revert us to the status quo, we united in defense of our shared vision. I understand and do sympathize with the fact that this action taken in a vacuum would be fine by everyone (I should hope), but NPO read it in light of their entire history on Orbis, a terrible practice that too many of us continue to adhere to. So, in that sense I think it is all a difference in perspective and how we allowed our histories inform our interpretations. I will state emphatically, CHAOS and KETOG still had many an axe to grind and had no intention whatsoever of allying after this war at the outset.