Jump to content


No Matching Nation
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Roquentin last won the day on October 25 2019

Roquentin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1413 Upvote King

About Roquentin

  • Rank
    Exalted Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Alliance Pip
    New Pacific Order
  • Leader Name
  • Nation Name
    Dreamcatcher(formerly T-ara)
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order

Recent Profile Visitors

4220 profile views
  1. Not sure how we're trying to kill the game. If the game = group of people who have an expectation of certain levels of infrastructure and they have to be met, then maybe. Actual updates would be welcome but this is just adding projects that benefit people with the most money/resources to spend. The idea is they will be resource sinks which can sometimes be well-intentioned but the implementation is odd. They aren't sinks where they're needed since it's a drop in the bucket for the people who have the means to buy them. The purchase costs should vary by how many cities you have. The metagame ov
  2. It is about keeping long-term players as that's what most of the complaints have been about. The lack of tutorial upgrade should indicate that as well. New players aren't affected by alliance wars more than random hits in peace time. The damage is minimal to them. Immortals has barely been at war. Most alliances in the war do not actively recruit. If you leave beige early even in peace time any random person can declare on you since you're not in range of most alliancemates as a new nation. Alliance wars are actually quite good for new players as they can scavenge quite a lot. It's a
  3. Oh I wasn't saying you suggested this particular one. I was citing that you said Alex wanted shorter wars. It's more if it's an intentional decision to affect alliance wars especially the current one via material costs without any accompanying change, then it will just have the impact of making people leery of fighting and just do very short spurts once a year.
  4. The changes are problematic because 1. there was no tutorial overhaul/no UI overhaul/etc. The changes that only benefit established players were implemented. The model of discouraging endless growth that Statekraft would have had is missed here. 2. The issue is even if it's intentionally to affect things; there's just no basis as there is no alliance war mechanism in the game. Prefontaine said something along the lines of him wanting shorter wars, but there's no basis for doing it via material costs. The premise has also been that short wars are good for retention and this has never been the c
  5. You missed the point of the post which is the collusion while at war between TCW's bloc and Syndicate. Those are pretty much the same entity at this stage, so when Partisan declared on TCW nations with "fight me you coward" on the eve of TCW's betrayal of Covenant/co and barely had any units, sort of means something along with NP's wars to restore Syndicate units. We can also note the convenient connection between Boyce's sudden spurt of activity and declaring offensives exclusively on TCW, getting beiged, and miraculously a TCW treaty coming out not too long after. Also lol at Sphinx tr
  6. When did we blitz our allies? tS cancelled and there were no wars on them before. On the slotting thing in your other post. Your coalition is entirely reliant on slotfilling and beiging. Our side had a few people do it as a protest and it was punished relatively quickly for a small scale action. At this the A in Coalition A stands for Akuryo. Just don't forget that any resurgence for tS or anyone beiged here is just due to blindness and illegitimate. The issue is being addressed too late but that is the case. If people will cheat while the ref is snoozing how can they be trustworthy?
  7. Coalition B: "Our side has less liquidity." Charles: "Should have blown it on more cities in NPO. Coalition B: "it's not for NPO". Charles: "This is a referendum on NPO tiering." Coalition B: "The other side has had the ability to keep individuals out of wars whereas isolated upper tier wouldn't be getting big returns on 3000 infra+" Charles: "Should have spent more." Coalition B: Most alliances on our side do not tier like that or have 100/100 nor have they had as much time with income levels. The highest liquid alliances barely fight or hadn't fought losing war
  8. lol. Please dude. You've done so many bad things this war that we smell like roses in comparison at this point. There is no such thing as an illegitimate CB. If we saw you as a threat to competitiveness by having an easy curbstomp then it was valid to not let you decisively crush one side. You've focused on the proximal reason and we had enough reasons to believe TKR's tension with us would escalate. . We didn't break the NAP Kitschie and Immortals decided the NAP was dead because of TMC. This was a thin pretext for them to justify breaking it and entering to help you or TCW. They acted
  9. Except I've never said we demanded reps or anything for ourselves as we are not an aggrieved party and the bond is a different story due to the liability. Now 160b would be crippling as opposed to the much lower sums included. We don't really have a reason however to just peace without the terms as it's a bad deal. It's not as if I controlled every alliance that was on our side in terms of whatever systems they had in place and not as if any of the extraneous circumstances that have nothing to do with their economic orientation somehow don't exist.
  10. "Healthy competition" lmao This is healthy competition? A whole slew of people who see it as optimal to curbstomp less well off alliances? People who choreograph wars to help people recover military? Everyone would have loved get out of jail free cards when you always won. Our advantage wasn't really that great. lol if you think gorge/sphinx/akuryo's actions recently were based "on health of the game" and not just individual self-interest/avarice. "it's harder to fight these guys, so I will literally backstab my side and try to rig the war in their favor." seriously?
  11. Substitute Akuryo/Sphinx and then it'll be accurate.
  12. It's plain as day. Someone helps tS and tS springs into action. Is this the action of an alliance that is on the verge of extinction or somehow super crippled especially when taking into account its relative wealth? No.
  13. People are saying they can't cope so we're willing to let the ones out that can't realistically and it isn't that big of a deal given the overall size of your coalition. I don't know how letting some alliances out after the side switch, big interventions that were confused in motivation and further consolidation is a big deal. We didn't collaborate with anyone on Coal A's side to engineer some sort of rigged outcome. It wouldn't reduce the numbers to an insanely lopsided level by letting struggling alliances leave. I'm just not going to be responsible for people having issues with extended wa
  14. I wasn't. I was contacted by at least one person who mentioned that CoS was going under changes and that a decent amount of people would look to leave. SK having some shuffling was also known too. Soup had Medellin splintering off as well. It was known some bigger members would split off at some point.
  15. A lot of people were planning to leave CoS and some other alliances or they'd just disband or restructure. The issue you guys have had were evident during surf's up and people were looking to make deals and get new locations. It's not really tasty or ironic. Basically the premise you now operate on is if it hurts alliance x or y, virtually anything is permitted as in Black Sox/montreal Screwjobesque moves and everyone is a hero even if they wanted to cripple you as long as they sell those alliances out. That's always been sort of the premise for the overall old school milieu.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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