Jump to content

Roquentin

No Matching Nation
  • Content Count

    1456
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

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
    Roquentin
  • Nation Name
    Dreamcatcher(formerly T-ara)
  • Nation ID
    11527
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order

Recent Profile Visitors

4003 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 over the past 4 years has gravitated to a mentality where bigger is inherently better and this feeds into that mentalit. While there were outliers before Silent, it wasn't an encouraged model. Most players don't join established alliances. Most established alliances don't want to feed all the newer players. Most alliances having limited funds to spend per new player don't want to take chances on someone who will leave to make their own alliance which is the model promoted. The tutorial doesn't teach you how to play the game properly and it requires using external mediums and many players are instantly turned off. The game itself needs increased appeal to work for casual mobile users rather than relying on offsites.
  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 treasure trove. There's way more of a draw to getting to endlessly raid all the abandoned nations since it takes months to get VMed/deleted.
  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 case as the losing sides earlier on would hemmorhage players regardless of war length, because losing a war isn't fun especially when you guaranteed to be at a competitive disadvantage, so shorter wars only benefit people who win or have greater reserves as they can increase the gap. If the desire was to normalize shorter wars, objective goals or some benefit to both parties would be different. Wars are mostly fueled by vendettas and personal enmity, so we can't really find any basis for material regulation to mean much as it simply benefits those better off. It just means whoever gets frustrated first or is poorer will be gone. This is mainly why I was saying there would have to be a way to encourage cooperation and friendly competition between factions where people can excel in different metrics rather than enmity, which is currently encouraged by the way the system works as is. "I get to stay on top and keep these guys poor and I don't want them to ever be well off so we'll hit them when the time comes." The system as it stands encourages crippling opponents economically by hitting when vulnerable. Some of them would be a must buy but the issue is that will just hurt people who have less stuff as is, and that's an unfortunate effect that adding new projects has is it doesn't really hurt people who have a lot.
  5. Roquentin

    Peace

    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 trying to pretend the small scale action by BK and Acadia is the same as his orchestrated effort. You're free to negotiate your own deal at any time or just operate separately like Horsecock is doing.
  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 wars before. Charles: "This is an admission of incompetence." Best of luck tFed/Reg.
  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 in bad faith with regards to the NAP. You complain so much about game health but an upwards transfer of wealth of that scale from a larger amount of people to one person is terrible for it. Given the viciousness and sanctioning of actual bank theft, tricking people to help you, rigging wars, and so on, it's hard to make this case at this point. Anyone who did anything wrong becomes a saint in your eyes as long as they screw us. You embraced EM when he broke his own deal. You canonized Gorge. This pattern just increases the need for these terms. You've justified everything on the basis of being hunted to extinction when your own aspirations for dominance are the true motive. -----
  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 war if they won't take the individual outs offered now and in the past. We know you're in good shape, so it's not a killer. This is a lot different compared to the start of "oh it's x's fault you're in this war. ditch them."
  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.