Jump to content

Pablo

Members
  • Posts

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Pablo

  1. I see rebuilding to 1.7k-2k infrastructure more as a cautionary measure, Cataclysm & Paradise were not part of any sphere, and were quite exposed. As for the militarization, I don't know what triggered it, as I am not part of any of those two alliances, but I doubt it had offensive purposes. Cata & Paradise don't have enough firepower alone to represent a realistic threat to any existing sphere, I think Keegoz/Kev probably caught wind of this and chose to mil up, which ended up being a right call. The Syndicate never demilitarized, and they have been quite antagonizing to them as well. Being at high mil is honestly very reasonable to me for a small sphere (like Cata and Paradise) to wait for the post-war rearragement, having that security net. "Clearly planning to go to war" is quite strong to me, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would they go crash on their own on Eclipse/TS or Rose while being clearly disadvantaged? Plus Midgard/Witheld are still busy fighting their war, and probably a lot of alliances are waiting for that war to wrap up to do some spheres rearrangements. I could have seen it happening but a month or two down the rode, not now as you are making it out to be the case. And even then, I don't think this is something that should be praised, or repeated. Point to where I hurt you friend!
  2. This is not accurate, at least to the information I was privy to, Clock (not Cataclysm alone, mind you) pushed to hit Rose, something we (TS) refused to do, then Clock still went in while we didn't even know you were going to do that. Anyhow, I think plenty of people have partaken into the hits (and plots) on Rose that were mentioned , Eclipse, The Knights Radiant, The Syndicate, etc (probably most of the top 10). I think singling out Cataclysm and painting them as some mastermind that convinced everyone in their various spheres to do their bidding in a Keegoz revenge crusade is a bit unrealistic and unfair. Some hits were because of Rose's vulnerability at the time and others because they belonged to massive sphere. The last being the Wayward planning to hit Ouro, Ouro having an antagonistic component such as Eclipse, & being the biggest sphere by size after the rest of the spheres downsized. It was obvious others were going to plan accordingly, I also strongly dislike the precedent this war sets about hitting an alliance that just exited a war and rebuilt, even with the grudge, cb and all, I sort of saw this as a gentlemen's agreement in this game that this sort of thing was to be avoided and looked down upon (you don't do it, because you don't want others to do it to you), and I cannot really recall the last time it happened. Light rebuild or not, it took place, and I am hoping this is something we never see taking place again in the game again. Best of luck to both parties, I hope this war can allow you both to get past this turbulent shared history and move on.
  3. I can probably provide an insider perspective to The Syndicate, as I was a member and high gov for around five years, until like 3 months ago. The Syndicate is probably one of the best run alliances in the game, internally speaking. They have a very robust system, and have committed people that keep the place running efficiently. Very healthy community, they have probably the best tech in the game, and thanks to that they can maximize and optimize their processes and their money-making activities. @leonissenbaum props to you. They also have very strong books, and have a decent amount of people in tiers that matter. Their main issue is FA, and it has been for a while. I sincerly think it has been in a negative trend, this year in particular imo. You can hardly attribute anything good to it, or at least I cannot see any real progress made, by any metric. Having lost two back-to-back wars to Hollywood (one selling down military right away and another one not even milling up), wrapping up Celestial without even going in offensive once, having the sphere chat leaked with damaging logs, and then the whole affair with Wayward. I left with Partisan and a few others to found Requiem, I cannot speak for them, but at least one of the main drives I had was that I considered that the alliance was heading in a direction that was no ideal, as evidenciated by all the events I outlined above. I think I can sum it up as frustration with they way the alliance was being handled. What did it for me, and probably others, was when we got blindsided by Hollywood, I was taking a nap at the time of the blitz and woke up to a mess, no one notified high gov or asked us for feedback on how to proceed, turns out leaders knew and decided against militarizing because it would had escalated the situation. Then no long after, the leaks happen. It was just too much to handle, and I decided to leave after 5 years. I was hopeful about Wayward, competent allies, decent sphere size, I thought they would benefit from letting Ouro take the spotlight while they worked on improving their standing. Then when Midgard hits TKR, chaos ensued. I concur with Buo in his assessment and points he brings up. I don't know who came up with that idea, or how did they manage to process it in their minds to think it was the best course of action. But bailing on your ally and signing the alliance that attacked your ally is just nuts, for many reasons. WANA I think you made the decision to sign Eclipse shortly after the thing started, I don't think any exploration was done. And I am not even speculating😛 Cataclysm's move was not well thought-out, and you weren't clear enough to them about how you felt about the hit. I think no one questions you for cutting the tie, but then not defending your MDP ally using controversial arguments, and then add to that that you decide to sign Eclipse right away is just bad optics. Short-term it makes sense to avoid a rolling, but long term I think this severely limit you in terms of FA manouvering. Infrastructure can be rebuilt, but reputation is not as easily recovered, and I personally think this will be a stain that will be hard to remove.
  4. imo the rule already tries to cover this, it outlines the cases where it is a punishable offense. If the moderator enforcing the rule has a basic understanding of how the game works and does some basic research, it should be easy to decide in most cases. If the nation who is striked thinks it was a bad judgement, they can scale it and open a ticket, so that more mods can weight in and make a final decision. It should be at the mods discreation, provided they understand how the game works. I honestly thought this rule had been applied like this all this time. You have to admit this hasn't happened before to this scale, probably since NPOLT, and I am personally not saying X or Y are doing, it could be your sphere, it could be HoF, it could be some random people who are not even involved, it might be organized, it might be just individuals, but the purpose of my post is to try to get this to stop and not to point fingers, because this is weaponizing moderation, and I will be very pissed off if any of my members or allies ends up being banned because the moderation team is garbage and chooses to entertain these sort of reports. Hopefully, Alex changes his mind and moderates better this rule.
  5. You and I have been playing long enough and understand the game well enough to know what's the true purpose of this rule Adri. The real purpose and point of this rule is what I outlined in my last post, and I think anyone that understands the game can agree on this. The only real use for this is to prevent someone from not being able to be countered, period. Here the nations on the receiving end are not getting any benefit, since: They rarely get triple slotted (and I say rarely, giving the benefit of the doubt, but it probably has't happened, so never), thus the target in question can still be attacked. We don't really have any means to fight convenitionally to be affected by this. If anything, we should be the ones reporting our members for making your nations hard to hit😛 Also Rule #4 should be interpreted as a whole, and not just the first sentence, or just the second half. You can see how Alex elaborates more about the real uses and specific cases if you further read, so just taking the first part is going against to the spirit of the rule. Now, the moderation team and Alex can choose to be obtuse, but really just think for a second what benefit these nations are getting, and how it is impacting gameplay. Then think if this is really fair moderation, in the sense that if it is really addreasing a problem or not.
  6. You lost so much time going through wars, when you could have stopped by the Game Rules and read point 4. But I will post the snippet here for your convinience. This rule was created to prevent someone purposedly filling their defensive slots, and as a result, not being able to be countered when performing attacks. That's the spirit of the rule. The people are not attacking with the purpose of preventing other players from being able to attack the target, nor to otherwise benefit the target nation. The spirit of the rule is being twisted. One would think Alex and the mod team have read their own game rules, but at this point nothing surprises me, someone probably got Alex's ear and managed to convince him this was remotely coherent. This has been happening for years, and it is in part because of the flawed war system, where the loser has no option but to resort to unconventional warfare. Now someone decided it was acceptable to weaponize moderation, taking advantage of Alex and the mod team lack of understanding of the game and how it really works. Shame on whoever is behind these sort of reports, which are honestly ill-made and abhorrent. This probably hasn't happened to the scale it has now since the NPO days, it seems like some similar minded individuals remained in the game. So, what have we learned today? Some people have nothing better to do with their time, and have low enough morals to resort to this type of measures. Alex, their mod team and probably you hidude haven't read the game rules.
  7. Despite our continuous genuine efforts to get past over our old grudges and move on, for more dynamic politics and a healthier game, you chose to double down, and go back to repeating the same match ups. It has become clear to me that your interests are not aligned to ours, and your hegemonic ambitions hold far more weigth than the improvement of the in-game politics that you preach to hold on high value. You declared war on us at the beginning of this year, and it was our intention to get past that. You manifested having no casus belli against us during our temporary accord during the war clock fought. And yet, here we are. If your casus belli for this war is really to hamper our growth, I would like to point out your sphere hasn't done a real rebuild since around September last year, and has had an unmatched top tier for years now. It is not really hard to put 2+2 together to realize that your real intention is to double down on this direction and pursue your hegemonic ambitions at the expense of the game. I am always down for war, and we are going to give a hard fight, of that be sure. This is just certainly a confirmation of where you really stand, and how things will go moving forward. My perception of your sphere has certainly far worsened in the light of these new developments. I'll meet you in the battlefield.
  8. I take things from who they come from, and HC is no pilar of integrity and moral values, and I am sure that the people that truly believe this (not simply because it fits their narrative) are similar to him in that regard. There is simply no parallel to us being anywhere close to NPO, and I tell you this as a former INQ leader who closely interacted with them, there is just no point in comparison, I can’t think of a situation where we manifested any NPO-like behaviour. I have seen logs of what NPOLT negotiations were and I am sure none of our gov at any given point, ever did or said similar things as they did. I believe that comparison is frankly unfair and just politically motivated and not actually something the game perceives us as. As for toxicity, I don’t think disagreeing with other people and countering their rhetoric can be considered toxic, and if anyone reading this considers it as such, I just have to tell you, you always have the opportunity to argue back. I have never seen us insult anyone or harm anyone’s integrity and if there have been such cases, I apologize, but it is certainly not something that is anything near prevalent or normal, I can assure you that. I think these views steam from a small group of people who doesn’t have a good opinion of us, and I can respect that, we all have our different issues with each other, and we all have our own free mind, but making up stuff with little to no basis it is not appropriate imo. As I addressed on my previous post (so I won’t dig too much into it), we can definitely work on some points, in terms of how we portrait ourselves, but I don’t think there is anything serious or concerning to the game’s health as the OP said, to warrant such a thread. And yeah, I get it, some people choose to judge you from some isolated issues, I hope these posts have made some progress in changing that perception and also the changes we make moving forward, as there is always room to improve.
  9. I don't believe there was, is, or will be a perfect alliance in the game, and certainly The Syndicate is no exception. We have our faults, internally and externally, and we have always strived to improve and correct the issues we find, and as such I am a firm believer of constructive criticism. We have been around since the beginning of the game, and we have been in prosperity and also been in the darkest of valleys, but this capacity to overcome issues and learn from mistakes is what have kept alive and taken us to where we stand today. The thing that deeply disturbs me is how blatantly demeaning the OP post is and how blown out of proportions the core of the post is. I find unfair what this thread became, and the motive it was created, which is far from being constructive criticism and rather seems like a post meant to paint us in bad light and spread falsehoods. I am sure a post like this can be created for any major alliance if you look closely, and we could talk about their faults, mistakes and mismanagement. I haven’t been in The Syndicate the whole time I played the game, I was part of INQ leadership and later on I went to several alliance before I found home here (this was all before NPO/BK went nuts, just for the record), and internally and externally, I had never been in a better place. To the people that know me and I have worked with, know that I am an impartial person and believe me what I will mention is what I firmly believe and not some part of a narrative or whatever you call it. The Syndicate as a community is very far from toxic, it is a place where we can all consider ourselves family, simply because we have created a safe, trustable and friendly environment, where we play and have fun together. We have zero tolerance to any toxic-like behaviour and we actively work on enforcing this. Which is why I find outrageous this thread and won’t tolerate this misinformation campaign about our members and community. Now, FA wise, WANA has been very professional this whole time he has been Head of FA, he has been respectful in all interactions I have seen him had with the outside, he has gotten us through turbulent and trying times and as High Gov, I have never seen any trace of the behaviour you mention he exhibits. I think we reserve the right to argue against false claims and narratives that are clearly directed towards harming us and our image, these “keyboard warriors” that “flood” public forums are only expressing their views and debunking narratives that are misconstrued, I think any major alliance does this or at least should do, arguing in respectful terms and as gentlemen that we are, exchanging ideas and promoting dialogue is something that in my opinion should be encouraged. I am not going to deny, we have at times, expressed ourselves in a wrong manner, but it has never been in a way that demeans anyone’s dignity. Also, retired gov are, well, in fact, retired, and they have a mind of their own, as do our members, for official purposes WANA’S word, or whoever is the Head of FA at the moment, should be the one taken at face value, and to a lesser extend our High Gov. I think we have a high image of ourselves, and I think we can work how we manifest that in public, but I believe there is no sin in being proud of the alliance you are in. I think threads like this serve little positive purpose (especially when they are far from being constructive), other than becoming a venting room for people who are only trying to spread negativity and taking advantage of it to push their own narrative. It is sad for me to see people saying racist comments in a thread, that according to the original poster, was an appeal for improvement, especially when said member is part of the OP sphere. I only wanted to address this point, as our FA decisions have already been described in details by WANA and other high respected government members.
  10. I cannot recall Madam Presiden Hillary Clinton, 45th President of the United States of America losing 2016. IF I DON'T RECALL IT DIDN'T HAPPEN OK. haha On a serious note, congrats on your retirement! Thank you for everything you did for the alliance, it was very pleasant to work with you! (despite liking Trump, ew haha) and it was also pretty nice as a member for all the growth opportunities we had under your ternure. I hope you stay around with us for many more years, @Justin076! Congrats on the promo @Vemek! I am really sure you will do super great! (...plz no more 2016 flashbacks😭)
  11. Congratulations to both of our allies!
  12. I am glad to see this up?
  13. Awesome friends in Pantheon, I am very happy to see this up!?
  14. Congratulations on your peace treaty☺️
  15. Someone is attacking the hippo and it's not me, sad!?
  16. What is exactly not accurate according to you? Frawley’s stats and this set of stats can’t match because he took steel something around 5000 ppu, if I am wrong there please correct me. These stats are taking steel at 3500 ppu. So if you know some maths you should be able to understand how values can vary. Units lost/destroyed are taken directly from the API provided by the game, so it should be completely accurate. I will say once again that infrastructure damage is directly taken from in-game Stats Tracker, which is known to provide unreliable data in some cases. I would like to point out how said tool has been used before for other conflicts and it was well accepted by then. There is no data provided by the game to calculate or ‘get’ infrastructure data 100% accurate, which is why the Stat Tracker has been used as it also is impartial, miscalculations are for everyone regardless of alliance affiliation. I can only grant you the issue with people deleting or leaving alliances fighting are not included there. Other than that it is you trying to deny what is obvious. You are likely to be in disadvantage when Frawley releases his stats, I cannot wait for the arguments you will make up to try keep painting you still as ‘winning’ by then. I will have fun quoting all of you.
  17. Infrastructure data was taken from in-game stats tracker, which is known to be unreliable in some situations, stat tracker that for your information has been used in past wars to collect stats. I would like to point out that the miscalculations in the stats tracker are totally random and Alex didn’t code it to purposely favor one side or another. In addition, there is no real ‘accurate’ way to pull infrastructure data, we could try to craft a method to estimate it, but it will never be exact because the game itself doesn't proportionate enough data. As the spreadsheet mentions, infrastructure data is directly taken from the in-game stat tracker, which in some situations proportionates inaccurate data. You can refer to my quote above to get more specifics. Infrastructure data may be not accurate in some situations, yes. It has been used before and I would dare to say it has been an standard in stats for previous wars, because even though there are miscalculations, those doesn’t ‘target’ one or another alliance. Military/units and money loot should be completely accurate though. Infrastructure damage has been directly taken from the in-game stats tracker. No one manipulated in any way, shape or form any number you see there. If you really did your calculation fine, the miscalculation happened randomly to you. Refer to my previous quotes if you would like to know more specifics. And yes, units/military and money loot data should be 100% accurate. Such as individual stats in there are. Infrastructure data has been taken from said in-game tool in previous wars because there isn’t no other way to calculate it to an individual level without doing estimations. I am using the in-game stats tracker, I invite you to use it and sum up all the data you see in there and you will find out how it perfectly matches the spreadsheet. No one touched any digit there, trying to imply that we manipulated the data in our favor is simply an offense because no such thing happened.
  18. Read the notes. It is taking infrastructure data from Alex Stats Tracker. He has said it is inaccurate in some situations. It has been used in previous wars and as well in another stat thread for this conflict. Wow, what an accurate indicator for war progress
  19. Beautiful, amazing art @TheNG
  20. Oh well, I can’t tell the difference now. Wow making fun of my name. I ain’t complaining, I am highlighting the facts you seem to ignore
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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