Jump to content

Mikey

Members
  • Content Count

    656
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Mikey last won the day on June 24 2019

Mikey had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1856 Upvote King

7 Followers

About Mikey

  • Rank
    Lazy Bastard

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    The Reach
  • Alliance Pip
    Seven Kingdoms
  • Leader Name
    Mikey
  • Nation Name
    The Reach
  • Nation ID
    31191
  • Alliance Name
    Seven Kingdoms

Recent Profile Visitors

1946 profile views
  1. We would have to consider ourselves a tiger in the first place
  2. It may be redundant, but it was an excuse to make a new scroll, so I'll allow it. Plus the humming is fantastic, new anthem for sure! It is ironic though that we put the most work into presenting a treaty that already existed That is definitely the exact same thing though, let's be real.
  3. Given the context that this apology is coming after Cam's behavior was savaged in the other thread and on Discord by nearly every other group, effectively backing them into an FA corner; and given the context that high profile members continue to defend past actions; I think it's fairly reasonable that people are skeptical. Look, you guys fricked up hard last war and a lot of people are rightfully pissed off about your actions. It isn't the first time an alliance has found themselves in that position, and it won't be the last, though it may be more heated than most. Take it from an alliance that has been there multiple times before - take the L and move on. It's not unreasonable to want to hold them accountable for their actions in some meaningful in-game way, such as say rolling them in a short war. With time, most people will move on if you will. T$ in particular, which seems to be singled out by detractors here, has an entire history of doing just that. The fact that we can exist on the same political axis as them again proves it. We - the various divergent alliances that made up col A - are not IQ. We don't hold permanent grudges over past behavior or past governments. Every single alliance of meaningful age on our side has at some point made friends out of enemies, enemies out of friends, and back again. If you truly change you will find most people's attitudes change with you, but you're going to have to face the immediate consequences first. Whether that's a war when the NAP ends. or just several more threads of people !@#$ing.
  4. I agree. I think it's good to play to win, but in a king of the hill kind of sense. You know you are going to get knocked off eventually, but your goal is to get a solid group together and then try and see how long you can last at the top. Once you get knocked down, re-asses your FA, maybe meet some new people, and try again later against new kings of the hill. There were blocs vying for dominance for years without trying to sign everybody and their grandmother and strangle the game to do it. Hopefully we can get back to that.
  5. Those 2013 and 2014 rankings are a huge wave of nostalgia! Thanks for putting this together. Looks like the 2017 image is of the current leaderboard though.
  6. Were you never a trium in Guardian? For some reason I thought you were in the beta.
  7. I mean, the whole point of the color mechanics, however poorly implemented, was to add another axis of politics. I can't really fault them for trying, especially when other alliances also act to defend their colors to varying degrees. Whether they went about it a good or blusterous way, idk, I skimmed the screens so I can't speak to their tone.
  8. This could be the first color war in 6 years! Interesting. Personally, I think the color bonus is pretty marginal and poorly implemented. I mean, if 20 Grumpys joined maroon, that would also tank the color bonus I'd say the claim that Clover is violating the NAP by marginally reducing color income is a bit flimsy. But then I also think NAPs are generally a poor idea - we had years of conflict where people didn't jump a recovering alliance, without the need for them - and it's too long in any case. So I wouldn't have any qualms, personally, if Camelot 'violated' it in this instance. If we are going to be stuck with these as a common feature of peace terms (please god no), though, this and the recent drama between TCW/CoTL suggest we might want to better define what, if any, legitimate grounds there are to break it. Or to consider it void between parties.
  9. Sorry, I'm just curious, the % air destroyed is based on your rebuy amount? The way I read it, higher tier nations do more damage than lower ones, even with equivalent militaries. If I am fighting someone with ten cities more than me, their rebuy is higher. Thus even if we both have 10,000 tanks, if he has GC, his 10000 will kill more aircraft than my 10000 would, if I had the GC. Is that right?
  10. Very first alliance I joined in any nation same, over a decade ago. Welcome to Orbis!
  11. True, we cannot dictate how Alex enforces his game rules. Though we might suggest that he start actually doing so if he cares about the health of the game. What is our right, however, is to enforce the norms of the community. The player base can take action for whatever reason it wants, including punishing individuals they feel have wronged the game - or defending them. My point is that talk of rights is largely pointless. As long as it is within the game rules, anybody has the right to do anything they want to anybody else - in-game, anyway. Most of the talk, outside the mod thread, has been political in nature - what other players should do, and how everyone else should react to their lack of doing it.
  12. Nobody, as far as I can tell, has suggested they do not have the right to defend whomever they please. We have suggested that perhaps individuals caught breaking game rules, who escape with laughably little punishment, ought not be defended by alliances of good standing. A radical concept, I know. Besides, the whole muh sovereignty thing runs both ways. Just as they have the right to defend EM, we have the right to be critical of it and form our opinion of them based on it. And those in range of EM have the same right, as sovereign nations, to attack him.
  13. In addition to the fact that many producers of refined resources import their raws, it is also possible no to be able to produce enough even if you make both natively. I have a bauxiteworks and max aluminum refineries, and even with max bauxite extractors I still have a net negative usage.
  14. Why not just make a rule against spam ?‍♂️ In other circumstances I might also suggest an in-game solution to the issue where we deal with them ourselves, but I think they're too out of range of all concerned parties.
  15. I've had a lot of success eschewing bots altogether. Instead I take the time to get to know them as a person. use bits of PIE to track down RL identities, find addresses, and send a hand-crafted message. I like to be funky and make it a collage, just to seem extra friendly welcoming!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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