Sketchy

Lmfao signing the people responsible for most recently having your other ally rolled. Classy. I'm sure this will end well.

@Alex if you are going to do this, can you at least give each person 2 seperate api keys, one for public apis (war, alliances/nations etc) and one for private apis (alliance members, bank)? I can't grant edit access to my sheets to anyone now because they'll just be able to open up the script editor and look directly at my api key, then use it to pull whatever private alliance api data they like.

No shit, I was asking him what it had to do with the topic at hand. Since the two situations aren't comparable, by his own admission. I regret my sarcasm, I sometimes forget people aren't the best at understanding it. Perhaps they should pay more attention. f The topic at hand is about Pantheons coup and the subsequent undoing of the coup. Not sure what "Sheepy showing a bit of transparency" has to do with the subject at hand or the specific debate surrounding this issue. But I apologize, in the future I'll be sure not to say anything if Sheepy happens to delete the war system but then generously shares footage of his toilet habits for the purposes of transparency.

So.... going into VM is cheating now? Not sure how the two situations are comparable.

Being in VM isn't the same as no leadership. You used the moderation of the game to undo a coup. Its not "the rules" and if it is, it shouldn't be. Sheepy should not interfere in politics.

Lol that wasn't long. Seriously want to hear the reason why it was fine to intervene in game politics this time.

Polaris government would have to login in order to let the Hobos in.

The reason 20 members upon founding an alliance is more valuable than 10 with more cities is that most alliances will suffer early losses of some of those members. Although I specifically meant 20 members with established nations, not people recruited outside of the game. If you only have 10 members, losing 1 member is a bigger hit to your initial success than it would be if you were to have 20. Once you consider the fact that a founding government usually is made up of 5-7 people, that means the difference between 3-5 regular members and 13-15 regular members. Alliances rarely thrive when the bulk of their membership IS the government itself. 20 is a minimum, in reality you want as many people as you can when you start.

I've seen it happen quite a few times. The reason it doesn't happen as often as it should is people either lack the ability to attract people or lack the patience. To clarify, I mean 20 people (existing players not recruits) in the first few weeks, not upon founding, usually people will wait to see how many other people join a new AA and who they are before they take the leap themselves. The issue a lot of the time is these leaders of smaller aas coming up have either hopped around from alliance to alliance, not planting any long term connections, or not escaped their clique bubble of people. If all your friends are only friends with each other then its going to be difficult for you to recruit people who can recruit people themselves. Relying on a single individual such as the leader to bring in all the starting membership is a great way to fail. I suppose the other path to success would be for all these people who are looking to get people together to found an alliance, to merge their individual efforts into a single effort for an alliance. If 3-4 would be leaders combined together to make a single aa that would increase their chances. Unfortunately people rarely agree on fundamental directions for alliances and everyone wants to be king so that almost never happens.

They harm it. Micros suck potentially good people into their vortex of incompetence and then spit them back out dead from getting rolled by pirates or with completely inaccurate views of how the game is played, which they then transfer around with them until someone corrects them, which often never happens, and they teach a whole bunch of other people dumb shit too. As a result they lower retention rates for players in the game and spread stupidity around making the entire player base more incompetent, which has a snowball effect. Add to that the fact they have a 0% chance of success from the very beginning. You only have to look at the history of the game to see that basically no micro alliance has ever achieved success past the first wave of alliances that got their start when the game began and everyone was on an even playing field of ignorance. The path to success for new alliances is people joining an established alliance, growing their nations, making friends and connections, learning how to play, moving into a low or high gov position, learning how to govern, then breaking out on their own, splintering from their original alliance, taking a decent sized group of friends with them. If you can't get at least 20 people in your new splinter alliance, you should just be more patient and work harder to get more people rather than going ahead and making it. Way too many leaders of these small/medium sized alliances are just decision makers who rely on the expertise of others to prop up their existence since they were too impatient to learn the mechanics or methods to run even a single department in an alliance. Every leader worth their salt should have at the very least a solid grasp on FA, as well as recent FA history, and know the basics of running each department so they can advise the people in charge of them and ensure they haven't appointed an idiot. Its a bit hard to know if your econ or milcom guy is a moron who has no idea what hes doing, if you yourself have no idea what your doing.

You heard it here first guys, apparently Polaris is now a gender identity. Thrax going for gold in the mental gymnastics Olympics I see.

I 100% agree with everything Kastor said. On the note of moderators removing offensive imagery, I'd like to also propose the moderators compel Kastor to change his profile picture to someone other than Drake. I find this imagery offensive as someone who enjoys good music.

You already tend to lose a tonne of infrastructure (which reduces your income) and a tonne of resources after losing a war. Whats the point?

The reason wars are longer has nothing to do with the changing playerbase. The war system was changed. The old system let you just sit on and cycle people repeatedly with air strikes over and over for 5 days, and then immediately sub someone in to hit once the war expired, there wasn't much of a way to comeback. Which meant once people were down, they were out, and surrendering was rational as no amount of pride would let you do more damage to your foes. Now its almost impossible to be pinned down permanently. So now wars are only really ended when one side gives out or runs out of resources. You can continue to fight and do damage to your opponent indefinitely. This means things like what terms are presented make far more of an impact in how long the war goes. Before if you asked for 1bn in reps, they had to pay it or suffer it and more in damages, with no path for recourse.

Lmfao here we go again You might not have been the ones who came up with the terms, but you spent the better part of a month arguing for their merit as if they were yours. By the last few weeks of that war, TCW was barely fighting, like less than 10% of all wars were TCW, TRF was getting jumped and dicked repeatedly by us as their activity waned and we had flipped their stats into the negative. TKR was the one doing all the work. At any point you could have chosen simply to drop those terms because you had all of the bargaining power. The only reason those terms ever got dropped is because TCW and TRF lacked the stamina to maintain them and none of you lacked the ability to argue with me for their merit (probably because there was none, as we all saw thanks to that Alex/Queen M thread). Its simple really, when you are the primary negotiator or a large and integral part of a coalition, and therefore have a large amount of leverage, you don't get to hide behind your smaller and less important allies when they try and push terms you supposedly don't support. I do find it ironic that according to multiple members of TKR and TCW, TGH was majorly responsible for the 6 month NAP with IQ you guys all complained about, despite being a smaller alliance in a wider coalition, with no leverage (what we gonna say, "If you peace out with a 6 month NAP, we'll.....peace out?" lmfao). Yet TKR apparently bares no responsibility for the terms their allies tried to push (they only failed because your allies were shit), despite making up like 70% of the coalition size, doing all the legwork, not even being allied to one of them, and being in the dominant position in the war. Have you learned nothing?

IF anyone deserves to have money extorted from them Moonshadow does. Literally don't care carry on Rose.

What is worse though, Noctis derailing threads, or Gorge merging into Cornerstone.

This is the first time I've seen the OOC forum used in ages shhh Wiggum let them fight overmoderating is what killed it in the first place

You forgot to mention that Gorge merged into Cornerstone.

I'm not disputing planes are king, I'm disputing the logic that they shouldn't be. Noone complains that the Queen is too powerful in chess and needs to be nerfed because of it, the understanding is that the queen is a powerful unit that should be protected at all costs and used carefully and responsibly. A balance of power between navy, ground and air just turns the combat system into a rock paper scissors simulator. That being said, sheepy should have retooled score values for units ages ago back when he agreed with the suggestion in like 2016. IF you want to "fix" the imbalance, simply increase the score value of planes and reduce the score values of tanks so they are more representative. Tanks are heavily neutered by their cost/power ratio and their overinflated score. Addressing the latter issue would be easy enough.

Was a bad idea before and its still a bad idea now.

Boy 2019 is going to be a fun year.

So IQ is trump? Lmfao

Lolwut its public knowledge that everyone on KT's side of the AC conflict was going to hit IQ and IQ preempted KT based on leaks. Why would anyone be upset they hit KT first lmfao. Also, I didn't win Most Hated or Worst Forum Poster this year so clearly I didn't criticise them enough. I will have to up my game for 2019

I don't know man you tell me you were the one who said it lmfao