Shadowthrone

That's your first mistake. Assuming people here care about facts

:smug: doesn't exist on this forum, so just take it that whenever I post Saber here, its my smug emoji response.

Nah. We're fine keeping this going till those who've lost decide they don't want anymore of it. That's a common standard that was set by your very own sphere, I see no reason to change it at this moment. If they want to keep this charade going, we're fine with it.

The other side needs to request for peace discussions to begin with. Given how there has been none forthcoming, the ball's not really in our court.

Wait is this your new spin? Impressive.

Enjoy your peace.

Nevertheless, given the fact that endorsing such an open ended subjective based option, if used later as a tool to state there's "buy-in" because I voted for it, is something I'd prefer to not get into. At this moment a NoTA option is ideal given that while I may agree in principle with some things, I'd rather not be beholden to some sort of "surveyed" outcome. Where specific proposals have been made, and it deals with the mechanics, I can and will vote for it, but if it's subjective "survey" like questions, I'd like to skip it/ NoTA please

Haha touche. I'll give it a thought

How would one go about reducing inter-alliance toxicity?

Is there a none of the above option for the meta and other things? Given how I can't vote without picking one of the options and none of the above are something I'd find problematic to deal with

Talks haven't started yet, nothing to address Oh my Why thx for bringing those up! I mean the meta is what it is. Long wars are the norm and that's not problematic insofar as those who want other things have the opportunities to do other things in this game. As I've mentioned a couple of times earlier, the war meta/mechanic is the most stable in the game, its fine this way. Give us other reasons to play apart from a Global every six months, mechanically. Really should focus adding layers of depth into story modes/RP/issues. Or else have a system of emergencies etc/ that affect the nation. Give folks the ability to customise their nations, and see those customizations play out and as always turn the present UI into something that looks better. Add a bunch of these things and you can have a better game to retain folk. Just going after war mechanics because it doesn't suit a few at this moment in time, is not solving the real issues behind the game imho.

And doubt that's going to change anytime soon. Few alliances build long standing communities that engender the staying power of PnW and it's war mechanic as solely a means to an end, but the reason they stick around is their community. So that's a prevailing meta, both here and in other dead games. So if the game itself doesn't offer something _other_ than these options, you'll find people getting bored with it. Not much compromise to be had here. The game is built in a simplistic loop. Peace and war. There's nothing in between. Some alliances have been successfully in offering an atmosphere that makes their members want to stick around, some don't. The problem really lies in the fact that from all the dead/alive nationsims, there's a lot to learn and add to this one, to change that loop. Achievements is a good start, but making those have different avenues/paths to reach, like answering issues, affecting econ, making the site more interactive, would go a long way in mechanical fixes. Everything else is just argumentation over the meta, which isn't going to change because its how we've built it as a community. So one can attempt to make the game have more depth and see if it retains players or continue down the path of questioning the meta, which would most likely lead to no where, as enough folk have dug their heels in

Wars aren't meant to be fun, but that doesn't mean the intention is to make people quit the game. Ideally, it'd be nice to add more tools to this game, like the colour mechanics, issues, RP tools and the like, which changes the dynamic from build to war, war to build cycle that goes on. After a while if the only thing you can do is a) build wc, b) fight, a) build wc, b) fight, in a closed loop, people will get bored and leave.

I mean Arrgh has always been on everyone's raid list. Doesn't change now because some of your nations are mercenaries for Coalition B or w/e But go on tell me why a "raider" shouldn't be raided?

Raiders complaining about being raided? Oh my.

That can be arranged.

Yandere is a word indeed My pfp is the perfect description of a yandere Also Tere! Didn't know you were Estonian Tis the most beautiful place I've ever visited.

Someone needs to go yandere for Roq

I mean circular responses from them leaves us going into the same topic over and over again. NPO lied, we didn't. NPO's seeking to establish a hegemony, we haven't. NPO's attempting to kill the game, we are not. Can't help when we have to deal with these narratives x100 times. There's no common ground to be found with KETOGG if the only ground they want is the one where they can pick up easy wins. Also helps having multiple timezones and a leadership spread widely

Shady shit? Horsemen wanted to go for it and they did. I'm quite certain tS/HS know our reasons for entering the war/expanding given how we spent some time talking to them regarding the information we have. I mean if you're going to run such a narrative, at least find real issues. The NPO always acts in its best interests and has informed it's allies of its move every step of the way. You telling us you have no interest in a conflict, was opposite of what we had, and we'd find it hard to believe you when it was literally the middle of the war and in your best interests to not have us intervene. So no, the NPO didn't buy Adrienne's rejection of that conversation and you folk busy trying to spin it as, there was going to be no expansion this war, does not mean you would not hit the N$O in a few months after BKsphere's down. So yeah, we weren't going to wait around again for you to build up in strength if we had to. Made no sense whatsoever, after considering a variety of scenarios. Nah you don't, but it comes to down to you had a threat and you dealt with it, and so did we. Aww thanks :)

I mean the point at the end of the day, which if you read what I'm stating is, you hit them because you thought they were a threat. We hit TKR because thought they were a threat. There's no other way to go about it. To claim that somehow only you have that agency here, while we cannot is bordering ridiculousness. All of your arguments fall flat the moment you try to argue that we can't hit threats when we've received information which was newer than a month old logs. I'm not insinuating there was no intention to hit you. I have no clue if post May they wanted to, or thought otherwise, and it's not my problem. What I am pointing out is how you're arguments seem to allow space only for your side's agency in defending against threats, while if we do it, we're "killing the game." The NPO doesn't need to play by rules. Heck there are no world rules regarding actions one can take to make the game interesting for themselves. If by dynamic and competitive, you mean you folk are free to consolidate/combine and do as you please, while we cannot initiate our own actions to keep the game fun for us, you've essentially created your own hegemony. The NPO never said we're all in with minispheres the way KETOGG/Chaos wanted to play it. We made it clear there's a project with the N$O idea and we're going for that, on our own terms. We never said we'll never again combine with BK, and we never stated we won't combine with anyone else. You don't have a hegemony on the prevailing foreign affairs meta, so its best to stop projecting it as the rules of the meta. Our word has always been that we will protect our interests and our security. To claim we've always attempted to create a hegemony especially the way you constructed that sentence is dripping of bias from elsewhere, given how none of our actions in the last four years in Orbis has ever come close to wanting to create a hegemony. If you didn't know, we've spent close to three years surviving, rather than even winning wars. To constantly use these terms as some sort of moral cudgel is absolutely hilarious, but if anyone is here attempting to create what they always knew, that is an hegemony its Chaos/KETOGG busy trying to consolidate and roll folks as they please.

I don't get why Pirates deserve the right to "retire" and play this game with a different set of rules than other folks. So you're allowed to raid, war how much ever you want and also decide when to claim retirement and neutrality? There seems to be a bunch of issues with that This is a normal I disagree with. It's best to hit a pirate on sight

NPO knew as much about it as we did when Keegoz or Zev or n-number of folks have hit us up to have an enquiry of interest chat. We've turned down all requests to cooperate. So if that's your line its interesting but again, we acted fairly to all of the different bloc leaders who approached us, and the information was relayed to Kayser/tS as well, since we knew who was hitting them up at that point as well. I mean really, you're trying real hard in the last few posts to drag in N$O here, when you have incomplete information regarding the same. Did we have knowledge of BKspheres plans/dates/targets? No. Did BK attempt to invite us for a war, yes but so did KETOGG and others. So are we guilty of having our DM's open to ideas yes, but conspiring against the other blocs/ coordinating with either, nah. Again you hit BK because you thought it was your best option, while BK's argument was their plans were in May and had changed post Surf's Up. TKR's argument is they had no plan to immediately hit us, but the information was always in the near future, so it became our best interest to hit them. It's pretty much that straight-forward. That the NPO will always do what is in it's best interest to protect itself, just like TGH and co? If so, great! If it's about this whole chances nonsense again, please read my posts above. We don't need your kindness of giving us "chances." The only lesson I've taken from this is TGH feels entitled to win a war as it pleases, and can't handle a contested war, when people entered for similar reasons, and instead goes all doomsday on FA with folks. So much for your rhetoric over how wars shouldn't create grudges/ be short and fun and you're all for working with people you've fought. I guess those narratives stop, the moment you don't get your way. Today I learnt.

I mean reading helps. The NPO needn't have been in this war if it played very differently, let alone not having you and Chaos decide to combine. But we looked at other solutions to the problem and entering was our best one, so here we are. There's no cock-eyed excuse, but a decision based on a variety of information/facts, none of which you care about, since well we're hitting you, so I don't really have to sell it to you tbh. I don't particularly care if you don't trust me. I spat on no one's face, given that playing nice with us, essentially meant having us meatshield for you. If you do ever have an actual serious offer, and not a half-hearted attempt, you can always send it our way. I mean we aren't here to be your damage sponge, while you'r'e busy having it easy raking in the dough in the upper tier. Our decision to defend our sovereignty might be hard to buy for a few, but at the end of the day an alliance is sovereign and has the right to defend itself when a threat presents itself. tS/HS/NPO and it's relationship isn't for you to assume on, and an interesting attempt to pivot there, but sorry, our communications/relationship are private. Haven't seen her covered it. But if you believed they were a clear threat, go for it, I don't begrudge you for that. What I find it funny is how you turn the clear and present threat for you guys, as a valid CB, but it somehow isn't for the NPO. If we believed TGH specifically presented a clear threat to the NPO, we'd have entered there if the information was such. It was not. It was related to TKR and so we hit. I mean in hindsight, even posting a DoW was useless, since somehow you've conflated the threat TKR posed to us from the information/actions to somehow our threat perceptions about TGH. If anything, of all of the alliances there, we probably trusted your word/KT's word over most others. But thanks for your "chances" and here, no thanks for it too. If you want to conduct serious FA, hit us up. If you want to keep going on and on about this entitled shtick of "chances" like somehow we've always been on the clock with y'all, I'm not particularly interested. I don't have to prove anything to you, but if we do have common interests, I'm always up for it. People somehow think you're entitled to the NPO to prove something to y'all and its funny. It's like ever since we entered this game, we're constantly having to prove something or the other, while none of you have to do the same. I mean inb4 someone claims I'm playing a victim card, but all of you keep quoting "chances". I've never once said I've given TKR a chance and they blew it as some sort of spin. So it's nice to see we're always on the clock, great way to engender any trust. Seeing how its a constant theme over months even before this war, you can see why we're not particularly interested in your chances. Either we're partners, or we're not. We're fine either way.