Sans
-
Posts
447 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Sans
-
-
So you were aware of the potential for stagnation, but you didn't want to "choose" (i.e. take any measures to ameliorate it) and instead opted to do nothing. I'd say that sums up TKR FA for the past few months pretty well, actually. Thank you for laying it out so neatly.
Heh, nice try spin doctor. Not going with BK's option ie choose OO over Syndisphere and destroy half our allies is not equal to not wanting to take steps to keep the game interesting. We just wanted a comprehensive change that involved all of our allies. You know, instead of plotting behind their backs. We were so busy trying to convince BK to stop looking at it as us vs them for the longest time, I guess you just broke and decided to say just !@#$ it. Ayy lmaos may only be capable of linear thought :/
-
Also to my knowledge, the disagreement with TKR seems to be based on how such a split would occur rather than a split itself, though I'm not fully privy to those details (I know you viewed it as untenable).
Ya pretty much, we were aware of the potential for stagnation as much as the next guy. We just didn't want to have to choose between Syndisphere and OO, which is exactly what was suggested. Something more comprehensive rather than just a shift that would see us on opposing us allied to folks we have no business being allied to and rolling folks we were with since our inception. That apparently was not a reservation that was shared.
-
Your idea was terrible, and had no realistic method of implementation. It was designed to placate us with an empty thought of change when it would never actually work.
And BK's plan to betray its allies is better in comparison I suppose. Guys seem pretty content with it.
Can I ask what your idea of "change the dynamic" was?
You can ask sure.
As for the rest, our gov had numerous reasons for deciding to dissolve OO, not the least of which was TKR's attitude (including your own during your tenure in FA) that Syndisphere had effectively won the game and innovative actions weren't really needed anymore. I mean, perhaps I missed some important TKR proposal during our time together, but the most daring move you guys proposed in the wake of the Paperless war was an ODP with NK and a possible tie to HBE, neither of which would have resulted in anything but further consolidation. When combined with your tendency to regard Orbesian politics in a binary fashion (as was the case when your allies proposed treatying AAs that you deemed 'enemies,' like WU or Lord) and we realized that TKR wasn't really interested in seeing any substantive changes in FA for the foreseeable future. And, really, that's fine - you guys worked hard, made first place and then *really* wanted to stay there, even if the result was a stagnant FA environment and a relatively uninteresting game. As Zoot pointed out earlier, just being on top for the sake of being on top isn't something BK was interested in - if it was we would have stayed in OO and sleepwalked through months of stacking infra until it was time for another one-sided curbstomp. We didn't want that and you appeared to be fine with it, so here we are. I'm sorry​you appear to find that fact we disagreed on that so upsetting and immediately jumped to the conclusion that policy disagreement is the equivalent to treason, but trying to boil down our motives for breaking up with TKR to a desire to war tS and Mensa is simplistic and fundamentally mistaken. Once again, it was your paranoia following our breakup as much as our reaction to it that led us to this situation, regardless of whether or not you are willing to acknowledge it.
With that in mind, feel free to resume shitposting.
This is not a question of complacency vs discontent. It is about common decency with regards to the people you make a commitment with. Bk was content to plan to roll half its allies. Thats the bottom line. You can make up excuses in order to legitimize the idea, but thats a fact you cannot deny, we're fighting in it. Suck it up and own it. Trying to backpedal and make it seem its all worth because dynamic change isn't going to cut it. A shit move is still a shit move.
-
Public callout is what happens when you roll half of your allies buddy. What I don't understand is how BK could feel any sort of self righteousness or vindication regarding anything that is happening at the moment. You'd expect the allies who you planned to roll to be all sunshine and rainbows at the fact they're getting dicked over? Lol.
But that doesn't matter because BK got to change the dynamic right fam.
If you didn't want to be ridiculed you shouldn't have literally planned and executed an aggressive war your allies.
-
I think Zoot's point is more that many of us in BK felt that the current concentration of power in the Syndi-OO bloc was unhealthy to the game, which in turn motivated us to try to alter the existing unipolar dynamic that had emerged, since following the defeat of TEst there wasn't really anything interesting left to do except stack pixels and roll the same old AAs every few months. However, we also recognized that any move in this direction could be perceived as a threat by people who were invested in the status quo, so we tried to take measures to ease those concerns. That's the reason, for example, that we offered TKR a successor treaty to OO, since we thought it might calm the fears on your side that change automatically translates into conflict. That's also the reason that we opted to retain our ties to tS and Mensa, refrained from building up when TKR and its allies did so following the signing of the NPO treaty and the formation of IQ and generally did our best to ease the paranoia regarding our intentions on your side (including the mutual decom offer I alluded to in another thread). Now, like Zoot, I realize that I'm not going to change your mind or sway you from the narrative that IQ is a grand conspiracy to knock TKR off its pedestal, but I think it's worth pointing out that your decision to treat us as an adversary has helped create a self fulfilling prophecy. Your paranoia fed our paranoia to the point where we felt we had no option but a preemptive war, since we figured you were coming for us in a few days anyways. Perhaps we were mistaken and your intentions were utterly benign, but it didn't look that way from the outside and that's what we based our decision on. In any case, the TLDR is that, yes, BK thinks unipolarity is unhealthy but, no, we didn't retain our treaties as a 'shield' to attack you - actively warring you guys didn't emerge as a serious option until we felt there was no other option but to do so.
With that in mind, feel free to resume your shitposting.
Ya see this is why people call you out on the bs. You wanted to change they dynamic of the game and not have it concentrated in a unipolar sphere but retained your ties to said unipolar sphere. That makes absolutely zero sense. How did you see this new dynamic going down? Syndi and Inq sphere would just sit by into eternity, everyone would be a happy family? No, you wanted conflict and war and the only logical direction that goes to is war on the same allies you decided would be a good idea to retain a tie to. Those ties were offered to calm down the tensions, kinda like how a prisoner gets a last supper before he is put down. If what you said is true and you wanted to settle the fears of conflict between the two spheres, then there would never be another war ever again.
Either you wanted to change the dynamic and war your allies or you didn't want to change the dynamic and the entire reasoning for your move was a lie.
Choose one.
There was no self fulfilling prophecy here, only the logical result of a series of moves made at BK's behest.
Folks were open to the idea of changing up the dynamic just not on board with doing some last minute behind the scenes dealing. We gave you our idea of dynamic change, one that wouldn't make us force to choose one ally over another, but that wasn't good enough you just had to try to roll them. If anything the choice to dogpile tS and this offensive war is indicative of the fate you wanted for Syndi if we had gone with you isn't it?
Don't try to play your selfish desires and shady cloak and dagger fa off by tying it to the health of the game. Its insulting. Just be honest like Zoot.
-
2
-
-
Alliances including approximately 1423 nations (not including VM) have joined the war so far, representing 3.2m in nation score.
Inquisition et al:
Members: 857
Score upon blitz: 1.65m
Score now: 1.32m
Change: -332k
Biggest loser IQ by %: SK (-42%)
Biggest loser IQ by points: BK (-62k)
Total loss IQ by %: -20%
TKR/Pantheon/Rose et al:
Members: 566
Score upon blitz: 1.58m
Score now: 1.42m
Change: -160k
Biggest loser defense by %: Mensa (-23%)
Biggest loser defense by points: Pantheon (-45k)
Total loss defense by %: -10%
Oh shit waddup son
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I wasn't originally gonna bother responding in this topic, but dangit, you convinced me to do it anyways.
So firstly, the motivation you are trying to attribute to BK and BoC simply isn't accurate. Neither of us set out with the specific goal of rolling anyone.
But let me put aside all the propaganda and try to give you some honest insight into our thoughts. Whether you choose to believe me or just decide to ignore me is of course entirely up to you, but this way I can at least say that I tried.
Alright, so all of this hinges on a premise. The premise that The Silent War is the last, somewhat, even war that we have seen in this game until the current one. Again, not asking you to agree or disagree, just saying how I see it. So The Silent War, which was in September if I remember correctly, is the latest war we've had where the outcome wasn't decided in advance. That is approximately 6 months in which the only wars we've had have pretty much been complete beatdowns.
So it has been 6 months since we've had a somewhat even war. Now for anyone just wanting to sit on top of the world and pad their stats, that would be a fine situation, but in case you haven't noticed, that has never really been BK's goal. We like to fight and we like a challenge.
Going back to the end of the Silent War, there didn't really seem to be any challenge left. NPO, the Covenant and all their friends were severely beaten and demoralized. The attempt at creating a new sphere around SK and Valyria were taken down before they ever became a true challenge and the last remaining opposition, the paperless, were crushed in an overwhelming fashion. Now I'm not blaming anyone for any of that, just saying it like it is.
So it was clear that Syndisphere or Syndi-OO-sphere or whatever you want to call it had, in essence, won the game. There was literally no one left to stand against us and even worse there was no one even willing to try.
Thus it was clear that if anything interesting were to happen, it had to involve a split in the then powerstructure. Now we originally wanted the split to be OO breaking away from the rest of Syndisphere, but when TKR made it clear you weren't interested (which is completely fair BTW) we had to do it in some other way and the way we ended up doing it was with the creation of The Inquisition.
Now you can agree or disagree with the way we did it, and I'll be the first to admit that there were some missteps along the way, but you can't really argue that it did what we set out to accomplish. It shock the status quo of the game and gave us a war in which the outcome, at least as far as I can tell, isn't decided from the get go.
If your goal was to just sit on top of the game, having won, then I can see why the current situation is upsetting, but, as mentioned, that has simply never been BK's goal. We don't want the iron throne. We don't want to "win". We just want to wake up to the lovely smell of gunpowder in the morning.
Now you are welcome to try and pick apart my post, hell I more or less expect it and I just realized I could have boiled it all down and just quoted The Dark Knight: "Some men just want to watch the world burn".
So you wanted to change the dynamic by splitting the sphere and warring the other side. I'm at least glad someone was kind enough to admit it. What you done !@#$ed up and did was conveniently hold on to your treaties to act as a shield even though you knew if your minds eye that you planned on rolling those same individuals. That is a shit move and you and your co-conspirators deserve to get shit for it. You kept them because you did want to win contrary to popular belief and you believed those ties would help you get it. You don't get to say you want to watch the world burn while hiding behind false pretenses like "wanting to retain the relationship with your Syndisphere allies" because it comes off like the giant pile of BS it is.
-
10
-
Nice work on the gifs guys.
Glad to have you with us, smash some skulls.
-
Do you believe in magic?
-
k
-
Arrgh, I found a neutral.
Surely you jest. You wouldn't be soliticing an attack on a close friend of your bloc. Would you?
-
EDIT: The war shouldn't really be looked as a backstab though, it's just a war, let's fight, move on and build our nations later.
Yeah, no. It is a backstab. Just because you can't defend your stance doesn't mean your opponents will let the narrative be buried under the false guise of an honorable conflict. It is what it is and it is a backstab.
-
Oh hey CS, let's talk. I was the first to bring up the idea of House Stark's involvement (and thus it could be inferred Spectrum at large) in the upcoming war however during those discussions, at no point were there discussions [1] to attack CS or any of your allies. The very extent of it was House Stark countering anyone that were to hit tS. And now unless you can provide proof from those three leaders of Spectrum that you claim can confirm we discussed attacking you [2], keep our name out of your mouth.
[1]
[2]
I'm sure back-stab coalition will provide the proofs to back up their allegations. They're honorable and all and never wanted war or anything like that.
-
Evil is subjective but there is no doubt there was a mastermind behind both the drawing of the lines in the sand and the war.
Both Curu and Bezzers are right. OO did fail because of changing goals between its members. BK and BoC wanted to roll half of their allies and TKR didn't.
-
God forbid someone voice their own thoughts.
tbh, the real problem is that he bothered to even read a DoW. He'll learn yet.
Ya, god forbid someone doesn't shit all over their associate in public. What a travesty that would be. How unreasonable it would be to ask a guy not to shit all over his associate in public. You'd think shitting all over an associate in public wouldn't be in good taste or something.
Geez
-
The Great Release
-
2
-
-
It means we wanted OO to strengthen, yet TKR only sought to maintain the Status Quo.
Oh, thats not what it said. I'll reply anyway.
What we held above all was not putting allies ahead of one another at each other's expense. If there was some sort of universal dialogue on how to change the dynamic rather than some cloak and dagger shady shit, we would have been on board. But apparently, to you not wanting to subvert our allies is grounds for discontinuing relations. Fine with me.
Lmao, again domineering attitude towards all FA with us and BoC led to OO failing. I wonder why they chose us and not you?
OO failed because we had different goals and aspirations, 2/3s wanted to war their own allies and we didn't. Thats the gist of it. If you think otherwise, just check the war screens.
-
1
-
-
Um what?
Lame DoW hour I guess. What can you expect from alliances that always prove to be meaningless in their political endeavors?
Holy savage, isn't KT Panths protect? Is there no sense of courtesy?
-
Again the irony is astounding. BK tried to make help OO while in it
Tried to make help OO
What does this even mean?
but TKR, didn't even value OO above their other treaties.
Yeah and we had such a policy for how long without any sort of problem? Yet, it starts to be a problem when BK wants it to be right? It was TKR that actually put forward maintaining the relationship between its allies. You cannot find fault in that policy and call us bad allies in the same breath, it makes no sense.
We don't care who's number one, but when TKR tries to control their allies FA to cement this position that's hardly being a good ally.
The extent to our control or lack there of concerning our allie's fa was telling them how we felt about potential moves and asking to be kept in the loop. If that is not within the parameters of acceptable conduct between allies, then Inq is going to have a lot more problems than OO ever did.
-
If anyone had any interest in not circle jerking till the end of time they would have been welcome to join us.
"If anyone wanted to follow us and our lead they were welcomed to lick our boots. If not you're a bad ally and we're going to roll you"
Roger. You're coming in loud and clear.
-
You guys hit number one and became no better than Pantheon. You would rather sit around and roll random shit alliances with no threat for the rest of the game's life as P&W becomes (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) 2.0.
So that gives you the excuse to turn on half of the alliances you ever did anything worth doing with. You didn't even do them the favor of being honest with them and just cancelling the damn treaties. You lied and strung them along because it was convenient. !@#$ that.
-
This one is pretty sad. As far as I know the most noteworthy relations between CS and t$ have been several wars on the same side where they were considered de-facto allies, and then Treasure Island, where both made lots of money together. Is there a CB for this?
Looks like they wanted their own version of a hostile takeover.
-
No the irony is TKR calling people out for being bad allies. There is a reason Inq happened in the first place.
Nah fam. TKR wanted to keep the boys together but that wasn't good enough for you. What we are witnessing here today is the eventuality TKR saw whenever the push for "dynamic change" was brought up. War on our own allies, our own sphere in a selfish attempt to take control of the game.
If postponing that eventuality is what made TKR a bad ally to you, then !@#$ it, glad we cancelled
-
The Irony
You mean the irony where you said you wanted to maintain the relationships with your allies not in Inq when it went up...only to aggressively blitz their entire sphere later. That irony right? Because that sounds pretty darn ironic to me.
Not all wars have to start at update.
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
Smash face, wreck dat a$$.
You're da best <3