Jump to content

Prefontaine

Members
  • Content Count

    3373
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    92

Prefontaine last won the day on October 16

Prefontaine had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7597 God of Upvotes

About Prefontaine

  • Rank
    Stray Dogma

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Alliance Pip
    Terminus Est
  • Leader Name
    Prefontaine
  • Nation Name
    Chaos
  • Nation ID
    3767
  • Alliance Name
    Yarr

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Prefontaine#5550

Recent Profile Visitors

8841 profile views
  1. Prefontaine

    peace talks

    Clarke has stated that TCW will never have a restored military rep, and @TheNG has been making alliances make it very clear Clarke has done nothing wrong. Therefore even your own side believes TCW still has a negative war rep.
  2. Ah June, a simpler time.. I remember when this video made sense. Guess I'll have to make a followup now that the battlefield is so dramatically different.
  3. Acadia has 36 members (VM included). There are 38 Hash marks on there. You've added a few extra I see.
  4. Perks were one of my first suggestions to the game years ago. The above post was a few years after the original idea.
  5. Prefontaine

    peace talks

    There's always morality and political battles to win in these situations; its where the term "political capital" basically originated. The constant discarding or ignoring of them is what lead to Knightfall, where major factions whom were not allies teamed up to take down the dominant sphere in the game. These little sort of decisions may not seem like much. Aragorn can say he doesn't give a crap about PR. But there is a critical mass that eventually gets reached by the dominant sphere, which you guys now are. When that threshold is reached, you could end up getting your Knightfall. I'm just saying it's good to be mindful of your public standing. Sometimes little things go long ways. Regardless, I'm not involved with the war. I was just joining the conversation for a little bit and am going to be bowing out now. If you want the last word, by all means take it. If not, I wish you luck sorting this gridlock up.
  6. Prefontaine

    peace talks

    You're side is presenting the terms required for another side to receive peace. That in itself shows that you're the victors. Wanting to see the terms of peace is not a big ask. It's basically the smallest ask possible. Be the bigger alliance and just put the peace terms on the table. You gain so much more than you lose. You look like the more reasonable alliance (assuming your terms aren't bonkers) and you have to give up nothing to do so. You don't even have to "go through the headache of wasting hours", because all you're doing is presenting the list to them. Give them the terms, and then when they come back start off with "Do you admit defeat". If the answer is no, well then there doesn't need to be further discussion. Now you would have at least tried. Now you would have the moral high ground. Now you would not only be winning the war, you'd be winning the political war too.
  7. Prefontaine

    peace talks

    I've done plenty of negotiations in these games. I've done plenty of negotiations on contracts and other things in real life. You typically agree to things as a package. From what I've been seeing is more of, they're willing to but want to know what the package is. And generally speaking, the side dictating terms is the victor. You're the one making the guidelines of what is needed for peace, so that means you won. Just present them the package, they'll come back to you with any problems they might have with said package, ask for changes or things to be removed. You can then present a counter with some different terms, or explain why certain terms are effectively non-negotiable. Then after that they can try to work with the non-negotiable terms and trim some of the other terms. So on and so forth. I don't want you to think I'm saying Coalition A is dumb for not admitting defeat. I think they're being somewhat petulant about it, sure. But Coalition B really isn't any different. At this point both sides are just screaming at each other with their ears plugged. The real winners of the war will be the alliance(s) who actually side step this bull-crap that's going on and push their coalition to actually start negotiations. Because if as you say the hold up is literally what I described, then neither side his the high ground on this one and you're both just children playing in the mud; you're both just getting dirty over nothing.
  8. Prefontaine

    peace talks

    I just want to be sure I'm clear on this.. Is the actually stalling on peace talks simply: Coalition A: We want to know all of the terms for peace. Coalition B: You have to admit defeat before we present terms. Is that really all it is? Surrender, defeat admissions, white peace, or whatever is virtual always term one of any agreement at the end of a war. Can't you simply agree that term one of the peace agreement is that a side surrenders (or whatever verbiage you want)? You can then begin the process of working on the terms. Because honestly, if you can't agree on that, I'd hate to be one of the coalition negotiators. The pigeon is going to lose all of his feathers by the end of this. He'll have to cover his body with pieces of paper that have "Clarke did nothing wrong" on them.
  9. Prefontaine

    peace talks

    While I'm not a fan of the idea of public negotiations -- It gets messy -- your side might want to get together and make public what the terms for peace would be. I am a neutral party int his war, I've been spectating on and off and have some people on both sides I speak to about things. The public image being portrayed is that your side are a bunch of unreasonable douchenozzles in terms of peace. The reason the war is still going is because your terms for peace. If your terms are reasonable, and that metric will vary from person to person, then you take away one of the PR aspects in the war which you are losing in my opinion. If your terms aren't reasonable, well, I get why you wouldn't want them to be public knowledge which sort of further puts you in a place of continued losing that PR aspect. Also, if your terms are reasonable, and your opponents have been spinning that they aren't to some of their allies, you might see some of their allies look for individual peace.
  10. Prefontaine

    peace talks

    Damage ratios are a poor example of winners and losers in this game. Take Papers, Please. Terminus Est clearly lost that war. I personally netted about 2B in profits from loot (didn't get a big bank hit) and myself and several others had much, much larger damage dealt numbers than damage received. Over all TEst had positive damage ratios in that war because we had more targets with infra to destroy than we had infra to destroy in our alliance. Lets say each member had 1B infra to lose, and we had 30 members. The most TEst could have lost was ~30B. If there's 500B in infra on the other side, we can deal way more damage than it's possible for us to take. Damage ratios ca be a metric of how well your alliance performed, but definitely not if you've won or lost. The damage ratios in this war are also a little skewed. The biggest factor was Coalition A blowing up each others infra in a war just before this war (due to the leaks that war stopped). They had less infra to lose going into this fight so the amount of damages they could have taken were lessened by their own side. Coalition B has also been farming some soft targets arguably not tied to coalition A in attempts to balance some of the stats. All that said, I am actually curious of what the peace terms are. There's been a lot of alleged terms thrown around publicly, and I've heard some others privately. Wouldn't be a horrible idea to set some of the record straight.
  11. https://discord.gg/RArzxpS Have the ground work set up. Content will be slow as we start going.
  12. As someone who habitually went against whales, it's not the only way to beat larger nations. Planes are OP for the reason of they're the only unit that can take out other units besides its own type. If you win with planes you can kill any units. If you win with navy you can only kill ships. This dynamic needs to change, and has needed to change for a long time. The way to go about it is either make planes only kill planes, or make other things able to kill other things as well.
  13. The treaty web was made by Phiney. Stat tracker by Frawley. There have also been other players who have designed themes/plugins/color schemes. Stick around a while, your tfw will become a pretty standard one.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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