[People wanted me to write a thread.]

Can't speak for Chaos' plans, but for KETOGG, part of SU was because it was deemed to be the most feasible war as we couldn't convince Chaos to tag along for a hit. They were also seemingly caught by surprise with that war.

People in KETOGG most certainly didn't go into it expecting a follow up war on BK. 

[[Sphere] Fate Lies in the Stars]

2 hours ago, BigMorf said:

Again, Rose and The Syndicate have been two of the principle drivers of politics and intrigue in this game. The comments on bipolarity are referring not to the size of the sphere/tiering, but on the amount of political intrigue and force now present in one sphere. Where as before that influence and political force was spread into two differing spheres. 

So it's not a tilt towards bipolarity in the sense of tiering and sphere size. It's a tilt towards that in the sense of concentration of considerable political players...

...when both HW and CB have two of such players themselves, as Vemek highlighted.

Are all of those from one of the trifecta you've mentioned? No. They are nonetheless significant actors who are able to compete with those older entities. To their credit, I might add.

As such, I struggle to see your point when it's not about tiering and when having a pair of major players in one sphere seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

[[Sphere] Fate Lies in the Stars]

5 hours ago, Leftbehind said:

In what world do you live in that BW was not competitive with Clock or HW? Just because you guys gave up in the first round of the HW war doesn't mean you couldn't put up a fight. It just means you are lazy and blinded by the argument of Upper Tier Consolidation that you guys have preached about for so long. 

This whole narrative you are trying to spin is more telling about your inabilities to think outside the box than the reality you lived in. Sitting here trying to justify the creation a dominate 30+ bloc because of HW signing TI or Clock having BS is laughable. 

That "outside of the box" move hinged on taking advantage of the weakness that we (and others) identified, that being t$/Rose being relatively unsupported due to there not being any other relatively comparable alliance in the sphere in terms of "who do we kill first?". They were easy to focus down and once taken down, the rest of the sphere followed. This happened in both conflicts, so the argument of a poor BW/t$ war performance simply can not be the sole reason for this shared outcome across different conflicts. I also don't think that this is a weakness found in the other spheres. It's certainly to your credit that you leveraged it in the way you did. It would've been foolish for us not to work on finding a way to address it.

And we did so in a way that, in spite of the lines being pushed, doesn't lead to this Quack 2.0 hegemony thing that I've seen some people talk about. Such would have been to do a straight merger of the two spheres with no cuts elsewhere. You can say that this a strong contingent. The sheets point to that. Those sheets likewise also do not point at dominance or hegemony by our sphere. No matter the spin you try to give it.

[An Appeal to The Syndicate]

3 hours ago, Hodor said:

Thanks for the write up WANA, I think this touches on some interesting points. I think for one, in the post NPO era there's been a conscious effort to reduce the toxicity and excess in IC RP. This has been more or less adapted by all alliances, but something critical happened to t$ that didn't allow for it to make the shift as well. I wonder if the tension and borderline animosity surrounding people labeling t$ a hegemony in the period after NPOLT isolated you all and has been informing your mindset since. At that time, I was taken aback at how vociferous t$ was, but maybe this is chalked up to your isolation? or people like me misread it because we still had a bad taste in our mouths from your actions and silence in the first half of NPOLT?

I echo Partisan's comments regarding the roots of said alienation. You're also right in that there's been a shift on how public FA operates that's very distinct from pre NPOLT times. One thing that I'd add as for the discrepancy between the way t$ conducts public FA and that of other alliances also likely comes down to the people that have been in charge thereof since the end of NPOLT. I don't think I need to elaborate on Partisan's style. Adam opted on emulating it. W's style is unlike that of Partisan's, but he's nonetheless still a player cut out from a much older piece of cloth than most other FA's currently in the game, and I suspect, and would expect, there is an increasing amount of this new generation of FA who are unfamiliar with this older approach to things, and misunderstandings ensue. That the divergence has, in my opinion, only increased as time has passed also points towards this I think.

Elaborating on this trend of reducing toxicity and RP'ing; obviously reducing toxicity is good. But I have to ask if perhaps people haven't oversteered on the inclination to reduce IC RP. The way I see it, it's not so much that it's been reduced, but is really a tad bit absent. Discord discussions and Radio shows have certainly steadily taken a bigger share of the pie, but I think that OWF-based stuff still has a place (in no small part because it's much easier to follow discussions pertaining to specific topics on a forum format as opposed to the high fluidity and ephemerality of Discord. And Radio Shows have issues with availability) which can genuinely enhance the experience pertaining to political affairs, which, at the end of the day, are still half the aspect of this game.



 

[An Appeal to The Syndicate]

15 minutes ago, Leftbehind said:

I agree that the NPO comparisons need to stop but it doesn't take away the facts that you guys walk an unnecessary fine line. As much as you may want to believe that everyone here is complaining for some political reasons thats not really the case. Many of us are just simply sick of it. The worst part about it is that you guys don't even have the awareness to see how your actions hurts your position. 

No, I'm fully aware that a bunch of people are chiming in just because there's an opportunity to do so for them. It certainly doesn't need to be politically rooted.

If what you're talking about what I think you're talking about; yes, obviously there's a cost to those actions. It's most certainly gauged whether it's worth pursuing or not. 

[An Appeal to The Syndicate]

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

So ask yourself this, why do members of the community view Syndicate as toxic and/or their closest comparison is NPO?  What's causing that perspective?

A bunch of them have misgivings which are unrelated to what HC said, and it's politically expedient to accuse your opponent with this game's Godwin. The comparison is most certainly not limited to just t$; it tended to be thrown around fairly often in wars because again, pure expediency.

Frankly, it's disingenuous as !@#$. As it stands, no leaders or AA's are anywhere near similar to what NPO was in terms of behavior. The FA's landscape has been very tame compared to what it was pre (and very obviously, during) NPOLT. That comparison being levied to any AA simply holds no water.

[An Appeal to The Syndicate]

4 minutes ago, Kan0601 said:

"Everyone that has worked with T$" Now maybe its just me but my god working with you guys was a $%^& show. Before Aurora left Quack we fought with you guys in NPOLT which almost ended Aurora. So when we grew back up to top 30 we asked if we can upgrade you guys, you guys said something about not wanting to look like a hegemony and gave us the 72 hours. The very %$&@*&% next day you go sign a M level with CoA, yea clearly shows how much %$#^ you give about your allies! 

We had a tie with CoA from even before NPOLT.

[An Appeal to The Syndicate]

13 minutes ago, Maks Maximmillian said:

That’s not horsecock tho. You can’t blame him for something someone else said. 

That's the culture he's more than happy to let flourish. Moreover, he's perfectly content with Yang being his high gov.

It reflects on him, whether he likes it or not.

[[RoH] Lean Wit Me]

2 hours ago, BigMorf said:

None of us want our two sphere's to constantly attack each other back and forth. That's boring for us and bad for the game. 

Yet, you're more than content to continue it. 

This isn't the first time TKR's signed an alliance that had shared grievances on another alliance, to/and then attack/ed said alliance. I'd argue there's a pattern to it by now.

From what I can see, your words ring hollow. Counting on just hope to get things done too is, to be blunt, foolish, wishful thinking. It's genuine effort and concrete actions that get things done. And the only concrete action here was one that took a step backwards, a step contrary to what you purport to wish.

How things develop in the postwar is obviously for you and W to iron out on. What that'll entail, I have no idea. I have a strong suspicion that it'll take a bit more than preaching talks you didn't walk to get anywhere though.
 

[[RoH] Lean Wit Me]

7 minutes ago, Malal said:

The absolute irony in complaining about people not accepting your apology or getting over your past actions 😆

Your only regret was that the people propping you up quit. So yeah, it's not genuine.


Glad to see that you only ever know how to speak when someone else's enabling it for you. 

[Sanctuary Pulls Out]

4 hours ago, HeroofTime55 said:

Not sure why you are trying to make up s*** like us promising to cancel Polaris.  Not sure why t$ has made any of the absolutely mental decisions they have recently.  I suppose it is your prerogative to drop a long term ally for whatever reason you fancy, including our refusal to drop our own allies on your whim, but don't come here spinning stories.  Own your decision instead of trying to somehow twist it into being our fault.

You're complaining about a half a year old cancellation and oversimplifying for the spin of it. Obviously someone will come along and amend it.

I've no qualms in saying that I supported the drop. That said, your failure (or uncaringness) to understand how awful those ties were and how people didn't wish to be even tangentially linked to is on you.
 

[Sanctuary Pulls Out]

1 hour ago, James II said:

I never realized I made this promise. Thanks for letting me know!

Not sure why you're bothering to DC over something fairly old by this point, and that Polaris probably wouldn't bother reading and most certainly wouldn't act on anyways.

1 hour ago, HeroofTime55 said:

I like the part where not only do you think you can choose our allies for us, but that you can also make promises to yourself on our behalf.

Alliances can't dictate their allies' FA (or at least shouldn't be able to), but they can cut them instead if they're dissatisfied with them. Which is what was done. 

 

[Sanctuary Pulls Out]

19 hours ago, HeroofTime55 said:

t$ dropped us because we refused to drop our other allies on their whim.

T$ dropped CoA because (among other things) CoA reneged on a promise to drop Polaris; effectively signalling that it chose Polaris over T$.

The subsequent results are not surprising. You're entitled to tying whoever you want, but not to having others just put up with such ties for no good reason. Even truer once commitments start being broken.

[[DoW] I Mean It]

1 hour ago, LukeTP said:

Yes it does happen outside micros. I've been in top 10 alliances my entire time on PnW and I have been involved in said wars in the past.

I'd like you to recount which ones those were.

[Dunked On]

It's also not been used as a precedent for any of the subsequent NAP's, fwiw.

[[DoW] Quest for the Holy Grail]

29 minutes ago, Cherise said:

instead of functioning as logistics

They didn't do that either.

[A Treatise on the Current War]

The split was something that was mutually elaborated on and understood as needing to happen, as both parties felt that Quack had more or less run it's course. So this idea that it was somehow unilaterally t$ doing it, let alone t$ leaving TKR in a lurch, is nonsense.

It's also nonsense that TKR had to suddenly figure out what it was to do post Quack, because they had already received a pitch by GG on basically what became HW earlier this year. Signing HM wasn't the last ditch, necessitated by circumstance thing that it's seemingly being made out to be, but rather the avenue they already had at their disposal before split talks had even seriously happened. 

[A Treatise on the Current War]

1 hour ago, Benfro said:

@Harry Flashman at least had the gall to reply to me and lead me to believe that Rose wasn't involved

 

[A Treatise on the Current War]

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

Our actions were defensive in nature.  We explained this, and Ben openly acknowledged this to you.  I quoted Ben's statement beforehand.  We were very willing to believe you still, but just had to be safe (I feel quite bad for the alternate timeline HW that doesn't mil).  I was in fact among the strongest supporters of your case internally–@Vanek26 will eternally torment me now.

Not sure what to tell you but reiterate that our sphere went from varying levels of mobilization to full as a reaction to your milling. That's simply how things go.

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

The issue is that you guys singlehandedly escalated from there into an overwhelming blitz with another sphere while we were openly asking you and Rose to deescalate.  Shortly after responding to us, you blitzed us.  We didn't make any offensive moves, and we even took steps to scale back the defensive moves once we were in a position to do so.

It's been elaborated to you why the feeler was interpreted the way it was. I've only seen build ups end up in one way, from my time playing this game. That's due to the importance of the first strike.

[A Treatise on the Current War]

22 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Given the context, anything more than what was said was enough to give us a reason to militarize.  Max slots also position you to get more buys in quickly and move to 2-3 days ahead of us with a double buy.  Rose in GnR and the stances T$ had taken on our allies had put all of HW on edge.

Indeed you can do that with those slots. But Gray had informed you what our plan was. You felt as though our word wasn't sufficiently credible and chose to fully militarize. As I've said before, I don't fault you for taking the precaution and think that it's fine for you to have done such, as you have an actual obligation to your sphere and none to us.

That does go both ways though. Your response was "it's defensive", which is a, if not the, generic placeholder phrase that doesn't actually mean anything.

Why should anyone in BW have taken it at face value as demonstrative of your intent? They had no reason to, so they didn't. Hence, CTO going from max barracks to max everything, HS mobilizing, and us simply continuing to buy as a response to your militarization.

 

[A Treatise on the Current War]

11 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

You're right it was 30, sorry.  I was noting militarization where we it wasn't expected.  E$ doesn't have a lot of C30s and their military builds went beyond what was implied.  Similar story with CTO, who didn't have a direct treaty tie and was someone we were watching.  That's when the spider-senses went off given how antagonistic T$ had been to HW at that point and with Rose a prime example of what happens if you're not careful.

I mean, a bunch of CTO's ties were involved in counters, with their MDP's own ties being hit. It's not exactly surprising they'd max soldiers as a precaution.

As for the builds; you max slots for what you intend to buy to get the largest buy you can. Even if it's just one buy. You then decide whether to keep the imps or sell them once you've got the buy in. It's not really outside of what you had been informed.

[A Treatise on the Current War]

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

I'd also like to clarify the timeline since you seem to make out that we didn't communicate.  This isn't true:

I'll correct a few things in turn.

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

On 8/14: I inquire in the T$ embassy about your militarization and mention that we're concerned about it.  Gray responds that it is for the C20+ to prevent raids.

He told you it was max for 30+, rest got a buy.

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

Later on 8/14: HW internals recognize that there was a change in the MMR builds of E$ and CTO outside the parameters given, and HW was already on edge after all of the shit flinging T$ did last war.  The decision was made to militarize since not militarizing could result in us getting hit like Rose during GnR.  Rose follows us.

Rose did mil after everyone else. As I've said before, I don't mind you milling as a precaution. CTO had gone max soldiers because we had gotten involved on the KT thing so it was a reasonable precaution on their end, and upped it following your mass swapping. HS also started milling after HW's response.

As for e$... really? Need I elaborate that they're an extension of t$? Yes, naturally things such as MMR's are going to be standardized between both alliances. If you genuinely thought that they were a separate entity and that changes in it were outside of the response given to you, then that's frankly on you.

The rest's been covered by W/Adam, so I won't expand upon it.

[A Treatise on the Current War]

5 minutes ago, Etat said:

I appreciate your response!  But despite your words, you've only confirmed my position...you've long term issues with GG (I'm not challenging any justification you might have), and you've manufactured a weak reason for bringing in Rose and creating yet another global war to scratch that itch.  The rest of what you're dredging up about minispheres, though perhaps pertinent in your head and influential in how you perceive TKR, is pretty much a red herring to the issue in question.

"Your story is weak and half assedly come up with to cover a grudge."

"The stance dates back to literal years and upheld several times even by people who had no beef on the situation simply because they weren't there when a bunch of stuff happened."

"Haha lol your story is weak and I won't actually address anything of you've said in my rehash of my first post."

10/10.

[A Treatise on the Current War]

52 minutes ago, Etat said:

So you've got a long-term beef with GG and have basically failed to nail them time and again.  Brought in Rose to deal with TKR so you could give it another shot and concocted a pissweak story about whale/upper tier consolidation, something flippant that SRD said, and a preemptive strike due to HW militarization.  GW19 clearly seems a product of t$ vanity and an unresolved jock-itch.

There are several things which dictate whether a stance/narrative is consistent or flimsy. Time it's been held for (and whether it was ommitted or not at an opportune time), maneuvers made during such time, etc dictate such.

Our stance has been such for years by this point, held by people of vastly different backgrounds (so much for it being a grudge), and backed by yes, several actions; in fact, the only time t$ and GG worked together was during NPOLT, the latter half of which at that, and given the state of affairs at the time, I'd say was more than understandable to be the extraordinary exception. It's also remained in spite of, yes, some of said actions failing. That doesn't detract to the stance, but rather add to it because it shows commitment to it in spite of adversities. All in all, it is inarguably one of the most consistent stances in this game, and arguably the most consistent one.

Just to contrast it with another stance, I'll take your alliance's about minispheres. Credit where credit is due, Chaos was most certainly one. But then you got smashed by KETOGG. NPOLT happens subsequently and we arrive at Quack. It was most certainly not a minisphere, but I won't at all hold it as a mark against you due to the stuff I have already mentioned in the original DoW thread (iirc), and given the genuine effort I had seen been undertaken to accommodate for such sphere. We fast forward to GW16 where Quack gets rolled as basically a result of a paperless machination, and past that, to the dissolution of Quack and the forming of HW. Which was, at the time... kind of a side grade to Quack. In the interim between GW16 and that, I noticed that your gov both in public and private shifted to more or less a stance of "Well we would really like minispheres but they can't reeeeaaaaallly be made to work because people choose security first.", and when presented with a clean slate, your government goes with this side grade kind of thing and pretends that things are okay and still consistent with the stance they had. That's basically where it was readily apparent to people that you had gone full on for security and were just trying to suit the narrative to fit it. That's where, imo, an inconsistency that had no real justification to exist popped up to undermine your stance. And it's not like it's changed ever since. If anything, it's been doubled down on.

Perhaps overly drawn out, but I felt that it was warranted to address it properly. Mainly because, quite frankly, your take was exceptionally poor. The rest of the post was also addressed in some way or another here, so I won't bother rehashing.

[The First Snek on The Moon (No Whales Allowed)]

4 hours ago, Pascal said:

You compare Grumpy and e404, and that they have both taken about 50 billions damages in GnR, which is true. But you forgot to mention, mind you, that Grumpy peacetime daily income is 1.8 billions/day whereas e404 daily income is of "only" 500M. Which means that it takes e404 almost 4 times longer to recover from GnR than it does for Grumpy. 1.2 billion per member in GnR ? 900 millions in DH ? Lol, that's peanut for whales, your members make 60-70 millions per day on average, that's not even 3 weeks of income to recover from a global war.

A detail worth adding is that AA's like 404 only really began recovering when the war ended, because they were absolutely swarmed. Meanwhile, something like Grumpy can start building up the cash almost immediately, as soon as the action there dies down, which doesn't take that long in the usual war. So not only is the recovery period longer, but it also begins later for the usual aa.