Jump to content

Dio Brando

Members
  • Content Count

    817
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by Dio Brando

  1. The Holy Grail. T-H-G. How drunk are you? Just curious.
  2. One. Two. Three. Read all these together. See what the problem is? Also, being professional is over-rated anyway. Just try to have fun, maybe kick shit around every now and then.
  3. So much this. SRD really hit the nail on the head here. Even in the short term, that level of speed requires alliances having players that can not only be hyper active, but be consistently hyper active. And that's just not what the vast, vast majority of people can give to this game. Eventually, you end up with short term curbstomps that you can't feasibly win/enjoy. Which is... not fun.
  4. The only thing left to do is to buy an absurd amount of infra and lan- aw shit.
  5. Charles... why in the *** would you write all that for under on mobile?
  6. Very anarchist of you. ...very fitting!
  7. Keep ignoring that ODP when your ally calls for you and let's see what happens.
  8. They're a new player, but they have a promising future.
  9. Menhera. It's ok Under, I love your memes too.
  10. Jesus, you're still running with the kid thing huh.
  11. I had a more elaborate post written up as to address the - somewhat valid, honestly - points you made, but my clumsy fingers deleted all of it (and then reloaded, so I can't even CTRL+Z, rip). Sorry for the delay. There seem to be two primary concerns you have: That (primarily new) players who frequent the forums are unable to understand what threads in Alliance Affairs are about, That tags will be used in other sections of the forum. While I agree with the idea that the integration of new players in the overall Orbis community is a good thing, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that, most, or even a significant amount of, threads are confusing. If a player were to read the first post, and then the few posts that come after, you would find no shortage of explanations with regards to the content of the thread. Moreover, some threads are intentionally confusing, and forcing players to add tags in their thread title - which, I suppose, is your prerogative, as is my duty to argue for what I believe in - simply make the point of those threads (to confuse and bedazzle) irrelevant. In my opinion, threads that are confusing to new players will largely seem so because they lack in-game knowledge and/or context, not that they aren't clear in their message. Let us look at the past, hm, 15 threads in this subforum. This thread is announcing the cancellation of a treaty. It says so in its first three lines. This thread is announcing the existence of a new alliance (it gives a tl;dr too) and the posts that follow make that point abundantly clear. This thread has some flavour content in the beginning, and explains what it's about in the last line of the post. This thread is Inst being weird Hyperion announcing their 'bonds' program and giving a somewhat lengthy explanation of what that implies. This thread, while somewhat hard to understand due to - presumably - the OP's level of mastery of the language, announces fairly clearly that they are recognizing a state of hostilities with BK and are confused as to why this happened. This thread is a DoW and contains the target's name in the first paragraph. This thread wouldn't fit your rules anyway, but I am including this to highlight my point about cultural references and why confusion will persist unless players actively attempt to integrate themselves within the community. It's a log dump that is fairly straightforward, however. This thread explains its contents in the title, anyway. This thread very clearly explains its purpose. This thread, yeeaahhh, we weren't too sure what was going on here either (It's a collection of inside jokes and memes that have gone for too long to explain just by the use of a tag, and is meant to be confusing) This thread says what it's about in the title. It's also meant to be 'confusing' (if anyone checks the alliance affiliation it would be clear as to what happened). This thread, while yet another part in a very long sequence of inside jokes/memes, lays its jokes out pretty clearly. This is the sort of funny thing that would be marred, not going to go so far as to say it would be ruined, by the usage of title tags. This thread was just click-bait. It didn't serve any purpose, as was explained a few posts down. This thread is hilarious and adds cultural flavour because it's "confusing" (it says exactly what it's about, people just need to read). Also, if you scroll down below you'll see further explanation. This thread is Sketchy posting Polaris' failure in guarding their bank. It provides an altered flag, a screenshot of the bank loot, and text to... explain it. My point is, the vast majority of the threads that people are 'confused by' are either spam, meant to be confusing (when in reality it takes only a bit of inferring to understand what they're about), or abundantly clear, they just don't say it in their thread title. If new players are confused with what is being said, they should, well, read the posts that come after the OP. More often than not it explains the thread's purpose quite clearly. As for the second concern I laid out in the beginning of this (now somewhat lengthy) post, there are three possible outcomes to tags being used out of this subforum: They spam tags, in which case a one minute edit by mods is all that is needed to remove those tags, They add one or two tags, which... isn't actually a problem. Why would it be? They don't use the tags, which is fine. Anyway, my point with this all is that it seems like artificial spoon feeding that won't accomplish anything but actually remove the one incentive players have to integrate themselves in communities (to understand what the frick is going on in Orbis).
  12. I am aware that this thread does not exist to entertain my back and forth with you, but let me ask you this. What purpose does it serve? If you believe it to be a solution to disorganization, additional text that needs to be read is just ungainly. What Adrienne and I have put forth will ultimately allow people to sift quickly through all threads with the same tag, and will occupy no space in the thread title itself. It is not a particularly big change, and I fully expect someone to come in a few posts down complaining about me 'whining', but I don't want to add [tag] when I can achieve exactly the same purpose with something far less obtrusive and far more useful. Thanks for actively working on the upkeep of forums, by the way. I appreciate that.
  13. Yes, I have a concern. This is horrible for purposes of creativity, and makes alliance threads look incredibly sterile. That people have found clever ways to name their announcements and threads should be encouraged as it adds taste and flavour to the game. A far superior method of accomplishing organization would be to give players the ability to add forum tags to threads, like so: E: Surely you mean 'Thread', and not 'Threat'?
  14. I would've never thought I'd see something more nerdy than debating the supposed failures of coalitions in a browser based nation sim game. I was wrong. (On a more serious note, please continue. The posts make for interesting reads.)
  15. I’m just waiting for @Shiho Nishizumi to chime in.
  16. Nothing is "being said now". I am a third party who is by and large uninterested in the affairs of a peripheral alliance, but bored enough to post my thoughts on the matter. I'm not sure what you're saying here. If they did not wish for your assistance in the war, why were you attempting to dissuade them from joining? Two, you understand that an ally needing to call you to war when you have an M-level defense clause speaks volumes of your relationship dynamic, correct? Oh well. You guys have fun.
  17. To be honest, it's a bit disappointing to see one's reply to someone drawing a comparison between them and the Soviet Union be: "they won, though". Meh.
  18. No. From my understanding of the issue, House Arryn activated the defense clause. When you sign M-level defense treaties, you do not get to back out of them with justifications as pathetic as "we just didn't feel like it". You don't get to cast aside your obligations simply because your would-be enemy outnumbers you. Your word is as good as anything else, and you've, quite frankly, reneged on it in the most pitiful way. Have fun, I'll be looking to see what your allies do when you get into an unfavorable war and need their help.
  19. Personally I think it's one of those things that should be added anyway. If it doesn't increase server maintenance or whatever, I don't really see a reason not to.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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