Jump to content

Dio Brando

Members
  • Posts

    830
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by Dio Brando

  1. No... activity? Wander over to Discord channels. Scroll down a bit and look at Orbis Central, or Alliance Affairs. Hell, even look at Game Suggestions. All these subforums are brimming with activity lately.
  2. Farm production directly depends on land and radiation. As a new nation, it simply isn't cost effective to do what you're doing, since the opportunity cost for using slots on farms (and the prerequisite land/farm project) is that you're missing out on easy money in form of raws (coal, oil, iron, bauxite). Add radiation on top: You can see quite clearly that you wouldn't be able to produce food regardless. This is not the norm, for the record. As Mikey pointed out, it's due to the global war currently being fought. Focus on getting into an alliance. They'll show you the ropes of the game so mistakes like these can be prevented. For your trouble, I've sent you some food. Have fun with the game.
  3. You can check by going to Alliance Affairs and looking at the topic ribbon. Deduct by 1 (your post). Jordy's reply was therefore the 1019th post in this thread..
  4. I can't tell if you're in pain, laughing, or orgasming. Maybe all three?
  5. I ❤️ you for getting my defective sense of humour. Carefree galactic sloth don't need no rules.
  6. You could always smoke pot and let your worries wash away in a flurry of green. Look at this care free galactic sloth. Be like him.
  7. I expected a soup reference in your post. I did not get one. This makes me sad. (Gonna wait on Charlie or Kev to bust some crazy-fitting soup related gif now)
  8. In my opinion, the lack of new, major political actors (as in, alliances) is not so much so a function of, "Enough people don't want to lead" or "Too many people want to lead" but a product of too few players being competent and being willing to lead an alliance that doesn't already have most of its foundations figured out. It's fair to chalk things up to competency, but I'd say the amount of time you're willing to invest, the energy/drive you have, and the vision you have are all necessary components of good leadership too. It's easier, in most cases, for one to assume leadership in an existing alliance and exert political influence of their own than it is to create a brand spanking new one, and lead for long enough/competently enough that something comes out of it. There are a few alliances that have succeeded in that regard, but they are not the norm. As for the OP: Identity (what're you here for? If you're just here to exist, then you're not going to go anywhere); Activity (self explanatory, but this covers day-to-day activity in Discord/slack channels, forums - if you have them); Community (this is more than just people talking shit in your private channels; how much does your average member actually care for the alliance and those who he plays the game with? How much do your leaders care?); A proper governing system (none of that democratic bullshit unless you can pull it off; even then, it's better to just not go that route. You end up with oligarchies); Leadership's investment into the game (you'll have 'active' leadership - as in they'll be around - but they won't care about the game/actually leading, which is just a big no-no); Military and Econ awareness (both of these can't be stressed enough. Knowing how to run a military is related to understanding game mechanics, but its important enough for me to highlight the difference. Similarly, if your Econ sucks - as in, isn't doing its best to maximize profit while still remaining in tune to how war works in the game - you're fricked when war time comes around); Keep your FA fluid. Be willing to work with people. Know your way around the joint. Some random shit: Having an alliance/theme gimmick. This is just 'fluff' but I've found having these things can attract more people to your grouping (...or turn them off massively. Their choice), Connections with other leaders/alliances. Be friendly to randoms. Cultivate ties (not necessarily political in nature) with people you wouldn't think you'd side with first thing next morning, Teach your kids how to play the game. Don't frick up and let new players run around free with no idea about how they'd actually progress. You do that, you'll end up with a shitton of new players who you invested a ton of money into that are worthless in war. Just don't. Praise Dio. There's honestly a lot more that can be said, but I guess at the end things come down to a few things: be willing to learn from your mistakes. Work towards a healthy balance of politics and fun. Try your best, and don't be disheartened when things don't go your way. Many of the serious - as in, major, not "serious" - political players today had a ton of shit not going their way in the past, but perseverance is a god-like quality to have. (Not to be confused with stubbornness or a lack of desire to change)
  9. To my (admittedly untrained) eye it was quite well done, and I enjoyed watching it.
  10. wtf coulda sued Sheepy for false advertisement and demanded 75k steel (Jokes aside, good spot. Did a double take when I saw that number too)
  11. It's cool. My point is, put real effort into growing the alliance. Shenanigans can come later.
  12. Rolling with the punches. I kinda like that. Personally, I don't mind you guys existing, and I think micros can be cultivated into politically relevant alliances - I just think this is a bad way to go about things. Recruit a bit more. Grow a bit more. Post things with more substance. Or go the comedic, self-aware/deprecating route, but with enough competence packed in somewhere that people catch onto the humour. Good luck in figuring things out.
  13. Normally I'm not opposed to the idea of encouraging micros to interact more with the community, but this type of shit needs to die.
  14. Holy shit hahah you’re never letting this one go huh. Good roast tho.
  15. I particularly enjoyed this part, as well as the references to hamsters/guinea pigs. The subtle reference to Roq's typing habits on Discord (casual, for the most part) was also well placed. I can't say I agree with all of it, but it was an amusing read. +1 dude.
  16. So I'll keep this short because I have to be somewhere else soon, but I made it clear to anyone who listened (hell, I talked to Charlie about this and there's no hard feelings between us, I think he's a great person and I don't think he'd OOC attack people) that I didn't actually think Charlie was in the wrong here. As far as I'm aware the dude wasn't even aware of the context behind that interview (as in, the less obvious context). That was on rapmanej. Also, dude, I still think it was a funny/clever idea, but it was the part where I noticed people genuinely thought the interview was legitimate that I went ??? at. The guy who I think gave the recording in the first place apologized to Roq already (and I literally just had a chat with him about it). If I made it seem as if I thought ill of Charlie (which I may very well have in that rambling post) then that's on me. You're always welcome to touchbase with me on Discord, and in the past half hour I think I made it clear that I really do appreciate C. This hits the nail on the head. It wasn't, but it turned out to be anyway.
  17. You're right. My apologies. There was no need for the insults.
  18. Uh? If you have any familiarity with how I act in-game, I can't be bothered to give more than two shits about my nation. I'm in this game because I like hanging out with certain people. I don't even really have a problem with you, but what you post. But meh. No, it went to shit a couple hours ago. Meh.
  19. Tbh I've maintained my civility for quite some time, but given the deliberate obtuseness people like Manthrax are showing (guess what honey, there's a big fricking difference between actually having proof that DMs were deleted that indicate that it was done again and having a similar set of logs, and trying to make up a bullshit analogy about washing cars) that's becoming harder. I was planning on not responding because I've seen exactly how dismissive you are of very legitimate plans that your own alliance had and I have far better things to do (which you, Smith, are well acquainted with because I gave you almost live updates of how those things developed IRL) than to indulge the passing fancy of people that aren't going to be convinced anyway, but okay. The fake interview (and the surprising number of upvotes it got) is just another example of your side's incredible assholery in the recent past. Let's have at it. I've replied to this here, but I will reiterate regardless. The viewpoint that IQ had not split was something your bloc members and your alliance was spouting before Surf's Up, or T$/NPO entry in Dial Up was ever a thing. The major rallying cause you referenced was that we were a "threat to the game". That by itself demands that we are thinking of IQ not just as a bloc but a grouping of alliances you deem strong enough to label a game-level threat. In multiple conversations with your side of the game, it was made clear that people were suspecting NPO to have maintained formal ties more than us having not done so. I spent a very significant part of my time active just speaking to your side in an attempt to clear up past grudges as well as to connect with you guys, so yeah I'm more than a little familiar with how your thought process worked. I didn't paint anything as a smoking gun, and it is incredible to see you try to spin this as "but we didn't make a formal formal plan, so surely it isn't a valid CB!". That's not how things work. Remember DDR? Your CB was quite literally along the lines of: Antagonism; Horsecock mentioned getting allies to roll you; Justin trying to pull people away from your side; Our CBs: Continued antagonism (your low gov quite literally called us "a cancer on every game". Please frick off with your self righteous bullshit); You are seen telling Sphinx of the importance of getting certain alliances to work with you as opposed to settling their own vendettas. Your then FA-head (which presumably is not working on his own... again? ) also said similar things; Manthrax and Radoje working on getting allies from our side (presumably to work against us); See the hypocrisy? No? I thought so, you lying pieces of shit. Your argument here is literally "We were going to hit IQ not NPO!" We were part of IQ. You would have hit us. I straight up asked you if you were going to hit NPO post Knightfall. If you were going to hit IQ, you were going to hit NPO, because we were part of IQ at the time you made those plans. So your plan for recovering and planning for the future was waging a war with your, and I quote, "[Y]our broken af warchest of 4 months"? Are you serious? You don't "plan" by reaching out to people you aren't allies with then and don't expect people to call you the frick out on that. I asked, and you said it was a nonfactor entirely. That is a lie. I don't believe this was the sole reason either, but the groupings detailed in those logs quite literally mention those very alliances. You very explicitly state that you needed CoS for the assault. Sphinx mentions getting <Chaos bloc's lineup> to join a war against IQ to your FA head. You lied. Lordship of all people agreed with that. If you seriously can not see why your bloc's conduct and what you have repeatedly been saying, in light of those logs, has been worrying and a reasonable room for believing you'd hit us down the line if not now, then I can't help you. I know for a fact that the downvote brigade will show up any minute after I post this and repeat the same bullshit that others will in an attempt to persuade... who? We're at an impasse, but your member baited me into responding, so yeah, here you go. Have fun with this frickfest of a forum.
  20. This makes me deeply concerned with regards to the allocation of my time and energies. Also, hello. Post more.
  21. In all honesty, I'd like to believe what you're saying. To some degree or the other, I suppose it boils down to expressing and understanding of sentiments from various corners that may or may not have been indicative of coalition wide beliefs. I do still think that we had reasonable expectations regarding the hit, particularly when taking into account now-deleted DMs. (I'm aware that this is a weak argument and tbh I don't mind if you guys call bs on this, I would too if I were in your spot. I can only make clear that I do have proof that scrubbing of conversations was not an isolated thing, feel free to talk via Disc.). Anyway, your last sentence struck a chord, and I will take that as my cue to finally get some sleep. Good luck in your wars man.
  22. Are you being serious? A "parody meme" was passed off as a legitimate interview and disseminated across servers referencing an 'interview' that happened 7.5 years ago, from a person who the person doing the disseminating knows was in a very, very bad spot, in another game, about a wholly different situation. This is not a comparable situation at all. Jesus, dude. This falls under basic decency. Hi Keegoz (and others with the same questions, I suppose). Insofar as the plan to switch fronts comes from, I will agree that there was reluctance to do so immediately, but as I said to other members of your bloc, the main intent behind not engaging us came from thinking that you wouldn't be able to take us both on in the now. That, at-least, is what I saw from the logs I was given as proof of not wanting to hit us. It was not to do with a blanket policy of ignoring our bloc. Day-by-day, however, our ability to defend against a legitimate, mounted attack grew weaker. That is very clearly problematic. If the attack did not happen while this war waged on, it would happen sometime down the line. It's not exactly paranoia when people have admitted to me that there were some consistently badgering others for an attack on us. Once the strategic value BK et al. posed ended, the basic counter to those same badgers' position would end. As for the political landscape changing, post IQ-dissolution I at the very least received multiple questions from a range of alliances going something to the effect of: "why are you guys still with BK?", or, "you guys don't see the problem with being a hegemony?". Admittedly, KETOG was less vocal (though this could just as easily be a function of me having far less contact with your grouping as a whole) in this regard, and I am aware that you reached out to parties within N$O for future cooperation. Your desire to reach out is indeed something I've recognized, and appreciate. The problem is that such beliefs persisted throughout these groupings beyond just you, and especially after the Rainbow leak (which had one line mentioning us, iirc) those were strengthened despite me personally reaching out. The events that followed certainly didn't help our case, but I also think that the beliefs weren't "new" in nature, only a strengthening of pre-existing ones. I personally didn't care much for intervening in your war with BK, but after the leaks and expression of sentiments that cemented the exact partyline being used to galvanize forces against us, thinking that we should care more for PR and wait for the inevitable hit is a bit much.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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