Batavus
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Batavus
-
-
Just now, Tim Stark said:
What an irresponsible use of Administrative Power.
What an irresponsible way of ignoring game rules.
And yes - it's not just gift-cards and steam games, Manga also counts.
In addition to limits on Credit usage, it is against the rules for players to make exchanges of real-life money or goods for in-game materials, including but not limited to: in-game money, and in-game resources. Examples of this type of behavior would include: sending someone real-life money for in-game money or in-game resources, purchasing someone a Steam game for in-game money or in-game resources, sending someone a gift-card for in-game money or in-game resources, and any other sort of real-world trade for in-game goods. -
3 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:
Sad that it has come to this. I understand rules were broken and punishment has to be meted out to the offenders, but it's never a good thing when an alliance is basically eviscerated.
Saying that, you reap what you sow.
Eviscerated? They still have 125 members in NPO, large allies - and no doubt still have plenty billions?
Why eviscerated?-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
4 minutes ago, Alex said:ITT: Lots of people who haven't read the full report yet.
So NPO invites 1000+ players to be farmed, in exchange for Manga. Explicitly against the rules.
With this, you get $856.8 million per day...for ages... and lord knows how much more you got from those farms.
You use those countless billions to fund an endless war....
And now you are complaining it's bad that he ends this massive cheat?
Don't you understand the game rules? Or don't they apply to you?-
1
-
17
-
Congratulations friends!!
-
Really looking forward to working together with you all!!
-
Sorry about this whole mess and the complete lack of respect shown towards you and the alliance, Six.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Well said guys, great speech. Good to see you fighting alongside allies and friends.
-
10
-
Arrgh! Congrats guys!
-
2
-
2
-
-
Congrats guys.
-
1
-
-
Congrats dear allies.
“There is only one thing we say to death: Not today.”-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Archibald said:
I mean that doesn't really help me but fair enough.
Always happy to help out a new player. Try the ingame search button - you’ll know who he is in no time. If you don’t know where the button is, ask your alliance. If your alliance can’t help you, join somewhere else.
-
Congrats Six, Kosta, Tyrion, Nintendo & friends! Well done!
-
1
-
2
-
-
44 minutes ago, Epi said:
(...) IQ doesn't like making concessions in private, screw doing it on the world stage. (...)
Nobody likes making concessions. CoalA has taken the world stage to say: we are willing to admit defeat as part of a peace deal. At some point IQ also has to move. To start: seriously be available for talks. Or we can continue to fight the same war with roughly the same sides forever, except for the occassional alliance leaving CoalB in a coffin (Electric Space, Hanseatic League) or under fire (Carthago, OWR).
-
Good luck old friends, may the Gods be with you :)!
-
2
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, George Clooney said:
If the people who think I'm "toxic" (whatever the hell that means), actually cared if their alliance mates were deleting, they'd do what was necessary to end the war on survivable terms, not extend it to the bitter end. My conscious is clean.
Sorry, didn’t know you didn’t know what toxic means. Try google. Toxic is a group of people who are rude and can't be nice. They are not true to people around them. They need an attitude check. Their personalities are so unappealing its make the people around them suffer and turn rude as well (urban dictionary). Happy your conscious is clean. I hope your conscience is as well.
And yes, I care when a player after 1000+ days deletes. Try the same. And check the posted logs if you think Coa A isn’t trying to end the war.
-
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, George Clooney said:Evidently, you like the current state of things, and don't want peace. So be it. I'm comfortable watching your members delete in frustration (R.I.P. G Nation) and your alliances slowly die. Are you?
Do you know G Nations personal story? Do you react like this to every deletion? Exactly the toxicity this game needs to lose. A shame such an old alliance has ended up with such a toxic representative.
-
21
-
8 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:
You seem a lot more inclined toward log dumps and complaining on the OWF than negotiations. Maybe spend more time on the latter if that's a genuine desire of yours.
Read more, troll less Comrade and you would know what you’re saying is nonsense.
-
5
-
-
27 minutes ago, Singha said:
Now you can say it's been days since the announcement of surrender.
Don't start saying it's been weeks when it's only been a week since the big announcement.
Last time you said “stop trying to make it sound like it’s been a week”. Well, by tomorrow it has been a week. I didn’t say “weeks” as you can read.
The whole argument was that peace terms would be presented once a first term, “admit defeat”, was accepted as part of the final deal. Than further peace terms would be presented. Yet strangely enough, even though “admit defeat” has been accepted as a first term, no further peace terms seem to have been presented. It’s oddly silent. No response by Coalition B to “the big announcement” by Coalition A. That’s odd.
-
1
-
-
On 11/4/2019 at 10:11 PM, Singha said:
Dude it's only been 2 days (Saturday). Stop trying to make it sound like it's been a week or something ?
Let them negotiate and work it out now.
So...tomorrow it will have been a week. Have terms been presented? Without terms it’s impossible to negotiate.
-
21 minutes ago, Pop said:
If the war isn't enough of a burden to overwhelm other aspects of the game like your loyalty to your alliance then how can it be damaging to the health of the game like you were spouting earlier?
I wouldn't leave my alliance over a little rolling which is my point. The war is a completely natural part of the game that has continued for so long with the consent of all parties involved. All these moral appeals to Game Health from your Coalition are baseless and hold no value.
Sphinx, coalition B negotiator, only 2 pages ago, also said such long wars are bad for the game, although he of course blames Coal A. I agree with him that such long global wars are bad for the game by the way - and I’m neither coa A or B. So you can’t just blame Coa A for saying such a long war is bad for the game. Coa B voices and neutrals also see this. You just don’t. And don’t say “consent of all parties involved”. Just a couple players on both sides decide - and those leaders in many cases have little choice. You fight with your fellow alliance members and allies (leaving N$O as a topic for another day). Their members mostly do what their alliance does. Little consent there.
Sphinx: “IMO the war's gone on far too long (...)” “To use an argument some from KERCHTOGG have used; the game's lost some good people from this war, but you cannot in good conscious blame Coalition B for that (...)” “I agree that such long wars are bad for the game and in hindsight its something we all as a community can work on when the next conflict comes around.”
-
5 hours ago, Sphinx said:
Haven't said anything in this thread, until now so I'll add our thoughts as Colo B's rep.
Firstly It should be obvious to people that making angry forum posts wont help in your current predicament, neither will trying to wriggle your way out of the situation by holding out in the hope for a change in circumstances. We've outlined repeatedly we require an admission of defeat before talks can commence. When your side talks the amount of shit they did, don't expect people to just allow that to be swepped under the rug and forgotten about, you don't have anyone else to blame for that than those who contributed to this grudge match. We never said we wanted an unconditional surrender, you are more than welcome to reject the terms and continue fighting, much like Germany had the option of doing so after WW1, but we won't budge from our outlined position. Also to reiterate and push back against the fake news surrounding what we (Colo B.) want from peace talks, anything you potentially might've heard is simply hearsay. Before he made this thread Seb spoke to me about some of these rumours including rumours that we wanted among other things to restrict the entire KERCHTOGG block from trading with anyone that isn't IQ. That and many of the other rumours floating around are demonstrably false, at this stage unless its confirmed by NG and I its not officially supported by Coalition B. I see some genuine concerns from both rank and file KERCHTOGG members right through to gov and high gov about such terms and I know that this fake news is contributing as a roadblock for any progress for the possible peace terms. So I'd advice any KERCHTOGG member concerned about things to hit NG or I up in DM's and we'd clear up any misconception.
Secondly at this point its egos and pride which is holding back people from making rational decisions about the military realities of the war and coming to terms with their outcomes. IMO the war's gone on far too long, but we're (Coalition B.) willing to see this through well into new years and beyond so holding out to see if our resolve will break isn't going to get you anything either. To use an argument some from KERCHTOGG have used; the game's lost some good people from this war, but you cannot in good conscious blame Coalition B for that since we aren't the people holding out for some non-existent chance to get a white peace. I agree that such long wars are bad for the game and in hindsight its something we all as a community can work on when the next conflict comes around. But KERCHTOGG gains nothing but wasting their time and hurting the retention of their player-base by holding out and refusing to admit defeat, it costs you nothing to accept defeat and move on, whilst holding out for longer periods of time will cost you much much more.
Hi Sphinx, thanks for clarifying your views on this. On the one hand I guess you're saying you're side isn't asking an unconditional surrender (or at least that you never said you wanted that :-)) and that rumours about some harsh terms (or any terms in general) are demonstrably false. This implicitly suggests that terms won't be excessive.
But without knowing actual terms, all anyone can do is just guess… And you do state that coalition A can "reject the terms and continue fighting", just like " Germany had the option of doing so after WW1". This is an interesting comparison. The Versailles treaty meant Germany had to accept all responsibility for the war, lost much territory, received severe restrictions on the size of its military, lost control of part of its industry to its victors. The 1919 treaty suggested huge reparations payments until 1988 (!). British delegate Keynes and others knew in advance that harsh peace terms would mean trouble for the next generation. And they were right as global war 2 showed. This short reference to WW1, but also harsh words about the grudge match for which "you don't have anyone else to blame" and which won't be "forgotten about" suggests terms "won't forget about" this either and be more than just another global peace treaty. You can hardly blame rank and file reading "Vengeance" into some of these words, besides much more severe existing mutual distrust and toxicity. Some will expect the worst. That in earlier exit negotiations for instance infra limitations were said to be a topic is also unlikely to set minds at ease.
I think one lesson of WW1 was that you don't just need to win the war - you also need to win the peace. And you don't do that with a "Carthaginian" peace treaty which crushes the enemy even postwar. Which - by the way - also alienates and warns neutral bystanders and even worries some on your own side (or so I hear). There is a recent example which might help. During Knightfall my alliance leader held a serious grudge against TCW and against you in particular. As FA at the time, with no history with you, I'm glad how despite this grudge the peace treaty didn't demand much more than admittal of defeat and the usual quirky demands about flags etc (and something about a trade bot). At least no big payments, infra limits or cripling demands like that. Something that by the way (I think) was agreed to as a package deal.
This made for a good peace after a good war.
It would really help the peace process if you could clarify all your demands, at least to coalition A.
Do they need to agree they've lost first? Doing so in logs which can be leaked, means them giving something without knowing what they'll get in return.
It means running the risk of it being leaked by the enemy and used to hurt their war effort.
So just talk about the package deal as a whole. Show your side, the enemy and all of Orbis that besides winning the war, you can also win the peace. And do it in style.
-
2
-
-
I agree with I guess everyone here: this looks interesting, please, please implement this. I don’t think it should matter there’s a global war going on.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Going back to Sebs initial question...
I'd like to argue endlessly having the same alliances fighting each other gets boring after 4+ months and that that drives players from the game.
Even winning against essentially beaten enemies gets boring after a while.
So unless a goal is boring repetition driving players from the game, peace talks for this global should get going.
So both peace and new alliance wars can offer players something fresh. I don't say this because I want peace or love pixels
(I love how I've been getting beiged and nuked recently). I don't say this because I'm losing (I beat my enemies armies).
But because endless repetition is boring. And it's not like we don't know which alliance (yes, without the "s") has won in recent months.Looking at score, amount of members and protectorates NPO has won the game. Congrats guys.
And with that coalition A is unlikely to turn around the war. Why has NPO won? And why single out NPO?
1) Score: Guinea Pig and NPO combined (569k) are twice as big as BK or T$, let alone coalition A alliances.
2) Members: just Guinea Pig and NPO combined (1300 members) have as many members as all other alliances combined up to #23.
Take into account NPO protectorates like Goons and we're talking up to #30 or more. 25-30% of active players is GPWC/NPO member.
3) Other major alliances have been weakened: yes, coalition A has suffered losses in terms of members and score and activity.
But major alliances tied to NPO or fighting alongside it have also suffered some losses. BK lost important treaties (Carthage etc).
High tire heavy TCW is fighting against pretty much everyone else in that tier - and losing.
And HS and T$ are facing bad odds in the midtier.
While NPO has been adding quickly growing protectorates and been safe in the midtier it rules with BK and the lowest tier GPWC owns.
4) Thanks to 6-month long NAPs with Farksphere and RnR, we know no other large alliances are likely to enter this global. So this is it."The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
Roq, you argue yourself this global war has been won. I agree. Your enemies, allies and those fighting alongside NPO alike
have all suffered to some degree. NPO/GPWC is largest by far. This war will easily end up the biggest and longest.
Offer reasonable terms publicly, let everyone know what NPO/GPWC wants - let alliances fly those guinea pigs in their flag for a week -
and let players move on to something new and more interesting. Before even more players leave this game bored and you are forced
to let your 1300 Guinea Pigs (and counting) fight each other.-
1
-
8
-
1
-
35 minutes ago, Roquentin said:
Yeah I don't know who is included either. I defer to my new overlords, Malal and TheNG. They memed themselves to dominance.
So Malal, the NG - who are included on both sides?
2/5/2020 - Major Announcement Regarding Enforcement of Game Rules
in Announcements & Updates
Posted
Have you even bothered reading the game rules?
In addition to limits on Credit usage, it is against the rules for players to make exchanges of real-life money or goods for in-game materials, including but not limited to: in-game money, and in-game resources. Examples of this type of behavior would include: sending someone real-life money for in-game money or in-game resources, purchasing someone a Steam game for in-game money or in-game resources, sending someone a gift-card for in-game money or in-game resources, and any other sort of real-world trade for in-game goods.