Jump to content

Dryad

Members
  • Content Count

    172
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Dryad last won the day on January 4

Dryad had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

388 Excellent

6 Followers

About Dryad

  • Rank
    Discord: syLph#4613

Profile Information

  • Alliance Pip
    Knights Templar
  • Leader Name
    Dryad
  • Nation Name
    Dryad
  • Nation ID
    146719
  • Alliance Name
    Knights Templar

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    syLph#4613

Recent Profile Visitors

1076 profile views
  1. Got the same issue with the KT alliance page: https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=4124 used to be additionally to the type of characters named by OP
  2. I have no insider info on what exactly t$ plans and I doubt you will get them here, but generally speaking there is bunch of other stuff that needs to be considered. If t$ does hit Camelot then who exactly is hitting Camelot, will it just be t$ or include some of their allies too? Justifying a dogpile is not as easy as a more even matchup. And now you get questions of the likes of "isn't it better if we get hit so we can activate treaties and drag our allies in?" So it may be the case that t$ is simply not worried about getting hit first and potentially even prefers it. Could also be something completely different of course, like I said, I know nothing. Also note that Eumirbago isn't gov and that word of mouth from members can usually not be taken as proof for alliance intentions, but yeah usually it's not ideal when members give hints of war plans.
  3. That's fair @Eumirbago and I have absolutely no problem with you rolling them for a while to make up for it. I did say there is fault with them, the thing that I don't buy is the "Camelot is evil" narrative, and I'm not implying that's the narrative of leading figures of t$ but some people do think that way.
  4. Alright, i'm gonna stop derailing with Mythic stuff, skip that part and really you can weigh my opinions however you want. Yeah I agree, I don't think people actually believe that, at least not in the case of Arthur. The one who is really being criticized is Epi, right? I won't defend any of the stuff he said, Epi has his own particular set of chromosomes. The point I'm really pushing is that Arthur I think is really cool and I just don't think there is really any need to worry about IQ stuff happening in the future caused by Cam despite the things Epi says, as long as Arthur is who he is. That's really something people need to realize, it's not Epi who is at the helm of that alliance. I have been in Cam gov for like 4 months or whatever and everything goes through Arthur, despite people not seeing him much in public. And Epi, if you read this, I like you too don't get me wrong, but yeah idk you just baffle me sometimes. Anyway rawr and everyone else, Arthur man good, Arthur man leader man.
  5. Idk rawr, that arm thing just screams "subordinate" to me. Can we change that? It's also not true, Vein was bossing Camelot around if anything. Look, how about "Mythic the alliance with a core of ex-Cam High-Gov that enjoyed kicking ass and thus coordinated hits with actually not only Cam but also the rest of IQ in exchange for fat mercenary cash that enabled one of them to go up to even city 37"? I think that's much better. Maybe, but your point was that we like Camelot too much to see them get hurt. It kinda does since people think Arthur may turn out to be Leo 2.0 and wants to repeat the whole thing or something.
  6. Lol. This continues to be brought up, but contrary to popular opinion we haven't been subordinates of camelot since the moment we left them and as you can see now, no Mythic members have actually returned to Camelot. If I end up on opposing sides to Camelot in a future war I will roll them without mercy. But you are correct that I have gotten to know those who have been around during my time there and that I got to know Arthur as someone that I find to be quite nice So there is a bias there, but I generally try to stay objective and trust me, I know him better than you do.
  7. Nah, don't get me wrong buddy. I said 2 things really: 1. That I don't think Arthur himself really wanted to eradicate anyone, which is not anywhere as bad as people like Leo, but that there is undeniably some fault there. 2. That I'm generally okay with someone playing to win a game, however they like to set their goal. The later does not mean I'm okay with people cheating or the level of toxicity that came along with the war. The peace terms and process were both undeniably ridiculous and I'm not gonna tell anyone they should have just accepted it. As for Camelot though I think that the grudges are channeled towards them in unreasonable amounts when really those who should receive them have already left the game.
  8. Yeah, thats a fair point. Although I would never personally start another one until like a year later since all progress is lost
  9. Unpopular opinion but i have absolutely zero issues with someone trying to roll me out of the game. As someone who grew up playing games like tribalwars in which the goal is to win the game by eradicating everyone else I have always found it weird how people in this game have a problem with someone playing to win, even if it entails killing the game in the process.
  10. I feel that this argument would have worked with OD, but I know that Camelot and Arthur in particular didn't have the intention to eradicate anyone. Remember that OD were actively slaughtering even their allies if they chose to exit the war. Camelot did what they did because it was the safe thing to do and I'm not saying thats cool or anything, there is definitely some fault there, but it is entirely different from being those with the actual intention to eradicate their opponents.
  11. Funny story, I just received my first warning right as I opened this post and because it matched the topic name so perfectly I thought "wow wtf, this dude found a way to issue warnings by creating topics"
  12. They would still have to win the war. I think this would be the closest to how treasure transferring has worked so far. So far it has always been if you get hit then you need to win the war to keep the treasure. You would also still be able to transfer treasures as you please as long as you aren't at war which is really the only times treasures should have been sold using beige mechanics, otherwise its clear borderline slotfilling territory. I'm not against this really, but I think you should be aware that this will make it easier to defend a treasure compared to how it has been so far and that treasure stealing is already not common. You basically add a defense mechanism that hasnt existed before. I do think the anti ping-ponging cooldown is a good way to balance this, though maybe 5 days is a bit short, you will really have to squeeze the second attempt of trying to steal the treasure in there without any rebuild time.
  13. You can win a war in 2 days and maintain 6-9 active wars. 6-9mil every 2 days. 21mil-31.5mil a week in just the bonus. Ftfy. But yeah, not a fan of this.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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