Keegoz Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Do you see what you've done, leaders of the top 10. This happened on your watch. Yes, keep watching GPA and not us pushing VE down so Rose only has one top 5 ally partner :3 1 Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foltest Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 (edited) Do you see what you've done, leaders of the top 10. This happened on your watch. I know this is meant to be about GPA, but honestly I'd be more concerned with Alpha essentially growing out of reasonable range of everyone else while being tied or friendly with the groups who are their direct competition. Edited April 13, 2016 by Corvo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguar Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 I know this is meant to be about GPA, but honestly I'd be more concerned with Alpha essentially growing out of reasonable range of everyone else while being tied or friendly with the groups who are their direct competition. Keep in mind that Alpha is fully militarized Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vosunda Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Keep in mind that Alpha is fully militarized ^ This. Econ score wise, Alpha and Sparta are right up with each other, with Guardian and TEst being close behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™ Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 ^ This. Econ score wise, Alpha and Sparta are right up with each other, with Guardian and TEst being close behind. That is Western propaganda! The BK score is the highest in the game. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted April 13, 2016 Author Share Posted April 13, 2016 I know this is meant to be about GPA, but honestly I'd be more concerned with Alpha essentially growing out of reasonable range of everyone else while being tied or friendly with the groups who are their direct competition. Guess you and your allies should take'em down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foltest Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 Guess you and your allies should take'em down. We're only here to shit-post and sign everyone in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 When Bob sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing treaties. They’re bringing webs. They’re stagnaters. And some, I assume, are good people. 1 Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valdoroth Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) Forgot to mention that Sparta and NPO have an ODP with SK, though I suppose that's not really that relevant huh. Oh yea, and our MDP with tS. Soooo yea forget about SK? Edited April 20, 2016 by Valdoroth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalinar Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 Forgot to mention that Sparta and NPO have an ODP with SK, though I suppose that's not really that relevant huh. Oh yea, and our MDP with tS. Soooo yea forget about SK? He's only dealing with the top 10 alliances. That's why Mensa/TKR/SK/DEIC etc aren't in the analysis. Quote I will take responsibility for what I have done, if I must fall, I will rise each time a better man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spooner Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Top 10 treaties are a problem, I agree with you strongly. However, it's a problem that's encouraged by the game mechanics. Pre: what changes, if any, do you think could be made to the game itself to disincentivize this level of treaty-stagnation? Quote ☾☆ High Priest of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanek26 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Top 10 treaties are a problem, I agree with you strongly. However, it's a problem that's encouraged by the game mechanics. Pre: what changes, if any, do you think could be made to the game itself to disincentivize this level of treaty-stagnation? I think just making war a bit more common by decreasing the cost to repair infra or something. Maybe Infra costs like, 25% less to build a second time. This might make people more willing to fight smaller wars, and not feel like they need to call in 50% of the game to back them up in a do or die situation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted April 21, 2016 Author Share Posted April 21, 2016 I think just making war a bit more common by decreasing the cost to repair infra or something. Maybe Infra costs like, 25% less to build a second time. This might make people more willing to fight smaller wars, and not feel like they need to call in 50% of the game to back them up in a do or die situation. Resources are the huge cost in wars, not infra in a lot of cases. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crust Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I don't think treaties per say are inherently bad, but alliances outside of the top 10 need to stop treating with them. I say as a main offender. Us micro alliances should rather team up to start our own bloc, without any direct ties to the top alliances. Quote It's my birthday today, and I'm 33! That means only one thing...BRING IT IN, GUYS! *every character from every game, comic, cartoon, TV show, movie, and book reality come in with everything for a HUGE party* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanek26 Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Resources are the huge cost in wars, not infra in a lot of cases. Sure, that's true, but we do routinely cause over a billion dollars damage of infra in these wars. Now, if Sheepy wanted to with resources he could decrease the amount of gas/munitions used, steel for tanks, ect, or he could just boost the production of steel mills, ect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foltest Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 Generally speaking, treaties are bad as a concept and we as a community have let the standard fall so low. Some quick thoughts below. I. Treating treaties like treats - Treaties are effectively meant to be a binding contract between two alliances. Any expectation less defeats the purpose of ever putting a pen to paper. Signing an MDP in the hopes of using it as an effective NAP is stupid. On the flip side of that, signing an MDP and expecting it to 'scare off' potential threats without ever intending to defend each other is just as stupid. Commit or don't, this is a massive problem these days with people signing these shallow treaties that they never expect / intend / want to follow through with. Literally just issue a protection notice or something similar - it'll make for more interesting politics anyway. II. National and Alliance Sovereignty - here's where the water gets particularly bloodied and muddled for me. As nations, we cede enormous amounts of sovereignty over to an alliance when we join. We make this payment in order to participate in the greater political game or for protection from raiders - this is an accepted part of the game and the community and it isn't inherently bad. When you mix in treaties that obligate you to defend or attack with another group, your entire alliance is not only signing away their group sovereignty (to a high degree), but also selling away even more of your National sovereignty as an individual nation ruler. Limiting your choices in the game even further. Honestly many people argue that Friendship Pacts or ODP's are meaningless - but to me they're the only form of treaty that should ever be signed. Why have a separate alliance if you are going to obligate yourself to each other? You blur the lines so far and then wonder why politics dies. We need clear identities, and clear separation of groups. III. Separation of IC and OOC in regards to treaties - This is a horse that's been beaten to death and I don't feel the need to explain it but I feel like it's still important to mention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooves Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 (edited) Sure, that's true, but we do routinely cause over a billion dollars damage of infra in these wars. I've tried to push for at least some easier way to rebuild infra you already had before you lost it. Sure the idea was bad in itself, but I thought Sheepy hit a good compromise. Now it's been lost in the bile of space and time. Now, if Sheepy wanted to with resources he could decrease the amount of gas/munitions used, steel for tanks, ect, or he could just boost the production of steel mills, ect. The best way to go about it. Is to simply reduce how much gas/munitions you use. While there's already a to-do plan to reduce tank cost by a good bit. Certainly not the solution to make them cost-effective to lose in 2000s, but still a good step. We don't know when this will come out but yeah. Edited April 21, 2016 by Hooves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I have ranted at length about how treaties are terrible and erode alliance sovereignty, but noone ever listened to me before and I doubt they'll start now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted April 21, 2016 Share Posted April 21, 2016 I have ranted at length about how treaties are terrible and erode alliance sovereignty, but noone ever listened to me before and I doubt they'll start now Go play with your boats, Ogaden. 1 Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.