Big Boss Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Videos! Fun! Yay. Obviously mixed feelings on this one. A LOT of mixed feelings. I understand the whale argument. I wanted a Test/Pantheon matchup to happen: largely for that reason, but also so that Pantheon could make their bones. It was something I discussed with both Pre and Fist. And had Fist not deleted, I think Pantheon would have had even more of a chance to surprise everyone. I trust that the members of Pantheon who stand and fight despite a numerical swarming by a more experienced grouping while they were already committed will earn the respect from this community that they are due. I will do everything I can for them, in Fist's place. How does Moby Dick end, anyway? Moby dick in its original press actually had no ending. Quote "We pull in money, new recruits, all just to combat cipher, rubbing our noses in bloody battlefield dirt, all for revenge." "Why are we still here? Just to suffer? Every night i can feel my leg, and my arm, even my fingers. The body i've lost, The comrades i've lost, won't stop hurting... it's like they're all still there... You feel it too, don't you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Roquentin Posted September 14, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted September 14, 2016 See my above post. One of my largest goals was, effectively, having two alliances I am friendly with fight, because it would have been awesome, good for both of them, and good for the game at large. Knowing that this rhetoric is a large part of what you used to push others into this war, I'd like to point out that not everyone shares your ideas on what an endgame stage looks like. Don't push yours onto me. It's not in your interests to share the ideas, so that doesn't surprise me. It's all very simple: your side has continued to consolidate and ended up in an unprecedented position of power after the last war. You pushed it to critical mass after the TKR-Pantheon and Mensa-BK treaties. The material reality here agrees with me. After every war, there is an increased wear and tear on the alliances that you fight and it is getting to the point where the active vs casual dynamic is pushing the game towards a position where one side is absolutely dominant militarily and the other is just withering away. A lot of alliances cannot sustain further losses and cannot convince their players to continue playing to get ZMed by you once every 3 months. When this is a game where thinking like "I'd better to join an alliance on the winning side so my growth isn't held back", "I'd better cancel my treaties because I'm tired of getting rolled", and "I can avoid honoring my treaties even when directly obligated to because I know these guys will lose and it'll be consequence-free", is acceptable, one side winning every war is going to lead to an endgame stage. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 It's not in your interests to share the ideas, so that doesn't surprise me. It's all very simple: your side has continued to consolidate and ended up in an unprecedented position of power after the last war. You pushed it to critical mass after the TKR-Pantheon and Mensa-BK treaties. The material reality here agrees with me. After every war, there is an increased wear and tear on the alliances that you fight and it is getting to the point where the active vs casual dynamic is pushing the game towards a position where one side is absolutely dominant militarily and the other is just withering away. A lot of alliances cannot sustain further losses and cannot convince their players to continue playing to get ZMed by you once every 3 months. When this is a game where thinking like "I'd better to join an alliance on the winning side so my growth isn't held back", "I'd better cancel my treaties because I'm tired of getting rolled", and "I can avoid honoring my treaties even when directly obligated to because I know these guys will lose and it'll be consequence-free", is acceptable, one side winning every war is going to lead to an endgame stage. Isn't it beautiful? One side can't communicate and plan effectively for shit while the other side has a coherent goal with memberships that are too down. It's wonderful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 It's not in your interests to share the ideas, so that doesn't surprise me. It's all very simple: your side has continued to consolidate and ended up in an unprecedented position of power after the last war. You pushed it to critical mass after the TKR-Pantheon and Mensa-BK treaties. The material reality here agrees with me. After every war, there is an increased wear and tear on the alliances that you fight and it is getting to the point where the active vs casual dynamic is pushing the game towards a position where one side is absolutely dominant militarily and the other is just withering away. A lot of alliances cannot sustain further losses and cannot convince their players to continue playing to get ZMed by you once every 3 months. When this is a game where thinking like "I'd better to join an alliance on the winning side so my growth isn't held back", "I'd better cancel my treaties because I'm tired of getting rolled", and "I can avoid honoring my treaties even when directly obligated to because I know these guys will lose and it'll be consequence-free", is acceptable, one side winning every war is going to lead to an endgame stage. 1. The position of power was not unprecedented. Clear positions of dominance have been established in the past, and will be established in the future. More importantly, they have always fallen in the end, be it by slow crumbling or large mishaps. 2. I agree about the wear and tear. But the thing is: These alliances willingly put themselves in that position over and over again. Madness is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different esults. 3. "im canceling my treaties to avoid getting rolled" only to then suicide into your previous opposition is counterproductive to the goal of removing the target from your back." 4. Treaties have been avoided and broken over and over for years now. On both sides. This has nothing to do with any 'endgame' or with us winning. It has everything to do with (sometimes hidden) agendas and the circumstances of any specific situation. About an endgame stage... This is not the war to end all wars. PnW has quite a few left. But two sides continuing to drive the exact same strategies against the exact same people without considering reconciliation is most certainly going to lead to an endgame stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 To be honest, this was one of the better offensives. Granted a lot of us got caught with little military. It's also interesting how alliances dogpiled onto BK and Pantheon. The future will definitely be interesting after this conflict. 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 I don't truly have much invested in whether there's an endgame dynamic afoot or not. But the idea that one side dismantling and another side consolidating was going to lead to some utopian ideal of a completely different outcome has some conceptual flaws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenk Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 3. "im canceling my treaties to avoid getting rolled" only to then suicide into your previous opposition is counterproductive to the goal of removing the target from your back." You never saw it coming. Quote Formerly Ibnar / Qital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 1. The position of power was not unprecedented. Clear positions of dominance have been established in the past, and will be established in the future. More importantly, they have always fallen in the end, be it by slow crumbling or large mishaps. 2. I agree about the wear and tear. But the thing is: These alliances willingly put themselves in that position over and over again. Madness is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different esults. 3. "im canceling my treaties to avoid getting rolled" only to then suicide into your previous opposition is counterproductive to the goal of removing the target from your back." 4. Treaties have been avoided and broken over and over for years now. On both sides. This has nothing to do with any 'endgame' or with us winning. It has everything to do with (sometimes hidden) agendas and the circumstances of any specific situation. About an endgame stage... This is not the war to end all wars. PnW has quite a few left. But two sides continuing to drive the exact same strategies against the exact same people without considering reconciliation is most certainly going to lead to an endgame stage. 1. In terms of statistical dominance in almost every area, yes, it is unprecedented. There has been no sign of crumbling and just continued consolidation. In the past, there were actual divides within dominant spheres, they don't exist now. The only thing I saw causing a potential split in the Syndisphere was Mensa as a polarizing issue. They managed to up their diplomacy after 168 Day and avoided being a wedge issue. Maybe there were other things but they didn't surface. 2. The alternative is merely to join your side or avoid wars. Neither of those would lead to balance. 3. If people see it being on them eventually, because there is no fathomable alternative scenario, they will do what they will feel they have to and that's partly on your side. 4. In the last year or so, there have been multiple wars where direct obligations to defend were ignored and the assumption that one side will lose makes it all the easier to not enter. I disagree. The only way there is a change in political dynamics is if there are organic tensions within spheres and actual reasons to split. Nothing will change just because people are friendlier. Someone has to end up having competing interests with someone they're tied to in order for the political dynamic to change. In your sphere, there is no sign of it. Consequently, a continued pattern of victories for you just promotes Syndisphere triumphalism and further consolidation. This is very much the last chance for several alliances to remain competitive. The thinking is foreign to me since I've gotten rolled in every war I've been in in this game, but I can understand the sentiment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Quill Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 I trust that the members of Pantheon who stand and fight despite a numerical swarming by a more experienced grouping while they were already committed will earn the respect from this community that they are due. I will do everything I can for them, in Fist's place. FOR FIST Quote <&Partisan> EAT THE SHIT <blacklabel> lol @ ever caring about how much you matter in some dumbass nation simulation browser game. what a !@#$in pathetic waste of life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan the Red Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) It's not in your interests to share the ideas, so that doesn't surprise me. It's all very simple: your side has continued to consolidate and ended up in an unprecedented position of power after the last war. You pushed it to critical mass after the TKR-Pantheon and Mensa-BK treaties. The material reality here agrees with me. After every war, there is an increased wear and tear on the alliances that you fight and it is getting to the point where the active vs casual dynamic is pushing the game towards a position where one side is absolutely dominant militarily and the other is just withering away. A lot of alliances cannot sustain further losses and cannot convince their players to continue playing to get ZMed by you once every 3 months. When this is a game where thinking like "I'd better to join an alliance on the winning side so my growth isn't held back", "I'd better cancel my treaties because I'm tired of getting rolled", and "I can avoid honoring my treaties even when directly obligated to because I know these guys will lose and it'll be consequence-free", is acceptable, one side winning every war is going to lead to an endgame stage. Thing is, from an statistical point of view ParaCovenant holds both overwhelming numerical and pixel advantage. You have a lot more nations, a lot more infra, and a lot more cities and cities per nation. This is not like the place you come from, where the dominant side is just the one who has more nations and tech. Here, all you need to beat our "position of power" is to learn to play this game. This is why I point out how silly you are for thinking that we fighting TEsT will allow your bloc to achieve dominance. It will not. We can fight TEsT and, win or lose, then beat the crap out of you anyway. Because we know how to play this game and you don't. Edited September 14, 2016 by Ivan the Red 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) If you think the paperless will build for you the NPO hegemoney you dream so much with, I can't help but laught. No man can master Chaos. You have deluded yourself. You are the servant, not the master. Um, lol. We're never going to be in a position to even try that. We're too far behind and I'm all too aware of our position here. To be honest, this was one of the better offensives. Granted a lot of us got caught with little military. It's also interesting how alliances dogpiled onto BK and Pantheon. The future will definitely be interesting after this conflict. BK was the most bulked, so there was the most concentration of force on BK and given BK was at 180k NS, it wasn't that huge of a dogpile. The entire point of striking was to prevent you from maxing. It didn't work out in some cases, but oh well. Thing is, from an statistical point of view ParaCovenant holds both overwhelming numerical and pixel advantage. You have a lot more nations, a lot more infra, and a lot more cities and cities per nation. This is not like the place you come from, where the dominant side is just the one who has more nations and tech. Here, all you need to beat our "position of power" is to learn to play this game. This is why I point out how silly you are for thinking that we fighting TEsT will allow your bloc to achieve dominance. It will not. We can fight TEsT and then beat the crap out of you anyway. Because we know how to play this game and you don't. At last count, it didn't. It was pretty well-documented in TKR-Pantheon treaty thread that our side had spent its advantage in the last war and Syndisphere was ahead. Partisan acknowledged it. Honestly, Krashnaia, you're as terrible of a poster here as you were over there. I never claimed TEst would allow us to achieve dominance. Please don't put words into my mouth. --- Anyway, I'm done. Don't want to shit up this thread further. edited to clarify stance. Edited September 14, 2016 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 and "I can avoid honoring my treaties even when directly obligated to because I know these guys will lose and it'll be consequence-free", is acceptable, one side winning every war is going to lead to an endgame stage. Definite shot at me ;_; Quote They bid me take my place among them. In the halls of Valhalla Where the brave may live forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 A majority of our nations are less than a year old. It would be pretty damned silly to think we can dominate much of anything in a game where the major alliances mostly have a year or more on us, but hey. If you're going to construct a straw man, at least give it them dolly eyes that open up when you tilt it upwards and one of those things where you can punch its stomach and it'll say "mama!". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 A majority of our nations are less than a year old. It would be pretty damned silly to think we can dominate much of anything in a game where the major alliances mostly have a year or more on us, but hey. If you're going to construct a straw man, at least give it them dolly eyes that open up when you tilt it upwards and one of those things where you can punch its stomach and it'll say "mama!". Lel You're not alone, except we haven't lost yet and you have lost every single war so far :3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) NPO is performing exceptionally well by the standards of the incompetents they've chosen to ally with. When you want to up your game, come over to the dark $ide. Edit: TeSt will obviously do some major Rekkage this war. Edited September 14, 2016 by Aisha Greyjoy Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguar Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Lel You're not alone, except we haven't lost yet and you have lost every single war so far :3 Recently you're literally acting like a 5-year-old kid. Is there any thread where you didn't say "WE'RE BEST, YOU SUCK" yet? We got it. Also winning war doesn't mean not getting rolled. tS has been rolled numerous times, even now BK, Mensa and Pantheon are getting rolled and I haven't seen anyone rubbing it into your faces so far in the way you do it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 jaguar has fallen for the Eumir bait. 1 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 A majority of our nations are less than a year old. It would be pretty damned silly to think we can dominate much of anything in a game where the major alliances mostly have a year or more on us, but hey. If you're going to construct a straw man, at least give it them dolly eyes that open up when you tilt it upwards and one of those things where you can punch its stomach and it'll say "mama!". Mensa was less than a year old when we helped reshape the dynamics of the world. We also carried above our weight in every war. So yes, it can be expected from NPO. 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yosodog Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 If you think this war is going to change the dynamic of the game, you're simply wrong. In a month we'll all be rebuilt and right back where we started and as I've explained in the NPO embassy, it has only driven the bond between our alliances even closer, ruining almost any chance of us splitting up. Because of this war, we know we have to stick together. I don't regret one single action BK made before this war. Be it dropping UPN or consolidating with our treaty with Mensa. There are no better alliances I'd rather fight with than our current allies and our friends in our coalition. No matter how much Paracov tries to drive us apart, the bond between our alliances will stay strong. Quote [22:37:51] <&Yosodog> Problem is, everyone is too busy deciding which top gun character they are that no decision has been made BK in a nutshell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Recently you're literally acting like a 5-year-old kid. Is there any thread where you didn't say "WE'RE BEST, YOU SUCK" yet? We got it. Also winning war doesn't mean not getting rolled. tS has been rolled numerous times, even now BK, Mensa and Pantheon are getting rolled and I haven't seen anyone rubbing it into your faces so far in the way you do it. That's just how bandwaggoners act m80 their just like those chicks that swear they've always been Leicester City fans Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) Mensa was less than a year old when we helped reshape the dynamics of the world. We also carried above our weight in every war. So yes, it can be expected from NPO. You joined within a few months of the game reset (like 5 IIRC) whereas NPO joined 17 months late to the party. I'd also say NPO has been doing a decent job considering their age as well Edited September 14, 2016 by Malal Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 If you think this war is going to change the dynamic of the game, you're simply wrong. In a month we'll all be rebuilt and right back where we started and as I've explained in the NPO embassy, it has only driven the bond between our alliances even closer, ruining almost any chance of us splitting up. Because of this war, we know we have to stick together. I don't regret one single action BK made before this war. Be it dropping UPN or consolidating with our treaty with Mensa. There are no better alliances I'd rather fight with than our current allies and our friends in our coalition. No matter how much Paracov tries to drive us apart, the bond between our alliances will stay strong. I doubt anyone seriously expects your political constructs to fall apart just because of a war. There's no reason for it to change. If the point was breaking your sphere up, MrHat would be posting more pictures of her tits. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 You joined within a few months of the game reset (like 5 IIRC) whereas NPO joined 17 months late to the party. I'd also say NPO has been doing a decent job considering their age as well We'd still have performed the same. Actually, probably better, if we had started later than when we did. At least then, we wouldn't have to deal with sudden changes ( Spy change, random Military changes, Score change, etc ) after we developed counters~ 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) Recently you're literally acting like a 5-year-old kid. Is there any thread where you didn't say "WE'RE BEST, YOU SUCK" yet? We got it. Also winning war doesn't mean not getting rolled. tS has been rolled numerous times, even now BK, Mensa and Pantheon are getting rolled and I haven't seen anyone rubbing it into your faces so far in the way you do it. Shhhhhh you get it, but these !@#$ obviously don't lmfao. Madness is where you keep doing the same thing, but expect a different result lel. They can't rub it in because they know they !@#$in lost. Never did I say we were never rolled playboi, but what I did say is the fact that all we !@#$ing do is win. Edited September 14, 2016 by Jacob Moore Quote 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.