Rose's Surrender

[Foltest]

Outside of political reasons for not doing, I sort of wish NPO would just blast their allies for ruining what should've been a won war. NPO has had consistent performance throughout, but their allies have dropped the ball as per usual.

 

 

 

To answer someone's comparison from page 17 or 18 - Mensa is a "godtier" alliance because they actively cull the shittier members from their ranks. Just like NPO tries to do. Just like BK, tS, TKR, and any winning alliance try to do. BK, TKR, NPO, and tS have high member numbers because of their competence and cultural attractiveness.

 

So next time someone says "well we can't do anything about inactivity" - how about stop trying to make your alliance look like it's not suffering when you're publicly repeating that it is. Kick the shittier and be a 40-50 man competent alliance instead of being a 70-90 man AA relying on inactives. Any arguments about "muh members" or "muh effectiveness without 100 meatshields" just point to mensa as the best example of what quality vs. quantity truly means.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Raymond Reddington

[Auctor]

The posts along the lines of "LOLOL NPO IZ CRYEN" would be make a lot more sense in a context where certain boohoodlers weren't wringing their hands about our use of game mechanics everyone else has 1) used and 2) has equal access to. Or if the stated rationale behind levying the reps wasn't literally spilt pixels.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

The posts along the lines of "LOLOL NPO IZ CRYEN" would be make a lot more sense in a context where certain boohoodlers weren't wringing their hands about our use of game mechanics everyone else has 1) used and 2) has equal access to. Or if the stated rationale behind levying the reps wasn't literally spilt pixels.

 

I don't understand. Is it a fact that "NPO is crying"? Yes. What does reps have anything to do with it? It has been demonstrated very early in the thread that NPO could make up the cost if reps if it signed peace 8 days earlier or so. Why blame others for your sunk cost fallacy?

[Roquentin]

Outside of political reasons for not doing, I sort of wish NPO would just blast their allies for ruining what should've been a won war. NPO has had consistent performance throughout, but their allies have dropped the ball as per usual.

 

 

 

To answer someone's comparison from page 17 or 18 - Mensa is a "godtier" alliance because they actively cull the shittier members from their ranks. Just like NPO tries to do. Just like BK, tS, TKR, and any winning alliance try to do. BK, TKR, NPO, and tS have high member numbers because of their competence and cultural attractiveness.

 

So next time someone says "well we can't do anything about inactivity" - how about stop trying to make your alliance look like it's not suffering when you're publicly repeating that it is. Kick the shittier and be a 40-50 man competent alliance instead of being a 70-90 man AA relying on inactives. Any arguments about "muh members" or "muh effectiveness without 100 meatshields" just point to mensa as the best example of what quality vs. quantity truly means.

 

Well, who could we really blast here? The leaders did what they could. If people are just so out of tune they don't follow orders that are sent out or don't see the game as a priority in terms of showing up, I can't really blame the leaders. I personally know someone in one of the participating alliances and they were so tuned out they didn't know it was happening until I told them and then when they did get on, they didn't launch any wars and logged out.

 

Mensa has a strong community that knew each other from Erep and 52 members isn't that large of a portion of eUSA, I don't think, so it's their very best. They can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't disagree with the sentiment you have here where having standards for members is important, but purging just on its own doesn't make an alliance better and we don't really do it since it's not as beneficial to us and they don't really waste our resources. Maybe you like you said it'd give the alliance a better statistical representation of itself, but that only goes so far. Even though Mensa is very competent at fighting, they wouldn't be able to fight the world alone.

 

edit:

 

 

 

I don't understand. Is it a fact that "NPO is crying"? Yes. What does reps have anything to do with it? It has been demonstrated very early in the thread that NPO could make up the cost if reps if it signed peace 8 days earlier or so. Why blame others for your sunk cost fallacy?

 

That demonstration was based on numbers that aren't realistic. It relied on being able to buy 1500 infra in 800 cities. Estimate the cost for that from 0 or even 500. 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Roquentin

[Sketchy]

I don't understand. Is it a fact that "NPO is crying"? Yes. What does reps have anything to do with it? It has been demonstrated very early in the thread that NPO could make up the cost if reps if it signed peace 8 days earlier or so. Why blame others for your sunk cost fallacy?

 

How do you know they are crying? Are you sitting next to them?

 

I suspect you may not be telling the truth!

[Auctor]

I don't understand. Is it a fact that "NPO is crying"? Yes. What does reps have anything to do with it? It has been demonstrated very early in the thread that NPO could make up the cost if reps if it signed peace 8 days earlier or so. Why blame others for your sunk cost fallacy?

This is just a silly argument. The various members of enemy alliances complaining we're delaying their rebuild can prolly explain how their lessened profits don't actually matter to them in the scheme of things. Why should our lessened profits bother us more than theirs?

 

It's not really a sunk cost fallacy because you're assuming this is being done ultimately for some kind of economic benefit which can only be intrinsically measured in a dollar amount. Or that that dollar amount in a temporary way benefits NPO long term without taking into consideration any other pressures from its membership. That's a pretty narrow view that fails to really grasp the wider issue.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

That demonstration was based on numbers that aren't realistic. It relied on being able to buy 1500 infra in 800 cities. Estimate the cost for that from 0 or even 500. 

 

This isn't some esoteric math. Give me number of cities and infra per city and I will calculate how many days it would take to recover the reps.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

This is just a silly argument. The various members of enemy alliances complaining we're delaying their rebuild can prolly explain how their lessened profits don't actually matter to them in the scheme of things. Why should our lessened profits bother us more than theirs?

 

It's not really a sunk cost fallacy because you're assuming this is being done ultimately for some kind of economic benefit which can only be intrinsically measured in a dollar amount. Or that that dollar amount in a temporary way benefits NPO long term without taking into consideration any other pressures from its membership. That's a pretty narrow view that fails to really grasp the wider issue.

 

On the contrary, what you just said is completely silly. Do you think NPO is causing more damage to the other side by prolonging the conflict? That's false. And given that it's false, you are hurting your position in the long term as well as the short term.

[Auctor]

On the contrary, what you just said is completely silly. Do you think NPO is causing more damage to the other side by prolonging the conflict? That's false. And given that it's false, you are hurting your position in the long term as well as the short term.

That's actually not what I said. I can actually direct you to what I said. It's the exact same post you quoted.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

That's actually not what I said. I can actually direct you to what I said. It's the exact same post you quoted.

 

Stop being disingenious and state your hypothesis clearly.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Kemal Ergenekon

[Sketchy]

Stop being disingenious and state your hypothesis clearly.

 

It was clear you are just stupid.

 

(inb4 another professionally offended baby reports me because he can't read)

Edited October 3, 2016 by Sketchy

[Auctor]

Stop being disingenious and state your hypothesis clearly.

 

 

This is just a silly argument. The various members of enemy alliances complaining we're delaying their rebuild can prolly explain how their lessened profits don't actually matter to them in the scheme of things. Why should our lessened profits bother us more than theirs?

 

It's not really a sunk cost fallacy because you're assuming this is being done ultimately for some kind of economic benefit which can only be intrinsically measured in a dollar amount. Or that that dollar amount in a temporary way benefits NPO long term without taking into consideration any other pressures from its membership. That's a pretty narrow view that fails to really grasp the wider issue.

 

Here you go.

[Foltest]

Well, who could we really blast here? The leaders did what they could. If people are just so out of tune they don't follow orders that are sent out or don't see the game as a priority in terms of showing up, I can't really blame the leaders. I personally know someone in one of the participating alliances and they were so tuned out they didn't know it was happening until I told them and then when they did get on, they didn't launch any wars and logged out.

 

Mensa has a strong community that knew each other from Erep and 52 members isn't that large of a portion of eUSA, I don't think, so it's their very best. They can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't disagree with the sentiment you have here where having standards for members is important, but purging just on its own doesn't make an alliance better and we don't really do it since it's not as beneficial to us and they don't really waste our resources. Maybe you like you said it'd give the alliance a better statistical representation of itself, but that only goes so far. Even though Mensa is very competent at fighting, they wouldn't be able to fight the world alone.

 

edit:

 

 

 

 

That demonstration was based on numbers that aren't realistic. It relied on being able to buy 1500 infra in 800 cities. Estimate the cost for that from 0 or even 500.

If you depend on someone like you mentioned to be a part of a blitz, or cover a certain target, etc - it becomes a problem with your war effort, even though they are a convenient farm for resources.

 

When you only end up declaring 35 wars when you almost have 100 members, just another example, is embarrassing. It has political ramifications. People don't want to forever be in a shittier AA, nor do people want to team up with someone who has a losing record.

 

 

I know we're doing our argument thing in this thread but if anyone, including anyone on our side, reads this I hope they pay attention. Collecting a hive of inactive members is not good for your AA, nor is it good for your coalition, and it's not good for the game.

[Auctor]

Amen. I die a little inside when one of our applicants says they shower. I know that's 10-15 minutes 2-3 times a week they won't be online and we'll be vulnerable.

[Foltest]

Amen. I die a little inside when one of our applicants says they shower. I know that's 10-15 minutes 2-3 times a week they won't be online and we'll be vulnerable.

Your hyperbole of my point doesn't negate it.

 

Roquentin provided an example of someone who wasn't active over the course of multiple days, didn't even know there was something relevant happening, and didn't care when he found out. If that is your standard, then don't come on here and complain that our side is killing the game.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Raymond Reddington

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Here you go.

 

I guess you are slow on the uptake, so I will respond again...

 

"This is just a silly argument. The various members of enemy alliances complaining we're delaying their rebuild can prolly explain how their lessened profits don't actually matter to them in the scheme of things. Why should our lessened profits bother us more than theirs?"

 

Your claim: The lessened profits of your enemies should be at least as much a concern as your own lessened profits.

 

The claim is wrong.

 

Proof: Your enemies have already rebuilt their nations to an extent and keeping you down there with little cost. The fraction of the profits they lose by continuing the war are much less than the fraction of the profits you lose.

 

"It's not really a sunk cost fallacy because you're assuming this is being done ultimately for some kind of economic benefit which can only be intrinsically measured in a dollar amount. Or that that dollar amount in a temporary way benefits NPO long term without taking into consideration any other pressures from its membership. That's a pretty narrow view that fails to really grasp the wider issue."

 

Your claim: Your side is not continuing the war because of economic reasons, but because of a "wider issue."

 

What's the "wider issue"? Based on your short post, it could be (1) long term power balance (2) internal unrest. It is not clear. Hence why asked for clarification.

 

The claim is wrong on both accounts.

 

Proof for (1): Long term power balance depends on (i) economic capabilities (ii) activity (iii) which alliance is located on which sphere. We already established that delaying peace is hurting your side with respect to (i). It has no effect (or a negative one) on activity since the prolonged conflict isn't making your people "git gud", and making them quit the game or go inactive in the best case scenario, (iii) you are not making any friends by your constant whining and blaming the defenders for your failed offensive, so this point is moot as well.

 

Proof for (2): While I have no access to your forums, I am pretty sure your members must be !@#$ing more about why you are still in the war that you will lose no matter what, as opposed to ending it early and pay reps. If this is not the case, you should still make the decision that is good for the alliance despite the political fallout. If the reverse is true (i.e. the alliance members want peace), the point is already moot.

 

There you have it. Let me know if you need more clarifications.

[Buorhann]

 

What if it had been VE/Rose attacking you before you could get more of your pieces for your sphere ready and you lost? Would it have been blamed on you?

 

Yes.  It's the job of the position.  To shoulder the blame, whether it's his fault or not.  Plus, given his position, he should have feelers out to know if VE/Rose is attacking.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

It was clear you are just stupid.

 

(inb4 another professionally offended baby reports me because he can't read)

 

Well that's factually incorrect. All Mensans have IQ several standard deviations above the plebs.

 

I don't report people over insults, stop projecting.

[The Mad Titan]

 

Well, who could we really blast here? The leaders did what they could. If people are just so out of tune they don't follow orders that are sent out or don't see the game as a priority in terms of showing up, I can't really blame the leaders. I personally know someone in one of the participating alliances and they were so tuned out they didn't know it was happening until I told them and then when they did get on, they didn't launch any wars and logged out.

 

Maybe not internally, but externally. Your friends have let you down, and its up to NPO to decide which allies are deadweight. NPO for the first phase of war did well, however BK could rely on its allies to help, NPO can't.

 

Amen. I die a little inside when one of our applicants says they shower. I know that's 10-15 minutes 2-3 times a week they won't be online and we'll be vulnerable.

 

There have been three times where Gov has actively asked us to be on at update since I have joined, 1 for the opening blitz and 2 this war for double buys to help tie up NPO/UPN. We have large activity because people want to fight. We purge 30+ people a month for not being active, so it is possible.

[Auctor]

I guess you are slow on the uptake, so I will respond again...

 

"This is just a silly argument. The various members of enemy alliances complaining we're delaying their rebuild can prolly explain how their lessened profits don't actually matter to them in the scheme of things. Why should our lessened profits bother us more than theirs?"

 

Your claim: The lessened profits of your enemies should be at least as much a concern as your own lessened profits.

 

The claim is wrong.

 

Proof: Your enemies have already rebuilt their nations to an extent and keeping you down there with little cost. The fraction of the profits they lose by continuing the war are much less than the fraction of the profits you lose.

 

"It's not really a sunk cost fallacy because you're assuming this is being done ultimately for some kind of economic benefit which can only be intrinsically measured in a dollar amount. Or that that dollar amount in a temporary way benefits NPO long term without taking into consideration any other pressures from its membership. That's a pretty narrow view that fails to really grasp the wider issue."

 

Your claim: Your side is not continuing the war because of economic reasons, but because of a "wider issue."

 

What's the "wider issue"? Based on your short post, it could be (1) long term power balance (2) internal unrest. It is not clear. Hence why asked for clarification.

 

The claim is wrong on both accounts.

 

Proof for (1): Long term power balance depends on (i) economic capabilities (ii) activity (iii) which alliance is located on which sphere. We already established that delaying peace is hurting your side with respect to (i). It has no effect (or a negative one) on activity since the prolonged conflict isn't making your people "git gud", and making them quit the game or go inactive in the best case scenario, (iii) you are not making any friends by your constant whining and blaming the defenders for your failed offensive, so this point is moot as well.

 

Proof for (2): While I have no access to your forums, I am pretty sure your members must be !@#$ more about why you are still in the war that you will lose no matter what, as opposed to ending it early and pay reps. If this is not the case, you should still make the decision that is good for the alliance despite the political fallout. If the reverse is true (i.e. the alliance members want peace), the point is already moot.

 

There you have it. Let me know if you need more clarifications.

 

Literally none of this is reflective of what I said. Go back and try again.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Literally none of this is reflective of what I said. Go back and try again.

 

If you wish to remain a babbling fool, you are free to do so.

[Buorhann]

>replying to Auctor

[Kemal Ergenekon]

>replying to Auctor

 

Is he Steve-tier? If so, I will stop feeding him.

[Sketchy]

Well that's factually incorrect. All Mensans have IQ several standard deviations above the plebs.

 

I don't report people over insults, stop projecting.

 

Sorry, my recent run ins with the law have made me suspicious and maybe a tad paranoid. I apologize for assuming that because you shared the same inability to read as the guy who reported me last time, you must also be as professionally offended.

 

That being said. You still can't read for shit.

[Buorhann]

Is he Steve-tier? If so, I will stop feeding him.

 

Pretty much.