Sisyphus Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 syndisphere chooses who to roll next, with no repercussions. We don't get the luxury of choosing who to roll next though. You guys are lined up at the door, forcing yourselves under our heel. For once I'd like to be in control of my own hegemoney. 2 Quote One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sans Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 >actually believing IQ is trying to create a hegemoney. We're literally trying to do the exact opposite. We're making the game interesting again and you're holding grudges over us. Respect our desire to actually have an interesting political landscape, unlike the last few months where syndisphere chooses who to roll next, with no repercussions. >make the game interesting again No, it was a power play to take control of the game. I don't know about you, but I sure don't find having multiple allies planning to roll me, "interesting". I don't see the tangled mess that is the treatyweb, "interesting". I just see a group that wanted to get out from the shadow of another, but went about it in a really crappy and shady way. Its fine if that was the goal, but try to cover it up now that you're failing with euphemisms. Own up to your malicious goals, people would respect you more for it. Quote “ Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. †–The First Ideal of the Windrunners, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) I'd also like to point out that all of this military build up occurred when it came to light that Mensa was going to roll VE for the whole deception bit on Syndicate. So indirectly, there are people who were in full support of that after it came out. Which I'm not against, but this whole "Oh woe Syndisphere dominates the game and is rolling people with no repercussions" - don't get caught plotting against us dumbasses. How exactly? Defending our allies in HBE and Lordaeron isn't plotting against you and they asked for help in the event of an attack on VE. Having two allies get rolled on their own would have been unacceptable. > peel off #1 or #2 alliance into your bloc > establish total numerical and score superiority > declare war against only grouping of opponents who could challenge you > claim no interest in hegemoney > ok By your actions shall ye be judged. > You're denying them agency there. They were bored of your desire to stagnate things. > Not really see: upper tier and everyone knows that our side's paper numbers were never reflective of material reality, so any amount of score was needed to even have a fighting chance against the most hard alliances to potentially fight. Being potentially up against Mensa/TKR/tS/Guardian/etc. is nightmare mode. > Grouping of opponents continously militarized on and off and IQ didn't bite until we were sure something would happen. >ok I'd also like to point out that all of this military build up occurred when it came to light that Mensa was going to roll VE for the whole deception bit on Syndicate. So indirectly, there are people who were in full support of that after it came out. Which I'm not against, but this whole "Oh woe Syndisphere dominates the game and is rolling people with no repercussions" - don't get caught plotting against us dumbasses. As for the Seeker stuff, that was all him weighing his options since he was in an interesting position as a swing alliance. I don't think I ever tried to get him to screw tS or anything and my only comment was basically "Zed is relatively chilled out". I'm not really sure why you were expecting complete fealty after only treatying VE after IQ despite them having been trying for a long time before. Should have been a bit more realistic. Hey do you any of you read Nietzsche? I just got assigned his Genealogy of Morals and the discourse on master/slave morality seem to have some interesting connections to this thing about how Syndi set up the culture [iC] also roq sucks [/iC] Yeah, it's partially a reference to that and a reference to Gramsci's conception of cultural hegemoney. What we were trying to before would be a transvaluation of values and trying to overturn the whole "only winning matters. gotta get with the winners. growth is an absolute good." mantra that exists here, not to get too pretentious here. Edited April 25, 2017 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanek26 Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 It all makes sense now. We've been playing on Easy mode and NPO is playing on nightmare mode. No wonder they struggle so much. Sheepy plz nerf us more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 If you have all the best fighting alliances on one side, how is it not nightmare mode to fight against them? No one else is going to "git gud" to a level of similar competitiveness and we just have to deal with the reality. It's fine with me if you want to keep fighting less militarily capable alliances, but let's call a spade a spade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 I mean, Mensa has no problems with that I'm sure. 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 If you have all the best fighting alliances on one side, how is it not nightmare mode to fight against them? No one else is going to "git gud" to a level of similar competitiveness and we just have to deal with the reality. It's fine with me if you want to keep fighting less militarily capable alliances, but let's call a spade a spade. It turned into nightmare mode the moment heavy hitters like your alliance and BK decided to undercommit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 Wouldn't be surprised if IQ as a whole wasn't trying to create a new hegemoney actually; during my times allied to BoC they showed a willingness to create a fun fight for both sides rather than a complete obliteration of one. I dunno. I'm with you in that I don't think Zodiac intended to establish a hegemoney. I think them wanting to shake things up was fairly genuine. But there's a supremacy clause in IQ, and BK and NPO both wanted one (imo. It's a point that I think is obvious enough from the way they've played to this point, so I don't intend to debate it... feel free to call it my opinion though.) So I would say IQ as a whole was pushed towards that. Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) It turned into nightmare mode the moment heavy hitters like your alliance and BK decided to undercommit. f I don't think BK exactly undercommitted. If you're referencing not doing more suicidal updecs on TKR, we didn't have enough people who could match TKR nations that had full military and the front was never supposed to be us being the only ones to counter TKR in the first few days. TKR hitting SK instead of BK meant the people who were only entering in defense of BK went on Pantheon instead. I dunno. I'm with you in that I don't think Zodiac intended to establish a hegemoney. I think them wanting to shake things up was fairly genuine. But there's a supremacy clause in IQ, and BK and NPO both wanted one (imo. It's a point that I think is obvious enough from the way they've played to this point, so I don't intend to debate it... feel free to call it my opinion though.) So I would say IQ as a whole was pushed towards that. Um, how does supremacy clause = hegemoney? The reason we'd want a supremacy clause is pretty obvious. If one of the alliances that doesn't like us hit us, it would essentially cancel out our bloc partners without it. Edited April 25, 2017 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avruch Posted April 25, 2017 Author Share Posted April 25, 2017 If you have all the best fighting alliances on one side, how is it not nightmare mode to fight against them? No one else is going to "git gud" to a level of similar competitiveness and we just have to deal with the reality. It's fine with me if you want to keep fighting less militarily capable alliances, but let's call a spade a spade. All the best alliances didn't start on one side. We didn't intentionally 'stagnate things' (nor is it fair to say we enjoy that state of affairs, we just haven't rushed to handicap ourselves to change it). The 'material reality' here is that our team, which was initially an underdog, adapted more quickly and effectively to game mechanics in order to overcome our enemies. You are trying to turn this into an instance of intentionally game-destroying behavior on our part, when actually we merely played the game. I'll leave the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)-related irony of such accusations from NPO for others to point out again. I think what happened with BK is that they grew into a giant blob alliance, changed over to new leadership who lacked the personal relationships with their sphere that prior leaders had, and decided they could 'make their mark' by aggressively re-spinning the treaty web using cloak-and-dagger diplomacy. Their motives are fairly transparent, as is the complete disregard this BK leadership cadre has for relationships and their attendant obligations. (And good luck with that.) I'm sure for NPO this looked like a lifeline back to relevancy, and it does reflect well on your ability to bullshit the gullible. But you can't execute, and in this game at least you never have been able to and it doesn't look like BK has been able to change that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) If you have all the best fighting alliances on one side, how is it not nightmare mode to fight against them? I like that you said this in previous wars, peeled some alliances off synsdisphere, and are still saying it. I guess Zodiac, CS, and BK are just garbage...? Edit: Here's the thing. Any alliance needs support to win. Edited April 25, 2017 by Spaceman Thrax 1 Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) All the best alliances didn't start on one side. We didn't intentionally 'stagnate things' (nor is it fair to say we enjoy that state of affairs, we just haven't rushed to handicap ourselves to change it). The 'material reality' here is that our team, which was initially an underdog, adapted more quickly and effectively to game mechanics in order to overcome our enemies. You are trying to turn this into an instance of intentionally game-destroying behavior on our part, when actually we merely played the game. I'll leave the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)-related irony of such accusations from NPO for others to point out again. I think what happened with BK is that they grew into a giant blob alliance, changed over to new leadership who lacked the personal relationships with their sphere that prior leaders had, and decided they could 'make their mark' by aggressively re-spinning the treaty web using cloak-and-dagger diplomacy. Their motives are fairly transparent, as is the complete disregard this BK leadership cadre has for relationships and their attendant obligations. (And good luck with that.) I'm sure for NPO this looked like a lifeline back to relevancy, and it does reflect well on your ability to bullshit the gullible. But you can't execute, and in this game at least you never have been able to and it doesn't look like BK has been able to change that. I get the propaganda thing is to say you were the underdog, but frankly that was never the case. Your only opposition were people who constantly questioned working with one another(tC and paragon) and never had a decisive plan against you, enabling victories despite on an paper statistical disadvantage. They were divided and conquered all too easily and we all knew that each score point wasn't reflective of fighting capability. You can keep pretending otherwise, but there's a reason people always tried to switch to your side. You do realize Strum was supportive and has been around? You can try to make it seem like a shift based on Curu, but he was doing the FA beforehand too and I had to negotiate peace terms directly with him twice. Nice opinion. I like that you said this in previous wars, peeled some alliances off synsdisphere, and are still saying it. I guess Zodiac, CS, and BK are just garbage...? Edit: Here's the thing. Any alliance needs support to win. Nope. Let's look at it. I don't think any of those would say they're as potent as TKR/Mensa/tS as a group. You're saying we peeled them off, while tS got Rose, so there's that. Edited April 25, 2017 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) Nope. Let's look at it. I don't think any of those would say they're as potent as TKR/Mensa/tS as a group. You're saying we peeled them off, while tS got Rose, so there's that. There's no reason they shouldn't be. Anyone, probably including Rose, would have said Rose was terrible. Then all of a sudden they start doing well. Why is that? I dunno. Kinda a tangent, but since we're talking about war performance anyway... I think the divided alliances are too self-concerned to fight effectively. If more of you pushed the throttle for your allies benefit, I think there would be a lot less simpering on these forums. Edited April 25, 2017 by Spaceman Thrax Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 There's no reason they shouldn't be. Anyone, probably including Rose, would have said Rose was terrible. Then all of a sudden they start doing well. Why is that? I dunno. Kinda a tangent, but since we're talking about war performance anyway... I think the divided alliances are too self-concerned to fight effectively. If more of you pushed the throttle for your allies benefit, I think there would be a lot less simpering on these forums. It wasn't sudden. They were able to do well in the past and they'll even say they did a good job last June and they did. In this instance, they had counters relieving them and weren't fighting tS/Mensa/tC/Guardian as usual. This allowed them to shine. They did make reforms, but the capability was always there and usually undone by leaks or other factors. They did have some fat they trimmed, but I don't think anyone would say the core of current Rose sucked in the past and then changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) They did make reforms, but the capability was always there and usually undone by leaks or other factors. This just reads to me like saying "They had capability, but never realized it". Which is true, but doesn't matter. Any alliance has capability. Most would say their performance in the past sucked, and does not now. Some of that comes down to reforms, and some of it comes down to having allies who are willing to back them up. But that also has a political facet: Rose in the past was reluctant to spearhead their own conflicts politically, so no one wanted to help them when they did. There was pullback. This time they pushed the throttle, and when they did more of their allies and friends rallied around them. That's what I mean. If you under-commit, you will lose, because everyone else around you is going to lose. Edited April 25, 2017 by Spaceman Thrax 1 Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 It wasn't sudden. They were able to do well in the past and they'll even say they did a good job last June and they did. In this instance, they had counters relieving them and weren't fighting tS/Mensa/tC/Guardian as usual. This allowed them to shine. They did make reforms, but the capability was always there and usually undone by leaks or other factors. They did have some fat they trimmed, but I don't think anyone would say the core of current Rose sucked in the past and then changed. They aight, but now they got a dub, it is now time for them to open the blast shields to their heart and be the change that they want to be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) This just reads to me like saying "They had capability, but never realized it". Which is true, but doesn't matter. Any alliance has capability. Most would say their performance in the past sucked, and does not now. Some of that comes down to reforms, and some of it comes down to having allies who are willing to back them up. But that also has a political facet: Rose in the past was reluctant to spearhead their own conflicts politically, so no one wanted to help them when they did. There was pullback. This time they pushed the throttle, and when they did more of their allies and friends rallied around them. That's what I mean. If you under-commit, you will lose. They did realize it. They hit tS with a good blitz last June and Partisan even said do. Rose spearheaded 168 day on their own and got wrecked since everyone on your side knew it was coming due to leaks and you had multiple alliances ready to pile on them. How is getting hit pushing the throttle? pretty sure Pantheon and Mensa were ready to defend . I don't get the undercommitment angle. Edited April 25, 2017 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avruch Posted April 25, 2017 Author Share Posted April 25, 2017 I get the propaganda thing is to say you were the underdog, but frankly that was never the case. Your only opposition were people who constantly questioned working with one another(tC and paragon) and never had a decisive plan against you, enabling victories despite on an paper statistical disadvantage. They were divided and conquered all too easily and we all knew that each score point wasn't reflective of fighting capability. You can keep pretending otherwise, but there's a reason people always tried to switch to your side. We were the underdog, definitively. You weren't even playing this game then, so I'm not sure how you can confidently opine about it. Did you think we started out beating everyone from the very first minute? Were you not aware that we were variously enemies with VE, Rose, DEIC and UPN when each were in the top 5 and one was usually #1? "Always tried to switch to our side" what ahistorical nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) They did realize it. They hit tS with a good blitz last June and Partisan even said do. Rose spearheaded 168 day on their own and got wrecked since everyone on your side knew it was coming due to leaks and you had multiple alliances ready to pile on them. How is getting hit pushing the throttle? pretty sure Pantheon and Mensa were ready to defend . I don't get the undercommitment angle. I'm definitely remembering the one they pulled when I was FA most strongly, so there's a bit of bias there. 168 had a long stall, as I recall, which is why that counter got lined up. They looked reluctant. They got attacked this war and still have over 150 offensive wars. That's very significant, hard fighting, imo, and a fairly large difference from earlier conflicts. Edited April 25, 2017 by Spaceman Thrax Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) We were the underdog, definitively. You weren't even playing this game then, so I'm not sure how you can confidently opine about it. Did you think we started out beating everyone from the very first minute? Were you not aware that we were variously enemies with VE, Rose, DEIC and UPN when each were in the top 5 and one was usually #1? "Always tried to switch to our side" what ahistorical nonsense. I wasn't sure how far you were going back. I think you're mistaken in terms of how long I've been around. My nation's start date is contemporary with Mensa's. If you're going back further than Syndisphere, that's another story. You were enemies with them but they didn't work together. In Proxy War, you managed to just get Paragon alone and then in Oktoberfest just Covenant. That's what I mean. They never helped each other when it was needed nor at the right times. They were constantly divided and didn't have a set a plan and you won that way. I can confidently opine because I was there. Edited April 25, 2017 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vack Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 > Not really see: upper tier and everyone knows that our side's paper numbers were never reflective of material reality, so any amount of score was needed to even have a fighting chance against the most hard alliances to potentially fight. Being potentially up against Mensa/TKR/tS/Guardian/etc. is nightmare mode. His wording was "numerical and score superiority". You definitely had more numbers and you definitely had higher total score. So yes, really. If you can take anything away from this, it's that your "submarining" strategy ain't gonna work and you need to get a legit mid tier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 His wording was "numerical and score superiority". You definitely had more numbers and you definitely had higher total score. So yes, really. If you can take anything away from this, it's that your "submarining" strategy ain't gonna work and you need to get a legit mid tier. It's possible to not do well with more numbers and higher total score. I would think you'd know this. This was never meant to be contingent on our "submarining" strategy and multiple things went wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avruch Posted April 25, 2017 Author Share Posted April 25, 2017 I wasn't sure how far you were going back. I think you're mistaken in terms of how long I've been around. My nation's start date is contemporary with Mensa's. If you're going back further than Syndisphere, that's another story. You were enemies with them but they didn't work together. In Proxy War, you managed to just get Paragon alone and then in Oktoberfest just Covenant. That's what I mean. They never helped each other when it was needed nor at the right times. They were constantly divided and didn't have a set a plan and you won that way. I can confidently opine because I was there. We beat them despite the odds. That's what underdog means. Obviously the definition of underdog is not limited to those who only lose, since that wouldn't be a very appealing descriptor. It's interesting that you claim I robbed BK of their agency in joining your shiny bloc, while attributing our enemies losses to a massive structural disadvantage and a failure to overcome it. As for your presence, fair enough - apparently you well predate the founding of NPO in PNW, so you were present. Just not paying close attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 We beat them despite the odds. That's what underdog means. Obviously the definition of underdog is not limited to those who only lose, since that wouldn't be a very appealing descriptor. It's interesting that you claim I robbed BK of their agency in joining your shiny bloc, while attributing our enemies losses to a massive structural disadvantage and a failure to overcome it. As for your presence, fair enough - apparently you well predate the founding of NPO in PNW, so you were present. Just not paying close attention. I'm pretty sure for them they didn't think the odds looked good. I don't think Paragon went in thinking Proxy was a sure win, for instance and Keegoz has indicated as such. I'm pretty sure people leading those alliances at the time didn't think they had a massive advantage going in since they knew who they were fighting. The odds weren't as long for you as you're describing. I'm not robbing them of agency and they all knew about those structural disadvantages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 I get the propaganda thing is to say you were the underdog, but frankly that was never the case. What game have you been playing? 1 Quote One must imagine Sisyphus happy. 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.