War. War Never Changes.

[Buorhann]

The sad thing, win or lose, Syndisphere was going to stick together, one of the reasons I feel like it was wrong to rush, or go to war in this scenario.

 

There's a reason why we are who we are, and why we stick together.

 

One of the problems that IQSphere and Friends has is a unwillingness to adjust to the current meta.  They're too busy trying to develop the Bottom Tier Powerhouse as the new meta and that's just not going to work.

 

If they had done this a year or so ago, it would've worked.  Not now.  Not with how the current war module is.

 

Anyways, I'm starting to deviate.  While Mensa had no issues of their allies allying up with VE and/or HBE (If that was in the talks) - Mensa itself would not ally with them.  We have our reasons why.  None of it is due to a grudge either, but the way how they play.  Just doesn't suit us at all.  Same thing I said to Roq in regards to NPO.

 

Our current allies and friends are willing to adjust according to what is needed.  We like flexibility.  Every conflict we've been in has forced us to adjust to something new.  Literally, every war has had a different strat.  And we were well aware of this Bottom Tier strat that NPO/BK were trying to work.  We adjusted to it as the war progressed.

 

------------------------------

 

While BK, Chola, BoC, and CS deserve props for willing themselves to change for the reasons they state - we, in Mensa, cannot force ourselves to do something different "for the game".  It's not our job to "make the game better for others" (And even if we did change things up, what's to say it would be better?  The same alliances will still !@#$ up like usual till they learn or get better leaders who are more responsible).  It's our job to look out for our and our allies interests.

[Livius Clades]

The war might have ended but the shitposting always continues. 

I understand it was merely a joke.

[Talostastic]

I understand it was merely a joke.

IQ finally surrendered, ending a month long joke.

 

At least their joke was funny.

[Kastor]

There's a reason why we are who we are, and why we stick together.

 

One of the problems that IQSphere and Friends has is a unwillingness to adjust to the current meta.  They're too busy trying to develop the Bottom Tier Powerhouse as the new meta and that's just not going to work.

 

If they had done this a year or so ago, it would've worked.  Not now.  Not with how the current war module is.

 

Anyways, I'm starting to deviate.  While Mensa had no issues of their allies allying up with VE and/or HBE (If that was in the talks) - Mensa itself would not ally with them.  We have our reasons why.  None of it is due to a grudge either, but the way how they play.  Just doesn't suit us at all.  Same thing I said to Roq in regards to NPO.

 

Our current allies and friends are willing to adjust according to what is needed.  We like flexibility.  Every conflict we've been in has forced us to adjust to something new.  Literally, every war has had a different strat.  And we were well aware of this Bottom Tier strat that NPO/BK were trying to work.  We adjusted to it as the war progressed.

 

------------------------------

 

While BK, Chola, BoC, and CS deserve props for willing themselves to change for the reasons they state - we, in Mensa, cannot force ourselves to do something different "for the game".  It's not our job to "make the game better for others" (And even if we did change things up, what's to say it would be better?  The same alliances will still !@#$ up like usual till they learn or get better leaders who are more responsible).  It's our job to look out for our and our allies interests.

I would disagree with that. BK has moved into mid tier, as has Zodiac and CS gad several high tier nations. NPO stayed low to avoid being deemed a threat by Sybdisphere, whether that was the smartest move or not, is debatable. As for others, Acadia, VE had several mid tier nations. Lordaeron was low due to being a relatively newer alliance, as was Cerberus. It just seemed to work out that majority of the lower tier was on this side. Had Rose not moved to Syndisphere this would've been a very different war.

 

Excluding BK, it just seemed like newer alliances were willing to leave and "take down the hegemoney" as opposed to the older alliances.

[Roquentin]

I would disagree with that. BK has moved into mid tier, as has Zodiac and CS gad several high tier nations. NPO stayed low to avoid being deemed a threat by Sybdisphere, whether that was the smartest move or not, is debatable. As for others, Acadia, VE had several mid tier nations. Lordaeron was low due to being a relatively newer alliance, as was Cerberus. It just seemed to work out that majority of the lower tier was on this side. Had Rose not moved to Syndisphere this would've been a very different war.

 

Excluding BK, it just seemed like newer alliances were willing to leave and "take down the hegemoney" as opposed to the older alliances.

This is basically it.  No one thought some sort of low tier strat would be OP and win the war outright nor was a there a deliberate effort to pool all the low tier alliances together. We just worked with what we had and I had never envisioned the low tier orientation to have as much of an impact as it did.

 

It was intended solely to afford us an ability to defend ourselves since our limited number of allies before BK/CS/Zodiac took a chance did not have the numbers to take on Mensa/tS/TKR/etc and we had effectively become the replacement villain for the traditional Paracov alliances. If we were going to be scrutinized in the same fashion as a peak Rose for instance, then there was no issue denying people the satisfaction of having even a limited number of outnumbered targets in their core ranges. The numbers on our side will always be padded since most alliances who were in it aren't particularly elitist in orientation so it wasn't as if there was an entire coalition was practicing an updeclare strat in unison or able to counter the downsells effectively(due to less update activity). Some nations had a tough time adjusting to the long grind style of warfare.  The OO/tS split for instance would have easily had more balance as long as alliances didn't pile onto one specific side.

 

edit: spaced it out a bit per Senry's request.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Roquentin

[Kastor]

This is basically it.  No one thought some sort of low tier strat would be OP and win the war outright nor was a there a deliberate effort to pool all the low tier alliances together. We just worked with what we had and I had never envisioned the low tier orientation to have as much of an impact as it did. It was intended solely to afford us an ability to defend ourselves since our limited number of allies before BK/CS/Zodiac took a chance did not have the numbers to take on Mensa/tS/TKR/etc and we had effectively become the replacement villain for the traditional Paracov alliances. If we were going to be scrutinized in the same fashion as a peak Rose for instance, then there was no issue denying people the satisfaction of having even a limited number of outnumbered targets in their core ranges. The numbers on our side will always be padded since most alliances who were in it aren't particularly elitist in orientation so it wasn't as if there was an entire coalition was practicing updeclare strat in unison or able to counter the downsells effectively(due to less update activity). Some nations had a tough time adjusting to the long grind style of warfare.  The OO/tS split for instance would have easily had more balance as long as alliances didn't pile onto one specific side.

 

I'm still upset I'll never be able to see a OO/tS war with

 

TKR/BK/Pan/TCW/ vs tS/Mensa/Rose/Guard/ that would've bee the best war. :/

[ArcKnox]

 

[Eumirbago]

I would disagree with that. BK has moved into mid tier, as has Zodiac and CS gad several high tier nations. NPO stayed low to avoid being deemed a threat by Sybdisphere, whether that was the smartest move or not, is debatable. As for others, Acadia, VE had several mid tier nations. Lordaeron was low due to being a relatively newer alliance, as was Cerberus. It just seemed to work out that majority of the lower tier was on this side. Had Rose not moved to Syndisphere this would've been a very different war.

 

Excluding BK, it just seemed like newer alliances were willing to leave and "take down the hegemoney" as opposed to the older alliances.

If Rose was on that side, they would have disbanded.

[Eumirbago]

I'm still upset I'll never be able to see a OO/tS war with

 

TKR/BK/Pan/TCW/ vs tS/Mensa/Rose/Guard/ that would've bee the best war. :/

Stay upset, but continue being the change you wanna be.

[Buorhann]

>no one thought low tier strat would be OP

>stayed mostly in low tier

>initiated a war while dominating the low tier

 

Never change guys.

[Felkey]

There's a reason why we are who we are, and why we stick together.

 

One of the problems that IQSphere and Friends has is a unwillingness to adjust to the current meta.  They're too busy trying to develop the Bottom Tier Powerhouse as the new meta and that's just not going to work.

 

If they had done this a year or so ago, it would've worked.  Not now.  Not with how the current war module is.

 

Anyways, I'm starting to deviate.  While Mensa had no issues of their allies allying up with VE and/or HBE (If that was in the talks) - Mensa itself would not ally with them.  We have our reasons why.  None of it is due to a grudge either, but the way how they play.  Just doesn't suit us at all.  Same thing I said to Roq in regards to NPO.

 

Our current allies and friends are willing to adjust according to what is needed.  We like flexibility.  Every conflict we've been in has forced us to adjust to something new.  Literally, every war has had a different strat.  And we were well aware of this Bottom Tier strat that NPO/BK were trying to work.  We adjusted to it as the war progressed.

 

------------------------------

 

While BK, Chola, BoC, and CS deserve props for willing themselves to change for the reasons they state - we, in Mensa, cannot force ourselves to do something different "for the game".  It's not our job to "make the game better for others" (And even if we did change things up, what's to say it would be better?  The same alliances will still !@#$ up like usual till they learn or get better leaders who are more responsible).  It's our job to look out for our and our allies interests.

 

 

>no one thought low tier strat would be OP

>stayed mostly in low tier

>initiated a war while dominating the low tier

 

Never change guys.

Well, they haven't thus far...

[Roquentin]

>no one thought low tier strat would be OP

>stayed mostly in low tier

>initiated a war while dominating the low tier

 

Never change guys.

 

You're making it seem as if there was an option not to war. Everyone knows more time would have been good for IQ. For IQ, it was pretty simply, war or get warred or have an ally warred. If it's directed at me specifically,  I would have never been able to push for a war successfully if it was just based off of me wanting to do it nor would I have been able to come into the information that led to the decision to declare. It ultimately comes down to the depletion of trust between the alliances on both sides that had ties between each other.  

[Spaceman Thrax]

I am against stagnating the game, but had no choice but to declare on the same people for the third consecutive war. It may look like an attack but the fact that I went offensive with all my new friends and won't show any proof of why is just syndisphere propaganda. Unfortunately even some of my own allies have started buying it, which is why everyone but me has stopped talking about the CB (and many have said they're pissed there wasn't one in backchannels), but this is just super-effective Syndisphere circlejerk that I am a victim of. The fact that I had a numerical advantage and was allied to virtually everyone in my alliance's tier when this war happened was an accident. I actually give a crap about alliances other than my own... the fact that I dragged this war out until everyone was beaten but my own alliance is another weird coincidence.... man how do those keep happening!?!?!?

 

^ About right...?

Edited June 3, 2017 by Spaceman Thrax

[ArcKnox]

That's his story and he's sticking to it

[PackAnimal]

I don't see why people complain about the lack of CB, isn't was itself a reason? If IQ hadn't attacked then eventually Syndi would have. If anyone says turbulent then the game would be boring as hell, I'm just happy someone did something and came very close to winning several times

[Spaceman Thrax]

I don't see why people complain about the lack of CB, isn't was itself a reason? If IQ hadn't attacked then eventually Syndi would have. If anyone says turbulent then the game would be boring as hell, I'm just happy someone did something and came very close to winning several times

 

Speaking for myself (dunno about other people, naturally) the only reason I complain about it is that it was alluded to exist, and used as a justification by several alliances for why they declared, then never shown.

 

If they'd simply said "We don't have a CB because we don't need one, war is fun, screw you" it wouldn't be an issue, at least for me. My reason for commenting is a directly contradictory public narrative, that involves what I suspect to be outright lies, which I just find kinda insulting to everyone's intelligence.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Spaceman Thrax

[Kastor]

>no one thought low tier strat would be OP

>stayed mostly in low tier

>initiated a war while dominating the low tier

Never change guys.

More like we adapted to what we had. I can't speak for why only predominantly lower tier alliances were interested in joining IQ but it is what it is.

[Roquentin]

^ About right...?

Third time?It'd only be two and again, I didn't have the juice to push this forward. Keep in mind who set the cycle in motion as far as I'm concerned. If people didn't want to stagnate the game, they would have done something else rather than circling the wagons when we signed BK.  If anyone had an issue with the CB, they were free to ask about it. Getting upset after the fact isn't really something I can control and since I wasn't the initial recipient of the information, their decision to not dump it is one I will continue to respect. Nor was I able to drag it out unilaterally. I preferred continuing while damage could still be done, but I always going to go with what the consensus decision was, since the important thing for me was unity. So if anyone that had wanted the war to end presented their case and gotten the rest of the coalition to agree, I would have just gone with it as long as they were looking out for the long-term interests of the other coalition members. The tier distribution is ultimately a product of who was willing to shake things up. The only top 5 major alliance(pre-Zodiac merger) that had urge to do was BK and they weren't upper tier and most of my planning until the treaty discussion  revolved around having to fight OO once the NAP expired since it didn't appear a split would occur. None of the upper tier AAs ever tried reaching out to the Paracov remnants to try to shake things up.

[Spaceman Thrax]

Blah blah tiresome cyclical whining blah Syndisphere is the worst and you should disregard how I do the same things I accuse them of only not as well blah blah glossing over actual points blah blah victim complex blah

 

Looking forward to whatever proactive changes you push through in the next three months. Save us from ourselves, oh dynamic one.

[Boony]

Looking forward to whatever proactive changes you push through in the next three months. Save us from ourselves, oh dynamic one.

You're too far gone. God couldn't save you.

[Spaceman Thrax]

You're too far gone. God couldn't save you.

 

Good thing you guys have Roq then. Make sure you do whatever he says. It's going to work next time.

[Ripper]

Good thing you guys have Roq then. Make sure you do whatever he says. It's going to work next time.

 

Pssss... Boony is in Arrgh.

[Spaceman Thrax]

Pssss... Boony is in Arrgh.

 

I know. But Roq is going to need all hands on deck to save the game. You all must do your duty.

 

Edit: (I'm having fun being super facetious. If someone replies to me with points that aren't totally bogus I'll go back to putting effort mode. )

Edited June 3, 2017 by Spaceman Thrax

[Boony]

I know. But Roq is going to need all hands on deck to save the game. You all must do your duty.

 

Edit: (I'm having fun being super facetious. If someone replies to me with points that aren't totally bogus I'll go back to putting effort mode. )

You can't save the game. You can only destroy it so it doesn't take anymore lives.

[Roquentin]

I know. But Roq is going to need all hands on deck to save the game. You all must do your duty.

 

Edit: (I'm having fun being super facetious. If someone replies to me with points that aren't totally bogus I'll go back to putting effort mode. )

To the contrary, I hope everyone else gets tired of difficult wars and then decides to take the opportunity break out of the cycle until we're the only alliance remaining outside of Syndisphere and everyone will be free from being used in plots and enjoy a future of pure prosperity.

 

Two can play this game.