Jump to content

War. War Never Changes.


Lordship
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't think BK is going to do this at all. You're welcome to try it, but it's not going to be a thing.

 

An alliance that doesn't adapt isn't a winning alliance.  Playstyles need to adjust over time to the situation at hand.  Otherwise, they get stuck in the same gear and fall behind the pack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If everyone cancelled the majority of their treaties and instead agreed to all have only a few each, all that would happen is someone during a war would simply activate a few under the table gentleman agreements and win that way. Don't fool yourselves into thinking less treaties would give IQ and paracov any sort of advantage by imposing a handicap on syndisphere.

 

Treaties essentially mean nothing, it's the underlying relationship which matters and that is what IQ and paracov fail to learn or even comprehend.

 

Isn't this what the paperless alliances tried to prove before, but it didn't work out very well for them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, the fact of the matter is that if the way a group of people are playing a game is so strong that it ruins the game then the game is broken. You can't put the responsibility of a game's defect on people playing the game well.

 

If one play style is the only way to either get on top or enjoying the game and only a handful of people can play it, the constant losers are either doing something extremely wrong or the game is broken. Cause as far as I know none of the major players or alliances are cheating, so it's all within the structures of the game.

  • Upvote 1

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*

4nVL9WJ.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. Syndicate discusses war plans with allies which gets back to us.

5.war happens.

 

I would have been fine with another month or two with no war, but the intelligence prompted IQ to act.

 

 

Oh, is this the mythical CB you threw your new allies into the meat grinder for?

 

Pics or it didn't happen.

  • Upvote 2

The Coalition Discord: https://discord.gg/WBzNRGK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, the fact of the matter is that if the way a group of people are playing a game is so strong that it ruins the game then the game is broken. You can't put the responsibility of a game's defect on people playing the game well.

 

If one play style is the only way to either get on top or enjoying the game and only a handful of people can play it, the constant losers are either doing something extremely wrong or the game is broken. Cause as far as I know none of the major players or alliances are cheating, so it's all within the structures of the game.

 

I'd give this a half-like if I could.

 

The issue is that certain playstyles are advantageous in certain periods of time and places.  It's like how a quickly accelerating car will get a jump start before a car with taller gear ratios.  Taller gear ratios are useful after you've accelerated, but if you're constantly behind the car that accelerates because it's constantly blocking you, then your tall gear ratios aren't going to be very helpful.  The same thing goes for aerodynamics when a car's trying to handle turns.  Cars without downforce are good on speedways, but cars with downforce are good in grand prix.  You can mix up downforce and gear ratios too to play with handling versus acceleration versus top speed.  

 

The same thing applies here in how some alliances like to spend resources early on in wars to take initiative while others like to respond to others' purchases.  Some alliances like to team up on targets right away while others like to wait and see who gets targeted first.  Some alliances insist on purchasing right before the game day ends, and others like to purchase right as it starts.  Some like to save MAPs up among members to strike altogether, and others like to provide ripple fire for regular pressure. 

 

The bottomline is that there's a lot of ways to put chemistry together.  Mixing up alliances will make it so the community isn't stuck in its ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An alliance that doesn't adapt isn't a winning alliance.  Playstyles need to adjust over time to the situation at hand.  Otherwise, they get stuck in the same gear and fall behind the pack.

An alliance doesn't need to do anything.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, is this the mythical CB you threw your new allies into the meat grinder for?

 

Pics or it didn't happen.

 

The fact that you're portraying it that ways shows your bias. I'm not really sure how I could have thrown them into meatgrinder when the intelligence didn't come to IQ via me/NPO.  At the end of the day, there was enough suspicion towards Syndisphere by their former spheremates that the evidence they obtained was enough.  I'm not washing my hands of it as I was for preempting in response to the evidence.

 

As I've stated before, the evidence isn't mine to disclose and the parties involved with it have chosen to not go public, so I won't violate their wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you're portraying it that ways shows your bias. I'm not really sure how I could have thrown them into meatgrinder when the intelligence didn't come to IQ via me/NPO.  At the end of the day, there was enough suspicion towards Syndisphere by their former spheremates that the evidence they obtained was enough.  I'm not washing my hands of it as I was for preempting in response to the evidence.

 

As I've stated before, the evidence isn't mine to disclose and the parties involved with it have chosen to not go public, so I won't violate their wishes.

 

Right, there's no evidence, got it.  :)

  • Upvote 1

Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would entail less rigid sides every war.  The atmosphere earlier on in the game had more shifting alliances and that's a quality that was lost. The paperless thing might be considered. People when they want dynamism don't want everything to be ultra-predictable. Many touted this game as being super dynamic with changing sides as a plus over other games.

 

A major problem with anything is there is little interest in resolution of grudges with people still considered as major threats. I think many would feel unencumbered if the grudges didn't run so deep.

 

You didn't really answer my entire question, what exactly do you think needs to happen in order to achieve "political dynamism"?

 

Also I find it odd that you mention grudges. I myself cited this exact reason and pointed out the conduct during the peace talks, the ridiculous stubbornness to admit a loss (which you ultimately ended up admitting in the end), the attempts to shift blame entirely on your opposition for your own aggressive war etc as ways this would just continue to generate grudges. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't trying to claim that you yourself or even your closer allies were not operating on/holding grudges this war, as that would be hilariously false. May I suggest then, that you attempt to rectify that problem amongst you and your own before demanding it be done by your opposition?

 

Also your personal incessant need to push narratives against certain alliances (like  Rose for example) on subjects that you have no specific knowledge of or any real reason to do so other than to downplay other alliances may contribute to generating the grudges you so desperately want to avoid in your quest for political dynamism.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You didn't really answer my entire question, what exactly do you think needs to happen in order to achieve "political dynamism"?

 

Also I find it odd that you mention grudges. I myself cited this exact reason and pointed out the conduct during the peace talks, the ridiculous stubbornness to admit a loss (which you ultimately ended up admitting in the end), the attempts to shift blame entirely on your opposition for your own aggressive war etc as ways this would just continue to generate grudges. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't trying to claim that you yourself or even your closer allies were not operating on/holding grudges this war, as that would be hilariously false. May I suggest then, that you attempt to rectify that problem amongst you and your own before demanding it be done by your opposition? I haven't seen any grudges in either NPO or BK. Perhaps limit your suggestions to what you know rather than what you imagine?

 

Also your personal incessant need to push narratives against certain alliances (like  Rose for example) on subjects that you have no specific knowledge of or any real reason to do so other than to downplay other alliances may contribute to generating the grudges you so desperately want to avoid in your quest for political dynamism. Syndisphere doesn't seem to mind being creative writers when it comes to communications they don't have access to. Why wouldn't IQ?

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading all these posts about completely abandoning the FA world created over the last few years is hilarious. Mostly because it's from someone who has no clue what the culture here is like.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I've learned from this thread so far is that IQ has learned absolutely nothing from their loss...which is quite funny coming from the side that wants to tear down the Syndisphere hegemoney in order to create political dynamism. It's just that, instead of asking Syndisphere to sign new treaties, shouldn't you be asking you and your bloc how to perform better next war and maybe actually win.

Edited by Hope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, for starters, your sphere lost...

They didn't lose, they just failed to secure a victory in the high, middle, or lower tier, and nothing about failing to secure a victory in any of the 3 categories despite being the aggressor should be taken as utterly humiliating or degrading.

 

In b4 Milton says something about there being more to the game than winning.

  • Upvote 6

☾☆

 

Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't lose, they just failed to secure a victory in the high, middle, or lower tier, and nothing about failing to secure a victory in any of the 3 categories despite being the aggressor should be taken as utterly humiliating or degrading.

In b4 Milton says something about there being more to the game than winning.

You mean like trolling and shit posting? :v

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, for starters, your sphere lost...

So... ?

 

 

They didn't lose, they just failed to secure a victory in the high, middle, or lower tier, and nothing about failing to secure a victory in any of the 3 categories despite being the aggressor should be taken as utterly humiliating or degrading.

 

In b4 Milton says something about there being more to the game than winning. Not for you guys. You seem to think it's the only way to have fun and play correctly. Others have different reasons. As long as people are having fun there's no real reason for anyone to change anything, including Syndisphere or IQ

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.