Jump to content

War. War Never Changes.


Lordship
 Share

Recommended Posts

Anyway, didn't see this before. 

 

Not at all and Kastor has alluded that someone on your side has gotten their hands on it. That was a surprise to me.

 

Again, this whole spin is just exemplary of what I've been talking about about the narrative being pushed from the get-go. "You're a liar. You got nothing. You pushed your allies into the meatgrinder."

 

I've already shared the rationale for not sharing it. The people involved would be identifiable by those who know who them based off how they write, so they would have to be willing to have their names out there and that sort of clearance hasn't been given. 

At this point, it really can't hurt your pr any more, so if you have something legit, why not gain a bit of "redemption" so to speak, and release it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI for a VE perspective at the time, Rose you did screw us that war by jumping early and dragging Moonie into that war before we were ready, which was a main reason that blitz was so bad on the VE side (unless Moonie was lying to VE gov about it)  and you also bailed early the war before that, leaving us on the battlefield.  So as much as you may want to play victim to the big bad VE monster, the first 2 strikes of who is a shitty ally were against you guys not VE.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI for a VE perspective at the time, Rose you did screw us that war by jumping early and dragging Moonie into that war before we were ready, which was a main reason that blitz was so bad on the VE side (unless Moonie was lying to VE gov about it)  and you also bailed early the war before that, leaving us on the battlefield.  So as much as you may want to play victim to the big bad VE monster, the first 2 strikes of who is a shitty ally were against you guys not VE.

I'm not sure what MoonPie said, but the issue from the outside was VE had a constant problem with getting people on to blitz. MoonPie had been talking about doing a military standard for months and there was some military built up and he had agreed to involvement several days in advance when Keegoz wasn't on for a few days. In the war before that, when Syndisphere hit, VE only had 8 guys on and couldn't counter the same night. As far as I know, VE had at least 24 hours notice. I think a bigger issue is, it was before more purging took place, because a lot of VE members had essentially tuned out and were ignoring stuff including ones I knew outside of the game. 

---

 

That being said, Rose did pull out early and were also able to leave the war preceding it early with white peace rather than surrender while the rest of the coalition was held in, and that the wording being white peace from what I was told at the time was due to a favor called in by someone in Rose who knew people in Mensa. It's bizarre to me when Sketchy gets upset when I've brought up that relations between Mensa/Rose had seeds well before their signing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, what? Are you saying that if Mensa doesn't want to abandon their allies and team up with their enemies or people they have no relationship with, they should be rolled by the "alliances at hand"? Where does logic and fairness come into this? Mensa's plan is what it is and they're going to do what they want to do. What you seem to be suggesting is that anyone who doesn't conform to your way of playing the game should be fought against, which is just tyranny. We might have a hegemoney now but at least it's a hegemoney that for the most part lets alliances make their own plans and forge their own relationships. Like I posted before dude, no one is going to go for the kind of team-based gameplay you've idealized. Relationships and rivalries have been solidified, history has been written. It's extremely unlikely that radical changes and mix-ups of relations is going to happen anytime soon as as long as that remains true what you're suggesting remains unrealistic. I just said people have different ways of having fun with PW. Your side appears to like wars, I generally like the market. You've just had a recent war so it seems win-win to me. If you're forming long-lasting dislike of entire alliances that's your problem. As for getting into another war I can't say I xare either way.

 

 

Why do you let your brain do this to you? Why do you let it think these things? I don't get it, I really don't. Do you not have that safeguard in your mind that tells you that when you post stuff like this you're just making an unsubstantiated generalization about hundreds of players, which probably means that what you're saying is bullshit? Like, why would you not think these things through? I repeat it because your side seems to never understand it. It's not a generalization lacking justification. Last I checked it was quite accurate.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Totally dicked"... fighting like 45 rose nations with your like 130 bk and your blitz didn't eliminate us? The funniest part is that your top tier still got !@#$ed up before pantheon even entered. I don't think anyone seriously expected an alliance with ~50 members to 1v1 an alliance with over twice the member count and win every tier. Good job winning the lower tier though, it clearly crippled us.

 

 

Keep up with the 4head strats.

 

Bolded to reiterate that I am claiming no one expected it(because it's nearly impossible), not that we did it. 

 

Sorry guys but you did not 1v1 bk, I'm not sure what you are thinking of, but considering we entered within 30-40 minutes of you being attacked, you definitely were not the only ones responsible for removing BK's upper tier and the holding them down until tkr came in.

 

Read above, you misunderstood what I was saying. I was the person who posted a Pantheon appreciation thread during the war, I'm not trying to discredit you guys and the relief you had on us at all. But BK didn't pin us down with their blitz, which they should have been more than capable of doing. 

 

Fight amongst yourselves, yes. Pubstomper started Rose, whatever he says can be taken 100% as an official statement from the government of Rose. Just trust me on this.

 

4head strats. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what MoonPie said, but the issue from the outside was VE had a constant problem with getting people on to blitz. MoonPie had been talking about doing a military standard for months and there was some military built up and he had agreed to involvement several days in advance when Keegoz wasn't on for a few days. In the war before that, when Syndisphere hit, VE only had 8 guys on and couldn't counter the same night. As far as I know, VE had at least 24 hours notice. I think a bigger issue is, it was before more purging took place, because a lot of VE members had essentially tuned out and were ignoring stuff including ones I knew outside of the game. 

---

 

That being said, Rose did pull out early and were also able to leave the war preceding it early with white peace rather than surrender while the rest of the coalition was held in, and that the wording being white peace from what I was told at the time was due to a favor called in by someone in Rose who knew people in Mensa. It's bizarre to me when Sketchy gets upset when I've brought up that relations between Mensa/Rose had seeds well before their signing.

 

Small correction: As far as I know, no favor was called in for that white peace. We made a deliberate decision in-coalition to let Rose off with an early white peace (wording) in order to increase pressure on whom we believed to be the "core" components of the opposing coalition. Rose at that point, was viewed as politically lethargic, relatively speaking.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small correction: As far as I know, no favor was called in for that white peace. We made a deliberate decision in-coalition to let Rose off with an early white peace (wording) in order to increase pressure on whom we believed to be the "core" components of the opposing coalition. Rose at that point, was viewed as politically lethargic, relatively speaking.

Well my source was the leader of Rose at the time(Sorry Keegoz).  However, what you said fits with the theme of the other side being friendlier to Rose which was a point I've been raising for that reason and previous screendumps showed relations between tS/Mensa and Rose had been improving prior to Alpha getting hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well my source was the leader of Rose at the time(Sorry Keegoz).  However, what you said fits with the theme of the other side being friendlier to Rose which was a point I've been raising for that reason and previous screendumps showed relations between tS/Mensa and Rose had been improving prior to Alpha getting hit.

 

What I can confirm at least on tS'/my part during that period was that relations were probably at an all time low coming out of ProxyFest (the rose hit on Mensa). In the months following, we noticed however that they were showing signs of discontent in the leadup to the Alpha war (see: Leaks etc). To us, their unwillingness to support Alpha indicated a potential opportunity to move past the sphere v sphere grudge we'd been replaying.

 

Postwar treaty signings however put us back on edge (see: the string of treaties between Alpha/NPO/VE etc., with NPO-UPN being the final nail to us).

 

If you want my honest assessment? Rose seemed uneasy about NPO's rapid consolidation of treaties within what had been effectively their sphere of influence. Considering the lack of a Rose-NPO tie, perhaps that was a thing. Perhaps not. That's more of deduction on my part. Despite the unease and reluctance on their part however, Rose refused to take a dive out of status quo at the time. One factor contributing to the decision to hit just UPN and NPO following y'alls consolidation (when we'd figured war was inevitable) was a hail mary pass at getting Rose to sit out or put in a token effort as they were the most likely to bow out morale-wise due to their lack of investment in the merged paracov+NPO coalition.

 

The white peace was an extension of that strategy.

Edited by Partisan

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, didn't see this before. 

 

Again, this whole spin is just exemplary of what I've been talking about about the narrative being pushed from the get-go. "You're a liar. You got nothing. You pushed your allies into the meatgrinder."

 

 

It's nice you're projecting and all, but the only one spinning his wheels in place is you.

 

Lets revisit shall we:

 

> IQ was the aggressor in this past war, IQ literally started the war

> roq-tinted glasses: "but but hypothetically if tS did what we did I'm sure (totally not projecting here) that they would try to claim they weren't really the aggressors, okay maybe they would literally be the aggressors but figuratively they wouldn't be the aggressors you know what I mean? Srsly what does aggressor means these days anyway? We had no choice, our mythical CB told us we had to."

 

> IQ has no CB and refuses to show any evidence for the claimed CB. Despite that, IQ has tried to justify its actions by citing non-existent CB. IQ even tried to validate the made-up CB via a peace term.

> roq-tinted glasses: "hey my imaginary friend told me the intel, but he's shy and imaginary and doesn't want attention so I'm going to maintain his privacy. But hey friends and allies, i know dragged you into this war and all but remember I dragged you guys in to fight for a good and righteous cause yo and totally not for some shit I just made up. Please don't leave me"

 

> IQ started the war with an numerical and tactical advantage yet still lost the war.

> roq-tinted glasses: "you guys are too gud, can't you get on our not gud level?"

 

> IQ dragged the lost war on and lengthened the suffering their allies for many unnecessary weeks just because they didn't want to admit defeat and pay 0 reps. IQ ended up admitting defeat anyway.

> roq-tinted glasses: "our meatshields-- err I mean allies will do anything for us and expect nothing in return. Avoiding an L > friends, duh"

  • Upvote 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bolded to reiterate that I am claiming no one expected it(because it's nearly impossible), not that we did it. 

 

 

 

Read above, you misunderstood what I was saying. I was the person who posted a Pantheon appreciation thread during the war, I'm not trying to discredit you guys and the relief you had on us at all. But BK didn't pin us down with their blitz, which they should have been more than capable of doing. 

 

 

 

4head strats.

 

My bad, read it differently, added implications that weren't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well my source was the leader of Rose at the time(Sorry Keegoz).  However, what you said fits with the theme of the other side being friendlier to Rose which was a point I've been raising for that reason and previous screendumps showed relations between tS/Mensa and Rose had been improving prior to Alpha getting hit.

 

Holy shit are you dense.  Keep trying to push that narrative.  Relations between Mensa/tS and Rose didn't really pick up until after that war in which Keegoz stepped down or whatever.

 

We literally let Rose go early that way to put pressure on the rest of you.  Letting alliances go early has been done every. single. !@#$ing. war.  (Chalks another thing that other alliance leaders don't pay attention to)

 

When are you going to start posting about how relations are warming between Lordaeron and Mensa/tS now?  Afterall, we let them off early too.  Oh!  Oh!  And UPN as well!  Afterall, at one point, UPN and Syndicate were in talks of a treaty!

 

Hold on, are relations between SK and Mensa warming up now too?  Using your logic here, that is.

 

We should start a new thread called, "Apply Roq's Logic to Everything in History of PnW", and re-create this alternate universe he seems to live in.  May actually be fun.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The post you made only cited instances where you felt rubbed the wrong way by IQ in the talks. The issue is, you have this bizarre expectation that you guys can be super antagonistic and not get it in return. If you get in return, it's our issue. I'd have a greater trust in people who stuck to their guns and defended their positions rather than people who cave and try to be conciliatory when it isn't reciprocal. 

 

 

 

The issue is, it looked politically motivated because there was the possibility of VE not following your trajectory of what looked to be advancing Syndisphere interests and general discontent with them not wanting to tie themselves further into it. A foreign power being involved in another alliance's internal affairs will never look good.

 

 

 

 

I'm  referring to the Mensa signing and then on. The point was up until that point rather than saying there was anyone left for Rose to drop I was talking about  how, Rose maintained independence from Syndisphere along with a general attitude of seeing its power consolidation as bad.   That all changed when Rose decided to join it with via the Mensa treaty. It's less the dropping of VE and more the signing of a core Syndisphere alliance and then following its trajectory. That is joining the side you were traditionally not on when said alliance has been one of the most resistant to any changes. A lot of people gave you the benefit of the doubt for a while due to the Lordaeron treaty to see if there was some greater play being made, so when there wasn't, it just looked like you had effectively stockholm syndromed into Syndisphere.

 

Again, there's a recurring theme where "improving ourselves" is conflated with signing Mensa. It's not the same thing to work on your internals and then just treaty alliances who are more active. The option was open to you to switch because they hated other people and that's what it comes down to. It's just not going to engender any good feelings towards Rose given the general trajectory of Mensa.  If you can't see how the posture Mensa has been taking would make people think they have a vested interest in perpetuating the same dynamics, then I can't help you there.  It's also a different situation when one appears to be a risk on the alliance's part and one where it's the opposite(joining a stronger side).

 

 
I already pointed out what I meant by "leaving". There was simply a general trajectory Rose had of some independence from Syndisphere until that point regardless of the treaty ties. Like I said that loyalty is ultimately the reason why people are going to push back against Rose because being allied to Mensa carries a lot of connotations.
 
If you're just dismissing things said on here as shitposting, then taking it seriously when people shit on Rose would be equally overreacting. The point of the "shitposts" was to drive a particular narrative, which you then complain about happening to Rose. 
 
The thing is your intervention just happens to be the Rose stance right now when the other stance had been the Rose stance from Silent on. If the war tore Rose apart or whatever as has been frequently stated, then I would assume others feel similar.  The actions taken by Rose hint more at that.
 
It takes two to tango. If your side hadn't been so fervent in pushing its own narratives from the get-go, then there'd be a lot less need to swing back.  The issue is there isn't much room for prudence in  avoiding offending people when people on your side have made their intentions more or less clear and aren't showing any willingness. Again, you expect a sort of "feel free to be dicks to us and we'll just take it" free card when that hasn't done anyone any favors ever.  

 

Yet again completely missing the point of my entire post.

 

Lemme skip the wall of text and summarize this shit.

  • You want political dynamism.
  • You claim grudges hinder political dynamism.
  • You push narratives or w/e and generate more grudges, completely counter to your supposed goal.
  • I asked you why you claim to want one thing but have done the opposite.

As far as the switching sides deal, youu've now apparently changed the narrative since it was only the other week you were saying we were in talks with Mensa for awhile back and cited them being nicer to us with the implication that it was us switching sides by design..

 

Also as far as the "you shitpost and then expect others not to take it seriously" jab. I don't think you picked up my point. I don't care that you pushed a narrative against Rose as I expect that much from you, I just defend against them, I was pointing out how counter to your own narrative those actions are.

 

You don't get to claim the moral high ground and then act exactly the same as your opposition basically. Start actually following your own criteria for what it would take to achieve "political dynamism" before throwing all the responsibility on others. Or don't, that is up to you.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI for a VE perspective at the time, Rose you did screw us that war by jumping early and dragging Moonie into that war before we were ready, which was a main reason that blitz was so bad on the VE side (unless Moonie was lying to VE gov about it)  and you also bailed early the war before that, leaving us on the battlefield.  So as much as you may want to play victim to the big bad VE monster, the first 2 strikes of who is a shitty ally were against you guys not VE.

 

I did say that we resolved that issue privately. I was stating what our perspective was at the time. 

 

As far as that situation, Keegoz said one thing, Moonpie said the other, and durmij nor I or anyone in Rose government at the time knew who was telling the truth. Ultimately that is a situation between Keegoz/Moonpie that never should have gone past them had the communication between us been more open (which it wasn't). But like I said, it was resolved privately.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice you're projecting and all, but the only one spinning his wheels in place is you.

 

Lets revisit shall we:

 

> IQ was the aggressor in this past war, IQ literally started the war

> roq-tinted glasses: "but but hypothetically if tS did what we did I'm sure (totally not projecting here) that they would try to claim they weren't really the aggressors, okay maybe they would literally be the aggressors but figuratively they wouldn't be the aggressors you know what I mean? Srsly what does aggressor means these days anyway? We had no choice, our mythical CB told us we had to."

 

> IQ has no CB and refuses to show any evidence for the claimed CB. Despite that, IQ has tried to justify its actions by citing non-existent CB. IQ even tried to validate the made-up CB via a peace term.

> roq-tinted glasses: "hey my imaginary friend told me the intel, but he's shy and imaginary and doesn't want attention so I'm going to maintain his privacy. But hey friends and allies, i know dragged you into this war and all but remember I dragged you guys in to fight for a good and righteous cause yo and totally not for some shit I just made up. Please don't leave me"

 

> IQ started the war with an numerical and tactical advantage yet still lost the war.

> roq-tinted glasses: "you guys are too gud, can't you get on our not gud level?"

 

> IQ dragged the lost war on and lengthened the suffering their allies for many unnecessary weeks just because they didn't want to admit defeat and pay 0 reps. IQ ended up admitting defeat anyway.

> roq-tinted glasses: "our meatshields-- err I mean allies will do anything for us and expect nothing in return. Avoiding an L > friends, duh"

 

Nope it's you all you do is repeat the same thing. It's been almost pointless to try to engage you.

 

 

>It's not hypothetical. tS has done it and tried to portray the attacked parties as giving them no choice. Not projecting at all. It has happened. The distinction between being aggressive and not aggressive hasn't mattered to Syndisphere except when it gets attacked.

 

> Again, you calling it imaginary despite multiple alliance leaders having seen it by now and from Kastor's post, people in Syndisphere. I didn't make anything up and there's no real reason for me to engage given the levels you're descending to at this point.

 

> Not bothering to go at length. Everyone knows the centrality of fast counters, update activity, and blitzing over mass in PW warfare. It would be different if it wasn't so contingent on it. A numerical advantage has to be a lot bigger for it to win by default over a qualitative advantage.

 

> I didn't ask anybody to stay in for my sake. My stance was always if people wanted to surrender then they should get everyone else to agree with it rather than try to seek individual accommodations.  At the end of the day, we kept going because we could and there was damage to be done. We only stopped because we no longer had people staying active enough many with RL events in the way to continue pushing offensives. The stance was always as long as we were capable of conducting hits as a coalition, we would keep going because enough people were against admitting defeat otherwise. Rolling over after a few rounds with your side having taken little damage would have been awful.

 

 

 

Holy shit are you dense.  Keep trying to push that narrative.  Relations between Mensa/tS and Rose didn't really pick up until after that war in which Keegoz stepped down or whatever.

 

We literally let Rose go early that way to put pressure on the rest of you.  Letting alliances go early has been done every. single. !@#$. war.  (Chalks another thing that other alliance leaders don't pay attention to)

 

When are you going to start posting about how relations are warming between Lordaeron and Mensa/tS now?  Afterall, we let them off early too.  Oh!  Oh!  And UPN as well!  Afterall, at one point, UPN and Syndicate were in talks of a treaty!

 

Hold on, are relations between SK and Mensa warming up now too?  Using your logic here, that is.

 

We should start a new thread called, "Apply Roq's Logic to Everything in History of PnW", and re-create this alternate universe he seems to live in.  May actually be fun.

 

 

No, because the situation is unique. People have openly said that Oblige did a lot of the work on the Mensa Rose treaty. There was already a connection there and it was more solid after Pfeiffer who hated him stepped down and now you have Oblige back even.  I was also aware durmij was spending time with Mensa. So there were building blocks already, which is all I have said. 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet again completely missing the point of my entire post.

 

Lemme skip the wall of text and summarize this shit.

  • You want political dynamism.
  • You claim grudges hinder political dynamism.
  • You push narratives or w/e and generate more grudges, completely counter to your supposed goal.
  • I asked you why you claim to want one thing but have done the opposite.

As far as the switching sides deal, youu've now apparently changed the narrative since it was only the other week you were saying we were in talks with Mensa for awhile back and cited them being nicer to us with the implication that it was us switching sides by design..

 

Also as far as the "you shitpost and then expect others not to take it seriously" jab. I don't think you picked up my point. I don't care that you pushed a narrative against Rose as I expect that much from you, I just defend against them, I was pointing out how counter to your own narrative those actions are.

 

You don't get to claim the moral high ground and then act exactly the same as your opposition basically. Start actually following your own criteria for what it would take to achieve "political dynamism" before throwing all the responsibility on others. Or don't, that is up to you.

 
I'll summarize as well.
 
The issue is here you expect your side to be able to dish it out and not take it in kind. The narratives your side has kept constructing invite counters. You just have to read some of the posts here. You're expecting a  doormat approach when that has shown zero benefits. The rhetoric from your side has indicated much interest in perpetuating grudges.
 
I don't think I said there were actual talks about switching sides before the treaty. The treaty did entail you switching sides de facto though. All I've said is there was groundwork. 
 
It's a two way street. I would be a lot less inclined to fire back if your side showed any interest in not spewing their own invective. They haven't, however, to the point of talking about deceiving allies, imaginary friends and what not. You're trying to lay all the responsibility on me. You do care or otherwise you wouldn't be pointing it out here. I don't recall being the one to start talking about how the other side was deceptive and whatnot. The narrative from your side from early on has been the same. 
Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice you're projecting and all, but the only one spinning his wheels in place is you.

 

Lets revisit shall we:

 

> IQ was the aggressor in this past war, IQ literally started the war

> roq-tinted glasses: "but but hypothetically if tS did what we did I'm sure (totally not projecting here) that they would try to claim they weren't really the aggressors, okay maybe they would literally be the aggressors but figuratively they wouldn't be the aggressors you know what I mean? Srsly what does aggressor means these days anyway? We had no choice, our mythical CB told us we had to."

 

> IQ has no CB and refuses to show any evidence for the claimed CB. Despite that, IQ has tried to justify its actions by citing non-existent CB. IQ even tried to validate the made-up CB via a peace term. tS established not needing a CB already.

> roq-tinted glasses: "hey my imaginary friend told me the intel, but he's shy and imaginary and doesn't want attention so I'm going to maintain his privacy. But hey friends and allies, i know dragged you into this war and all but remember I dragged you guys in to fight for a good and righteous cause yo and totally not for some shit I just made up. Please don't leave me"

 

> IQ started the war with an numerical and tactical advantage yet still lost the war.

> roq-tinted glasses: "you guys are too gud, can't you get on our not gud level?"

 

> IQ dragged the lost war on and lengthened the suffering their allies for many unnecessary weeks just because they didn't want to admit defeat and pay 0 reps. IQ ended up admitting defeat anyway. Yeah, it was nice.

> roq-tinted glasses: "our meatshields-- err I mean allies will do anything for us and expect nothing in return. Avoiding an L > friends, duh"

 

 

Holy shit are you dense.  Keep trying to push that narrative.  Relations between Mensa/tS and Rose didn't really pick up until after that war in which Keegoz stepped down or whatever.

 

We literally let Rose go early that way to put pressure on the rest of you.  Letting alliances go early has been done every. single. !@#$. war.  (Chalks another thing that other alliance leaders don't pay attention to) And it didn't work. When will you guys learn?

 

When are you going to start posting about how relations are warming between Lordaeron and Mensa/tS now?  Afterall, we let them off early too.  Oh!  Oh!  And UPN as well!  Afterall, at one point, UPN and Syndicate were in talks of a treaty!

 

Hold on, are relations between SK and Mensa warming up now too?  Using your logic here, that is.

 

We should start a new thread called, "Apply Roq's Logic to Everything in History of PnW", and re-create this alternate universe he seems to live in.  May actually be fun. If it bothers you it sounds good to me.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll summarize as well.

 
The issue is here you expect your side to be able to dish it out and not take it in kind. The narratives your side has kept constructing invite counters. You just have to read some of the posts here. You're expecting a  doormat approach when that has shown zero benefits. The rhetoric from your side has indicated much interest in perpetuating grudges.
 
I don't think I said there were actual talks about switching sides before the treaty. The treaty did entail you switching sides de facto though. All I've said is there was groundwork. 
 
It's a two way street. I would be a lot less inclined to fire back if your side showed any interest in not spewing their own invective. They haven't, however, to the point of talking about deceiving allies, imaginary friends and what not. You're trying to lay all the responsibility on me. You do care or otherwise you wouldn't be pointing it out here. I don't recall being the one to start talking about how the other side was deceptive and whatnot. The narrative from your side from early on has been the same. 

 

 

So essentially you don't care about political dynamism other than leveraging it for a moral high ground. If you did, none of that would matter, you'd still try and get around it to achieve your goal. 

 

Also as I already pointed out, Rose didn't switch sides, defacto or otherwise. We exited your side in a failed attempt to try something different (you know basically exactly what you claim the motivations for IQ were about) and as a result we were left with a single remaining ally, who we had deteriorating relations with, and we chose to drop them and sign Mensa.

 

Regardless, one thing to point out is that Rose effectively underwent an "FA Reset" after Keegoz stepped down as we had absolutely no knowledge of the FA workings of Rose due to Keegoz being fairly tight on opsec (we had a leaker at the time). Anything Keegoz said or did privately FA wise for the majority of his leadership was information our government wasn't privy to and as a result there is plenty of gaps in knowledge that you yourself probably know more about being one of the planners of Silent War. 

Edited by Sketchy

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So essentially you don't care about political dynamism other than leveraging it for a moral high ground. If you did, none of that would matter, you'd still try and get around it to achieve your goal. 

 

Also as I already pointed out, Rose didn't switch sides, defacto or otherwise. We exited your side in a failed attempt to try something different (you know basically exactly what you claim the motivations for IQ were about) and as a result we were left with a single remaining ally, who we had deteriorating relations with, and we chose to drop them and sign Mensa.

 

Regardless, one thing to point out is that Rose effectively underwent an "FA Reset" after Keegoz stepped down as we had absolutely no knowledge of the FA workings of Rose due to Keegoz being fairly tight on opsec (we had a leaker at the time). Anything Keegoz said or did privately FA wise for the majority of his leadership was information our government wasn't privy to and as a result there is plenty of gaps in knowledge that you yourself probably know more about being one of the planners of Silent War. 

 

I do care about it and when people act in good faith, it hasn't been difficult to bury the hatchet. There isn't any really any getting around it when there's no interest on the other end of the spectrum. The issue is, there has to be a mutual desire. I'm unconvinced that not contesting people that have continued to perpetuate the narrative that I've lied, deceived, manipulated, and threw people into the meatgrinder for nothing will be of any use. Most are too far gone. The fact by your standards I'm not allowed to defend myself is a huge problem.

 

I'm saying you exited a historical side definitively signing with someone on the other one. When Paragon split, the possibility of cooperation was still there even though it wasn't the same as having the treaties. Although given the lack coordination between Paracov when the treaties in place, it wasn't much worse.   Signing Mensa constituted a shift from being a historical leading political entity in terms of non-Syndisphere alliances(Paracov wasn't always a thing, so just cancelling Paracov treaties doesn't indicate a full departure) to being another Syndisphere alliance.

 

 Fair enough. I'm not aware of how much you knew and the connections between Rose and Mensa I've cited that predated the treaty are independent of Keegoz.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me why people are acting as if a "dynamic change" didn't just occur? Syndisphere just saw 4 alliances shift to oppose it. Yes, they didn't win but they very well could have. What is the measure of successful​"dynamic change"? Is it only Syndisphere getting destroyed?

Yes

Each of us bears his own Hell - Virgil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me why people are acting as if a "dynamic change" didn't just occur? Syndisphere just saw 4 alliances shift to oppose it. Yes, they didn't win but they very well could have. What is the measure of successful​"dynamic change"? Is it only Syndisphere getting destroyed?

 

To be fair, both sides have to change dynamically at the same time.  If one side does but the other doesn't, then the first side will get screwed.

 

IQ/Covenant hasn't shown many signs of being willing to dynamically change outside of UPN breaking up with NPO.  Zodiac and Black Knights have interesting sets of alliances though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, this is a game.  Realism doesn't entirely apply.  For example, in reality, people ally for the sake of peace.  In games like this, the point is to be militantly dominant.  If you insist on being a peaceful carebear, then people will get bored and will attack you eventually just to experience what the game's about.  On the other hand, if your goal is to just create an elite tier without making something happen, then again, people will get bored and will attack you.

Wow, thanks for telling me this is a game. I truly had no idea that was the case. What I meant when I said realistic was realistic within the scope of the game. I didn't think I'd really have to explain that but I guess I overestimated you. Here's the thing, you think the point is to be militarily dominant. The truth is that while that may often be the case, different people and different alliances ally with each other for different reasons. Your subjective reasoning of why things happen are not necessarily always true. If being peaceful carebears and creating an elite tier creates conflict, why is it a problem? Isn't action what we all want?

 

Second off, I never said to team up with your enemies.  In fact, the treaty I proposed provided neutral arbitration. Heck, Mensa actually became teamed up with TKR, and you still have the opportunity to draft secondary alliances that you might find favorable outside of the top 10.

 

Even with neutral arbitration, it would mean a massive rewrite and abandonment of the existing alliance relations. This is the biggest problem with what you're suggesting. People who have been allies for years, who have become good friends, aren't going to want to throw all that away. At least, I seriously doubt it. While your system could work there is no guarantee the top alliances would be willing to go through with it.

 

Third off, your hegemoney is tyranny.  Suggesting that I'm a tyrant is flat out projection.

 

My hegemoney? I'm in a paperless alliance. Is there even a hegemoney anymore? Regardless, the difference between your system and the so called hegemoney is that while your system enforces a specific way of playing the game, like a sort of football league, the hegemoney does not. While the Syndisphere has waged many wars, it does not go around policing the world, ensuring that everyone conforms to the way they want to play the game. If anything, the existence of the Syndisphere forces alliances outside of it to adapt to it, but it's not a conscious effort to set up rules or systems for how to "correctly" play the game.

 

Lastly, while relationships and history might exist, again, this is a game.  It's not reality.  Excitement comes from mixing things up and not going along with how things have always been done.  It involves seeking out new angles.  If this is locked down, then people get bored and they attack out of boredom.

 

Oh gee, thanks for reminding me. Totally almost forgot this is just a browser game. Anyway, when people want to mix thing up, they'll do it. Sometimes it'll work out, sometimes it won't. But it has been done and continues to be done. Nothing lasts forever, things inevitably change and if people attack out of boredom in the meantime, that's fine. It's important to remember that while the game might not be real, the social interactions that permeate it are and they can't just be swept under the carpet.

 

If they don't attack, then they all suffer the consequence of doing nothing while playing by themselves.  Again, new players won't stay, and the newest generations will leave. In fact, this has already plagued your game for a while with the number of active players regularly diminishing over time...

 

...and this isn't the only game that's had that problem.  Other social strategy games like eRepublik and RenaissanceKingdoms have faltered from that as well.  You can likewise compare them against other games like Travian, Imperial Conflict, and Space Federations Galactic Conquest that have succeeded for doing the opposite.

 

People are going to play the game however they want regardless of the consequences regarding the amount of active players. I played Erepublik for almost ten years so I know what you're talking about but I don't believe people should be forced to play the game a certain way. If enough people really do feel the need for change, things will change, as we saw with the formation of IQ. What's for sure is that the method used in attempts to convince people that the game needs to change, which is mainly arguing with strangers in threads like this one on the world wide web, is ineffective and does not work. If you genuinely seek to change people's minds in order to improve the game I suggest you try new strategies.

  • Upvote 1

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

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.