Jump to content

War. War Never Changes.


Lordship
 Share

Recommended Posts

I get the propaganda campaigns and FA attempts... I just wish they came across... better.

 

This slow-but-sure campaign of "well it's impossible to win and look how bored everyone is with the current state of things" is low-energy, to use a borrowed term.

 

 

 

Yes many of us recognize the state of things and the need for change. Many disagree on what that change should be but perhaps if you wish to persuade people, don't just tell them how bad they have it now. Give them a future to look forward to if they choose it.

Superbia


vuSNqof.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

There's nothing subjective about understanding how the game mechanics objectively function.

 

If you want to do something else, then you should do something else besides play this game.

 

 

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.

 

I never told you to throw away your friendship.  If you've become friends on an OOC basis out of respect for IC interactions, good for you.

 

The point is games get boring for doing the same old thing over and over.

 

 

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.

 

You were the one claiming to have a hegemoney earlier.  Do you have one or not?

 

 

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.

 

Not necessarily.  If you end up with a hegemoney that insists on stagnating relationships just to be the center of attention, then the game will decay.  People will attack them to keep things exciting since they anticipate the future will become boring.

 

 

 

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.

 

If this was real life, I would agree with you.  People deserve the public right to do what they will.  Who knows what their goals and intentions are?

 

In a game like this that's privately managed, however, it's a different story.  The point now is to figure out what's the optimal way to celebrate how the game functions.  If the active player base consolidates to a select few, then no, people literally won't play.  They'll leave.  Things won't change at that point because the select few will have consolidated power which makes change unfeasible.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

I find it funny that my point was that you bend over backwards to desperately spin the facts, and then you come back repeat the same bull. 

 

I am conveying a simple truth: 

You pushed your allies into war on unverifiable and shakey "intel".

You fumbled and lost the war. 

You dragged the war on in a failed bid to protect your ego.

 

whew boy, I bet people are lining up to ally with yall. 

  • Upvote 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? Eh, some more than others. I find trading a lot more fun than warring.

 

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. Agreed entirely. If war is what makes this fun for you there are plenty of opportunities. If something else is more your thing you're more or less able to do that.

 

 

 Roq, you guys talk about mixing things up and taking down tS and Co, but to do that, you guys need to prove that you are worth allying.  What have you guys done that says to me a leader of an alliance, hey I should drop my ties and go join those guys?  You make it sound like IQ membership is up to the alliance in question. It's not.  I feel like your entire side has completely forgotten the most important part of war, which is to make friends with the dudes you are fighting with so you can turn today's enemies into tomorrow's allies.  But you guys do stupid shit like drag out wars If Syndi wanted to surrender I believe we were totally open to that with limited reparations to the IQ side. and refuse to accept defeat in a war you are clearly losing.  Who wants to leave a side that has solid communication and works well together to join that? IDK as we have that as well. So far people inside are pretty happy with it and some people cancelled treaties it actually makes a solid improvement.

 

 

I find it funny that my point was that you bend over backwards to desperately spin the facts, and then you come back repeat the same bull. 

 

I am conveying a simple truth: 

You pushed your allies into war on unverifiable and shakey "intel". Where do you get the idea that Roquentin is overall leader of IQ? He didn't push anyone to do anything.

You fumbled and lost the war.   Oh well, pixels damaged. It happens.

You dragged the war on in a failed bid to protect your ego. There were earlier offers of peace that were rejected. Plus there's hardly any harm in making a war longer.

 

whew boy, I bet people are lining up to ally with yall. 

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I've cited that predated the treaty are independent of Keegoz

>"Well my source was the leader of Rose at the time(Sorry Keegoz)."

My source for a favor being called in by a former Mensa member was Keegoz, but the former Mensa obviously wasn't Keegoz.  Oblige was in Rose independently of Keegoz, so you didn't catch me in anything.

 

 

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?

 

It basically just gave a more of a chance to the rest of the alliances. Only BK was a major player in Syndisphere, others had shifted into Syndisphere since Silent, which covered some of the loss of those three  and no one would say otherwise. If you look at the strength of the Paracov alliances in Silent compared to the remnants that participated in this war, you'd see a serious decline. Most had been really diminished.

 

 

 

 

Roq, you guys talk about mixing things up and taking down tS and Co, but to do that, you guys need to prove that you are worth allying.  What have you guys done that says to me a leader of an alliance, hey I should drop my ties and go join those guys?   I feel like your entire side has completely forgotten the most important part of war, which is to make friends with the dudes you are fighting with so you can turn today's enemies into tomorrow's allies.  But you guys do stupid shit like drag out wars and refuse to accept defeat in a war you are clearly losing.  Who wants to leave a side that has solid communication and works well together to join that?

 
I've never seen the tack of begging for peace early ever win over anyone to Paracov or anyone in this game so far. The tone was the same early on as it was later on. Had there been a conciliatory tone from anyone on the Syndisphere side and we had reacted poorly, then you'd have a point here. There wasn't though from start to finish. There's been a continued implication here that peacing early would have done us any favors. The posturing early on and in the peace talks indicates otherwise. We didn't feel a need to concede defeat until we were definitively out of steam. The number of people who were civil at all on your side was almost zero. So there you go. There's plenty of disincentive to risk being outumbered in upper and be on the opposite side regardless.  You could have had us as complete doormats and carebears waving the white flag when the going got tough and saying "I'm sorry" and it would have done zero good. Let's be real here. This whole "gotcha" thing where "if you had done x, people would have been willing to change" is a recurring theme. Most of the alliances on that side were unwilling to do anything to change things even when they had a more or less completely clear field with just shards of previous opposition spread out. The resistance to change and content with the status quo ante so alienated the three alliances(BK, CS, Zodiac) so much that they were willing to give up their safe position and risk an uphill battle.
 
 
 
 
 

I find it funny that my point was that you bend over backwards to desperately spin the facts, and then you come back repeat the same bull. 

 

I am conveying a simple truth: 

You pushed your allies into war on unverifiable and shakey "intel".

You fumbled and lost the war. 

You dragged the war on in a failed bid to protect your ego.

 

whew boy, I bet people are lining up to ally with yall. 

 
 
You're passing off your own spin as facts. 
 
I didn't have to push anyone into anything. There was barely any concern about the intel and people didn't want constantly stay militarized. Several people pushed for going on the offensive before we even got the intel because we were already prepared because of the VE situation. You can make insinuations about the motives behind not caving in when we could still do damage, but it ultimately had little to do with ego.

 

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why our coalition's tone wasn't conciliatory. Mustn't have been due to IQ's smuggy behaviour in spite of losing at a strategic level (their smug coming from a tactical !@#$ up of ours), that can't possibly be. Neither can IQ's pranks that were done after the 1st rounds of peace be the reason for our prolonged behaviour.

 

Oh well, I guess that Syndisphere is just evil.

 

By the way, no. There were plenty of people on our side that, at least in the 1st round (I personally didn't have access right after, and when I regained it, there was little of interest in there since it was filled with food chat and pet pics), were reasonable on their behaviour. For example, Buor went straight to the point. At first, he asked what you considered to be punitive terms and you said that any sort of reps were punitive by nature, and thereby you wouldn't accept giving us reps, so we ruled out reps as demands. Then he asked for an admission of defeat which you essentially laughed off as a whole, except for a couple of guys from your side that actually took it upon themselves to explain why an admission of defeat that early wasn't really an option (tldr you felt you still had a chance of winning). Buor didn't react in an uncivil way to your buffoonery; he simply said that the first round of negotiations were over, and rightfully so because there was nothing else to discuss by that time, and further going at it would have been a complete waste of time.

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why our coalition's tone wasn't conciliatory. Mustn't have been due to IQ's smuggy behaviour in spite of losing at a strategic level (their smug coming from a tactical !@#$ up of ours), that can't possibly be. Neither can IQ's pranks that were done after the 1st rounds of peace be the reason for our prolonged behaviour.

 

Oh well, I guess that Syndisphere is just evil.

 

By the way, no. There were plenty of people on our side that, at least in the 1st round (I personally didn't have access right after, and when I regained it, there was little of interest in there since it was filled with food chat and pet pics), were reasonable on their behaviour. For example, Buor went straight to the point. At first, he asked what you considered to be punitive terms and you said that any sort of reps were punitive by nature, and thereby you wouldn't accept giving us reps, so we ruled out reps as demands. Then he asked for an admission of defeat which you essentially laughed off as a whole, except for a couple of guys from your side that actually took it upon themselves to explain why an admission of defeat that early wasn't really an option (tldr you felt you still had a chance of winning). Buor didn't react in an uncivil way to your buffoonery; he simply said that the first round of negotiations were over, and rightfully so because there was nothing else to discuss by that time, and further going at it would have been a complete waste of time.

 If you're saying Buorhann was civil when he tried sow discord on our side multiple times, that's wrong.  We've gone over it several times. The opening took place right before your blitz didn't go well, so it was already going to be tense. Casting Buorhann as blameless for the tone is inaccurate. The tone was never conciliatory. Your sie just expected people to be ready to give in and there were reasons they were disinclined at that time. I don't really remember anyone being overly upset about the cat pics and you guys reciprocated. The discussion was going to always be difficult because of the timing and circumstances. I'm also not only talking about the negotiations. Preceding them, only things that could make people stick to their guns were being said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're passing off your own spin as facts. 

 

Ya nah, these facts are golden. Even stranger than fiction in some ways. And you've actually not challenged the basic premise of these facts at all. What you have done is more like dropping a pile of convoluted drivel on the table and then pointing at it and saying "See? This is what UPN is missing out on now"

 

Exhibit 1:

IQ pushed for and initiated the war. Tried to justify with unverifiable CB.

 

Response 1: We didn't even want war. It would have been more strategically preferrable to wait 2 months. Why would we start a war without just cause if we would have preferred to wait?

Response 2: We had rock solid intel theat we gonna be hit, we had no choice but to go in.

Response 3: Okay maybe the intel wouldn't fall under the smoking gun category for everyone but it was good enough for us to start a war.

Response 4: Alright so intel or not we wanted to start the war despite the bad timing.

 

So before you were saying that you and your fellow IQ leadership started the war even though it was strategically disadvantageous because you had no choice. Now you're contradicting yourself and saying you woulda started the war regardless how disadvantageous it was strategically? So which is it?

 

You guys are just incompetent. You start a war you can't win, you drag on the war cuz you can't admit defeat. I'm not sure why people would want to be allies with you.

  • Upvote 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya nah, these facts are golden. Even stranger than fiction in some ways. And you've actually not challenged the basic premise of these facts at all. What you have done is more like dropping a pile of convoluted drivel on the table and then pointing at it and saying "See? This is what UPN is missing out on now"

 

Exhibit 1:

IQ pushed for and initiated the war. Tried to justify with unverifiable CB.

 

Response 1: We didn't even want war. It would have been more strategically preferrable to wait 2 months. Why would we start a war without just cause if we would have preferred to wait?

Response 2: We had rock solid intel theat we gonna be hit, we had no choice but to go in.

Response 3: Okay maybe the intel wouldn't fall under the smoking gun category for everyone but it was good enough for us to start a war.

Response 4: Alright so intel or not we wanted to start the war despite the bad timing.

 

So before you were saying that you and your fellow IQ leadership started the war even though it was strategically disadvantageous because you had no choice. Now you're contradicting yourself and saying you woulda started the war regardless how disadvantageous it was strategically? So which is it?

 

You guys are just incompetent. You start a war you can't win, you drag on the war cuz you can't admit defeat. I'm not sure why people would want to be allies with you.

 

Nope. You're trying to twist what I said to fit your narrative. I've contested everything you said but you're insisting on your skewed narrative. Ultimately, it's proven that you can't be reasoned with and you have your head up your ass.

 

Given some of the less irrational people on your side figured it out, not sure why you're still playing dumb.

 

It would have been better to have another two months.  I also didn't say we were going to do it anyway. I just pointed out that some people in the coalition had been advocating for an offensive because they were tired of waiting before what served us as the impetus for it came to us to illustrate that we didn't really have to sell it to anyone since people were expecting a war to happen anyway and there were tensions. We weren't actually agreed on that course of action until the information came.

 

End of the day, Freddie, keep thinking what you want and riding them coattails. That is all you're good for.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a solution to end all this conflict! We revive the GPA \o/

 

Countless unlikely alliances made friends and united just to roll them

 

 

 

If nothing, at least we'd have something new to talk about

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

tS has established CB-less wars valid. Not sure why you guys are bothered by that, but it was a precedent they set.

I think people are bothered by the fact that IQ continues to insist that their nonexistent CB is a legitimate one. Using no CB would be better than trying to legitimize their excuse. 

Edited by Darth Revan
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 If you're saying Buorhann was civil when he tried sow discord on our side multiple times, that's wrong.  We've gone over it several times. The opening took place right before your blitz didn't go well, so it was already going to be tense. Casting Buorhann as blameless for the tone is inaccurate. The tone was never conciliatory. Your sie just expected people to be ready to give in and there were reasons they were disinclined at that time. I don't really remember anyone being overly upset about the cat pics and you guys reciprocated. The discussion was going to always be difficult because of the timing and circumstances. I'm also not only talking about the negotiations. Preceding them, only things that could make people stick to their guns were being said. 

 

You're extremely fortunate that Lordship deleted that channel, otherwise I'd put your ass in place right now.

 

I was very civil with you folks initially.  I can't help that some of you either suffered from horrible communication or comprehension skills amongst yourselves, therefore leading us to be confused with your intentions, or you were simply just too damn dense.

 

We also never expected any of you to be ready to "give in" initially.  We only opened up talks because members of Cornerstone, Zodiac, and yourself brought up the topic on ending the war to various members of our leadership council, which made us figure that we should have a collective peace channel to handle this.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My source for a favor being called in by a former Mensa member was Keegoz, but the former Mensa obviously wasn't Keegoz.  Oblige was in Rose independently of Keegoz, so you didn't catch me in anything.

 

I know Oblige.  I also know my community in Mensa.  I'm well aware of how the community talks to Oblige and vice-versa.  While he is one of us, there's history in our community with people disliking him or butting heads with him.

 

At the time where he would've held talks with certain members (that you're claiming), I am 100% sure that nobody except Vanek would've given a damn to Oblige with trying to make amends with Mensa HQ.

 

Literally the only reason why Rose/Mensa made amends was due to myself/Vanek/Avruch and durmij/Lilac/Yang/Oblige/Sketchy talking it all out on our respective sides.  It took me a good bit to make sure everything would work, especially in the inner community of Mensa HQ (As well as Syndicate - who was often the target of Rose's attacks during our rivalry).

 

While you may think you have some clear cut logs saying that relations where mending earlier, you're wrong.  I'm telling you that you're wrong not because I'm trying to argue with you, but because I know my community and Oblige's relationship with one another.  I'm also very aware of how my community initially disliked Rose a lot, mostly due to past influence on being rivals (Despite the fact we never actually fought each other, amusingly enough).

 

Two individual people in some log cannot suddenly repair relations or even start the mending phase between them.

 

It was literally after the war, when Rose went through a government change, that we were approached by durmij at the idea (Granted it was pushed as Oblige's idea for Rose to talk to Mensa) and those listed earlier began to fix relations with our communities.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. You're trying to twist what I said to fit your narrative. I've contested everything you said but you're insisting on your skewed narrative. Ultimately, it's proven that you can't be reasoned with and you have your head up your ass.

I got nothing to twist. These are just hard truths that you can't swallow. Your spin is all over the place and are neither convincing nor conherent. The facts have a nice consistency to them.

 

The only thing you have proven is that the only place you can lead a coalition to is down into the gutter.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

classy allegory...

  • 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

Oh my god, this thread.

 

If there was a program that could convert forum threads to videos, this thread would become a porn flick. The title would read "Young Korean Woman Commits Suicide by Bukkake."

 

Careful there.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The blitz and its outcome has literally nothing to do with the faith of the negotiations. You try to win the war, until it's over. Are they supposed to pull punches because there is a channel of FA people from both sides posting cat pictures?

 

You're really reaching on things to hold against the other side, Roq. You're the coalition that hit them, aggressively, with no CB (okay, twist my arm: a super secret one that is definately garbage), and tons of broken intel clauses all over the damn place. You were given more civility than your side gave, and I suspect even you know it.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Upvote 3

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are bothered by the fact that IQ continues to insist that their nonexistent CB is a legitimate one. Using no CB would be better than trying to legitimize their excuse.

 

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!!!

 

Here have a cupcake.

 

On a side note, if there's no changing their minds, maybe we should actually behave like the big bag hegemoney they make us out to be? Cause !@#$ it, why not?

Edited by Felkey
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.