Jump to content

WTF happened to this place?


Sailor Jerry
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Rache Olderen said:

Depends on how you define dynamic really. And no, I actually said switching sides is dynamic, something both the IQ alliances (minus NPO and GoG) and Rose did. Might not have conveyed it right. The treaty web thing was more a matter of consolidation which is screamed all the time when an IQ member signs a treaty. Though I would say we were more dynamic in our side swapping than Rose since Rose flipped to the objectively winning side while we switched to the losing side. :P You have to truly be for dynamic change to join the side that lost two wars in a row and got a draw on the third.

Opinions can change over time can it not? And, setting that aside, I can say I had a joke in mind as I was a bit aiming at sarcasm. But having Aspergers and being sick for the past week while on an online forum makes it hard to convey.

Technically we dropped out of paracov, attempted to form a third sphere, failed miserably, fought a war, lost a war, had our only remaining ally attempt to extort money out of us, and then dropped them, and THEN switched sides. But ya know details don't paint as pretty a picture for you to spin.

I wouldn't claim our move to the other side was dynamic. Mensa was the only alliance willing to take a chance on us when we were falling apart and we weren't exactly going to turn down that sort of help at the time. Did it change politics, possibly in a significant way? Sure, maybe depending who you ask, but I'd not morally grandstand and pretend that was the goal. Noone else showed with offers because as I've said before, people are all pragmatists, and Rose was looking like it was going to fall apart and die at the time, so naturally no pragmatist would want anything to do with that.

Basically I concur with Seekers point early since Rose and VE were in the same boat back then.

 

 

 

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, durmij said:

Fair enough, but it's lacking in context as a joke then and in sincerity now. There is only one official bloc in the game, with a supremacy clause no less. If Rose cuts 3 treaties, it's completely away from TKR. 

Those treaties aren't likely to get cut though. The allegiances are what matter, not the amount of paper. A sphere could have a big level of cooperation with no paper at all.  You also conditioned any paperless move on defending TKR and co if they got hit. At the end of the day, you see their interests as your interests and that's the important thing. There isn't anything keeping alliances from cancelling all of their treaties if they want to make a move aside from it not achieving a desired outcome.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Technically we dropped out of paracov, attempted to form a third sphere, failed miserably, fought a war, lost a war, had our only remaining ally attempt to extort money out of us, and then dropped them, and THEN switched sides. But ya know details don't paint as pretty a picture for you to spin.

Lets be honest.  If approaching the alliance (that under my understanding brought us into a war through an MDAP) and asking them to help foot some of the bill for a war our government didn't support is extorting then by all means I extorted the f out of you.

Edited by Seeker

gog-forum-size-regs.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Roquentin said:

Those treaties aren't likely to get cut though. The allegiances are what matter, not the amount of paper. A sphere could have a big level of cooperation with no paper at all.  You also conditioned any paperless move on defending TKR and co if they got hit. At the end of the day, you see their interests as your interests and that's the important thing. There isn't anything keeping alliances from cancelling all of their treaties if they want to make a move aside from it not achieving a desired outcome.

 

I literally just said a few posts above "Bring me a list of people in IQ wanting to leave blah blah"

Neither side wants to cut treaties without assurances the other side will because both sides are worried about disrupting the balance of power.

So ggnore

1 minute ago, Seeker said:

Lets be honest.  If approaching the alliance (that under my understanding brought us into a war through an MDAP) and asking them to help foot some of the bill for a war our government didn't support is extorting then by all means I extorted the f out of you.

We already settled this debate previously, you conceded that miscommunication between your government and moonpie was the issue. Even Roq has previously stated that Moonpie was on board with the war.

You did what you thought was right at the time because you weren't kept in the loop and we responded how anyone would in that situation. It doesn't change the facts on the ground but it does paint a more complicated picture than "hurr durr swapped sides hurr durr".

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roquentin said:

Those treaties aren't likely to get cut though. The allegiances are what matter, not the amount of paper. A sphere could have a big level of cooperation with no paper at all.  You also conditioned any paperless move on defending TKR and co if they got hit. At the end of the day, you see their interests as your interests and that's the important thing. There isn't anything keeping alliances from cancelling all of their treaties if they want to make a move aside from it not achieving a desired outcome.

 

I'm talking about potential. Think of it like activation energy for a chemical reaction. At this point, it would take a lot to move Rose out of EMC, because it got no CBeD preempted last war and was just in the focus of unprovoked schemes by a third party. It's unlikely to go anywhere unless Redarmy has massive cojanges. But any IQ alliance has baggage of their own and has to contend with finding a new home and getting out from under a bloc, while limited in movement because of the supremacy clause.

You're whataboutism is weak game son. Sketchy's argument wasn't that Rose was some paragon of dynamism. It was that IQ is just as guilty of what it accuses others of being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sketchy said:

I literally just said a few posts above "Bring me a list of people in IQ wanting to leave blah blah"

Neither side wants to cut treaties without assurances the other side will because both sides are worried about disrupting the balance of power.

So ggnore

There isn't a point in cutting the treaties without it representing intrasphere tensions. Inorganic splits aren't a solution.  Cancelling the treaties as a formality just privileges whoever is able to maintain cohesion on a paperless level the most. It's not supposed to be a negotiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, durmij said:

Fair enough, but it's lacking in context as a joke then and in sincerity now. There is only one official bloc in the game, with a supremacy clause no less. If Rose cuts 3 treaties, it's completely away from TKR. 

Also, forgot to mention, but the SK rolling thing wasn't about 3rd spheres, it was about SK pissing off Mensa and being allied to an alliance that slandered Mensa's ally. Mensa liked to fight and SK gave them a reason. And we didn't switch because we lost. We signed people we liked who wanted to try to win, and dropped people we didn't like who didn't try to win.

My sense of humor is a bit odd I do admit so that does happen a lot, my joke about rolling BK/CS was planning for war against BK that I made last year was taken seriously by some after all. But I will say for the first time it sounded like a joke to me since to me I wrote it with a lighthearted tone in mind.  The second time (this time) is probably a bit of a combo of joking, my sickness speaking (this season has been bad for me), and general annoyance about the constant IQ bashing, the screams of consolidation (even if the treaties were signed simply out of liking the other alliance as you noted), and having the alliance I have been in for the past two years being called an "irrelevant sidenote alliance" and treated as a dog in those remarks. Cornerstone is the sole reason I stay in this game and community so it would naturally grate on my temper. Not that I don't admit CS does indeed have problems, I highlighted them a lot in my term, but something like that causes my temper to flare up. Yes, it probably sounds pathetic but still, I owe a lot to CS and its community so that is how I feel about things.

 

As for the SK thing when isn't Mensa annoyed or pissed off at someone/something? :P But in seriousness good to know thank you for the enlightenment (and yes I am being serious).

Edited by Rache Olderen

UQllJcz.png?2

2nd, 4th, and 6th Adelphotes Princeps of Cornerstone, Ambassador to Black Knights, 4th Grand Pilus of Cornerstone, 2nd Chaplain of Cornerstone, 5th Questor Princeps of Cornerstone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rache Olderen said:

As for the SK thing when isn't Mensa annoyed or pissed off at someone/something? :P But in seriousness good to know thank you for the enlightenment (and yes I am being serious).

They were, it's why they were such a great engine of activity. No prob mate, maybe I should make an audio diary of all the shit that happened with us and them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I literally just said a few posts above "Bring me a list of people in IQ wanting to leave blah blah"

Neither side wants to cut treaties without assurances the other side will because both sides are worried about disrupting the balance of power.

So ggnore

We already settled this debate previously, you conceded that miscommunication between your government and moonpie was the issue. Even Roq has previously stated that Moonpie was on board with the war.

You did what you thought was right at the time because you weren't kept in the loop and we responded how anyone would in that situation. It doesn't change the facts on the ground but it does paint a more complicated picture than "hurr durr swapped sides hurr durr".

You are correct but needlessly painting us as attempting to extort you is blatantly false.  If I had dragged an ally into an offensive war that they didn't agree with it then I would see no issues if they requested financial assistance.

gog-forum-size-regs.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Seeker said:

You are correct but needlessly painting us as attempting to extort you is blatantly false.  If I had dragged an ally into an offensive war that they didn't agree with it then I would see no issues if they requested financial assistance.

!@#$ MOONPIE APPROACHED KEEGOZ DON'T MAKE ME TELL YOU AGAIN.

Damn, I'm supposed to be asleep but y'all fools got me out here defending Kegels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

There isn't a point in cutting the treaties without it representing intrasphere tensions. Inorganic splits aren't a solution.  Cancelling the treaties as a formality just privileges whoever is able to maintain cohesion on a paperless level the most. It's not supposed to be a negotiation.

Ok so we agree. How about we agree then that everyone should shut up and stop whining about it?

  • Upvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, durmij said:

!@#$ MOONPIE APPROACHED KEEGOZ DON'T MAKE ME TELL YOU AGAIN.

Damn, I'm supposed to be asleep but y'all fools got me out here defending Kegels.

I am not saying that's not true but we weren't made aware of a lot of this until well after the war ended.  Hence why I have said that assessment is incorrect considering I was the one talking to you guys about it. 

gog-forum-size-regs.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Seeker said:

You are correct but needlessly painting us as attempting to extort you is blatantly false.  If I had dragged an ally into an offensive war that they didn't agree with it then I would see no issues if they requested financial assistance.

You did try to extort us. Let me be clear, it was YOUR alliances miscommunication and YOUR own impulses that drove you to doing so.

All the new information that came to light only changes the fault of the situation somewhat from you to Moonpie. We did nothing wrong, it was a VE problem, just like not showing up for the war in the first place was a VE problem. So yes, it would be accurate in saying "our only remaining ally attempt to extort money out of us" both in the context of our perception and in the context of objective facts.

  • Upvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sketchy said:

You did try to extort us. Let me be clear, it was YOUR alliances miscommunication and YOUR own impulses that drove you to doing so.

All the new information that came to light only changes the fault of the situation somewhat from you to Moonpie. We did nothing wrong, it was a VE problem, just like not showing up for the war in the first place was a VE problem. So yes, it would be accurate in saying "our only remaining ally attempt to extort money out of us" both in the context of our perception and in the context of objective facts.

Imagine I said this, but louder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need more threads like this so eventually the false bravado gets called out and sparks a war. Keep it up Jerry.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ϟħ̧i̧ᖷɫ̵γ͘ ̶ϟɫΓåπ҉გ℥̨Γ said:

We need more threads like this so eventually the false bravado gets called out and sparks a war. Keep it up Jerry.

Wasn't that tried about two weeks ago and only resulted in a 16 page long forum post over in Alliance affairs concerning HW and TKR?

UQllJcz.png?2

2nd, 4th, and 6th Adelphotes Princeps of Cornerstone, Ambassador to Black Knights, 4th Grand Pilus of Cornerstone, 2nd Chaplain of Cornerstone, 5th Questor Princeps of Cornerstone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rache Olderen said:

Wasn't that tried about two weeks ago and only resulted in a 16 page long forum post over in Alliance affairs concerning HW and TKR?

You gotta grind away, keep the thought in their head. Make their mind wander as to who is truly the best. If they already think they're the best, get them to think they're invincible and that they should give the other side a good pounding. We all know that's how ECM might lose to IQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Seeker said:

Sketchy brought this up earlier but the fact of the matter is if anyone was honestly interested in making the game more dynamic it would have occurred when Rose/VE split from the Covenant.  Now all of a sudden people want the power players to make dynamic moves.  Personally, you had your shot and I really don't want to hear complaints about it now.
 

That's nice.  Everyone wasn't around back then.

Making dynamic moves is a perpetual process, not one and done.

7 hours ago, Rache Olderen said:

I seem to recall SK trying something and then getting militarily destroyed. But I suppose they did not git gud enough like Rose did by flipping sides to the winning side. Made a fatal error there. Flipping sides is clearly better political dynamicism. Hence why BK, CS, and Zodiac followed suit hoping to imitate Rose's great ways.

Yea, dynamic moves involve a lot of FA behind the scenes.

To be fair, the real problem is the abundant apathy in trying to contact and communicate with people.  There's so much dismissal against complicated speech here that it makes dynamic moves practically impossible. People need to stop their "lul 4 da memez" if anything's going to happen.

7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

It's just a game life cycle. The vast majority of sustaining players in these games aren't even that interested in the politics which are mostly the domain of a rather small number of junkies/leaders. The game's been reliant on too few people and never achieved the broad playerbase needed for it to be more sustainable. What's missing here is unlike a television show, the actors don't benefit from having higher ratings, so the only impetus is either boredom or competition. If people don't get bored enough to do more stuff like Sparta or see someone else as a competitor they need to combat, nothing will change. There aren't that many people who treat it as a pure game where it's the main goal to make it as entertaining as possible/handicap themselves.

Yea, no argument there.  There's definitely a lack of ambition in what people want from relaxing too much.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

imo you'd be so much better off changing alliances entirely, or just starting your own alliance :v

But I like the alliance and I don't want to move

And IC just posted his leg to make me happy 25578448332f762d12118bb10d524192c37d4f4e

10 hours ago, Edward I said:

2) IQ lost most of its whales in the last war. NPO had and still has the fewest of anyone in the sphere (zero, to be exact). NPO's largest nation has a score of 2700 and an alliance seniority of 1 day; its second-largest nation has a score of less than 2200.

Perfect range for my downdeclares, pls start a war :3

10 hours ago, LeotheGreat said:

1: The reason OWF sucks is because it's a cancerous circle jerk that is hostile to any IQ content

Bullshit, LPS is our hero

10 hours ago, GalacticManatee said:

Only if IC was to lead again would I even consider it

IC will come back

ill-be-back.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Zeebrus said:

I didn’t read like, any of this, because it’s all way too long

So I’m gonna say “I believe if we unite the world under the currency of Robux, we would all advance to a higher level of being” and then leave

ok bye

Then don't post? Even Shifty made a substantive post for this one.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching the treaty web of Rose I'm more convinced that we should have a max number of treaties, like 4 treaties max

Also the two major blocs should meet and agree to a double split to go from 2 to 4 blocs, like TKR bloc, Rose bloc, NPO bloc, BK bloc, plus there's the nuke bloc and maybe Knights Templar with another bloc

Right now if you are for example t$ you can only fight with paperless alliances because if you try to hit anyone else half of the game jumps on you, but if you have many tiny blocs even a paperless alliance has a chance

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Micchan said:

Watching the treaty web of Rose I'm more convinced that we should have a max number of treaties, like 4 treaties max

Also the two major blocs should meet and agree to a double split to go from 2 to 4 blocs, like TKR bloc, Rose bloc, NPO bloc, BK bloc, plus there's the nuke bloc and maybe Knights Templar with another bloc

Right now if you are for example t$ you can only fight with paperless alliances because if you try to hit anyone else half of the game jumps on you, but if you have many tiny blocs even a paperless alliance has a chance

While it is an interesting thought the problem is two fold, there is no incentive for either side to do so and artificial splits would not work because the friendly FA is still there, meaning that it would be expected for the NPO bloc and the BK bloc to cooperate with one another if war happened, same with the TKR bloc and the Rose bloc. If at least to balance out the other side and for security concerns. So effectively it changes the scenery of the starting line but not moving anywhere past said line.

Example: The TKR and Rose bloc team up to roll the NPO bloc (something I can fully see happening). The BK bloc would most likely find it in their best interest to help the NPO bloc because they do not want to be next (something a bit less likely but also very possible).

Of course the Nuke bloc and KT bloc could add a theoretical dynamic to it but at most it boils down to "Which one will go with who" in the above example (placing my money on them doing nothing as it is effectively an EMC-IQ war now).

Now you are right on the t$ thing of course, though, if you ask me, unless t$ rallies the paperless or another bloc to fight along side them I can't see t$ solo running any alliance in the other blocs because the other alliances in said bloc would of course declare war, it is twofold as t$ would not be able to cover the entire score range of a bigger alliance effectively and they would need the extra manpower to actually suppress them and force anything they want.

Now if Alex tried changing the game mechanics to enforce artificially separate spheres to break us up that would work.

And Alex if you are reading this please don't do that, please.

  • Upvote 1

UQllJcz.png?2

2nd, 4th, and 6th Adelphotes Princeps of Cornerstone, Ambassador to Black Knights, 4th Grand Pilus of Cornerstone, 2nd Chaplain of Cornerstone, 5th Questor Princeps of Cornerstone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not happenstance that when TEst went away the game suffered.   

We need another paperless giant to rise up, unafraid to mix things up - be the catalyst to make the game interesting again.

I was excited that T$ went paperless and I hope they decide to make some moves soon.  

  • Upvote 3
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.