Jump to content

Dancing Was a Metaphor, Guys


Adrienne
 Share

Recommended Posts

Didn’t you know @Hodor, every member of the Horde is a FA delegate of the Horde.  The community here decided so.

(I also didn’t read that wall of text fully.  Holy shit that’s bad.)

Regarding that first paragraph quoted on Lordship, there’s a HUGE difference between plotting BETRAYAL “as a hypothetical” to what your reasonings are here.

 

>Hit the first person who shit talked us

You mean like I did with Polaris??

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Didn’t you know @Hodor, every member of the Horde is a FA delegate of the Horde.  The community here decided so.

(I also didn’t read that wall of text fully.  Holy shit that’s bad.)

Regarding that first paragraph quoted on Lordship, there’s a HUGE difference between plotting BETRAYAL “as a hypothetical” to what your reasonings are here.

  

>Hit the first person who shit talked us

You mean like I did with Polaris?? 

Sure, betrayal is worse, we can agree on that. My point is that the "hypothetical" defense is not an acceptable one based on the fact that we fought a massive war over it already.

>with Polaris

Not saying that as a general rule we hit whoever shit talks us. I'm saying that you of all people know best what could happen if you spend your time shit-talking alliance since you hit Polar over it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Can we just acknowledge that KT may get rolled but will win the war on the sole basis of forcing the word horsecock to be used so many times in serious conversation.

Culture Victory?

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna restate what I've always maintained, there were no plans to roll TKR that KT participated in and that just because one gov member who doesn't control the FA direction of the alliance, doesn't like you, is a pretty weak justification for war.

But hey, if that's all we need as a cb now, I'll take it. It means I have a lot of cbs now.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Keegoz said:

Gonna restate what I've always maintained, there were no plans to roll TKR that KT participated in and that just because one gov member who doesn't control the FA direction of the alliance, doesn't like you, is a pretty weak justification for war.

But hey, if that's all we need as a cb now, I'll take it. It means I have a lot of cbs now.

 

On 6/9/2018 at 4:16 PM, Nizam Adrienne said:

As an additional note, Keegoz got the privilege of seeing a few of these logs a couple days again – a sneak preview if you will.
His response? “So your logs show that one of our gov members doesn’t like you?”

It’s heartwarming to see treaty partners learning from one another and growing but maybe pick a different lesson than the lack of accountability one, Keegoz?
I know TGH is a pro at that but – bit of free advice here – it won’t make you any friends.

 

Day late and a dollar short, love.

Edited by Nizam Adrienne
  • Upvote 2

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im just gonna throw this out there...

..but when have CBs been technically needed for a war? I mean I understand people want a publicly stated reason, but in my history of simulation games, the only time there seems to be this insane push for a CB or a proper CB for that matter, is when one side is just legitimately upset over the fact they are being hit in war. 

This is also not a jab at anyone in the war, just actually trying to comprehend -when have CB's been actually needed. 

Why not just a - Just cuz - war? Cb? nahhh we doin this shit just cuz.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Not sure about others but while i technically agree with you that cb's are not needed, I believe the inclusion of them enriches gameplay. It provided favor and meaning to wars. Sim games like pw generally consists of bland, simplistic gameplay mechanics and rely on their respectieve communities to keep themselves engaged. CB related stuff is one tool to keep things interesting.

I know i definitely would get bored of perpetual war (And peace) without purpose.

Alright pops, that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mad Max said:

Im just gonna throw this out there...

..but when have CBs been technically needed for a war? I mean I understand people want a publicly stated reason, but in my history of simulation games, the only time there seems to be this insane push for a CB or a proper CB for that matter, is when one side is just legitimately upset over the fact they are being hit in war. 

This is also not a jab at anyone in the war, just actually trying to comprehend -when have CB's been actually needed. 

Why not just a - Just cuz - war? Cb? nahhh we doin this shit just cuz.

Because no CB means a huge stability hit and aggressive expansion penalties, of course

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Buorhann said:

[...*snip*]

Regarding that first paragraph quoted on Lordship, there’s a HUGE difference between plotting BETRAYAL “as a hypothetical” to what your reasonings are here.

 

>Hit the first person who shit talked us

You mean like I did with Polaris??

I agree that overtly plotting against your allies is pretty bad, but mate, for you to be the one saying that, REALLY?  You pulled Kastor into your alliance, and let him have a role there, immediately after we dumped him for EXACTLY that kind of behavior...literally asking an alliance to, and I quote, "betray" their ally.  We don't tolerate dishonorable, faithless, and reckless behavior, and we appreciate those who understand what it means to honor their word, regardless of personal cost.

On the other hand, if you are overtly discussing who to attack next, and someone decides to hit you before you try to form a big coalition to hit them, well, I think they've made a smart move.  I wouldn't consider it exactly a friendly gesture to be discussing, in-depth, not merely whether an alliance is a threat to you but whether and how to plan an attack on them. Hypothetical or not, those kind of logs don't arise from a momentary checkup on the status of your relationship to TKR.

Now, as for your second attempt at moral equivalence, Polaris trashtalked TGH?  Hmmmmmm.  When would that be, and where was there any suggestion of hitting TGH, plotting to roll TGH, or hypothetically discussing hitting TGH?  I'd be quite amused to see what you can come up with to justify that.  Either TGH is way too credulous or deeply paranoid.  I'm guessing paranoid; with the cast of derelicts that quickly assembled under TGH's roof, it'd make sense that you'd constantly be looking over your shoulder, but I think you had a lot more reason to be paranoid of other alliances that had a good CB on you.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Kriegskoenig said:

I agree that overtly plotting against your allies is pretty bad, but mate, for you to be the one saying that, REALLY?  You pulled Kastor into your alliance, and let him have a role there, immediately after we dumped him for EXACTLY that kind of behavior...literally asking an alliance to, and I quote, "betray" their ally.  We don't tolerate dishonorable, faithless, and reckless behavior, and we appreciate those who understand what it means to honor their word, regardless of personal cost.

On the other hand, if you are overtly discussing who to attack next, and someone decides to hit you before you try to form a big coalition to hit them, well, I think they've made a smart move.  I wouldn't consider it exactly a friendly gesture to be discussing, in-depth, not merely whether an alliance is a threat to you but whether and how to plan an attack on them. Hypothetical or not, those kind of logs don't arise from a momentary checkup on the status of your relationship to TKR.

Now, as for your second attempt at moral equivalence, Polaris trashtalked TGH?  Hmmmmmm.  When would that be, and where was there any suggestion of hitting TGH, plotting to roll TGH, or hypothetically discussing hitting TGH?  I'd be quite amused to see what you can come up with to justify that.  Either TGH is way too credulous or deeply paranoid.  I'm guessing paranoid; with the cast of derelicts that quickly assembled under TGH's roof, it'd make sense that you'd constantly be looking over your shoulder, but I think you had a lot more reason to be paranoid of other alliances that had a good CB on you.
 

 

Do you even know what we’re referencing or talking about to begin with?  Or did you just type up a bunch of words for the sake of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2018 at 12:24 AM, Micchan said:

26134323938658aae538a42722ee7706882dc1dd

Pretty sure I forgot someone

Completely ignoring you have the next largest alliance in score working with you as well. I commend the graphic but it ignores so many situational conditions for each of those wars. 

Also, it's true - people won't go to war anymore unless they are pretty convinced they will win. The last war I can think of that was really "could go either way" great VE war. Oktoberfest /should/ have been an easy win for UPN but uhh didn't work out. "You're too big" is an argument you'll see in every war you have so long as you guys keep on doing math before you hit. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Partisan said:

Completely ignoring you have the next largest alliance in score working with you as well. I commend the graphic but it ignores so many situational conditions for each of those wars. 

Also, it's true - people won't go to war anymore unless they are pretty convinced they will win. The last war I can think of that was really "could go either way" great VE war. Oktoberfest /should/ have been an easy win for UPN but uhh didn't work out. "You're too big" is an argument you'll see in every war you have so long as you guys keep on doing math before you hit. 

So because we have been successful in war and in peace we should drop our longest standing allies and friends because you don't like it? It's not like we have the entire top 10 tied to us or anything like that, so when you have a real reason why we should cut our ties, come and talk to me.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, apparently militarizing is unfair (since TCW wouldn't be #2 if not militarized, and the score gap would be much smaller). Apparently growing well in peace is also unfair( TKR wouldn't be #1 without our great econ and IA programs, we literally built up from being a micro of 10 people, well not me since I joined with VI, but you get the point). Apparently being not !@#$ in FA is also unfair(We wouldn't have hit you without CB) So, in conclusion, the only way for a fight to be fair is to intentionally handicap yourself so everyone fights 1v1 with the same score. Seriously?? I think the term y'all are looking for is an "even" fight, not fair. Last I checked, in-game nor out-of-game stuff inherently favors TKR and co. Y'all made your decisions, now learn to live with them rather than trying to run away from them. That's like a 10 year old's response to a situation, I expected a level of maturity from y'all, but instead have been disappointed. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

I don't sleep enough

Also, I am an Keynesian Utilitarian

Lastly, Hello world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Partisan said:

Completely ignoring you have the next largest alliance in score working with you as well. I commend the graphic but it ignores so many situational conditions for each of those wars. 

Also, it's true - people won't go to war anymore unless they are pretty convinced they will win. The last war I can think of that was really "could go either way" great VE war. Oktoberfest /should/ have been an easy win for UPN but uhh didn't work out. "You're too big" is an argument you'll see in every war you have so long as you guys keep on doing math before you hit. 

Oktoberfest might have being a win if the alliances involved in it day 1 were the only ones involved in it and even that is somewhat questionable if the war dragged on. 
 

Edited by Lightning

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Felkey said:

So because we have been successful in war and in peace we should drop our longest standing allies and friends because you don't like it? It's not like we have the entire top 10 tied to us or anything like that, so when you have a real reason why we should cut our ties, come and talk to me.

Lol literally this could be about TKR pulling the trigger on EMC. I can’t take this reply seriously actually, get me out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clarke said:

Oktoberfest might have being a win if the alliances involved in it day 1 were the only ones involved in it and even that is somewhat questionable if the war dragged on. 
 

Bollocks. That's spin. You had superior numbers, especially up top- even with the alliances that came in later included.

 

Also hello Clarkness, my old friend.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tkr gov that went a bit spazy with treaty cuts isn't the same gov as now. So we should just abandon our allies because they made some mistakes? If everyone held permanent grudges for mistakes, 90% of the players in the game would be forced to.delete because they would be all alone. Myself included.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
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.