War Stats

[Spaceman Thrax]

22 minutes ago, Kastor said:

You guys keep talking about membership. I want to point out that I’m not seeing it internally. Every alliance has “dead-weight”. We had 2-3 mergers, so obviously we’re gonna have some dead weight that has to be kicked/who leaves. I’d say that the number we have is more comparative to what the membership base is, maybe minus a few people who straight up deserted.

Hahaha. Oh man. Saying you don't see why you lost half of your members doesn't make you look like less of a moron, dude.

Saying they were dead weight seems pretty disrespectful to IoM. Those members were solid as Hell, and had no problem with impossible odds until they ended up in your alliance.

 

 

Also, sorry Buor. I just don't put much stock in anything you say at this point. I've already laid out many of the reasons to you, so keep acting flabbergasted if you please, but I'll waste my time elsewhere.

[Sir Scarfalot]

3 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Alright. Let's unpack some of this.

First of all, you have a fair point that you were the one that said unbreakable, not anyone else. I used it to make a shot at some of your leadership anyway, because I think they are goofs. And I think anyone perusing this thread can probably piece together the proverbial tip of the iceburg of why I think that. And as I said to Sketchy, their criticisms and opinions mean little to me, because they are too often argued in bad faith (and usually in a fairly low effort manner I think most sensible people see little reason to engage).

But if I'm going to post your post to make that point, I should probably explain myself better to you, so here goes. I'm down for a little actual discourse, so sorry for starting from somewhere so flippant with you.

Most of what you said sounds to me like it came from an echo chamber rather than a top-down view of events. You probably oughtn't include KT and ET if you're going to talk about fighting hard since their inception (And I wouldn't make the same criticism about KT/ET either, because their actions seem more in line with their far lower amount of gloating), so let's look at TGH.

From the get go, your alliance has postured like a fighting alliance. You are correct that you've spent a lot of days engaged in wars. I don't agree you were outfunded in last war, and I don't agree that you "fought against IQ directly for over a month", because your leaders deliberately tried to avoid engaging IQ's core numbers from the war's outset. Your alliance had plenty of old time players who had resources to funnel and keep yourselves going. You were not a new alliance in the purest sense of the word. I recall a lot of posturing that war about the stats involved, and to me that looked like a fairly direct consequence of frontloading damage against the weaker parts of IQ's greater sphere, not some masterstroke of elite warfare. That's actually not to say you don't fight well, impressively, or fiercely... But you're also overstating your case a bit, I feel. And with the way your leaders had postured, they should deliver on that... I expect it. And to cap that off with a NAP, well, to me, that's a surrender. It is your alliance losing the political end of the conflict it set out to fight. If you give me bogus terms and I'm unbreakable, I'd just tell you no. So something in there isn't right.

The basis of my comparison to TRF is that TRF never claimed to be a fighting alliance. I have seen precious little of the kind of grandstanding I see from your alliance from them (I'm sure there's some, but in terms of volume nowhere close). So when your elite, warfighting alliance goes off to fight TRF and has comparable levels of membership loss, I don't think I'm coming out of left field pointing out the disconnect.

Anyway you can hit me up on discord if you wanna take this aside, up to you.

First off, I'd said that KT/ET had fought hard since TGH's inception; I'm well aware they've fought far less frequently and on smaller scales in the past, sorry if I put it confusingly.

As for the last war, you're 100% right; my alliance did deliberately avoid engaging IQ's core numbers from the war's outset and even signed a separate NAP to that effect. But we're not talking about IoM, we're discussing TGH, which did not. ...As far as I am aware, anyway. I'm pretty sure though.

Anyway, TGH/KT/ET as alliances have fought resolutely despite the odds. That's what I mean by 'unbreakable'. And at this point even if the war ends today, it still cannot be denied that we've gone well above and beyond; this has in fact been the longest active war so far in Orbis' history (some have been longer but weren't actively fought, kind of like how the 3rd Punic War 'ended' in 1985 and thus stands as the longest war in human history... kinda.).

When it comes to the NAP... I don't know. I have no idea what kind of internal issues the other alliances in or out of IQ were or were not having, I don't know what kind of paperless politics were in play, I don't know how the negotiations went, and I sure as hell wasn't privy to any of it; I'd in fact stacked my action points in preparation for a solid doublebuy strike when the leadership peaced out and ruined it T^T. But even then, that's just a temporary complaint; I really can't see how 'white peace without reps' equates to 'surrender' in any possible sense. The whole thing was declared by IQ, and they didn't give any public reasoning beyond the memes in their DoW, so I really have no idea if they got what they wanted or if we got what we wanted or whatever political shenanigans blah blah blah... I'm just a guy that launches missiles, whatd'ya want from me? This is why I don't into FA. ...That, and the fact that me being an FA officer always has apocalyptic results.

1 hour ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Hahaha. Oh man. Saying you don't see why you lost half of your members doesn't make you look like less of a moron, dude.

Saying they were dead weight seems pretty disrespectful to IoM. Those members were solid as Hell, and had no problem with impossible odds until they ended up in your alliance.

Also, sorry Buor. I just don't put much stock in anything you say at this point. I've already laid out many of the reasons to you, so keep acting flabbergasted if you please, but I'll waste my time elsewhere.

I mean, Kastor did say that there were 2-3 mergers; besides, IoM didn't merge with TGH. IoM straight up disbanded, and most of IoM either quit or joined alliances other than TGH. It's only me and a couple others that joined TGH from IoM, and some of those have since gone inactive. TGH can't be blamed for any of that, especially since TGH had been offering plenty of economic assistance right up to the end. I'm sorry, but IoM was burning out on their own after that drama with people accusing Arnout of stealing IoM's rebuild money for a new city. (It was his money that he'd been saving up personally for months, and the rebuild fund was still ready to be distributed, but even the false accusation was enough to precipitate a crisis that cut the leadership core of IoM by half. Which was extremely disappointing.)

...The whole drama thing that destroyed IoM happened right as I became acting primarch of FA, thus supporting my point that making me an FA officer always results in disaster ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway I think that about covers it

Edited July 26, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot

[Kastor]

3 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Hahaha. Oh man. Saying you don't see why you lost half of your members doesn't make you look like less of a moron, dude.

Saying they were dead weight seems pretty disrespectful to IoM. Those members were solid as Hell, and had no problem with impossible odds until they ended up in your alliance.

 

 

Also, sorry Buor. I just don't put much stock in anything you say at this point. I've already laid out many of the reasons to you, so keep acting flabbergasted if you please, but I'll waste my time elsewhere.

First off, that’s not at all what I said. Either gain reading comprehension or don’t speak. 

 

Next, IoM wasn’t our only merge, we also had AO and another micro join us. Calling someone who doesn’t fit into the alliance and go along with our plan “dead weight” isn’t rude or offensive, and if it is, how? Feel free to explain that to me. To make another point, how would you know if those members of IoM were “solid”? They fought 2 wars, one where they were on top winning and didn’t fight majority of the opposition because of a NAP. The other was a war that lasted somewhere between 2-4 weeks(if that long). So how does this constitute that those members were “solid as hell”? 

As you’re so keen to defend IoM, I would like answers to all of those questions. Otherwise, you can just admit that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and resort to insulting me or my character, ignoring my question, and saying something about how it’s not worth your time to answer any questions. The usual and what you’ve already done in this thread when you don’t have a defense to your bogus claims. 

 

(Note: notice how I didn’t insinuate that you were a moron, because I’m about to have civil conversations without resorting to name-calling, unlike you.)

[Buorhann]

8 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Also, sorry Buor. I just don't put much stock in anything you say at this point. I've already laid out many of the reasons to you, so keep acting flabbergasted if you please, but I'll waste my time elsewhere.

>laid out many reasons

You probably need to go back and read through our history, and see your own actions leading up to recent, but of course.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Buorhann

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

14 hours ago, Kastor said:

You want to berate us until we never fight unless it’s useless dogpiles that do nothing to enhance the game at all(CoS/TEst va SK/AIM)?

How do more even wars enhance the game?

[Kastor]

1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

How do more even wars enhance the game?

I never said “more even wars” enhance the game. Learn reading comprehension. You seem to lack it.

[Settra]

21 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Definitely nothing wrong with your sharp analytical skills.

Thanks man, knew I could count on you.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

36 minutes ago, Kastor said:

I never said “more even wars” enhance the game. Learn reading comprehension. You seem to lack it.

ok if you are going to be snooty about it, then what kind of wars do enhance the game?

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

36 minutes ago, Kastor said:

I never said “more even wars” enhance the game. Learn reading comprehension. You seem to lack it.

Boy you throw an awful lot of salt for being a dunce, don't you?

The logic to follow here is simple. If dogpiles are useless and nothing to the game, the logical conclusion is that the person making this statement believes conflicts with more balanced sides would be more interesting, or 'dynamic' as it were.

It is literally one of the easiest logical pathways to follow i've ever seen, and you manage to miss it. I'm actually hoping it was on purpose, because the alternative is that you're just an idiot. 

[Sir Scarfalot]

2 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

ok if you are going to be snooty about it, then what kind of wars do enhance the game?

Not "more even wars", rather "even more wars".

Understandable mistake.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot

[Kastor]

2 hours ago, Lairah said:

Boy you throw an awful lot of salt for being a dunce, don't you?

The logic to follow here is simple. If dogpiles are useless and nothing to the game, the logical conclusion is that the person making this statement believes conflicts with more balanced sides would be more interesting, or 'dynamic' as it were.

It is literally one of the easiest logical pathways to follow i've ever seen, and you manage to miss it. I'm actually hoping it was on purpose, because the alternative is that you're just an idiot. 

@Sweeeeet Ronny D you can get your answer here as well.

 

I never said dogpiles were useless either. You clearly also lack reading comprehension.

Yet again, resorting to name-calling instead of addressing any facts of the matter. I never said anything about “even wars” either. Both of you went to a random conclusion instead of addressing what I said. I simply, very simply said, that “useless dogpiles” don’t enhance the game. I then gave an example of a useless dogpile that didn’t enhance the game at all. If you wish to argue if that war enhanced the game(you didn’t, because neither of you think it either), then that’s another case. However if you’re just going to take things I say, pull them out of context, then make broad narratives about them, then you’ll never “win” this argument. Since one of you will undoubtedly ask, a Dogpile that enhanced the game was Syndisphere v. TEst. 

 

Now that I’ve explained, I hope you both understand some basic reading comprehension. Also, @Lairah, calling someone an idiot, and a dunce doesn’t make you anymore right or wrong. Nor does ever being rude in a political discussion, or discussion in general ever help you explain your point of view. 

 

 

36 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Not "more even wars", rather "even more wars".

Understandable mistake.

Thing is, I didn’t even say that, SRD simply insinuated that I said that. That never came from me. I said something about useless dogpiles and he brings up a question about “even wars”. 

[Sir Scarfalot]

5 minutes ago, Kastor said:

Thing is, I didn’t even say that, SRD simply insinuated that I said that. That never came from me. I said something about useless dogpiles and he brings up a question about “even wars”. 

I was just trying to do some wordplay to be funny :c

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

1 hour ago, Kastor said:

@Sweeeeet Ronny D you can get your answer here as well.

 

I never said dogpiles were useless either. You clearly also lack reading comprehension.

Yet again, resorting to name-calling instead of addressing any facts of the matter. I never said anything about “even wars” either. Both of you went to a random conclusion instead of addressing what I said. I simply, very simply said, that “useless dogpiles” don’t enhance the game. I then gave an example of a useless dogpile that didn’t enhance the game at all. If you wish to argue if that war enhanced the game(you didn’t, because neither of you think it either), then that’s another case. However if you’re just going to take things I say, pull them out of context, then make broad narratives about them, then you’ll never “win” this argument. Since one of you will undoubtedly ask, a Dogpile that enhanced the game was Syndisphere v. TEst.  

 

Now that I’ve explained, I hope you both understand some basic reading comprehension. Also, @Lairah, calling someone an idiot, and a dunce doesn’t make you anymore right or wrong. Nor does ever being rude in a political discussion, or discussion in general ever help you explain your point of view. 

 

 

Thing is, I didn’t even say that, SRD simply insinuated that I said that. That never came from me. I said something about useless dogpiles and he brings up a question about “even wars”. 

Fair enough Kastor,

That being said insulting my reading comprehension is ok, but if someone calls you an idiot it's not ok...  Fascinating

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

2 hours ago, Kastor said:

@Sweeeeet Ronny D you can get your answer here as well.

 

I never said dogpiles were useless either. You clearly also lack reading comprehension.

Yet again, resorting to name-calling instead of addressing any facts of the matter. I never said anything about “even wars” either. Both of you went to a random conclusion instead of addressing what I said. I simply, very simply said, that “useless dogpiles” don’t enhance the game. I then gave an example of a useless dogpile that didn’t enhance the game at all. If you wish to argue if that war enhanced the game(you didn’t, because neither of you think it either), then that’s another case. However if you’re just going to take things I say, pull them out of context, then make broad narratives about them, then you’ll never “win” this argument. Since one of you will undoubtedly ask, a Dogpile that enhanced the game was Syndisphere v. TEst. 

 

Now that I’ve explained, I hope you both understand some basic reading comprehension. Also, @Lairah, calling someone an idiot, and a dunce doesn’t make you anymore right or wrong. Nor does ever being rude in a political discussion, or discussion in general ever help you explain your point of view. 

 

 

Thing is, I didn’t even say that, SRD simply insinuated that I said that. That never came from me. I said something about useless dogpiles and he brings up a question about “even wars”. 

You're not making yourself look like you aren't an idiot right now.

If dogpiles aren't interesting or good for the game, then the only reasonable conclusion is that fairer wars would be. There's also suicide attacks like TJest did, but that's not a reasonable conclusion, since TJest's suicide run not ending in... suicide, was an unexpected outcome, for good reason. Suicide runs are usually suicide runs that are good for little more than a few moments laughter, take The Illuminati declaring on ET for example.

So, yes, by using grade school logic you were either implying that balanced wars and not dogpiles would be better, or you're an idiot, who either thinks everyone should just play the suicide lottery and see if they get lucky, or that none of the 3 options are good, despite there not really being other options for wars.

Pick one. If you insist you weren't implying balanced wars would be better, i reccomend the suicide run route. At least then you look unstable and edgy, which is very in with the kids these days. If you want people to not question whether or not you possess intelligence, perhaps act like you do possess it, instead of antagonizing and baiting people who made a logical, well-reasoned assumption, and rather respectfully asked a question, only to then complain and whine about insulting you is not conducive to proper debate as adults when somebody questions how aforementioned reasonable assumption lacks reading comprehension.

It's such a weird response you made, too. As if somehow that assumption was grossly offensive or painted you as a psychotic nutcase, when it's actually a perfectly valid and reasonable opinion to hold. I really am struggling to find any sort of reasoning to the way you responded to SRD there, or how you think you have any place to act as you are now after doing so.It's as if you have no understanding of your own actions and words.

Try picking up a book on how logic actually works. It's alot of math, i know, but it's very helpful in life, and it stops you from going off the rails and being absolutely nonsensical. It's amusing at first, but it gets tiring. 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Lairah

[Kastor]

55 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Fair enough Kastor,

That being said insulting my reading comprehension is ok, but if someone calls you an idiot it's not ok...  Fascinating

I see your point here, but I believe there is a difference between pointing out a specific issue rather than resorting to name-calling. I apologize if you felt offended. You didn’t resort to name-calling, and hardly ever do, which is why I like discussing things with you.

[Kastor]

48 minutes ago, Lairah said:

You're not making yourself look like you aren't an idiot right now.

If dogpiles aren't interesting or good for the game, then the only reasonable conclusion is that fairer wars would be. There's also suicide attacks like TJest did, but that's not a reasonable conclusion, since TJest's suicide run not ending in... suicide, was an unexpected outcome, for good reason. Suicide runs are usually suicide runs that are good for little more than a few moments laughter, take The Illuminati declaring on ET for example.

So, yes, by using grade school logic you were either implying that balanced wars and not dogpiles would be better, or you're an idiot, who either thinks everyone should just play the suicide lottery and see if they get lucky, or that none of the 3 options are good, despite there not really being other options for wars.

Pick one. If you insist you weren't implying balanced wars would be better, i reccomend the suicide run route. At least then you look unstable and edgy, which is very in with the kids these days. If you want people to not question whether or not you possess intelligence, perhaps act like you do possess it, instead of antagonizing and baiting people who made a logical, well-reasoned assumption, and rather respectfully asked a question, only to then complain and whine about insulting you is not conducive to proper debate as adults when somebody questions how aforementioned reasonable assumption lacks reading comprehension.

It's such a weird response you made, too. As if somehow that assumption was grossly offensive or painted you as a psychotic nutcase, when it's actually a perfectly valid and reasonable opinion to hold. I really am struggling to find any sort of reasoning to the way you responded to SRD there, or how you think you have any place to act as you are now after doing so.It's as if you have no understanding of your own actions and words.

Try picking up a book on how logic actually works. It's alot of math, i know, but it's very helpful in life, and it stops you from going off the rails and being absolutely nonsensical. It's amusing at first, but it gets tiring. 

This reply is hilarious. Firstly, you’re arguing with yourself. I never said any of this. You took what I said and tried to use logic to jump to conclusions instead of just responding to what I said. You can’t argue with what I said, so you’re creating or rather trying to create, a side to push me on where no one else is. I never said “all dogpiles weren’t interesting or good for the game”. I never once said that. You instead, took one sentence(and not even the full sentence), placed it out if context, and then decided that this was the issue you’re going to go after me on. When I don’t even agree with what you’re trying to argue with me about. I never said all dogpiles were bad and I never said anything about “suicide runs” or “even wars”. 

Moving on to your third paragraph,  I wasn’t implying anything. I stated very clearly what I had to say. The fact that you can’t seem to take what I say and argue against it, rather than make your own “conclusions” about what I was saying, proves you’re just arguing to argue. I made a VERY clear statement, feel free to reread it anytime you wish. 

As for your fourth paragraph, I never baited anyone. I simply told SRD that I never said what he was implying. If I never said anything about the topic, how can he expect me to answer his question? If I say “Hamburgers are better than tacos.” And he says “what makes tacos the worst food in the world?” I can’t answer that question, because that’s not what I said when giving me original statement. On the weird off chance that you believe I was baiting you, I wasn’t. Responding to your question with intellectual thought and discussion doesn’t mean that that I was baiting you. Saying you lack reading comprehension doesn’t mean I’m baiting you. Saying something against what you say, doesn’t mean I’m baiting you. 

 

Your fifth paragraph really gets into your emotional side. I say that because you’re not arguing with me about what I said. That was an entire page ago and you’ve never disagreed with me about what I’ve said. You haven’t said a single word against my statements there. Really and truly, you’re upset because you're wrong. You're wrong about our assumptions and about the logic behind your assumptions. All I’ve done this entire time is correct you on your assumptions. Tell you that your assumptions were wrong, and that you should read what was written as it has been written. You somehow can’t seem to do that, for whatever reason. Now all you’re doing is making up irrelevant points to argue that I never said, and using language that insinuates a few key things:

1. Somehow, that I have no idea what I’m talking about. Which is funny because it’s my post and my comment. Apparently I can’t tell you. That I don’t “have any place” to simply stand up for myself and tell you and SRD that your assumptions were wrong. 

2. That I don’t have the intelligence to argue this point. Examples include calling me an idiot and throwing random insults throughout the post to paint me a certain way. Like comparing my reaction to a psychotic nutcase. Basically what you’re trying to do is say “my side of the argument is “perfectly valid and reasonable” and your side is the side of the “grossly offensive and psychotic nutcase”. Then you go along and state that I must not know a lot about logic, because you state that I should pick up a book about logic. 

 

So basically, in conclusion, you’ve decided that my statement as it was written, wasn’t good enough. You then decided to add on several assumptions, when I told you those assumptions were incorrect and to read what I said without any assumptions, you then called me an idiot, told me any reasonable person would reach those assumptions. Then proceeded to compare me to a psychotic nutcase, insult my intelligence, claim I baited you, and claim that I don’t “have any place to act as you are now”. Basically, you’re saying that I can’t defend myself from unwanted assumptions and baseless character attacks, because what? 

[Apeman]

So many walls of text it hurts to put on my ape glasses and I gotta keep scrolling down which means I officially have no hands on my ape member which means you are disrupting my normal patterns. Can't you just say things like " you stink" or " no you are" like the rest of orbis?

Edited July 27, 2018 by Apeman
Quick second to tug teehee

[Adrienne]

For anyone who still wants the war stats, I've finally finished the resource loot part, so it should be more or less up to date. Thanks for your help with infra damage/resources used, @Sketchy.

Enjoy :)

[Hodor]

15 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

For anyone who still wants the war stats, I've finally finished the resource loot part, so it should be more or less up to date. Thanks for your help with infra damage/resources used, @Sketchy.

Enjoy :)

No. Pls no. We had just all put the pitchforks and torches away. Y do u h8 me?

 

Edit: It's the fricking 69 day war, not DDR. I *will* fight about that.

 

Double Edit: Individual stats are quite a bit off but I guess that those are independent of the alliance stats?

Edited September 12, 2018 by Hodor

[Adrienne]

1 hour ago, Hodor said:

No. Pls no. We had just all put the pitchforks and torches away. Y do u h8 me?

I sowwy ❤️ 

 

1 hour ago, Hodor said:

Edit: It's the fricking 69 day war, not DDR. I *will* fight about that.

 

1 hour ago, Hodor said:

Double Edit: Individual stats are quite a bit off but I guess that those are independent of the alliance stats?

Yeah, they're separate. I'll fix the individual stats soon enough, was a little late on the draw stopping the API data. The info on the Leaderboard tabs should be closer to the truth.

[Hodor]

59 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

You're lucky there isn't video chat on Discord, my moves are so hot they require TKR levels of gas and munition to keep running.

[Sir Scarfalot]

20 minutes ago, Hodor said:

You're lucky there isn't video chat on Discord, my moves are so hot they require TKR levels of gas and munition to keep running.

[Adrienne]

54 minutes ago, Hodor said:

You're lucky there isn't video chat on Discord, my moves are so hot they require TKR levels of gas and munition to keep running.

I think this is the part where I reveal myself to be a 5 time international dance champion or something

[Sir Scarfalot]

16 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

I think this is the part where I reveal myself to be a 5 time international dance champion or something

[Hodor]

15 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

I think this is the part where I reveal myself to be a 5 time international dance champion or something

I'm no longer invited to weddings because my dance moves make the grooms more emotional than their brides.