Jump to content

My last request after deleted my nation


RainbowColor
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Welp. Good to know we can only have wars which will produce pages of toxicity in the forums, anything else would be boring. I think it's about time to hang up my hat if that's the actual opinion of the community.

I like and respect much of what you say, but I have to disagree with this assessment. Political intrigue, IC grudges and animosity need not translate into toxicity, and while it is regrettable that this regularly becomes the case, I devoted a significant portion of my speaking time on Buorhann's show (and the pre / after-show) just to highlight how strongly I feel about the dredging up of OOC-ly problematic behavior and narratives. 

Insofar as the original point goes, it is to the effect of wanting conflict to be accompanied with political objectives - beyond simply the ridding of boredom - and healthy discourse. I know many are uninterested in this, and I don't fault them for finding different aspects of the game interesting, but I don't think either of the aforementioned points are particularly objectionable. 

Edited by Dio Brando
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dio Brando said:

I like and respect much of what you say, but I have to disagree with this assessment. Political intrigue, IC grudges and animosity need not translate into toxicity, and while it is regrettable that this regularly becomes the case, I devoted a significant portion of my speaking time on Buorhann's show (and the pre / after-show) just to highlight how strongly I feel about the dredging up of OOC-ly problematic behavior and narratives. 

Insofar as the original point goes, it is to the effect of wanting conflict to be accompanied with political objectives - beyond simply the ridding of boredom - and healthy discourse. I know many are uninterested in this, and I don't fault them for finding different aspects of the game interesting, but I don't think either of the aforementioned points are particularly objectionable. 

I can get on board with the bolded, but keep in mind political objectives end up being boring too, because the key objective would be hegemony in some measure (political or military) which frankly no one should want to achieve and hold long term.

I think part of the strong backlash to this leak is that this is neither an interesting move politically, or a healthy move for the game, especially after the relative dynamic treaty signing we've seen over the past several months. We expect better.

Edited by Hodor
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hodor said:

I can get on board with the bolded, but keep in mind political objectives end up being boring too, because the key objective would be hegemony in some measure (political or military) which frankly no one should want to achieve and hold long term.

I think part of the strong backlash to this leak is that this is neither an interesting move politically, or a healthy move for the game, especially after the relative dynamic treaty signing we've seen over the past several months. We expect better.

The particulars regarding a hegemony are interesting in that they are simply untenable long term without significant mechanical and socio-political imbalances (which don't exist yet due to a rather amusing combination of factors some have picked up on already) without alternatives, which I don't see happening anytime soon.

The leak's contents are more amusing to me than anything else given how much it tells me about certain player's personalities. It has been a long time since I have seen such a hilarious mixture of braggadocio, optimism, and just flat out falsified information. The backlash is fairly easy to reason out, but it makes the leak all the more hilarious when viewed under the lens of relevant pieces of information not simply about the situation, but about certain players, their history, and so on. 

Edit: the above conversation is part of what I mean by discourse. Civil debate and conversation beyond just the exchange of pleasantries and "meme'ing around" (which, for the record, is part of the community I adore) can and has happened. It just needs to be fostered in the right environment.

Edited by Dio Brando
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Justin076 said:

EDIT: Also @Frawley, kinda hard for you to call this war boring considering you aren’t fighting or involved in any manner. Thanks for the stats though.

No no Justin you don't get it. If we don't make a bunch of drama on the forums to accompany our war, then that means OTHER people might have to start their OWN wars rather than just watching. And we can't have that.

Dance monkey!

9 hours ago, Frawley said:

Context matters: It was in the wider discussion that Dio, Kev, Charlie and I were having about grudges making war interesting, and that a war right now where no animosity exists would be as boring as this KETOG/Chaos war has turned out to be.

I'm having plenty of fun with the war. 

Also, isn't Roquentin the one who has said many times in the past that spheres can't split without animosity? Given you've just implied there is no animosity, why is it surprising people might suspect you haven't split, when your own leader has said that in the past.

Granted, I don't actually think the split is fake, but if other people do you might wanna ask yourself why lol.

  • Like 2

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall saying animosity or stipulating it. It's possible I used it here and there. I usually used tension or tensions as most of the historic bloc splits involved an underlying tension that wasn't always hating. Tensions could be like it being proposed that an alliance join a bloc but one alliance disagrees but are in the minority and leaves when the others insist.  It usually was hate or distust though. The Guardiansphere was split wasn't due to anyone hating Guardian, but rather SK and Rose having had issues. The Syndicate - Paragon one had a lot of distrust and dislike between certain actors to give examples. I never saw  a gentleman's agreement to split out of boredom without other FA changes as likely though.

While some of the more ego-driven ones involved people disliking each other,  some times the distrust followed a disagreement without devolving into pure hate. I didn't really see much reason for the TKR split for instance to have a real material basis as there wasn't any seeming disagreement and there were strong relationships between the blocs. Some people reacted negatively to feeling they were getting worked around and  did their own splits without gunning for TKR. The alliances didn't really integrate into any other spheres.  It was a Catch-22 since it was stated that people they were previously allied with wanted to stay together on a conditional basis because they feared being overrun by IQ. Many people also were hesitant to potentially alienate former upper tier partners out of the concern a consolidated growing political bloc would be able to swarm them so they were eager to insure that wouldn't be the case.  I've never been a fan of the concept where people wanted to just remake the web without any real change in vision. 

The main reason people brought up lack of animosity with regards to the war is there were many instances early on where it looked like infra damage was being minimized along with rumors of being people being told to hold back to some degree. Even people in TKR like Micchan were saying they had no real motivation to fight even though you attacked them and thought it was pointless. Initial counters didn't have infra as the emphasis either.

edit: So we see a ton of raid wars and ordinary declared despite militarization advantage with Chaos nations having ample time to evacuate excess resources, what is anyone going to think?  Now we see some Chaos are just very generous guys and like getting looted unnecessarily and donating to the KETOG side.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson

This Rainbow guy seems to be pissed no one begged him to stay, as no one cared he posted this, that's pretty sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Which, for the record, has been as enjoyable as any war for many of the actual participants, even if our lack of fierce OWF fighting hasn't pleased the crowd.

ur face smells and you should deleet ur myspace account

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thalmor said:

ur face smells and you should deleet ur myspace account

I'm practicing alternative hygiene, and I'll have you know Tom is still proud to be my friend!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No animosity?  Ripper and I and by extension, Grumpy and CoS do not get along.  Hitting CoS is has been a priority of Grumpy after the last war ended, and intensified when they yoinked one of our major allies.  Embarrassing CoS has been #1 on my list of things to do for a while.  I am loving every second of this war, especially when they drop all their infra to hide from us. (and still there war numbers are atrocious) 

I dont need to go onto the OWF to start drama, the war stats paint a better picture of Grumpy's dominance over CoS than I could ever articulate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

No animosity?  Ripper and I and by extension, Grumpy and CoS do not get along.  Hitting CoS is has been a priority of Grumpy after the last war ended, and intensified when they yoinked one of our major allies.  Embarrassing CoS has been #1 on my list of things to do for a while.  I am loving every second of this war, especially when they drop all their infra to hide from us. (and still there war numbers are atrocious) 

I dont need to go onto the OWF to start drama, the war stats paint a better picture of Grumpy's dominance over CoS than I could ever articulate.

Whew! Definitely no scarcely-concealed insecurity here.

Maybe you would feel more comfortable joining BK? They are strong, too.

 

On a bit of a more serious note, the people acting at all surprised by some of these political developments, particularly from the KT sphere side, are fairly amusing. "What do you mean the treaty web is going to do the most bland thing imaginable when we make an opening for them? Inconceivable!" If you enjoyed that, hit me up: I got a bridge to sell you.

  • Haha 2

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Also, the idea that we need animosity for war is not healthy for the game.. So we can only work with people we genuinely like and fight people we don't? What happened to the politics side of politics and war? Set some political goals and use war to further them. You and BK are the two strongest spheres in the game, each standing in the way of the other achieving top sphere status. Why not try and claim the throne? There can be other reasons for war besides 'we don't like you.' That can be well and good, but wars purely over personal animosity get real toxic real fast. If that is all we can look forward too, well god help this game.

I mean.. You can have animosity without it being toxic, I think the fear of creating enemies is particularly something to be avoided. Animosity creates a political goal, an enemy.

I'm inexperienced in these matters, but it really seems less fun when you don't have someone going for an interesting revenge plot, which in the end, is fueled by animosity, I myself particularly dislike lenient peace negotiations because it doesn't create animosity, saying that it isn't healthy for the game is a fallacy, it creates a 'buddy-buddy' atmosphere which everyone is like "Yeah man, this is just a game, so we don't need to hate each other" and yet even if you understand it is a 'just a game', you can hate the other alliance for destroying you.

My best example for this, which I have seen or experienced is the long 'grudge' between Nova Riata and Pantheon. Anybody could have hit Pantheon, and yet animosity which was derived from an earlier war created a reason for them to do so, there might have been opportunity in that decision, but the cause was still derived from animosity. It feels like it just gives a 'reason' for the entire conflict, I like to think that the KETOGG war comes from a bit of animosity, of the 69 day war, probably not but I like to think that is the reason. 

I don't disagree about a split in the former IQ-sphere, even if it takes someone to create "The great betrayal" between BK and NPO, to create animosity. You mention that they're political goal should be to take the throne, but what if it is? Pretty sure that creating less powerful potential enemies is a step toward total domination, I don't think they are trying to avoid war between each other, I think it's more of a contest to remove all potential enemies, and then attempt to outgun each other without that risk.

Probably created a speel of nonsense, but oh well, take it as you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

If you enjoyed that, hit me up: I got a bridge to sell you.

I’m interested.  Figured I’d experience being a bridge troll Hippo for a bit.  What’s the location?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Buorhann said:

I’m interested.  Figured I’d experience being a bridge troll Hippo for a bit.  What’s the location?

It's literally the Golden Gate Bridge. But don't worry: I can have it moved anywhere you might want, so we'll find a nice alcove.

Cash up front. Five grand: that's the friend price. You'll make it back in the first day's tolls, I'm sure.

  • Like 2

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest San Fortunado
19 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Lmfao Brave and Beautiful BK proving they are strong and independent by going back to mommy and asking for help incase their 900+ nations can't beat ~270 nations of chaos.

Are you gonna run back to mommy everytime you have some self confidence issues BK?

Because here let me help you, repeat after me: "I am BK, I am brave and beautiful. I am BK, I am brave and beautiful:."

As the totally not kidnapped and forced sex slave of the IQless sphere, I want to state that I am strong and independent black knight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

Then why split at all? It is increasingly hard to picture the IQ 'disbandment' as anything other than a smoke screen to cover growing consolidation. So genuine splits can only occur through serious internal tension, and there is no animosity or tension between you as stated in this thread. Seems like there isn't a real split then, as borne out by the fact that not only is there no maneuvering against each other, there were even thoughts of teaming up against the smaller spheres the moment you 'split'!

I said internal tension which can come about from disagreements in how the group should move forward and that can come up when some of its objectives have been met. One of the examples I used did not result in anyone fighting each other.  The goal of IQ was to shake up the traditional politics and change the outcomes of wars. The specifics of coordination of internal development were no longer working when it was essential to keep the bloc in tact. I can put forward another split: so your previous sphere split up due to something and they didn't end up hitting you until almost a year later. 

 

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

Also, the idea that we need animosity for war is not healthy for the game.. So we can only work with people we genuinely like and fight people we don't? What happened to the politics side of politics and war? Set some political goals and use war to further them. You and BK are the two strongest spheres in the game, each standing in the way of the other achieving top sphere status. Why not try and claim the throne? There can be other reasons for war besides 'we don't like you.' That can be well and good, but wars purely over personal animosity get real toxic real fast. If that is all we can look forward too, well god help this game.

I didn't say there needed to be animosity.  People didn't think much of the war as there were plenty of feelings of rappochement between the two groups and I pointed out the initial hits in the war gave an impression of an intent to minimize infra damage. You could throw a war for fun if you wanted to, just people wouldn't see it as real if you could be perceived as holding back. You can work with anyone you want.  If we were trying to get top sphere status, we could have enlarged our grouping a lot more rather than having 3 core alliances and the differences between the core and the outside alliances  are pretty big, with many of the stats given to us including inexperienced entities or they count everyone remotely tied as a "for sure". There didn't seem to be any intrinsic motivation for this war be it in the sense you describe of power politics or animosity. I doubt they all rolled out to get SRD's revenge against CoS.

 

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

It's a bit of a catch 22 isn't it? You have no animosity towards BK, so you can't fight them. You never fight or oppose them, so you don't sow any new animosity. How is a war supposed to start? How were wars supposed to start when the game was fresh and alliances were new? I was here and nobody hated each other yet, but we still managed to have politics...

Still, if you don't want to fight BK right now, so be it. Why not try and fight us and KETOG together? Or some other combination of smaller alliances that combined would prove a challenge. Is the animosity towards TKR so great that roflstomping us along with BK is somehow more 'fun' than the current war? Which, for the record, has been as enjoyable as any war for many of the actual participants, even if the lack of OWF drama hasn't been a crowd pleaser.

As I said, a war for sport is possible. We just have no compulsion to hit any particular party. We never committed to hitting any particular alliances to anyone mentioned in the screenshot. If every time someone in one sphere maybe approached maybe one or two people about hitting someone else meant that there was some sort of coalition talks, then we could be implicated in any number of plans to hit almost any sphere. People found reasons to fight each other based on suspicion and plotting early on yes.

Now this is the more weird part where it makes little sense for the post to get this many upvotes. I'm not sure how our sphere would match up to both KETOG/Chaos together. Pretty sure we're at a non-minor disadvantage there. So if you want us to dive into you both, it probably won't happen.  I don't know where we said we'd hit TKR alongside BK or that we were going to roflstomp Chaos. When we denigrated the war, it's not only in lack of shittalk,  because it had a lot more to do with the actual battlefield movements. I'm really not sure how it's enjoyable war for anyone except KETOG atm, but I guess some people enjoy giving KT 12b of loot. At this point given that Chaos is seemingly living up to its name, it might be time to reevaluate the concept.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who is in TKR and a part of Chaos bloc, I can confirm that I've had lots of fun this war.  It might not have been all good (having been beiged three times), but that isn't what makes war fun.  @Roquentin If you think 12 billion in loot is even remotely close to the reason to why this war has been fun, then you miss the point of war entirely.  It's the camaraderie with my fellow alliances members, the coordination, the activity, and the strategies employed on both an individual and coalition-wide level that all contribute to what I consider to be the enjoyment of war.  I don't mean to be rude, but does it really matter that you guys aren't having fun in our war.  Yeah, it might not be the best strategically nor logistically, but sometimes war is just fun for the sake of war.  I'd like to thank @Buorhann and the rest of KETOGG for being such classy opponents and giving us a good time no matter the result.

With no other level of analysis other than my own perspective as a sole player, the fact that other blocs (whether they be real rumors or fake) want to intrude on this conflict is just bad gameplay.  At the end of day, most of us are here to have a good time whether that be in the political aspect or the war aspect, so for the sake of us little guys, the individual players who I feel are often disregarded on the OWF, please just give us a chance to enjoy this game and have a grand ol' time.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
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.