Jump to content

Endgame


Adrienne
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

Ohhhh. I've made it past the bootlicker and gotten someone attached to a boot. Cool.

As someone who was privy to such discussion, how did they approach you? I feel like they wouldn't do it in the regular way like everyone else would.

tCW leaked the plans, but given my impression of them from the... the massive amount vitriol in the forums, I would doubt that the plans were originally theirs. But who leaked the plans isn't who approached you, right?

Which is? I mean there have been conversations from a variety of people, asking us if we're interested in collaborating and we've politely refused in all cases. Its pretty much that simple lol. I mean there has been a variety of approaches to both tS/NPO in the last few months, and in both cases I can confidently state the approaches were refused, and informed each other in the most cases that said approaches were made. So yeah we had 0 involvement in tC's planning or this idea of a combined war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2019 at 6:26 PM, James II said:

I think it's funny they are complaining about how many alliances they are at war with while threatening alliances that are neutral that they will roll them or sending their dog too.

Edit: that kind of proves roquetin's point now that I think about it. ? 

 

Edit edit: kind of nullifies the complaint about how many people you're at war with too. Even though when you consider the tiering the argument is complete BS.

Who is the dog?

On 6/29/2019 at 11:55 AM, Roquentin said:

I wouldn't waste time explaining it if I was trying to make this a permanent stance. It's a buffer zone specifically because of the fact that people were saying we're the real bad guys and so on. It's an easy target to paint. You didn't hit us in part because you lacked the numbers to do so. There weren't even assurances no retaliation like with Pantheon. One person from your side reached out and we had a fairly decent convo, so there is definitely room for dialogue and changing things.

You can't solidify anything if people don't have a vested interest in the partnership and have their own objectives/goals and relationships they want to pursue when the FA head changes 3 times in less than a year and everything constantly shifts under us. Things we were in agreement on with Kayser no longer were the case. Stances changed constantly. Our archimedean points were all gone and I think Auctor had it right when he said it was becoming about nothing. I would have preferred to be able to develop long-term into a sphere that could stand on its own.  We can't be treated as a junior partner, which was happening.

tl;dr - Roquentin misses Partisan.

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Micchan said:

Why not just saying "If there was a plan it would have been leaked by SK"?

That’s how you know it’s fake, none of these sources are SK leaks. 

  • Haha 2

I'm just procrastinating for a paper I have to write at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've seen from years in these nation sims is that NPO has, ever since coming from CN, tried to pull CN's gameplay style into PW. Contrary to how some people  argued/stated every bit of display over time has proven this to be true. NPO isn't alone in this cause either. They're just a larger component of it.
Months long wars in a game that moves at 3x the pace of CN is atrocious and ruins this game.

You can try to spin your words anyway you want, but actions all point to the fact that this game has become extremely boring due to the community. You can bash on the relatively large issues the game still has, but many of these issues are still exploited by those that can, instead of having even and ounce of integrity.
These forums are equally dismal. Too much trolling and not enough actual playing.

This game can only be fixed by the players.

Good luck!

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like some will only believe NPO & BK have really split if one of them peaces out, then lets the other one slowly be killed off without helping after both have rolled for a while.

Although looking at it neutral Shadowthrone says if any 2 spheres teamed up against another; they would be more likely to assist the sphere being teamed up on. Which makes sense if looking to escalate global wars and not just joining to be part of a dogpile. It would have been more boring if NPO had decided to also declare on BK when they were heavily outnumbered & the war was completely lopsided;as BK's Protectorates just slowly died off. So at least they created some drama and controversy, people should remember many like to fight in war because its fun. However if Syndicate pulling out wasn't an agreed upon tactical withdrawal from fighting over the upper tier after getting some damage in, not sure what option NPO has other than try to weather the storm alongside BK; other than end up mostly isolated.

If people want shorter wars, they can always set a precedent with this one not dragging out 3+ months. People getting overly punitive & outraged over NPO helping BK without a treaty wouldn't be very conductive toward an environment with many disconnected minispheres; which can choose to assist each other against another or help defend another without a treaty. However I can see why from KETOG would want to make it seem like a terrible move & troll NPO as much as possible over this war. (They're enemies in this war, with this forum being used for propaganda mostly)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

I feel like some will only believe NPO & BK have really split if one of them peaces out, then lets the other one slowly be killed off without helping after both have rolled for a while.

Although looking at it neutral Shadowthrone says if any 2 spheres teamed up against another; they would be more likely to assist the sphere being teamed up on. Which makes sense if looking to escalate global wars and not just joining to be part of a dogpile. It would have been more boring if NPO had decided to also declare on BK when they were heavily outnumbered & the war was completely lopsided;as BK's Protectorates just slowly died off. So at least they created some drama and controversy, people should remember many like to fight in war because its fun. However if Syndicate pulling out wasn't an agreed upon tactical withdrawal from fighting over the upper tier after getting some damage in, not sure what option NPO has other than try to weather the storm alongside BK; other than end up mostly isolated.

If people want shorter wars, they can always set a precedent with this one not dragging out 3+ months. People getting overly punitive & outraged over NPO helping BK without a treaty wouldn't be very conductive toward an environment with many disconnected minispheres; which can choose to assist each other against another or help defend another without a treaty. However I can see why from KETOG would want to make it seem like a terrible move & troll NPO as much as possible over this war. (They're enemies in this war, with this forum being used for propaganda mostly)

There's multiple problems with this; one major issue here is that the agreement to team up against multi-sphere cooperation was a non-public agreement between NPO and BK, the two largest supposedly separate blocs. Such an agreement could not work as a balancing factor even in an environment of completely equal spheres since it works directly against the balancing factor of two rivals teaming up to undo the progress of a third more successful rival. It's basic game theory, lads- teaming is only rational as a temporary measure if the 3rd opponent is otherwise ahead, as teaming with the larger group to eliminate one of the smaller groups will predictably result in a 1v1 scenario with the larger group at the advantage, politically and militarily. With that factor stripped away, balance is impossible to sustain.

If we put in a 4th opponent, as we (maybe) had in this current situation, then such an agreement is even worse. As an undisclosed agreement between the two largest parties it can only ever help the larger parties' decision making, and prevents the balancing factor of temporary coalitions from being able to rebalance and maintain the complex multiplayer environment we want. Without that balancing factor, the larger parties can either single out any smaller party one by one and eliminate them as a competitive entity before moving onto the next, or at least prevent any threat to either of the largest parties through de facto alliance preventing any coalition harming either without activating their agreement and turning it back into a less complex environment.

To illustrate: Spheres A, B, and C are competing. Sphere A begins to get ahead. In a healthy, persistent environment B and C would be encouraged and able to temporarily team up against A until A is weakened to the point that either B or C are ahead, at which point the one ahead would get teamed up on. If we add sphere D, then the logic for mutual competition remains constant, the only real difference is the potential for one sphere to remain neutral and profit by passivity, at least up until their profit results in them being the target and they're no longer able to remain so passive. However, if ANY sphere decides to take the strategy wherein they will help the sphere that's being teamed up on, then the stability of balance is lost: the top sphere will be able to WIN the coalition fight, and thus hold onto whatever their advantage is indefinitely. If we assume that there can be only one victor in this 4-way sphere conflict, then the one choosing to help the top sphere is committing themselves ultimately to a 1v1 in which they have the disadvantage (the teamers both fall, leaving only the helper and the winner). Which is therefore a fallacious, losing strategy, unless the agreeing spheres are in fact just one sphere and intend to win together from the start.

Bear in mind that spheres A, B, C or D can be safely and accurately substituted with ANY current claimed sphere, be that NPO/BK/KETO/Chaos. (I'm not gonna try and logic anything with 5 sphere calculus, for now I'm keeping T$ aligned NPO for arguments' sake. But the concept should scale up indefinitely.)

Worse yet, all of this assumes that the agreement (and therefore IQ split) was even a thing, which if you look at both words and actions prior to and even up to along while after NPO's entry into the war, it could not possibly have been. "If we were going to help BK we'd already be in"? The "agreement" wasn't even mentioned in NPO's war declaration! Can anyone tell me, without begging the question, how we can possibly tell the difference between these two possibilities:
1. This being a situation where an illogical, secret agreement was made and ignored until some later time, for whatever 5d chess reason, or

2. This being a situation where an agreement was made up out of thin air as a post-facto excuse?

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

There's multiple problems with this; one major issue here is that the agreement to team up against multi-sphere cooperation was a non-public agreement between NPO and BK, the two largest supposedly separate blocs. Such an agreement could not work as a balancing factor even in an environment of completely equal spheres since it works directly against the balancing factor of two rivals teaming up to undo the progress of a third more successful rival. It's basic game theory, lads- teaming is only rational as a temporary measure if the 3rd opponent is otherwise ahead, as teaming with the larger group to eliminate one of the smaller groups will predictably result in a 1v1 scenario with the larger group at the advantage, politically and militarily. With that factor stripped away, balance is impossible to sustain.

If we put in a 4th opponent, as we (maybe) had in this current situation, then such an agreement is even worse. As an undisclosed agreement between the two largest parties it can only ever help the larger parties' decision making, and prevents the balancing factor of temporary coalitions from being able to rebalance and maintain the complex multiplayer environment we want. Without that balancing factor, the larger parties can either single out any smaller party one by one and eliminate them as a competitive entity before moving onto the next, or at least prevent any threat to either of the largest parties through de facto alliance preventing any coalition harming either without activating their agreement and turning it back into a less complex environment.

To illustrate: Spheres A, B, and C are competing. Sphere A begins to get ahead. In a healthy, persistent environment B and C would be encouraged and able to temporarily team up against A until A is weakened to the point that either B or C are ahead, at which point the one ahead would get teamed up on. If we add sphere D, then the logic for mutual competition remains constant, the only real difference is the potential for one sphere to remain neutral and profit by passivity, at least up until their profit results in them being the target and they're no longer able to remain so passive. However, if ANY sphere decides to take the strategy wherein they will help the sphere that's being teamed up on, then the stability of balance is lost: the top sphere will be able to WIN the coalition fight, and thus hold onto whatever their advantage is indefinitely. If we assume that there can be only one victor in this 4-way sphere conflict, then the one choosing to help the top sphere is committing themselves ultimately to a 1v1 in which they have the disadvantage (the teamers both fall, leaving only the helper and the winner). Which is therefore a fallacious, losing strategy, unless the agreeing spheres are in fact just one sphere and intend to win together from the start.

Bear in mind that spheres A, B, C or D can be safely and accurately substituted with ANY current claimed sphere, be that NPO/BK/KETO/Chaos. (I'm not gonna try and logic anything with 5 sphere calculus, for now I'm keeping T$ aligned NPO for arguments' sake. But the concept should scale up indefinitely.)

Worse yet, all of this assumes that the agreement (and therefore IQ split) was even a thing, which if you look at both words and actions prior to and even up to along while after NPO's entry into the war, it could not possibly have been. "If we were going to help BK we'd already be in"? The "agreement" wasn't even mentioned in NPO's war declaration! Can anyone tell me, without begging the question, how we can possibly tell the difference between these two possibilities:
1. This being a situation where an illogical, secret agreement was made and ignored until some later time, for whatever 5d chess reason, or

2. This being a situation where an agreement was made up out of thin air as a post-facto excuse?

Well, I can see both sides. You guys are warring and it just is what it is, I can understand why you're hitting them & their side , will be interesting to see how long it lasts at least. Wars gotten interesting at least & much more of a global war than Ask Alexio or Knightfall at least.

 

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Welly, I can see both sides. You guys are warring and it just is what it is, I can understand why you're hitting them & their side , will be interesting to see how long it lasts at least. Wars gotten interesting at least & much more of a global war than Ask Alexio or Knightfall at least.

 

Would you be so kind as to explain the other side to me then, m8, since I can't find any valid logic to their arguments at all. Is there a flaw in my logic? Where is it, if anywhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sir Scarfalot said:

Would you be so kind as to explain the other side to me then, m8, since I can't find any valid logic to their arguments at all. Is there a flaw in my logic? Where is it, if anywhere?

There side seems to have had logs leaked and now they're stuck fighting, so not sure what there is much argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

There's multiple problems with this; one major issue here is that the agreement to team up against multi-sphere cooperation was a non-public agreement between NPO and BK

That's a categorical lie. Unless Kayser is the leader of BK? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

That's a categorical lie. Unless Kayser is the leader of BK? 

Alright, sure, let's say it was in fact a non-public agreement between NPO and somebody that didn't actually divulge their agreement to their alliance. Fine; that doesn't change that the agreement was NOT public and therefore only changed the decisions of those that were aware of it, which apparently was only NPO.

So it was an agreement between NPO and NPO, then. Cool. That still doesn't change anything about any of the logic; the strategy remains illogical and self-destructive as stated, and never had a theoretical chance of enabling, encouraging, or otherwise promoting a multipolar world, but in fact the absolute opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see  how long Chaos & KETOG coalition stay together before members of both sides get bored with it. If it wasn’t a “raid war” to try confusing BK/NPO, I doubt either side likes each other much.

NPO will probably get rolled, which they’re used to. Then we’ll see where things go from there, lol.

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Valdoroth said:

From what I've seen from years in these nation sims is that NPO has, ever since coming from CN, tried to pull CN's gameplay style into PW. Contrary to how some people  argued/stated every bit of display over time has proven this to be true. NPO isn't alone in this cause either. They're just a larger component of it.
Months long wars in a game that moves at 3x the pace of CN is atrocious and ruins this game.

You can try to spin your words anyway you want, but actions all point to the fact that this game has become extremely boring due to the community. You can bash on the relatively large issues the game still has, but many of these issues are still exploited by those that can, instead of having even and ounce of integrity.
These forums are equally dismal. Too much trolling and not enough actual playing.

This game can only be fixed by the players.

Good luck!

I'm sorry we didn't acquiesce to being EMC's cannon fodder and take a rolling every two weeks for your "fun". If making it bloody hard to roll us means we brought in a CN play style, guilty as charged. But we're not interested in short wars, or having folks get out easy when they hit us and thats a valid tactic and really has nothing to do with CN lol. But yes, NPO is evil because of CN, got it!  

  • Haha 2
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

I'm sorry we didn't acquiesce to being EMC's cannon fodder and take a rolling every two weeks for your "fun". If making it bloody hard to roll us means we brought in a CN play style, guilty as charged. But we're not interested in short wars, or having folks get out easy when they hit us and thats a valid tactic and really has nothing to do with CN lol. But yes, NPO is evil because of CN, got it!  

Personally if attacked or war being worth going into, I’d max my improvements to infra to make as much as possible with no infra & max military; with the expectation of a long war without a rebuild to previous infra levels.

So I can understand the reasoning behind might as well keep fighting once the initial expensive to rebuild damage has been done already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2019 at 11:49 PM, Valdoroth said:

Months long wars in a game that moves at 3x the pace of CN is atrocious and ruins this game.

Ruins it in your opinion. Long wars are a result of ego and toxic politics, I imagine eventually the game will shift to one 3-4 month long war a year, since this one is likely to beat Knightfall quite a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Ruins it in your opinion. Long wars are a result of ego and toxic politics, I imagine eventually the game will shift to one 3-4 month long war a year, since this one is likely to beat Knightfall quite a bit.

Last i checked everyone on our side believed the game would benefit from more wars which were shorter.

Nice to see you finally admit your ego is oversized and your politics are toxic as you stubbornly hold wars for 3+ months in victory or defeat, because in either scenario you want the game to bleed for resisting you to begin with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Last i checked everyone on our side believed the game would benefit from more wars which were shorter.

Nice to see you finally admit your ego is oversized and your politics are toxic as you stubbornly hold wars for 3+ months in victory or defeat, because in either scenario you want the game to bleed for resisting you to begin with.

Has either side even proposed a white peace? Personally I think Chaos could have taken BK not attacking to signal maybe they didn’t want to hit them anymore. Although don’t know what they might have done after I wasn’t a member anymore, so I can see how Chaos might have been convinced into the joint strike anyways when BK never attacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Has either side even proposed a white peace? Personally I think Chaos could have taken BK not attacking to signal maybe they didn’t want to hit them anymore. Although don’t know what they might have done after I wasn’t a member anymore, so I can see how Chaos might have been convinced into the joint strike anyways when BK never attacked.

Nobody wants white peace. If you actually knew anything beyond the shit-smearing on the forums you'd understand why. It's already well known thanks to BK's coalition mates how 'non-toxic' they intend to be if they win. Why their opponents will likely be more 'non-toxic' if they win, it's still not going to be received well. 

The reason your question is dumb Noctis is because this war has created something people long said had left the politics and wars on Orbis. Lots of hate and grudges.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Akuryo said:

Nobody wants white peace. If you actually knew anything beyond the shit-smearing on the forums you'd understand why. It's already well known thanks to BK's coalition mates how 'non-toxic' they intend to be if they win. Why their opponents will likely be more 'non-toxic' if they win, it's still not going to be received well. 

The reason your question is dumb Noctis is because this war has created something people long said had left the politics and wars on Orbis. Lots of hate and grudges.

If neither side wants peace, can’t really blame them for planning on it lasting a long time. People seem to say to hate and grudges didn’t exist before this war, but sounds more like propaganda than reality.

KETOG declared on TKR over a grudge in the war immediately preceding this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Akuryo said:

Last i checked everyone on our side believed the game would benefit from more wars which were shorter.

Nice to see you finally admit your ego is oversized and your politics are toxic as you stubbornly hold wars for 3+ months in victory or defeat, because in either scenario you want the game to bleed for resisting you to begin with.

Short wars where you get all the damage done and leave? That sure makes sense for us. As for ego and toxic I am not the one parading on the forums saying "this was the last chance" and "anyone tied to BK is done". 

2 hours ago, Akuryo said:

Nobody wants white peace. If you actually knew anything beyond the shit-smearing on the forums you'd understand why. It's already well known thanks to BK's coalition mates how 'non-toxic' they intend to be if they win. Why their opponents will likely be more 'non-toxic' if they win, it's still not going to be received well. 

The reason your question is dumb Noctis is because this war has created something people long said had left the politics and wars on Orbis. Lots of hate and grudges.

 

As it is known to us how you intend to divide into easily rolled blocs, good luck with that.

Edited by Aragorn, son of Arathorn
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Short wars where you get all the damage done and leave? That sure makes sense for us. As for ego and toxic I am not the one parading on the forums saying "this was the last chance" and "anyone tied to BK is done".

How are those last two quotes toxic? 

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

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.