Endgame?

[Sir Scarfalot]

Endgame is the only real fitting name for this war, for one simple reason: There's been a comprehensive breakdown in trust.

N$O/BK both feel that they can no longer trust Chaos/KETOGG not to cooperate in the future. We see this, post after post. Chaos/KETOGG both feel that they can no longer trust N$O/BK not to cooperate in the future. We also see this, post after post after post. Whether or not either is true , the breakdown in trust has happened, and now there can be no assurances that either coalition will disband after the war is done that either can trust. Neither side can trust the other with peace, and that means that the only acceptable outcomes for each side are unacceptable outcomes for the other, and therefore I suspect this war cannot end. Unless NPO genuinely does stay neutral, in which case there might be some room for negotiation, I can't see how any peace could be anything other than a pause. If N$O and BK are indeed allied, then we're in a situation wherein while N$O/BK remain allied, Chaos/KETOGG must remain allied; and while Chaos/KETOGG remain allied then N$O/BK must remain allied.

If I'm right, and I genuinely hope that I'm not, then we're in a very familiar situation. A situation wherein there can be no deals made, as no deals can be trusted; no peace can be reached, as no peace is logically possible. In that situation, there can be only war, between two static sides, until one or both are wholly annihilated, leaving the victor alone, playing a game of one. Which would be the end of the game.

Endgame, if you will.

I've seen this pattern a dozen times across a dozen games over a dozen years, and never once have I seen the pattern escaped in any other way but the total death of the game. But maybe the 13th time's the charm, and this community will be the first to survive? Well, I hope so. Every single one of those times was when I was running one of the opposing hegemonic forces' FA departments, and my inflexibility and paranoia were definitely no small factors, which is why I always say I'm quite literally apocalyptically bad at FA: I don't just run my alliance to the ground, I run entire games to the ground. So please, tell me I'm wrong here; tell me that there's still some chance that trust can be rebuilt, and that we can one day actually trust each other enough to play a more complex game than 1v1 treaty chess for the rest of time.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot

[Pheonix]

I prefer "the soup is hot" personally

[Guest Curufinwe]

1 minute ago, Pheonix said:

I prefer "the soup is hot" personally

Wrong AA - these are the Hippo guys

[Horsecock]

4 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

Wrong AA - these are the Hippo guys

Well, the Hippo certainly isn't hot...

[Exar Kun -George]

The Hippo is hot

 

Just now, Horsecock said:

Well, the Hippo certainly isn't hot...

you sir are wrong

[Dio Brando]

That was genuinely disturbing.

[Meh Imperfect]

Name this war: The Great Lag Leak War >,<

[Shadowthrone]

20 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Endgame is the only real fitting name for this war, for one simple reason: There's been a comprehensive breakdown in trust.

N$O/BK both feel that they can no longer trust Chaos/KETOGG not to cooperate in the future. We see this, post after post. Chaos/KETOGG both feel that they can no longer trust N$O/BK not to cooperate in the future. We also see this, post after post after post. Whether or not either is true , the breakdown in trust has happened, and now there can be no assurances that either coalition will disband after the war is done. Neither side can trust the other with peace, and that means that the only acceptable outcomes for each side are unacceptable outcomes for the other, and therefore I suspect this war cannot end. Unless NPO genuinely does stay neutral, in which case there might be some room for negotiation, I can't see how any peace could be anything other than a pause. If N$O and BK are indeed allied, then we're in a situation wherein while N$O/BK remain allied, Chaos/KETOGG must remain allied; and while Chaos/KETOGG remain allied then N$O/BK must remain allied.

If I'm right, and I genuinely hope that I'm not, then we're in a very familiar situation. A situation wherein there can be no deals made, as no deals can be trusted; no peace can be reached, as no peace is logically possible. In that situation, there can be only war, between two static sides, until one or both are wholly annihilated, leaving the victor alone, playing a game of one. Which would be the end of the game.

Endgame, if you will.

I've seen this pattern a dozen times across a dozen games over a dozen years, and never once have I seen the pattern escaped in any other way but the total death of the game. But maybe the 13th time's the charm, and this community will be the first to survive? Well, I hope so. Every single one of those times was when I was running one of the opposing hegemonic forces' FA departments, and my inflexibility and paranoia were definitely no small factors, which is why I always say I'm quite literally apocalyptically bad at FA: I don't just run my alliance to the ground, I run entire games to the ground. So please, tell me I'm wrong here; tell me that there's still some chance that trust can be rebuilt, and that we can one day actually trust each other enough to play a more complex game than 1v1 treaty chess for the rest of time.

Lol, so if the NPO takes actions to secure ourselves, we kill the game, got it. Again, what a load of bollocks. We should just wait around for TKR to roll us instead, for dynamism. Never change Orbis, never change. 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Shadowthrone

[Sir Scarfalot]

Just now, Shadowthrone said:

Lol, so if the NPO takes actions to secure ourselves, we kill the game, got it. Again, what a load of bollocks. 

You disingenuous &#33;@#&#036;. Yes, that is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS. For the love of frick, just OWN IT. You want to have no competition, you want to end all possibility of insecurity for yourselves, YOU WANT TO END THE GAME. THAT IS WHAT ENDING THE GAME MEANS. YOU WIN. GAME OVER. No gameplay, no nothing, just NPO.

frick you, sincerely and genuinely, please disband NPO and delete.

 

[Cinomoo]

7 minutes ago, Meh Imperfect said:

Name this war: -snip-

Endgame.

[Sketchy]

1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said:

Lol, so if the NPO takes actions to secure ourselves, we kill the game, got it. Again, what a load of bollocks. We should just wait around for TKR to roll us instead, for dynamism. Never change Orbis, never change. 

Lmfao TKR has been rolled twice in a row, once by you, and then by us, and BK was planning to roll them again. Not sure what TKR has to do with GOB/Guardian hit but ok lmfao.

[Shadowthrone]

Just now, Sir Scarfalot said:

You disingenuous &#33;@#&#036;. Yes, that is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS. For the love of frick, just OWN IT. You want to have no competition, you want to end all possibility of insecurity for yourselves, YOU WANT TO END THE GAME. THAT IS WHAT ENDING THE GAME MEANS. YOU WIN. GAME OVER. No gameplay, no nothing, just NPO.

frick you, sincerely and genuinely, please disband NPO and delete.

 

I mean you are also involved in a war based of securing yourselves. So own it. You're interested and invested in securing yourselves as much as anyone else.  But love the hypocrisy.  

[Sketchy]

Just now, Shadowthrone said:

I mean you are also involved in a war based of securing yourselves. So own it. You're interested and invested in securing yourselves as much as anyone else.  But love the hypocrisy.  

Yes that is why we brought an overwhelimg num...... oh wait.

Lmfao its nice to see NPO being upfront about their intentions for once at least. No more beating around the bush. Refreshing really.

[Sir Scarfalot]

14 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

We should just wait around for TKR to roll us instead, for dynamism. Never change Orbis, never change. 

Oh, right, because TKR are such a goddamn threat to you after your current, prior and apparently still current allies need to pre-empt them from getting rolled while they're getting rolled, so you ally with your other "rivals" that you "split" with while they're getting rolled, forcing the "threat" to your "security" to ally with the ones actively rolling them, in order to do what's already been done. Nice! That one tops them all!

8 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean you are also involved in a war based of securing yourselves. So own it. You're interested and invested in securing yourselves as much as anyone else.  But love the hypocrisy.  

Securing ourselves from the clear, present, actively and unnecessarily aggressive threats to our otherwise literally warring coalition? Guilty as charged, we'd still be at war if you weren't so unimaginably, unforgivably, insanely, incompetently, historically stupid as to make the single worst possible play you could have ever done, which is to interrupt both of your opponents weakening each other at their own expense.

What the hell are you smoking? Get to the hospital, you're sounding like you're on an overdose of whatever it is!

Edited June 20, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot

[Shadowthrone]

9 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Oh, right, because TKR are such a goddamn threat to you after your current, prior and apparently still current allies need to pre-empt them from getting rolled while they're getting rolled, so you ally with your other "rivals" that you "split" with while they're getting rolled, forcing the "threat" to your "security" to ally with the ones actively rolling them, in order to do what's already been done. Nice! That one tops them all!

Securing ourselves from the clear, present, actively and unnecessarily aggressive threats to our otherwise literally warring coalition? Guilty as charged, we'd still be at war if you weren't so unimaginably, unforgivably, insanely, incompetently, historically stupid as to make the single worst possible play you could have ever done, which is to interrupt both of your opponents weakening each other at their own expense.

What the hell are you smoking? Get to the hospital, you're sounding like you're on an overdose of whatever it is!

I mean we can sit out and watch, or deal with the threats as and when they arise. tS saw the threat and took their opportunity. If that is not more war, for better game play, I don't know what is. 

With regards to planning a preemption on any alliance, with another sphere, I was involved in at as much as planning a BK hit with KETOG. Folks seemingly invite us enough for wars, and our answer has always been the same. But let the facts not slow you down, go on and tell me more how NPO should not take actions to protect its members, and be a pinata to save your circlejerk and the game~ 

[The Mad Titan]

3 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean we can sit out and watch, or deal with the threats as and when they arise. tS saw the threat and took their opportunity. If that is not more war, for better game play, I don't know what is. 

With regards to planning a preemption on any alliance, with another sphere, I was involved in at as much as planning a BK hit with KETOG. Folks seemingly invite us enough for wars, and our answer has always been the same. But let the facts not slow you down, go on and tell me more how NPO should not take actions to protect its members, and be a pinata to save your circlejerk and the game~ 

SMH just get rolled every war. It's for the game's health. 

[Shadowthrone]

8 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

SMH just get rolled every war. It's for the game's health. 

Yes sir. Would you like to roll us as well? I hear mid-tier folks dying while upper-tier inflation is best way to play PnW! I mean death to NPO! 

[Sir Scarfalot]

12 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean we can sit out and watch, or deal with the threats as and when they arise. tS saw the threat and took their opportunity. If that is not more war, for better game play, I don't know what is. 

With regards to planning a preemption on any alliance, with another sphere, I was involved in at as much as planning a BK hit with KETOG. Folks seemingly invite us enough for wars, and our answer has always been the same. But let the facts not slow you down, go on and tell me more how NPO should not take actions to protect its members, and be a pinata to save your circlejerk and the game~ 

Your idea of protecting your members is to deny them any possibility of playing the game at all. Keep up the circlejerk and make sure that war is never possible, ever, since that's the only way to protect your members after all! Can't possibly get hurt if you don't play!

[Shadowthrone]

Just now, Sir Scarfalot said:

Your idea of protecting your members is to deny them any possibility of playing the game at all. Keep up the circlejerk and make sure that war is never possible, ever, since that's the only way to protect your members after all! Can't possibly get hurt if you don't play!

So if we do play, we're killing the game, if we don't, we're denying our members something? Really can't win here, guess we gotta disband because Scarfalot demands it. 

[Sir Scarfalot]

13 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

So if we do play, we're killing the game, if we don't, we're denying our members something? Really can't win here, guess we gotta disband because Scarfalot demands it. 

Everything you are is based around protection. You want to protect your members, you want to have no opponents lest that protection somehow fail, you want to make sure nobody else even can play lest they play with you. Such a terrible prospect! Someone playing with you! Holy shit, can't have that! Consolidate around them, and hit them even when they're actively hitting each other, make sure they pay for such arrogance as to not be slaves to NPO! No matter what stupid, unnecessary costs it represents, you gotta make sure to protect your members against even phantoms!

Well, guess what: This is a persistent game. Shielding oneself from it by desperately aiming to end the game by any means is not playing it. Preventing it from being played is not playing it. Winning it is CERTAINLY not playing it. Were it a game that would start anew every time it was won, like checkers or whatever, then you'd have a point in that winning would be the proper aim, but this game does not reset anew: It merely persists, right up until you end it, and then desperately cry and whine and wonder why the hell you're so bored with it, ignoring how responsible you personally are for making your own bed. So, no, you can't win, but you're so hopelessly, pointlessly, stupidly and unproductively fixated on "protecting" yourselves that you aren't willing to even play.

Protection is a ridiculous, childish fantasy. No-one should ever be seeking it at all, let alone as their final goal, but it is your sole aim and sole reason for even living it seems. You seem to think that you'll actually die or something if you lose P&W, as if such a thing as losing even exists in the first place. How hopeless can you even be that you don't even understand that?

Edited June 20, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot

[Shadowthrone]

7 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Everything you are is based around protection. You want to protect your members, you want to have no opponents lest that protection somehow fail, you want to make sure nobody else even can play lest they play with you. Such a terrible prospect! Someone playing with you! Holy shit, can't have that! Consolidate around them, and hit them even when they're actively hitting each other, make sure they pay for such arrogance as to not be slaves to NPO! No matter what stupid, unnecessary costs it represents, you gotta make sure to protect your members against even phantoms!

Well, guess what: This is a persistent game. Shielding oneself from it by desperately aiming to end the game by any means is not playing it. Preventing it from being played is not playing it. Winning it is CERTAINLY not playing it. Were it a game that would start anew every time it was won, like checkers or whatever, then you'd have a point in that winning would be the proper aim, but this game does not reset anew: It merely persists, right up until you end it, and then desperately cry and whine and wonder why the hell you're so bored with it, ignoring how responsible you personally are for making your own bed. So, no, you can't win, but you're so hopelessly, pointlessly, stupidly and unproductively fixated on "protecting" yourselves that you aren't willing to even play.

Protection is a ridiculous, childish fantasy. No-one should ever be seeking it at all, let alone as their final goal, but it is your sole aim and sole reason for even living it seems. You seem to think that you'll actually die or something if you lose P&W, as if such a thing as losing even exists in the first place. How hopeless can you even be that you don't even understand that?

I love the extrapolation of arguments of winning/losing from thin air. Nice strawman there really. I have no inclinations of winning or losing this game, and there no quantifiable or qualifiable means to do that. My utmost interest in this game first, is my responsibility to my alliance, as well as using the position I have to ensure the game can keep moving forward. First and foremost, protecting my members and my community from the threat of disbandment, will always outweigh a lot of other goals. Given you called for our disbandment right here in this thread, and the sword that hangs over our head continuously, you can see why ensuring we have a right to exist, and play is of paramount interest for me. 

Secondly, having witnessed untouched upper tiers effectively killing other games, I'm in support of tS' actions, because people recognise that hollowing out the mass members, and the low/middle tier continuously is not entirely good for the health of the game. We can fight our wars, have our political disagreements, but at the end of the day there are always threats, and people will always deal with them. We see as upper tier consolidation a threat and supporting tS in their actions to handle that. If that does not suit you, so be it. That doesn't make us trying to protect our players, or somehow kill the game, but play the game to ensure that the upper tier is not a safe zone, and damage is done. 

But its nice to see your raving and ranting as if we have designs on this game. Makes it easier for us to continue our path forward, knowing the vast majority of folk want to see us disband and given our very existence is seemingly always under threat, I'm looking forward to the chess pieces moving forward  

[Sir Scarfalot]

Just now, Shadowthrone said:

I love the extrapolation of arguments of winning/losing from thin air. Nice strawman there really. I have no inclinations of winning or losing this game, and there no quantifiable or qualifiable means to do that. My utmost interest in this game first, is my responsibility to my alliance, as well as using the position I have to ensure the game can keep moving forward. First and foremost, protecting my members and my community from the threat of disbandment, will always outweigh a lot of other goals. Given you called for our disbandment right here in this thread, and the sword that hangs over our head continuously, you can see why ensuring we have a right to exist, and play is of paramount interest for me. 

Secondly, having witnessed untouched upper tiers effectively killing other games, I'm in support of tS' actions, because people recognise that hollowing out the mass members, and the low/middle tier continuously is not entirely good for the health of the game. We can fight our wars, have our political disagreements, but at the end of the day there are always threats, and people will always deal with them. We see as upper tier consolidation a threat and supporting tS in their actions to handle that. If that does not suit you, so be it. That doesn't make us trying to protect our players, or somehow kill the game, but play the game to ensure that the upper tier is not a safe zone, and damage is done. 

But its nice to see your raving and ranting as if we have designs on this game. Makes it easier for us to continue our path forward, knowing the vast majority of folk want to see us disband and given our very existence is seemingly always under threat, I'm looking forward to the chess pieces moving forward  

"Protection". What does that word mean to you if not the complete elimination of all potential opponents? Yes, you are under threat, that's a fact of existing in a game wherein PVP is a thing. Protection is your first and foremost goal, outweighing all possible other considerations, which absolutely means that you want no potential harm to come to your precious precious members. In order to do that, you consolidate and enslave and desperately work towards the obliteration of all others... which stands in direct opposition to OUR right to exist. So, we both have a right to exist, but as you cannot accept our own right to exist as it would potentially infringe on your beloved, above-all-else "protection", our right to exist starts and ends with annihilating you and your now admitted intent to annihilate us.

No game can exist with only one player in it. Be it an untouched upper tier or an untouched middle tier or a single player with 80% of the game's economy in it or one player with the only nation in the goddamn game or one alliance tied to literally every other alliance or one alliance with infinite resources or an admin straight up spawning reinforcements for an alliance(and yes I have seen all of these things), when there is only one viable competitor the game ceases to be a game at all. If you get rid of that sword that hangs over your head, the specter of potential losses, then you're no longer playing a game at all; instead you're just jerking off. I assure you that you're at fault for every game your community has ever seen die, because you're just that desperately afraid of risk.

[Shadowthrone]

1 minute ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

"Protection". What does that word mean to you if not the complete elimination of all potential opponents? Yes, you are under threat, that's a fact of existing in a game wherein PVP is a thing. Protection is your first and foremost goal, outweighing all possible other considerations, which absolutely means that you want no potential harm to come to your precious precious members. In order to do that, you consolidate and enslave and desperately work towards the obliteration of all others... which stands in direct opposition to OUR right to exist. So, we both have a right to exist, but as you cannot accept our own right to exist as it would potentially infringe on your beloved, above-all-else "protection", our right to exist starts and ends with annihilating you and your now admitted intent to annihilate us.

No game can exist with only one player in it. Be it an untouched upper tier or an untouched middle tier or a single player with 80% of the game's economy in it or one player with the only nation in the goddamn game or one alliance tied to literally every other alliance or one alliance with infinite resources or an admin straight up spawning reinforcements for an alliance(and yes I have seen all of these things), when there is only one viable competitor the game ceases to be a game at all. If you get rid of that sword that hangs over your head, the specter of potential losses, then you're no longer playing a game at all; instead you're just jerking off. I assure you that you're at fault for every game your community has ever seen die, because you're just that desperately afraid of risk.

 

Protection does not need to involve the elimination of all potential opponents, nor is that way I look at it. If that is how you look at it, go ahead, but that is a you problem, and not something I have anything to do with. What I mean by protection is quite clear really, since we formed, we've always been the pinata of everything bad that could happen. We've had folks running around OOC sharing stuff about our players from other games, and continuously threaten to disband us, or ensure we can never actively play the game. We've taken our chances in stopping folks can't keep rolling us at their will, and that is the same as any other alliance has done here in this game. I have no intention to let folks chase us out of this game,  nor am I particularly interested in obliterating others lol. Love the hyperbole, I haven't infringed on your right to exist, nor will I ever. Its a far more nuanced look at things than you seem to enjoy raving on about. Here, I've just admitted I have no interest in annihilating you, or anyone else in this game. Back when folks were out calling for the annihilation of Nova, I was one of the few on the boards and in private DM's against collective punishment to players as a whole, and I will continue with that firm belief. 

 

The problem here is you look at our existence as a problem, and you're not the first one to. Means I have to protect all 150 members who play this game as a part of the NPO, and that means those interests outweigh yours in most cases. If it comes to needing to defend ourselves and our right to exist, feel free to expand the war, and keep us in war forever. If thats what you consider fun, go ahead. I do however, reserve the right to watch for potential security threats, the same as you, and by the precedent you set here going after BK, I have the same rights do I not? Or is that just a you being allowed extra rights to play this game because its you, and NPO man bad and we should exist to solely pleasure you? 

[Sir Scarfalot]

3 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

Protection does not need to involve the elimination of all potential opponents, nor is that way I look at it. If that is how you look at it, go ahead, but that is a you problem, and not something I have anything to do with. What I mean by protection is quite clear really, since we formed, we've always been the pinata of everything bad that could happen. We've had folks running around OOC sharing stuff about our players from other games, and continuously threaten to disband us, or ensure we can never actively play the game. We've taken our chances in stopping folks can't keep rolling us at their will, and that is the same as any other alliance has done here in this game. I have no intention to let folks chase us out of this game,  nor am I particularly interested in obliterating others lol. Love the hyperbole, I haven't infringed on your right to exist, nor will I ever. Its a far more nuanced look at things than you seem to enjoy raving on about. Here, I've just admitted I have no interest in annihilating you, or anyone else in this game. Back when folks were out calling for the annihilation of Nova, I was one of the few on the boards and in private DM's against collective punishment to players as a whole, and I will continue with that firm belief. 

 

The problem here is you look at our existence as a problem, and you're not the first one to. Means I have to protect all 150 members who play this game as a part of the NPO, and that means those interests outweigh yours in most cases. If it comes to needing to defend ourselves and our right to exist, feel free to expand the war, and keep us in war forever. If thats what you consider fun, go ahead. I do however, reserve the right to watch for potential security threats, the same as you, and by the precedent you set here going after BK, I have the same rights do I not? Or is that just a you being allowed extra rights to play this game because its you, and NPO man bad and we should exist to solely pleasure you? 

The problem here is you look at our existence as a problem, and you're not the first one to. Means I have to protect all 45 members who play this game as a part of the TGH, and that means those interests outweigh yours in most cases. If it comes to needing to defend ourselves and our right to exist, feel free to expand the war, and keep us in war forever. If that's what you consider fun, go ahead. I do however, reserve the right to watch for potential security threats, the same as you, and by the precedent you set here going after Grumpy, I have the same rights do I not? Or is that just a you being allowed extra rights to play this game because it's you, and Grumpy man bad and we should exist to solely pleasure you?

Edited June 20, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot

[Shadowthrone]

3 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

The problem here is you look at our existence as a problem, and you're not the first one to. Means I have to protect all 45 members who play this game as a part of the TGH, and that means those interests outweigh yours in most cases. If it comes to needing to defend ourselves and our right to exist, feel free to expand the war, and keep us in war forever. If that's what you consider fun, go ahead. I do however, reserve the right to watch for potential security threats, the same as you, and by the precedent you set here going after Grumpy, I have the same rights do I not? Or is that just a you being allowed extra rights to play this game because it's you, and Grumpy man bad and we should exist to solely pleasure you?

Touche. Guess being the only one, not calling for the disbandment of alliances in this thread, has its positives