Jump to content

How long will this war go on for?


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

This is, without a doubt, out of everything I've ever seen you type on the OWF so far in regards to this war, the MOST Stalin-level paranoid post I've seen. You're using an upvote... on a forum post... on this forum... as... what? An attempt to further validate pulling them back into the war? There is no need to psychoanalyze it, you're right, but you went and did it anyway. "You don't upvote a post shitting on..." Please. Just. Why?

Even if they did leave the war to "spite you" that's more indicative that people, not just the other side, think what you did was shady as shit. Regardless, We've done this song and dance already.

If the upvote button on the forums is now valid CB, we might as well turn this whole thing into a free for all.

It doesn't. 

TFP has a pattern of being on the opposite side of NPO under quichwe's reign as leader, so it's all just tying together. They wouldn't think it was bad if it wasn't us.  

I didn't say it was the main contributing factor but rather just one additional element.

Here's a quote Manthrax and some others can appreciate: "Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

11 hours ago, Hodor said:

Yea, relationships endure in these games. That's why a lot of people play them. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, especially since these relationships remain, but the allegiances of the IG alliances are relatively fluid. I think minispheres would've had this benefit as well. The more people you interact with in this game, the easier it is to humanize them. I would put forward that is part of the reason there isn't much animosity to be found in TGH towards TKR anymore, nor towards the remnants of TRF in Valinor. We'd had relationships, however peripheral, in many cases to these people in the past and so it was easier to call it water under the bridge at a certain point. Frankly, I wish BK had maintained its relationships.

They don't have the benefit as they make informal connections the main means of coalition building. It would be very hard without some polarizing issue to make say Vack oppose his friends in TGH on the battlefield or abbas. Um, I saw plenty of residual hostility in the TRF people and one of them literally VMed to protest the cooperation. I don't really think the basis of them having an issue is anything TGH itself did as you aren't the people they had the issues with.

 

Quote

Oh for sure, I would never claim players like Partisan aren't nearly always acting in a manner that will be advantageous to themselves, but I was saying it cannot be taken as an absolute and I think the former gov members of EMC in this thread are good examples of that.

I meant more he actually tried to change it up. Just that the others usually maxed out advantages be it due to feeling a personal sense of responsibility or some other reasons.

Quote

As for the relationships aspect, I addressed it above. It also follows that we've been playing the game for a long time, and as I mentioned the cyclical nature of allegiances above, we've all been on one side or the other multiple times and know the song and dance. We're bored of it and our collective experience drives us to want to change it. I think in many ways we did do a disservice to the game when NPO joined and you were immediately ostracized and targeted (CN is just such a textbook case of near unbreakable hegemony), but I echo that there have been opportunities to put that behind us.

People knowing each other for a long time is a huge advantage. Having clashing ties with them is usually one of the means conflict, but it's hard for tension to arise when things become too intertwined. Like I saw people knowing what Rose would do or getting passed the election platforms.  Those aren't exactly public access and are usually an internal matter. It's less about any grudge over that rather the suspicion is the system you advocate for intentionally or not, is better for you than it is for us. Since Sketchy was usually incredulous about my sincerity in terms of the issues I saw with how your sphere was constructed and its personal connections, maybe it wasn't intentional and you just didn't see the potential issues I was highlighting. Though at times, it seemed they were just dismissed as not having sufficient importance.

It's mainly TKR where the stuff you mention kicks in, since we don't know what will happen if whoever is serving as Queen or Prince or whatever quits to open a taco stand or something or if they touch an internal third rail. There are actually other alliances with the issue old guard having influence behind the scenes, but it's mainly pronounced in a few alliances.

 

10 hours ago, Akuryo said:

I mean it wouldn't be any better if they joined BK, TKR, Rose, or t$. Add 241 to any of those and it's utterly ridiculous. Frankly, adding 241 to any alliance is insane. 

Even if it were my shithole micro it'd be ridiculous. Any alliance with any measurable competence is ridiculous.

It wasn't exactly a plan and the turnout is really surprising since most online communities like the ones you mentioned(Fark, SA) have been decaying and greenlights/ads on Fark/SA would never have as much power as they once did. The game has been having issues getting players so any buzz from an uptick isn't a bad thing if someone outside notices it.  This is a niche genre and the layout isn't great and it doesn't have a genuine app, so people will try it but most people who have expectations will be less inclined to stick with it. It's not like NPOers joining and even then we've struggled convincing people to play at all for the 3.5 years we've been here due to interest in browser games declining and the fact that it's a more needy game.

 

 

10 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

 

Needless to say, ineffective leadership simply cannot hold onto authority if they fail to deliver benefits to members, members will either vote with their feet or more subtly , insist on new leaders to represent them.

My point is, what exact benefits do the members of NPO receive in return for little control over their own nation builds, slow growth in comparison to other alliances, extortionate taxes and repeated wars (mostly defeats at that) caused mostly by their own leaders who seem intent on following a self-fulfilling narrative of being perceived as a victim, largely as a result of their own actions I might add.

To be frank, if I had to give so much to receive so little, I would look for another home and I would not think less of anyone who did much the same.

 

You don't really get it. The point of NPO being here is to prolong the NPO's existence and expand the community. Elevating individual mechanical advancement over the community is contrary. No one should ever care that much about their individual growth prospects or they are looking to play it as farmville/sim city and we do not care for those players. 

They get the benefits of being part of a cohesive entity that can handle the pressure. People will grow slower than people in niche upper tier or alliances or alliances with little to no redistribution, but it's the price for being in an alliance where the members' can actually help each other rather than having two de facto alliances in one. They know what they get into. There is no self-fulfilling narrative and i never have had a problem explaining why a bunch of people that come off as jerks and braggarts are such, so thanks btw.  People actually often play it to get more war than other games and people prefer tougher wars over easier ones  and if people had applied this mentality in the rest of NPO's long history of 15+ years, it would not exist. 

I'm so sorry not everyone wants to play as Ayn Rand and would elevate pixel hugging and personal in-game benefits over the community when it is specifically advertised as a community first alliance.  Unlike your revisionist narrative, actually most players in other  alliance that sustained repeated beatdowns had no real desire to have a stockholm syndome towards people that were over the top with antagonism and mostly just quit thinking it would never change. I'm glad we've been able to further the idea is there is no "safe" or place that will always get you results so we can finally do away with the pathetic mentality you have always preached since you initially got on the game on the ground floor. You are basically a serious version of eumir's trolling gimmick. 

Edited by Roquentin
  • Like 5
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

They get the benefits of being part of a cohesive entity that can handle the pressure.

What benefits? Is there a single benefit at all? You ask people to give up their identity, agency, resources, opinions, military, economy, safety and enjoyment, and the best they get out of it is that you, and not them, personally feel more powerful?

17 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It's not like NPOers joining and even then we've struggled convincing people to play at all for the 3.5 years we've been here

If you had a point, then you wouldn't be struggling to convince people to play for you. Whatever reasons you want to try and blame your failures on, the failures are still there, and they would not be if your narrative of "NPO is a beneficial thing" held up for a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Auctor said:

Daddy needs some time away to think about where he wants to go from here and says to say he's REAL MAD.

 

1 hour ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

He never stays mad for long ;) 

 

1 hour ago, Auctor said:

he only acts nice around you mommy

 

1 hour ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

Oh, sweetie, does he not act nice to you?

 

1 hour ago, Auctor said:

sometimes he tells me at great length that my self esteem is misplaced

 

1 hour ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

Oh, well, that's a rather more intense statement than I'd anticipated. Don't you worry, your father and I will be having a long talk when he gets home. Self-esteem is very important for a growing boy.

 

1 hour ago, Auctor said:

no no its ok i'm stupid i just feel stupid

 

/me scuffs feet on ground

 

43 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

hugs Auctor

@Roquentin idk if you know this but you have better things to address 

  • Upvote 2
  • "We ruin the countries we govern and the people in our care. We slaughter our enemies and sacrifice all our allies. We’ll keep killing till there’s nothing left but to destroy ourselves. It will never be enough"
  • "You'll never win"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

What benefits? Is there a single benefit at all? You ask people to give up their identity, agency, resources, opinions, military, economy, safety and enjoyment, and the best they get out of it is that you, and not them, personally feel more powerful?

If you had a point, then you wouldn't be struggling to convince people to play for you. Whatever reasons you want to try and blame your failures on, the failures are still there, and they would not be if your narrative of "NPO is a beneficial thing" held up for a second.

Again you are missing the point. The identity as far as the game goes is NPO first and nothing else. People like being part of an alliance that sticks together and doesn't fold and progresses over time. People like the people they meet.  It's not about me feeling powerful and it wasn't my design to begin with to end up as leader(I was planning to quit all browser games before merging in) and I willingly sacrificed my nation's advancement for it as I believed in the vision as NPO had the staying power. I took up the mantle but it was more because I am used to assuming responsibility. NPO has always been a collectivist entity and it has proven to be more successful than any individualist model I had ever tried in the past.  Individual aims come and go; collective advancement and commitment lasts. 

Some more stale BS.  It is hard to convince people to play CN alternatives when all the CN alternatives have died prior to this including alex's prior game and the games look bad. Several people like Keegoz and abbas who had also played the cn alternatives acknowledged I had been able to make this stick unlike other attempts. Most communities from CN that put themselves here had a hard time bringing many people over or lost them. VE is an instance and i recall them prizing individual liberty and low tax rates. The genre simply doesn't have the attraction to most it once did. People get older and if it's not connected to their outside interests, they're less likely to play.  It's a problem every alliance here will have.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley
11 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

What benefits? Is there a single benefit at all? You ask people to give up their identity, agency, resources, opinions, military, economy, safety and enjoyment, and the best they get out of it is that you, and not them, personally feel more powerful?

If you had a point, then you wouldn't be struggling to convince people to play for you. Whatever reasons you want to try and blame your failures on, the failures are still there, and they would not be if your narrative of "NPO is a beneficial thing" held up for a second.

Did someone always get picked last at team sports? Because clearly you have a warped view of them if you think the only person who gets the glory is the Captain.

As to your other point, we are the largest Alliance in the game, its not us struggling, its you. 

Edited by Frawley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Frawley said:

Did someone always get picked last at team sports? Because clearly you have a warped view of them if you think the only person who gets the glory is the Captain.

"NPO first"
"Community before individual"

Did someone always get told that "everyone's a winner" in sports? Because you clearly have a warped view of reality if you think a community that actively quashes individual achievement permits glory to anyone else.

18 minutes ago, Frawley said:

As to your other point, we are the largest Alliance in the game, its not us struggling, its you. 

We don't struggle to bring anyone into TGH. People struggle to get into TGH. We have standards, and that's why you're the ones having the problems.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
15 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

"NPO first"
"Community before individual"

Did someone always get told that "everyone's a winner" in sports? Because you clearly have a warped view of reality if you think a community that actively quashes individual achievement permits glory to anyone else.

Apparently there's at least 147 people who disagree with you.  Although if you're seriously arguing that the individual should come before the community and that the team should take a backseat to the personal glory of the individuals that comprise it, it might help explain why NPO is the number one AA and others are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

"NPO first"
"Community before individual"

Did someone always get told that "everyone's a winner" in sports? Because you clearly have a warped view of reality if you think a community that actively quashes individual achievement permits glory to anyone else.

We don't struggle to bring anyone into TGH. People struggle to get into TGH. We have standards, and that's why you're the ones having the problems.

It doesn't quash individual achievement. We have people who are doing stuff they excel at of regardless of the tax system.

Um, it's not exactly analogous. We turn people away for failing entrance requirements as well, but I was talking about porting players from CN and other games. We usually struggled with convincing people who had played CN for long periods of time to adopt a new game especially when many had played Project Terra, PN, and others going further back.  Mensa originally had more than the 40-50 people they ended up with and I don't think there was a ton of interest on the eUSA forums for more to come over. I could be wrong though, but it's an issue all invasion groups have.

I don't see it as a referendum on Fark that they stayed low membercount and didn't pursue a greenlight or anything. They must have thought there wasn't much interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley
2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

"NPO first"
"Community before individual"

Did someone always get told that "everyone's a winner" in sports? Because you clearly have a warped view of reality if you think a community that actively quashes individual achievement permits glory to anyone else.

We don't struggle to bring anyone into TGH. People struggle to get into TGH. We have standards, and that's why you're the ones having the problems.

No I didn't, I got told that you are only as good as the team behind you, and that flows through to everything in life, from you job to gaming.

You are so clearly out of touch with the way the NPO operates if you think we quash individual achievement and excellence. We hold competitions about stats, about whale takedowns, trade results and baseball constantly, and have probably made more awards and badges in our time than this game has had serious players.

And if everyone was as selective as TGH and as unwilling to teach and grow new players this game would be a dead collection of self-copulating 'Elites' talking about how good they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frawley said:

No I didn't, I got told that you are only as good as the team behind you, and that flows through to everything in life, from you job to gaming.

You are so clearly out of touch with the way the NPO operates if you think we quash individual achievement and excellence. We hold competitions about stats, about whale takedowns, trade results and baseball constantly, and have probably made more awards and badges in our time than this game has had serious players.

And if everyone was as selective as TGH and as unwilling to teach and grow new players this game would be a dead collection of self-copulating 'Elites' talking about how good they are.

Oh? You hold competitions about who has the best RNG on their identical airstrikes? That's a curious concept. What next, a keno tournament?

TGH teaches new players to grow themselves, to make decisions, and to connect to the community. Yours teaches new players that NPO man good, TKR man bad, push only the buttons we tell you to, never make a decision without consulting leadership, and that the community of Orbis should be shunned at all times.

If everyone was as unwilling to teach and grow new players as NPO, this game wouldn't exist at all.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Frawley - That's a pretty ignorant statement to make considering that I've given tips and help across the board, whether in private DMs or from a few of my shows where I talked mechanics.  You don't have to be in TGH to receive advice from me if you're a player looking to do better.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2019 at 12:37 AM, Shadowthrone said:

NPO's response is in kind, and to state that we somehow have to be nicer and give you the advantage so that it suits you and therefore the health of the game, is again antithetical to your professed principle. Upsetting the balance of power and skewing to any one side, is the definition of an unhealthy game for everyone else.  Giving you all the channels of communication, consolidation and capital of working together to plan hits, and not responding in kind, is allowing you to believe you can keep doing it. I, for one, do not believe you have the game's best interests at heart starting this war the way you did, but did so solely out of self-preservation. So this reverse ideological purity narrative is really hard to even accept, given your literal reason for entering as stated by your Queen, is self-preservation and security. 

Again, you'd be wrong on the death of nationsims. It has nothing to do with "realpolitik" and to reduce the death of CN down to solely this idea,a is an easy cudgel. Having been there during peak CN, and working with the folks who were in variety of high gov, I urge you to look at the context of the game and its downfall, before trying to pin the blame on pragmatism. In fact, I'd say pragmatism was the reason why some of the greatest politicking/coalitions were built that kept things exciting. 

I have no issues having no enemies left to fight. You seem to think I have some responsibility in ensuring people play this game to fight? I do not. If they wish to quit and go, let them. I'm not here to tell people how to play this game or exist solely for my sake. If they don't find this game fun or entertaining and quit, I for one do not begrudge them for it, and definitely not at fault for their individual choice in doing so. Once again, laying blame where it is not due, is an unfair burden of responsibility you seem to be placing on the NPO. 

I meant to respond to this earlier, but I've been busy preparing to move into my college dorm.

No one is asking you to give up being the top bloc or even the top alliance nor give us an advantage.  As you've seen, minispheres has only resulted in us getting rolled twice.   I don't care in which way the balance of power swings just as long as it continues swinging.  The problem I have with NPO entering as I've previous explained is that it risks jamming that see saw to one side.  The thing we are asking for is a good faith effort to protect the future of the game.  The continued slog of bipolarity and extremely long wars just fuels member attrition and the death of alliances, which objectively is unhealthy for the game.  As an aside, when ya'll brought in 270 members, that is great for the game.  I do hope that they aren't used to further consolidation, but a genuine congratulations on introducing a new community and adding for more potential future dynamics.  And this is good motivation for others to follow in bringing in new communities.  

If you want to attack TKR for doing the same shtick, fine call us out where we err.  That's exactly what we're here to discuss.  And I know you think we have not changed, but I mean just look at FA department.  None of us, @Menhera, @Benfro and myself were here in FA even 3 months ago, and before then only @GoldyHammer and @Nizam Adrienne were responsible for all of our FA.  All of us have come with new ideas and we are actively working to change our direction.  As for our entrance into this war, well that was clear as day in terms of CB and it was two smaller blocs attacking a much larger bloc.  From a meta perspective (which I admit yes wasn't our biggest concern), it was the largest bloc being taken down a notch by two smaller ones which again isn't the worst thing.  But it was still fundamental to our political calculus, nonetheless, that we weren't doing something to destabilize the minisphere dynamic.  Perhaps, even accelerate it by demonstrating the risk to fledgling blocs like citadel and cov the risks of being in such a large bloc.  Again,  I'm open to discuss this in good faith, and I admit that TKR is no perfect AA maybe in some ways less so or more so than NPO.  I'm willing to admit my/TKR's mistakes, are you?  My goal here is to promote these ideals.  I'm not asking for blind faith just some willingness for discussion about how we can achieve mutual progress on these goals (whether it benefits you, me or whoever).  

As for the realpolitik thread of the argument, I do believe that consolidation was large part a cause of CN's death (but you're right that this is mostly from second-hand conversations I've had from the people who were there, so you might know better).  But again, consolidation isn't good for the game.  One of the best reasons for consolidation is the pragmatic argument.  Essentially, why leave the largest blocs if they're going to offer the most protection against being rolled since everyone else isn't enough to take you down.  Now, I'm not decrying all instances of pragmatism nor realpolitik, but the times when it devolves into a zero-sum perspective where an actor only views his benefit as someone else's or the community's loss.  The rhetoric you use, as in I don't do X because that gives TKR an advantage or Y because that benefits KT, should not be the be-all and end-all.  This is what specifically causes frustration to many because it can often fuel decisions that will detriment the game health.

The minisphere dynamic helps NPO too.  If you're worried about the elites, well your allies in T$ and HS are known for having a few as well besides your own member base.  NPO had and has an equal opportunity to  leverage its connections.  We were all ready to give you a chance despite previous misgivings (which I do believe was a step towards game health).  And besides this, in small groupings, you are literally the largest alliance giving you unique operability.  I'm just stating this because you guys focus on your weaknesses from this dynamic but never really state your strengths which might be just as strong.

Now, the final portion of your statement is what really disconcerts me and I'm sure many others.  While I won't place the responsibility fully on NPO, ya'll like everyone else are part of this game, so you have a responsibility to the continuity of it.  And your flippant response to many players leaving the game is something I find distressing.  The permutations of dynamics and political intrigue is completely dependent on the number of players and alliances.  The reason I point out NPO here is because your process of decision-making seems to neglect the impact on the game always in favor or your own priorities even if they're aren't necessarily exclusive.  And if you could take back one event during this war that would be most helpful to the game dynamic it would likely be NPO's entry.  Then you'd have a growing N$O who likely becomes the top bloc after BK's fall.  Citadel and/or cov become independent.  Fark is also prospering with its own bloc.  Now, the game has 6 or 7, at least, independent blocs.  NPO likely still has the advantage perhaps an even greater one unless under some illusion, you seriously think Chaos wants long-term ties with KETOG (no offense to those alliances).  

Maybe it's not too late, and maybe we can still provide some sort of solution to Orbis.  I for one don't want to let enmity between the major alliances result in our failure of saving something that  provides us all with an immense amount of fun and enjoyment.  I do believe, though, that there is a path forward.  Hopefully we find it :).

Edited by Cooper_
Spelling
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not in NPO's interests to see BK fall.  They'd lose their connection behind the doors, Cooper.  There was no intention for them to fully separate because they remain paranoid over KETOG/Chaos, despite the fact that the only ones who have actually shown any effort of changing up the politics of the game was Chaos/KETOG aligned alliances, and I guess Syndicate too to an extent.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Oh? You hold competitions about who has the best RNG on their identical airstrikes? That's a curious concept. What next, a keno tournament?

TGH teaches new players to grow themselves, to make decisions, and to connect to the community. Yours teaches new players that NPO man good, TKR man bad, push only the buttons we tell you to, never make a decision without consulting leadership, and that the community of Orbis should be shunned at all times.

If everyone was as unwilling to teach and grow new players as NPO, this game wouldn't exist at all.

People have competitions about all sorts of seemingly arbitrary stats in every alliance.

I don't really know what TGH's IA except they do recruit and your characterization is funny. It's a completely different ball game to tell people to connect to a "community"(which isn't representative of that many) people where the leader of TGH is the most upvoted person. There's virtually no one saying 'TGH SUCKS". I would expect people to follow the instructions of TGH's leaders as well rather than doing their own thing. I saw plenty of TGH members sacrificing themselves in attacks and I doubt that was them moving on their own. I don't really knock TGH IA since Sketchy put his money where his mouth and he invested in the people he got in.  Most of the issues with TGH are how they use their position FA-wise.  It's also weird to say we have some sort of constant TKR theme. The rationale was simply explained since most people don't want to know every little detail about stuff that happened before and we've always been upfront with the reasons we have reservations about TKR or any other alliance.

Frawley's point is more germane to the vast majority of alliances where they have to cut off recruitment to avoid alienating older members via redistribution and to limit tier discohesion.

Quite the opposite if the game had more strong communities and less splintering and people pursuing their own personal growth, it would be a lot stronger and likely retain more people.  We can go back and see how much stronger most of the alliances that fractured in the past would have been had people stuck it out rather than splitting over individual aims and  had inculcated a culture of loyalty.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Their gov hit for it when it wasn't needed when the nation was actively fighting other people. They were stand off ish. They peaced out on FR peacing out and our entry was given as the reason for FR peacing. It's not a huge leap to make.  When their high gov are the ones doing it, it's not the same as just one lone individual with no gov status.

As the actual person who negotiated the treasure deal between TFP and TKR, I can say that the ONLY reason that we traded the treasure with TFP is because they were the alliance with the most to gain from the treasure (aka they would pay the most).  I didn't know it was a crime to get the most money from a deal.  In all honesty, though, we did have concurrent negotiations with Fark because they had the second most to gain in earned income, so they were a suitable backup.  In the end, TFP wound up giving a higher final offer than Fark, so obviously we went with TFP.  

As for them leaving when FR did, well they only entered because FR did.  I believe they had an ODP; @Quichwe10 could tell you best.  Anyways TFP had two ODPs with Ming and Rose, and they entered on FR's side.  I don't think that's showing a bias towards KERCHTOGG unless you think an alliance is responsible to stay longer than the ally that called it in.  

As for the reason I'm defending TFP, well it's because i find it distasteful to hit coalition allies, even former ones, especially mid-rebuild just for the statpad.  That's a perfect recipe for member attrition, so I hope TFP that you guys stay strong.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cooper_ said:

As the actual person who negotiated the treasure deal between TFP and TKR, I can say that the ONLY reason that we traded the treasure with TFP is because they were the alliance with the most to gain from the treasure (aka they would pay the most).  I didn't know it was a crime to get the most money from a deal.  In all honesty, though, we did have concurrent negotiations with Fark because they had the second most to gain in earned income, so they were a suitable backup.  In the end, TFP wound up giving a higher final offer than Fark, so obviously we went with TFP.  

As for them leaving when FR did, well they only entered because FR did.  I believe they had an ODP; @Quichwe10 could tell you best.  Anyways TFP had two ODPs with Ming and Rose, and they entered on FR's side.  I don't think that's showing a bias towards KERCHTOGG unless you think an alliance is responsible to stay longer than the ally that called it in.  

As for the reason I'm defending TFP, well it's because i find it distasteful to hit coalition allies, even former ones, especially mid-rebuild just for the statpad.  That's a perfect recipe for member attrition, so I hope TFP that you guys stay strong.

It's more how handled the execution of the treasure deal. If Alethkar had simply declared on wessex instead or they could have simply realized why I was frustrated since we were in an uphill battle and complied.

There's enough bad blood with TFP and also their ties to the other side where they would be biased towards KERCHTOGG with FR out of the picture and FR leaving due to issues with NPO. 

It's not a coalition ally of ours  if they bail when we go in and everyone claims they're going to finish us off if we don't win and they like a post related to that topic.  We don't really have super positive views for people who pull out of wars early regardless of side.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It's more how handled the execution of the treasure deal. If Alethkar had simply declared on wessex instead or they could have simply realized why I was frustrated since we were in an uphill battle and complied.

There's enough bad blood with TFP and also their ties to the other side where they would be biased towards KERCHTOGG with FR out of the picture and FR leaving due to issues with NPO. 

It's not a coalition ally of ours  if they bail when we go in and everyone claims they're going to finish us off if we don't win and they like a post related to that topic.  We don't really have super positive views for people who pull out of wars early regardless of side.

Ok maybe quichwe snapped at you, but it seems kind of understandable.  You could at least admit ya'll made a big deal over one target in a war of what 2000 nations?  

And bad blood doesn't make a valid CB nor does it make sense for TFP to go into a war as they start their rebuild.

Even for an alliance of TFP's reputation (which I think is admittedly better now), leaving because your ally who called you in left is not leaving a war early.  They came  in defense of FR.  With no FR, there is no reason for them to fight in the war.  They had no ties to anyone else, and I'm sure it put them in a precarious position given their other ties were to alliances on the other side.  And in this instance, I'm more referring to BK with the statpad/coalition ally statement.  I mean something like 75% of BK's positive net comes from TFP.  And either way it doesn't excuse BK for waiting until they invest billions in new infra, and at that point it should've been clear they weren't reentering anyways.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Ok maybe quichwe snapped at you, but it seems kind of understandable.  You could at least admit ya'll made a big deal over one target in a war of what 2000 nations?  

And bad blood doesn't make a valid CB nor does it make sense for TFP to go into a war as they start their rebuild.

Even for an alliance of TFP's reputation (which I think is admittedly better now), leaving because your ally who called you in left is not leaving a war early.  They came  in defense of FR.  With no FR, there is no reason for them to fight in the war.  They had no ties to anyone else, and I'm sure it put them in a precarious position given their other ties were to alliances on the other side.  And in this instance, I'm more referring to BK with the statpad/coalition ally statement.  I mean something like 75% of BK's positive net comes from TFP.  And either way it doesn't excuse BK for waiting until they invest billions in new infra, and at that point it should've been clear they weren't reentering anyways.

Quichwe flexed and we hit. He messed up an important hit which screwed us over for a couple of rounds. He then intentionally was busy quoting Adrienne and had zero interest to deal with us in any neutral manner. He got hit. 

I mean at that point we were annoyed with folks trying to screw around with us because it seemed we were in a losing position, so hopefully this makes it clear to not flex because you bet on the wrong horse. 

Given everything else that went on the back room, we had enough justification for a war and it was expanded when we could handle it.

BK hungers for wars just like anyone else but to call our hit on tFP unjustified doesn’t work, since for us there was ample reason to hit TFP and it happened.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
45 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Ok maybe quichwe snapped at you, but it seems kind of understandable.  You could at least admit ya'll made a big deal over one target in a war of what 2000 nations?  

And bad blood doesn't make a valid CB nor does it make sense for TFP to go into a war as they start their rebuild.

Even for an alliance of TFP's reputation (which I think is admittedly better now), leaving because your ally who called you in left is not leaving a war early.  They came  in defense of FR.  With no FR, there is no reason for them to fight in the war.  They had no ties to anyone else, and I'm sure it put them in a precarious position given their other ties were to alliances on the other side.  And in this instance, I'm more referring to BK with the statpad/coalition ally statement.  I mean something like 75% of BK's positive net comes from TFP.  And either way it doesn't excuse BK for waiting until they invest billions in new infra, and at that point it should've been clear they weren't reentering anyways.

TFP actually accounts for less than half of our net damage and a little more than one-eighth of our total damage output.  As I pointed out in a different thread, Rose actually accounts the largest chunk of our overall damage output (about 25 percent), since they had more stuff to explode than, say, TKR.  Same deal with Guardian, Ming, GOB and so on.

Anyways, as Keshav pointed out, TFP was hit because they interfered with a hit at a sensitive time and Quichwe refused to work with us to rectify the situation he caused, presumably because he thought we weren't in a position to do anything about it.  As it happens we were and once we had your side's mid tier under control and had the spare capacity, we went ahead and dealt with him.  The fact that TFP had rebuilt infra was more of a happy coincidence (from a stats point of view) than a plan on our part and the expansion itself was the direct result of TFP's conduct, rather than the mere fact they surrendered (which I mean was premature but fundamentally their prerogative) or BK's hunger for wars (which is a thing, but not the primary driver in this case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2019 at 2:49 PM, Frawley said:

As I said on the VC in ONN, we are already trying to get GOONS and other sites to invade the game. And we are reaching out to old CN friends and enemies alike to let them know of PnW.

Drag as many people here as you can, I welcome the fresh blood, and the challenge.

GOONS would be quite fun to see here, as would other older established gaming groups. I mean anything new to bring fresh blood is always good.

output11.gif&key=7dd46fc9c31afd4fac113d5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk of GOONs reminded me of an epic poem one wrote for me. Probably the most flattering poem anyone has written for me. An alliance which prides itself on being a villain would portray me as even more ruthless and villainous was kind of a compliant. Although I was defending myself; just never had any interest in surrender or bowing to them even if me vs their entire alliance (with sanctions thrown on for good measure)
sc_2.jpg

Although as far as war goes; keep it brutal. How war should be fought. Only reason GOONs never finished me was they just couldn't.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2019 at 11:50 AM, Akuryo said:

Less talking, more grabbing a rifle and shooting back. The Roqbot hordes won't defeat themselves, soldier!

giphy.gif

source.gif
giphy.gif

There's Too many, Boss. I don't have enough rounds...

Edited by Pasky Darkfire
  • Haha 1

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

It's more how handled the execution of the treasure deal. If Alethkar had simply declared on wessex instead or they could have simply realized why I was frustrated since we were in an uphill battle and complied.

There's enough bad blood with TFP and also their ties to the other side where they would be biased towards KERCHTOGG with FR out of the picture and FR leaving due to issues with NPO. 

It's not a coalition ally of ours  if they bail when we go in and everyone claims they're going to finish us off if we don't win and they like a post related to that topic.  We don't really have super positive views for people who pull out of wars early regardless of side.

@Roquentin, if that was all you needed us to do, then perhaps you should have suggested it rather than threaten moderation on us if we didn't airstrike. Perhaps it's because you think differently than I, but using or threatening to use game moderation as your personal attack dogs is utterly detestable. As for leaving the war, perhaps you missed it, but we were in there solely to honor our ODP with FR. Pray tell me what would possibly make us stay in that war when that reason no longer exists? That being said, issues with NPO? Hmm. Well, good to know my suspicions to be confirmed. 

14 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Quichwe flexed and we hit. He messed up an important hit which screwed us over for a couple of rounds. He then intentionally was busy quoting Adrienne and had zero interest to deal with us in any neutral manner. He got hit. 

I mean at that point we were annoyed with folks trying to screw around with us because it seemed we were in a losing position, so hopefully this makes it clear to not flex because you bet on the wrong horse. 

Given everything else that went on the back room, we had enough justification for a war and it was expanded when we could handle it.

BK hungers for wars just like anyone else but to call our hit on tFP unjustified doesn’t work, since for us there was ample reason to hit TFP and it happened.

I was talking about Adrienne because I was attempting to be as transparent as I could to Roq on what was happening, so he would know what was happening with Adrienne, and that Adrienne would know what was happening to Roq. Perhaps I could have kept things compartmentalized between both, but since Adrienne had already known about the entire issue with Roq before I myself had known, I felt that the cat had already been let out of the bag. Apparently, that was a exceptionally poor judgement call. That being said, I will freely admit I was biased against Roq. Not because he was NPO, or IQ, or any real past events, but because he immediately threatened to sic moderation on us if we did not comply. That being said, I was still willing to hear him out though. If he had suggested something like the workaround he just mentioned earlier on this page, then I would have accepted such a compromise. I myself had actually forgotten that treasures would be transferred upon defeat in any wars, not just defensive ones, and had not thought of it. Not the first time I've forgotten such a game mechanic, unfortunately. I only found out that CIA lets you get 3 spies a day now only a few weeks ago, and before our re-entry into the war, had to trawl the forums again to confirm if fortify still gave resistance. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Roquentin said:

It's more how handled the execution of the treasure deal. If Alethkar had simply declared on wessex instead or they could have simply realized why I was frustrated since we were in an uphill battle and complied.

There's enough bad blood with TFP and also their ties to the other side where they would be biased towards KERCHTOGG with FR out of the picture and FR leaving due to issues with NPO. 

It's not a coalition ally of ours  if they bail when we go in and everyone claims they're going to finish us off if we don't win and they like a post related to that topic.  We don't really have super positive views for people who pull out of wars early regardless of side.

I had solely intended to not bother offering another explanation as to why FR left the war. Alas FR still seems to get mentioned fairly often so I shall break it down only once more. Because contrary to popular belief your entrance was actually a very minuscule thing to us, and our leaving wasnt to spite anyone.

FR left the war due to quite a few factors and I'll go through them as best I can, and in order of actual importance to FR. Not what others perceive to be of importance.

1) Going back slightly to the beginning when FR was Bad Company we had a situation where two high government officials wanted to create their own alliance (it happens). Those guys left and we had members and lost virtually our entire high gov, and then some attempting poaching. (No point trying to sugar coat that fact because we caught some of it. The issue was something we had been frustrated with but we worked it out before our disbanding). However back on topic I imagine you could all understand what that would do to you as an alliance, to cut the core out and leave what was left. We only had myself, Demon and Filmore with government experience. This ties into number 2.

2) We attempted a merger with Rough Riders on the cards it looked like a good match to merge the two. Through factors and faults from both sides the merger went through and failed dramatically. This caused more government to leave from a newly populated government and a whole different membership. That really took the wind out of people's sails which leads to my next factor.

3) Government that was left and membership all had a lot going on irl which was a issue. We had 3 government members sitting final exams, 1 travelling and 1 indefinitely away. Factor in Filmore being taken away completely due to work and having no time for anything, demon had his own factors alongside my own. That's our entire Gov out of play and no one to step in as we had no more depth in the resource pool. At this point the war is flowing and we are struggling massively, which was several times noted by curu saying we weren't as tenacious as we used to be. 

4) We in truth had actually lost our mojo and desire to go on, it had gotten so bad we would start becoming a hindrance to our bloc mates in Covenant and our allies in TFP(who joined solely on my request). The thing is me and demon had spotted this and saw no way we could realistically stop the rot and decided that enough was enough. We initially planned to disband and just be done with it, I wanted to sit and have a extended LoA from this game as i was struggling. However demon convinced me otherwise and revealed he wanted to try and do something as a smaller alliance again as he preferred it in PnW. I though it sounded like a good idea and agreed it was for the best.

Did NPO entering kinda annoy me? In some ways yes and in some ways no, because had we stayed in we knew we was struggling and you're particularly strong in a tier we was concentrated. What annoyed me about your entry was the way you entered. But was it the defining factor? Hell no it wasnt we had already known we wasnt longed for the world and decided to call time early. It was just a factor amongst many.

Edited by Alexio15

output11.gif&key=7dd46fc9c31afd4fac113d5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alex locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.