Jump to content
Kastor

How long will this war go on for?

Recommended Posts

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
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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 3

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.😛

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Great Salt War" will never end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Inst said:

"The Great Salt War" will never end.

Yeah, isen't it great? 

tenor-2.gif

Edited by Zim
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quichwe10 said:

@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. 

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. 

The context is important. There are multiple gimmicks in which slots got filled within that one week. It's not really an unwarranted suspicion that it was an intentional ploy by TKR to have its slot filled. Given the timing of the hit being as we are starting to fill the slots on a hectic 4th of July. I didn't use them as my personal attack dogs. It's not my fault you were oblivious to the ramifications of the action you took.

Why would you not expect it to be brought up as slot filling if you were declaring on someone in the war? If I had an uninvolved affiliated nation hit us for the treasure when other people had already been attacking, I would expect to be reported. I don't have the patience to be exceedingly nice knowing it's a limited time thing on 4th july when it is unlikely to get a report answered swiftly.

35 minutes ago, Alexio15 said:

 

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.

This is the main argument in the post and I know the other reasons FR had for disbanding, but DemonSpawn said the complete opposite that it wasn't inactivity or anything but that he saw the entry as a betrayal of his trust and that expedited the exit/disbandment.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

The context is important. There are multiple gimmicks in which slots got filled within that one week. It's not really an unwarranted suspicion that it was an intentional ploy by TKR to have its slot filled. Given the timing of the hit being as we are starting to fill the slots on a hectic 4th of July. I didn't use them as my personal attack dogs. It's not my fault you were oblivious to the ramifications of the action you took.

Why would you not expect it to be brought up as slot filling if you were declaring on someone in the war? If I had an uninvolved affiliated nation hit us for the treasure when other people had already been attacking, I would expect to be reported. I don't have the patience to be exceedingly nice knowing it's a limited time thing on 4th july when it is unlikely to get a report answered swiftly.

This is the main argument in the post and I know the other reasons FR had for disbanding, but DemonSpawn said the complete opposite that it wasn't inactivity or anything but that he saw the entry as a betrayal of his trust and that expedited the exit/disbandment.

Are you perhaps suffering from some selective memory failure? Your immediate demand was to airstrike, or we were slot filling and you'd report us. Not airstriking is not slot filling, or there's a lot of people that should be getting warnings right now. If you feel that's the case, then I'd suggest you issue the reports you're so fond of using and get those warnings going. The entire purpose of why we were there was for the treasure, and we wrote that on the tin. In of itself, the purpose is to actively close the war. It's even more clear cut than sitting on people is in whether or not it's violating the rule against slot filling because sitting on people means you don't have the intention to close the war, and you usually want to drag that war out as long as possible. So no, I didn't expect it to be reported because there are no rules broken, and I'm not in the habit of making sets of fraudulent reports to the mods. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quichwe10 said:

Are you perhaps suffering from some selective memory failure? Your immediate demand was to airstrike, or we were slot filling and you'd report us. Not airstriking is not slot filling, or there's a lot of people that should be getting warnings right now. If you feel that's the case, then I'd suggest you issue the reports you're so fond of using and get those warnings going. The entire purpose of why we were there was for the treasure, and we wrote that on the tin. In of itself, the purpose is to actively close the war. It's even more clear cut than sitting on people is in whether or not it's violating the rule against slot filling because sitting on people means you don't have the intention to close the war, and you usually want to drag that war out as long as possible. So no, I didn't expect it to be reported because there are no rules broken, and I'm not in the habit of making sets of fraudulent reports to the mods. 

You're sticking with this? Then too bad especially with the completely obtuse equivocation.

My demand was if he didn't airstrike he would be helping our enemy and it would be equivalent to me running grounds on a 0 ground high air nation on our side attacking  a high air nation on the other side.  It's not the same to specifically do a less damaging attack to simply doing a ground or naval when it doesn't increase the damage to the other people. if you see a bunch of people navalling high air targets that we have other people fighting, then let me know I'll be reporting them. You intentionally  hurt the other nations by not airstriking and benefitted the defending nation. It was not a fraudulent report in my eyes and you can't tell me what is or isn't or if I thought it was a legit instance of someone trying to mess with the other wars.

Feel free to stuff it. I hope it was worth it. You don't know what fraud is, so not gonna bother further.

 

Anyway being meaning to get to this one.

 

22 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

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 :).

Been meaning to address this one as it deserves  a reply.

Here's a huge problem: the existence and acceptance of the Chaos bloc is perceived as premised on attacking another grouping. Everyone will see it as the case based on the leaks and then it was well-timed with KETOG enlarging within the protection period. You basically seem like the Pepsi to KETOG's Coke. We also don't know if Chaos will even exist after. The largest alliance(TKR) is also the most compatible with KETOG. I'm saying if we're expected forsake pragmatism, then the high road solution for Chaos would have been to continue the war or just peace and pursue what it was going to do post-war anyway.

It was perilous to any balance of power as if it that could happen to BK/Cov, it could easily happen to us as well. The numbers were used as a reason to be wary of and it was the typical pattern in PW history where the nimble side was wailing on the larger one numerically.  The political calculus you make of hoping induce fractures is also perilous and the problem is it's a universalizable principle. The problem is when you do a war and it's shock and awe and you win despite the numbers on the other side, it has long-standing consequences. Rather than everyone making an independent decision about how they do FA, they instead make a decision based on "what are these guys going to do us? we don't stand a chance and our main ally wasn't able to fight them off all once" or someone else sees "these guys are the ones who bring the heat and will always win"  then it furthers the negative precedents set in the past. We prefer to encourage a culture of ride or die allegiance decisions made knowing you won't be safe from damage no matter what you do.  The historical precedent is the main target alliances often become ostracized and then are easier to beat as time goes on while the other side adds people  until the target alliances wither away.  While many alliances often become defiant when people hope to break their ties, there are also cases where people will sever and it is usually not denounced as a cowardly act to sever for that reason. There is a culture of intimidation and a culture of cowardice being acceptable and for  extreme individualistic opportunism in seeking your own bliss as the expense of your allies/alliance. We cannot allow you to have a monopoly on power and we have to show we can do stuff as well so if someone gets stomped by KERTCHOGG, it doesn't mean if they stay sweet with KERCHTOGG they'll be safe. Note doesn't have to be the entire KERTCHOGG. Could be any combo or permutation as long it's KETROG or kertog and others. 

There are a lot of different issues with CN. One was the lack of mechanically competitive alliances as being mechanically competitive was way harder than in PW and required organization and supply and demand of  a certain product to match rather than people just buying infra/cities and saving up. The supply meeting the demand relied on a constant stream of new players, which was not happening. Everything being based on long-term accumulation meant the older players were the ones with the stats/warchests, but they were moving on in life and their nations no longer had much value compared to the adult pursuits they thought crowded CN out. Older players stopped communicating as much and CN always had massive activity issue game-wide but it became worse and worse where it wasn't even viable to have two competitive sides so people chose to consolidate and burn out the clock.

tS and HS are relatively isolated in terms of personal connections compared to the other people. That's not a knock on them, just the spread of people who are tS alumni isn't as wide as say Rose or Arrgh and HS' gov hasn't historically been gov for most of the game unlike the other groupings. I don't feel CoS/TKR are a safe bet to base our future on.  It would be an easy target to get a coalition against or it could just be us.  There was considerable narrative building before we declared. Constant gotchas, ruining the game, etc.  I'm not really sure unless you count a lot of alliances that aren't actual members as part of N$0 if that'd be the case. The third party links are contingent and conditional and not like the ones others have. 

I don't have a responsibility to keep people in the game if they can't handle taking some hits. I don't really get off on it, but it's just not the mentality we want to encourage in the game that when the going gets tough you check out. The things we were getting thrown our way in terms of threats makes it a hollow plea. People always quit the game when TKR won every war and relatively little concern was shown except for blaming us. "OH NPO YOU'RE DRAGGING IT OUT AND CAUSING PEOPLE ON YOUR SIDE TO QUIT AND JUST USING THEM AS MEATSHIELDS UNTIL THEY DO AND YOU'RE A LEECH." I  gave the reasons earlier as to why our entry was actually the dynamic move.  You went in thinking you were the underdog and you were winning and , we went by the battlefield results and hoped to prevent history from repeating itself so we threw a hail mary pass. I would never compare Fark/Pantheon to KETOG or even Chaos. There is no one competitive with KERTCHOGG and there is nothing more repetitive and undynamic than Acadia/UPN/ex-VG getting stomped for the kerjilioneth time alongside inexperienced alliances. We wanted to show by suiciding ourselves that it was possible to avoid that outcome. We didn't want it to become if you happen to get on KETOG and TKR's bad side then you're screwed. Everyone gets smashed.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.