Jump to content
Critters

Will t$ protect their protectorate?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Kevanovia said:

What was our next objective? Thunderdome. We were working with NPO about doing something involving micros duking it out. It’s gonna be a blast, looking forward to continuing the project with you post-war. I’m sorry that your government didn’t let you know about it.

On your second point: Oranges and Apples. FR/Covenant by themselves weren’t a threat to the future of microspheres or in a situation of being capable of creating a hegemony. On top of that, they apologized. If you apologized, we would likely also let it be water under the bridge.

So Chaos was never going to fight a real war again and just fund micros to fight? lol.

FR were equally wanting to do it.  I'm not really interested in an insincere apology since it wasn't a goal to kill minispheres but rather to avoid one side completely trashing another and I already have to admit Clarke did nothing wrong. As FR apologized to save its pixels and cause damage to NPO,  I don't want to follow the example of such people.

15 minutes ago, Kiloist II said:

I’ve seen more convincing Mexican soap operas than what you’re spewing out, please step it up. 

It really doesn't even matter what I say at this point. Everyone knows where everyone else stands now. If you don't think it's convincing, too bad. I'm not trying to persuade KERTCHOGG. KERTCHOGG's mind is made up and anything will be viewed in the lens of their "righteous struggle' rather than objective reality. There are a lot of aspects people may find merit in some day when they are more removed from the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

You have always claimed to be an isolated minisphere and Chaos claimed the same thing.

We (KETOGG) are. There's a reason why we only sign people if they have no outwardly ties. We don't want a situation such as that of TFP in this war.

27 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

CoS-Guardian/Grumpy disputes don't run nearly as deep as any issues with BK/NPO. The KT/TGH - CoS/Valinor culture war stuff  is and has always been a joke in real terms. The only person whoever took it seriously VMed or you'd have more conscientious objectors.   TKR went out of its way to make amends with KT/TGH because they had bigger fish to fry and KT/TGH were fine reconciling.

I wouldn't underestimate SRD's disdain for CoS if I were you. And those were serious enough to have them roll us alongside TKR and tCW in 69, and us roll them in turn afterwards.

And yeah, sometimes people reconsider priorities when another sphere had been trying to interfere since day one, and on top of that, had reached out to other people to have them rolled too. 

I mean, it's the job of FA to try to have a good standing with other parties. Whichever the reason may be for it. So I don't get what the problem is.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Both Chaos and KETOG wanted to roll The Covenant/BK. KETOG was more proactive and attempted to get outside support. The desire KETOG had to roll CovBK was not conveyed to BK or they would have had an ironclad CB before.  The only possibility for cooperation between NPO and KETOG was rolling BK, which we pointed out we did not want to do as it wouldn't ensure enough fighting in the upper tier which had consolidated in and around KETOG.

 

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

There were several disputes between Chaos and BK like the Valinor raid situation and CoS' hostility to coalition members in Knightfall. Just because it's in your interests to have everyone pretend that it was all one-sided and that there wasn't a desire to build a massive coalition to roll BK/Cov and fixate on it doesn't mean that is the case. This isn't a court of law.  A strategically timed leak will rarely happen. The only times a war was telegraphed via openly posted leaks beforehand was the Tenages thing in 2015,  Squeegee-Boki in 2018, and this Rainbow thing.

 

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

It is objective fact that tS was in communication with Chaos. It is objective fact that Chaos and KT/TGH had previously colluded despite being separate blocs so there was a pattern already. 

Here's some more  common knowledge as well: FR wanted to roll Chaos because of Soup Kitchen. This was forgiven when FR betrayed Covenant because it was convenient for Chaos/KETOG to incorporate the FR elements.

 

58 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

CoS-Guardian/Grumpy disputes don't run nearly as deep as any issues with BK/NPO. The KT/TGH - CoS/Valinor culture war stuff  is and has always been a joke in real terms. The only person whoever took it seriously VMed or you'd have more conscientious objectors.   TKR went out of its way to make amends with KT/TGH because they had bigger fish to fry and KT/TGH were fine reconciling.

> Because the leader of NPO knows everything about TKR and KT internals.

Edited by Cooper_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

We (KETOGG) are. There's a reason why we only sign people if they have no outwardly ties. We don't want a situation such as that of TFP in this war.

I wouldn't underestimate SRD's disdain for CoS if I were you. And those were serious enough to have them roll us alongside TKR and tCW in 69, and us roll them in turn afterwards.

And yeah, sometimes people reconsider priorities when another sphere had been trying to interfere since day one, and on top of that, had reached out to other people to have them rolled too. 

I mean, it's the job of FA to try to have a good standing with other parties. Whichever the reason may be for it. So I don't get what the problem is.

I'd say it's overstated in terms of its impact on KETOG's broader FA strategy.  They were serious in terms of the TRF people yeah, but the TRF people don't matter in Valinor/CoS, it was just a retirement home and TRF was just a tag along that were signed knowing they'd be down for it.

Good standing =/= working level relationships/ties.  If everyone is friendly with each other, there is no conflict, so everyone is not friendly with each other and has specific targets they prioritize.

 

5 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

 

 

 

> Because the leader of NPO knows everything about TKR and KT internals.

I didn't say internals. These are all rooted in external things the alliances did. If you make big moves to pursue certain FA options people will notice. Internally everyone in TKR could hate KT for all I know,  but what I do know is the government made a decision earlier in the year to appoint a MoFA who would repair relations with TGH/KT before he formed Soup Kitchen and it was obvious for all the world to see if they were the least bit interested or noticed him at all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Roquentin said:

Good standing =/= working level relationships/ties.  If everyone is friendly with each other, there is no conflict, so everyone is not friendly with each other and has specific targets they prioritize.

How were Chaos and KETOG friendly with each other and then fighting each other at the same time then?

The answer is not fAKe wAr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, REAP3R said:

How were Chaos and KETOG friendly with each other and then fighting each other at the same time then?

The answer is not fAKe wAr

I meant political conflict. Hope that helps.

15 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Yea, that’s called diplomacy.

You’ve literally just outlined that we have actively gone through periods of war and peace, toxic hostility and borderline friendship with people you maintain we’ve always been buddy buddy with. You’ve also revealed we are bigger than our egos and can make amends and work to overcome our differences.

We’re not married to any idea. There were times we were really entertaining approaching NPO in a serious manner to open up relations because we had hope after the dissolution of IQ.

The fact that it took basically one instance of you perceiving us to be colluding to have you throw the idea of a new dynamic out the window shows how little effort and faith you put towards shifting NPOs FA outlook from the status quo (IQ).

Like who? TKR? The reason you didn't like TKR is because you claimed to never have designs on them and got hit anyway. Horsecock I guess was too ambitious since apparently Keegoz never wanted to hit TKR ever and had bigger fish to fry. If you can get back to the main objective and you got see TKR get rolled without bloodying your hands, then it's a pretty sweet deal.

The reactions in this war are what ossifying/causing things to become more rigid. If it had ever been treated like just another war rather than the apocalypse, then things could have been more fluid. The stakes raising all happened on your side and for some reason you wanted to make it win or die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

I meant political conflict. Hope that helps.

It does, thank you. Though, wars don't all need to be political, they can be competitive and fun too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

I'd say it's overstated in terms of its impact on KETOG's broader FA strategy.  They were serious in terms of the TRF people yeah, but the TRF people don't matter in Valinor/CoS, it was just a retirement home and TRF was just a tag along that were signed knowing they'd be down for it.

Substantial enough to where we couldn't get on board with rolling BK until a log which substantiated weeks of rumors and intent dropped.

14 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Good standing =/= working level relationships/ties.  If everyone is friendly with each other, there is no conflict, so everyone is not friendly with each other and has specific targets they prioritize.

Yes, having a good standing is a corner stone for something more substantial. That's the first step TKR had to take because our relationship was in the negative at the time.

And yes, that's why I said "try". Realistically, complete lack of animosity (or even just rivalry) is not attainable. Doesn't change the fact that you'd want to at least not give a third party the reason to side with your rival/enemy over you, or just being neutral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

So Chaos was never going to fight a real war again and just fund micros to fight? lol.

FR were equally wanting to do it.  I'm not really interested in an insincere apology since it wasn't a goal to kill minispheres but rather to avoid one side completely trashing another and I already have to admit Clarke did nothing wrong. As FR apologized to save its pixels and cause damage to NPO,  I don't want to follow the example of such people.

No, but that was the next project. We were waiting to see where and how the pieces fell post-IQ. People in N$O and BK kept saying “there will be more treaty breaks, just you wait and see”. In the meantime we wanted to provide entertainment and a different spin on the game by working with people we usually wouldn’t think to be connected with (IE: NPO) and doing something different (IE: Thunderdome).

The dissolution of IQ and the formation of Chaos was meant to be the reset button on politics, or at least that is how we (Chaos) saw it.

In regards to the apology, fair enough. I was only attempting to clear up your confusion in regards to the FR-Soup situation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Imagine- if roq hadn't backstabbed tS I'd be forced to argue for his side now. 

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Imagine- if roq hadn't backstabbed tS I'd be forced to argue for his side now. 

😱

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Substantial enough to where we couldn't get on board with rolling BK until a log which substantiated weeks of rumors and intent dropped.

Yes, having a good standing is a corner stone for something more substantial. That's the first step TKR had to take because our relationship was in the negative at the time.

And yes, that's why I said "try". Realistically, complete lack of animosity (or even just rivalry) is not attainable. Doesn't change the fact that you'd want to at least not give a third party the reason to side with your rival/enemy over you, or just being neutral.

iirc, the Chaos-KETOG was in talks about how it would end before this war kicked off after. Are you referring to acting based on the screenshots related to nova? The issue was more if you start the war, someone who wants it will want their fill. It doesn't really make a lot of sense for KETOG as a whole if it feels threatened to delay that permanently and he still would have no reason to hit BK as they weren't able to do anything to him.

Who you determine you want to be neutral or friendly is the thing though and the fact that it can stay constant.

 

11 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Imagine- if roq hadn't backstabbed tS I'd be forced to argue for his side now. 

So when did the backstabbing take place? Can we call it a backstab when you left us out to die? Can we call it a backstab if you accept nations we were fighting? Can we call it a backstab if you literally tell alliances you will protect them from us if they give a morale boost to the other side? Can we call it a backstab when your own government insisted on telling us to screw off? Can we call it a backstab when Sisyphus refused to say he went over the top?  if I don't remember anyone from tS ever defending NPO on anything ever. Just usually KERTCHOGG are the heroes and we are the villain and we morally wronged KERTCHOGG forever and ever and they're the good guys. 

Like I"ll be honest, it was great of you to help out a bit with Terminal Jest but everyone else in tS basically already decided they hated us and the order was going to have to come from the top to change their minds and we didn't see that happening.

 

Edited by Roquentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

The reactions in this war are what ossifying/causing things to become more rigid. If it had ever been treated like just another war rather than the apocalypse, then things could have been more fluid. The stakes raising all happened on your side and for some reason you wanted to make it win or die.

I think we've explained pretty clearly why the reactions to this war were they way they were. The thing is you can't understand how agonizing it was for us to have finally a glimmer of hope at a shifting dynamic in the game only for the illusion of it to be shattered at the first opportunity. You are married to this idea that we pushed for minispheres because we somehow wanted to win and that's what is tainting your view of everything. You see ghosts where there are none. You're right, it's no secret there is bad blood between some alliances, and there will always be cycles of mistrust and trust between any two groups, you yourself said this is good for the game, what's not good for the game is maintaining this idea that past instances of hostility indicate future instances of hostility with no hope for reparation. You yourself have pointed to points where we've made reparations. You've made a single reparation and it was with BK. We've got a resume full of a wide array of outlooks, strategies, and pivots and that's part of why it is so easy for your side to cherry pick moments where we fricked up or didn't adhere to our current course of action. We take risks and sometimes we fail, but to think our outlook on the game is to win ignores an enormous amount of evidence to the counter.

I understand that some people don't want minispheres or want to adapt our idea of what makes this fun. I really do.  But you did try, however halfheartedly, to also shift the dynamic. The only thing that shot that to shit is your tendency to paint us as a static enemy and having that inform your reading of every one of our actions

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hodor said:

 You see ghosts where there are none. You're right, it's no secret there is bad blood between some alliances, and there will always be cycles of mistrust and trust between any two groups, you yourself said this is good for the game, what's not good for the game is maintaining this idea that past instances of hostility indicate future instances of hostility with no hope for reparation. You yourself have pointed to points where we've made reparations.

The reason we maintain that idea is a legacy of experience with human nature within worlds such as these. You might be able to let hold of a grudge.. but try getting everyone else you are attached to, to also do so in a sincere fashion. Doesn't always work out. That said,  a little paranoia is healthy.. requiring a little more effort to earn trust is a survival technique in worlds such as this. To pretend it is otherwise.. or to genuinely believe it is otherwise, is to open your group to vulnerability, exploitation, even disassembly. Roq knows what he's doing.  Consistency and reliability in allies.. is currency. Claiming strategy shifts as a justification for breaking trust is a demonstration of questionable character.  

Are you genuinely trying to claim you are not playing to win? What motivates you then? I am curious in that regard.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

Are you genuinely trying to claim you are not playing to win? What motivates you then? I am curious in that regard.

Fun. How do you win a game like P&W without ruining it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Fun. How do you win a game like P&W without ruining it?

I have a better question.. how do you not try to win.. without ruining it? Consider the objectives. What happens with excessive collaboration other than the lack of drama, conflict, and warfare that people literally come to this world for?  That's the grand contradiction. It all comes down to balance, and that is up for the designers and/or community to keep in check. No one should be able to "win"... but everyone should be trying their hardest to do it.

Do we really want a world built on hum-drum half-efforts?

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

I have a better question.. how do you not try to win.. without ruining it? Consider the objectives. What happens with excessive collaboration other than the lack of drama, conflict, and warfare that people literally come to this world for?  That's the grand contradiction. It all comes down to balance, and that is up for the designers and/or community to keep in check.

Fark it out.

I'm not sure I understand your question. You can win conflicts and not win the game, perhaps that's the confusion? What makes politics interesting is the intrigue and maneuvering. If you collaborate with the same groups, where is the fun in that? FA becomes just shit spraying on the forums.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Fark it out.

I'm not sure I understand your question. You can win conflicts and not win the game, perhaps that's the confusion? What makes politics interesting is the intrigue and maneuvering. If you collaborate with the same groups, where is the fun in that? FA becomes just shit spraying on the forums.

And there's a right way and a wrong way to make such maneuvers. People collaborate with who they trust, it's only nature and I doubt you're going to convince anyone to go against the grains of their felt companionship with their allies among various groups.  

And you are pretty much correct, not finding a solution to the latter dilemma of blocks being so solidified.. and absolute trust so easily abounding.. is the very reason many such worlds as this have faltered and fallen.

It is my personal belief.. that if you want a more dynamic environment, it is going to have to be addressed by design. Take a hint from reality, the world falls apart on espionage. The spying engine in this game is so rudimentary that it has no significant impact on relationships. But what if.. successful spy ops could result in false reports, "black flags?" The problem is not the community. It is not the dynamic..  it is the problem of far too much information, more than even real world leaders have access to. If you want to sew discord and dynamism without asking people to stop competing, then make the world more blind and reward creative skullduggery.

How to do that without causing imbalance or upsetting folks to much is the real question. The other problem is in a game like this.. making black-flags even remotely believable.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

iirc, the Chaos-KETOG was in talks about how it would end before this war kicked off after. Are you referring to acting based on the screenshots related to nova? The issue was more if you start the war, someone who wants it will want their fill. It doesn't really make a lot of sense for KETOG as a whole if it feels threatened to delay that permanently and he still would have no reason to hit BK as they weren't able to do anything to him.

Who you determine you want to be neutral or friendly is the thing though and the fact that it can stay constant.

 

So when did the backstabbing take place? Can we call it a backstab when you left us out to die? Can we call it a backstab if you accept nations we were fighting? Can we call it a backstab if you literally tell alliances you will protect them from us if they give a morale boost to the other side? Can we call it a backstab when your own government insisted on telling us to screw off? Can we call it a backstab when Sisyphus refused to say he went over the top?  if I don't remember anyone from tS ever defending NPO on anything ever. Just usually KERTCHOGG are the heroes and we are the villain and we morally wronged KERTCHOGG forever and ever and they're the good guys. 

Like I"ll be honest, it was great of you to help out a bit with Terminal Jest but everyone else in tS basically already decided they hated us and the order was going to have to come from the top to change their minds and we didn't see that happening.

 

Why were you fighting in the first place after you promised sisy not to?

 

Friend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Why were you fighting in the first place after you promised sisy not to?

 

Friend

Because being neutral in a global war is boring and there was no such promise made. There was a tacit acceptance about initially not expanding, but it was not meant to be a hermetic seal on NPO. I also acted on the available information of the most probable scenario if the war wasn't properly balanced out.

It was never an ironclad deal between him and I where I was contractually obligated not to expand.  It didn't say affiliates at first which was an addendum. When he blew up over the suggestion we'd cross fronts, it caused significant issues and we had not previously realized that he felt he had control over the NPO's ability to act and that he had staked everything on his ability to keep NPO from expanding. This matched what the logs told us and gave us considerable pause.

 

 

3 hours ago, Hodor said:

I think we've explained pretty clearly why the reactions to this war were they way they were. The thing is you can't understand how agonizing it was for us to have finally a glimmer of hope at a shifting dynamic in the game only for the illusion of it to be shattered at the first opportunity. You are married to this idea that we pushed for minispheres because we somehow wanted to win and that's what is tainting your view of everything. You see ghosts where there are none. You're right, it's no secret there is bad blood between some alliances, and there will always be cycles of mistrust and trust between any two groups, you yourself said this is good for the game, what's not good for the game is maintaining this idea that past instances of hostility indicate future instances of hostility with no hope for reparation. You yourself have pointed to points where we've made reparations. You've made a single reparation and it was with BK. We've got a resume full of a wide array of outlooks, strategies, and pivots and that's part of why it is so easy for your side to cherry pick moments where we fricked up or didn't adhere to our current course of action. We take risks and sometimes we fail, but to think our outlook on the game is to win ignores an enormous amount of evidence to the counter.

I understand that some people don't want minispheres or want to adapt our idea of what makes this fun. I really do.  But you did try, however halfheartedly, to also shift the dynamic. The only thing that shot that to shit is your tendency to paint us as a static enemy and having that inform your reading of every one of our actions

Well the way you structured yours was in a way you'd have the most military heft in one sphere and everyone else would be balkanized and not able to beat you. That's why. I pointed out all the paperless connections to powerbrokers you guys have, which gives you a considerable edge. If we had actually become a part of KETOG, then it would be pretty OP as it'd have everything. I mean the reason we fought the coalition was that we're aware of how good a combo of KETOG and Chaos would be and that people in KETOG/Chaos get along prettty well in some cases like Soup and TGH, Guardian/GOB+ TKR and so on. There was no real reason unless you didn't need them to keep winning to break up, but I've never seen KETOG as trying to be balanced but rather just wanting to beat up on mid tier treaty blobs because you can take advantage of relative lack of individual fighting ability.

I mean, we got along with Partisan even though we had a past rivalry with him. The current issues with tS are unrelated to historical grudges except for some people saying they were always going to get betrayed all along. 

 

Edited by Roquentin
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

doublepost
 

Edited by Roquentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Imagine- if roq hadn't backstabbed tS I'd be forced to argue for his side now. 

The wording is telling, isn't it? Forced. Like, it'd be against your nature to argue for your former treaty partner. Why have a treaty in the first place, then?

 

61G-DyYxoQL._SX425_.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, Roq got paranoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • 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.