Jump to content

A plea to consider Co A line members


Guest John Q Listener
 Share

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Honestly Leo, I'm surprised you'd even show your face here.  There isn't a lot of tolerance for people who act and say as you do, but I guess whatever lets you sleep at night.   

I'm not too surprised honestly.  Have you seen the log dump and his talk there?  It's pretty enlightening (Not on him, it's his usual spiel.  The others though?  Woo...)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Leo the Great said:

My members are fine. I am sure if they had issues we’d hear about it. Ultimately I imagine they agree with me that I am not responsible for your failure to keep your members interested. 

TKR is quite fine.  We've been steady/slightly growing in members for a while now.  There really isn't too much shortcoming on that front because we have a strong community as I'm sure BK does too.  But for many alliances that isn't as true.  They don't have 4 years of war experience and the "great filter" of KF.  

Fledgling communities are being destroyed not because their govs can't keep them interesting but because y'all are actively trying to subject them to attrition and pressure them to disband.  Don't gaslight as to who is the cause here.  You've been caught red-handed.

 If your members agree with your statements, then I'd contend its either due to a lack of information or a culture that perpetuates attitudes that are destructive to game-health.  Go ask some of your players to play CN and ask them if they enjoy its stagnation and deadness because that's where we're heading.  

5 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

tenor.gif?itemid=5552043

On the upside, if the game does end, think about how much free time we'll all have.  I plan to take up bird watching (by which I mean staring creepily at @TheNG)

I get this is a joke, but it isn't funny.  We're just asking for a seat at the negotiating table.  You can find the time to make memes, but you can't find the term to compile a terms list and set real negotiations?  That's just bad faith.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cooper_ said:

If your members agree with your statements, then I'd contend its either due to a lack of information or a culture that perpetuates attitudes that are destructive to game-health.  Go ask some of your players to play CN and ask them if they enjoy its stagnation and deadness because that's where we're heading.  

Your game =\= game health. 
 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

I get this is a joke, but it isn't funny.  We're just asking for a seat at the negotiating table.  You can find the time to make memes, but you can't find the term to compile a terms list and set real negotiations?  That's just bad faith.

There's not a "seat" at the table because it was their intention to dissolve/disband some of the AAs.  Dissolve KETOG, disband TKR, KT, and TGH were the most common things stated in their private chats.  There was a very clear indication that they wanted to stall or outright ignore the peace talks by giving Keegoz/Adrienne, then later Partisan - the run around so they can keep the war going and having our members leave/delete.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

On the upside, if the game does end, think about how much free time we'll all have.  I plan to take up bird watching (by which I mean staring creepily at @TheNG)

bJMaF0G.png

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

"They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays.

<Kastor> And laughs and shit.

<Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

I get this is a joke, but it isn't funny.  We're just asking for a seat at the negotiating table.  You can find the time to make memes, but you can't find the term to compile a terms list and set real negotiations?  That's just bad faith.

Histrionics aside (people have been claiming the game was dying/dead pretty much constantly during the 4 plus years I've been here), TKR did have a seat at the negotiating table - we started negotiations with Chaos/Rose/KETOG on November 5th and they walked away on the 13th over protests regarding the format/separate track for Syndi.  While that's your guys' prerogative, the request should be for another seat at the table, since one was already provided and then abandoned, at least as far as non Syndi AAs are concerned.

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

There's not a "seat" at the table because it was their intention to dissolve/disband some of the AAs.  Dissolve KETOG, disband TKR, KT, and TGH were the most common things stated in their private chats.  There was a very clear indication that they wanted to stall or outright ignore the peace talks by giving Keegoz/Adrienne, then later Partisan - the run around so they can keep the war going and having our members leave/delete.

That sounds like a you problem

1 hour ago, TheNG said:

bJMaF0G.png

giphy.gif

Edited by Curufinwe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh well, at least the public rhetoric from Coalition B now matches the private discussions which were occurring in the logs. All sense of pretense has finally been dropped.

I suppose that's some form of progress moving forward.

Edited by Charles the Tyrant

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

Oh well, at least the public rhetoric from Coalition B now matches the private discussions which were occurring in the logs. All sense of pretense has finally been dropped.

I suppose that's some form of progress moving forward.

The stakes of this war has always been one of survival for us. So can't help that you folks raised the heat around this war, and now aren't enjoying being burnt for it. If your Government's public disclosures were a sign, our private discussions reacting to the nature of the war is only natural. 

This war as I've posted in my WoT's through out has always been an end game for us thanks to the stakes KERTCHOGG raised it to publicly, so can't really fault us for rising up to that challenge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, John Q Listener said:

And now we have moved to the logic chopping stage of the conversation, have we? I put forward my thesis in the OP and subsequent posts, none of which have been clearly addressed or refuted. All that has been put forward since is a lot of not-my-faultisms, and grr Co B. When will a Co A & Co leader come forward and take responsibility. I hope it's soon.

 

6 hours ago, Quichwe10 said:

Then so be it. Let us go over your thesis, and subsequent posts yet again. We start with your OP, in which you have asked us, the leaders of Coalition A, to "think of our members", and to peace out, rather than stroking our egos. You state then that it doesn't matter what IQ has done, but that it's all really just spin, and us putting off the blame to IQ. There are two major issues that have been raised with your OP. Firstly, that Coalition A has been able to surrender, and that IQ's very leadership outright saying that they plan to war us until we are either disbanded or have left the game entirely. 

These points were mentioned several times on the first page of the thread. First by Filmore, who stated that KERCHTOG had surrendered to Coalition B, and made reference to the leaked logs of internal IQ channels that showed leaders of Coalition B purposefully stalling peace negotiations in order to have more and more Coalition A members delete. This is the very fourth response to your OP in the thread. Charles the Tyrant also makes reference to said leaked logs several posts down, to which you respond as such:

We are indeed thinking of our membership right now because we are attempting to make peace with IQ. And yet, you decide to go, well, anything you say does not matter because you don't think we, Coalition A, is actually doing anything, and that any criticism of the current peace progress, where IQ refuses to speak to us whatsoever, is gaslighting you and shifting blame away from Co A. 

Partisan later comes into the thread and makes his own response, on how t$, a part of Coalition A, is unable to get peace, and makes reference to leaked logs that have IQ gov members continue to give us the runaround. 

The second page begins with multiple people attacking Partisan and blaming him for why t$ and its allies have not dropped out of the war. In response, Partisan points out that we are still trying to reach peace in private, that their doors are still open to IQ negotiators. He then makes reference to  logs showing that IQ leadership has stated that they wish to destroy and punish t$ aligned coalition members as to why they have not sought separate peace. 

You quickly then drop back into the thread with:

and:

Both of these show a complete lack of willingness to actually read a thing and understand what is happening. Rather, it is vastly more apparent that your only purpose here is to continually blame Coalition A for every issue that has happened in the peace process, contrary to your opening attempt to appear as if all you wish for is honest and open discussion. You do this again on the start of the third page of the thread, once again stating, "think of the membership!". 

Pausing here for a moment, and actually assuming that you had been in earnest, something that has been shown to be patently untrue in this thread, you ask us to peace out for the sake of our members. And, again, you give us no direction on how to do so. Peace through private channels and behind closed doors have been halted, turned away, or rejected. The very ways you keep telling us to go through for peace do not exist. Sardonic attempts to defend IQ by saying that he is sure that continued statements by IQ that they wish to see Coalition A rendered entirely defunct from the game itself mean absolutely nothing, and that we must persuade IQ negotiators to give us peace in order to do so, a defense you upvoted. 

This brings us to a new issue, in that, how do we persuade IQ's negotiators to come to the table with us? We are defeated, and we have admitted as such, meaning that we cannot apply the pressure to force negotiators to the table via sheer military force. Economic force is not present, as all major alliances have incredibly large reserves to keep themselves going in the war. Appealing to the goodness of their hearts did not work, and by the comments of their leadership when they are in closed quarters, will not work because they seek to inflict more war upon us. The avenue we were left with was to appeal to Coallition B's membership, that they perhaps may push IQ negotiators to speak with us at the peace table. And, that now appears to have put far too much stock in them, as we can see by this very thread.

Continuing on in the thread, you then post this: 

Again, you purposefully state, "think of the membership", and ask why we can't surrender. Much like sex, it takes two to tango here. Do you perhaps think that the victim of a serial killer is able to simply surrender to the serial killer, and the serial killer, who's just there to murder them, will actually agree? For peace to happen, both sides must agree to stop fighting the other. Coalition A wishes for the fighting to end. IQ evidently does not. That being said, I would predict that you would merely ignore this in totality, in order to continue to troll and shitpost. 

It is by page 4 then, that we begin to see you speak about the terms, and how they were leaked. 

As I explained to you, we had not been given the terms by IQ, so we did not know of them beforehand. After those had been leaked, IQ has refused to speak to us and give, confirm, or deny any further terms. DivineCoffeeBinge then comes in and tells Coalition A must give terms to IQ in order for peace to bring them to the table. Once again, we run into the issue of IQ refusing to speak to us, and a new issue in which, apparently, we're completely changing the original peace process. However, this is very easily explained by the logs that were leaked. That is, that IQ does not wish to peace with us. They would rather force us from the game entirely. Divine then comes in later that very page, and states that "the side that isn't winning doesn't get to set terms". Surprise surprise, this runs into the issue that, we're not setting terms. We're ready to receive them. It just so seems that IQ either does not have the terms, is not willing to give the terms, or just doesn't wish the war to end, the latter of wish would be supported by previously mentioned leaked logs. 

After that is where I step in, and attempt to explain once again my perspective on some things. @Edward I steps in with his portion on the infeasibility of minispheres. Unfortunately, I don't believe I'll be able to give you a response worthy of your own here, Edward, but with the concern of how to counteract too large groups, Rose's forward looking direction was to be a free agent that would be able to pick their own fights, and also to help keep the minisphere concept alive. This belief was a very large part of their joining of the current war, in order to prevent more people from making plans to attack other minispheres at their weakest or during a fight. I really only saw this war as an effort to be the first stress test of the system for how it would be enforced. Unfortunately, the IC/OOC and amnesia criticism was fully born out by NPO joining BK's side. But, before that, you had people who had previous working relations with each other fight each other for something that was all in fun and relative good cheer. And, this is where I'd probably chalk up so much anger stemming from here, because it was basically a time where defeat was seized from the looming jaws of victory. The system had had it's first war between people who'd known each other, the system had responded back to someone who attempted to abuse the system, and it had almost been working once again until NPO engaged on behalf of BK.

Heading back into @John Q Listener's shitpostings, page six more or less was a series of shitposts until you once again moan that no one is accepting blame, and I explain as others did before me the situation at hand. Your subsequent posts just kept ignoring every single thing that was said to you, and continuing to blame Coalition A for not peacing out. It's actually here that you start going, "lalalalalalala everything I don't like is Hitler spin!"

Coffee then comes in and goes, well, how does making it public help you, to which, our response is, well, nothing else worked, so why wouldn't we give it a shot, as well as explaining in more detail how it takes two to peace out.

After that, you return:

Once again, you refuse to listen to a thing that we have said, and continue to deflect and make your own assertion that it is Coalition A's fault for why no peace has been reached. Finally, I ask you to offer a rebuttal to the arguments that have been made, only to have you respond with faux offense, claiming that nothing you said was argued against, and that once again, Coalition A must take responsibility, while completely dodging my offer to actually discuss things honestly. So, with this, we have stated our issues, why they exist, and that we are unable to do as you so desperately wish us to do, only to be received by deaf ears.

@Supreme Master Joi, I'm afraid that my hopes of honest discussion grow exceptionally dimmer the more time I spend in these forums. 

Edit: 

I suppose this also gives us another issue on how we'd be able to think of the members.

John has a tendency to dip out of conversations whenever he sees a valid point. Easier to just run off and throw out a chippy line somewhere else.

4 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

IQ hasn't existed for months. The new blocs are not the same.  In case you want to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Amazing contribution to the conversation once again Milton. Thank you.

4 hours ago, Leo the Great said:

Lmfao. Do something about it then.

If I am as bad as you say I am you would think people would do something besides complain. 

 

4 hours ago, Curufinwe said:

 

'Memesphere' and 'PLEASE LET US SURRENDER OH GOD WHY WON'T YOU LET US SURRENDER YOU'RE KILLING THE GAME BY NOT LETTING US SURRENDER JUST LET US SURRENDER IT'S NOT FAIR THAT WE CAN'T SURRENDER PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP-sphere'

I'd expected a slightly more substantiated response from BK gov in its first public outing in a while.

3 hours ago, Curufinwe said:

Histrionics aside (people have been claiming the game was dying/dead pretty much constantly during the 4 plus years I've been here), TKR did have a seat at the negotiating table - we started negotiations with Chaos/Rose/KETOG on November 5th and they walked away on the 13th over protests regarding the format/separate track for Syndi.  While that's your guys' prerogative, the request should be for another seat at the table, since one was already provided and then abandoned, at least as far as non Syndi AAs are concerned.

That sounds like a you problem

giphy.gif

Ah. Here we go! The last time seats at the table were requested through your official point of contact/negotiator/whatever he is today according yo y'alls ever shifting definitions was a week ago. The last time seats at the table were requested through the leaders of major alliances on your side was only a couple of days ago.

58 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

The stakes of this war has always been one of survival for us. So can't help that you folks raised the heat around this war, and now aren't enjoying being burnt for it. If your Government's public disclosures were a sign, our private discussions reacting to the nature of the war is only natural. 

This war as I've posted in my WoT's through out has always been an end game for us thanks to the stakes KERTCHOGG raised it to publicly, so can't really fault us for rising up to that challenge. 

BK literally got caught planning a grudge war.

NPO literally entered offensively and could have sat out.

 

"survival"

  • Upvote 3

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

I'd expected a slightly more substantiated response from BK gov in its first public outing in a while.

giphy.gif

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

Ah. Here we go! The last time seats at the table were requested through your official point of contact/negotiator/whatever he is today according yo y'alls ever shifting definitions was a week ago. The last time seats at the table were requested through the leaders of major alliances on your side was only a couple of days ago.

3a7a213de5aefda8818bd82ae409af3c6d057398

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

The stakes of this war has always been one of survival for us. So can't help that you folks raised the heat around this war, and now aren't enjoying being burnt for it. If your Government's public disclosures were a sign, our private discussions reacting to the nature of the war is only natural. 

This war as I've posted in my WoT's through out has always been an end game for us thanks to the stakes KERTCHOGG raised it to publicly, so can't really fault us for rising up to that challenge. 

Nah, you don't feign appallment for the moral high ground and then come around it. You especially don't call out others on memes and then seriously pray for that to happen to AA's that were not part of said narrative.

t$ and it's allies being held to similar if not worse treatment in spite of having made no remarks of the likes is indicative that this is just a thinly veiled excuse.

So yah, no. Try again.

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

BK literally got caught planning a grudge war.

NPO literally entered offensively and could have sat out.

 

BK literally got caught planning a grudge war, that everyone else was also literally got caught planning. To state KETOGG or Chaos wasn't would be disingenuous at best.

NPO entered because it did have to do with our survival, yes. Sitting out was not an option otherwise we would have. 

18 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Nah, you don't feign appallment for the moral high ground and then come around it. You especially don't call out others on memes and then seriously pray for that to happen to AA's that were not part of said narrative.

 

Not feigning being appalled. Just pointing out that you raised the stakes with those call outs, so we are here answering it. Its nice of you try and claim Keegoz/Sketchy were just "memes" but it was not. You can't take back narratives that were pushed and set the tone of the war. Folks may attempt to walk back those sentiments but those two personally never did, and no one really cannot claim that sentiment just magically went away. 

So yeah, you raised the stakes, we're answering it. Welcome to the zero-sum stakes your side set up. 

21 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

t$ and it's allies being held to similar if not worse treatment in spite of having made no remarks of the likes is indicative that this is just a thinly veiled excuse.

CTO/OWR is an exception to that. They most definitely deserve to be rolled for a time longer than one month. 

So yah no, try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was actually specifically referring to the Carthago meme. But yes, it was very much feigning. Especially given the behavior seen in private. 

>These two AA's that disprove such excuse are the exception.

So convenient isn't it? That doesn't explain t$ even if such were to be true (it's not). You'll probably spout something about being questionable allies, which would be rich coming from you.

Alas, I guess some lie, even if proven false the moment it's been written, out of compulsion.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
Commas.
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Not feigning being appalled. Just pointing out that you raised the stakes with those call outs, so we are here answering it. Its nice of you try and claim Keegoz/Sketchy were just "memes" but it was not. You can't take back narratives that were pushed and set the tone of the war. Folks may attempt to walk back those sentiments but those two personally never did, and no one really cannot claim that sentiment just magically went away. 

So yeah, you raised the stakes, we're answering it. Welcome to the zero-sum stakes your side set up. 

You set it up. You chose to claim offense at two individuals whose opinion didn't represent that of the entire coalition and who others have clearly stated as much to you on here. That's on you.

44 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

CTO/OWR is an exception to that. They most definitely deserve to be rolled for a time longer than one month. 

So yah no, try again.

Kinda pathetic that you're so fixated on two alliances who you attacked after they rebuilt. That that's not enough damage for you already is a little ridiculous.

  • Upvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said:

You set it up. You chose to claim offense at two individuals whose opinion didn't represent that of the entire coalition and who others have clearly stated as much to you on here. That's on you.

Kinda pathetic that you're so fixated on two alliances who you attacked after they rebuilt. That that's not enough damage for you already is a little ridiculous.

I cant hear you over the glorious sound of victory, the bass line of a curbstomp, a melody so sweet even Leo wants to disband you. Dance baby, dance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said:

You set it up. You chose to claim offense at two individuals whose opinion didn't represent that of the entire coalition and who others have clearly stated as much to you on here. That's on you.

 

No but are leaders in your coalition who's sentiments set up the tone of the war. Your attempts of backtracking still don't involve themselves walking those sentiments back. Honestly, it's extremely disingenuous of your entire coalition leadership to claim you didn't have a role in the stakes your side set up. Own it, you pushed the war into what it is today, and we're fine answering it. Because it has become a zero sum game with threats to our survival put forth by you all early on. 

16 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said:

Kinda pathetic that you're so fixated on two alliances who you attacked after they rebuilt. That that's not enough damage for you already is a little ridiculous.

Kinda pathetic that you're so fixated on BK, who you attacked and planned to like a month or two before that as well! Quite pathetic really! 

Stating that, I shall continue enjoying rolling CTO/OWR :) 

TKR logic: We're all honourable to be fixated on rolling BK over and over again, but if anyone else wants to damage alliances for reasons, it is pathetic! 

Edited by Shadowthrone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Epi said:

They were both leaders in Kertog at the time. It's hard to get more official when it was Kertog that launched their blitz first and stood at the helm of your coalition on the forums for quite some time

You guys can't claim the "we're a coalition, there are a multitude of opinions" defense on your own actions and opinions and not extend the same, particularly when we are a more varied coalition, not being allied to one another, and there are publicly stated contrary opinions here on the OWF.

2 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Honestly, it's extremely disingenuous of your entire coalition leadership to claim you didn't have a role in the stakes your side set up.

Those are your words, not mine. I've acknowledged in multiple places that we certainly didn't help the situation but the decision to make this a grudge match/fight to the death was yours and is evidenced by your continued harping on two individuals as justification, the actual actions you've undertaken this war, and rhetoric from your own internals.

3 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Kinda pathetic that you're so fixated on BK, who you attacked and planned to like a month or two before that as well! Quite pathetic really! 

Stating that, I shall continue enjoying rolling CTO/OWR :) 

False statement, but amusing nonetheless.

  • Upvote 2

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

TKR is quite fine.  We've been steady/slightly growing in members for a while now.

I have to disagree with you on this one Coop. Yeah TKR's member count is pretty steady, but that's because you retain vastly more Purple Diamonds as full members than every other major alliance not named Arrgh. And these don't affect the member count number, but TKR has also been adding months inactive VM'd Knightfall war dodgers back into the alliance for some reason, I guess if people look at your population using the BK stat tracker that doesn't differentiate between VM and non-VM it'd give you a boost. But I fail to see any practical benefit, you do you though.

Let's go back to those Purple Diamonds shall we. 35 of TKR's 103 non-VM members are Purple Diamond inactive. For reference NPO has 6 and BK has 13. 34% of your members who are just doing totally fine haven't logged in for over a week. Furthermore, of the 68 members of TKR who still log into the game at least once per week, 10 of those have 0 infrastructure, which pretty much precludes them from doing anything, can't even be tax farms since many are either gray or lacking in raw resource improvements. But hey, you guys are raiding a lot right? Plenty of brave Radiants with a single ship and a day's buy of soldiers venturing out to bring loot home. Well kinda, of the 58 members of TKR that aren't in VM, have logged in within the past week, and have a total national infrastructure greater than 0 there are 21 that have no conventional military units (Soldiers, Tanks, Air, Ships) whatsoever. That brings us down to 37 members of TKR who might actually still be playing the game, I wonder how many are actually raiding? 37 might be a a small proportion, but surely this core group is killing it. Oh darn, only 20 of them are fighting any offensive wars whatsoever.

In summation: 

103 non-VM TKR members.

35 of which are Purple Diamond inactive.

68 members of TKR that aren't VM or Purple Diamond.

10 of which have 0 infrastructure.

58 members of TKR that aren't in VM, Purple Diamond, or ZI.

21 of which have 0 military units.

37 members of TKR that aren't in VM, Purple Diamond, ZI, or ZM.

17 of which have 0 offensive wars.

20 members of TKR actually putting in any work.

I guess depending on your definition of "fine" TKR could still be doing fine. But I personally wouldn't call having 20 useful members in my nominally 103 member alliance "quite fine". From where I'm standing it seems like you could do for a removal of the non-contributors like KT did recently, of course that would require sacrificing that pretty 100+ members stat. You do you though.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pop said:

I have to disagree with you on this one Coop. Yeah TKR's member count is pretty steady, but that's because you retain vastly more Purple Diamonds as full members than every other major alliance not named Arrgh. And these don't affect the member count number, but TKR has also been adding months inactive VM'd Knightfall war dodgers back into the alliance for some reason, I guess if people look at your population using the BK stat tracker that doesn't differentiate between VM and non-VM it'd give you a boost. But I fail to see any practical benefit, you do you though.

Let's go back to those Purple Diamonds shall we. 35 of TKR's 103 non-VM members are Purple Diamond inactive. For reference NPO has 6 and BK has 13. 34% of your members who are just doing totally fine haven't logged in for over a week. Furthermore, of the 68 members of TKR who still log into the game at least once per week, 10 of those have 0 infrastructure, which pretty much precludes them from doing anything, can't even be tax farms since many are either gray or lacking in raw resource improvements. But hey, you guys are raiding a lot right? Plenty of brave Radiants with a single ship and a day's buy of soldiers venturing out to bring loot home. Well kinda, of the 58 members of TKR that aren't in VM, have logged in within the past week, and have a total national infrastructure greater than 0 there are 21 that have no conventional military units (Soldiers, Tanks, Air, Ships) whatsoever. That brings us down to 37 members of TKR who might actually still be playing the game, I wonder how many are actually raiding? 37 might be a a small proportion, but surely this core group is killing it. Oh darn, only 20 of them are fighting any offensive wars whatsoever.

In summation: 

103 non-VM TKR members.

35 of which are Purple Diamond inactive.

68 members of TKR that aren't VM or Purple Diamond.

10 of which have 0 infrastructure.

58 members of TKR that aren't in VM, Purple Diamond, or ZI.

21 of which have 0 military units.

37 members of TKR that aren't in VM, Purple Diamond, ZI, or ZM.

17 of which have 0 offensive wars.

20 members of TKR actually putting in any work.

I guess depending on your definition of "fine" TKR could still be doing fine. But I personally wouldn't call having 20 useful members in my nominally 103 member alliance "quite fine". From where I'm standing it seems like you could do for a removal of the non-contributors like KT did recently, of course that would require sacrificing that pretty 100+ members stat. You do you though.

After all that counting, you should try count how much TKR cares for your opinion.

 

  • Haha 4

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.