Peace in our Time

[Kevanovia]

5 minutes ago, alyster said:

After the ammount of similar secret treaties you signed in CoL, it's hilarious you poke fun at this one being public. 

[Keegoz]

9 minutes ago, alyster said:

Rather like "No matter who Quack declares war at, everyone will counter" Which is very strict MDP bloc wide. 

You mean the agreement we made when Quack made it abundently clear that they would hit HM and Swamp. Then proceeds to hit HM and Swamp.

You can ask the guys in HW. We had no clue Rose would enter and didn't know until they literally began declaring. We were fully expecting to eat the loss.

[alyster]

2 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

Relevance? All the critique here is that in a very tiny case two blocs will assist each other. On top of it Clock now keeps claiming that they had no plans to attack either one - so the mutual defense clause is pretty much useless anyway.

While at the same time half the people running their mouths about it were signing secret treaties to defend one or another bloc just little while ago.

[Keegoz]

9 minutes ago, alyster said:

Relevance? All the critique here is that in a very tiny case two blocs will assist each other. On top of it Clock now keeps claiming that they had no plans to attack either one - so the mutual defense clause is pretty much useless anyway.

While at the same time half the people running their mouths about it were signing secret treaties to defend one or another bloc just little while ago.

Again, you really have no clue what you're talking about. Ignorance is clearly bliss.

[TheRealMonty]

7 hours ago, Alexander the Great said:

The issue that I (and most of Aurora & friends) have seen, is game stagnation.  If everyone took this approach to spheres, there would virtually never be a GW—if this was in real life, that'd be wonderful—But this. Is not. Real life. This is a game. That exists. For war too. Not just politics.  If you think that it doesn't, then you are playing the wrong game.  It's not called "Politics & Diplomacy".  All of you people thinking that everyone who disagrees with your decision wants to randomly attack your precious pixels are delusional and paranoid in the highest, most extreme degree.  Whenever your best "arguments" against the main problem with the pact are simply personal attacks and insults, you show that you are not even capable of reasoning.

Im sorry but... who asked?

[KittenGosCrazy]

Here is a pitstop for anyone reading through the thread

 

Snacks and Drinks are 1 money each

here is our current selection:

drinks include

syndisprite

dr tkr

snacks include

rose shaped chips

immortal gum

[Redacted]

thank you for stopping by, suggest items we should carry and Ill get them in the next shipment

[Jacob Knox]

I will say good on y'all for creating the most controversial and debated forum post in a while. Didn't know if I would ever see anything past like 4 or 5 pages in a while and here we are... page 8. Lmfao.

[Kevanovia]

25 minutes ago, alyster said:

Relevance? All the critique here is that in a very tiny case two blocs will assist each other. On top of it Clock now keeps claiming that they had no plans to attack either one - so the mutual defense clause is pretty much useless anyway.

While at the same time half the people running their mouths about it were signing secret treaties to defend one or another bloc just little while ago.

There are several differences, but I will go over a very large one:

Quack had criticisms rooted in objective fact- they were the largest bloc in the game and were unable to be beaten by a single sphere. They were also openly hostile to Hedge Money, which led to teaming with Oasis to prevent an attack whilst trying to pressure Quack to break into smaller spheres.

Meanwhile in this situation- easily the two largest spheres (to the point where it would no longer be a contest to do a 1v1 against them with any other sphere) decide to sign a MDP to prevent a war torn (not to mention, a far smaller) bloc from hitting them.

 

[Kyubnyan]

6 hours ago, James II said:

When they said NPO was coming back I didn't think this is what they meant.

Aw damn, they’re on to us. Time to speed up on the Roq resurrection project to quash the meta once and for all.

[alyster]

12 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

Meanwhile in this situation- easily the two largest spheres (to the point where it would no longer be a contest to do a 1v1 against them with any other sphere) decide to sign a MDP to prevent a war torn (not to mention, a far smaller) bloc from hitting them.

War torn? Are you kidding me? Low infra high tier nations down declaring against unarmed nations with full infra and peace time builds. For stat padding. That's how it would work. 

We all know and have seen how effective smaller force has been at such strikes. KT has shown that in this game time after time again. 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by alyster

[Kevanovia]

3 minutes ago, alyster said:

War torn? Are you kidding me? Low infra high tier nations down declaring against unarmed nations with full infra and peace time builds. For stat padding. That's how it would work. 

We all know and have seen how effective smaller force has been at such strikes. KT has shown that in this game time after time again. 

 

The problem with your 'stat padding' rhetoric, is that Clock is one of the most vocal critics of stats meaning much. They argue against looking at stats defining wars. So your argument falls on deaf ears when you claim the reason for any of their moves is 'stat padding'. 

[alyster]

2 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

The problem with your 'stat padding' rhetoric, is that Clock is one of the most vocal critics of stats meaning much. They argue against looking at stats defining wars. So your argument falls on deaf ears when you claim the reason for any of their moves is 'stat padding'. 

Those stats translate directly into cash in bank and that's something you guys can count well. (This was a compliment)

[Etat]

3 minutes ago, His Holy Decagon said:

Apparently quivering enough to sign with the only obvious opponent. It’s not about “us” getting our way; it’s about HW being quite vocal about wanting or enticing Clock to hit them, and when people start militarizing, there’s a cuddle group formed in the fake veil of safety, and it’s perpetuated as an anti-chaining resolve.

Pointing out what people perceive, is not moaning and groaning, by the way. If that’s the case, then you guys are all doing the same via treaty.

Saying “We’ll if you aren’t going to hit HW or ro$e, it doesn’t matter”, is a fallacy statement and everyone knows it. I can flip it by saying “You’re not worried about Clock’s quote-unquote little drama, so why sign with ro$e?”. It’s a double standard, and a fake attempt to appear right or to be justified.

I'm not involved in any back channel secret FA chit chat my friend, but I don't think I'm completely deaf either.  I'm gonna take a stab in the dark though and suggest you lot misinterpreted comments made somewhere in jest, or are just plain making stuff up. 

Also there is an apparent lack of trust consequent to your last chaining war which now I guess means you just have to lie in the bed you've made for yourselves.  I'm not however reading any sort of profound rejection of the practice from the player-base in general.  Personally I think it's in the same realm as dog-piling, a valid, if somewhat inglorious strategy that shouldn't be misused.

Additionally, I think it quite an imaginative leap to say we 'signed' Ro$e, when in fact it is a clearly time limited clause within a demilitarization agreement and otherwise very different from any sort of treaty.  Continually calling it a treaty or anything like it doesn't make it so.

As an aside, I'm always here for cuddles if you need one

[KindaEpicMoah]

The real irony here is that Hollywood's first war was a chain war but the same standard wasn't held to them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

9 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Snip

Remember the days when you had a fledgling little upper tier alliance, and I had a fledgling little upper tier alliance, and we were BFFs?  I miss those days old friend.

10 hours ago, Alexander the Great said:

Aurora's [not so] friendly attack-dog here. 

Oh look at the cute little puppy, you are adorable. Yes you are! yes you are! Grrrr So mean.



Oh damn this thing went another 3 pages since i went to bed last night, you kids have been putting in work!

[His Holy Decagon]

16 minutes ago, Etat said:

I'm not involved in any back channel secret FA chit chat my friend, but I don't think I'm completely deaf either.  I'm gonna take a stab in the dark though and suggest you lot misinterpreted comments made somewhere in jest, or are just plain making stuff up. 

Also there is an apparent lack of trust consequent to your last chaining war which now I guess means you just have to lie in the bed you've made for yourselves.  I'm not however reading any sort of profound rejection of the practice from the player-base in general.  Personally I think it's in the same realm as dog-piling, a valid, if somewhat inglorious strategy that shouldn't be misused.

Additionally, I think it quite an imaginative leap to say we 'signed' Ro$e, when in fact it is a clearly time limited clause within a demilitarization agreement and otherwise very different from any sort of treaty.  Continually calling it a treaty or anything like it doesn't make it so.

As an aside, I'm always here for cuddles if you need one

We’re responding to what was said, by HW gov itself. I’ll take a stab in the dark and assume you didn’t listen to Thalmors show, and I’d recommend or encourage you and others listen to it? Hard to make things up on our end, when it’s the other side saying things.

I still think there’s some misinterpretation, lol. We’re not sitting here with a “Ah shucks, we’re the chainers now!”. There’s nothing but glee, and excitement on Clock’s side.

A treaty is an agreement between two parties. All treaties ingame are “time limited”, and inb4 someone says “they don’t activate unless someone hits them”, yes, congratulations for understanding how all treaties work. Call it a deal, an accepted offer, an arrangement, and then look up synonyms for the word Treaty.

I also wonder why either party to this treaty actually even cares if the other is hit, really weird to think about that

[Etat]

2 minutes ago, His Holy Decagon said:

I also wonder why either party to this treaty actually even cares if the other is hit, really weird to think about that

Again, not a treaty, but I get your point.  And yes this is a weird situation given our history, which I think pragmatism has perhaps played a bigger part in this decision rather than our feelings for each other 😂 

[Kan0601]

You guys really love to talk about how this is a temporary thing. So down the line, if Clock arms up again and hits another sphere that isn't HW or Ro$e, are you guys planning to sign another MDP so that we cant chain or something. Also, if you 2 go to war, does that mean we now need to sign MDP with other spheres? Also, how is signing someone who also has high infra deter people? It's like saying to a raider who has 700 infra; we will bring in our 3000 infra guy to counter you if you don't stop, his response would be sure I will nuke him and cause even more damage. Plus, you guys are the same group of people who came out publicly to shame Oasis Minc for their MDP. So now that it's for your own safety and own good, you have the right to do it, and if it's against your cause, we can't do it. 

[Zevari]

7 minutes ago, His Holy Decagon said:

I also wonder why either party to this treaty actually even cares if the other is hit, really weird to think about that

Pretty simple mate it's called a division of risk. Rather than risk a coin flip over who would be hit, they can effectively split the cost between themselves and deter any potential attacker.

Lets say this treaty came out without Article 3, I would not be surprised to see one of the two spheres get hit, it is a big target that a well co-ordinated blitz could take down and earn some decent reputation off of.
 

1 hour ago, KittenGosCrazy said:

Here is a pitstop for anyone reading through the thread

I'll take a syndisprite, immortal gum and [Redacted] please!

[Kyubnyan]

18 minutes ago, His Holy Decagon said:

A treaty is an agreement between two parties. All treaties ingame are “time limited”, and inb4 someone says “they don’t activate unless someone hits them”, yes, congratulations for understanding how all treaties work.

Ummmmmmm MDAPs exist tho >.>

[Hodor]

6 hours ago, Thalmor said:

Just in this thread, you have Insert Name Here and Indger. Hodor and Buorhann also seem to have some skepticism over it. I'll admit that these 4 are all Hollywood people, and that I don't have anyone from Celestial to point you to, but I stand by my original statement that the irritation is across the community.

Happy to clarify and, hopefully, rally people to channel their angst elsewhere.

This move is incredibly pragmatic. For Ro$e and HW, it is only beneficial. We have 1) guaranteed our security while two smaller spheres fight and 2) have opened more cordial diplomatic channels with each other hopefully breaking a tradition of distrust.

The risks of taking this move are minimal. Neither BR, Clock, or their combined forces are in any position to do anything about it. If it were made privately, there would be more fallout, but arguably it would be justified because it would only be found out if Clock made a move to attack ro$e or HW. It being made publicly eliminates at least the "SEKRIT TREATY" argument and actively deters any moves against the parties involved (which, many have hinted here, it may have done).

Now, I was not super happy to hear this move was in the making specifically for article 3, but mostly because I think that moves like this should have consequences. When a move can be made regardless of any PR fallout because no one can do anything about it, some scrutiny is necessary. It's up to the rest of the game to stop !@#$ing here and determine what consequences they will force.

I, personally, think that #2 above is worth the fallout and any potential consequences. I am so damn tired of fighting t$ and its allies. We were in a good position (see Parti's post) to hit ro$e next war. The ro$e treaty was negatively received by third parties and during/after our last war with t$ there were many WoT posts directed at t$ to address it's FA policy. But, to keep up this pattern would be so unbelievably stupid and, as you all say, stagnant.

That all being said, I think we need to take a look at the mechanics of the game here. We keep yelling at each other for making moves which are unarguably beneficial to the parties involved. But what incentive is there to switch it up other than to take enormous risk and promote an alternative path forward within a system that actively inhibits it? Let's look at the state of things as I see them:

1. Very few wars are now fought in which the winner is not known from the outcome. Therefore, no alliance is incentivized to start a war unless their victory is all but assured. This is pragmatic but boring.

2. Wars are won largely by first strike advantage buoyed by an extra day of militarization and greatly helped by some advantage in the whale tiers. Therefore alliances will largely look to start offensive wars and consolidate whales. This is also boring and makes CBs out of thin air to secure a first strike advantage.

3. War lengths are determined by the tiering of the fighting parties. Longer wars benefit lower tiers, shorter wars benefit whale tiers. So, if you've successfully launched an aggressive war with ample whale tiers, you're gonna smack someone around for a while then offer peace. If you're going whale hunting, you're going to drag out a war forever to do as much damage to those whales. Neither of these are particularly fun for either party outside of stat padders.

4. Wars are fricking stupid in this game, mechanically. If you are facing a competent enemy and are on the defensive, after the first round, you're done. Now you sit and clear the notifications as your nation burns. If you're facing an incompetent enemy and are on the defensive, it takes a level of involvement that most don't have to punch holes in their attack and counter. Wars are simultaneously very expensive and not nearly expensive enough and I have no idea how to fix this, but I think this is where we need to start. If we fix the war mechanics the impacts will flow down and affect the incentive structures of points 1-3. I am not smart enough to figure out what needs to change, but I do think that it's not controversial at all to say that if the primary tool of sphere interactions (war) is broken, so too will be the sphere interactions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hodor.

[Sam Cooper]

 

11 hours ago, Gaius Julius Caesar said:

*snip*

You keep dodging what you promised to address earlier and what Kev asked you here...

11 hours ago, Kevanovia said:

This does set a bad precedent. Your argument is "well..it's not bad if there is nothing to worry about" - then why not do it every war? Then it effectively becomes acceptable for blocs to have MDP's with one another going forward in every single war when they aren't the first ones attacked. 

It is hilarious how HW and Ro$e keep defining traditional MDPs while arguing that this one in-fact is not a traditional MDP and keep trying to present it like it's some light hearted promise made over drinks that people do not need to think much about.

"Treaty only gets activated when either participant is under attack"
My friend that's literally how MDPs work, cutting down the duration does not affect how it's going to be used within that duration, if you are using it like an MDP, it is, by all means and definitions, a bloc wide MDP and somehow worse than Myoasis  inc because they were not the 2 biggest spheres in game and did not overpower the rest of the game on their own.

[Alexander the Great]

1 hour ago, TheRealMonty said:

Im sorry but... who asked?

Literally everyone not part of your ridiculous game-breaking and frankly cowardly megasphere (and part of the people in said megasphere). Be. Seated.

[Xaria]

Bro I can't wait to militarise again.

[Malal]

This is bait. Ro$e is just waiting for us to demil then they will hit us, how can no one else see it? The only solution is to pre-empt them now before it's too late.