Isolatar Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Oh, you'll see me before then! Pretty sure that isn't true...the part about us demanding reps. Pretty sure Phiney had said something earlier about you demanding reps from UPN 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memph Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) I wasn't highly involved in the negotiations during the Marionette war, but I'm pretty sure there was nothing about reps. There was talk of making UPN/DEIC decom MLPs and going for a third round. I didn't have much of a say at the time, but my preference was for two rounds and white peace, which is what ended up happening. BTW I'm not sure if the two rounds of the Marionette war were "more damaging" than two rounds now. I do think however that the nations on the Guardian side (and possibly Rose and SK) in both wars had relatively low infra levels which meant they had less to lose. I actually think war is a bit more damaging now in terms of how many days it would take to rebuild. Edited June 2, 2015 by Memph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) I wasn't highly involved in the negotiations during the Marionette war, but I'm pretty sure there was nothing about reps. There was talk of making UPN/DEIC decom MLPs and going for a third round. I didn't have much of a say at the time, but my preference was for two rounds and white peace, which is what ended up happening. BTW I'm not sure if the two rounds of the Marionette war were "more damaging" than two rounds now. I do think however that the nations on the Guardian side (and possibly Rose and SK) in both wars had relatively low infra levels which meant they had less to lose. I actually think war is a bit more damaging now in terms of how many days it would take to rebuild. Let's pretend that decomming multiple MLPs at that stage of the game, wasn't worth more than 100mill and some resources in this climate. And no, your assumption is incorrect. In that war we were blindsighted and had virtually no units, meaning that we couldn't do any significant damage to you. Whereas you guys blockaded the vast majority of us quickly, and had free hits on us. Given how early it was in the game, and that stockpiles weren't prevalent then, we found it very difficult to rebuild. And I am surprised we managed to even catch up to you. Given the massive differential in revenue caused in that war, we were in a much worse position. At least the vast majority of your guys have a lot of cities and will rebuild to decent levels easily. That wasn't the case when we got jumped for being #1 in the rankings. Edited June 2, 2015 by Saru Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Bubblegum Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) Since this is an ooc forum... Regardless of bullying or not, I'm fairly confident that if wars become too infrequent due to high community standards for CBs or generally higher conservative game play, then the actual game mechanics will likely change until war is more frequent. (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) alliances are coming from a game where wars are years apart. That kind of thing will not be acceptable here, and if that pattern starts to emerge for whatever reason, expect changes. Guardian, SK and TEst have been the primary reason why major mechanical changes haven't already been implemented, so kudos to them for making the current game last as long as it has. Edited June 2, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Since this is an ooc forum... Regardless of bullying or not, I'm fairly confident that if wars become too infrequent due to high community standards for CBs or generally higher conservative game play, then the actual game mechanics will likely change until war is more frequent. (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) alliances are coming from a game where wars are years apart. That kind of thing will not be acceptable here, and if that pattern starts to emerge for whatever reason, expect changes. Guardian, SK and TEst have been the primary reason why major mechanical changes haven't already been implemented, so kudos to them for making the current game last as long as it has. I keep seeing this line of thinking. That we are "bringing community standards from another game" that will "harm the game". This is a factually incorrect assessment. The current situation in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is *exacly* what we are striving to prevent on Orbis: Wars are fought without CBs whatsoever due to a "might makes right" attitude, and white peace is the norm at all times. The times of reps and wars with CB in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) have whitered and died long ago, along with a part of the intrigue that made the game fun. Just look at the drama and the outpour on the OWF at this point: The "controversial" decision to demand reps, regardless of justification, has alreay fuelled more interesting debate than I have seen since I came to Orbis, to be frank. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Bubblegum Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Wars are fought without CBs whatsoever due to a "might makes right" attitude, and white peace is the norm at all times. The times of reps and wars with CB in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) have whitered and died long ago, along with a part of the intrigue that made the game fun. Real alliance wars don't happen at all in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) anymore because everyone needs a CB to do it. -9 year (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) veteran But by all means, feel free to continue with this. We'll see where it leads the game in 6 months time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Part of me wants to laugh at the irony of both sides of this table. Y'all are just plain stupid at times. Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Real alliance wars don't happen at all in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) anymore because everyone needs a CB to do it. -9 year (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) veteran But by all means, feel free to continue with this. We'll see where it leads the game in 6 months time. Address the real issue of the ingame mechanics not being catered towards wars -- unless they are one sided, and involve everyone. You can't blame individuals or alliances acting in ways to move towards a strategic advantage. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Real alliance wars don't happen at all in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) anymore because everyone needs a CB to do it. -9 year (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) veteran But by all means, feel free to continue with this. We'll see where it leads the game in 6 months time. Waving your seniority in that game around does not really quantify the point you are trying to make. Take it from another "9 year (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) veteran". Wars in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) don't happen at all anymore because the politics devolved into a rather lazy form of itself, and because political developments such as one group gaining complete upper tier control. Another point to take into account: Wars without CB are fun. For the aggressor, if victorious. This assessment completely discounts the fact that CB-less wars are often rather destructive to the psyche of those who were attacked. It's akin to ramming a little kid and then strutting around victoriously claiming that you are gracious for "not making the kid give his lunch money". Meanwhile, the kid's perception of the matter is irrelevant because he can not properly arm himself? That is the nature of CB-less attacks, specifically if aimed at a weaker party. We have seen various examples of this prior to this war starting. This war was intended to be similar in nature, but events unfolded differently. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cody K Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I know for a fact that SK pushed for reps in the Marionette War but you were told no. You're talking out of your ass here. Not once has the Seven Kingdoms requested reparations. Decommissioning units and the such, yes. Never money or resources. I think I would know as I was King of SK during the time. Jesus Christ people, if you're going to claim you know something for a fact provide some god damn evidence. Shit post, spin the truth, play politics. But don't go balls out and claim something that is inherently false knowing god damn well you will never be able to produce any inkling of hard evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 You're talking out of your ass here. Not once has the Seven Kingdoms requested reparations. Decommissioning units and the such, yes. Never money or resources. I think I would know as I was King of SK during the time. Jesus Christ people, if you're going to claim you know something for a fact provide some god damn evidence. !@#$ post, spin the truth, play politics. But don't go balls out and claim something that is inherently false knowing god damn well you will never be able to produce any inkling of hard evidence. Can confirm, SK was not pushing for reps, nobody was. They were pushing for decom of missiles and spies. Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) Can confirm, SK was not pushing for reps, nobody was. They were pushing for decom of missiles and spies. Missile launch pad projects.* Edited June 2, 2015 by Saru Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Bubblegum Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Waving your seniority in that game around does not really quantify the point you are trying to make. You clearly missed the point I was making. The objective is not to end up like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) had CB wars for years, during which time the game population dwindled as wars became less and less frequent, far before DBDC. And you misunderstand, I don't care if you want to push for CB wars, but the consequence of fewer wars (which I think will happen with high CB standards) is going to be a change in the game mechanics. My point was merely that it hasn't happened already because guardian sphere has started 4 wars in 6 months time. I very much doubt VE-sphere would do the equivalent over the course of the next 6 months. I actually want mechanical changes, so when my point is proven correct in 6 months and the alliance wars stagnate, I think we're going to get those changes, if not sooner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 You clearly missed the point I was making. The objective is not to end up like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) had CB wars for years, during which time the game population dwindled as wars became less and less frequent, far before DBDC. And you misunderstand, I don't care if you want to push for CB wars, but the consequence of fewer wars (which I think will happen with high CB standards) is going to be a change in the game mechanics. My point was merely that it hasn't happened already because guardian sphere has started 4 wars in 6 months time. I very much doubt VE-sphere would do the equivalent over the course of the next 6 months. I actually want mechanical changes, so when my point is proven correct in 6 months and the alliance wars stagnate, I think we're going to get those changes, if not sooner. And what's the problem with this? Mechanical changes that make war more appealing are good. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Missile launch pad projects.* Yes... which would require decom of missiles. Potato potato. Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Yes... which would require decom of missiles. Potato potato. Sure. But don't try and be clever and leave it at missiles as if only military units were going to be deleted. They wanted the projects deleted themselves, and given the stage of the game we were at, this was excessively harsh -- especially given the fact that you aggressively attacked us, for questionable reasons. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu Xun Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Nasty secret in spoilers. War is stupid. Quote . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Bubblegum Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 And what's the problem with this? Mechanical changes that make war more appealing are good. yay, we agree. Nasty secret in spoilers. War is stupid. War is peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 yay, we agree. Right, but my point was that Sheepy should incentivise war (or atleast make it less detrimental) regardless. It's silly to place the blame on the alliances with power for doing what's to their strategic advantage. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapmanej Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 As far as war history goes this is approaching the longest large-scale alliance war. Those wars always ended with white peace and an understanding of what each side achieved during the war. Sometimes there were outstanding issues that were pushed down to fuel future wars. Now we have some new alliances who are engaging in large-scale alliance war with VE and MensaHQ. Both of these alliances also have long histories of playing nation sims together and are excellent players. The difference is that they are used to war being less expensive to perpetuate long-term and they have a different understanding of what justifies reparations. Well Mr. Armstrong, we are in a new Orbis now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Bubblegum Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 It's silly to place the blame on the alliances with power for doing what's to their strategic advantage. I mean I could also say it's silly to be overly critical of alliances with power declaring CB-less wars for the same reason. Granted I'm sure a lot of that is role play, but some of the criticism isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I'm sure VE would forget the reps if SK/Guardian offered to decom their missiles and projects 1 Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ole Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I'm sure VE would forget the reps if SK/Guardian offered to decom their missiles and projects This. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 You clearly missed the point I was making. The objective is not to end up like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) had CB wars for years, during which time the game population dwindled as wars became less and less frequent, far before DBDC. And you misunderstand, I don't care if you want to push for CB wars, but the consequence of fewer wars (which I think will happen with high CB standards) is going to be a change in the game mechanics. My point was merely that it hasn't happened already because guardian sphere has started 4 wars in 6 months time. I very much doubt VE-sphere would do the equivalent over the course of the next 6 months. So, your defense of SK and Guardian is that we are aggressive warmongers who are good for the game. That we blaze a path of death and destruction across Orbis for the lulz? I appreciate every voice in our favor, but maybe let's not push this line too much, ok? 1 Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jodo Posted June 2, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted June 2, 2015 Shellhound is literally Hitler. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.