Another micro announcement?!

[Buorhann]

You're right, we didn't destroy Rose ( tS did ), but we could be nitpicky on the subject use of terms.

[Jodo]

Or, just hear me out, we can hug it out because I love you.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Jodo

[Vassili Dovgan]

Or, just hear me out, we can hug it out because I love you.

 

I'd like a hug...

[Keegoz]

Or, just hear me out, we can hug it out because I love you.

Only when you're hungry >:|

[Jodo]

Only when you're hungry >:|

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Well if we're talking about history here, you guys didn't actually destroy Rose even without the rollback. tS did, but Mensa enjoys taking the credit.

 

If you re-read my sentence, you will see that I wrote "we didn't get you destroyed, because [...]." Attacking imaginary straw men does not invalidate my statement, xdxd.

[Crust]

We're not playing Apples to Apples or Monopoly with house rules here for some harmless entertainment. This is a geopolitical simulator, and there will be eBlood. So save your breath, it will change nothing.

 

But honestly, it's not uncommon or weird to treat new players with kindness and mercy, just to not scare them away from the game. I mean, it's not like nation simulator games are swamped with new players. If me being a bit kind to another player means they wont quit after a week then that's worth more than me getting to stomp on them.

 

What I however find ironic is people condemning anyone for being ruthless in this game, that's just hypocrisy. Anyone who's spent more than a month playing this game would easily sell their mother for some ingame credits, so let's not play the blame game here.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Satisfriend

[Bollocks]

But honestly, it's not uncommon or weird to treat new players with kindness and mercy, just to not scare them away from the game. I mean, it's not like nation simulator games are swamped with new players. If me being a bit kind to another player means they wont quit after a week then that's worth more than me getting to stomp on them.

 

There are definitely the "nice" players who operate on the opposite side of the spectrum like I mentioned prior. But just the same, there are numerous ruthless players who operate very differently. And as long as the game's mechanics allows for and incentivises the play styles, there are going to be players who land everywhere on the kind/ruthless spectrum.

 

And if a person can't stomach the entire spectrum of play styles, I really suggest that person play something else. 

 

Most people play Diplomacy once, because it's often such a traumatic and unpleasant experience to those who haven't quite acquired the "taste". Thus you don't see the game gaining wide popularity that Risk or Monopoly has. It's definitely been played by more people than all of our nation-sims combined, but it's by all accounts still a niche game. It's a niche game because the players are able and encouraged to pursue ruthless actions to the detriment of the other players.

 

And when those in the Diplomacy community bash the cold-blooded players claiming that they drive away new players, they're kind of missing the point. It's not a game for everyone, in fact it's a game for a minority of people who enjoys spending their free time in a complicated and enthralling PVP environment. PnW is no different.

[Rozalia]

YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD HAVE SAVED UNITED PURPLE NATIONS AND THEIR PROTECTORATES IN THIS WAR?! ME, JOHN CENA!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am4oKAmc2To

 

 

It was UPN that got John Cena'd actually. They thought as the top ranked main eventers that it'd be easy, but they failed to realise that the more odds you stack up the easier they are to overcome. A couple of run ins and 5 moves of doom later and UPN is in it's current state.

[Keegoz]

 

If you re-read my sentence, you will see that I wrote "we didn't get you destroyed, because [...]." Attacking imaginary straw men does not invalidate my statement, xdxd.

In fairness you ignored the main point of the argument and went off about the way he represented the war outcome.

[Buorhann]

Mensa has been at war with multiple Top 5 Alliances in 3 major wars so far since Feb.  
We've went to war against 3 Alliances deemed as a Protectorate ( 3 in this past war, but if you want to count raiding - then add 2 more  ).  
We also went to war with 2 Alliances smaller in rank than Mensa ( SI and Vanguard ).  
We've individually raided multiple alliances throughout our stay here.  
The only war we missed out on was the GPA gangbang since we've arrived.  Oh, and the Charming Friends gangbang, which the 3 Protectorates we hit in this recent war shows that they're willing to dogpile on a single alliance.

As a community, we love to fight - with each other or against others, doesn't matter.

 

Since our time, we've witnessed Protectorates jumping in on the side of the alliances that was protecting them ( This is before we decided to hit Protectorates, FYI ).  The whole "Protectorate" tie shouldn't even exist in this game because it's bullshit.  If I recall in a earlier discussion about alliance ties and how crazy the Alliance Web was getting, it should've just been a MDP that connected everything because very few really follows the Treaty Web nor the definition of the agreements between alliances.

 

What I'm getting from you two ( Pubbie and Keegoz ) is that you're both trying to sensationalize carebearing other players.  Most of which have been around longer than Mensa has, yet through their own decisions have remained either smaller or weaker and being intentionally vulnerable.  We'll fight whoever, regardless if you're strong or weak.  We'll use various tactics needed to accomplish our goals.  The only thing that really matters to us is honoring our ties to our allies ( IB4 someone pulls a Inst and brings up the whole "surrendering" in the Great VE War ).

 

EDIT:

 

Forgot about the Charming Friends gangbang war.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Buorhann

[Wayne]

There are definitely the "nice" players who operate on the opposite side of the spectrum like I mentioned prior. But just the same, there are numerous ruthless players who operate very differently. And as long as the game's mechanics allows for and incentivises the play styles, there are going to be players who land everywhere on the kind/ruthless spectrum.

 

I'll often give my raid victim some tips on how to not get raided in the future.  Some have taken heed, others have ignored it.

[Sisyphus]

The only people I've ever noticed complain about raiding in these games are generally people that are bad at these games.

 

Let's not forget that this isn't an argument about morals (which clearly vary from alliance to alliance and are plainly outlined in their individual charters), we were discussing how the UPN and Rose don't take their protectorate responsibilities as seriously as they should.

 

If you're going to promise to take care of "new" players, and then break that promise, you don't regain the moral high ground by whining about how raiding is wrong.

[Keegoz]

The only people I've ever noticed complain about raiding in these games are generally people that are bad at these games.

 

Let's not forget that this isn't an argument about morals (which clearly vary from alliance to alliance and are plainly outlined in their individual charters), we were discussing how the UPN and Rose don't take their protectorate responsibilities as seriously as they should.

 

If you're going to promise to take care of "new" players, and then break that promise, you don't regain the moral high ground by whining about how raiding is wrong.

Well there was no way to protect those players when half the world is ready to stop you if you try. We didn't expect them to be targets to get us rolled and we did take actions to strategically try and win the situation.

 

I don't get why you are so idiotic to think Rose going head on into a trap was the logical way to protect its protectorates.

[Sisyphus]

Well there was no way to protect those players when half the world is ready to stop you if you try. We didn't expect them to be targets to get us rolled and we did take actions to strategically try and win the situation.

 

I don't get why you are so idiotic to think Rose going head on into a trap was the logical way to protect its protectorates.

Strategic advantage or none, you made a promise to defend them and failed.

 

You should've made it clear in the language of the treaty that your obligations were only going to be kept when it suited you or you should not have signed the paper.

 

So Rose ended up on the losing side (it happens), that didn't change the fact that Rose is solely responsible for how it mismanaged its obligations.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Kemal Ergenekon]

In fairness you ignored the main point of the argument and went off about the way he represented the war outcome.

 

Because I don't give a rat's ass about the "main argument" which can be summarized as "why are you so mean? ;___;"

[TellUrGrlThx]

Well there was no way to protect those players when half the world is ready to stop you if you try. We didn't expect them to be targets to get us rolled and we did take actions to strategically try and win the situation.

 

I don't get why you are so idiotic to think Rose going head on into a trap was the logical way to protect its protectorates.

 

One day in the future your wife will make a shitty dinner and you will have to suck it up and eat it and act like you love it. This scenario is no different than keeping the promises you have promised.

 

If Mensa's allies were attacked and it looked like we would be !@#$ed if we jumped in then I'd be the first to start declaring. I assume my allies would do the same for me and if not then it just shows who your real friends are in this game.

[Moreau]

K

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

One day in the future your wife will make a shitty dinner and you will have to suck it up and eat it and act like you love it. This scenario is no different than keeping the promises you have promised.

 

If Mensa's allies were attacked and it looked like we would be !@#$ed if we jumped in then I'd be the first to start declaring. I assume my allies would do the same for me and if not then it just shows who your real friends are in this game.

 

If that's the case: Why didn't you declare on UPN?

 

You are bashing Rose for making almost the exact same decision you did in this war.

[Isolatar]

If that's the case: Why didn't you declare on UPN?

 

You are bashing Rose for making almost the exact same decision you did in this war.

 

They (sorta) did declare war on UPN.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Isolatar

[Karrde]

They (sorta) did declare war on UPN.

Yup. We immediately gave them the 72 hour notice of treaty cancellation and went to war as soon as it ended.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

They (sorta) did declare war on UPN.

Yup. We immediately gave them the 72 hour notice of treaty cancellation and went to war as soon as it ended.

 

Must've missed an announcement.

 

My bad.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Goalenator]

There was no announcement for it.imo (not leadership or really anything) as soon as you declare war on one of our allies we are automatically at war with you so there is no need for a formal DoW.