Sketchy

VIP
  • Content count

    1253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Sketchy last won the day on January 7

Sketchy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2824 God of Likes

6 Followers

About Sketchy

  • Rank
    IQ's Most Hated Poster 2017

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Australia
  • Alliance Pip
    TRUMP 2016
  • Leader Name
    Sketchy
  • Nation Name
    Cyrodiil
  • Nation ID
    37791
  • Alliance Name
    The Golden Horde

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Sketchy

Recent Profile Visitors

2569 profile views
  1. I legit thought that ad was made by TJest and never questioned it lmfao. If that was propaganda it failed hard.
  2. Nowhere in my post did I claim TKR was trying to join IQ. Trying to pretend I have a narrative to push is rather ignorant considering how vocally outspoken I am towards the very same things. My criticism is fairly simple. You are making moves that are inherently in contrast to your claimed goals, either on purpose or via a misguided error. You can use any combination of word salad you like to justify it but attempting to sign the second largest alliance in the game in the pursuit of forming "mini-spheres" is preposterous.
  3. I only study, observe, and record these dynamic creatures in their natural habitat.
  4. Ladies and gentlemen, a few months ago I shared with you some hot tips straight from the political genius Roquentin on how you and your friends can be more dynamic. Clearly this has been a massive success, as many have followed the advice included in The Roquentin Dynamic Alliance Measurement Index to become more dynamic. None have followed this system more closely than TKR’s own Kayser. He is here today to share Kayser’s Steps to Building a Mini-hegemony Mini-sphere: Step 1: Tell your spheremates allies to drop them and join you because once you leave they’ll get rolled. Step 2: Have Step 1 backfire resulting in said spheremates leaving your ass. Step 3: Desperately contact every alliance you possibly can asking for a treaty, including alliances of the opposing sphere who you didn’t like 5 minutes ago. Step 4: Get rejected and laughed at because those alliances remember you didn’t like them 5 minutes ago. Step 5: Get told by the people you didn’t like 5 minutes ago that you are orchestrating a “fake split” in a vast conspiracy to take them down. Step 6: Drop your protectorate for ghosting into another alliance and hitting the people you are currently trying to hand your balls to. Step 7: PR Shill to protect the feelings of your former enemies in a bid to make them finally give you the love and trust you desire. Step 8: Watch in despair as your former enemies go onto a radio show and keep repeating the “fake split” narrative, despite all your attempts to prostrate yourself to them. Step 9: Rather than learning your lesson and shifting gears, double down and go to war to protect the honor of your newest crush, protecting them from the evils of the 22 man hegemony. Step 10: Work in Progress Earn the love and respect of NPO and Roquentin and build a totally small mini-sphere made up of the #1, #2, #4 and #6 alliances. BUT WAIT What is this? Tune in for next time for steps 11 - 16 in Kayser’s Steps to Building a Mini-hegemony Mini-sphere, where we talk about secret treaties and how to build two mini-spheres at the same time to ensure maximum survivability
  5. Haha well played lmfao.
  6. TKR is prostrating themselves to the shrine of the God Emperor Roquentin. Also this should be in Orbis Central.
  7. The first is a result of your political position. You put yourself in the position of having large amounts of lower tier ties, and are staying with those ties rather than shifting away from them. Also the only reason that is true is IQ seems to have an aversion to large updeclares. If you want to play it safe that is your decision, but that is a part of your strategy not a part of some cosmic or mechanical injustice. The original post I was responding to was talking about economic disparities. Having to fight more during war, which is a flaw of your strategy not the mechanics, is not relevant to the 9 months of accrued wealth that would happen during peace. Other IQ alliances seem to be either stagnating, or intentionally capping themselves in order to meet tiering goals. I have no idea how much independent investment is going on, but I'm skeptical its significant enough to create or even make a slight difference to an economic disparity as large as you are claiming. I'd need to see numbers on that before I concede that point. I agree with your first sentence. but the distinction to point out is the alliances you were opposed to have split and are going in various different directions politically. We could debate whether you could actually win a war, which I would argue you can, but since we've had this argument before I'll just address your point about political positioning. I didn't argue political positioning was balancing, I argued if you are in such a bad position, what is the justification for staying where you are rather than moving. You seem to be intentionally or accidentally creating your own situation and then using it somehow as a justification for not moving away from it which makes 0 sense. If you don't want to move that is your decision but then you can't use the consequences of that decisions as a basis for the justification and to shift the blame onto others. All true, not really a defense. As we've seen evidence of time and time again, some alliances often will front up risk in order to achieve far less pragmatic results than the results you would get considering you are claiming you are in such a dire economic situation. We've seen this both recently and in the formation of your sphere as you've so eagerly jumped to citing in the past. So what is the overall goal then? Survival for survivals sake? This seems in stark contrast to a lot of the claims made upon IQ's formation. Tiber was making the opposite case the other day in regards to pushing for "IQ's success as a bloc" but so far I've not seen any clear indication what that is supposed to be. Just to be clear, I'm trying to work out exactly what the purpose of IQ as a political entity is anymore in your minds, as its becoming increasingly difficult to discern.
  8. The supposed economic disparities in many cases don't exist or are the result of poor money management, rather than tiering as you seem to think. IQ alliances have more members on average than competitors which offsets the supposed economic advantage of tiering you are referring to. You don't need a large upper tier to be economically viable. This argument also becomes less valid when you consider that both sides have had 9 months since the last war with which to accrue wealth. Also, if what you say is actually true, how does that translate to hunkering down rather than trying to close that advantage through military offensives or through a change in political positioning? You are making the argument for doing the exact opposite of what you are doing. The economy is certainly a factor, but its not a factor that has hit either side a great deal proportionally more.
  9. The 32 city nations are outliers. When people use phrases like upper/mid/lower tier they are usually referring to war ranges. In the context, factoring in a 32 city nation into a conversation about war is asinine. If the terms are supposed to have any utility at all in conversation than they would be based on the city ranges where the vast majority of war happens, in this case that would be around 1-22 cities. While some nations have grown high, the actual ranges of where the vast majority of players inhabit have only moved by around 3-4 cities since Silent War, which was in September of 2016. The actual ranges look more like: Lower Tier: 1-10 Mid Tier: 11-16 Upper Tier: 17-22 Whale/Super Tier : 23+ cities People above 26 cities are basically irrelevant in 95% of war scenarios. Hell you said it yourself once, you build out of range of war on purpose. So presumably you know how they work. Where the tiers are distributed is irrelevant. You could use that logic to make the argument in favour of SRD's point since the vast majority of people in his range are in his alliance.
  10. Install Tampermonkey/Greasemonkey and then google "Fliesnow's Politics and War Aide" and install that. It has a function that does this.
  11. Failing alliance merges into failing alliance. You should have just disbanded with some dignity and told your members to go where they like. Lets hope the instability of this merger finally pushes Cornerstone to disband so we can eliminate another useless alliance that has existed for longer than it should have.
  12. That is it BK, show these Zodiac chumps how a complete lack of self awareness and pure unrefined idiocy is really done. That'll teach em for tryna corner your market. Nothing like a good old BK "I don't care so I'm going to make a post about how much I don't care so you know I don't care" post to make it a real IQ thread.
  13. 1: Not really, IQ should come back in round 2 if they aren't completely useless. They've certainly under-performed though. IQ was never going to win the first round because they were jumped and slotted by larger nations. 2: See above. 3: Because some people were naive enough to believe IQ might split if EMC did. EMC lacked the numbers to take on IQ directly alone in the correct areas and neutrals in this game are content to sit on the sidelines. 4: They haven't, see above. They attacked IQ's upper tier, where IQ is weaker. IQ is dominant in lower areas by a larger margin. IQ can't do anythng but wait for defensive slots to open up and pick them off in Round 2. But assuming IQ isn't completely inept they should easily take them all down in round 2 with updeclares. 5: Terrible name. Git Gud at naming.
  14. "The Killing Joke"