Jodo

Old FA vs Current FA

209 posts in this topic

SK only leaked in first time though iirc

Someone took a screenshot of war plans for the VE war from the SK boards and forced Mensa and friends to attack before they preempted us. That's the first leak and the one I'm most familiar with.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh trust me.  I want Mensa to fight Syndicate, BK, and TKR. :P  Granted it'd be more of a scrimmage setting, but it'd be fun to see what would be done.  I already told Pre that if Mensa was closer in city count/score with TEst, I'd have asked for a 1v1 with them.

If it was for me I would split Syndisphere for like 2 months and fight each others for fun, but I can understand why they don't want to do it. (I think they don't want to do it, I'm not 100% sure :ph34r:, I always stay away from these things)

 

 

Go read the NPOsts and tell me git gud again.

git gud

 

Want an example? My nation is 197 days old and I have 13 cities and 4 projects, I make over 2.3M a day now that I am at max military + resources, your nation has 7 cities and 1 project even if your nation is 440 days old, do you know the difference? In one day I can pay a new city for a small player, a new player that will join because someone has worked to recruit him, he will stay because someone has worked to have a community with so many things to do besides play the game, he will fight good because someone has worked to make things easy for him, he will grow because someone teached him how to do it in the best way, he will grow and pay a new city to another player, and over and over and over again, this is how you git gud and how you create numbers.

"We don't have numbers" well, guess why.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was for me I would split Syndisphere for like 2 months and fight each others for fun, but I can understand why they don't want to do it. (I think they don't want to do it, I'm not 100% sure :ph34r:, I always stay away from these things)

 

 

git gud

 

Want an example? My nation is 197 days old and I have 13 cities and 4 projects, I make over 2.3M a day now that I am at max military + resources, your nation has 7 cities and 1 project even if your nation is 440 days old, do you know the difference? In one day I can pay a new city for a small player, a new player that will join because someone has worked to recruit him, he will stay because someone has worked to have a community with so many things to do besides play the game, he will fight good because someone has worked to make things easy for him, he will grow because someone teached him how to do it in the best way, he will grow and pay a new city to another player, and over and over and over again, this is how you git gud and how you create numbers.

"We don't have numbers" well, guess why.

The difference?》My nation stopped growing deliberately for UPN anti-raiding and then Npo. NPO and UPN were bad targets to raid so I guess it paid off :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference?》My nation stopped growing deliberately for UPN anti-raiding and then Npo. NPO and UPN were bad targets to raid so I guess it paid off :P

And this is how you don't git gud.

If you are active and you have a standing military 90% of raiders ignore you, if you alliance is good you have at least 3 players with max military in your range, if the 10% try to raid you they get their ass kicked and you can even with the war and get his loot, maybe you get more than what you loose from that situation, this is how you git gud.

Do you know how many people tried to raid me in the last 3-4 month since at 7 cities I stopped playing alone and I joined an alliance? Zero.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is so [email protected]#$ obsessed with spheres and hegemonies and game health.

 

You want to know why I signed Mensa? I [email protected]#$ like those goofs. I didn't want to "switch sides", i didn't want to "form a bloc" and I didn't want to "change the game". I like them so much would have probably signed them if the were trash.

 

People on both "sides" need to stop giving a [email protected]#$ about "winning", which is a moot point in a consistent state game, and build actual relations. If you're signed to someone you don't like, drop em. If you want to sign someone you don't like to roll someone else, [email protected]#$ off and do your own rolling.

We'll eventually end up in the exact same state we are in now, all allied to each other because we fought together that one time and liked each other. That's the excuse I have been given time and time again for the hegemoney not splitting up. "We're friends", "We're so good why should we split up?".

 

No competition = no game

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is so [email protected]#$ obsessed with spheres and hegemonies and game health.

You want to know why I signed Mensa? I [email protected]#$ like those goofs. I didn't want to "switch sides", i didn't want to "form a bloc" and I didn't want to "change the game". I like them so much would have probably signed them if the were trash.

People on both "sides" need to stop giving a [email protected]#$ about "winning", which is a moot point in a consistent state game, and build actual relations. If you're signed to someone you don't like, drop em. If you want to sign someone you don't like to roll someone else, [email protected]#$ off and do your own rolling.

Kind of amusing that this logic led to an improvement of Rose's previous FA position :P

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SK only leaked in first time though iirc

Wasn't just leaks. I distinctly remember a dodgy and unplanned DoW on SK's behalf which led to treaty triggers on the opposing side during 168 iirc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is how you don't git gud.

If you are active and you have a standing military 90% of raiders ignore you, if you alliance is good you have at least 3 players with max military in your range, if the 10% try to raid you they get their ass kicked and you can even with the war and get his loot, maybe you get more than what you loose from that situation, this is how you git gud.

Do you know how many people tried to raid me in the last 3-4 month since at 7 cities I stopped playing alone and I joined an alliance? Zero.

Or you know, maybe I did anti-raiding before I reached 7 cities. NPO can easily fund me and the other 75 non high tier people to your level with credits to [email protected]#$ city timer if Roq ever wanted to, roq just doesnt because ffs read his posts

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you know, maybe I did anti-raiding before I reached 7 cities. NPO can easily fund me and the other 75 non high tier people to your level with credits to [email protected]#$ city timer if Roq ever wanted to, roq just doesnt because ffs read his posts

If you mean individually yeah,  but not 75 people at once and that's why it doesn't make sense. If we were to just pick people to grow to 13 cities since we obviously wouldn't be able to afford to do it for everyone, they'd just be sticking out like a sore thumb and easy targets. It would be an overextension on our part.

Edited by Roquentin
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you mean individually yeah, but not 75 people at once and that's why it doesn't make sense. If we were to just pick people to grow to 13 cities since we obviously wouldn't be able to afford to do it for everyone, they'd just be sticking out like a sore thumb and easy targets. It would be an overextension on our part.

Yeah, just didnt want to type a wall of text trying to explain it to him/her.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't just leaks. I distinctly remember a dodgy and unplanned DoW on SK's behalf which led to treaty triggers on the opposing side during 168 iirc.

SK hit NAC which triggered UPN.

Never knew why they did, so my mistake

Edited by greatkitteh
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you know, maybe I did anti-raiding before I reached 7 cities. NPO can easily fund me and the other 75 non high tier people to your level with credits to [email protected]#$ city timer if Roq ever wanted to, roq just doesnt because ffs read his posts

In my alliance no one gets money for cities except small players, only loans that you can pay back in one or two weeks, but I was at 8 cities during the Silent War and now I have 13 cities, 5 cities in 3 months only with my money.

At 7 cities you should be able to do everything by yourself, you make money right? All 75 players make a new city every month, everyone grow together and you're not an easy target.

NPO has the power to be one hell of alliance, a war machine like BK for example, or even better, and around NPO you can create a soldid sphere, you need 6 month to do it, but you have to try.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my alliance no one gets money for cities except small players, only loans that you can pay back in one or two weeks, but I was at 8 cities during the Silent War and now I have 13 cities, 5 cities in 3 months only with my money.

At 7 cities you should be able to do everything by yourself, you make money right? All 75 players make a new city every month, everyone grow together and you're not an easy target.

NPO has the power to be one hell of alliance, a war machine like BK for example, or even better, and around NPO you can create a soldid sphere, you need 6 month to do it, but you have to try.

Did you like not read what Roq just posted about NPO making cities?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Congrats on signing Rose. 10/10. It effectively pulled them into Syndisphere.

2. That ODP with UPN was going to be used against them, lets not pretend like it wasn't.

3. They were never really enemies, they just fought against each other. Cornerstone wasn't really big into politics back then and BoC was more or less just a third of TC and did what they said/wanted. There was no bad blood between them. 

4. Never heard about TLF, congrats if you did.

5. You're willing to work with others provided that they join Syndisphere. There are more than enough cases throughout history of this. 

6. I'm not posting out of my ass, you just refuse to listen because that would require you to take away from the "Kastor is a troll" narrative for 5 minutes. But oh well.

7. I disagree, and there is nothing to back you up here. Literally nothing.

 

On point 2: It was not. Part of the issue at least during my time was exactly that mindset: Certain alliances wanted hostilities to end but refused to make any gestures of good faith whatsoever. What hands were extended were not always met. That's not on Syndi. That's on whomever decided not to give that a shot. It's not a decision one can blame them for, but it also makes it rather idiotic to expect syndi to suddenly pacify. It's how politics work.

 

That also touches into the whole "NO ONE WANTS TO DO IT" narrative. Want to know my damn honest opinion? They don't, because you're doing it in a shitty way. Running up to alliances you have barely built a rapport with and suggesting they leave their allies in order to join you to make the game more fun for you (as they evidently feel quite comfortable) is *not* how you form a sphere. You can't make people join your sphere if the *only* compelling argument you can make is "to shake things up".

 

Provide incentives that appeal to your audience. Consider their wants and needs. Cater to that. *That* is how you build a sphere. That is ultimately how syndisphere/OO was built brick by brick, and kept together. Not via a "omg we must win" approach- the winning came as a result of the cohesion provided by the accomodating approach taken by us.

 

Similarly, building spheres takes time. Building the relations required before making a sphere? Even more time. You're trying to move too fast with too little leverage, and it backfires on you every. !@#$ing. time.

 

Then, every time you complain and moan about it, you erode your own credibility and capital- capital which would be required for future endeavors. You're showing your hand. That transparancy will just become another obstacle to your success.

 

But who am I to give advice? ;)

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you like not read what Roq just posted about NPO making cities?

Did you like not understand what Roq just posted about NPO making cities?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my alliance no one gets money for cities except small players, only loans that you can pay back in one or two weeks, but I was at 8 cities during the Silent War and now I have 13 cities, 5 cities in 3 months only with my money.

At 7 cities you should be able to do everything by yourself, you make money right? All 75 players make a new city every month, everyone grow together and you're not an easy target.

NPO has the power to be one hell of alliance, a war machine like BK for example, or even better, and around NPO you can create a soldid sphere, you need 6 month to do it, but you have to try.

But communism. Seriously, they tax literally everything. Get rid of that economic model, and I'd say I agree.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SK hit NAC which triggered UPN.

Never knew why they did, so my mistake

 

Yup, sounds about right. I distinctly remember a DoW which needlessly triggered someone on the other side which left me wondering wtf :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire premise is flawed that winning means making a giant sphere.  Surrendering all your sovereignty you might as well be dead.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But communism. Seriously, they tax literally everything. Get rid of that economic model, and I'd say I agree.

It works though. Better than most economics imo.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not offering answers, but it is certainly an alternative option. And not a completely impossible one.

 

You say no, but you mean yes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my alliance no one gets money for cities except small players, only loans that you can pay back in one or two weeks, but I was at 8 cities during the Silent War and now I have 13 cities, 5 cities in 3 months only with my money.

At 7 cities you should be able to do everything by yourself, you make money right? All 75 players make a new city every month, everyone grow together and you're not an easy target.

NPO has the power to be one hell of alliance, a war machine like BK for example, or even better, and around NPO you can create a soldid sphere, you need 6 month to do it, but you have to try.

 

 

Here's the thing: We don't have 6 months to build up a sphere or ourselves, really. Wars happen more frequently here.  If we had six months, you'd be right, and it was an initial goal to get everyone to a certain level but when there's the threat of war every  other month or so for us when we already have taken some big hits, we can't.  However, at the same time, tiering-wise, the more we build up the more disadvantaged we are in terms of fighting since even if we built up everyone up at the same time, past a certain point, we're still building up into a tier  we cannot effectively contest at all. That tier is the tier of strength of several larger alliances. Not everyone could be buying a city as well,as it'd start to produce a wider gulf between the bigger nations and the smaller ones and that would mess up tier cohesion. My nation is bigger since I've played for longer and I was in a more elite-style alliance(note as elite vs mass alliance) before we merged in and I gave up growing because of that, so if I was buying a city every month, it'd be the same situation except we'd have spent  the money on cities, which get expensive. What we don't want is a scenario where there's an even wider gap between our nations.

 

This is kind of a derail, but the tiered growth is already something we do. It's just a question how high we can go depending on the situation.

 

 

 

But communism. Seriously, they tax literally everything. Get rid of that economic model, and I'd say I agree.

 

Please try to separate RL beliefs from this. We are not a "communist" alliance. A centralized economy in any setting is just how NPO works and we'd have lost a lot more money to deletions since our membership has a lot more fluctuation than the average one if we didn't have it in place. If people want to make their own money, we give them chances to do so. As we largely recruit from out of game, the chance that someone gives it a shot and then doesn't want to play anymore if they get busy is pretty high so the chances of losing money are pretty high and we don't really have any desire to switch to a non-mass model.  For tiered growth, it's actually better since we have a lot more control over it over more spontaneous ways.

 

Having been in alliances with different models, there isn't really a "superior" system, just ones that fit the needs for other alliances. We're geared to more casual players than most alliances, so people don't mind it and most are used to this type of set-up and many prefer to have things managed for them. It would require even more work having to micromanage people in terms of making them buy needed things if we didn't have it in place and I have had to do something similar in another game where there isn't an alliance bank mechanism and it's a pain in the ass . Our initial growth was pretty rapid since we were trying to get everyone who had joined to a certain number of cities and it was actually faster than the nations doing it on their own would have been, but we couldn't sustain it since it got expensive and we had to worry about war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That also touches into the whole "NO ONE WANTS TO DO IT" narrative. Want to know my damn honest opinion? They don't, because you're doing it in a shitty way. Running up to alliances you have barely built a rapport with and suggesting they leave their allies in order to join you to make the game more fun for you (as they evidently feel quite comfortable) is *not* how you form a sphere. You can't make people join your sphere if the *only* compelling argument you can make is "to shake things up".

 

Provide incentives that appeal to your audience. Consider their wants and needs. Cater to that. *That* is how you build a sphere. That is ultimately how syndisphere/OO was built brick by brick, and kept together. Not via a "omg we must win" approach- the winning came as a result of the cohesion provided by the accomodating approach taken by us.

 

Similarly, building spheres takes time. Building the relations required before making a sphere? Even more time. You're trying to move too fast with too little leverage, and it backfires on you every. [email protected]#$. time.

 

Then, every time you complain and moan about it, you erode your own credibility and capital- capital which would be required for future endeavors. You're showing your hand. That transparancy will just become another obstacle to your success.

 

But who am I to give advice? ;)

 

I mean, you're right that there isn't anything to leverage, but I can't conceive of a scenario where he would have the type of leverage to appeal to  Syndisphere alliances in a quid pro quo sense. No one can offer more security, no one can offer power, no one can offer helping them roll someone since they don't want to fight anyone else within it. Usually a hegemonic structure breaks when at least two actors within it start jockeying for power against each other like SK and Rose did after the Marionette War as Keegoz has alluded to previously. There is no such internal rivalry and if they get along well enough to resolve every issue that comes up, it will simply never end. Too many people are applying deterministic mindsets in terms of "Oh, it'll have to change" and no it doesn't have to change. I don't honestly expect them to break up for fun, it's just the rhetoric indicated that they cared about stagnation and political dynamism. They don't and it's fine just I hope to never hear the canard about how this is an dynamic political game ever again. We'll all just have to dig in and hold out for the long haul if we feel like it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire premise is flawed that winning means making a giant sphere.  Surrendering all your sovereignty you might as well be dead.

 

I personally view the act of winning as the catalyst for the formation of a giant sphere and not the other way around. Success breeds success and everyone generally wants to be associated with success hence victors generally gain more allies until the giant sphere eventually becomes unstable as a result of too many personalities within the sphere conflicting with the sphere subsequently imploding.

 

Might be and probably just is me who follows such a belief though :P

Edited by Nemesis
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing: We don't have 6 months to build up a sphere or ourselves, really. Wars happen more frequently here.  If we had six months, you'd be right, and it was an initial goal to get everyone to a certain level but when there's the threat of war every  other month or so for us when we already have taken some big hits, we can't.  However, at the same time, tiering-wise, the more we build up the more disadvantaged we are in terms of fighting since even if we built up everyone up at the same time, past a certain point, we're still building up into a tier  we cannot effectively contest at all. That tier is the tier of strength of several larger alliances. Not everyone could be buying a city as well,as it'd start to produce a wider gulf between the bigger nations and the smaller ones and that would mess up tier cohesion. My nation is bigger since I've played for longer and I was in a more elite-style alliance(note as elite vs mass alliance) before we merged in and I gave up growing because of that, so if I was buying a city every month, it'd be the same situation except we'd have spent  the money on cities, which get expensive. What we don't want is a scenario where there's an even wider gap between our nations.

 

This is kind of a derail, but the tiered growth is already something we do. It's just a question how high we can go depending on the situation.

 

 

 

 

 

Please try to separate RL beliefs from this. We are not a "communist" alliance. A centralized economy in any setting is just how NPO works and we'd have lost a lot more money to deletions since our membership has a lot more fluctuation than the average one if we didn't have it in place. If people want to make their own money, we give them chances to do so. As we largely recruit from out of game, the chance that someone gives it a shot and then doesn't want to play anymore if they get busy is pretty high so the chances of losing money are pretty high and we don't really have any desire to switch to a non-mass model.  For tiered growth, it's actually better since we have a lot more control over it over more spontaneous ways.

 

Having been in alliances with different models, there isn't really a "superior" system, just ones that fit the needs for other alliances. We're geared to more casual players than most alliances, so people don't mind it and most are used to this type of set-up and many prefer to have things managed for them. It would require even more work having to micromanage people in terms of making them buy needed things if we didn't have it in place and I have had to do something similar in another game where there isn't an alliance bank mechanism and it's a pain in the ass . Our initial growth was pretty rapid since we were trying to get everyone who had joined to a certain number of cities and it was actually faster than the nations doing it on their own would have been, but we couldn't sustain it since it got expensive and we had to worry about war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, you're right that there isn't anything to leverage, but I can't conceive of a scenario where he would have the type of leverage to appeal to  Syndisphere alliances in a quid pro quo sense. No one can offer more security, no one can offer power, no one can offer helping them roll someone since they don't want to fight anyone else within it. Usually a hegemonic structure breaks when at least two actors within it start jockeying for power against each other like SK and Rose did after the Marionette War as Keegoz has alluded to previously. There is no such internal rivalry and if they get along well enough to resolve every issue that comes up, it will simply never end. Too many people are applying deterministic mindsets in terms of "Oh, it'll have to change" and no it doesn't have to change. I don't honestly expect them to break up for fun, it's just the rhetoric indicated that they cared about stagnation and political dynamism. They don't and it's fine just I hope to never hear the canard about how this is an dynamic political game ever again. We'll all just have to dig in and hold out for the long haul if we feel like it.

I mean, you would still have to micromanage people as soneone dun goof somewhere in the middle. NPO has 100/100 taxes yet cant get identical nations

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not offering answers, but it is certainly an alternative option. And not a completely impossible one.

 

Go sign NPO, then tell me more about the rest of the game joining your sphere.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now