Jump to content

WTF happened to this place?


Sailor Jerry
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

Content isn't the world I'd use, I just realise how shit the FA is how likely it is that it won't change. Hence why I'm quitting it lmfao.

The underlying point was if you have a problem with how things are, less preaching and more fixing your own might be a good idea. Also, I don't hate KT btw lmfao. 

I mean, that is a bit disingenuous.

4 of our treaties are protectorates, so you can't argue they are part of a "shell". 5 of them are OD level treaties, some of which are tied to the other sphere with MD treaties and are unlikely to protect us if those treaties were to conflict and others who aren't even in EMC. Of the 5 MD, 2 are in a bloc with a supremacy clause.

Also, do you actually think people would go to war with us if we had 1 treaty?

I didn't say I ignore realpolitik lmfao. Nor did I say no treaties have been signed for sphere consolidation. My entire view can be summarized in two points, A: The games current FA scene isn't likely to change  B: especially not when all the people who !@#$ about it don't do shit themselves other than complain.

Its those realpolitik people you refer to who are the reason the game isn't likely to change. As bad as the game is now people would be !@#$ing way more if we were still under a hegemoney like we were around a year ago. If one side splits up your inevitably going to get certain actors coming in and attempting to fill that power vacuum and secure a hegemoney, and there are enough fluffy pixel hugger alliances and weak apologists that this time it could be more permanent.

I didn't say it was a good environment for war either (its clearly not). But splitting needs to happen on both sides and I don't see that happening in the current climate. I'd split from EMC tomorrow if I thought IQ would do the same, I've not exactly been a vocal about a love for sphere politics lmfao. Maybe if people acted with a bit more realism and less idealism they'd be able to make a dent in this shitshow.

 

 

Ok I will concede to you that Rose is not one of the worst culprits. There are far worse alliances than Rose when it comes to overwhelming treaties, particularly those that sign chaining ones... Plus I have a thing for Redarmy. Rose's recent treaty binge though... not great. Seems greedy tbh

I will also agree splitting needs to happen on both sides. There is a lot of redundancy and chaining treaties in the entirety of EMC that I believe could go right now but wouldn't change much if they did, just make you weaker.

And lastly, trust me, I am doing something about it and I plan to continue to do something about it until I eventually quit this game. You'll seeeeeeeee

Edited by Leoben
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

The big thing you're missing it doesn't really have the  huge impact you cite for Rose to break off. It doesn't make it an overwhelming IQ victory at all.  The split proposals are essentially fake splits which just entail on paper fragmentation and no conflict between  the alliances since there is nothing actually prompting them. Consequently the same alliances remain on top while the opposition is fragmented unless we do the same type of under the table deals and then have to come together in a more ad hoc manner with more alliances to bring to the table. IQ for the most part isn't really a direct competitor to most of the other side mechanically. In any war scenario, a lot of alliances will barely take any damage on that side The only chance of an outright win for IQ would have been if a bunch of paperless/unaffiliated joined in on the upper tier, which would have been a miracle. With the recent Rose treaty signing, it removes even more mechanical competition.

If the side Rose is on fractured for real reasons rather than handshake agreements, it might trigger wider splits based on people choosing different sides in those disputes. There isn't really any chance of IQ becoming dominant for long in any scenario if the conditions allowed for it anyway since the former Syndisphere alliances would have the same reason to split that they did when making IQ. One side has more risk averse/loss averse attitudes and one side doesn't. IQ mainly exists as an alternative sphere to the one made up of many of the same alliances dominating the political landscape continuously.

Then why do you always whine about people not being dynamic and needing to split up if you don't believe actually splitting up is a possibility.

And why do you always whine about consolidation when you have been consolidating since IQ was formed.

Don't  give me that "There is no chance of IQ being dominant" line of bs. You already have a significant member advantage as is, and a huge alliance like Rose and all our ties breaking off would COMPLETELY unbalance the game even more in your favor.

Not only that, but if anyone hits you, you'll whine and moan and cry about the evil oppressive hegemoney coming to get you, in an attempt to draw more neutral alliances to your side.

So square up and hit us or stop whining about how boring the games political dynamic is or don't whine if we hit you. Pick one.

(Why is the word !@#$ censored but not the word shit)

 

Edited by Sketchy
  • Upvote 6

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Then why do you always whine about people not being dynamic and needing to split up if you don't believe actually splitting up is a possibility.

And why do you always whine about consolidation when you have been consolidating since IQ was formed.

Don't  give me that "There is no chance of IQ being dominant" line of bs. You already have a significant member advantage as is, and a huge alliance like Rose and all our ties breaking off would COMPLETELY unbalance the game even more in your favor.

Not only that, but if anyone hits you, you'll whine and moan and cry about the evil oppressive hegemoney coming to get you, in an attempt to draw more neutral alliances to your side.

So square up and hit us or stop whining about how boring the games political dynamic is or don't whine if we hit you. Pick one.

(Why is the word !@#$ censored but not the word shit)

 

 

I don't believe splitting up is a real possibility if it's done on handshake agreements between alliances that don't have any desire to compete with each other. I've always said a split can only happen if the goals/ambitions of alliances diverge unless people deliberately tossed out pragmatic calculations and just were willing to hit each other for fun. When alliances like CS, BK, and Zodiac split off, they knew they were risking confrontation with much more difficult alliances to fight than they were used to because they were tying themselves to controversial alliances that were disliked by their traditional coalition. A negotiated split between parties that have a mutual stake in not fighting the other is just erasing some lines on the web. I mostly "whine" because it's an illustration of the hypocrisy of current/past figures if acting like a game in their vision is more dynamic and less stifling when it hasn't been. Keep in mind the OP of the thread mainly relates to this ending up like another nationsim. Most people seriously bought the rhetoric that there was more desire for dynamism for a long time, which is why you see people getting upset.

Like was addressed, redundant treaties aren't really the thing I was talking about, it's consolidation of power.

Membercount has never determined the outcome of wars. If Rose left, it'd just be the material impact of rose itself not fighting the IQ nations in range aside from the tie to Durmstrang since all of those are ties someone else has. TKR has ties to Pantheon, Guardian, Bad Company and nuke bloc without Rose in the picture, so it's still an uphill battle.

Not really sure why you'd expect people not to argue or use rhetoric if they get attacked. The only reason to attack IQ would be to remove the only potential threat to having a hegemoney even if it's not a strong one. It's a bizarre expectation people have of not expecting others to talk back and being incredulous when people don't want to take it with a smile. Using that rhetoric wouldn't even convince anyone to join in to even the odds. It's literally never happened and anyone who gets attacked and curbstomped is usually made fun of and ridiculed. There is no rooting for the underdog in PW and whoever loses usually gets vilified by default. Losing takes on a moral dimension here.

At this point, it's clear there isn't an interest in dynamism and that it was just a rhetorical tool for positioning purposes be it against Paracov or whoever and a decent amount of people don't want to risk anything and just want to continue building or have wars where their progress isn't threatened. It just seems like a developmental stage. My initial post in the topic was that the meta had changed from one where people saw losses as replaceable and now many  see it as a perpetual building game and they don't want to do anything which will endanger it so it results in ultra-conservative gameplay. The other thing is the personal grudges.  I don't think I've really whined about how boring it is. I'm just pointing out why the splits proposed aren't actual solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought old FA heads were the problem, I stepped down.

You think consolidation is a problem, you consolidate.

See the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2017 at 6:31 PM, Sargun said:

ok cool

who are you?

If you're rhetorically asking what I said doesn't matter because I seem unknown, then that just furthers the point about TKR not really being a knightly or radiant alliance.

If you're asking a genuine question, what do you want to know about me that I haven't already expressed on the forum?

Edited by Dubayoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, durmij said:

I thought old FA heads were the problem, I stepped down.

You think consolidation is a problem, you consolidate.

See the difference?

To be fair they don't really have much of an option. It's either consolidate or lose the next war.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not reading all 7 pages but simply put:

Everyone made too many friends, and chose poor enemies.

 

Inactive Syndicate, disbanded Mensa, pacifist Rose, 'conservative' NPO, Sit-on-my-hands TKR, neutered Arrgh, disbanded TEst, quit-the-game Alpha... The list goes on.

 

It doesn't really matter unless the masses do something about it though. Get angry and do something.

Edited by Holton

Superbia


vuSNqof.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Holton said:

Not reading all 7 pages but simply put:

Everyone made too many friends, and chose poor enemies.

 

Inactive Syndicate, disbanded Mensa, pacifist Rose, 'conservative' NPO, Sit-on-my-hands TKR, neutered Arrgh, disbanded TEst, quit-the-game Alpha... The list goes on.

 

It doesn't really matter unless the masses do something about it though. Get angry and do something.

No one wants to be the bad guy. Very few alliances have much ambition and those who do are severely limited by those who hold most the cards.

  • Upvote 2

[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

44 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

No one wants to be the bad guy. Very few alliances have much ambition and those who do are severely limited by those who hold most the cards.

I have no qualms being the bad guy. Just would be nice to see some others try to stir sometimes. It'd be refreshing :3

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P&W was always going to be a reboot of every game we have all played.

The trouble is Alex is lazy & has done a reboot, whilst he learnt.

BTW Alex you have done, what I would have done.

Now he has started a new game, so guys and girls, the tdlr is P&W is now a cash cow.

Once a business has a new improved outlet, they inevitably want you to slowly jump on board.

P&W was his Beta.

To work, these games need a decision over economic v war . For both lower & upper tier.

I actually think a good game needs a semi protected neutral (for interest, but also game mechanics. Different strokes for different folks)

P&W doesn't work, again it's a rehash, so it's come to the end game quicker, as everyone has been through the scenarios, literally endlessly.

My advice would be go for a yin/yang economic /war build for nations & after a certain size, your on that path.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Why is Micchan's post not liked more?

Seriously.  That was one of the best posts on these forums.

Because sometimes excessive, random humor isn't to everyone's liking.

  • Downvote 2

120209800_meirl2.png.0a9b257b4d3e0c1ac6d6b8be8184cba7.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Why is Micchan's post not liked more?

 

Seriously.  That was one of the best posts on these forums.

Not nearly enough black lines. It fails to capture Roq vision properly.

  • Upvote 2

UQllJcz.png?2

2nd, 4th, and 6th Adelphotes Princeps of Cornerstone, Ambassador to Black Knights, 4th Grand Pilus of Cornerstone, 2nd Chaplain of Cornerstone, 5th Questor Princeps of Cornerstone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seeker said:

Is this a popularity contest now?  Who gives a f.

Someone's butthurt.

9 hours ago, Sargun said:

Because sometimes excessive, random humor isn't to everyone's liking.

It wasn't necessarily random, and I'd say it's on par with the amount of times Roq has reminded us all that the treaty web hurts his sphere.

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Someone's butthurt.

It wasn't necessarily random, and I'd say it's on par with the amount of times Roq has reminded us all that the treaty web hurts his sphere.

Your comment just comes off a little ridiculous considering it was just a sh1 post that had zero basis.  Although apparently sh1 posting and not making arguments/counter arguments is generally accepted around here.  Reference Leos post earlier regarding sh1 posting. (can't cuss apparently)

I believe the point of Roquentins post(s) were to refute others that were denying past rhetoric etc.  I don't think he has made any ridiculous claims that aren't substantiated by past historical events.  

gog-forum-size-regs.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to Roq and IQ...

...Roq's suspicions are often based on common sense.  You know how people have associated, you see how they continue to associate, and you realize their bonds haven't really moved on.

That said, let's not be naive.  The real issue at stake is we all know what Roq's movement stands for.  It's highly materialistic, highly evidence oriented, and highly realistic.  Yea, people don't deliberately integrate RL politics into their IG personas, but in this game, especially where leaders can show their political beliefs, it ends up influencing who they associate with, especially with regards to such a radically designed alliance like his.  Heck, the historical rivalry is NPO versus t$, communism versus capitalism.  The replacement of t$ with TKR doesn't make things better either since TKR represents the opiate of the masses which communists believe is the real source of capitalism.

The fact of the matter is his movement is based on exploiting how people don't have evidence of behind the scenes conspiracies in the first place while making fun of them for not being part of the conspiracy.  That way, the conspiracy gets to maintain its power while exploiting others...

...but then the fact of the matter is his ideology is halfway justified.  After all, office politics, workplace politics, and familial favoritism in inheriting estates happens.  The rule of law might not always enable corruption, but it sometimes does.

The bottomline is what he believes in isn't ridiculous, but he's getting his just deserts.  The thing is he isn't the only one who deserves those just deserts.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.