Producers vs Parasites 2: Types of Nations

[Daenerys Targaryen]

 

Look at where the main fighting is taking place brah. It is not in the top tiers. Having fought 3 of IRON's smaller upper tier nations at the beginning of the war and having seen Matt Miller in action, if that is even remotely close to how IRON fights in the top tier, they would have significantly hurt DBDC, particularly a year ago. 

At the time Matt Miller was getting rolled by DBDC and so were a few other IRON upper tier nations. Matt Miller was razored by them in Equilibrium and its the stats that matter at the end of the day. DBDC nations may only have been around half the size they are today but so were today's IRON members. Cuba was still round +400k at the time with 50-60k tech. Don't forget Disorder was less than a year ago.

[Canik]

You already confirmed FEAR brokered the peace which was my main point. Whether or not IRON or DBDC used FEAR to do it doesn't matter, those are just small irrelevant tedious errors on my part or my sources, and are only taken advantage of so you could discredit entire accusation. Well the IRON members were trying too anyway.

 

What you may not realize is i like to do something called research before dropping these claims and accusations just so if need be i can go back to my source. In this case here is my source:

 

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/120665-a-joint-announcement-from-two-unlikely-alliances/?p=3230338

 

TBRaiders,  a very prominent govt member of DBDC (I'm sure no one can dispute that) states: "we approached FEAR government and asked if they would assist in mediating between the two of us." But Big Ego, you said you took the initiative but that contradicts what was said at the time. Who is lying here?

 

Yeah, i know, i have too much time on my hands at the moment. Its the holidays. ^_^

Seems like you should've said DBDC used us to get peace with IRON then. Why did you say IRON did it? Fit your narrative better?

TBRaiders did approach us about mediating the talks, but we had been encouraging them to have those talks for a while. Either way, it definitely wasn't IRON who approached us which is what you said :P

Just wanted to clear that up since you kept saying "IRON used FEAR to get peace"

[Daenerys Targaryen]

Seems like you should've said DBDC used us to get peace with IRON then. Why did you say IRON did it? Fit your narrative better?

TBRaiders did approach us about mediating the talks, but we had been encouraging them to have those talks for a while. Either way, it definitely wasn't IRON who approached us which is what you said :P

Just wanted to clear that up since you kept saying "IRON used FEAR to get peace"

"IRON DBDC used FEAR to get peace" Happy now?

[Garion]

Polar and TOP are not exactly known for preserving pixels.

Had a good chuckle at this, obviously the TOP part of it.

[Starfox101]

Had a good chuckle at this, obviously the TOP part of it.

Fair enough, but an IRON leader accusing Polar of signing a treaty to preserve pixels is outright hypocrisy. That part I'm sure you can agree on.

[The Warrior]

Fair enough, but an IRON leader accusing Polar of signing a treaty to preserve pixels is outright hypocrisy. That part I'm sure you can agree on.

That's not what I said. I was simply pointing out that the NAP clauses in the treaties meant the same thing -- that one party would not attack the other. I firmly believe that the TOP/NpO treaty was signed out of convenience and as a means to accomplish an end.

 

 

Now, you indicating that the DBDC-IRON treaty was one signed purely as a means to "preserve our pixels" is completely and utterly false as well. Was it a benefit? Sure. Was it the reason for the signing? Hell no.

[Azaghul]

Anyone who believes that preserving stats wasn't the main reason it was signed is either politically naive and unfamiliar with the record of both alliances, or just saying they believe it because they are in or allied to IRON and/or DBDC.

[Garion]

Fair enough, but an IRON leader accusing Polar of signing a treaty to preserve pixels is outright hypocrisy. That part I'm sure you can agree on.

I doubt anyone can contest your aggressive stance towards this war.

[Starfox101]

I doubt anyone can contest your aggressive stance towards this war.

What?

[Garion]

What?

You definitely didn't save your strenght for some murky future gain...

EDIT: Engrish :P Edited January 4, 2015 by Garion

[TBRaiders]

Anyone who believes that preserving stats wasn't the main reason it was signed is either politically naive and unfamiliar with the record of both alliances, or just saying they believe it because they are in or allied to IRON and/or DBDC.

Thinking that saving pixels was the sole purpose is extremely naive as well.  You probably saw the logs on why DBDC wanted the NAP and there were a multitude of reasons, including your sphere was still hitting NG and DBDC was getting ready to mow down some upper tiers to get them peace and didn't want IRON at our backs while we did it.

 

Both alliances had political goals and fighting each other right then wasn't in either of our best interest.  So while pixels being saved was a result of the NAP, it wasn't the reason behind it.  I don't feel like going into all the details or explaining why it was so mutually beneficial; you will just have to take my word on it.  Also, both FEAR and GLOF had talked with both of us well before we asked FEAR to mediate.  Neither of them wanted to see the IRON/DBDC throwdown.  There was a much bigger picture than just IRON vs DBDC.  

[Artigo]

Anyone who believes that preserving stats wasn't the main reason it was signed is either politically naive and unfamiliar with the record of both alliances, or just saying they believe it because they are in or allied to IRON and/or DBDC.

 

We ran the numbers more times than any of us would like to admit and I'm telling you we would have ran a clinic on IRON's top tier.

 

As much as Samus likes to explain the intricacies of  the Ramirus strat, the math was not on their side. As it stands, no one has ever convincingly defeated a top 5-level DBDC nation. 

 

The most comparable nation to ours in recent memory that was dismantled was BooNetherlands who both gave early into war and wouldn't get far past top 15 in DBDC stats wise.  Even he required Umb's rank 1 fireteam.

 

And IRON was not in shape to reliably attempt this.  Even now it would still be pretty convincing in a 1v1.

 

Just like I said in the other thread this is straight up wrong.  TOP doesn't like us because we didn't play to their tune so you spin it to say we were trying to "preserve stats".  Pay attention to how these wars turn out and you'll realize there is zero fear of stat loss.  We gain regardless if you play your little hearts out or not.

 

edit spelling

Edited January 4, 2015 by Artigo

[Starfox101]

You definitely didn't save your strenght for some murky future gain...EDIT: Engrish :P

Yeah...we might need to sit the next one out though haha.

Unlikely though!

[CubaQuerida]

 

As much as Samus likes to explain the intricacies of  the Ramirus strat, the math was not on their side. As it stands, no one has ever convincingly defeated a top 5-level DBDC nation. 

 

God I really want to convincingly defeat a DBDC top nation now...  Load up the RNG!

[Starcraftmazter]

100t/3m has always been the standard, and from that came 200t/6m, and 200t/9m if the seller has the aid wonder, not entirely sure why this is a scam - it's a historically agreed to be a fair rate of exchange of tech to money.

[Dochartaigh]

Thinking that saving pixels was the sole purpose is extremely naive as well.  You probably saw the logs on why DBDC wanted the NAP and there were a multitude of reasons, including your sphere was still hitting NG and DBDC was getting ready to mow down some upper tiers to get them peace and didn't want IRON at our backs while we did it.

 

Both alliances had political goals and fighting each other right then wasn't in either of our best interest.  So while pixels being saved was a result of the NAP, it wasn't the reason behind it.  I don't feel like going into all the details or explaining why it was so mutually beneficial; you will just have to take my word on it.  Also, both FEAR and GLOF had talked with both of us well before we asked FEAR to mediate.  Neither of them wanted to see the IRON/DBDC throwdown.  There was a much bigger picture than just IRON vs DBDC.  

 

To be fair, if y'all did not preserve your pixels (in particular IRON) the political goals would have been delayed or canceled entirely. Thus, it can be argued that preserving pixels is still the main reason the NAP was signed. Without pixels, the political goals would have been harder to attain. 

[Dajobo]

Once you get past the personality clashes this thread is a pretty interesting read.

There's been two very different lines of opinion and as usually the truth falls somewhere in the middle. The one thing I strongly agree with is Azaghul's statement "TOP and NpO made mistakes." They are mistakes we'll discuss and enjoy rectifying together in the future no doubt :D

Edited January 5, 2015 by Dajobo

[HeroofTime55]

Anyone who believes that preserving stats wasn't the main reason it was signed is either politically naive and unfamiliar with the record of both alliances, or just saying they believe it because they are in or allied to IRON and/or DBDC.

Everything ultimately boils down to preserving stats, though.  Even throwing yourself on a pyre is just posturing to demonstrate that people should ally with you because you're willing to burn for them.  And/or that you are just crazy enough that if someone messes with you, you'll go all out to make them pay for it.  In both cases the objective is to make yourself a less desirable target, and thus preserve your stats.

Even if we don't think of it that explicitly, that's what it ultimately boils down to.

[Dajobo]

I get your point HoT but think "using" your stats would be a more accurate description for some alliances. If the goal is only preserving stats then we'd all be neutral. Using stats on the other hand can certainly be an investment as you quite accurately describe.

[shahenshah]

 
To be fair, if y'all did not preserve your pixels (in particular IRON) the political goals would have been delayed or canceled entirely. Thus, it can be argued that preserving pixels is still the main reason the NAP was signed. Without pixels, the political goals would have been harder to attain. 

Then the same can be said about TOP-NpO treaty, had they not signed, one or the other might have been rolled, and TOP was very willing to jump on the roll NpO bandwagon at the time, which didn't pan out so TOP went to Polar. They both needed the treaty to avoid beat down, hence preserve pixels.

Thus, it can be argued that preserving pixels is still the main reason the treaty was signed. Without pixels, the political goals would have been harder to attain. 

This is further proven when you see TOP ATM is busy preserving pixels only. The treaty had been utilized fully only when pixels were not at risk. Hence, given the ongoing actions, TOP had signed treaty only for pixel preservation.

---
See why your logic is perfectly applicable to actions of your allies and coalition partners.

Your and some other peoples argument basically is if everyone else does it, its to preserve pixels first and then go for political goals, but if you do it, its primarily for political goals, while pixel preservation is just a coincidental outcome, its hillarious. So you basically have two sets of standards for yourself/allies and the rest of the world.

What everyone is trying to tell is multiple objectives overlap and go hand in hand, while you're trying to paint a black and white picture on everyone else, but at the same time, reject your own assertations if your own logic is applied to your AA. Edited January 5, 2015 by shahenshah

[Dochartaigh]

Then the same can be said about TOP-NpO treaty, had they not signed, one or the other might have been rolled, and TOP was very willing to jump on the roll NpO bandwagon at the time, which didn't pan out so TOP went to Polar. They both needed the treaty to avoid beat down, hence preserve pixels.

Thus, it can be argued that preserving pixels is still the main reason the treaty was signed. Without pixels, the political goals would have been harder to attain. 

This is further proven when you see TOP ATM is busy preserving pixels only. The treaty had been utilized fully only when pixels were not at risk. Hence, given the ongoing actions, TOP had signed treaty only for pixel preservation.

---
See why your logic is perfectly applicable to actions of your allies and coalition partners.

Your and some other peoples argument basically is if everyone else does it, its to preserve pixels first and then go for political goals, but if you do it, its primarily for political goals, while pixel preservation is just a coincidental outcome, its hillarious. So you basically have two sets of standards for yourself/allies and the rest of the world.

What everyone is trying to tell is multiple objectives overlap and go hand in hand, while you're trying to paint a black and white picture on everyone else, but at the same time, reject your own assertations if your own logic is applied to your AA.

 

Actually my view of treaties is that most, if not all, are for pixel preservation. TOP/NpO- yup, it was for pixel preservation as well as a political goal in and of itself. There may be some treaties that are just for political goals or something other than pixel preservation. I honestly cannot even think of any personally.

 

If you are not signing a treaty with the main goal being defense of your alliance, you are doing it wrong. That is my personal opinion. The last half of your post- yeah not sure if that actually applies to me. Nor do I think I have ever rejected said stance for my allies or my alliance. 

[Artigo]

God I really want to convincingly defeat a DBDC top nation now...  Load up the RNG!

 

Cuba you have to get the latest rng hack its the only way you'll break 1mil

[HeroofTime55]

I get your point HoT but think "using" your stats would be a more accurate description for some alliances. If the goal is only preserving stats then we'd all be neutral. Using stats on the other hand can certainly be an investment as you quite accurately describe.

I mean, there can be some degree of different goals.  Maybe someone likes casualties more than infra, and is more than willing to convert the latter into the former to meet their objectives.

But our world is a spreadsheet, and in this spreadsheet, it is easier to get smaller numbers and harder to get larger numbers.  Therefore, getting larger numbers (and larger numbers than anyone else has) becomes the goal on account of it being difficult.  Nobody comes to here to play golf.

It's not just the absolute value of stats, but preserving an advantage over the stats of others.  It's not about how much, but about how much more.

[iamthey]

I get that the TOP/NpO treaty was one born of convenience and mutual benefit given the fact that you wanted to take shots at the NPO/NG sphere. I fully believe that to be the case. Everyone at the time knew what it was. My point was that whether you admit it or not, signing any treaty is on some level a way to preserve pixels.
 
You continually claim that the only reason DBDC and IRON signed a treaty is because we didn't want our top tiers getting damaged. I'm telling you that that wasn't the motivating factor behind the signing. Of course you won't recognize that there actually might have been another reason for us because it doesn't suit your agenda.

I mean I think most would agree that an alliance's resources exist to serve a purpose- to inflict damage. Preserving them as a matter of course thus makes a degree of sense not only to the alliance in question but also from the standpoint of those connected to it. Allies have a mutual stake in one another's internal health so that they'll be effective partners in war. That being said [ooc]pixels[/ooc] are a means to an end, as treaties themselves often are. They function in tangent with a strategy to protect oneself and pursue overlapping interests where they exist.

I'm willing to accept that TOP and Polar signed a treaty for the purposes of pursuing a common goal. At that time to achieve a winning war and to leverage that war into a dominant position shared with a group of core alliances. It was a gamble and a risk that ultimately didn't pay out, but it was attempted. Despite that we shared over a year together and I'd like to think we developed an amicable relationship in doing so.

As for DBDC-IRON, I think its clear and fair to say, that the two giants saw overlapping interests, and shared goals. That they were stronger together than apart. Could one have dominated the other, perhaps, but to what end and why? I think both groups were smart enough to see through the rivalry and indeed they prospered by doing so. I don't know enough about their mutual interactions to say whether there are substantial ties of friendship there- but I'm willing to venture there probably are, and if there isn't then who really cares, in so far as they can make it work. It's ultimately their affair, as polar-TOP is ours.

[o ya baby]

 

We ran the numbers more times than any of us would like to admit and I'm telling you we would have ran a clinic on IRON's top tier.

 

As much as Samus likes to explain the intricacies of  the Ramirus strat, the math was not on their side. As it stands, no one has ever convincingly defeated a top 5-level DBDC nation. 

 

The most comparable nation to ours in recent memory that was dismantled was BooNetherlands who both gave early into war and wouldn't get far past top 15 in DBDC stats wise.  Even he required Umb's rank 1 fireteam.

 

And IRON was not in shape to reliably attempt this.  Even now it would still be pretty convincing in a 1v1.

 

Just like I said in the other thread this is straight up wrong.  TOP doesn't like us because we didn't play to their tune so you spin it to say we were trying to "preserve stats".  Pay attention to how these wars turn out and you'll realize there is zero fear of stat loss.  We gain regardless if you play your little hearts out or not.

 

edit spelling

I was on that initial fireteam that took down BooNetherlands :smug:

I still have all of those screens saved.

 

 

Yeah, but who cares about that? The only thing worth watching there are the ratios DBDC put up on neutrals that haven't even logged in.

Oh, and just saw this gem.  You realize every single one of them, besides one, logged in and fought back the entire week, correct? And the one that didn't logged in day 5 and fought back.  Just because we're better than you at this and can mitigate damage taken doesn't mean they aren't fighting back.  But keep on talking about something you know nothing about. :smug:

Edited January 8, 2015 by o ya baby