Jump to content
  • entries
    17
  • comments
    498
  • views
    9,920

Penkala

451 views

Hi. Taking small amounts of reparations when you're on the defensive side of a war, or even the offensive side of a war, isn't that bad. Attacking alliances over flimsy CBs (really just to take them out as potential enemies), beating them to a pulp with 5v1 odds or worse, scaring them into not using nukes, taking minimal damages and then making them pay for the pleasure of it all - that's bad.

There's a difference, and calling token reps a Hegemonic action is ridiculous.

That is all.

13 Comments


Recommended Comments

I think you need to realise that the same people decrying these reps are the same people that coagulated together to form the hegemony, they forced incredibly high reps on alliances they aggressively attacked and destroyed.

They don't really care about the reps, they just enjoy complaining.

Link to comment

If they're more than they can pay without suffering, then it's hegemonic. Of course, you'll spin that and assume I'm talking about the reps currently being handed out, but I was speaking in general terms.

Link to comment

I agree with Astronaut Jones here. If the purpose of the reps is to bleed the other alliance, that's a punishment more than I'm comfortable with. Ask the rest of GOONS gov about how wary I've been about pushing the envelope too far on reps.

With that said, I do still view them as having a corrective as well as a restorative function.

Link to comment

I agree with AJ and Lamuella here.

White peace does have its time and place, but so too do reasonable reparations. And I've yet to see anything but from this particular war thus far.

Link to comment

I totally agree, nothing should change and everything should stay the same. When alliances were jack booted in the past and they decried how awful it was they seem only to happy now to do it to other alliances as soon as they get the chance. Either it was wrong in the past or it wasn't wrong at all, you can't have it both ways.

Link to comment

I totally agree, nothing should change and everything should stay the same. When alliances were jack booted in the past and they decried how awful it was they seem only to happy now to do it to other alliances as soon as they get the chance. Either it was wrong in the past or it wasn't wrong at all, you can't have it both ways.

It depends on how much they're asking for. Personally, I think the amount FoB asked for from NATO was pushing it too far, but .. if NATO wanted to pay that.. I think it was FoB that asked for 500 million.

Link to comment

I totally agree, nothing should change and everything should stay the same. When alliances were jack booted in the past and they decried how awful it was they seem only to happy now to do it to other alliances as soon as they get the chance. Either it was wrong in the past or it wasn't wrong at all, you can't have it both ways.

I think people were more annoyed with the forced decommissioning of wonders like the WRC that costs 150 million per nation, and reps forced on alliances who were aggressively attacked for reasons like "one of your members has an almost matching IP address of someone we, the hegemony said can no longer play this game"

asking for incredibly small reps when you were on the defensive side and took a lot of damage is fine by my standards, in the instance of FoB, 500 million is less then the average warchest for a single nation (pre war :v:)

The two instances hardly compare to each other, hegemony asked for absolutely everything an alliance had left after the war, where as in this war we have only a few alliances asking for meagre rebuilding funds.

Link to comment

I think people were more annoyed with the forced decommissioning of wonders like the WRC that costs 150 million per nation, and reps forced on alliances who were aggressively attacked for reasons like "one of your members has an almost matching IP address of someone we, the hegemony said can no longer play this game"

asking for incredibly small reps when you were on the defensive side and took a lot of damage is fine by my standards, in the instance of FoB, 500 million is less then the average warchest for a single nation (pre war :v:)

The two instances hardly compare to each other, hegemony asked for absolutely everything an alliance had left after the war, where as in this war we have only a few alliances asking for meagre rebuilding funds.

I agree with you that the forced decom of wonders and crippling reps were a very bad thing for the life of this game and community. The problem is that we have alliances who had crippling reps put on them, are salivating at the chance to do it to their opponents in this war. They talk about how awful the reps and treatment of a defeated alliance was, but their solution is to do it to their defeated opponent. I mean come on you have to see that if it was a horrible thing to have done to you, or your friends, then it is a horrible thing to do to your enemy. An eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind in the end. The only way to rejuvenate this game and community is to stop driving away players and alliances. War should be the only punishment given out to your opponent, reps are just a way to hurt your opponent more "because you can". If you cant hurt your opponent in war, and gain enough of an advantage over them because of it, then you should not be fighting them in the first place.

I am not trying to get meager reps for my alliance. I am pretty sure my leadership wont pay harsh reps to our opponents and I wont pay them if it comes down to it. Thos war has put alliances in power that i feel will drive players and the fun out of this game.

Link to comment

I agree with you that the forced decom of wonders and crippling reps were a very bad thing for the life of this game and community. The problem is that we have alliances who had crippling reps put on them, are salivating at the chance to do it to their opponents in this war. They talk about how awful the reps and treatment of a defeated alliance was, but their solution is to do it to their defeated opponent. I mean come on you have to see that if it was a horrible thing to have done to you, or your friends, then it is a horrible thing to do to your enemy. An eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind in the end. The only way to rejuvenate this game and community is to stop driving away players and alliances. War should be the only punishment given out to your opponent, reps are just a way to hurt your opponent more "because you can". If you cant hurt your opponent in war, and gain enough of an advantage over them because of it, then you should not be fighting them in the first place.

I am not trying to get meager reps for my alliance. I am pretty sure my leadership wont pay harsh reps to our opponents and I wont pay them if it comes down to it. Thos war has put alliances in power that i feel will drive players and the fun out of this game.

Your propaganda piece would make more sense if the current war situation was reversed. Those who were wronged in the past and had to pay for it are the same who are being wronged now.

The difference is that now the wrongdoers have to pay for it.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   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.

×
×
  • Create New...