Jump to content

rsoxbronco1

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,104

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by rsoxbronco1

  3. Disaster Hits Bob

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by rsoxbronco1

    Complete lack of MI6 in those charts and graphs.

    Well there's a complete lack of MI6 in the top 20 alliances by tech...

     

     

     

    EDIT: I'd like to take this moment to declare Doom House victory over the forces of Anarchy Inc

    WE DID IT GUYS!

  6. Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?

    in Open World RP

    Posted

    Any alliance that agrees to hand over it's AA doesn't deserve to own one anyway. 

    Any alliance that refuses to accept terms doesn't deserve peace anyway.

     

    It's a system, and all systems are open to abuse. 

     

    The current system is imperfect, but unless a new system is guaranteed to improve things, any change is likely an unnecessary one.

    Would suggest this is the ideal time to introduce a money spinning (for you, admin) World of Tanks feature which is to charge people to create alliances. In WoT it costs 2500 gold ($13) to create a clan/alliance. 

     

    Just think? Money in your pocket and less pointless alliances around. Everyone's a winner. 

    MI6 just came out of nowhere because they had well known leadership and a half-way catchy theme.

     

    They shouldn't have to pay for the privilege that we all enjoy because we got here first.

  7. Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?

    in Open World RP

    Posted · Edited by rsoxbronco1

    Which is why I presume the ban on Viceroys would remain. This change wouldn't effect that.

    I'll use a historical example of viceroys:

     

    Say I'm the leader of the NPO AA.  I'm just wrapping up my war on Legion and I want to exert control over them.  In this version, admin has already outlawed viceroys, so I can't control their forums, but their ingame alliance is fair game because it's entirely IC and run through cybernations.net

     

    Instead of sending Zha (was it zha?) to their forums, I have zha running their AA.  Someone gets out of line on the boards while they're under terms?  Expelled and open to attack.

     

    Just some really basic thinking, but entirely believable.

  8. Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?

    in Open World RP

    Posted · Edited by rsoxbronco1

    I wouldn't think so. The original intent of the ban on Viceroys would still hold. At least it seems to me.

    The original intent was to stop people from demanding control of a non-CN property.  You run into all sorts of legal issues when you demand access and control over something paid for IRL.

     

    In-game AAs have no costs associated with them and, despite their control by players, are (for all intents and purposes) the property of whatever company or person(s) own Cyber Nations.

     

    As they are owned by the game, they are technically part of the game.   Not to say it will be allowed, but it's an entirely different animal.

     

    I know admin originally expected this game to be a fight over senate seats and I would not be at all surprised if this is an attempt to add a new variable to the reasons alliances go to war.

  10. Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?

    in Open World RP

    Posted · Edited by rsoxbronco1

    The same way you do now.

    hahahaha PLEASE allow the control of an AA to be achieved through military conquest.

     

    Imagine it: Umbrella's AA under the administration of queenhailee

     

    edit: CSN under my administration.  The Bronies under NG's administration.

     

    Now we're getting somewhere

  11. Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?

    in Open World RP

    Posted · Edited by rsoxbronco1

    The only real benefit I see from this move is the drama and chaos it will cause.  It will certainly be entertaining, but, respectfully, I don't think that ingame drama should be the direct result of something admin does.


    If people lose their AA?  They're going to be tech/land raided.  13 days inactive?  Probably still gonna get hit because Christmas only comes once a year.

     

    Some people enjoy building and farming tech/infra, some people enjoy destroying and farming tears. (and wow will there be tears)

     

    Playing devil's advocate, say I'm a 15k tech nation and there's some inactive infra cow from a neutral alliance currently off AA.  Maybe they have a warchest, maybe they don't.  One nuke at 20+ days and I've successfully bill-locked them.  Not saying it WILL happen, but it's a potential risk.

     

    I definitely buy the AA seniority case.   I've lost too many nations for it to bother me, and most of MK couldn't care less (AA hopping etc) but for the people who play this game for the stats?  They're losing something that makes their nation truly unique.   Plenty of nations have tech, or land, or infra, but seniority is different. 

     

    To have been in an alliance since 2008?  It's hard to quantify loyalty, but AA seniority is as close as it gets.

     

    I will say, things could get... interesting with ingame leaders in SE.  AI's recent drama would have been even juicier if ingame AA leadership was at stake.

     

    Are long term, and relatively rare moments drama worth the short term headache? meh

     

     

    (Apologies if I misunderstand something about the change or TE leadership system, I don't play it)

  13. From the Artist Formerly Known as Doom House

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted


    SF just demonstrated their awareness of the political climate by disbanding. They realized they were in a quagmire, and now have broken free. This seems like just the opposite, and being announced at the same time highlights it. Don't worry though, I'm sure there are still a few DH fanboys out there that do not see it my way at all. ;)

    It's just a MDoAP between two alliances...

  20. IRON Announcement

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    Amazing how this bumbling band of idiots managed to defeat the most militarily fearsome alliances in the world. NPO, lead us to glory! With your force-multiplying organizational skills! Your invincible upper tier! And Your unwavering loyalty to the cause! We are nothing without you.

    I agree, CoJ are a bumbling band of idiots.

  23. IRON Announcement

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    Now I'm defending NPO and GATO in the same topic.

     

    GATO attacked select targets with careful precision and decisive follow through in the eQuilibrium war.  Their wars were methodical, exacting, and tactically well thought out.  Their astute strategy of using their strengths and avoiding eQ's strengths was classically well developed.

     

    If GATO had shirked some agreements and sided with eQ (something that was hoped for by some parties, thought they'll likely deny it now) they would be basking in the praises and adulation of the same OWF masses who now denigrate them.

×
×
  • Create New...