Proko
-
Posts
883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Proko
-
-
Always nice to have more friends!
-
Heh, he'll probably kill me for it, but I'll go with Arctic Penguin from our alliance. Another one of these "the alliance couldn't run without him" type of guys, but he does some fantastic work with our bank. The staff of the Ministry of Plenty is one of the most talented groups of people I've seen, and they all deserve a spot in this thread (In addition to Penguin: Jphillips, Silvaienia, and Not Sane).
With no further elaboration: Myworld.
-
Just because a war is huge does not make it a "Great war." People claim its not a Great War because it ended too quickly. Hold on, let's pull up some comparisons. I'm defining "Great War II" as beginning when either LUE attacked GOONS or the Orders attacked LUE, and finishing when LUE withdrew from the League, at which point the outcome was clear.
Great War II lasted a shorter amount of time
Great War II involved fewer alliances
Great War II was not nuclear
Great War II was more equal (whereas the GPW was less equal)
Great War II involved fewer nations
Great War II saw the destruction of no major alliances
Great War II saw the same coalitions of GWI and GWIII against one another
-
Back in the day, an alliance was required to have 80% activity level to hold onto its sanction, as well as a high enough member count and either the next highest NS/Score.
Score is used for determining the rankings of the alliances that qualify . More than half of GOONS is inactive, and, by at least the old system, they don't meet the qualifications.
-
Didn't you quit?
Yeah, he quit back when it was in style to do so.
-
Surprised it isn't a MDP or MADP, I am wondering if this could possibly be a secret pact. ;O
CONSPIRATORS!
Congrats to the both of you. ;]
The New Polar Order basically signs four kinds of treaties: Friendship Pacts, MDPs, MADPs, and Protectorates. We're not really an alliance for PIATs, ODPs, and ToAs, but we make exceptions for friends like FCC and GR.
-
You obviously didn't see my war screen during the war.
I was in 5 wars.
4 wars for the first 5 days, and I was giving it out better than I was taking. Granted, 3 of them had other opponents as well, so it wasn't all me, but I helped. And none of them were inactive. Ever. I got attacked by 4 of them during the \m/ ceasefire, so I responded then in kind.
It wasn't until a nation who was 25k NS stronger than me (NpO's 3rd strongest nation at the time of him declaring on me) did I start to lose, and that was only after I started getting nuked. I was dealing good damage in the convetional attacks against 4 opponents.
And not everyone I was at war with had 3 people on them, much less 3 \m/ on them.
3 of my opponents were within 2k NS of me (higher or lower). 1 was 25k NS higher, one was about 10k NS lower.
According for your theory to be true I would've had to have only declared wars on people with lower NS than me, with 2 buddies declaring on everyone of my opponents.
That didn't happen. Your statements, while could be true for some former \m/embers, were not true for everyone who was in \m/.
I would appreciate you stopping making uneducated remarks regarding a disbanded alliance.
Well, I can say that we would have won because I was in 11 wars (7 \m/, 2 Gaymen, a GOON, and a Shroom) all at the sametime with each one of my enemies in anarchy, bill lock, national draft situation, and trying to surrender while I harvested 1,000,000 a day from all of them and laughed as they kept paying my bills lol and therefore I know that we would have won because I was personally undefeated. I'm not even in the top 5% but I was still nuking each one of my opponents twice a day, and my custom built Star Wars Program was blasting their nukes out of the sky.
Take that. Also, I never tire of hearing all of your individual war stories. Really. They're all so different and, what's really fun about this game, is it seems like we all won!
did you ever stop to think that none of us wanted out save TPF? did you ever even realize that the surrenders that followed them abandoning us without warning were because our plans required them to have a chance at victory? our upper and middle ranks were not being destroyed, not even close to being ZIed. they were holding, hell more than holding they were pushing back. most of the anarchies and ZIed nations you parade as proof of your successes were either caused by nukes, came after the rout caused by TPF's flight, or were low strength nations that suffered the worst of the fighting. our low strength nations, myself included, were bein shredded by weight of numbers and the fact that you were throwin multiple nations twice our size at us rather than engage our middle ranks further. we were far from beaten. but we needed TPF to have a chance."Without warning?" Slayer gave a very clear warning he would leave if certain events transpired. But that's not the worst part of your post.
The most disturbing thing is your apathetic attitude regarding 404's awesomely wonderfully appropriate and respectful comments. You don't care what he said, and I'm pretty sure you know what he said. You'll keep fighting because, quite frankly, you and somewhere between (optimistically) a handful and (realistically) a lot of your side are without the qualities that make good people good people.
EDIT: I'd like to think the surrenders were the decent folk in your alliances getting out while they could.
EDIT 2: Sorry, Degen, it's a bit rude towards you, even though you seem like a decent bloke. No disrespect meant especially, it's those general types of posts and the arrogance of some of the defeated nations that make me want to win this war all over again.
-
If Unfortunate OOC events had not taken place, you would be in the process of being ZIed right now.
With the military skill of yourself and Brotherington, despite immeasurable odds, you guys clearly would have won, I agree. I was about to surrender because of the sheer awesomeness of you two, and then, hey, that OOC thing happened and my vision was corrected.
The GOONS didn't have a reputation for OOC attacks. It only happened once.
Most UJP leaders (and even most GOONS leaders) would never have done such a thing. Nor would most ~ leaders. But it only took one bad egg, and a few idiots who condoned his actions. It could happen to any side in any war. Quit pretending your side was the knight-in-shining-armor and the UJP was the evil-ugly-3-headed-dragon. Neither side was either of those. My point here is that the UJP was not a bunch of bullies who attack people OOC. It was just one bad egg, and there are bad eggs in EVERY alliance.-Bama
No, it didn't happen once. 404 made an OOC attack against a member of our side. Sarafina was quoted making a similar OOC attack against the same person only a short while later. Dizzay made OOC threats against a player and a moderator of this game. Liberal Extinction made OOC attacks against Fransjosef. Call me crazy, but I don't see a trend.
EDIT: I should also include 404's constant and repetitive insults to or about Zandra, which often included OOC remarks.
-
I would rate the response of most of the GOONS rank and file as, "so what, we're trying to win a war here." As for those posting here who saw a freedom of speech issue, I sense was that they were unaware of all the facts. The OOC attack went well beyond bad jokes in the GOONS forums.
I briefed our people at \m/ on the facts as I had them at the time and the overwhelming reaction was one of revulsion while the remainder did not feel that the OOC attack was worth dealing with while the life of the alliance was on the line in CN. No one at \m/ that I spoke with felt the OOC was "inbounds" or that it was in anyway justified.
GOONS members are not ignorant. Every active GOON knows what was said and who was responsible, unless they're under the impression 404's computer was hacked.
-
Both of these alliances suck and no one should ever ally them ever.
That said, I
both of you. Good luck with your pact writ in blood. -
Please. Enough "LOLOLOLOL THERE NAME IZ "UNJUST" SO DEY MUST B LIEK ALL UNJUST AND EBIL!!!!111!!!!1111!!!" stuff. Unjust Path was a joke that came from a topic made by some stupid noob who picked a fight with GOONS. The UJP alliances are/were no more or less unjust than most other alliances in the game. Neither side was all righteous and good and just, and neither side was all unjust and evil and bad. Both had their good points, both had their bad points. So it is in almost every war. But please, don't think for one second that the UJP was anything like their name. Oh sure, there were some bad eggs, in GOONS in particular. But there are bad eggs in every alliance. Every one. And guess what? As soon as this OOC crap came up, and the GOONS condoned it, the entire UJP (and a good percentage of the GOONS) decided that these weren't the kind of people they wanted to fight for. How unjust of them... deciding not to condone OOC attacks. And remember when GUARD disbanded? The UJP took it on themselves to defend these alliances from those who might wish to take advantage of their lack of treatied allies. Unjust, huh? My point here is not to judge them by a joke name.
-Bama
You seem to have gotten my style down quite accurately, and I believe you misread my post. I used the term Unjust to refer to their culture. It is a proper noun, and as proper nouns are wont to do, the definition of the actual term is not necessarily an attribute to whom it is prescribed. For example, Niccolo Machievelli, it is speculated, wrote the Prince to gain favor. Examing his life, he actually held a firm belief in republican values, and fought against an absolute monarch. The adjective "macchievellan" describes a person as ruthless and cut throat, with "ends justify the means" type of ambitions.
Unjust is the term they used to describe themselves. Don't condescend to us when we use it to describe you (them?) I would posture that the alliances of GOONS, Genmay, TPF, MK, and \m/, who I apparently offending by referring to as "Unjust," had a distinctive culture? As El Bruc called them, the "lullz" alliances? This war was a struggle of cultures.
A war that involves a majority of total alliance is a "great war," or none are. This is the fourth such to occur. Therefore, this is the fourth "great war." It's really not based on how bored you are with the standards, it's based on clarity and convenience.I disagree as to what constitutes a "Great War." As Z'ha'dum observed, your broad definition will ultimately yield "Great War XVIII," given the game lasts long enough. I support the idea of redefining "Great War" to represent a struggle between the Orders and their allies, and a GATO/LUE-led coalition. Should, in the future, LUE reform and GATO once again challenge the strength of the Orders, we would have Great War IV on our hands. In the meantime, we should shelf this tired nomenclature and adopt something fresh, and more descriptive.
-
While perhaps not the greatest names I've ever come up with, at least they are original, descriptive, and don't use the words "great", "civil", "(un)just", or "lulz" which in my book puts them at least 3 steps ahead of most of what has been described here.
I see no problem with calling this the Unjust War. The term "Unjust" has come to describe a culture in the game, and this war is essentially the struggle of that culture against the old and more traditional alliances. I feel that the inability of the Unjust Culture to coexist with the more conservative alliances of the game is the fundamental conflict of this war, and as such, provides the most logical nomenclature. As this culture is about to be destroyed, and possibly no longer a factor in politics in the Cyberverse, its eradication is something to be commemorated. As much as I disagree with their cause and beliefs, their significance is not to be disputed.
I can credit you for your colorful titles. I find "the Shattering" to be especially evocative. However, your titles give no description for the war itself, and are as useless, despite being more awesome, as the Great Wars. The Citrus War was a conflict between Pacifica and ODN, so called for ODN's color, and the Polar War for the name of the NAAC. While Maelstrom sounds nice, it isn't terribly relevant, and we might as well save it for the next huge inevitable conflict
-
Its not really that. Yeah a thank you thread normally is nice but not this one. The fact that BOTs think they are so important in this is the key thing.
If my memory serves me correctly, Heroes Of Gaming fought in ~ during the war, shoulder to shoulder with Brotherhood of the Storm.
Where I'm from, it's considered poor form to troll your allies.
-
Quit thinking that the war was actually fought over BoTS. It wasn't. The Genmay-BoTS war was the spark that ignited the gunpowder that was the MDP web. Then... BANG! The 2 sides that had been forming for some time and wanted to fight each other a great deal took advantage. Neither side is at fault for this. It just is. But the idea that the Fourth Great War was fought over BoTS is absurd.
-Bama
The Second Great War was caused by the conflict with Fark. However, the Maroon War a few weeks prior could have easily been the start of the war instead.
Likewise, the GGA-GOONS incident could have started this war. Or another incident. That it was BotS was a coincidence. This battle was inevitable.
EDIT: But of course, you're welcome
-
I am, much to my disappointment, still wearing pants.
-
I wanted to announce it
Congrats on peace!
-
I felt as though we were allies even without this. It's nice to have our friendship formalized after so long.
-
Or you could've taken the honorable route and been neutral. But breaking treaties works too.
Like Valhalla?
-
No, someone's tickled because NATO betrays us and then expects us to like them again. There's a difference, you know.
They had treaties on both sides of the batte. There was no betrayal.
-
Simply the only real winner in GW IV was GPA.
And that ends that thread....
Eventually, the top 5% of nations will all be GPA, so nuclear warfare may not be an issue in the future
-
What Pacifica did do was not follow its commitments as written in the World Unity Treaty, and that act was a betrayal of their long time allies GOONS.
By aiding GOONS, they would have been betraying their long time allies and sister alliance, the New Polar Order. The Ordinance of the Order is the oldest alliance in the game, and the strongest. They were treaty bound to help both sides. To address the inevitable counterargument "WUT Trumps Other Treaties," this is not the case. Read the Initiative treaty and find that clause for me.
Was it a fact that all the members of the World Unity Treaty, save the ones also in the Unjust Path, abandoned the WUT and withdrew instead of following the military clauses in the World Unity Treaty? Yes, it is, and to my knowledge noone has denied this fact.I cannot speak for the actions of the Order of the Paradox. However, the Maroon Defense Coalition, Multicolored Cross-X Alliance, and New Pacific Order all had ties to the New Polar Order and other ~ alliances through seperate treaties.
A lot of actions by certain alliances have left a bad taste in my mouth. Betrayal after betrayal. Some alliances no longer have any room to talk about honor, to talk about how they have never broken a treaty, for that is immediately false when looking at the actions by all sides during this war.There is no correct way to do this. The Order of the Paradox had treaties on both sides of this agreement, and they remained neutral, yet they are castigated for their actions. The MCXA, MDC, and NPO had treaties on both sides, and they are castigated for their actions. What is it you would have done in the situation?
-
Damnit, I hate this war.
I hope you're happy Polais. You killed the lulz.
lulz killers I would say we are generally pleased with the outcome of this war, yes.
-
To quote Akasha:
"Today is a good day"
-
Ironic apology coming from the person who ten minutes later said:
[@Sarafina] and I'll defend our right to call their meth loving aids !@#$%^ out.
Figures. My opinion of Sarafina had entirely changed, but I should have known better. Fool me twice, shame on me
Most UJP leaders (and even most GOONS leaders) would never have done such a thing. Nor would most ~ leaders. But it only took one bad egg, and a few idiots who condoned his actions. It could happen to any side in any war. Quit pretending your side was the knight-in-shining-armor and the UJP was the evil-ugly-3-headed-dragon. Neither side was either of those. My point here is that the UJP was not a bunch of bullies who attack people OOC. It was just one bad egg, and there are bad eggs in EVERY alliance.
"Unjust War" or "Great War Four"?
in Open World Forum
Posted
I don't think you've proven why this is Great War IV. I think you've proven why there will be no more "Great Wars." The nomenclature is tired, let it rest.