Monster
-
Posts
5,003 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Monster
-
-
18 minutes ago, Alex0827a said:
So then why's Umbrella attacking AGW?
Seriously, I laughed more than I probably should have. Thanks for the chuckle
We were directly triggered by the declaration and since we were asked to help, it was binding. It would have been preferable to reach a diplomatic settlement but AGW went ahead and declared. That's their right and I can respect them standing up for themselves, but our hand has been forced.
-
1 minute ago, Gibsonator21 said:
Like Berbers said, you allied people who knowingly wanted MI6. And TOP. I don't recall any effort to show they didn't want to come at MI6. Maybe it did happen and it just never got through Chim to the membership /shrug. From the membership perspective before all that went down, we'd have chosen Umb over any of our allies at that point because of our similarities and activity.
MI6 grew at a ridiculous rate. An easy war + 8 months of growth certainly wouldn't have equaled us to you guys, but it would've put us as a top 6 or 7 AA in score, and probably only behind IRON, GPA, NPO, and you guys for tech. We were a tough matchup for big AA's when we were mid tier, like you said. Would've been a nightmare if we gained traction more stats. Not like this line of conversation matters anymore though lol
Well, AZTEC directly made efforts to talk to MI6/TOP and convey it. in MI6's instance there was at least one time, it was Bob from DT and it was mediated by TSK's King, David. Here's the thing, the way you've always seen it is Umb is treacherous and will sell anyone out, but there are degrees between unconditional support and betrayal. There were a lot of things MI6 did that caused AZTEC to get their backs up but they weren't anti-MI6 to start with.
Yeah I'm not disagreeing MI6 wasn't insanely active because you're mostly the active cores from other alliances/ex-govs/etc. It was a pretty interesting experiment and we signed MI6 because it had a lot of potential. It would have been tough to fight MI6 at higher levels, but the growth for many especially when many were still staying as tech farms wouldn't have been enough for numbers not to prevail.
-
7 hours ago, Avakael said:
I assume stagger means if MI6 had been able to grow to be a statistical match for Umbrella. In which case, a victory for Umbrella would have been a difficult proposition indeed.
It was Gibsonator and it's stupid. Might as well talk about Monsters Inc or Invicta growing to be a statistical match for Umbrella. It wasn't going to happen. The point though is, it's moronic to openly talk about going after an alliance you share allies in common with when they are in more of a position to go after you. How you handled yourselves after the cancellation made it very easy to justify going after you. In fact, this kind of bravado shows why you were poor losers and probably would have been poor winners too. Well I already know how you are when you win, so it's not really a mystery.
5 hours ago, berbers said:Just doing a drive by, if you honestly thought AZTEC didn't want a piece of TOP/Mi6 or that they were not going to support NG/IRON when the war started, you are nuts.
We all knew what the next war was going to be and you knew quite well what you were doing when you signed all of AZTEC and dropped Mi6.
To say otherwise is disingenious.
Edit: actually, iirc, Doom specifically stated the war wasn't about burning TOP but some AZTEC AA's had their own ideas and burned TOP pretty damn good, so yeah, you side switched spectacularly.
Given this kind of thinking has been openly contradicted by AZTEC officials and as far as I can recall no AZTEC AA officially hit TOP, you are wrong. You have no idea how much differently things could have turned out.
Maybe you had your hopes for what the war would be, but at the time we signed DT/AB, most who were anti-TOP saw it as a pro-TOP move and were disappointed. The situation ended up deadlocking for quite a while even after some screw ups by Sparta/MI6/TOP.
Like I said, I don't think any AZTEC AAs officially hit TOP. There were some alliances with grievances with TOP and there was a desire on others' parts to get it over with so we wouldn't get a rehash and it worked out that way.
-
40 minutes ago, Gibsonator21 said:
Most of MI6 had its eyes covered by Chim. MI6 membership had its own idea, Chim did his, and he had the power at the time.. That, along with your other allies' posturing led to that pov from us (along with various logs, and other !@#$ going on that I don't feel like trying to remember) that you were playing both sides and picked NG/Sengoku/IRON because they had more stats. Not to mention your history of picking the winning side.
fwiw, MI6 pound for pound would've slaughtered Umb. Luckily for you it never got to reach that point. One more winning/easy war and it probably would have. Probably another reason for that pov!
Given there were attempts to show MI6 our other allies didn't really want to fight MI6/TOP, it shouldn't have been too hard to believe that we had no interest in having our allies rolled. Typically, we pick the side where we have the most treaties but we were really standing in the way of a war happening out of a sense of duty for the longest time. If you assume the worst, sometimes you will make it come true. Besides had you played your hand differently, it could have just been eating one global war loss instead of three like in TOP's case.
Um, MI6 was solidly mid tier and a decent chunk of you were just converted tech farms. It was never a sensible match-up, which is why you guys talking about coming after us was stupid after we dropped you and after taking a hit in the Kaskus war and just gave ammo to the "roll MI6" sentiment. It also made it easy for our mutual allies to drop you. Thanks for the bravado, though. There is a reason almost every other alliance except MI6 in your coalition was able to make FA progress.
-
3 hours ago, IYIyTh said:
I mean we literally burned for an alliance that we found out a few months later was actively plotting to roll us. I'm not sure how we didn't get screwed. Just because reality sucks doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Nope. You didn't burn for anyone but yourselves. Don't try to put your beef with Kaskus on us. Had you escalated just to spite us, it wouldn't have done much for you. Us not wanting the war you're referring to stalled it for the longest time. It's hardly actively plotting for months when it only ends up happening when it does because you made cancelling the best option.
You were warned about the consequences of your posturing and you continued to do it. You alienated the only pro-MI6 people we had including me and MrHiott. The distrust was palpable and you continued to double down on your scheming. Then the way you acted during the Kaskus war pushed it over the edge despite us having reason to cancel before. You were given too many chances. Anything between us after we dropped MI6 was in part a consequence of you taking the stance of "we'lll obliterate Umb." We don't take those things lightly. The problem is the other alliances who were in your position realized where they went wrong, but you always thought of yourselves as martyrs.
-
The eclipse happened and the clause has been fulfilled.
While it's sad to see Sengoku end, I am very happy to have these stellar people on board with us.
-
1 hour ago, Emperor Whimsical said:
I'm older than all of you and while NpO is my ally that I like and respect deeply, I was around for both PB-NpO, NoCB, and Grudge. To deny history is to deny reality, and polaris has used peace mode to great effect during all of those conflicts. My larger point was that peace mode has literally always been used as a tactic and people who deride it are nearly always the bigger side. There are a plethora of reasons to dislike MI6, but "hurr peace mode" is not one of them.
That's about all I have for this topic, let me know when there's a ceasefire. Toodles.
Uh, I really don't remember that aside from NoCB where there were some in peace mode, which resulted in terms being on them, but that was 8 years ago at this point. They didn't really a lot of use peace mode in the other ones, which distinguished them from other alliances.
-
9 minutes ago, Chunky Monkey said:
You know things are bad when even the most stable of alliances is on its third leader in less than 6 months. May your reign last until the lights go out.
To be fair, Letum served for well over a year until he faced the same kind of issues Frawley is facing now.
Congratulations to Frawley, condolences to Lord of Darkness.
-
2 hours ago, Blackatron said:
All these things are problems regardless:
The Shortage of sellers exists as long as the number of new nations is shrinking, regardless of the rate.
The Gap between alliances will grow anyway. If TTK were to switch to 6/200 and 9/300 deals today it would make very little difference in helping us keep up with, for example, NPO. They have the number of active people and the organisation to deliver 6 slots of free tech to dozens of their fighting nations, the majority of alliances can't come close to matching that.
Honestly I don't know that I agree that lower tech rates decrease the rate at which nations go from sellers to buyers, I don't believe that a sensible ruler should be going from buying to selling until they have essentially all of the wonders they can acquire as sellers, which takes a couple of years without donations. A lower tech rate can increase the time taken for a nation to get to a sufficient infra level to get the wonder clock moving, but ultimately that can only add another couple of months to the time taken if they are determined, all it does is slow the early growth and potentially mean players are lost in the boring part.
The rate compounds the problem severely. The seller shortage isn't really there if you're particularly active but even an active person can't grow much with the 6m/100 movement taking hold.
Basically, the resignation like you cited in the post "oh we can't keep up with free tech anyway, so let's just give up on trying to be efficient altogether and do 6m/100" is the reason why people are why they're at and they started it a lot earlier on with 3m/50 before the system change and continued it after, which is why the gap exists. You don't need to be competing with NPO directly because simply having more tech is good because more tech = more damage. A formidable group of nations that are putting effort into importation can have an impact in other NS ranges or they could bring bigger ones down. Giving up on tech importation being serious more or less with 9m/100 rates or whatever just is permanent resignation to not getting anywhere .
They typically do if the person is aiming to become a buyer in the first place. There was a guy who did 6m/100 and then he found people who were willing to do 9m/100 and refused all other kinds of tech deals and it didn't take long for him to get 6k infra. The idea that people should buy all the wonders they can before becoming a buyer just means they'll be stunted when they graduate to buying. It's way too long of a period to wait. Only reason would be to stay permanently low tier because they know the tech buying rates will be bad, which is happening as many people will have a hard time reaching a decent amount of NS with slow tech accumulation. w
-
14 minutes ago, Edward Graceford said:
I've always had strong reservations about the rationale that sellers should accept deals that favour the buyers, out of the notion that once (or rather, if) they become buyers themselves, they'll reap the rewards then. How many get that far? Some will, certainly but not everyone does. Some can see it as a little pie in the sky, that little utopia they strive for but always seems so far away.
On that rationale, the seller must become a buyer. More precisely, sellers develop and grow their nation until they reach the tipping point where they become the buyer, and carry on after breaching that barrier. In that view, the ideal is for all nations to eventually become buyers. And that is also the problem. With less and less new nations arising, "natural sellers" (those selling on their journey to grow) become more scarce. As an increasingly scarce resource, there is pressure to commandeer those sellers for an alliance's own purposes. Wars have been threatened, even declared over access to this resource.
The perpetual sellers offer an alternative. They keep low, they keep selling. The tech will continue to flow. But at the same time those who choose to stay there make that conscious decision and thus have a negotiating position. Buyers perhaps are more wary because perpetual sellers are more likely to know their own value and how sought after they are. Thats partly why they try to command better rates.
My belief is that those who are buying shouldn't be the only ones able to dictate terms.
Of course, other views and rationales are available and all that. Personally, as well as the wonderful people, I love SNX because the tech program is one where I feel more than just a tech drone, producing and producing for a comparative pittance.
Just throwing my two penny's worth out there.
If they want to get that far, they can. I wouldn't see much of a point to playing if you're not aiming for some long-term nation goals or giving stuff to other alliance mebers. There are fast ways to become a buyer if you can prove your reliability.
There are still new nations being made currently and several major alliances had fairly high recruiting months earlier in the year. The contraction in population would be far steeper if there weren't a decent amount being made still.
Perpetual sellers don't really need the money from tech sales as Blackatron brought up if they have sufficient infrastructure(which selling for a long time would get you the money for) as they would be making most of their money from collections. The point of being a perpetual seller could only conceivably to help the buyers in your alliance or your allies if that. The effect of the current system of 6m/100 rates is it just reduces the number of competitive alliances since no one doing 6m/100 will be able to compete with someone getting it for free or for 9m/300.
-
53 minutes ago, Blackatron said:
For new nations rates of less than 6/100 are rather unfair, slowing their (already slow) early growth considerably, when tech deals are their main source of income.
For somewhat established nations with some wonders and at 3k+ infra it shouldn't really matter, the majority of their income is what they collect in taxes, they should be able to afford to give tech away for free if they really want to.
Of course starting off with a higher rate then changing to a lower rate isn't likely something many would be particularly happy.
To put figures on it 6/100 deal offers ~2.2 million profit per slot per ten days, 6/200 deal offers ~1 million profit per slot per 10 days.
It's not really entirely about the money and growth isn't necessarily good if you end up becoming a buyer and needing to spend money you should be using on your warchest/wonders on 6/100 or 9m/100 tech deals. The point though is the time, 6m/100 deals are inefficient for the buyer as they have to restart them every 20 days instead of 30. Even though there a lot of low tier alliances that push 6m/100, alliances with plenty of internal sellers still do them at 6m/200 and 9m/300 rates or supply their nations for free. All the 6m/100 campaigning does is only make the gap bigger between alliances that have free tech set-ups or 6m/200 internal rates and those that don't. It also means sellers will grow out of selling range faster and have less people to buy from. Of course, the trend is that a lot of people aren't using tech deals as a way to become buyers themselves, but rather just staying sellers and low tier permanently. This creates a problem for anyone who is a buyer and anyone who wants to become one as they are more or less forced to play ball within this 6m/100 system. Long-term, a seller will benefit from better rates when they become a buyer rather than better rates when they are a seller.
Yeah, if someone is staying small perpetually, the rate shouldn't matter or they should be giving it away.
-
50 minutes ago, Duke Nukem said:
When have I gone after Pacifica in back channels, Roq?
I make no bones about it, I don't like Pacifica. However, tell me this, if someone treats you very badly for a number of years, would you also not harbor some resentment?
I'm referring to your issues with me which crossed both sides and attempts to go after me based on stuff from here.
43 minutes ago, Partisan said:Actually, I was the one dealing with W's grudge against you. It had in every way to do with events that apparently transpired over there. But that doesn't really fit your supposed CB now, does it?
I wasn't really involved anywhere but Bob and WANA attempted to go after me over Bob issues in backchannels when I became active elsewhere. As soon as he became gov in MI6, it would add to any other issues.
Besides, it's only one of the reasons we have to perceive MI6 gov as hostile and going after MI6 was considered in late March and April before anything you, Partisan, did because we had a reason.
If you guys are really pretending that alliances didn't have issues with MI6 here before late April/May, it's a joke. Additionally, there were several reports of attempts to recruit a member(s) to MI6. There appears to exist a perception that any former MI6 member is fair game, which continued up to NG/Polar's DoW last night. The last ditch efforts to get people to defect were just icing on the cake.
-
4 hours ago, Duke Nukem said:
Also, with this comment, you essentially admit you don't give a $%&@ about crossing the boundaryNope. If you go after someone in backchannels over issues you had with them here, they're going to be issues here.
-
edit: posted in wrong topic.
-
2 hours ago, Blackatron said:
So no one has actually even bothered to come up with a CB?
There are a number of different reasons we could use. At the end of the day, it boils down to there still being bad blood and hostility, but I'll go through some of them.
1. Chimaera pretty much denounced the agreement from the last war and said MI6 wasn't at fault for it at all and hadn't been antagonistic.
2. Even up to the dec tonight, he'd been trying to poach members from various alliances, which was funny.
3. They have WANA as gov and WANA has been hostile across realms and unafraid to cross boundaries.
4. There have been reports Chim was agitating for people to get involved against Oculus in some of the smaller conflicts preceding this one. This is a more speculative one.
5. Other alliances have individual issues between them and MI6 increasing participation in the conflict.
We simply don't need anything to happen outside of Planet Bob to hit MI6 as there is a history of negative relations and this has been under discussion as a potential thing for months.
-
Who even likes Steve?
But seriously if you have someone asking people in other alliance to join theirs' and it gets back to leadership, they're going to take action eventually and other convos where people are asked to hit certain alliances get back to those alliances, it's also going to inspire action. If you guys are threatening counter-moves in another world, that'll be entirely on you especially when it'll impact members of yours that aren't associated with you there.
Just now, Wayfarer said:The first?
(ODN-NPO, Fark/ GOONS.... others?)
Yeah, there were some similar allusions during the first FAN war e.g. Archon posting the LUEnar declaration on FAN.http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=73646
-
The "for Steve" thing is a joke. I'd have been more careful about what I talk about in convos with people outside of your alliance especially when trying to shed the "poaching" rep.
-
Sad for this to happen, but it's unavoidable. Wish you guys the best of luck here and elsewhere.
-
Good luck zoskia. Well handled by LC and PPO. For future situations: keep in mind you can get a nation sitter which I think would be less bothersome than having to spend time on negotiation correspondence to get an individual peace.
-
9m/100 is a CB anyway.
-
My total land was 948.834 mile diameter due to the negative modifier from senate proposal.
In the past I was fighting against someone who had more then 1k land in growth, but less then 1k land total due to the negative modifier (from random event I suppose) and I was not able to blockade him or activate a battle support against him due to him not having at least 1k land total.
Additionally, a battle support is being used against me as well, while I have less than 1k total land:
The damage to technology is 13% higher then it should be with 19870 tech and WRC (he has no Forward Operating Bases). Which coincides with nikko being able to have 13 landing ships at his infra level.
It must not adjust it for team proposals when the naval attack calcs are taken into consideration, so that actually might need to be changed in the code to make team proposals and nation events consistent if that's happened on your own attempts against similar nations.
-
You still have 1,264.904 in growth
-
Looking at the in-game DoWs, I see it starting with DoWs on them. Also their history shows no offensive wars.
DoorNail and StoopidAce ghosted Kaskus and those are the TIR members to which Auctor is referring.
-
Why does TIR seem to be getting attacked & did this really start from NEW getting hit by NPO yesterday?
Seems this war is expanding in sneaky ways.
Auctor explained it and no, NEW has been planning to come in for a while and they revived a lot of dead nation rulers starting on the 18th and a second wave came on the 20th. The 27th was the first day both of the major waves would be able to declare. Given the attacks on Sengoku by NEW within a little more than an hour of the Kaskus nation(Gallery) getting hit and mobilization that took place on the 26/27th, I don't think it's hard to tell what was going on.
An Announcement of Open Season from TOP
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
This is what really counts. Seriously.