Rush Sykes
-
Posts
3,329 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Rush Sykes
-
-
I've been making rounds (or getting/letting/slacking until Cent or Sal do it) telling allies whenever we even get the idea of signing a treaty with somebody. My little birds tell me this isn't exactly a unique practice, even if there are clear holes throughout CN.
I think the problem is more evident with cancellations. People rarely cut ties on "good terms" anymore, if they ever did. Treaties don't fall until there is not a single hook left to hang it on. So when cancellation comes around, the one or both of the alliances probably (1) dislike the other, possibly intensely and/or (2) calculate that the other will be on the opposite side of a foreseeable conflict. The former provides an emotional motivation to be curt and cut with little heads up. The latter provides a pragmatic reason: you don't want to give a potential enemy any additional time to react or control a situation.
I have been lucky to not have to cancel any treaties in recent history (excepting CTI and CE, which were already clearly defunct), so I can't provide detailed guidance on how to properly move forward with divergence. I can say that the trend of surprise nullification and misleading or false justifications provided (cancelling over A when in fact you're preparing for war B) provides for very dangerous and powerful resentment that people underestimate and which can lock up global affairs for a very long time. If nothing else: don't send deputies to do it, don't go public before you've informed in private, and be honest in your reasoning. The last may well prove surprisingly helpful and the other party you're looking to cut may give you a view you hadn't considered.
It's interesting that you think its mostly related to cancellations, because in my talks around the game, it has been far less in cancellations, and more in the pursuit of new relationships. Treaties just being thrown down at the last minute. The thing is... there are a few alliances (TOP may be one) that are exceptions. There may even be alot that are exceptions, but there are clear and prominent guilt examples of this in each sphere in the game. It is disheartening for me because I cut my teeth on FA, and this would have been 100% unacceptable back in those days. It does not bode well for the future of the game, IMO.
-
We all became friends. There's less pressure to do things properly.
It shouldnt be about pressure though. If we are all friends, then there should be a modicum of respect for that friendship to NOT leave people out of the loop. It just seems very lazy, all the way across the game.
-
Probably because there's no such thing as a private convo anymore with all of you putting OOC friendship first and breathlessly gushing every little morsel you come across hoping to be the news breaker/info broker/popular. If I were in your neck of the web, I wouldn't tell any one of you my dinner plans much less my FA plans.
The creepy thing is, you may be right. So does this mean the days of meaningful discussion between allies is totally over? It sure does seem so. The picking of allies seems to be less and less pragmatic and more and more about convenience.
-
Lately it seems as though development on TE has transferred into more apathy for SE. Look like decent additions... too bad the largest base of your players will never experience them.
-
Great, thanks for that.
This is even better than an admission of defeat.
-
In fact Einstein, I did the work for you. Lets start with 40K and below, whom we have not yet sent to fight. These nations in no way can be accused of being "hidden",. They are sticking to our tier strategy, but even COUNTING them, we have 43 nations that have been in PM the entire war (that would leave 73 who have not been)... when you take into account only those above 40K can even possibly be considered nations to be "hidden" in Peace Mode... That leaves us with these whopping numbers.....
13 Nations "hidden" in peace mode. (out of 116)
863,343 NS "hidden" in peace mode. (out of pre-war total NS of 6.2 million)
That means we have "hidden" a whopping 11% of our nations, and a "whopping" 13.9% of our total NS. You can do alot of things. You can yuck it up and celebrate being beholden unto Duckroll and NPO ... you can continue being cocky that your coattail riding will finally land you on the winning side... you can continue making pathetic attempts like this of propaganda thinking that anyone in TLR or anyone else in C&G gives a toss what you think.... but what you cannot do.... EVER... is draw comparisons and conclusions of Spartan cowardice in contrast with ANYONE else. Your alliance was crap in the past. Your alliance is crap today. Your alliance will be crap tomorrow. My alliance are fighters, and we are more than willing to go down fighting with a smile on our face just for the mere principle of not having to be within 3 or 4 chains of complete crap like Sparta in the future.
-
I'll tell you what Sparky, you go check out peace mode stats, and you will find that nearly all of them are there because you geniuses fighting us LET them escape to there. you will find VERY few of our nations who spent the entire war in PM. As evidenced by the fact that we have dropped nearly 50% of our NS. Can you Spartans say the same? Before you answer that, know that I have the spreadsheets from the last 2 wars right in front of me.
-
I am sad that I just stumbled across this today. This is an exceptional read. Who in their mind would NOT take FA advice from a Spartan? Amirite. To be honest, at this point, my single biggest pet peeve with Umbrella has 0 to do with this war, it is their protection of the Spartan !@#$sphere 2 wars back. The end of that war should have seen terms for Sparta that included a peace mode exit for war, but those !@#$%* Umbrellans allies of Sparta's would not allow that. Terribad allies.
-
if you really care about this topic... and have not seen the Star Trek TNG episode about whether or not Data is a machine or a sentient being... watch it.. you would find it interesting in light of this post.
-
Nobody wants a UN. Thats a ridiculous premise.
-
They've actually publicly distanced themselves at least once now. I'm keeping count.
Publicly distanced themselves from me? Where? By pointing out that I am just a member speaking my mind?(something I have done myself a dozen times now, but its ok, ignore that)... that is called being honest. I know honesty is something that 95% of the drones who dwell on this forum are allergic too, but surely are not this daft?
-
ITB; Rush tries to explain why he has no backbone and shows how big his imagination is by impying AI is out to get them.
Are you literally on crack? AI is out to get me? Show me where I said that. Your logical leaps are INCREDIBLE. I almost cannot believe you actually typed this.
-
TLR must be real thankful rush doesn't represent them anymore.
You seem to be allergic to truth.
-
So no real reply. Gotcha.Good grief Gibs, 3 more posts like that, and you will become a damage to the "cause"... tread lightly sir.You agreed with me.. What reply was needed? I was just pointing out that agreeing with me, is contrary to the "cause"(whatever that is).. that so many people have begun speaking of.
-
So you supported the MK pre-empt on CSN because you still hated CSN. That pre-empt had nothing to do with DH getting rolled by DR had you decided to hit Nordriech? That's some nice spin there, but you couldn't pay me to buy that. Downplay the lapdog calls all you want. CnG is merely pawns in the biggest lapdog ring CN has to offer right now. You can be happy CnG isn't as big of lapdogs as umbrella, but let's be real, that's not saying much.
You're pretty much a moron. We had been planning that hit on SF for literally months. You can choose to, or not to, believe that. You can either accept the truth, or bathe in ignorance, either way, Im ok with it. And to answer your question, yes, we still hated CSN. Yes we hate GOD. We were all pretty MEH on R&R (save INT), but in war, business is business.
-
Yeah, you're pretty much right. It just makes for a nice line from both sides. Same as the one MK pushed that CSN is/was a GOD lapdog. Some people have that "it" factor. MK has had plenty of guys in leadership with it. Xiph has/had it. NPO's guys had it back in the day (or so I hear). Those guys will be seen as leaders, while most other alliances will just be seen as followers. But hey, some want to just be followers.
Good grief Gibs, 3 more posts like that, and you will become a damage to the "cause"... tread lightly sir.
-
oh lol this @_@actually we had been flirting with r&r for a -long- time and never published a treaty cause we were slow with sigs >_<i think we had treaty talks during/after bi polar cause we didnt like missing the action D:seems like your just looking for excuses to justify your emotional investment in the game XPwhy would you need a treaty to defend your friends if you wanted to do so?oh and just fyi there were attacks after it was published on the owfseekrit treatys should be a thing
and lsf nor stuff i dont really care about.....
i lol'edas they had no legitimate in.
rawr
Ironically, Im ok with secret treaties. But activation of an ODP.. without the D... is funny to me. At the end of the day, I didnt give 2 craps about UINE or AiD... I just found the whole situation to be massively amusing.
-
Not overly shocking, but I felt like R&R's hit on UINE was complete and utter BS, as they had no legitimate in. It really was one of the things I found most laughable in CN history. UINE and AiD have an issue (at this time, AiD have no tie to R&R at all, none)... things happen, an agreement is made between UINE and AiD to a resolution. In the meantime, AiD signs an ODP with R&R. UINE renegs (or has ridiculous numbers of delays in living up to their end of the bargain).... and magically, R&R hit UINE through an ODP with AiD. Someone show me where UINE hit AiD? I dont see it. Its funny in contrast with the LSF-NoR nonsense. UINE renegs on an agreement that was made BEFORE any AiD-R&R treaty existed. R&R then activates optional defense (lol) to roll UINE. And the people on R&Rs side view this as a great thing to do. When INT gov (the full gov, after hearing cases from both sides), decide that LSF aiding rogues, then basically telling NoR to eff off, constitutes LSF aggression, thereby making support optional, they get roundly trolled. Lesson: retroactive ODPs(without even an attack happening, unless you want to dive DEEP into the ocean of hypocrisy and say that UINE reneging on a deal counts as an attack...LMAO) > oA's.
Oh CN, How I love you.
-
The IC-OOC line that's so blurred needs to be a lot sharper. It's fine that people have made OOC friends in the game, but the blur needs to be removed. It's certainly possible to dislike people IC and like them OOC, or vice versa. In my opinion (I may be totally wrong) wars really aren't all that interesting after the third cycle or so. Yes, alliances that continuously smack down smaller less-connected alliances (or scaled up, the larger coalition that keeps smacking down the increasingly smaller coalition) are a blight on how fun the game can be, because wars end up being tedious instead of interesting. I think that we're pretty much all in agreement that the big thing that makes this game entertaining is the war aspect, but it's really only a lot of fun when alliances have something more at stake, such as differing political ideologies or a longstanding rivalry, instead of just warring for the hell of it.
What exactly would an alliance do that would...So. I repeat my question, what can an alliance do to "make things interesting."If people actually played CN like a political simulator it would more fun. Unfortunately we do have huge groups of people who would rather tell each other to $%&amp;@ off than actually do anything interesting...That answer does not address the point you made of what can be done "to make things more interesting" within the political simulator. All I see is "end wars sooner," which is nothing "NEW" and could be achieved nearly every war if alliances on the losing side would a) stay out of Peace Mode and b) not refuse to use words like "surrender." The onus of that lies with the defeated party.
-
If people actually played CN like a political simulator it would more fun. Unfortunately we do have huge groups of people who would rather tell each other to $%&@ off than actually do anything interesting...
What exactly would an alliance do that would "make things interesting." Its a no-win situation at the alliance level. If you pursue relationships with alliances whos interest align with yours, but are not the loudest voice in the group, you are a lap dog. If you pursue and sign new treaties with people who are shifting around to your way of thinking, you are "destroying the game by adding to the treaty web mess!" and the alliance you are signing with are "cowards because they are changing sides." The problem is not, IMO , that we dont play the game as a political simulator, its the there are massive mechanical limitations to the game of the political simulation, and because we are all OOC entities, we all blur the IC-OOC line to suit our own whims. This too detracts from the ability to simulate politics. If Nation A of alliance XYZ is at war with Nation B of alliance 123, and nation A has 25 nukes and nation B has no nukes, not only do we cheer on nation A for nuking (which I am ok with), we reward him for it, and we seek out nations B's to nuke. And we do this at the individual nation level while arguing at the alliance level, which alliance entity is most close to satan for their disgusting war of aggression. Its innately hypocritical, but it is the game we are left with. So. I repeat my question, what can an alliance do to "make things interesting."
-
Wait...You couldn't care less about people playing IC, but you explain what should or not be "part of the IC reality of Bob". Why should we take your angle on role-playing as superior? People can legitimately associate "class" and "honour" to whatever they please.Celebrating war, combat and even (what for us modern people are) atrocities, at the same time condemning disloyalty, isn't intrinsically incoherent: during the history of humankind there have been countless RL groups and cultures that practised atrocities and praised loyalty. Atrocities are also often committed without the public being really informed/concerned.Just think of terrorists and Nazis. Or consider that attacks that were bound to kill civilians have been justified/rationalized (and even cheered) even in modern democracies (WWII - or all recent conflicts, for that matter).OOC originated "class" and "honour" aren't arbitrary either: it's just that a game's "make believe" can't be completely invented from scratch, and people pick or discard RL concepts as they see fit for their own amusement. This is "as it should be because it's a game".
My point is not about people playing IC. I could care less. My point is the arbitrary use of "classy" and "honorable" because they represent a clear permeation of OOC morality over in-game realities. There is no "classy" and "honorable" in war, especially within the game. Senseless slaughter is (as it should be because its a game), a part of the IC reality of Bob. The very way war is fought is indicative of that. Wars are not fought to defend. The game offers no strategy mechanisms for a defensive war. Wars are fought to damage your enemy as much as possible even when you are the "defender" There is NEVER... in any situation, honor and class in simple destruction.Rush, if we play IC, why can't we imagine that IC mentality/values are just different from the RL ones? CN isn't much realistic, after all.There is a reason RL correlations to CN fail 100% of the time. I will let you reflect on the why's and why not's of that.
-
Rush, if we play IC, why can't we imagine that IC mentality/values are just different from the RL ones? CN isn't much realistic, after all.
My point is not about people playing IC. I could care less. My point is the arbitrary use of "classy" and "honorable" because they represent a clear permeation of OOC morality over in-game realities. There is no "classy" and "honorable" in war, especially within the game. Senseless slaughter is (as it should be because its a game), a part of the IC reality of Bob. The very way war is fought is indicative of that. Wars are not fought to defend. The game offers no strategy mechanisms for a defensive war. Wars are fought to damage your enemy as much as possible even when you are the "defender" There is NEVER... in any situation, honor and class in simple destruction.
-
So if this was a war movie, honor would suddenly not exist because it's a movie? Why shouldn't it exist in a game? Honor doesn't exist in chess on hockey, in those games the term 'sportsmanship' applies. But it definitely exists in any game that tries to mirror politics, whether single player or multiplayer. If you fail to follow up a treaty in Europa Universalis to kill people for your allies, you're automatically considered dishonorable. Why should it be any different in CN? Throughout history, killing people and sacrificing yourself for a just cause has always been an honorable act.
Its like you missed the whole point. If you want to claim classy or honorable, then do so in EVERY facet in the IC portion of the game. Call out your allies when they fail to punish a member nation who nukes a nation that has no nukes, or has not nuked 1st. My references are all to the use of the word in the IN CHARACTER sections of the game. Maybe you have a difficult time separating the 2. But IN CHARACTER, if you can turn the other cheek while your alliance, or an ally has someone who would commit such an atrocity , and you fail to be outraged over it, then you cant exactly be outraged over ANYTHING. That you can ignore this in an IN CHARACTER section is a clear example of allowing the OOC sense of morality permeate the game.
-
Quality blog right here. Those GATO thugs are pretenders, and the whole world needs to know this. Thank you Roquentin Jr.
and lsf nor stuff i dont really care about.....
rawr
When did FA become so lazy in this game?
in Rush Sykes' Blog
A blog by Rush Sykes in General
Posted
Haha, welcome back old friend. Also, you would be right if it was just us, but if you read carefully.. its all over the game.