Icewolf

Translated into cynic speak, raiding micros and low grade unaligned is funny because you get the occaisional poor grammar rant about fairness that could be dismissed in a blaze of amusement. Now a raiding alliance has moved into the scope of being able to raid entire alliances at a level that might actually threaten those that used to quietly chuckle, they are scared. Raiding is uneconomical and a waste of resources. It has always been about fighting because you can. This is no different to that. There really is no moral ground in standing up for pax corvus and not standing up to the GOONS "Less than X nations is not a valid alliance" threat. Difference is that this scares lots of you. Ultimately this is about power. Most people are happy to hold power without exercising it. Be it because it is expensive to weild, be it because there are limits and they want to use what they have in the tank for other purposes, be it because they have a moral objection to abuse, or because they are not actually that powerful in reality and want to keep an illusion, most alliances don't use their power. DBDC have decided to in a certain way. Two options; 1) Do nothing-therefore this means they have total power 2) Do something-discover if they actually have total power. Selecting 1 because it then gives you the comfort of not having to find out about 2 is all very well, but it does mean that they have power over you.

Can't we just rely on the propoganda put out by the prevailing powers that be regarding the fighting capacity of various alliances, and wait several wars for those to die off when they realise the masters of war just happened to be on the lighter fronts and actually have the fighting capacity of an injured field mouse going up against the worlds biggest cat.

That Ponies will inflict more damage than NSO? Are you really certain that wouldn't happen? Commitment is also variable-an alliance is more likely to go to the death when fighting an attempt to disband them than fighting against an end of chain alliance in a conflict originating six treaties away from them over what a noob said about another noobs mother.

Well it also depends on how much NS the alliance has to lose in the first place. So if you take on an alliance with 1 million NS vs 10 million NS, even if there is an overwhelming net damage advantage to the smaller alliance and they deal out 2 million vs 800 000 NS damage, the 10 million alliance will still be stronger at the end of it, and could be considered to have won the war.

If he went to war with NpO who would do more damage? In fact, it probably understates his power because it doesn't take into account the lack of comparable nation factor. What might be needed for this thing to be more accurate is a measure of how much damage can be absorbed. Rather than just looking at how much damage an alliance can take, there needs to be an element of how much damage it can take before it loses effective fighting power. How to calculate that I am not sure.

The measure is of Net capacity to inflict damage, not gross capacity to inflict damage. If you take off the damage Imperium of Pony can recieve and compare it to the damage they would inflict, then they may well end up better off than other alliances. So in a war between the two, Imperium of Pony could well inflict more than 85K of damage on Nordreich, in which case in terms of net damage they would be ahead.

It measures capacity not fighting ability. They are two different things. If the commanders of Imperium of Pony were as effective as Nordreich then maybe they would do more damage. Or alternatively some of the glorious alliances of old have fallen on less able times. Time will tell.

As a measure of how much damage an alliance will give out and receive I think it works. The part that is missing however is the size of the alliance and the capacity to absorb damage. Large alliances vs a small alliance even if fighting ineffeiciently could lose 200K for every 100K inflicted on a sub 1 million alliance and still walk away the definite victors in a political sense. The other element that might be missing is the measure of the number of slots an alliance have-DBDC may have awesome fighting potential but only posses 60 attacking slots. IRON on the other hand has over 10000 attacking slots. DBDC can weild hellish damage, but on a limited part of the battlefield, whereas IRON can deliever merely fairly hefty damage to a wide part of the field.

yeah but isn't there a 0.25 cap in this game? therefore effectively tomorrow's growth won't count for us. Not that it really matters...IRON still reached the final whilst being unaware it was playing.

Are there any of the truly old alliances (so back to 2006 etc) that do not have any original members?

I thought it was more to do with the fact that training yourself to always let the anger out rather than "bottle it up" is a bad idea as it trains you not to control your anger. So if your punching bag is a way of letting anger out then it can be a bad thing as you associate fists with dealing with anger. On the other hand, exercise is generally good for peoples mental well being and releases endorphins making you happy, so if exercise is a way to extinguish the anger that is good. I definitely know that I was in a less good frame of mind when I injured myself and had to drive to work as I lost the 25 minutes of exercise on the way to work that helped relax me for the day ahead.

I hearby do declare that I somewhat approve of this treaty.

Recently I have been noticing that a great many of my acquaintances seem to spend a lot of time being angry. Angry at politics. Angry at bad drivers. Angry at their jobs. Angry with themselves. In the more extreme versions I know some people who seem to just never stop being angry to the point that it sucks the joy out of their life. People who quite literally hate their jobs (understandably so generally) and then spend hours and hours telling everyone so. And I will admit there was a point in my life a while ago when I spent a great deal of time being angry. And eventually I stopped-mostly because my life got better but also because I was able to remove many of the anger causing influences from it. But around me a great many people seem to spend a lot of time being very angry. Angry at politicians. Anger at drivers who nearly knock them off their bike. Anger at customers that treat them badly. Anger at the fact they are unemployed, anger at the great overriding system that leaves them unemployed. Anger at the Governments welfare reforms etc. I am sure we have all seen a great many of us have felt this anger and watched friends fall victim to it. Not only am I glad that I have managed to avoid these feelings, I have realised something else about this. This anger is incredibly self-centred and arrogant. Whilst at the same time being pointless and destructive. Take a person who works in a dead end service job with awful customers. They may well spend a great deal of time being angry about their job. They may feel a sense of righteousness and express that through their anger. They may well feel that the world is unfair. However, what actually does it achieve and change? If a customer !@#$%*ed them out for putting insufficient pickles on a sandwich, there are two possibilities. Either that customer is a bad person and genuinely doesn't care how you feel, in which case your anger won't hurt them, or they snapped at a bad moment and now feel bad, in which case your anger doesn't make them feel any better or worse. Your boss treats you badly...do they care you are angry? Do they care you hate your job? Will their treatment change because you are angry? The arrogance is that you believe how you feel changes the world. t doesn't. The world does not care how a person feels. It changes nothing. The self-destructiveness is that you make yourself hurt, and more importantly, the few that do care about you will also hurt as you project that anger onto those around you. The boss that screws you over doesn't care you are angry. The friends and family around you do are and they are the ones that you hurt. Harsh as it is, how you feel and think does not change the world one iota. How you act does. And acting angry generally does not change the world for the better. If you hate your job, bringing the hate home won't make it better. Hanging it by the door and finding something to find joy in, and doing something positive will. Hate how society treats the unfortunate? Rather than ranting at home all night (as I have witnessed people do) go out and make their lives better! I guess what I really want to say is that you cannot will the world into a better place. So stop making yourself miserable trying, and do something to make it better.

o/IRON o/DBDC Also a o/ to the rest of the world whilst there is still enough of it standing to be hailed.

Not so sure...does it really count as winning if your opponent shoots themselves whilst trying to put on their underwear?

From what I can gather tywins claim to fame is that six years ago he lead an alliance to crushing defeat...and people are questioning if he even had much influence over that. Hardly seems a massive moment of glory.

One point of argument is to test your ideas against someone. If you cannot defend your ideas you need to think again. The need to think again does not automatically mean accepting your opponents point of view-if you are arguing an orange is green against someone who insists it is blue, the fact they have demonstrated it is not green does not mean accepting it is blue. The key to see if you have been successful in getting someone to rethink their ideas is in the next argument they may well come back with a moderated position or a different stance-those are the changes that you can actually see-people never admit they are wrong upfront. This is often one of the hardest things to manage in a workplace-creating an environment where someone can produce an idea, have it challenged, and then accept that it is wrong and not be thought less off or be resentful that it was wrong. And on the flipside people need to feel they can raise challenges, and even if that challenge is overcome and the idea wins out they are not looked down on for having raised that challenge.

yes, it is. I get the same bug.

Even at 14, I knew that insulting people didn't convince them.

I used an Edwin Jagger twinblade. Much much smoother than a disposable, and the razor blades are about 20p rather than the £1 each for a disposable razor head. It also looks much nicer as its made of steel rather than plastic and rubber. http://www.shaving-shack.com/edwin-jagger-double-edge-razor-de89l_plus-5-derby-de-blades.html?gclid=CKiHjMzD37wCFcuWtAodokoAEg

We may be hopelessly outnumbered, out maneuvered, out led and out gunned, but we still have our freedom have been the rallying cry of precisely 0 successful revolutions.

I hereby summon you to appear before the International Criminal Court for wanton and reckless use of comic sans on a civilian population. May you get 20 years scumbag.

Chews on Shows? Anarchy in the English Language!

This treaty makes me happy

Have you considered setting up a consultancy on how to make trash talkers look silly?