Jump to content

Xiphosis

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,611

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Xiphosis

  1. Kubla Khan

    Posted

    In addition based on the spy reports and the use of foreign aid slots it became clear that several 40k+ nations had exceedingly poor WCs and though many GOD nations could have supported a long term campaign. 1/3rd to 1/2 would need to be recieving some form of aid within one more week of fighting.

    This I'm especially calling b/s on.

  5. Xiphosis

    Posted

    Does that mean they were crap and worthy of disbanding? I dont think so.

    Maybe, maybe not. I think the key thing there would be the FA mistake - why you were involved in the war, and how much planning/work you'd put in to ensure you won it. That's what I mean when I talk about raising the stakes - no one can sit back and let others do it, or that's the end of em.

  7. Xiphosis

    Posted

    Unless you're talking about the era of peace that immediately followed after the UJW, internal tensions notwithstanding. If you are then you would have to equally criticise the Karma War and the Bipolar war for the same reason.

    I criticize it because that wasn't peace-peace. Think back to Tela and NoWedge and all that. It was kind of unified witch hunt by frankly, really poor leaderships that suddenly got handed a lot of power. SG [and the aftermath of Karma] was not a witch hunt, as much as I tried, and neither was the war [Echelon/NPO being the only people who got really bad terms and only because I insisted]. Compare that to UJW and the disbandments, etc.

    As for the "subpar leadership", that's just a pure opinion of which I'd be interested to know why you have come to that conclusion.

    Interaction. Knew most of them and saw very little reason to respect them. Not incapable of doing so, I respected [some] of the League's leadership in certain aspects, but I never saw anything redeemable about Q/BLEU's from then.

    But even if you did take a leap of faith on the supposition and agree that the leadership was poorer, why would that negatively affect the game itself?

    Because the leaderships of the top alliances/blocs really dictate the climate of CN for that period.

    I will say that this particular war looks an awful lot like an elimination of all viable opposition and further entrenchment of the powers-that-be.

    Probably will end up that way, but I'm not concerned about it much. The folks who talk like Q did in PB/DH/etc aren't the ones who are capable of getting those blocs to do !@#$ like that.

  8. Xiphosis

    Posted

    The UJW generated a new axis into the game (east-west as opposed to the old north-south if you like) which has had long lasting ramifications right up to this day.

    It generated a new axis and killed the old one, except the two axis' left were tied at the hip and full of very, very subpar leadership. So I'll have to disagree on it being remotely a good thing for the game.

  11. Xiphosis

    Posted

    I think community spirit outweighs it - and often that coincides with security.

    Not really - community can exist without everyone being on the same AA. \m/ had their forums up for quite some time after they disbanded simply because they came to that realization - they didn't need CN to be a community. But you do need an AA to protect one another in the game, so it really Is the point.

  12. Xiphosis

    Posted

    The long term consequences of forcing disbandment outweigh the short term of wiping out a foe. How long were all the ex-NAAC, ex-LUE, ex-GOONS, waiting for an opportunity to strike? Several years. You're vastly underestimating loyalty one has to their alliance mates and their flags. By disbanding people, you are creating a culture of fear and hate towards your group, simply because forced disbandment is so out of fashion for so many years that there is an evil stigma to it, as you yourself mentioned.

    Sure, but you're conflating two separate points I made in the post - alliance security, and what makes for a good CN culture. They're not always the same. Disbandment might be an awful idea for long-term security [and that's a factor that has to be weighed at the time] but I think it's hard to argue it doesn't lead to a better over all community.

    Also, disbanding someone because of personal thrill vs. pragmatism doesn't exactly make a difference to the one being disbanded.

    It does, however, make a big difference to the quality of leadership that survives. Do you want reckless thugs or do you want pragmatists?

    Can you state any examples of a forced disbandment by the "league" side of the MDP web ever

    No, however, I attribute this to the failure of the League/AEGIS sides to ever achieve a victory. I may be mistaken on this one, however, I seem to recall it being pushed for rather hard for NPO in GW1.

    This is a more thoughtful and less hot-headed side of Xiphosis then I am used to seeing.

    Are you used to seeing me? :|

    The problem with implementing it on a larger scale is if your hypothesis about it improving the quality or gameplay and the communities ends up being wrong you are not going to be able to repair the damage already done.

    This actually came up in a debate last night after I posted this, and I think people have misinterpreted what I'm advocating. I don't want one central grouping - PB, or SF or the like to just conduct a mass genocide. The group of 'smart' and quality leaders is not concentrated in any bloc, and likely never will be, so any collective decisions that involve retards will inevitably take out alliances that deserve a chance. I want the mindset in the game's culture overall to change regarding morality and regarding disbandment itself - regardless of side, creed, etc.

  13. Xiphosis

    Posted

    Not to go all socratic here but I have two questions that if you answer will help me understand your position better: Would it be fun to encourage more wars? How do you see white peace as an outcome of war effecting an alliances' future desire to war?

    Would it be fun to encourage more wars? The process of starting them might be for an individual. It wouldn't be for the game. One of the major issues with the majority of the last few wars has been that no one can really get their heart into it - and that's relatively important. You want your side to want to run to the front and slaughter, horde style. If a war is started for a shallow reason - and one individuals pleasure is shallow - then the war will be shallow and lackluster.

    How do you see white peace as an outcome of war effecting an alliances' future desire to war? I see it as making an alliance a lot less introspective about their reasons for war. If you roll into a war on a bad reason and get a boot on your neck for it, there's a lot of hell to be paid to the membership/congress/whatever. White peace makes you a lot more likely to continually and repeatedly go to war on any grounds, no matter how solid or not the grounds are, and I legitimately feel that's a bad trend for the game.

    If that practice continues, eventually there won't be any opposition at all at the highest levels, you will have an elite and then everyone else beneath them like peasants. I suppose anything in the name of security is justified though, right?

    That's true really - there is a major danger of an elite forming that's simply untouchable, and this is because of game mechanics if we're honest. The lack of update to the foreign aid model has been absolutely disastrous for the game - people work around it, but there's only so much working around to be done.

  21. hawk11

    Posted

    I still love you guys and all. But it's really not debatable that you have (multiple times) put the outcome of things in jeopardy for a stupid, short-sighted reason. Please don't insult my intelligence, though.

    You're right, or at least, it's a good observation and well called. The only thing I would say is that in situations where that seems to be the case, I always allow myself cool-down time. Sometimes we still do it; but it's never with a head full of steam, I always sleep on stuff because absolutely no one knows better than I do how irrationally angry I can get. I don't make the profound decisions in that state, and that's usually when I'll go spend some time elsewhere and play the scenarios out/cool down.

  23. hawk11

    Posted

    Even after all the conversation we have had in the last 2 years, it pains me to see you still have a very unrealistic view of how that all went down.

    Except for the RIA incident...that could have been handled totally differently and to this day I do not know why that happened the way it did.

    Slow down man. :P I know I was wrong, I was giving an accurate representation of my MISCONCEPTIONS about then - ie, explaining why stuff between us got bad. But how the RIA incident was treated was exactly what I meant by 'stopped treating us like brothers' - the whole approach to that situation was not how you'd approach a situation involving a friend, so I don't know how else we were meant to feel.

    Damn it now I am all fired up again. It should also be noted that nothing happened in MK back then without Archon's stamp of approval so the line of thinking that Trace and I hijacked things is laughable at best. Our main goal back then was to avoid a situation in where we would get rolled by someone who wouldn't give us peace. Only vigilant work by all members of government back then accomplished that mission.

    Again, I do know this. Really. I was just explaining my point of view at that time.

×
×
  • Create New...