Dochartaigh Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 Good night everybody. And I do realize the hypocrisy about complaining about double standards when I've previous complained about complaining about double standards. Sue me. Good night to you as well. Saying someone is a shitposter is discussing their ability to post, which is a skill. Rey went after my intelligence. Also, I was simply mocking him because let's face it, Rey makes about as good a post as methrage, alterego, HoT, and others on that level. Does not mean Rey is dumb, I have talked to him and he is rather smart. So, that is the difference between the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) If by people, you mean an RIA member whom people have born witness to, and acknowledged publicly has been almost stalkerishly creepy to me in public IRC channels.... A joke of a former alliance leader who changes opinions and loyalties as often as I change my socks. And a former leader of a joke alliance whom is not respected by and is barely tolerated by even its closest of allies, and who is almost universally disdained by its allies of allies, then I would consider such opposition to be far more supportive of my knowledge than a detraction from it. i gotta ask, whats your definition for me? DH was caught between opposing camps for that war, actually. Dave War, I've stated, I don't really think was warranted. And Rush was talking on a coalition level, thus I did refute your statement. so you get that because of the Dave War, your coalition essentially sealed this war occurring then? Edited March 18, 2013 by Mogar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beets Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 So, that is the difference between the two. "It's not an ad hominem because it's truuuuue" Sorry mate, shitposting is subjective, not objective. Double bonus subjectiveness when it's wartime and a ton of propaganda is involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 DH was caught between opposing camps for that war, actually. Dave War, I've stated, I don't really think was warranted. And Rush was talking on a coalition level, thus I did refute your statement. Didn't TOP/co do more damage to CnG and the many others who fought against them? So in other words, small segments of the smaller side can do more damage than the entirety? Okay, thanks for again showing Rush to be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 "It's not an ad hominem because it's truuuuue" Sorry mate, shitposting is subjective, not objective. Double bonus subjectiveness when it's wartime and a ton of propaganda is involved. To the first part, you apparently do not know what ad hominem means. To the second part, you are entirely right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 Didn't FAN initially do far more damage to NPO? Didn't MK also do more damage to NPO? If not, then I would hope MK would just shut the fuck up about their war skills since that war was the major basis for all of that... You are now taking single 1v1 alliance comparisons.. and applying them to a global war. The smaller coalition in a global war... has never... EVER... done more damage than the larger side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 Didn't TOP/co do more damage to CnG and the many others who fought against them? So in other words, small segments of the smaller side can do more damage than the entirety? Okay, thanks for again showing Rush to be wrong. And no... TOP did not do more damage to C&G. I made an extensive post about this in another thread. Went back and gathered all the day by day stats. The smaller side has NEVER done more damage than they larger side. It has not happened.. Stop spewing the nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 You are now taking single 1v1 alliance comparisons.. and applying them to a global war. The smaller coalition in a global war... has never... EVER... done more damage than the larger side. What about TOP/co? Could've sworn TOP/co tore CnG/co apart even if they did lose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beets Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) To the first part, you apparently do not know what ad hominem means. My mistake, I was trying to show how silly your argument was by strawmanning (best fallacy) it. I guess I should have been more straightforward so you could understand my point better. Edited March 18, 2013 by Beets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 What about TOP/co? Could've sworn TOP/co tore CnG/co apart even if they did lose... its cute that you used the TOP-C&G war to end your last post with "thanks for proving Rush to be wrong\." Mr. Smug. Sadly however, you are the one who is wrong. No TOP and Co did not do more damage to C&G and co. Thanks for playing though, GG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) Didn't TOP/co do more damage to CnG and the many others who fought against them? So in other words, small segments of the smaller side can do more damage than the entirety? Okay, thanks for again showing Rush to be wrong. I think you misunderstood what Rush meant by a "coalition." Not to mention you're wrong. MK at the time was basically how DH is built now. i gotta ask, whats your definition for me? so you get that because of the Dave War, your coalition essentially sealed this war occurring then? No. Dave War was not an offense to NPO/AI Edited March 18, 2013 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 its cute that you used the TOP-C&G war to end your last post with "thanks for proving Rush to be wrong\." Mr. Smug. Sadly however, you are the one who is wrong. No TOP and Co did not do more damage to C&G and co. Thanks for playing though, GG. Link me to this post of yours, apparently I did not see it and unlike others, am willing to state I am wrong if proven to be wrong. Though I am willing to state that this war is different in that your side had far more upper tier than our side did as well as a better tech:infra ratio. Though, in numbers, you are doing more damage. In percentage, you are taking more damage. Our side has barely lost a third of our total original NS, you side is closing in on half of your original NS lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 Link me to this post of yours, apparently I did not see it and unlike others, am willing to state I am wrong if proven to be wrong. Though I am willing to state that this war is different in that your side had far more upper tier than our side did as well as a better tech:infra ratio. Though, in numbers, you are doing more damage. In percentage, you are taking more damage. Our side has barely lost a third of our total original NS, you side is closing in on half of your original NS lost. Our losses still haven't seemed to have curbed because of infra losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 Our losses still haven't seemed to have curbed because of infra losses. I have fought several Umb nations who have been at 0 infra the entire time and only lost tech. And I know that there are several going on like that. It is quite an easy thing to see. So to claim that your losses are mostly infra based is not true. This again is easily refuted since your side made the claim of having many, many more tech heavy nations. Thus, right now, much of the loss happening from alliances like MK, Umb, TOP and what not is from tech loss, not infra loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 Link me to this post of yours, apparently I did not see it and unlike others, am willing to state I am wrong if proven to be wrong. Though I am willing to state that this war is different in that your side had far more upper tier than our side did as well as a better tech:infra ratio. Though, in numbers, you are doing more damage. In percentage, you are taking more damage. Our side has barely lost a third of our total original NS, you side is closing in on half of your original NS lost. On this note, someone should compile a list to compare with Rush's list (assuming he posts it here) that does war stats by percentage instead of raw data, to compare that as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 I have fought several Umb nations who have been at 0 infra the entire time and only lost tech. And I know that there are several going on like that. It is quite an easy thing to see. So to claim that your losses are mostly infra based is not true. This again is easily refuted since your side made the claim of having many, many more tech heavy nations. Thus, right now, much of the loss happening from alliances like MK, Umb, TOP and what not is from tech loss, not infra loss. There's no doubt that our tech is burning, obviously, but infra burns faster, which is why it's weird that we're still losing just as much. I mean, yeah we're outnumbered so there's more lost via GAs, but it shouldn't be that much tech gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 There's no doubt that our tech is burning, obviously, but infra burns faster, which is why it's weird that we're still losing just as much. I mean, yeah we're outnumbered so there's more lost via GAs, but it shouldn't be that much tech gone. Rebuying from 0 is cheap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) As someone who used to like you, stop going with this grudge. You're looking pretty fucking silly. Consider that you're on the same side as notable shitposters James Dahl and Pearl. If a few posts on an OOC forum about a political game causes you to dislike me then your adoration wasn't worth shit anyway. I have no "grudge" with Rush. I believe he's a great person with strange CN opinions. I enjoy pointing out the ridiculousness of those opinions for fun when I have access to these forums. I actually don't think he's too far off, but he insinuates untrue statements. Either way this has become so devolved and polemical (is that a word?) that I don't feel like participating any longer. Also, you aren't exactly a first class poster (in b4 no u). So I doubt Dahl is discouraged by your critiques. Edited March 18, 2013 by Omniscient1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 No. Dave War was not an offense to NPO/AI It wasn't offensive that you attacked a releatively unattached bloc for absolutely no reason? isnt that what happened to Pacifica after Karma? they could probably relate, and Valhalla was a member of MJ, another relatively not well connected bloc, perhaps both Pacifica and AI felt the unwarranted aggression for no reason against SF twice in a row meant that eventually DH would look for someone new to roll, want to take a guess what the potential options would be if not SF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 Link me to this post of yours, apparently I did not see it and unlike others, am willing to state I am wrong if proven to be wrong. Though I am willing to state that this war is different in that your side had far more upper tier than our side did as well as a better tech:infra ratio. Though, in numbers, you are doing more damage. In percentage, you are taking more damage. Our side has barely lost a third of our total original NS, you side is closing in on half of your original NS lost. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/115540-omg-gato-please-come-out-of-peace-mode/?p=3101804 there you go. Never in any global war prior to this one, has the smaller side done more damage to the larger side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 It wasn't offensive that you attacked a releatively unattached bloc for absolutely no reason? isnt that what happened to Pacifica after Karma? they could probably relate, and Valhalla was a member of MJ, another relatively not well connected bloc, perhaps both Pacifica and AI felt the unwarranted aggression for no reason against SF twice in a row meant that eventually DH would look for someone new to roll, want to take a guess what the potential options would be if not SF? Yes, because PF wasn't heavily tied into DR. CnG doesn't have numerous ties to NPOsphere. You can point to SG if you want to point out heavy ties that got thrown away by CnG/DH, but everyone knows that was a power structure built for surviving against Citadel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) It wasn't offensive that you attacked a releatively unattached bloc for absolutely no reason? isnt that what happened to Pacifica after Karma? they could probably relate, and Valhalla was a member of MJ, another relatively not well connected bloc, perhaps both Pacifica and AI felt the unwarranted aggression for no reason against SF twice in a row meant that eventually DH would look for someone new to roll, want to take a guess what the potential options would be if not SF? Unwarranted aggression against SF? Are you crazy? Even the majority of SF leadership have now capitulated to the fact that the 1st encounter was simply a game of DH-C&G beating SF to the punch. The TOP-NpO war was not aggression against SF either. They were merely a tasty side dish. The last war was 100% totally unequivocally aggression against SF. So I am failing to see where you found unwarranted aggression against SF twice in a row. In fact, it is among the silliest things I have ever read. Edited March 18, 2013 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/115540-omg-gato-please-come-out-of-peace-mode/?p=3101804 there you go. Never in any global war prior to this one, has the smaller side done more damage to the larger side. Okay, I was wrong. This war again, is far different from any war that came before. The smaller side, is be far, the better prepared which is normally not the case. This is easily recognized, and I would hope, not refuted by anyone. At the same point, this war is not over. Basing damage done with score loss is tricky though. This war cannot be fully tracked that way since Umbrella, MK, and NG are all hopping around like crazy; thus making it rather difficult to track actual score loss. You stated in your thread that TOP/co did more damage to CnG's side 28 days out of 52 and I am going to wager that TOP/Co did almost equal damage the other 24 days, which means that TOP/Co did actually do more raw damage to CnG's side than they took. Which makes it quite similar to this one. If we look here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/11169-the-amazing-sanction-race/?p=3108327 This shows the score losses from the Jan 18th until March 9th. Except for a few, your side has lost more score per alliance than our side. We just have a lot more alliances thus, having 10 alliances lose like 3 score points, means 30 score loss compared to your side having a single alliance loose almost half of their score loss (which equals like half of the loss of those 10). Now, what needs to be realized is that this war is not over with. Though, I will be honest, based on score loss, this war will most likely continue to be different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 In Dave our side did more damage than the 'bigger' side as well, though not by much. On some fronts (Fark/Deinos) it was hilariously lopsided, Deinos should have surrendered to Fark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted March 18, 2013 Report Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) In Dave our side did more damage than the 'bigger' side as well, though not by much. On some fronts (Fark/Deinos) it was hilariously lopsided, Deinos should have surrendered to Fark. No it didnt. You are just being ignorant now and throwing out blind statements hoping to be right. In fact , overall, you did decidedly LESS damage. Score lost by our coalition: 101.37.... Score lost by yours 126.35. It sounds cute for you to try to claim you did more damage...its a shame the numbers say otherwise. I also want to point out, just for fun... that the 1st time(19 days ago) that I did the stats for this war, our coalition had outdamaged the other coalition (by score) by about 16%. Since then, that differential has grown to 24%. Eq Score Lost: 205.84 C&G (Competence and Good Alliances) Score Lost: 165.32. In the end the numbers and the total bloat of the Eq meatshields may be too much to overcome, but I am proud of have been part of this coalition. It is collectively the finest fighting force this game has ever seen. Edited March 18, 2013 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.