Sir Keshav IV Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Competence. It's funny you can't see it as your coalition liked to call itself that. Lets not argue about the people; argue stats, numbers, and treads and they don't lie. I doubt after the last war Polar can really be called "competent." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fendon Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 I doubt after the last war Polar can really be called "competent." The fact that we're still around says differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 The fact that we're still around says differently. Oh really? The fact you folks have really been whipping boys for the last few years and the one time you had a good chance to change that around you folks pretty much screwed an entire war coalition over paints a very different picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proxian Empire Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Do elaborate how we damaged our friends in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 The fact that we're still around says differently.oh boy, right after I try to say a positive word, the arrogance comes right the hell out again.Polaris is not competent simply for surviving. They are not competent just because they have members that are loyal enough to bleed for them all the time. If anything, Polaris is incompetent for misusing their loyal members and getting pounded every other war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fendon Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) oh boy, right after I try to say a positive word, the arrogance comes right the hell out again. Polaris is not competent simply for surviving. They are not competent just because they have members that are loyal enough to bleed for them all the time. If anything, Polaris is incompetent for misusing their loyal members and getting pounded every other war. Positive word? How nice of you :) It depends on your definition of competent. I'd rather be in an alliance that sticks together through thick and thin, as opposed to disappearing as soon as the going gets tough. That's my definition of competent. You can have whatever definition you feel like. No members in NpO are forced to do anything. I don't know what "misuse" you're talking about. Edited June 23, 2013 by Daniel Botha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) Positive word? How nice of you :) It depends on your definition of competent. I'd rather be in an alliance that sticks together through thick and thin, as opposed to disappearing as soon as the going gets tough. That's my definition of competent. You can have whatever definition you feel like. No members in NpO are forced to do anything. I don't know what "misuse" you're talking about.Sticking together is not "competent." If you use that as a definition, you would be saying that Sparta & those associated with them last war were competent. That clearly wasn't the case. Loyalty and competence aren't the same thing.When you have numbers, you aren't supposed to blindly flail them around in an attempt to make something work out for you. That is misuse, and it has not in the least paid off for Polaris in over 4-5 years. Edited June 23, 2013 by Neo Uruk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fendon Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Sticking together is not "competent." If you use that as a definition, you would be saying that Sparta & those associated with them last war were competent. That clearly wasn't the case. Loyalty and competence are the same thing. When you have numbers, you aren't supposed to blindly flail them around in an attempt to make something work out for you. That is misuse, and it has not in the least paid off for Polaris in over 4-5 years. "Sticking together is not competent..." - Then you said "Loyalty and competence are the same thing" I'm lost. Haven't you just contradicted yourself? Loyalty IS sticking together. Surely you can't dispute that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 "Sticking together is not competent..." - Then you said "Loyalty and competence are the same thing" I'm lost. Haven't you just contradicted yourself? Loyalty IS sticking together. Surely you can't dispute that.It's a typo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opaque Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 It depends on your definition of competent. I'd rather be in an alliance that sticks together through thick and thin, as opposed to disappearing as soon as the going gets tough. That's my definition of competent. You can have whatever definition you feel like.This is fine, and once you start getting into subjective opinions, it's pretty hard to argue with any validity. I will say this, though, and I think most people would agree: being in a position where the "going" continually "gets tough" is not a display of competence. At best, it is stubbornness, and at worse, is is a mixture of ignorance to your position in the world and apathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Competence. It's funny you can't see it as your coalition liked to call itself that. Lets not argue about the people; argue stats, numbers, and treads and they don't lie. You're right, let's not argue stats. The fact that an alliance almost half your size has better stats across nearly every category. I mean, stats don't lie, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchboy00 Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) Oh really? The fact you folks have really been whipping boys for the last few years and the one time you had a good chance to change that around you folks pretty much screwed an entire war coalition over paints a very different picture. I'm pretty sure Polar didnt care about anyone in EQ except its allies. The idea that anyone in EQ would think otherwise makes me question yours not Polars view. I see Top/WTF/HoB all want some of NG! Using that FAC to even aid these rogues an extra 1.5 million. They should of just made it secret though. Edited June 23, 2013 by ditchboy00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fendon Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 This is fine, and once you start getting into subjective opinions, it's pretty hard to argue with any validity. I will say this, though, and I think most people would agree: being in a position where the "going" continually "gets tough" is not a display of competence. At best, it is stubbornness, and at worse, is is a mixture of ignorance to your position in the world and apathy. I wasn't aware the going continually got tough for the folks over at Polaris. I entered that alliance feeling like things were exactly the opposite, in fact. You all keep mentioning our supposed disadvantage on Planet Bob. So far, I'm not seeing hint of us being at a disadvantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opaque Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 I wasn't aware the going continually got tough for the folks over at Polaris. I entered that alliance feeling like things were exactly the opposite, in fact. You all keep mentioning our supposed disadvantage on Planet Bob. So far, I'm not seeing hint of us being at a disadvantage. NpO-PB war? A loss. Grudge war? A loss. Dave war? Certainly a loss for your side. Equilibrium war? A tie, at best. And unless something changes, the next war is going to be a curb stomp on you. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Do elaborate how we damaged our friends in any way. Stay with me here and I'll try to explain. I'm pretty sure Polar didnt care about anyone in EQ except its allies. The idea that anyone in EQ would think otherwise makes me question yours not Polars view. I see Top/WTF/HoB all want some of NG! Using that FAC to even aid these rogues an extra 1.5 million. They should of just made it secret though. The thing is, what Polar did was not good for their allies either. That move has gone a long way toward strapping them all to the same track that a very large train is being assembled on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggp Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 You tell em NpOhno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphelion Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) I present to Cyber Nations, 519 Nigras the rogue. ... back from the grave. admin is promoting roguery! Someone ban admin please :awesome: Edited June 23, 2013 by Aphelion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garion Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Stay with me here and I'll try to explain. The thing is, what Polar did was not good for their allies either. That move has gone a long way toward strapping them all to the same track that a very large train is being assembled on. Right. EQ should definitely have left part of its constituents to burn, just to satisfy the post-war FA desires of one or two alliances. It is all Polar's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opaque Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) Right. EQ should definitely have left part of its constituents to burn, just to satisfy the post-war FA desires of one or two alliances. It is all Polar's fault. Whether or not what Polar did was right or wrong is irrelevant. De facto speaking, Polar was not, and is not in a position to fix that mistake. So they should've avoided it if they didn't want to be in the mess their facing now. But, they're probably going to pay for their mistake, which is a shame. Edited June 23, 2013 by Paris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Right. EQ should definitely have left part of its constituents to burn, just to satisfy the post-war FA desires of one or two alliances. It is all Polar's fault. Nobody is saying they should have left an ally out. We're just trying to say that's how the world works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchboy00 Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Stay with me here and I'll try to explain. The thing is, what Polar did was not good for their allies either. That move has gone a long way toward strapping them all to the same track that a very large train is being assembled on. Did they enter with out being asked to help their allies? If so then I guess they might have put them on a bad path. That said good luck stomping Polar. They've all been grouped together in that range that they control the numbers in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conistonslim Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Everyone assumes NpO is going to be rolled which at this point is far from certain. Good luck NG stomping your rogues, bloody pain in the butt when they sell down to the lower NS ranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Did they enter with out being asked to help their allies? If so then I guess they might have put them on a bad path. That said good luck stomping Polar. They've all been grouped together in that range that they control the numbers in. Whether or not they were asked I cannot speak to. Considering they were defending an ally though I would contend it wouldn't matter. This is taking us well off course though. I'll continue in our embassy. A pinch to grow an inch for our offspring. You're as lovable as ever. THOSE CHEEKS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trigger Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Nigras is using standard rogue tactics. Nothing special, but obviously very painful. He'll obviously cost you a lot more than you cost him in the end, which is what he wants. If I were you, I'd aid the nations he hit so that they wouldn't feel the need to quit. Valhalla had a similar situation a very long time ago, and we ended up aiding some nations in the lower portion of the middle tier until they could buy a MP. Wasn't a perfect solution but it certainly made hovering around down there a whole lot more painful. Have fun? I understand the standard rogue tactics, Hal. I just don't find them brave. I guess I just don't understand why someone would want to take a dump on the floor of their own house. Trust me, I'm sure I'll go rogue myself one day... but I can think of many other places, groups, and individuals worth hitting that have really rubbed me the wrong way over the years. But the damage could be worse. Hitting the lower tiers at least is less expensive in the long run as thier infra/tech is much cheaper to replace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
519 Nigras Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 I understand the standard rogue tactics I don't think you do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts