Jump to content

TOP has a leak


D34th
 Share

Recommended Posts

If you read it in order you will find the reason why the Competence coalition was rolled in the last war. Admittedly, it wasn't TOP's fault. However, you are painting your self to be a hypocrite.
 
Learn from history and do not try to repeat it.
 
The New Pacific Order (Pre-Karma) = Hypocritical, Established a Power Sphere, and Held order in the cyber verse.
The Mushroom Kingdom (Pre-Competence) = Hypocritical, Established a Power Sphere, Destroyed Rival's Reputations, Used the OWF to spread Propaganda through the Cyber verse, Brilliantly established Loyalty in its sphere in it's puppets.
 
Both world leadership structures established a power sphere, and were hypocritical to avoid humiliation and paint itself as "The Leadership". However in doing this, they also painted themselves as a prime target. The Lesson here is either accepting responsibility for your actions, and admitting fault, will show the world that everyone screws up now-and-then. If you can't handle that, at least try to hide your "Sphere".
 
tl;dr Rant and expression of views, because I had free time.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Edited by Baltus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 389
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In none of this rambling monologue did you make any sense or an actual response to anything. Congratulations on that feat. 

 

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

It was more of a ramble and collection of thoughts on what I saw and my perception of Crimson's posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most alliances that have been destroyed in this game had allies, therefore having them is a recipe for disaster.

Edited by Auctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most alliances that have been destroyed in this game had allies, therefore having them is a recipe for disaster.

 

Auctor, I think we ought to disband AZTEC. We should probably disband our alliances, too, just to be safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most alliances that have been destroyed in this game had allies, therefore having them is a recipe for disaster.


Look what happened to us in BLEU. Tbh, people will hate you whether or not you've got allies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look what happened to us in BLEU. Tbh, people will hate you whether or not you've got allies.

 

True. We were the first massive neutral curb stomp. Then, GPA.

 

Can't be too careful; let's disband CN.

 

 

And merge int non grata

 

Let's just have two AA's Platysphere and Non Grata.

 

Food for thought: do you think they chose the name "Competence?"

 

Clearly it was not agreed upon by the other side. By the way they refer to each other as sucking in the war, it is obviously not that true either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I checked your percentage of members buying tech was lower than ours (by ~5 points) and the efficiency of your buyers was roughly 25 points below ours. Aid slot usage in reality is a weak indicator- sometimes it is good sometimes it is bad.

 

Considering you are a top heavy alliance and one that prides itself on selective membership you should feel pretty bad about these numbers. Look at our avg NS and your avg NS and then tell me that 5% is a good number. Aid slot efficiency is a much stronger indicator of the competence of an alliance then the comparisons you are throwing out. Not only do we outpace you by 10% but we also have double the slots to fill which means it should be more difficult to fill those slots. 

 

We have recently gone through a bout of membership deletions as you can see by our NS going up and down on a daily basis over the last week. But even with this problem we almost double your NS growth rate which is about where it should be given membership levels. Once the high end deletions stop we will more then double your NS growth rate.

 

We already know we outstripped everybody in a lot of war metrics that involve total numbers and did very well in metrics that are percentage based. I'm wondering by which metrics we are incompetent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering you are a top heavy alliance and one that prides itself on selective membership you should feel pretty bad about these numbers. Look at our avg NS and your avg NS and then tell me that 5% is a good number. Aid slot efficiency is a much stronger indicator of the competence of an alliance then the comparisons you are throwing out. Not only do we outpace you by 10% but we also have double the slots to fill which means it should be more difficult to fill those slots. 
 
We have recently gone through a bout of membership deletions as you can see by our NS going up and down on a daily basis over the last week. But even with this problem we almost double your NS growth rate which is about where it should be given membership levels. Once the high end deletions stop we will more then double your NS growth rate.
 
We already know we outstripped everybody in a lot of war metrics that involve total numbers and did very well in metrics that are percentage based. I'm wondering by which metrics we are incompetent.

To be fair, and I am by no means calling ODN incompetent, "considering you are a top heavy alliance" is the exact statement that counters this post. Sellers are short (ie less slot usage), and NS growth is harder once you stop buying infra or infra becomes vastly more expensive. Edited by Neo Uruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also have a fair number of sellers within your alliance and among several allies. TOP's allies are also fairly buyer-oriented alliances. Not making excuses for not having full slots, just pointing out that it is a bit more effort for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Platysphere is just catchy name we use(d) for an idea on the drawing board.

 

But hey, don't let me stop your amusing mixture of wild speculation and assuming that we're a bunch of slimy malicious plotters that would happily see Digiterra burn if we can be kings of the ashes...to be fair, we'll happily burn Digiterra to the ground if we can be kings of the ashes, but aside from that, we're generally nice people.

Wild speculation? Such as...? I feel you are being very dramatic.

 

You should be well aware by now that you have the reputation of snakes, always with a plan for every action. Like I said earlier, not an entirely bad thing, as I really do enjoy people like that. You are just a lot more on the shady side than most, and you should know that yourself.

 

Your focus on a single word used in a specific context as if it's indicative of anything really is amusing, as are your efforts to make yourself appear clever and industrious. Those never work.

Clever and industrious? I never really even made a grand point, other than saying that naming a sphere after yourselves implied you were the head. What exactly about that makes me seem like I think I'm clever? I don't need to be clever - it's all been leaked here for everyone to see, and it doesn't take a clever person to know it.

 

It's a theme, breh.

Stop acting like that. You're giving me flashbacks to NPO sheep in their prime.

 

Considering you are a top heavy alliance and one that prides itself on selective membership you should feel pretty bad about these numbers. Look at our avg NS and your avg NS and then tell me that 5% is a good number. Aid slot efficiency is a much stronger indicator of the competence of an alliance then the comparisons you are throwing out. Not only do we outpace you by 10% but we also have double the slots to fill which means it should be more difficult to fill those slots. 

 

We have recently gone through a bout of membership deletions as you can see by our NS going up and down on a daily basis over the last week. But even with this problem we almost double your NS growth rate which is about where it should be given membership levels. Once the high end deletions stop we will more then double your NS growth rate.

 

We already know we outstripped everybody in a lot of war metrics that involve total numbers and did very well in metrics that are percentage based. I'm wondering by which metrics we are incompetent.  

Look, I don't like ODN very much these days, but we threw 20 alliances at them, and they performed admirably. Their members, aside from a few, were well prepared and tough opponents.

 

They deserve some respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop acting like that. You're giving me flashbacks to NPO sheep in their prime.

And you're giving me flashbacks to AlterEgo when he was a clear shot for conspiracy theorist of the year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you're giving me flashbacks to AlterEgo when he was a clear shot for conspiracy theorist of the year.

What conspiracy theory have I gone on about here? You're grasping at straws here to hope someone notices you and likes it. It hasn't worked for anyone in the past, certainly won't for you.

 

I said TOP naming a sphere of allies after themselves implies they intended to dominate said sphere. Is that really a conspiracy theory when we have all of these screens showing their plotting?

 

If you're utterly and completely ignorant, then yes, it would be. So where does that leave you? Even then, it's a pretty weak conspiracy theory, considering nobody here is shouting that TOP is coming for us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What conspiracy theory have I gone on about here? You're grasping at straws here to hope someone notices you and likes it. It hasn't worked for anyone in the past, certainly won't for you.
 
I said TOP naming a sphere of allies after themselves implies they intended to dominate said sphere. Is that really a conspiracy theory when we have all of these screens showing their plotting?
 
If you're utterly and completely ignorant, then yes, it would be. So where does that leave you? Even then, it's a pretty weak conspiracy theory, considering nobody here is shouting that TOP is coming for us all.

It's certainly a theory that TOP plans to dominate the sphere just because they named a sphere of hopeful allies around the main theme: That they would be allied to TOP. Platysphere implies that all the alliances would have the mutual ally of TOP, or maybe including periphery allies of the alliances meaning they would have nowhere to turn - except TOP's sphere of influence. The name does not imply domination of the sphere or narcissism, but a common theme.

Try harder, please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's certainly a theory that TOP plans to dominate the sphere just because they named a sphere of hopeful allies around the main theme: That they would be allied to TOP. Platysphere implies that all the alliances would have the mutual ally of TOP, or maybe including periphery allies of the alliances meaning they would have nowhere to turn - except TOP's sphere of influence. The name does not imply domination of the sphere or narcissism, but a common theme.

Try harder, please.

Now, what of any of that is a conspiracy? It is all covered in the original post and just about says the entire thing. A conspiracy is an unfounded claim. Where have those been? Anyway, you went much further into detail than I did, when I very shortly said a sphere named after someone implied they would be the leader. You said all that - not me. You're putting an awful lot of words in my mouth. Does that make you Alterego?

 

Also, what do you mean try harder? You are the one trying to argue that I am a conspiracy theorist. Generally, trying harder would imply that I was trying to prove a point. Which I am not, you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...