Jump to content
jerdge

ATTN: Artigo

Recommended Posts

Lol.  Simply precious how politics may change truth or falsity in an argument. 

Edited by Angel Cruz dela Sant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There weren't just suggestions aimed at hitting tech, there were also (Even more) suggestions going at the value of land. All of which popped up after DBDC raided Valhalla, and was brought up by an IRON member. And then Jerdge began to also post similar topics.

 

Just sayin'.

I missed all that, so I appreciate the additional information. Although getting overly defensive over him suggesting something makes it seem like there might be something to his suggestion, since if there wasn't DBDC wouldn't have anything to worry about. I still think his suggestion regarding tech is completely unnecessary to implement and would be bad for the game, but an alliance getting so defensive over it was reason for me to give extra thought to whether the current system could be exploited.

Edited by Methrage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bothers them is that it wasn't suggested once or twice. The same thing(practically) was posted 3 or 4 times in a row.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh. What happens in the suggestion box should stay in the suggestion box. Anyyone who uses the suggestion box as a reason for IC action is a !#$%. Unfortunatly, there are a lot of !#$% in this game, so kudos to Jerdge for being prepared and putting his cards on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There weren't just suggestions aimed at hitting tech, there were also (Even more) suggestions going at the value of land. All of which popped up after DBDC raided Valhalla, and was brought up by an IRON member. And then Jerdge began to also post similar topics.
 
Just sayin'.


Suggestions re: reducing land have been occurring for a while; the timing in this case was due to admin removing the limit of land just before then.

Anyway, o/ jerdge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't bother reading the suggestion box because it's just people name calling. And it's pretty easy to tell from post history who it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggestions re: reducing land have been occurring for a while; the timing in this case was due to admin removing the limit of land just before then.

Anyway, o/ jerdge.

That doesn't change the fact that an IRON member made the suggestion after Valhalla was attacked, and then went on to suggest things specifically targeting upper tier nations, or that a GPA member was consistently agreeing with the IRON member on those politically motivated suggestions.

Edited by Gh0s7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I missed all that, so I appreciate the additional information. Although getting overly defensive over him suggesting something makes it seem like there might be something to his suggestion, since if there wasn't DBDC wouldn't have anything to worry about. I still think his suggestion regarding tech is completely unnecessary to implement and would be bad for the game, but an alliance getting so defensive over it was reason for me to give extra thought to whether the current system could be exploited.

The fact that a lot of recent suggestions target the extreme upper tier with a prejudice is more telling than the defensive reaction from those who would have their gameplay handicapped. Of course you're going to get mad; it'd be like me bitching and moaning if someone suggested a game-implemented aid embargo on nations under 5k NS who have wonders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that a lot of recent suggestions target the extreme upper tier with a prejudice is more telling than the defensive reaction from those who would have their gameplay handicapped. Of course you're going to get mad; it'd be like me !@#$%*ing and moaning if someone suggested a game-implemented aid embargo on nations under 5k NS who have wonders.

Rather than handicap their gameplay, the better solution would be to make 2-way trades possible with one aid slot. So even those without access to a very convenient supply of tech farm nations who send them tech without requiring a slot of payment first can still grow in tech at the same rate as those who do. Those of us who pay for each incoming shipment of tech can only accumulate tech half as fast as those with tech farms giving them a constant flow. If we could accumulate tech at the same rate, as well as add the ability for alliances who use tech farms to also send their farms money while still receiving tech at the same rate, it would be a win-win for all. Game improved without ruining it for many.

Adding features and ways for other nations to have a way to stay competitive with those who are playing smart under current mechanics is much better than punishing those who have been playing smart up until now if there are any balance issues. Then everyone can take advantage of the new feature and enjoy. Once an online game starts nerfing things, it can cause many to leave who have worked hard to maximize their nation under the previous system.

Edited by Methrage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but the limitation on aid slots being one way is another mechanic, the more mechanics we have the more variables are in play and the more exciting the gameplay.

 

If tech farms are such a major factor, then in reality most competitive alliances should have them.  If an alliance doesn't want to be competitive in that tier, there shouldn't be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't change the fact that an IRON member made the suggestion after Valhalla was attacked, and then went on to suggest things specifically targeting upper tier nations, or that a GPA member was consistently agreeing with the IRON member on those politically motivated suggestions.

 

So the fuck what?  If you have logical argument against it then make in where it is suggested.  If you do not have a logical argument against it and are just going to bitch, moan, cry and threaten people then save the embarrassment of looking like an ass and shut up.  Threatening jerdge is beyond pathetic and anyone who does so is nothing but a little bitch.  And you can quote me on that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the $%&@ what?  If you have logical argument against it then make in where it is suggested.  If you do not have a logical argument against it and are just going to !@#$%*, moan, cry and threaten people then save the embarrassment of looking like an ass and shut up.  Threatening jerdge is beyond pathetic and anyone who does so is nothing but a little !@#$%*.  And you can quote me on that.

You realize this is an OOC forum, right? Threatening jerdge in an in-game sense does not make you "a little bitch". In fact, it rather proves you're willing to fight anyone for your ideals. Was it the proper context to do so in? Very debatable. Is jerdge in the wrong for making and helping bump suggestions for purely political reasons while hiding behind neutrality? I don't think that's as debatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about my points were not logical? Because that was literal fact presented in the manor that I saw it. As for the threatening; it's a forum. You need to take the stick out of your ass if you're going to take that seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The neutrals would roll DBDC hands down. Its everyone else helping DBDC that they have to worry about since they hold no treaties. Of course many will come to their defense just like last time when DBDC hit a micro neutral alliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerdge gets less neutral every day.

 

 

For the records, I'm opposed to a sudden complete overhaul in game mechanics just because a small group of nations worked their asses off to master it. Instead, all opposed should work [i]their[/i] respective asses off to counter it. Having the game changed because you're losing is just cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but the limitation on aid slots being one way is another mechanic, the more mechanics we have the more variables are in play and the more exciting the gameplay.

 

If tech farms are such a major factor, then in reality most competitive alliances should have them.  If an alliance doesn't want to be competitive in that tier, there shouldn't be an issue.

I agree.  The game needs less cooky-cutter nations and alliances not more.  Game mechanics is a big part of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The neutrals would roll DBDC hands down. Its everyone else helping DBDC that they have to worry about since they hold no treaties. Of course many will come to their defense just like last time when DBDC hit a micro neutral alliance.

Questionable.

 

Jerdge, I appreciate your input, but I think it's quite ridiculous at this point that you hide under a veil of neutrality. Yes, you're in a neutral alliance, and that's your choice. But the decisions you make here are your own, and acting under that supposed shield is insulting to everyone's intelligence.

 

Frankly, I've noticed for a while that you have an air of ultra-intelligence, around you, as though you're smarter than everyone you post with or something. Hate to tell you, but that isn't the case. No amount of bitching, moaning, and Open World RP threads are going to change the fact that you are an average intelligence poster who cowers in neutrality, afraid of the political machinations of the actual game in play here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only solution is to roll GPA.

 

But this is seriously hilarious.  Be neutral and shut the fuck up, or don't and man up.

Edited by Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questionable.
 
Jerdge, I appreciate your input, but I think it's quite ridiculous at this point that you hide under a veil of neutrality. Yes, you're in a neutral alliance, and that's your choice. But the decisions you make here are your own, and acting under that supposed shield is insulting to everyone's intelligence.
 
Frankly, I've noticed for a while that you have an air of ultra-intelligence, around you, as though you're smarter than everyone you post with or something. Hate to tell you, but that isn't the case. No amount of !@#$%*ing, moaning, and Open World RP threads are going to change the fact that you are an average intelligence poster who cowers in neutrality, afraid of the political machinations of the actual game in play here.


Not trying to start some !#$% OWF debate here, but the actual game as you put it, is little more than a point of view. 206 people decided that the actual game was to grow in peace, so they joined GPA. 119 people decided that raiding was fun, they joined GOONS. The game is what the player says it is, and since it is a game, no one has anything to lose by playing it a certain way, and thus, cannot be forced to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to start some !#$% OWF debate here, but the actual game as you put it, is little more than a point of view. 206 people decided that the actual game was to grow in peace, so they joined GPA. 119 people decided that raiding was fun, they joined GOONS. The game is what the player says it is, and since it is a game, no one has anything to lose by playing it a certain way, and thus, cannot be forced to change.

Fair enough, but I'm saying that he has no right to argue about the politics of the non-neutral majority from his high horse. 

 

Evidently the neutral alliances want the rest of us to stay away from their affairs, and the least we can ask in return is the same treatment towards us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questionable.
 
Jerdge, I appreciate your input, but I think it's quite ridiculous at this point that you hide under a veil of neutrality. Yes, you're in a neutral alliance, and that's your choice. But the decisions you make here are your own, and acting under that supposed shield is insulting to everyone's intelligence.
 
Frankly, I've noticed for a while that you have an air of ultra-intelligence, around you, as though you're smarter than everyone you post with or something. Hate to tell you, but that isn't the case. No amount of !@#$%*ing, moaning, and Open World RP threads are going to change the fact that you are an average intelligence poster who cowers in neutrality, afraid of the political machinations of the actual game in play here.

 
Someone sounds butthurt.

And since when is the game what you make it?
600+ current players have decided that neutrality is a viable method of gameplay; who are you to tell them that they are wrong?

Fair enough, but I'm saying that he has no right to argue about the politics of the non-neutral majority from his high horse. 
 
Evidently the neutral alliances want the rest of us to stay away from their affairs, and the least we can ask in return is the same treatment towards us.


Right? Who decides who has the right and, more importantly, what does it have to do with anything?

You have an issue with what jerdge is doing, roll him and, by extension, the GPA and all those who would come to her aid. Or are you to busy with your global war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we can add Caladin to "extremely politically passive-aggressive neutrals" for whatever reason they have.

Seems kinda cowardly to pop off from behind a neutral AA, don't you think?

Edited by Neo Uruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...