The Zigur Posted February 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 I don't think many of us care about winning wars, so much as fighting with allies whom are equally competent. We've been doing this for too long to put up with crap and !@#$%footing from allies. DBDC is a no-!@#$%^&* alliance who will put up every time to support their allies. I think you'll find some of us wish to be with them, merely because there is (amazingly still) a simple lack of such alliances for allies. I haven't accused DT of any wrongdoing, and enjoyed working with you guys while in HB. I've never known AZTEC to be troublemakers, but some others trying to maneuver DBDC into their camp could be considered to be putting thoughts in peoples heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Lord knows we can't think for ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keysariyt Hanssen Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) I'm still not quite sure whether you're a bad troll or a great moron, Tywin. Edited February 20, 2014 by Kaiser Hanssen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farnsworth Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) I answered randomly without reading the answers. I feel this should contribute to the poll's legitimacy. edit: failed to make poll possessive Edited February 20, 2014 by Farnsworth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMercury Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Tactics are a bit more complicated than that, just as acquiring a set of trades is more complicated than simply maxing out the number of bonus resources. I'm saying that once you are overpowered beyond a certain point, you can do a lot of things inefficiently and still destroy someone. Let me restate so that we're clear and completely OOC: Even a casual player sees a 637k NS nation attacking a 144k NS nation and it doesn't pass their eyeball test--it just looks like something in the mechanics is broken, without any need to do any in depth analysis of who is in what alliance and whether or not they are neutral/pro-x/pro-y/pro-z, or taking the extra step of doing an analysis of the last 50-100 wars that lasted longer than 5 days involving top 250 nations. That people are turning this into an IC issue and guarding the current way of doing things like a clutch of prize eggs is to be expected. However, that doesn't mean that the current way of doing things should be the way things are done in the future. But let's go back to November 2008. (DAC)Syzygy proposed the following: I bolded some of that for emphasis. (DAC)Syzygy was attempting to address the same problem I see now. Admin implemented his suggestion on November 12th. What I'm saying now is, and others as well, is that (DAC)Syzygy had the right idea, but it didn't go far enough or it may have gone far enough at the time, but no longer does. Removing the 250+/- rankings clause would be the solution I would implement. If Admin instead wishes to do something more incremental to see how it plays out, such as narrowing that down to 150 or 100 ranks, I'm fine with that too. But change is necessary for the good of the game. I understand that others may feel otherwise--I do not believe them to be the majority of players however. [OOC] Hal - the reason for the +/- 250 at the time was out of fear that neutrals would simply grow themselves out of range of us constantly fighting. It was a very different time in the top 100 or so with the majority being dominated by the neutrals with Citadel being the exception. None of us expected war to be the way to accelerated growth, nor raiding to become relatively unpunishable. The removal of the 250 rule would indeed be good for the game and change things drastically. In some cases for the better (severely limits political power of top tier alliances) and for the worse in others (encourages a state of mediocrity in regards to individual nation building if you want to be a active warring nation). [OOC] Edited February 20, 2014 by LiquidMercury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 [OOC] Hal - the reason for the +/- 250 at the time was out of fear that neutrals would simply grow themselves out of range of us constantly fighting. It was a very different time in the top 100 or so with the majority being dominated by the neutrals with Citadel being the exception. None of us expected war to be the way to accelerated growth, nor raiding to become relatively unpunishable. The removal of the 250 rule would indeed be good for the game and change things drastically. In some cases for the better (severely limits political power of top tier alliances) and for the worse in others (encourages a state of mediocrity in regards to individual nation building if you want to be a active warring nation). [OOC] LM, I think such a discussion should be moved towards the Suggestion Box where there are several threads at the moment about modifying the attack ranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMercury Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 LM, I think such a discussion should be moved towards the Suggestion Box where there are several threads at the moment about modifying the attack ranges. LOUD NOISES. Also DBDC is the devil, and the world needs to gather against them. That better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 Friend or foe? Why not a tweener? I mean the poll as it stands currently is for either people who are friends with them, or those that are against them. There needs to be a more neutral option on there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted February 20, 2014 Report Share Posted February 20, 2014 I haven't accused DT of any wrongdoing, and enjoyed working with you guys while in HB. I've never known AZTEC to be troublemakers, but some others trying to maneuver DBDC into their camp could be considered to be putting thoughts in peoples heads. DBDC is not an alliance to be maneuvered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 I don't have a problem with them, but if they are attacking alliances and people want to do something about them, then political alliances should be forged to fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 DBDC is not an alliance to be maneuvered. Sure they are, they've been maneuvered already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) Sure they are, they've been maneuvered already. So - so far they're working off other's will and not their own? ... They didn't make their own choice of whom to align with so far and what actions to make so far? They were corralled into their FA positioning like doggies? Edited February 21, 2014 by Rayvon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 I don't have a problem with them, but if they are attacking alliances and people want to do something about them, then political alliances should be forged to fight.we do attack alliances, and there are no doubt forces that would align against us. Such is the nature of this world. Still seems like an awful lot of speculation for an alliance that is 'pretty irrelevant' in the global war scene as so many are quick to point out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 So - so far they're working off other's will and not their own? ... They didn't make their own choice of whom to align with so far and what actions to make so far? They were corralled into their FA positioning like doggies? You dont even understand how you were manuevered in the last war, how can you possible expect to understand DBDC's political situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 You dont even understand how you were manuevered in the last war, how can you possible expect to understand DBDC's political situation? lol - and who manoeuvred us? We were [supposedly] the one's pulling the strings and doing the manoeuvring according to the declaration against us ... I don't think you have any fucking idea how any of it started on our end if you're saying we (NSO) was manoeuvred by anyone lmao ....(aww: literally AS SOON AS POLAR FUCKED UP IN EQUILIBRIUM NG [Caustic] and NSO [Me and Dilber] went to work TOGETHER and we initiated the grouping prior to the group decision to go defensive .. So any manoeuvring you claim happened by someone else to involve NSO in the center of this war - didn't ... Not by NG or anyone else .. We put ourselves there before the last war even completed .. ) I think you need to spend a little time examining your puzzle pieces before you attempt to jam them together to create your apparently-distorted picture of our world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 Heh I think I touched a nerve. I wonder why I am so good at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 Clueless bastard. You're being laughed at for your daftness, you didn't touch any nerve. All this information has come out before, and you still get it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 Clueless !@#$%^&. You're being laughed at for your daftness, you didn't touch any nerve. All this information has come out before, and you still get it wrong. Come over here and give me a hug bro. I lost a war before too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 we do attack alliances, and there are no doubt forces that would align against us. Such is the nature of this world. Still seems like an awful lot of speculation for an alliance that is 'pretty irrelevant' in the global war scene as so many are quick to point out. We should actually talk, I do like your alliance concept. I'm just saying if people have a problem with what you do, then they should fight back and the game mechanic thing was a silly option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 Twyin, I appreciate what you're trying to do. Painting the side you favor as heros and the other side as villians. Classic loyalist propaganda. Unfortunately, you've been out of the loop so long and are so quick to assume your theories are reality that half of what you say is basically nonsensical. DBDC is not threatening anyone to join their sphere. If they had threatened BFF, we would be joining a coalition against them right now. DBDC isn't really even trying to build a solid tradiational sphere of their own. Unlike these other imperialistic alliances such as TOP/NpO/NPO, who are ambitious to "lead" us all.. DBDC seems genuinely interested in sharing the fun and not being a dictator. If that turns out not to be true, I'm sure the coalition you are calling for will develop. Too many alliances in CN have "had it up to here" with being used as pawns. One reason why NPO was rolled this past war, from my understanding, was they tried to dictate too much in EQ. With the peace terms & what-not. I missed that war so I'm not sure on all the details, but that is something I've heard for why NPO was able to be isolated and targeted. Sure, the real reason is power politics, but it gave them the excuse they needed. The world is so old, friends have friends everywhere. Enemies have enemies everywhere. All these different spheres, small and large, most of them will not commit very strongly to a single regime. . and the harder a would-be dictator tries to grip their power in hand, the more "vassal states" will ooze out and escape their grasp. It's a new age, where an open hand is going to retain more than a clenched fist. Things are not solid enough to hold onto in that way anymore. Note that most alliances that ooze out of the clenched fist, lands in an open hand below, ready to come up and slap you in the face. With a handful of ooze. Likely some residue will be left on your face. Did I mention the ooze is nuclear waste? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daenerys Targaryen Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) The Rains of DBDC And who are you, the proud lord said, that I must bow so low? Only a cat of a different coat, that's all the truth I know. In a coat of gold or a coat of red, a lion still has claws, And mine are long and sharp, my lord, as long and sharp as yours. And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of DBDC, But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear. Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall, and not a soul to hear. Edited February 26, 2014 by Daenerys Targaryen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 All this thread accomplished was it made me end up joining DBDC, so now they are a friend to me. All Tywin's threads promoting Paradoxia were considered bad for PR by TOP and they asked him to stop. Seems all his threads cause the opposite perception of whatever position he takes. I'm not sure if its on purpose or not. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 The Rains of DBDC And who are you, the proud lord said, that I must bow so low? Only a cat of a different coat, that's all the truth I know. In a coat of gold or a coat of red, a lion still has claws, And mine are long and sharp, my lord, as long and sharp as yours. And so he spoke, and so he spoke, that lord of DBDC, But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear. Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall, and not a soul to hear. Lol already made one for mushqaeda and NSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCheat Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 All this thread accomplished was it made me end up joining DBDC, so now they are a friend to me. All Tywin's threads promoting Paradoxia were considered bad for PR by TOP and they asked him to stop. Seems all his threads cause the opposite perception of whatever position he takes. I'm not sure if its on purpose or not. :P I was brainwashed into joining some puppet alliance of DBDC as well :( Thanks Tywin for showing me the light :awesome: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted February 27, 2014 Report Share Posted February 27, 2014 Twyin, I appreciate what you're trying to do. Painting the side you favor as heros and the other side as villians. Classic loyalist propaganda. Unfortunately, you've been out of the loop so long and are so quick to assume your theories are reality that half of what you say is basically nonsensical. DBDC is not threatening anyone to join their sphere. If they had threatened BFF, we would be joining a coalition against them right now. DBDC isn't really even trying to build a solid tradiational sphere of their own. Unlike these other imperialistic alliances such as TOP/NpO/NPO, who are ambitious to "lead" us all.. DBDC seems genuinely interested in sharing the fun and not being a dictator. If that turns out not to be true, I'm sure the coalition you are calling for will develop. Too many alliances in CN have "had it up to here" with being used as pawns. One reason why NPO was rolled this past war, from my understanding, was they tried to dictate too much in EQ. With the peace terms & what-not. I missed that war so I'm not sure on all the details, but that is something I've heard for why NPO was able to be isolated and targeted. Sure, the real reason is power politics, but it gave them the excuse they needed. The world is so old, friends have friends everywhere. Enemies have enemies everywhere. All these different spheres, small and large, most of them will not commit very strongly to a single regime. . and the harder a would-be dictator tries to grip their power in hand, the more "vassal states" will ooze out and escape their grasp. It's a new age, where an open hand is going to retain more than a clenched fist. Things are not solid enough to hold onto in that way anymore. Note that most alliances that ooze out of the clenched fist, lands in an open hand below, ready to come up and slap you in the face. With a handful of ooze. Likely some residue will be left on your face. Did I mention the ooze is nuclear waste? Actually, he's doing the opposite. if he liked our side he wouldn't be posting so terribly imo. 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.