A question of a platypus nature

[shahenshah]

Please drop the terms nonsense Shah when you were also in the coalition that imposed them and the strongest supporter of terms is now in your current coalition as well.
We have a good war going, don't ruin it with drivel.
You're better than that.

What I know of the terms is Polar created them on behalf of the front and Sparta negotiated them for the front. I did not say you two pushed for it, you know that, I have said that multiple times. We also opposed the terms, this I told you personally more than once at the time.

As for drivel, no I am not aiming for that, I could easily point your own.. what you're calling "smart move" today is exactly what you called "disgusting" and a lot more around last year.

Saying TOP had nothing to do with it would be incorrect. I do not for a second believe Umbrella had the political capital to push the terms if TOP (and by extension, its treatied allies NpO and Sparta) straight up said 'No'.

Its easy and convenient now to pin everything on Umbrella after many of you kept mum about it for a very long time publically. It was a circular blame game with no names being said out loud and clear. The theme was NPO asking who wants it, you guys saying not us, but yea, you'll have terms. That led a lot of people to perceive your role was larger than if actually was. I said that wasn't the case, unless you believe its drivel too.

Lord Bagel: Yes were thin in middle tier, that is why I have stated wed rather just deal with Sparta top tiers floating in mid tiers at the moment, the later you guys enter, the better it would be for us. 50% is still a bad number to post around, if you take in terms of %ns, it skews up even worse, if you take just top tier, again, not something you'd like to boast about. Edited January 7, 2015 by shahenshah

[Sir Keshav IV]

 

If we could drag 15 DT nations down but you have to know that if we started doing any sort of real damage to DT, the rest of Aztec would have jumped in to save those 15 from getting dragged down too far. So if we go with just IRON/DT/FTW- that is 7 nations over 30k tech (excluding SCM) and 135 100k+ NS nations vs TOP's 1 nation over 30k tech and (currently) 29 nations over 100k NS... So yeah, even from the beginning y'all would have had 3 times the amount of nations TOP had over 100k NS with 7 times the nations over 30k tech... But please continue to tell me how we would have hoped to drag down 15 DT nations... 

 

Come on Keshy, you are far smarter than this. Y'alls side has a far superior advantage in the upper tier. If every alliance on our side went balls to the wall and left all of our upper tier in war mode, we would see DBDC/DT/Umbrella/Aztec/etc dismantling them at will. We have seen it already. So can we please move on from this argument that if we (or just TOP) let (or let's) their upper tier out of PM, we have a hope of taking down anything other than our own nations?

 

Doch, I never said TOP leaving PM at this point would do any such damage, in fact I clarified it isn't just TOP singularly but on a coalition level you could have possibly tried combining top tiers. My point was just the staggered entry timings of folks on your side made it that much easier for us to wreck your top tier. The other possibility that could have worked out was for you folks to come in combining top tiers and look to specific targeted nations to remove them from future wars and end up at the same stage now with quite a bit more damage to our side.

 

TOP leaving pm now wouldn't change a thing and I clarified that in my previous post braah. I'm not pointing at TOP as such, just that as a coalition you guys could have looked to take down a few more top tier nations than what you folks did. As simple as that. 

 

Edit: Forget to mention your premise that we could take them a part at will right now if they leave pm is exactly what I meant. We can do that because of the idea of staggered entries by a stretch of time, which has given us such freedom. 

Edited January 7, 2015 by Sir Keshav IV

[berbers]

Why is the number of opponents dictating if an upper tier comes out to play?

If every AA felt like that there would be no upper tier warring ever, except for the first AA to get jumped without warning and not have a chance to hit PM.

Keeping your inactives and some reserve in PM is fine, hell most of TOP's coalition is around 30% and nobody gives a shit.

The problem is literally that TOP takes their ball and goes home if the odds aren't crazy stacked in their favor. But people don't seem to care and it's puzzling. 75% ffs with all their biggest nations hiding from day 1...

[WorldConqueror]

But people don't seem to care and it's puzzling. 

 

TBF I think it's the first time its really been an issue. The last losing war they were in was EQ when Competence was operating to a very specific plan. The rest of the wars since TOP-C&G (when they fought incredibly hard) they've been on the winning side and certainly did enough on their fronts. 

[berbers]

 
TBF I think it's the first time its really been an issue. The last losing war they were in was EQ when Competence was operating to a very specific plan. The rest of the wars since TOP-C&G (when they fought incredibly hard) they've been on the winning side and certainly did enough on their fronts. 

Yeah i suppose, I mean other than Eq and Bipolar they've managed to avoid meaningful damage but never by doing this much Peace Moding (they kept it to a reasonable 60% last war)

The only comparable situation was GATO in EQ I believe, its funny they were condemned by some of the same AA's that dont care about TOP doing it.

I suspect we will see a change im TOP gov post-war with the new guys saying if they had been in charge this never would have happened and they will retain enough stats that their allies will swallow it and they will maintain a decent standing.

It's pretty rotten though :/

[the rebel]

But they don't impose terms for doing it.

Also that statement would be true only in its most vaguest form.

- No one has ever hidden ~70% for the duration of the war or hide approximately 50% of their alliance in several wars, name one alliance other than TOP that does it to the scale they do it, every time.

- TOP is one of the very few alliances that has imposed terms on its front in every major conflict it has won. Terms in last war were no coincidence. Everyone uses peace mod to some extent, but very few impose terms for it or use it to the extent TOP does.

You have been around long enough to not need a history lesson from someone who has been in this world for as long as you.

I know and you know that you're being intentionally ignorant just to sling mud.

I know you intentionally added the reps part to try and lower the amount of alliances in the list, but that tactic falls short because everyone in a coalition supports the pushing of reps by being in the same coalition. Edited January 7, 2015 by the rebel

[Rush Sykes]

 

As others have pointed out, y'all conveniently forgetting that Umbrella was one of the main pushers for those terms and now resides on your side of the war avoidng "due punishment". 

 

 

That is pretty damn false. Considering the tech levels on your side vs the tech levels on this side, to claim that you would take damage that is longer to rebuild is ridiculous. Y'all could easily double if not triple team most of our upper tiers and given the tech disparity, would wreak havoc on this side. Even if we all came in within a few days, we may have damaged a small percentage but it would have cost all of our upper tier to do that. 

 

I forget nothing of the sort...and it is very possible that Umb will someday face a comeuppance for their role. Umbrella may have pushed for those terms, but make no mistake about it, nobody on this game is buying that a Daikos led Umbrella was a "leader" of that coalition. You can conveniently ignore it till  you are blue in the face, but that coalition belonged to Polar-TOP. This is not something new on Planet Bob, and you pretend to act like it is. The buck for last war stops at TOP-Polar. They will always be held to the standard that their coalition imposed. It has been in the past, it will be today, it will be in the future. Stop being intentionally obtuse about it.

[Chimaera]

I've decided to use hip pop culture references to illustrate how I feel TOP decision making went down as to who went to war and who did not :|

 

Starring!

 

Gingervites:

 

 

King Brandon:

 

 

Vlad:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Damnit Berbers you know you're not allowed to make good or amusing posts.

[Dochartaigh]

 

Doch, I never said TOP leaving PM at this point would do any such damage, in fact I clarified it isn't just TOP singularly but on a coalition level you could have possibly tried combining top tiers. My point was just the staggered entry timings of folks on your side made it that much easier for us to wreck your top tier. The other possibility that could have worked out was for you folks to come in combining top tiers and look to specific targeted nations to remove them from future wars and end up at the same stage now with quite a bit more damage to our side.

 

TOP leaving pm now wouldn't change a thing and I clarified that in my previous post braah. I'm not pointing at TOP as such, just that as a coalition you guys could have looked to take down a few more top tier nations than what you folks did. As simple as that. 

 

Edit: Forget to mention your premise that we could take them a part at will right now if they leave pm is exactly what I meant. We can do that because of the idea of staggered entries by a stretch of time, which has given us such freedom. 

 

What I am pointing out is that in the beginning our upper tier was outnumbered 3/4 to 1 at best. And that does not include the tech disparity that your side enjoys. Would not have mattered if we tried in the beginning, now, or waited until the last week of war. Your side would have destroyed our upper tiers without take much more damage than you have now. You could have easily maintained staggers using tech heavier nations and now with EMP nukes, would have demolished our tech much more effeciently than we could have pulled off on y'all. 

 

 

I forget nothing of the sort...and it is very possible that Umb will someday face a comeuppance for their role. Umbrella may have pushed for those terms, but make no mistake about it, nobody on this game is buying that a Daikos led Umbrella was a "leader" of that coalition. You can conveniently ignore it till  you are blue in the face, but that coalition belonged to Polar-TOP. This is not something new on Planet Bob, and you pretend to act like it is. The buck for last war stops at TOP-Polar. They will always be held to the standard that their coalition imposed. It has been in the past, it will be today, it will be in the future. Stop being intentionally obtuse about it.

 

Actually nobody on your side is buying that Umb was a leader in the coalition. I have actually said nothing against Polar/TOP taking their lumps for the last war but towing the line that most of this falls on Polar/TOP is just that, a party line. Now if I were attempting to argue that IRON was a leader of the last coalition, yes, you could say I am being intentionally obtuse, but pushing that Umbrella was, considering their history and political pull, is not a stretch of anyone's imagination. It is actually more of a stretch of the imagination to imagine they weren't a leader.

[Centurius]

But they don't impose terms for doing it.

Also that statement would be true only in its most vaguest form.

- No one has ever hidden ~70% for the duration of the war or hide approximately 50% of their alliance in several wars, name one alliance other than TOP that does it to the scale they do it, every time.

- TOP is one of the very few alliances that has imposed terms on its front in every major conflict it has won. Terms in last war were no coincidence. Everyone uses peace mod to some extent, but very few impose terms for it or use it to the extent TOP does.

Wrong, on both counts.

[The Zigur]

Why is the number of opponents dictating if an upper tier comes out to play?
If every AA felt like that there would be no upper tier warring ever, except for the first AA to get jumped without warning and not have a chance to hit PM.
Keeping your inactives and some reserve in PM is fine, hell most of TOP's coalition is around 30% and nobody gives a !@#$.
The problem is literally that TOP takes their ball and goes home if the odds aren't crazy stacked in their favor. But people don't seem to care and it's puzzling. 75% ffs with all their biggest nations hiding from day 1...

I don't see why I for one should care about the top tier at all, now that the parasites reign. What TOP decides to do with its top tier does not impact the long war. If I had a top tier nation I would drop down and kick ass, but not everyone is active enough to deal with that long term.

Polar did not even call in every ally to help, so why on earth you think TOP's upper tier troubles us is beyond me. Me thinks you are just butthurt your side can't blow up their upper tier.

[iamthey]

I don't see why I for one should care about the top tier at all, now that the parasites reign. What TOP decides to do with its top tier does not impact the long war. If I had a top tier nation I would drop down and kick ass, but not everyone is active enough to deal with that long term.

Polar did not even call in every ally to help, so why on earth you think TOP's upper tier troubles us is beyond me. Me thinks you are just butthurt your side can't blow up their upper tier.

The consistent trend for people like berbers is to simply select an alliance arbitrarily and proceed with the baseline of hostility. NATO has never been genuinely aggrieved by TOP, and berbers has never been subjected to punitive or vindictive measure on our part. He proceeds as he does because he requires the fixture of an enemy, and TOP is for him simply a convenient obsession. Without us he wouldn't have much of a purpose, and would lack direction: seeing as how his accomplishments are sparse and his natural adversaries few. Psychologically it makes sense, retrospectively its unfortunate.

There are parties with legitimate and intelligible reasons not to like us, Non-Grata notably comes to mind. With IRON we have shared in mutual cycles of recrimination, we have both believed and acted as if the other were harboring macabre dreams of ourselves, and it is reasonable that hostility would exist. With berbers such explanations, whether they be tragic or well grounded, do not exist. Responding to him is simply a meaningless exertion, as the only logical response should and for my part always has been, bewilderment.

Regardless, it does give one pause. For this brief hour, and however long it may last, we are to him an orienting star. An axis around which his universe turns, and by which he navigates the course of his journey. That we could be that, for at least one person, is perhaps- inspirational. Edited January 8, 2015 by iamthey

[berbers]

The consistent trend for people like berbers is to simply select an alliance arbitrarily and proceed with the baseline of hostility. NATO has never been genuinely aggrieved by TOP, and berbers has never been subjected to punitive or vindictive measure on our part. He proceeds as he does because he requires the fixture of an enemy, and TOP is for him simply a convenient obsession. Without us he wouldn't have much of a purpose, and would lack direction: seeing as how his accomplishments are sparse and his natural adversaries few. Psychologically it makes sense, retrospectively its unfortunate.
 

 

Arbitrary suggests there was no rationale for my selection, when I've been quite vocal and provided details as to why I don't like your AA.   It's not like I closed my eyes and spun a wheel of AA's and randomly selected TOP, I am using metrics accepted by the majority of our community to justify my hostility thank you very much.

 

I don't believe I would lack direction if you didn't exist, I'd most likely settle on the second most useless waste of stats in the game and work my way up.

 

I suppose my accomplishments are sparse compared to the mighty platypus, clearly masters of their own destiny and shaper of current events!  I don't feel to badly though since there are 80 of you and 1 of me :/

 

My natural adversaries tend to be aquatic predators, I can't swim very well and am commonly mistaken for a harp seal.  Unfortunately your assertion that there are few aquatic predators is flawed, I suggest you bone up on your marine biology.

 

You say psychologically it makes sense but retrospectively it's unfortunate, but it can't be retrospectively unfortunate because it's happening right now.  In 6 months if TOP has disbanded and I commit suicide, someone can say retrospectively my obsession with TOP was unfortunate but until that time I reserve the right to disagree with your statement. 

 

 

There are parties with legitimate and intelligible reasons not to like us, Non-Grata notably comes to mind. With IRON we have shared in mutual cycles of recrimination, we have both believed and acted as if the other were harboring macabre dreams of ourselves, and it is reasonable that hostility would exist. With berbers such explanations, whether they be tragic or well grounded, do not exist. Responding to him is simply a meaningless exertion, as the only logical response should and for my part always has been, bewilderment
 

 

 

So could you please elaborate on exactly what legitimate and intelligible reasons Non-Grata may have for not liking you that I can't possibly share in?  I feel like I could get in on some of that reasonable NG grudge if given half a chance.  I demand to have an opportunity to prove my worthiness.

 

I can't believe you said responding to me is a meaningless exertion while responding to and quoting Tywin Lannister.  Ouch.

 

Regardless, it does give one pause. For this brief hour, and however long it may last, we are to him an orienting star. An axis around which his universe turns, and by which he navigates the course of his journey. That we could be that, for at least one person, is perhaps- inspirational.

 

 

I'm hoping to ride this sometime into 2018, but like I said above, I'll just fixate on someone slightly less terrible once you all smarten up and abort that awful grouping that's congealed around your AA.

[Centurius]

 

Arbitrary suggests there was no rationale for my selection, when I've been quite vocal and provided details as to why I don't like your AA.   It's not like I closed my eyes and spun a wheel of AA's and randomly selected TOP, I am using metrics accepted by the majority of our community to justify my hostility thank you very much.

 

I don't believe I would lack direction if you didn't exist, I'd most likely settle on the second most useless waste of stats in the game and work my way up.

 

I suppose my accomplishments are sparse compared to the mighty platypus, clearly masters of their own destiny and shaper of current events!  I don't feel to badly though since there are 80 of you and 1 of me :/

 

My natural adversaries tend to be aquatic predators, I can't swim very well and am commonly mistaken for a harp seal.  Unfortunately your assertion that there are few aquatic predators is flawed, I suggest you bone up on your marine biology.

 

You say psychologically it makes sense but retrospectively it's unfortunate, but it can't be retrospectively unfortunate because it's happening right now.  In 6 months if TOP has disbanded and I commit suicide, someone can say retrospectively my obsession with TOP was unfortunate but until that time I reserve the right to disagree with your statement. 

 

 

 

 

So could you please elaborate on exactly what legitimate and intelligible reasons Non-Grata may have for not liking you that I can't possibly share in?  I feel like I could get in on some of that reasonable NG grudge if given half a chance.  I demand to have an opportunity to prove my worthiness.

 

I can't believe you said responding to me is a meaningless exertion while responding to and quoting Tywin Lannister.  Ouch.

 

 

 

I'm hoping to ride this sometime into 2018, but like I said above, I'll just fixate on someone slightly less terrible once you all smarten up and abort that awful grouping that's congealed around your AA.

Johan has mercy for all his children, may you find salvation in his undying love.

[Eumirbago]

Hopefully you don't forget to make this topic again next war

[Schattenmann]

No one has ever hidden ~70% for the duration of the war or hide approximately 50% of their alliance in several wars, name one alliance other than TOP that does it to the scale they do it, every time.

 

GATO.  What do I win?

 

 

I refuse to leave PM until Pingu comes out and fights me with his 9-yr-old, $200M warches, er, tea tin.

[The Zigur]

Arbitrary suggests there was no rationale for my selection, when I've been quite vocal and provided details as to why I don't like your AA.   It's not like I closed my eyes and spun a wheel of AA's and randomly selected TOP, I am using metrics accepted by the majority of our community to justify my hostility thank you very much.

So basically bandwaggoning, gotcha.

[Canik]

So basically bandwaggoning, gotcha.

Bet you wish people had 'bandwagoned' onto Tywin sphere :P

[Lenny N Karl]

jibba jabba here, jibba jabba there...who cares about the semantics you knobs are fussing over?

 

TOP is pretty much irrelevant this war.  Move on and talk about the peeps pulling their load. 

 

TOP is doing exactly what we expected AND hoped for.

 

NpO is doing exactly what we expected AND planned for.

 

"project rotation"  is already starting with SUN, Legion, and AW out of the way.

 

we'll take it, we are fully committed in it for the longest of hauls.  The longer the war, the sweeter the victory.

 

Both sides need to cheer up and box.  Quit worrying worrying about sweat on the canvas....

[darkfox]

You have been around long enough to not need a history lesson from someone who has been in this world for as long as you.

I know and you know that you're being intentionally ignorant just to sling mud.

I know you intentionally added the reps part to try and lower the amount of alliances in the list, but that tactic falls short because everyone in a coalition supports the pushing of reps by being in the same coalition.

 

 

Instead of pointing out facts against his claim you say that he should know better. God forbid that he puts forth his opinion on why he isn't fond of one alliance for in his view; Overusing the tactic and punishing others for using it.

 

Honestly you should know better.

[berbers]

Maybe a bit of a bandwagon, but certainly not arbitrary ;)

Edit: damnit I thought tywin had the last post, this is in response to him :|

Edited January 8, 2015 by berbers

[shahenshah]

GATO.  What do I win?
 

Pls take Tywin

[Mogar]

jibba jabba here, jibba jabba there...who cares about the semantics you knobs are fussing over?

 

TOP is pretty much irrelevant this war.  Move on and talk about the peeps pulling their load. 

 

TOP is doing exactly what we expected AND hoped for.

 

NpO is doing exactly what we expected AND planned for.

 

"project rotation"  is already starting with SUN, Legion, and AW out of the way.

 

we'll take it, we are fully committed in it for the longest of hauls.  The longer the war, the sweeter the victory.

 

Both sides need to cheer up and box.  Quit worrying worrying about sweat on the canvas....

you know this same shit you're doing is why your alliance is holding a grudge against Polar in the first place, what makes you so certain that your egotistical posting is gonna get you on the winning side next round?

[Kzoppistan]

I have no dog in this fight. The back and forth is pretty amusing, and I see good points on both sides, however, this I have to address...

The problem is literally that TOP takes their ball and goes home if the odds aren't crazy stacked in their favor.

That's called using your political capital to insist to your allies the terms of your own engagement. You dictate the ground where you stand and fight- thus maximizing your successes and minimizing your losses. Perhaps not as glorius as a fullfrontal assualt, its pragmetisim can't be denied. While I won't say this about TOP in particular (though you might) some alliances are more blatently self-interested than others, and many won't even deny it. If one knows that and still treaties such an alliance, you can count on at least a token defense should you be losing, but a very powerful offense on your behalf if the tables are ever turned. (You just have to put up with their insistence to be involved in terms setting.)

 

It might satisfy one's vanity, but you can't really expect an ally to throw themselves onto the fire for you if the outcome of defeat is already certain. Better to save them for next time when you have the upper hand. If there is no next time that invovles an upperhand, the allaince is incompent and deserves only token defense anyways.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[the rebel]

Instead of pointing out facts against his claim you say that he should know better. God forbid that he puts forth his opinion on why he isn't fond of one alliance for in his view; Overusing the tactic and punishing others for using it.
 
Honestly you should know better.

I'm not claiming he should know better as he already knows all that's going on is biased mud slinging.

He challenged my comment aimed at no one in particular and got a blunt answer that he couldn't spin or argue with.