Subtleknifewielder Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 The discrepancy here is with the various degrees of meaning for the term financial assistance. Yes, I understand the point you guys are making and would agree to some extent IF we were sending full aid packages to said nations (similar to the scenario that someone proposed in order to raid <30k or something). But these are tech deals. Growing our nations; sending something of value for something in return of equal value (or more/less depending on your capitalistic goals). I, myself, me, do not view buying some groceries at a store as "financially assisting" the store in the sense that I want to see that store succeed or to see that store beat their competition. I understand that some people do view it this way (boycott Wal-Mart so your local mom/pop store can succeed), but I do not. I want some cheerios and do not care if walmart ends up owning the entire world. With the term "no financial assistance" in surrender threads, I honestly would assume that it would mean that tech deals are still allowed. Woah now. I was just asked to "sell down" and "do something about it" to which I responded that I could not because a) i am out of range and b) even with 0 infra I would have no one in my range who is not in peace mode. See my own quote here. Yes I agreed with you: Sorry. When you go out of your way to point out "Our 150k nations were being hit by 600k nations" I thought you were referring to the NS gap. I get it, you're a little on edge maybe because of some posts in this thread, but I am not personally attacking you. I am attempting to hold a discussion why tech deals are not considered acts of war. And again yes, the free tech to enemy nations seems pretty sketch, but I have not been recording these deals on either side so I cannot comment on it. Actually, according to (ooc/game/ooc) terms, any aid is 'financial aid.' Just thought I would throw that in there. Why don't you find a member of one of the surrendered alliances and have them do a tech deal with one of the still fighting alliances, and see what the attacking coalition thinks of that. In the end the tech exploitation of DBDC'S producer nations will only hurt them when facing nations being pumped with 9000000/100 tech deals in Polar. Heck maybe informing DBDC tech suppliers how much they are getting ripped off would be even more effective than attacking them! Not a bad idea at that...offer them better prices! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Heck maybe informing DBDC tech suppliers how much they are getting ripped off would be even more effective than attacking them! Your logic is flawed. These guys are loyal to the bone. Plus they aren't getting ripped off, it's a fair price. Edited January 14, 2015 by Hunterman1043 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geerland Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 In the biggest market in the game, the going price is 6/200.Given how effectively our little guys performed tywin, your point is rather moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 Months? Let's not exaggerate here. We fought very recently and also fought numerous times over the course of the past year. There are no alliances that have been hit harder by DBDC than Polar and her allies. We haven't had an active war with polar since Nov 2014. Also, what? I'm fairly certain Pax Corvus got hit substantially harder than a one week shot at your top 3 nations. Before that GOP and before that TDO. We have also raided fairly unilaterally, so let's not play a card that doesn't exist. No one is pitying you because DBDC hurt your pixels. You fought a different DBDC. This one is not the same. Also, this is not about any NS gap. Please don't resort to petty comments while dodging my argument. I've seen enough of that from the rest of DT who have put up some truly awful responses.his response is quite accurate actually. The exact same situation. In fact in his case he was actually so outmatched we had to assign lower DBDC nations to hit because dark Templar was already falling out of range. SCM and auinur lost hundreds of thousands of NS fighting DBDC repeatedly during EQ. It's still getting declared on by gigantic nations with a size able tech advantage, only thing different was the land count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 My stance on the wartime tech deals and subsequent attacks is this: I have never seen tech deals with non involved nations as an act of war. Even in the case of active warring, I don't see how it's the job of the attacker or attackers alliance to interfere with tech deals established between the enemy and an unrelated tech supplier. What rate is chosen is completely irrelevant. You are attempting to physically blockade the importation of tech without a game mechanic to support it. It's doomed to fail. The only scenario that merits such a direct inter meddling in my opinion is the purposeful tech aid of a nation you are actively warring. I'll supply an example: When DBDC attacked RIA, and RIA declared counter wars on our uninvolved guys, we were seeing previously nonexistent aid slots suddenly used to funnel tech and cash specifically to the RIAs that we're fighting us. These slots were coming from all over the place, and not from RIA. That's the kind of aiding I see as an act of war, not a tech deal or tech supply chain in place pre war. Obviously the point of war is to destroy the enemy and that means killing growth by stopping tech importation. But attempting to justify it as an act of war is outdated and circumventing responsibility for what you're doing. No matter how you want to spin it, you are declaring war against every alliance who is sending aid to your target, and all this OWF backlash shows that everyone is in accordance with that. So don't try to play ignorant when the world calls your bluff and attacks back. And don't be surprised if people still resent you postwar for half-assing an ineffective war tactic and calling yourself a liberator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 We haven't had an active war with polar since Nov 2014. Actually in every case Polar's nations rebuilt back into the upper tier you have attacked and raided them. I remember because I almost went inactive in LoSS until someone messaged me that Polar got attacked by DBDC in may.No one is pitying you because DBDC hurt your pixels. Polar does not ask for, nor give, pity. Polar fights for sovereignty amd the right to exist on equal terms with other alliances. I could care less about the upper tier and think it should be abandoned to all the parasites and sycophants, but there are still Polar nations who want to grow to the top tier and so long as they come under attack for doing so I am duty bound to retaliate in the low tier as long as I am able. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 My stance on the wartime tech deals and subsequent attacks is this:I have never seen tech deals with non involved nations as an act of war. Even in the case of active warring, I don't see how it's the job of the attacker or attackers alliance to interfere with tech deals established between the enemy and an unrelated tech supplier. What rate is chosen is completely irrelevant.You are attempting to physically blockade the importation of tech without a game mechanic to support it. It's doomed to fail. The only scenario that merits such a direct inter meddling in my opinion is the purposeful tech aid of a nation you are actively warring. I'll supply an example:When DBDC attacked RIA, and RIA declared counter wars on our uninvolved guys, we were seeing previously nonexistent aid slots suddenly used to funnel tech and cash specifically to the RIAs that we're fighting us. These slots were coming from all over the place, and not from RIA. That's the kind of aiding I see as an act of war, not a tech deal or tech supply chain in place pre war.Obviously the point of war is to destroy the enemy and that means killing growth by stopping tech importation. But attempting to justify it as an act of war is outdated and circumventing responsibility for what you're doing. No matter how you want to spin it, you are declaring war against every alliance who is sending aid to your target, and all this OWF backlash shows that everyone is in accordance with that. So don't try to play ignorant when the world calls your bluff and attacks back.And don't be surprised if people still resent you postwar for half-assing an ineffective war tactic and calling yourself a liberator.Why would your stance be any different?You destroyed 12k tech in a single round this war. Allowing your victims to continue tech dealing just gives you a better change to hit them a second time when they rebuy infra and steal even more of their tech. If I were in your shoes I would actively encourage my victims to tech deal during war.Of course, there's only a small handful of nations who are in the same category as you with exponentially more land/tech than any opponent they would ever fight and also tech/land raid on a regular basis, so I'm not sure that the other 9000 nations have a similar reason to agree with your stance on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 I'm guessing if you surveyed people on this issue, you'd discover a continuum of offense. On the low offense end you've have 9/100 tech tech deals that have been going on for years, that continue during a global war. On the high offense end you'd have third parties sending a rogue tech, cash, and soldiers in each aid slot only upon the start of the rogue wars, without getting anything in return. In other words, things like timing, intent, reason for the wars, and the pricing of the deal (mostly aid to warring nation vs. seller-friendly deal) matter to people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) If anyone wants to hit me up for a 9/100 tech deal so I can rebuild and hit more DBDC tech sellers Cuba said its ok! (I also accept secret aid). Edited January 14, 2015 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 It's a good thing you don't like our policy Cuba because we don't like yours!26 wars with DBDC cost us close to one million NS. You have some mighty nations. The reality is we can't destroy you and while reducing your tech input won't destroy you, it will give you reason to consider working out a solution.Doing nothing is a guarantee that as soon as one of us is in range the same thing happens again.The policy stands and when we are able, it will be enforced. If you want that to change then you need come to us with a solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) If anyone wants to hit me up for a 9/100 tech deal so I can rebuild and hit more DBDC tech sellers Cuba said its ok!(I also accept secret aid). At that terrible rate, I hope you get no offers.The policy stands and when we are able, it will be enforced. If you want that to change then you need come to us with a solution. I think it would be most entertaining if no such solution was found. Edited January 14, 2015 by Starcraftmazter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 I think it would be most entertaining if no such solution was found. I agree! hopefully I can keep hitting DBDC tech sellers long after the war is over. :war: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 I think that will encourage lower new player retention and force lower nations to leave the game due to them getting harassed for executing a game mechanic. I'm not saying that's a bad thing because it might actually end this game. Great plan Tywin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 I think that will encourage lower new player retention and force lower nations to leave the game due to them getting harassed for executing a game mechanic. I'm not saying that's a bad thing because it might actually end this game. Great plan Tywin! Then perhaps the God King should return to the negotiations table in a reasonable fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 As it stands now, I have had to resolve substantially more wars related to GOONS hitting our tech sellers than I have with Polar or PBPC hitting our sellers. I can't actually think of one time I have been consulted to resolve a Decree-related war to be quite honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 14, 2015 Report Share Posted January 14, 2015 As it stands now, I have had to resolve substantially more wars related to GOONS hitting our tech sellers than I have with Polar or PBPC hitting our sellers. I can't actually think of one time I have been consulted to resolve a Decree-related war to be quite honest. We will see how that goes once some of the other eleven alliances refuse to fight your war of aggression any longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 Meh, I don't find it an act of war unless convenient, but I won't begrudge someone finding tech dealing/aiding an act of war, nor do I care how people go about trying to enforce embargoes or reacting to those declarations. All acts in this game when they are by your enemy are acts of war as they strengthen opposing nations. Whether you are receiving aid, cutting off aid, warring, defending, sanctioning, trading, or collecting your nations together in an alliance, if you are not for me you are against me, and I will do what is necessary to improve my position and make yours weaker. Some of the above, however, is clearly counterproductive. I personally don't like the idea of sanctioning due to the annoying ramifications of everyone fixing trades. I don't like the idea of targeting sellers because I like to continue stockpiling tech during war, and wouldn't want it interrupted for me. But these are just time suck annoyances, so I certainly wouldn't begrudge an enemy that uses that against me. Any and all methods of warfare are fair game, the problem being that when they are used, people do get angry. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 Meh, I don't find it an act of war unless convenient, but I won't begrudge someone finding tech dealing/aiding an act of war, nor do I care how people go about trying to enforce embargoes or reacting to those declarations. All acts in this game when they are by your enemy are acts of war as they strengthen opposing nations. Whether you are receiving aid, cutting off aid, warring, defending, sanctioning, trading, or collecting your nations together in an alliance, if you are not for me you are against me, and I will do what is necessary to improve my position and make yours weaker. Some of the above, however, is clearly counterproductive. I personally don't like the idea of sanctioning due to the annoying ramifications of everyone fixing trades. I don't like the idea of targeting sellers because I like to continue stockpiling tech during war, and wouldn't want it interrupted for me. But these are just time suck annoyances, so I certainly wouldn't begrudge an enemy that uses that against me. Any and all methods of warfare are fair game, the problem being that when they are used, people do get angry. :P A wild Joshuarlax appears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 I think that will encourage lower new player retention and force lower nations to leave the game due to them getting harassed for executing a game mechanic. I'm not saying that's a bad thing because it might actually end this game. Great plan Tywin! I don't think accusing Polar of harassment is fair in this case. Let nobody accuse you of reaching for the dramatic, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 Today I learned doing several billion in damage as "tech raids", which amounts to months or years of progress is nowhere near as bad as doing damage to nations that can be rebuilt in a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 Today I learned doing several billion in damage as "tech raids", which amounts to months or years of progress is nowhere near as bad as doing damage to nations that can be rebuilt in a week.That's why they have Mega nations while we don't Moger. We clearly don't understand the mechanics at all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 Then perhaps the God King should return to the negotiations table in a reasonable fashion. That in no way counts as leverage over him you fucking idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 That in no way counts as leverage over him you !@#$@#$ idiot. I know you are just thinking ahead, because eventually Cuba is going to have to come back to the table and negotiate. But you are free to deny reality all you want buddy, Polaris isn't about silencing free speech like your master. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King William Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 A wild Joshuarlax appears. Try not to scare it away.Let's set out tech crumbs and perhaps he'll post again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted January 15, 2015 Report Share Posted January 15, 2015 Okay, so all the vitriol aside... Is everyone happy on the progress they are making towards their National Cemetery? :D 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.