Azaghul Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 By all accounts it was me who actually caused him to disband BC. Now let us bow before our Pacifican masters, whose holiness we have honored by achieving this great victory! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Thank you ES and MK for the miracles you've done with this thread. Also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjav0 Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Nobody wants to loose, it's human nature, then there's that whole thing of trying to convince your entire alliance that it's the right thing to do, let alone the possibilities of being drug through an IRC integration. To be frank an honest, if this was 2 years ago and mhawk and woody were drilling me like that in IRC, I would of had 3 nations on there $@! so fast there head would have spun and I would have been the one rolling the hard 6.. Thats the freelancer people know and love. I am certain you would still do it if you were OV today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiabelly Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I have never been so proud to be in ghey love with two plumbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 My good man your absolutely correct, in our time here we have seen ideas get burned at the stake or slowly die and fade away, however I don''t think when Windsor created this topic at 7:33 server time this morning that 6 hours later he would be closing the doors to BC, I for one have never seen this before in the history of CN, if I'm mistaken please correct me. I think it became obvious that there were certain questions he was trying not to answer with careful deflection here an there. And then quickly found himself unable to continue the spin. Good times! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Did we just troll an alliance to death? No, you see, Blackstone was not an alliance, but rather a revolutionary organization unlike that which you have seen before, with new, clever and innovative methods that will catch even NPO completely by surprise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 MK had a defect that gave us info. Nothing more. Nothing less. We've already explained this. Several times. also that "defect" later became "unavalible", one of your expert scientists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megabyte Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Off topic this is. Back on topic it must get, or warns will be handed out, they will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) This thread was fairly interesting until page 3. From there it has derailed to trolling and idiocy to the point where I'm not even going to bother reading past page 4. The highlight of this thread was Ejay's reply to Gabe Logan. It's really up to the community to bring about change, not Blackstone. Vox Populi is at the very least attempting to help the community change where as BC is asking for the community to allow them to be the agents of change. So in my opinion, that makes Vox Populi a selfless movement bent by the will of the community while Blackstone is a self-righteous "idea" asking for us to place our trust in them to be the agent of change in an attempt to bolster whatever giddy feelings they receive when they assume they mean anything more than they really are; Self-righteous, power hungry fools. We need no one, especially Blackstone, to rely on for change but ourselves. The community can take care of itself. As Ejay said, Let the players play this game. Edit: Left out a key sentence. Edited April 20, 2009 by Emperor Marx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTTofAK Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 (edited) Now let us bow before our Pacifican masters, whose holiness we have honored by achieving this great victory! Once a year my friend once a year. As for standing up for the game? There are lots of reasons for the state of the game. Not all of which are so easy to fix. IMHO micro-alliances are a major cause. While select few do a lot for the game most bleed players like hemorrhaging wound. Edited April 20, 2009 by GTTofAK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherington Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Once a year my friend once a year.As for standing up for the game? There are lots of reasons for the state of the game. Not all of which are so easy to fix. IMHO micro-alliances are a major cause. While select few do a lot for the game most bleed players like hemorrhaging wound. I agree theres too many small alliances, they all ought to merge into about 20 or 30 decent sized ones. I think protectorate treaties are the problem, they allow alliances to form that are incapable of defending themselves even from rogues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Logan Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 As for standing up for the game? There are lots of reasons for the state of the game. Not all of which are so easy to fix. IMHO micro-alliances are a major cause. While select few do a lot for the game most bleed players like hemorrhaging wound. Funny I would agree, seeing as how I operate a micro-alliance, but you are correct. This is part of the game mechanics I was referring to that can only be solved by admin. Many people like to be in charge, and others just have their own ideas of how they think things should run, so they start a new alliance. Not to steal ideas from another game, but in LW for example, alliances are created as part of the game and can only be done so once you reach a certain level. I would like to see a similar system here. Technically, people could still start an alliance outside of game mechanics, but it wouldn't hold up well because they would show no affiliation in-game and recruiting would be difficult, as well as treaty signings, etc. The bar should be set high to create an alliance. I think it would be interesting to see how this move would change the game and it would definitely rid us of the hundreds of micros out there (including mine ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Logan Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 The highlight of this thread was Ejay's reply to Gabe Logan. It's really up to the community to bring about change, not Blackstone. The community can take care of itself. As Ejay said, Let the players play this game. I agree the community can take care of itself, as I responded to ejay's thread a few posts up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Once a year my friend once a year.As for standing up for the game? There are lots of reasons for the state of the game. Not all of which are so easy to fix. IMHO micro-alliances are a major cause. While select few do a lot for the game most bleed players like hemorrhaging wound. I see no reason why all alliances have to be 900 members or larger with fleets of drones. You wouldnt let something get that large in the first place, so the point is moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabe Logan Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I see no reason why all alliances have to be 900 members or larger with fleets of drones. You wouldnt let something get that large in the first place, so the point is moot. Yeah, but that's not exactly what I'm saying. Something else I would like to see changed is the ridiculous number of nukes a nation can own. The requirements should be steeper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freelancer Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Yeah, but that's not exactly what I'm saying. Something else I would like to see changed is the ridiculous number of nukes a nation can own. The requirements should be steeper. Are you kidding, 25 ain't squat when you figure your losing 2/3 of them to spy attacks, hell I want 100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDRocks Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Obligatory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PX6DEVASTATER Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 well hasn't this thread been fun, its a virtual turntable of one side insults the other over and over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Sorry it's taken so long to reply. Hit and miss. The game does need change only admin can bring. Admin himself has said that he leaves the game in beta mode because there is still much he wants to do with it. I wait to see what unfolds. Otherwise, yes, it's up to the players to decide the course of fate with politics. My statements weren't for or against NPO or any other alliance. I hope I wasn't construed as taking sides. I also wasn't suggesting that admin play a role that would interrupt the natural course of conflict, but rather to improve game mechanics. Game mechanics are greatly influences by the ideas of the members themselves, the members, the members, and the members...in the community. ;D He is good for listening, something which he has done willingly for quite some time now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 What have we learned here? Don't fight NPO with more NPO. Fight NPO with Vox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incitatus Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Good post Windsor, good post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 This thread makes me really sad. I thought GGA would bear the honor of being the first alliance to be literally ridiculed to death. 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.