Mason Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I stand on the side of Karma, yet if I were looking down at this situation from high atop a hill above the landscape, I would have to ask...if this game is a game and games are meant to be fun, then why would anyone in their right mind spend a year or more repaying reps and toiling for their past sins just to keep their alliance together when all the fun is gone? (And don't tell me that logging in every day, planning how your nations will suffer to afford their debts is fun, cause I ain't buyin' it.) Yes, this is about so much more and I realize all the political drama involved and the ebilness of the NPO. I understand they owe a debt to our society. I'm just saying, why bother? Wouldn't it be easier to give everyone the finger and call it a day? Come back as someone else and play with a clean slate and actually enjoy the game again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlton the Great Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I stand on the side of Karma, yet if I were looking down at this situation from high atop a hill above the landscape, I would have to ask...if this game is a game and games are meant to be fun, then why would anyone in their right mind spend a year or more repaying reps and toiling for their past sins just to keep their alliance together when all the fun is gone? (And don't tell me that logging in every day, planning how your nations will suffer to afford their debts is fun, cause I ain't buyin' it.)Yes, this is about so much more and I realize all the political drama involved and the ebilness of the NPO. I understand they owe a debt to our society. I'm just saying, why bother? Wouldn't it be easier to give everyone the finger and call it a day? Come back as someone else and play with a clean slate and actually enjoy the game again. Personally, I love how CN is full of vindictiveness and hypocrisy. It's like the real world in miniature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I stand on the side of Karma, yet if I were looking down at this situation from high atop a hill above the landscape, I would have to ask...if this game is a game and games are meant to be fun, then why would anyone in their right mind spend a year or more repaying reps and toiling for their past sins just to keep their alliance together when all the fun is gone? Never seemed to bother the NPO before. Yes, this is about so much more and I realize all the political drama involved and the ebilness of the NPO. I understand they owe a debt to our society. I'm just saying, why bother? To set an example for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Personally, I love how CN is full of vindictiveness and hypocrisy. It's like the real world in miniature. It's also why people agree to terms like that. We're all stubborn !@#$%^&* that take everything too seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Tolkien Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 It's also why people agree to terms like that. We're all stubborn !@#$%^&* that take everything too seriously. This...is...CN! And maybe CNN! For CNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raincoat Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I stand on the side of Karma, yet if I were looking down at this situation from high atop a hill above the landscape, I would have to ask...if this game is a game and games are meant to be fun, then why would anyone in their right mind spend a year or more repaying reps and toiling for their past sins just to keep their alliance together when all the fun is gone? (And don't tell me that logging in every day, planning how your nations will suffer to afford their debts is fun, cause I ain't buyin' it.)Yes, this is about so much more and I realize all the political drama involved and the ebilness of the NPO. I understand they owe a debt to our society. I'm just saying, why bother? Wouldn't it be easier to give everyone the finger and call it a day? Come back as someone else and play with a clean slate and actually enjoy the game again. This was tried in GW1 when NPO was defeated by an enemy coalition. They gave NPO fairly light terms. The main alliances at the time which defeated the NPO were LUE GATO and NAAC. NAAC and LUE both ended up disbanding after being destroyed by the NPO and offered very harsh terms/no terms at all. GATO ended up being under a NPO viceroy for about a year which gutted their government and set up a pro NPO puppet government and would have been disbanded if it was possible. Light terms don't work because NPO plays for keeps. They hold long grudges and if allowed to quickly remilitarize will make priority number 1 destruction of those who worked against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mason Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 You're right. And I'm not referring to Karma. I don't understand why NPO would bother holding on. Pride, courage, determination, honor, etc....it's a game and I just don't see the fun in playing if you're just farming your alliance for a solid year or more. Normal terms are worth withstanding, but what's in it for them to be buried that long? At the end of the day, we're just people sitting in front of computer screens. I wouldn't do it if I weren't having fun. Why should they? They lost. They're not getting off light or even close to it. Their experience will be hell for the conceivable future, so it just seems pointless to me. Yes, I know that's just one perspective but I wonder if it's not the most sane one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I'm pretty sure he was asking why anyone bothers accepting terms that last for months instead of just disbanding and moving on, not asking why people give said terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 They hold long grudges and if allowed to quickly remilitarize will make priority number 1 destruction of those who worked against them. Irony FTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leftbehind Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Irony FTW. Its also reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Ludendorff Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I stand on the side of Karma, yet if I were looking down at this situation from high atop a hill above the landscape, I would have to ask...if this game is a game and games are meant to be fun, then why would anyone in their right mind spend a year or more repaying reps and toiling for their past sins just to keep their alliance together when all the fun is gone? (And don't tell me that logging in every day, planning how your nations will suffer to afford their debts is fun, cause I ain't buyin' it.)Yes, this is about so much more and I realize all the political drama involved and the ebilness of the NPO. I understand they owe a debt to our society. I'm just saying, why bother? Wouldn't it be easier to give everyone the finger and call it a day? Come back as someone else and play with a clean slate and actually enjoy the game again. What in Admin's name are you taking about? Game? Fun? Logging in? Coming back as someone else? Your unhealthy views on metaphysics are mind boggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Its also reality. While there is now voluminous proof that many alliances have held a grudge against us for 1, 2, sometimes even 3 years, there is rather scant evidence that we hold a grudge at all. You know, other than the 'general wisdom' that this is our practice, and various conspiracy theories as to our motives in historical wars. Edited June 16, 2009 by James Dahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Irony FTW. No, reading comprehension FTW. This was tried in GW1 when NPO was defeated by an enemy coalition. They gave NPO fairly light terms. The amount of ignorance, arrogance and hypocrisy displayed in this thread is beyond belief. That is why I say terms shouldn't even have been offered - yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 It might shock you, but some of us value our history (good and bad), our communities and some of us learned the hard way that cutting and running serves no one well. Paying massive reps is kind of irrelevant really, stat whoring is not of any interest to me. If I can keep my alliance intact, I will pay whatever it takes within reason to make that so. The NPO is faced with something different here. These terms are not reasonable in their eyes (the 14 day war term for example). That compromises their community and it is something I understand. The main negotiations in our surrender terms related to who could pay, not what had to be paid. An equal burden for all if far more desirable than random assumption of responsibility based on a peace mode status or an infrastructure point. Let them pay the terms, make it as hard as you like, but let them demonstrate their community by assuming the burden across the alliance and by allowing those most responsible for the situation to contribute directly... or not, but I think this mess needs to end at some stage before it becomes a 200 page farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) No, reading comprehension FTW.The amount of ignorance, arrogance and hypocrisy displayed in this thread is beyond belief. That is why I say terms shouldn't even have been offered - yet. Give me a break, read up on GW2 before you make GW1 analogies. For the record, even though we were defeated (yes I will use the word defeated) in GW1, it was the League that were holding grudges against us and wanted to destroy us in GW2, not the other way around. Edited June 16, 2009 by James Dahl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Sitting around in #sfdelegation, there was a consensus that we would, at some point, if the right scenario came down the road, act decisively rather than sitting around like ducks in a shooting gallery. Whether it was over Gramlins, or the spy incident involving Sparta that turned out not to be such a spy incident, or whatever the case, we were quite prepared to roll the dice. Under the best circumstances, it had to look like NPO started it. OV provided the jackpot.You could I suppose say that the whole response to the OV-TORN-NPO episode was a defensive act. However, that would be downright cheesy at best. One additional beauty of the plan, aside from the fact that not all the alliances in on it always met together to talk as a group, cutting down on the possibility of exposure, was that #sfdelegation was hosted off Coldfront where access could be better controlled. Not Hoo, not Big_Z, not Gen_Lee, not Rishnokof, not KaitlinK, not Gofastleft, not Xiphosis, not reps from RIA or Fark...no, we all saw 4 lights. Eventually reps from VE, Sparta, C&G and the like saw them too. Be proud of what you and yours accomplished. Be aware however that it was months in the making and those responsible took many risks. Everything that had to go right, did. Alright, I think I see the problem here, we're defining "plans" as different things. Yes, in the abstract, there was the idea that if the opportunity arose we would strike first at the NPO instead of waiting for them to hit one of us (like, you know, they did). There were not any specific plans going on with regards to how to make this happen. Similarly OV was not a pawn. This was not a Genmay-BoTS situation. When we decided we were going to stand by OV we were expecting to be fighting a losing war and end up in the same boat with FAN and Vox. That it didn't is, in my opinion, mostly due to NPO's brilliant peace talk declaration and no fault of our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEWBert Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 It might shock you, but some of us value our history (good and bad), our communities and some of us learned the hard way that cutting and running serves no one well. Paying massive reps is kind of irrelevant really, stat whoring is not of any interest to me. If I can keep my alliance intact, I will pay whatever it takes within reason to make that so.The NPO is faced with something different here. These terms are not reasonable in their eyes (the 14 day war term for example). That compromises their community and it is something I understand. The main negotiations in our surrender terms related to who could pay, not what had to be paid. An equal burden for all if far more desirable than random assumption of responsibility based on a peace mode status or an infrastructure point. Let them pay the terms, make it as hard as you like, but let them demonstrate their community by assuming the burden across the alliance and by allowing those most responsible for the situation to contribute directly... or not, but I think this mess needs to end at some stage before it becomes a 200 page farce. And this is why there are still a lot of Pacifican/Polar mancrushes. You cannot ignore history and community Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 And this is why there are still a lot of Pacifican/Polar mancrushes. You cannot ignore history and community Funny how an alliance that never gave a rat's backside about the community of other alliances now asks others consider their alliance community when the shoe is on the other foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) For the record, even though we were defeated (yes I will use the word defeated) in GW1, it was the League that were holding grudges against us and wanted to destroy us in GW2, not the other way around. Because it makes so much sense to let someone off scot-free when you're holding a grudge against them, right, only to try to destroy them again later when your position is much weaker? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Then again, when has any one of your arguments ever made any sense? Edited June 16, 2009 by Azhrarn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEWBert Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) shush there's always been a lot of Polar lovers, even in present day. Is there tension? Yes of course, but the love still exists. Don't make me log dump on my own alliance Edited June 16, 2009 by NEWBert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 OOC: You know....when I deleted after the noCB war, I re-rolled under another name expressly for the purpose of helping an alliance I admired to dig its way out of the reps handed to it. Once their reps were paid, I moved on, and eventually came back under this name. IC: Harsh terms are a test of sorts. Regardless of what your NS is at the end of it, if the community survives....your loss isn't nearly that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 shush there's always been a lot of Polar lovers, even in present day. Is there tension? Yes of course. Maybe those "Polar Lovers" should have spoken up in the manner Doitzel and Corinan did, maybe if they did they could have saved those they loved from a horrible fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Because it makes so much sense to let someone off scot-free when you're holding a grudge against them, right, only to try to destroy them again later when your position is much weaker?Forgive us if we don't feel like repeating that mistake. So what, you're afraid of us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azhrarn Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 So what, you're afraid of us? There are many strong nations in many strong alliances which are afraid to speak out against you even now. I'm not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 So what, you're afraid of us? Karma intends not to repeat the mistakes made by the coaLUEtion during the First Great War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts