HeinousOne Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 You know what? I disagree, I think it adds a very challenging dynamic [OOC]to the game[/OOC] in terms of how your lower tiers defend themselves from these new predators (which your upper tiers have created through their success on the battlefield) and continue the war effectively. Instead of having a bit of a moan about how unfair and boring it is that your beaten down enemy is causing problems for you, shouldn't you focus on how best to defeat them [OOC]without trying to lobby to have the rules of the game changed to suit your situation[/OOC]?Edit: OOC tags added. We have a winner. What you have are people who are seriously giving NPO players no respect as fellow players. Whether you think their IC actions are horrid they still should receive the same rights as others and if it was Sparta that was on the receiving end of some help from the war system I highly doubt you would see any of them here defending how there should be absolutely zero turtling affect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 What you have are people who are seriously giving NPO players no respect as fellow players. I am deeply prejudiced toward members of the NPO, just so you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 This is a new war, new tactics are being tried. This is the first time any war has involved anything nearing this level of nuclear proliferation or nuclear time frame. The fact is, no one knows what the best thing to do is here, because no one has done it before. To be fair, we gave you back GGA.I call that an investment in our future. New surrender term: NPO has to take GGA back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 This is a new war, new tactics are being tried. This is the first time any war has involved anything nearing this level of nuclear proliferation or nuclear time frame. The fact is, no one knows what the best thing to do is here, because no one has done it before.New surrender term: NPO has to take GGA back. You monsters. Thats cruel and unusual, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 <snip> Oh I know of the divisions first hand, though albeit on a smaller scale than most, during my tenure as IPA's Chief Advisor being involved in the very damn brief talks about setting ToS for NATO and later the heated "debate" for IRON's. The fact that negotiation was being used from the very beginning of the NPO Theater was part of what lead to this being such a mess, imo. I know things aren't as simple as everyone would have liked, but negotiations could have waited and maybe that Peace Mode Nations count for Pacifica would be drastically lower. Otherwise, I understand why some of the things are the way they are today. Though I'd say while NPO is outnumbered and outgunned, they were smart enough to capitalize on poor staggering to get their Banks into PM as well as the inaction from Sparta's upper tiers and the premature peace negotiations. I hope GtG and co. give those upper tier guys who deliberately sat out fitting reprimands for their idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) We have a winner. What you have are people who are seriously giving NPO players no respect as fellow players. Whether you think their IC actions are horrid they still should receive the same rights as others and if it was Sparta that was on the receiving end of some help from the war system I highly doubt you would see any of them here defending how there should be absolutely zero turtling affect. I find it saddening you have become so keen on assuming one members post represents the entirety of a particular alliance's opinion. Hell, I really hoped people had gotten past the stage on these forums wherein they took a single members opinion as his own and didn't make alliance wide assumptions based off such. I'd appreciate it to say the least. Edited July 14, 2009 by Matthew Conrad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I find it saddening you have become so keen on assuming one members post represents the entirety of a particular alliance's opinion. Hell, I really hoped people had gotten past the stage on these forums wherein they took a single members opinion as his own and didn't make alliance wide assumptions based off such. I'd appreciate it to say the least. There's an old saying, "Before pointing out the stick in a man's eye, remove the log from your own", which applies to this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Yes, admin wants to get paid. I don't care though. I want to play a game that is fun. And as it stands now, there are a lot of stale points in this game that would be more fun (if not more lucrative) if admin were to add features to deal with them. Like wonders for very large nations etc. More specific content. I also think more spy operations (I know he just rolled some new ones out) that would make it more difficult for an entire alliance to stay in peace mode forever or to simply maintain 0 soldiers forever. The last time this was suggested, it was widely decried as NPO trying to make life even harder for FAN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I find it saddening you have become so keen on assuming one members post represents the entirety of a particular alliance's opinion. Hell, I really hoped people had gotten past the stage on these forums wherein they took a single members opinion as his own and didn't make alliance wide assumptions based off such. I'd appreciate it to say the least. The only reason I brought up Sparta is because it is the alliance Drostan is part of and thus if the tables were turned and it was Sparta getting pounded and then trying to get in to peace mode while turtling with some heavily armed lower ns nations then I doubt he would be wanting the system changed. I understand you have used that response a few times but it appears you used it one too many times Matthew as you obviously didnt really care to truly read what I said and instead just went about assuming what it said which is obvious after seeing your response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 That's true, but surely out of all the alliances against us they have SOME nations in that range they can coordinate. Looking at our war screen, I see one alliance still truly fighting us: PC. Props to them for fighting on even after the novelty of getting nuked wore off. Everyone else has either authorized us for raids but ceased major operations or just quit. Some got bored, some decided not to mess themselves up anymore by fighting a war that was essentially over, and some came in expecting an easy tech raid and got kicked in the teeth. I think someone posted a breakdown of NPO's wars, and the story is the same... A few shoulder the burden while the rest sit there and talk like they're taking down an empire. Haha, that's because I've let my tech level fall while I've kept my infra steady. Once I go below 75 tech I'll start rebuying to stay nuke capable. -Bama To be fair I've been checking you guys daily for anyone in my range since rejoining MK, but to no avail. If you can convince a buddy from 20-30k to leave peace mode I'll be happy to remind y'all that you're still at war with the Kingdom. As is you have one large target out of peacemode, which MK has staggered. We also took the last one who jumped out of peace mode. Everyone else in war mode is 10k NS or lower, and sending in non nuclear nations to hit someone with nukes and take many times more damage than they're able to do isn't worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 To be fair I've been checking you guys daily for anyone in my range since rejoining MK, but to no avail. If you can convince a buddy from 20-30k to leave peace mode I'll be happy to remind y'all that you're still at war with the Kingdom.As is you have one large target out of peacemode, which MK has staggered. We also took the last one who jumped out of peace mode. Everyone else in war mode is 10k NS or lower, and sending in non nuclear nations to hit someone with nukes and take many times more damage than they're able to do isn't worth it. Oh, I'm aware you guys are a higher-ANS alliance, making it tougher for you to find targets. If there's no one in range, there's nothing you can do about that. But a lot of the people we're fighting (especially NV) have smaller nations out the wazoo. NV was in fact brought in specifically for that purpose. But PC, a tiny high-ANS alliance, is doing the heavy lifting. I wish I had the list of everyone we're at war with so I could count how many nations are in the lower ranges altogether. I'm sure some of them have MPs. -Bama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 There's an old saying, "Before pointing out the stick in a man's eye, remove the log from your own", which applies to this post. Look below, maybe you can find yourself an answer. The only reason I brought up Sparta is because it is the alliance Drostan is part of and thus if the tables were turned and it was Sparta getting pounded and then trying to get in to peace mode while turtling with some heavily armed lower ns nations then I doubt he would be wanting the system changed.I understand you have used that response a few times but it appears you used it one too many times Matthew as you obviously didnt really care to truly read what I said and instead just went about assuming what it said which is obvious after seeing your response. I've brought this up 3 times including now. The first time was obvious as one of our members started a topic saying NPO should be completely destroyed. I disagreed with him, and yet droves of people kept pointing fingers at us as if that particular non-government member was speaking for all of Sparta. Anyways, you didn't refer specifically to Drostan you referred to the alliance as a whole in your statement. If you had said, "I bet Drostan wouldn't be complaining if Sparta were getting pounded." I would be perfectly fine with that statement because no one else from Sparta has even said they wanted to change the turtling mechanic. That's what I have a problem with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Oh, I'm aware you guys are a higher-ANS alliance, making it tougher for you to find targets. If there's no one in range, there's nothing you can do about that. But a lot of the people we're fighting (especially NV) have smaller nations out the wazoo. NV was in fact brought in specifically for that purpose. But PC, a tiny high-ANS alliance, is doing the heavy lifting. I wish I had the list of everyone we're at war with so I could count how many nations are in the lower ranges altogether. I'm sure some of them have MPs. -Bama PC has many small nuclear nations as a result of their hilariously ill-advised berzerker strategy at the start of the war. MK has only a handful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) You know what? I disagree, I think it adds a very challenging dynamic [OOC]to the game[/OOC] in terms of how your lower tiers defend themselves from these new predators (which your upper tiers have created through their success on the battlefield) and continue the war effectively. Instead of having a bit of a moan about how unfair and boring it is that your beaten down enemy is causing problems for you, shouldn't you focus on how best to defeat them [OOC]without trying to lobby to have the rules of the game changed to suit your situation[/OOC]?Edit: OOC tags added. You should try reading the rest of the thread before posting next time. This is an OOC forum so your tags only make it obvious that you have no idea what the difference is which I never fail to find amusing. I have already posted about this though if you had bothered to read the next post after the one you quoted but I get it. That requires effort whereas it is much easier to just go on the offensive. Where to begin. Well, with the addition of the Manhattan project pretty much there is no way to protect your lower ranks as the chances of them being able to buy a Manhattan Project before at least 3999 infra is pretty poor. And if they do buy it earlier it will be a constant burden and will greatly slow down the growth of their nations. If by 'very challenging dynamic' you mean 'it's pretty much impossible to do anything about' then you are right. This is very challenging. One of these nations can continue to buy nukes almost indefinitely provided they get 3 M in aid which is nothing these days. While I don't care enough to suggest it, I think the minimum requirements for purchasing new nukes even with a Manhattan Project maybe should be increased a bit to prevent nations with 2000 NS running around with multiple nukes (as is currently the case). Most of the people their size will be a couple of months old. Really though this dynamic results from the curbstomp more than anything. If the sides were more evenly-matched then both sides would have these little ankle biters and they could fight each other into oblivion together all romantic-like. I would much rather see the political dynamic of the game change so that every war didn't turn into a global conflict change than any game mechanics. I remain cautiously optimistic about this but I can already see many alliances scrambling to put together massive blocs that will ensure the further stagnation of the game. My having a moan was my joking that admin should change the rules so I can hurt people more. If I were truly 'lobbying to have the rules changed' I would probably have posted a suggestion rather than discuss it in an open topic. When you see a topic in the suggestion forum that includes me begging for special powers to smite my enemies then this criticism will become valid. I think it is funny that people honestly have no clue about OOC or IC at all and clearly there is no difference in their mind between any of the forums. I am not sure if it is because they don't know how to role play at all or perhaps it is more accurate to say that the force exerted by their real life is so miniscule it fails to contend with the emotional weight of their in-game character. Either way, this is a place I often come to in an attempt to escape the massive propaganda during war times and so it is saddening to see the same cliches from the IC forums spilling out into these ones. @Chron: I suggested that Admin give me a weapon that not only destroyed their nation but broke their mother's legs in real life while simultaneously winning me the lottery (in real life). Do you think that is serious enough to be posted in the suggestion forum? No? Then it probably shouldn't be taken at face value. In the game I am a moral citizen but out-of-character I am the sith and you are the newby! /me puts on his real-life robe and wizard hat. EDIT: To make matters more funny, Matt, not only are they inferring that my views represent the entirety of Sparta, they are inferring that my out-of-character views represent the entirety of our in-character alliance. It's actually madness but that's what I love about this game and what makes the OWF so inhospitable to newcomers: it makes no sense. Of course the can't keep track of IC and OOC because for 90% of the game those things are not different. Edited July 14, 2009 by Drostan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I heard Karma is so desperate they are trying to get all the NPO nations outside Red sanctioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I heard Karma is so desperate they are trying to get all the NPO nations outside Red sanctioned. NPO has 9 or 10 nations in their top 280 nations (down to 1.6k NS) outside of the red team. I haven't heard of any organized operation to sanction NPO but I guess you may have heard something I haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Occurring mostly on the Green Team. Rothinzil (Mary the Fantabulous) Terra Militis (forsberg1785) 7/13/2009 Trade & Aid Get off my lawn! Ottoman Empire (rotenaugen) Terra Militis (forsberg1785) 7/13/2009 Trade & Aid Hippies love green. Weaselland (tipsyweasel) Terra Militis (forsberg1785) 7/13/2009 Trade & Aid A general dispute Sad since Mary has been on the Green team longer than most people have been playing this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) Occurring mostly on the Green Team. Rothinzil (Mary the Fantabulous) Terra Militis (forsberg1785) 7/13/2009 Trade & Aid Get off my lawn! Ottoman Empire (rotenaugen) Terra Militis (forsberg1785) 7/13/2009 Trade & Aid Hippies love green. Weaselland (tipsyweasel) Terra Militis (forsberg1785) 7/13/2009 Trade & Aid A general dispute Sad since Mary has been on the Green team longer than most people have been playing this game. Why is that sad? I fail to see where the length of time someone has been on a team means a damn thing. Edited July 14, 2009 by Electron Sponge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Why is that sad? I fail to see where the length of time someone has been on a team means a damn thing. I have to agree with this, but I also condemn using sanctions as a weapon in war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Why is that sad? I fail to see where the length of time someone has been on a team means a damn thing. I can agree I guess. Still doesn't take away the fact that they are sanctioning NPO nations outside Red. Even tiny nations in PM. That's what I think is sad but it doesn't surprise me. Not much left that they can do to harm NPO at this point. Might as well sanction them I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I have to agree with this, but I also condemn using sanctions as a weapon in war. sanctions are immoral, put this in your signature if you're down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Scott Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Sanctioning is just another in-game method in which war may be conducted. NPO had/has the advantage of having their own safe haven on Red. If certain NPO members decided against moving to it, then it's their fault if they log on to find they have no trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Yeah, using sanctions is dirty pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eretz Yisrael Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) It should be forsberg getting off Mary's lawn, not the other way around. Edited July 14, 2009 by Jew News Conspiracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 It should be forsberg getting off Mary's lawn, not the other way around. Vengashii are you saying that Mary is claiming some sort of suzerainty over the Green Trading Sphere? Think carefully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts