Dr. Dan Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 NPO was a main force behind Q, as was TOP and IRON. We sat around a table, basically, and picked allies we wanted and didn't want in the group. Then it was formed. That's really all there is to that. Polar and GGA were vetoed straight away by TOP. So, in that sense, Q was driven to alienate GGA and Polar. Grämlins were never a serious target in Q. Ever. It would have been impossible with the likes of MHA & TOP present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 I'm sorry, is this what you meant? No, it's not. I saw Continuum intervene several times to stop wars from developing. Yeah, even-sided wars, lopsided wars, etc. Most wars in CN are by nature of the game design lopsided though. Large-scale alliance warfare is too destructive, if you have a non-lopsided war for any length of time both sides lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 (edited) No, it's not.I saw Continuum intervene several times to stop wars from developing. Yeah, even-sided wars, lopsided wars, etc. Most wars in CN are by nature of the game design lopsided though. Large-scale alliance warfare is too destructive, if you have a non-lopsided war for any length of time both sides lose. Wars used to be even, back when there weren't hundreds of intertwined micro-alliances, hundreds of protectorates, and when alliances were treaty whores for having more than 5 treaties. It was a great time in the game. Edited August 27, 2009 by Rafael Nadal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Wars used to be even, back when there weren't hundreds of intertwined micro-alliances, hundreds of protectorates, and when alliances were treaty whores for having more than 5 treaties.It was a great time in the game. Back when NS levels were much lower, and before the tech damage cap came off. Nowadays, alliance warfare is vastly more destructive. When a nation like mine can do 20K+ NS damage in a single week of war... Well that's the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 If only the world could of harnessed Karma's paranoia into an energy source, perhaps global peace could have been a reality. Seems every alliance in the world is convinced that we were just about to attack them. I wonder what caused that. *Doitzel summons atrophis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 And before war slots were limited and the nuke delay was enacted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 I saw Continuum intervene several times to stop wars from developing. Yeah, even-sided wars, lopsided wars, etc. So that makes them innocent, now? Last I checked NPO's entire history consists of timing lopsided alliance wars to minimize PR damage, even when they were blatantly betraying allies they had sworn to protect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 So that makes them innocent, now? Last I checked NPO's entire history consists of timing lopsided alliance wars to minimize PR damage, even when they were blatantly betraying allies they had sworn to protect. Sure, if you look at tiny subsets of our history, through a single narrow point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Sure, if you look at tiny subsets of our history, through a single narrow point of view. Please, give the other point, and please refute that NPO has been a catalyst for periodic curbstompings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Please, give the other point, and please refute that NPO has been a catalyst for periodic curbstompings. Just because there are wars in the past that we happened to win, does not mean we were sitting there plotting who we could 'curbstomp'. If alliances screw up and stumble into the crosshairs, are we supposed to give them a pat on the back and say "better luck next time"? I think not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Just because there are wars in the past that we happened to win, does not mean we were sitting there plotting who we could 'curbstomp'. Of course not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 (edited) So that makes them innocent, now? Last I checked NPO's entire history consists of timing lopsided alliance wars to minimize PR damage, even when they were blatantly betraying allies they had sworn to protect. A whole lot of alliances have only ever participated in lopsided alliance wars in their favour. Actually it's a short list of surviving alliances who have fought on the losing side of lopsided alliance wars. Out of the larger blocs, really it's just C&G, Poseidon and CDT which have done that (USN and Menotah were the only member alliances to not fight in Karma, and USN, well, defended CSN in the GATO war; while out of C&G member alliances, only Vanguard has managed to avoid being curbstomped at some point as far as I know). Please, give the other point, and please refute that NPO has been a catalyst for periodic curbstompings. Please prove that you have stopped beating your mother. Edit: You can't prove a negative. Edited August 27, 2009 by Haflinger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Of course not What the hell does a post from Doitzel have to do with what I said? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 A whole lot of alliances have only ever participated in lopsided alliance wars in their favour.Which is irrelevant since Stonewall Jaxon is talking about NPO alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Which is irrelevant since Stonewall Jaxon is talking about NPO alone. It's relevant because I'm suggesting the NPO is like most alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 (edited) What the hell does a post from Doitzel have to do with what I said? My mistake, try this one Please prove that you have stopped beating your mother. It's hard to beat someone who's six feet under. It's relevant because I'm suggesting the NPO is like most alliances. Of course, who here hasn't tried to create a practice of player-created bans from the game, while telling people to go "die" in an OOC context? Edited August 27, 2009 by Stonewall Jaxon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallen Fool Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 (edited) It's relevant because I'm suggesting the NPO is like most alliances.No its not.Stonewall Jaxon is arguing that NPO has committed illegitimate actions. Instead of directly refuting that you're attempting to sidestep the issue by attempting to add in a angle relating to moral relativity. Hence your continuous posts of "ITS OKAY THEY DO IT. EVERYONE ELSE DOES TOO." Edit: wrong your Edited August 27, 2009 by Fallen_Fool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 My mistake, try this one I don't see how that proves we plot 'curbstomps' either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 No its not.Stonewall Jaxon is arguing that NPO has committed illegitimate actions. Instead of directly refuting that you're attempting to sidestep the issue by attempting to add in a angle relating to moral relativity. Hence your continuous posts of "ITS OKAY THEY DO IT. EVERYONE ELSE DOES TOO." Edit: wrong your Actually, he only just went to arguing that they committed illegitimate actions. Before he was arguing "Most of the wars they fight in are lopsided in their favour." Well if that's a crime, we have a huge cast of villains, including your alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 I don't see how that proves we plot 'curbstomps' either. You can't see why that makes NPO look kinda bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeta Defender Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 You can't see why that makes NPO look kinda bad? Not really as if it wasn't us the world hated it would be another alliance/ It's all relative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 (edited) And I thought we'd finished our forum war. We did not abandon TORN. We were not going to abandon TORN. We approached Archon about ending the war before talking to TORN, yes, but any deal that got us out of the war was always going to include TORN, or else we wouldn't have taken it and stayed in. But of course Archon used this info to convince Bigwoody that we were going to leave them hanging, and he freaked out and instead of coming and checking if any of it was true, he ran around telling everyone that we had betrayed him. If I was one of those people prone to believing conspiracy theories, I'd be very interested in the start of this war. Why? Well TORN brought us the info about OV spying, TORN was pushing to go to war, then Archon used a mistake on our part to give Bigwoody an excuse to get out of the war and leave us out to dry, which he then used (and almost succeeded) in an attempt to get all our allies to forsake us. And who just happened to have a MDoAP? TORN and MK. Now, my leadership has assured me that it wasn't all a setup by Bigwoody and Archon, but I still have my doubts. It was just all so...convenient. Wait, what? :psy: TORN did talk to NPO. OWF at the time was already brimming with leaks of NPO trying to bail out of the war, leaving TORN behind, etc. Your excuses then to us on how you were starting talks already/didn't contact us/trying to pull out made absolutely no sense, and just increased how much we didn't trust you. It was already high before the war started. After that, we shared the info with our allies. Do I still think NPO would have dropped us cold if they could get out cleanly from that mess? You're damn right I do. Self-preservation at any cost was ever your strong point. I feel we just beat you to the punch, thanks to MK. I thoroughly enjoyed watching you get rolled after we posted our exit thread. I'm not sure if it was that same night or the night after. Two, we weren't the providers of the spying info. I know you're all repeating it as much as you can, but your leaders know who did give it to you and the avenues they took to get it, and TORN had nothing to do with that aspect. Three, my lappy just got fixed. I'm so happy :awesome: Fake Edit: Four, I've heard that conspiracy before recently. It's great Real Edit: NPO talked to Archon about ending the war before talking to TORN. Later on, they tried blaming the entire thing on TORN while trying to extricate themselves. Of course, by this time I think NPO and TORN were rather split by the fact that NPO hadn't discussed things with TORN first and the fact that TORN had gone around telling everyone NPO had tried to abandon them.Whether NPO actually was trying to pull out without TORN or just acting without thinking things all the way through as a symptom of the very panicky mood most people were in at this point is debatable, though. Bolded something I'd forgotten about. That was rich. As for the other stuff, my opinion is already above. Edited August 27, 2009 by mythicknight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Wait, what? :psy: TORN did talk to NPO. OWF at the time was already brimming with leaks of NPO trying to bail out of the war, leaving TORN behind, etc. Your excuses then to us on how you were starting talks already/didn't contact us/trying to pull out made absolutely no sense, and just increased how much we didn't trust you. It was already high before the war started. After that, we shared the info with our allies. Do I still think NPO would have dropped us cold if they could get out cleanly from that mess? You're damn right I do. Self-preservation at any cost was ever your strong point. I feel we just beat you to the punch, thanks to MK. I thoroughly enjoyed watching you get rolled after we posted our exit thread. I'm not sure if it was that same night or the night after. Two, we weren't the providers of the spying info. I know you're all repeating it as much as you can, but your leaders know who did give it to you and the avenues they took to get it, and TORN had nothing to do with that aspect. Oh, I'm quite sure you did enjoy it. You are just like all the others, allying with us to give you time to perfect your backstabbing technique. Congrats, you did it well. We wouldn't have left you behind, but that's all irrelevant now. You made your bed, and now you can lie in it. You may find it gets distinctly more uncomfortable as we get closer and closer to our release from terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Oh, I'm quite sure you did enjoy it. You are just like all the others, allying with us to give you time to perfect your backstabbing technique. Congrats, you did it well. We wouldn't have left you behind, but that's all irrelevant now. You made your bed, and now you can lie in it. You may find it gets distinctly more uncomfortable as we get closer and closer to our release from terms. I'll be waiting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 I'll be waiting So will I. Six months is quite a long time for us to reflect on what you and others did to us. We'll be doing something like this: 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.