Apr 26th 2012, 13:23:14
This is a long time coming, but from the posts on AT, you'd think SoL is a small netgaining alliance minding their own business with a flawless history. I have decided to post a few case studies in an attempt to argue against this image.
#1. SoL doesn't plot coalitions.
Last set SoL approached me asking for a DP. I responded that a uNaP would be the logical pact for now with the opportunity to develop closer relations if both alliances wished to make a positive contribution to the game. However, I told SoL that I would only do this if they renegotiated that dodgy pact with LaF as I saw the possible implications of a gangbang on LaF. I was told there would be no problem with this, but the day after I was contacted by SoL's very own 'D1ck Dastardly' telling me that SoL won’t be doing that and that SoL doesn't do coalitions and never have in EarthEmpires.
Well that is funny, those logs released last set appear to imply some kind of coalition. However the typical SoL mouth piece would tell you SoL didn't intervene last set, they did an arranged war for the good of the server. In reality SoL didn't intervene, because they knew they could not win. The majority of LaF's DPs were on standby and SoL had the choice of going down with the ship, or having their arranged war where the numbers were so stacked only Arrow could lose.
Yet, this is not the only coalition they have had this year. Before this latest carnation, SoL had made plans to drop their then FDP SoF and isolate them. de1i while he was in RD was one of the main instigators of trying to form this coalition. They were all just too careless and attempted to recruit people they had needlessly hit and friends of those alliances who duly told us of their plans. When SoL 'forgot' to pact us, it was because Makinso's "useless underlings" did not follow his orders, the same excuse he's peddled 100x before.
Verdict: Myth.
#2. SoL is a good alliance to be pacted to.
You'd think having a FDP, or at least a uNaP with SoL is a good thing. A big war alliance protecting you, or not targeting you. Well, I've been looking at the fate of some of these alliances. But first, lets have a look at how SoL forms these pacts.
One common method is SoL choosing a netting ally and offering them a FDP. SoL tell the netting alliance they can guarantee that they'll netgain, but SoL demand that alliance aid them at their time of need. This is in SoLs benefit, because if that netgaining alliance has an enemy SoL gain a new enemy which it is justified in killing. An example of this is NA, who were having conflicts with imag. SoL pacted NA and killed off imag for them, believing that NA would be eternally thankful and help them in the future. Another example was SoL's attempt to court LaF over a year ago, being told no, then offering Evo the same deal which they took despite their agreement with LaF against SoL aggression. SoL's other main source of FDP are with alliances with a common enemy, in effect coalition/aggressive pacts targeting someone who they don't like.
Then what about uNaPs? SoL offers these to alliances they don't want/need to fight that set. They use the time and trusted method of smashing someone while pacting their allies and then pacting them and doing the same to their allies in future sets. uNaPs are basically an extension to your time on death row. This set SoL claim to have offered all of LaF's allies uNaPs, but it doesn't take an idiot to know that they moved onto each of laf's allies one at a time, moving on to the next after being declined. SoF were bottom of the Christmas card list and was asked last and only asked, because they got nowhere from the other offers.
Then we come to the ultimate SoL pact. The pact they tricked LaF into signing under the pretence that it was the same pact that Evo signed with SoL. A pact they politicked, despite begging for mercy and threatening to disband days before. The SoL spokesmen would argue that they tried to renegotiate this set, but that the thing, they only renegotiate when it isn't in their favour, just like they only try to arrange friendly wars when they know they're up the duff.
So we had a lengthy look at how SoL does their pacting, but what is a pact worth and why is it bad? Well look at the NA example. They got to net for a few sets while SoL smacked other netgaining alliances around. Although they were not directly causing death to those alliances they were sitting back and could have potentially helped SoL if those alliances managed to get help themselves. This caused resentment in other netting alliances and made themselves a target for anyone who felt threatened by SoL. And... when they were finally hit did SoL go out of their way to help them? No.
Then look at Evo, their pact with SoL also made them a target, especially given the rocky relationship with LaF and that agreement they had. SoL did defend Evo this time, but only because they thought they had politics sorted and the war won and saw Evo as useful for later. Despite this, the set after Evo got into several wars, but where was the SoL intervention when they desperately needed help and where was the SoL intervention when SoF hit TIE... and how about helping MD? The moral is SoL might be a good ally if you know SoL’s intervention will win you a war, but if you are on your last legs, don’t expect any help.
Verdict - Myth
#3. SoLs impact on the game has been positive?
If you listen to their spokesmen, SoL has been the defender of good since '98, but lets have a look at recent history. I'll pick late 2004, the time I joined Earth as a starting point. In my first set on Earth SoL/Arrow/MD broke FDPs with IX/LCN/STEEL over some disparaging remarks towards them on a shared forum, this is my first memory of SoL, one that has stuck with me. For the next two years SoL lost most of their conflicts with IX, claiming that they were the good guys stopping evil cheaters IX. They then let IX's pres into their leadership and were given the choice of continuing to lose or to join the IX side and win. They took the easy option and created a coalition that would see the biggest decline (following the bots) in the game. Since my return to EarthEmpires 2 years ago, I have seen them blindside netgainers, make non-allied alliances fight together against them and form two coalitions.
Despite this I don't think it’s fair saying that this makes them an alliance that has caused nothing but pain and suffering on the game and actually their participation in the game over these 71 sets have enriched the game for the many thick-skinned who have stuck through. However, they are definitely not the angelic game-defenders they claim to be.
Verdict: Inconclusive.
#1. SoL doesn't plot coalitions.
Last set SoL approached me asking for a DP. I responded that a uNaP would be the logical pact for now with the opportunity to develop closer relations if both alliances wished to make a positive contribution to the game. However, I told SoL that I would only do this if they renegotiated that dodgy pact with LaF as I saw the possible implications of a gangbang on LaF. I was told there would be no problem with this, but the day after I was contacted by SoL's very own 'D1ck Dastardly' telling me that SoL won’t be doing that and that SoL doesn't do coalitions and never have in EarthEmpires.
Well that is funny, those logs released last set appear to imply some kind of coalition. However the typical SoL mouth piece would tell you SoL didn't intervene last set, they did an arranged war for the good of the server. In reality SoL didn't intervene, because they knew they could not win. The majority of LaF's DPs were on standby and SoL had the choice of going down with the ship, or having their arranged war where the numbers were so stacked only Arrow could lose.
Yet, this is not the only coalition they have had this year. Before this latest carnation, SoL had made plans to drop their then FDP SoF and isolate them. de1i while he was in RD was one of the main instigators of trying to form this coalition. They were all just too careless and attempted to recruit people they had needlessly hit and friends of those alliances who duly told us of their plans. When SoL 'forgot' to pact us, it was because Makinso's "useless underlings" did not follow his orders, the same excuse he's peddled 100x before.
Verdict: Myth.
#2. SoL is a good alliance to be pacted to.
You'd think having a FDP, or at least a uNaP with SoL is a good thing. A big war alliance protecting you, or not targeting you. Well, I've been looking at the fate of some of these alliances. But first, lets have a look at how SoL forms these pacts.
One common method is SoL choosing a netting ally and offering them a FDP. SoL tell the netting alliance they can guarantee that they'll netgain, but SoL demand that alliance aid them at their time of need. This is in SoLs benefit, because if that netgaining alliance has an enemy SoL gain a new enemy which it is justified in killing. An example of this is NA, who were having conflicts with imag. SoL pacted NA and killed off imag for them, believing that NA would be eternally thankful and help them in the future. Another example was SoL's attempt to court LaF over a year ago, being told no, then offering Evo the same deal which they took despite their agreement with LaF against SoL aggression. SoL's other main source of FDP are with alliances with a common enemy, in effect coalition/aggressive pacts targeting someone who they don't like.
Then what about uNaPs? SoL offers these to alliances they don't want/need to fight that set. They use the time and trusted method of smashing someone while pacting their allies and then pacting them and doing the same to their allies in future sets. uNaPs are basically an extension to your time on death row. This set SoL claim to have offered all of LaF's allies uNaPs, but it doesn't take an idiot to know that they moved onto each of laf's allies one at a time, moving on to the next after being declined. SoF were bottom of the Christmas card list and was asked last and only asked, because they got nowhere from the other offers.
Then we come to the ultimate SoL pact. The pact they tricked LaF into signing under the pretence that it was the same pact that Evo signed with SoL. A pact they politicked, despite begging for mercy and threatening to disband days before. The SoL spokesmen would argue that they tried to renegotiate this set, but that the thing, they only renegotiate when it isn't in their favour, just like they only try to arrange friendly wars when they know they're up the duff.
So we had a lengthy look at how SoL does their pacting, but what is a pact worth and why is it bad? Well look at the NA example. They got to net for a few sets while SoL smacked other netgaining alliances around. Although they were not directly causing death to those alliances they were sitting back and could have potentially helped SoL if those alliances managed to get help themselves. This caused resentment in other netting alliances and made themselves a target for anyone who felt threatened by SoL. And... when they were finally hit did SoL go out of their way to help them? No.
Then look at Evo, their pact with SoL also made them a target, especially given the rocky relationship with LaF and that agreement they had. SoL did defend Evo this time, but only because they thought they had politics sorted and the war won and saw Evo as useful for later. Despite this, the set after Evo got into several wars, but where was the SoL intervention when they desperately needed help and where was the SoL intervention when SoF hit TIE... and how about helping MD? The moral is SoL might be a good ally if you know SoL’s intervention will win you a war, but if you are on your last legs, don’t expect any help.
Verdict - Myth
#3. SoLs impact on the game has been positive?
If you listen to their spokesmen, SoL has been the defender of good since '98, but lets have a look at recent history. I'll pick late 2004, the time I joined Earth as a starting point. In my first set on Earth SoL/Arrow/MD broke FDPs with IX/LCN/STEEL over some disparaging remarks towards them on a shared forum, this is my first memory of SoL, one that has stuck with me. For the next two years SoL lost most of their conflicts with IX, claiming that they were the good guys stopping evil cheaters IX. They then let IX's pres into their leadership and were given the choice of continuing to lose or to join the IX side and win. They took the easy option and created a coalition that would see the biggest decline (following the bots) in the game. Since my return to EarthEmpires 2 years ago, I have seen them blindside netgainers, make non-allied alliances fight together against them and form two coalitions.
Despite this I don't think it’s fair saying that this makes them an alliance that has caused nothing but pain and suffering on the game and actually their participation in the game over these 71 sets have enriched the game for the many thick-skinned who have stuck through. However, they are definitely not the angelic game-defenders they claim to be.
Verdict: Inconclusive.
