May 10th 2016, 15:48:51
Well, its been 5 years, so I thought I'd post this for a chuckle.
Dr. anoniem [OFWGKTA]
Posts: 7669
Post your thoughts here
Apr/26/12 8:15:09
The state of the server
Solutions to the problem.
I'm not advocating running SOF/LAF/RD off of the server or diminishing their numbers, as they've tried to do to us.
I do not hate them, as many people think from AT. I just dislike everything they currently stand for, as it's hypocritical particularly from SOF/LAF.
SOF got botted off the server and are now effectively running innocent netting alliances players off of the server.
PDM/EVO were targetted for the simple reason that we got too big for our boots. They didn't like the fact that we had 60-75 members each, and had to cut us down to size, despite neither one of us trying to be political.
I mean SOL changed their stance towards the game, and received enough beatings at the hands of LaF, but yet they continue.
There is also the fact of some LaF players playing dirty, which I'm sure will come out at some point.
If you want me to create more accounts for your other heads then I will let me know who and I will do it.
This is a place where you can freely post your views, but what I will say this isn't a crusade to destroy LAF/SOF/Rival, but to just give them a taste of their own medicine and show them that even if we become outnumbered we will continue to fight for our respective rights to having friendly wars or netgaining.
Too long have they dictated what we can and can't do.
I know we've all had problems. I mean there was a point last year when EVO/PDM were in logger heads (I think Evo had 70 members and PDM had 40; however in EVO we kept away from war at all costs. We've always played on the defensive.
It's sad really, but we need to come together collectively and trust each other. This isn't about any one of our alliance's, but about all of them.
So leave your prejudices at the door, and let's work together, because if we don't that'll further empower SOF/LAF etc. i.e. in their ability to isolate us and pick us off one by one.
I will dissolve our pact with SOF once the set ends because they FSed PDM. Our pact with LaF also runs out at the end of the set, as does our pact with Rival.
I'm not sure what LCN will do.
But we'll also drop Omega, unless they decide to be helpful and stay out of the conflict, which is unlikely as they only side with whoever has the higher numbers.
We need to rally alliances such as ICN/Rage/NA/SANCT etc.
Dr. Sych [Destocking Whore]
Posts: 5583
Apr/26/12 8:39:17
if this war does happen, can we make sure we're all able to hit the same alliances. i hate the scenario where A can only hit B and C but D can only hit C. it makes joint chats terribly messy and god damn annoying.
Dr. Wat3rBaRr3l [FA]
Posts: 1261
Apr/26/12 16:55:52
I only returned 3 sets ago, so I have many gaps in knowledge of the past history of alliance server. So pardon me if I make statements that may be a little off.
The way I see it, LaF/SoF have got themselves into such deep hatred that makes it impossible to turn back the wheels of war. So war has to happen for this server to vent its emotional frustrations - too many people are calling for blood. To this extent, we need to rally alliances. This will likely be the main focus of this thread.
However, as anon has said, we should not be planning to run LaF/SoF/RD or any other alliance we do not like off the server - it is not healthy and counterproductive to this game. So what kind of server do we want then? Here, I am pointing out that we also need to think hard about Phase 2 (after the war) - reconstructing a stable server where all clans are happy to buy into the status quo.
It cannot be like in the past where netting alliances try to net and war alliances which are bored come in to blindside them. Similarly, it cannot be like now where powerful netting alliances isolate and FS weaker ones - a new kind of netgaining. This ding-donging back and forth between war after war only serves to drive players away from this game.
In my view, the most stable and relatively happy server is one where warring alliances war each other and treehuggers net, and on the side, there can be pre-arranged wars occassionally between war and netting alliances. There will be assholes who just want to pick a fight, so if such idiots appear the community has to work together to put them back in their place and maintain stability in the server. To this effect, alot effort will have to be put in crafting pacts such that there are no loopholes for exploitation from either side. Furthermore, I would advocate improving transparency of pacts by having them posted on AT. Sure people can lie and post fake pacts etc but essentially the hope is that by improving transparency, it makes it harder for clans to lie and to seggregate alliances as others can call their bluff. If we fail to enact such measures, I am afraid we will just keep seeing the same wars happening over and over again.
Last point, the old guard in this server have too much bad blood between each other. If new pacts are to be negotiated, it will have to be from new blood which do not have such deep contempt for each other. I am sure the old guard will continue to influence from behind the scenes, but here the important thing is to remove the psychological barrier of 'negotiating with scum/douchebags/etc'. So my view is that prospective new blood should be groomed for this future role. This does not mean old leaders step down, more that new leaders with 'fresh thinking' come in to establish communication and build relations from there, while taking direction from the top.
Dr. Wat3rBaRr3l [FA]
Posts: 1261
Apr/26/12 17:11:34
Another idea that just popped into my head. As what Sych says, it is just painfully difficult to run coalition wars where clans are constrained from hitting particular clans.
Right now, the fear is also that LaF/SoF and whatever other allies they can muster will likely have sufficient force to counter us. Hence, this is why we need to get the rest of the smaller clans on our side.
So rather than be afraid of the prospect of being outnumbered (due to political backchannels which plot against the other side), we can have a relatively even war where both sides try to maintain parity in numbers against the other side. I.e. I am suggesting that both camps try to ensure even numbers. The relatively weaker side gets the FS. This way, both sides get the blood they want, there is dignity on both sides and the eventual victor gets the sweet taste of victory (it will be down to: may the best man win). Afterwhich, we move in to construct a stable and transparent pact structure.
I'm not saying this will definitely work, but I see it as the best shot we have at getting revenge (albeit on more even terms) as well as creating a stable server for both warring and netting alliances. The key here is to give both sides dignity. We do not need to respect their past actions or like them, but we should still strive to treat each other with the minimum level of dignity we would like each earth member to have.
Dr. Wat3rBaRr3l [FA]
Posts: 1261
Apr/26/12 17:14:00
oh I realised I forgot to add in. When I say even sides, it also means each side can hit each alliance on either side at will: there are no caveats or clauses that allow A to hit B but not to hit C.
Archaic
Posts: 39
Apr/26/12 18:50:50
My name is Archaic and I'm a sex addict . . . oops, wrong forum.
Anyhow -
I'm not really sure that RD belongs in the same category as Sof-Laf. Sof hates RD and wants them gone, residue of their inability to get over the past I suspect. The RD problem is in reality a Silver problem.
Here is my concern: (I actually joked about this with Chevs from Sof yesterday), Laf-Sof are now worried about a mighty Sol-Evo-PDM-MD coalition arising from the ashes to smite them. That SOUNDS great, but in reality what we are looking at is trying to assemble a Makinso-Anoniem-Detmer-Arsenal coalition, which sounds about as likely me stubbing my toe on a gold nugget while mowing the grass. If ever you could find four EE heads with a more divergent set of motivations - well, I'm betting you cannot.
Now obviously I am going to smokescreen Sof in any way possible. I'd love to see Laf-Sof take a turn on the rack and I'd love for us to collectively be the ones to do it to them. But, if we are going to try to act as a coalition, a lot of people are going to have to restrain their ego's and come to a consensus.
It can't be about revenge, or driving them from the game, or asserting superiority. If we want that, we're no better than them. It needs to be about equal footing and accountability. The last thing ANYBODY wants is an endless war of attrition where the survivors are left ruling a wasteland.
Just a crazy thought - what if we bluff? Making them deal with us as equals because they THINK we have a coalition might be more profitable than trying to pull a real coalition out of a hat? This would be easier with Laf than Sof, as Laf thinks about self=preservation, whereas Sof is just a schoolyard bully?
Thoughts?
Dr. Wat3rBaRr3l [FA]
Posts: 1261
Apr/26/12 18:59:50
When you say bluff, do you mean pressure them with the fear of war to agree to certain pact terms (which are in the spirit of equal footing and accountability and do not allow them to sideline any one of us)?
Or do you mean something else?
Dr. anoniem [OFWGKTA]
Posts: 7669
Apr/26/12 22:16:55
I think RD would more than happily just let everyone else fight and wouldn't involve themselves, because if they do they'd probably be the first casualty either way. Also I tried to convince MrSilver that leaving PDM in the cold was not cool, but he was adamant PDM were acting dumb and should have pacted SOF.
I think RD are out of the equation completely.
Personally, I believe everyone can leave their egos at the door for the good of our alliances. I'm not saying we are going to easily beat them or beat them at all, but we have to make a stand for as long as possible to show them that what they're doing is wrong, and we aren't going to leave 1 or the other to get the kicking, but that we can work collectively in adversity.
Also I would suggest that if we do war those two +Rival next set, then after that we agree a period of something such as a year whereby we only have NAPs at the highest with the said parties, to access whether they've changed, because believe me SOF hold grudges and LAF will scheme in order to get hanlong and co more farmland. Evo have been at the brunt of enough LAF wars to know what they're like.
Praetor
Posts: 19
Apr/26/12 22:29:52
First of all, i dont really like these sort of forums, so i`ll restrain myself abit, i myself have had access to many forums like these over the years which i shouldt have had.
I think we all agree on not pacting SoF/LaF, i`ve been trying to win sof over for some time, but flamey`s last AT post just put the last nail in that coffin as far as im concerned, atleast with the current leadership there.
By not pacting SoF/LaF, we can all help each other out, regardless of who is their intended victim next set, that beeing said, SOL is not beeing FSed next set, we will take the fight to them.
So the next question on hand is how do we neutralize their core allies, and what can we do to win over the more perifer ones ?
i belive LCN can be pacted out, its atleast worth a try, Jiman doest belive me, but i think they might take it, going further on what Archaic says, is there any interest to draft up a block pact, meaning one of us pact for all 4, package deal unaps ? it`s an idea i`ve been playing with in my head, feel free to shoot it down.
Omega has expressed willingness to come to LaF`s defence so they are a threat, even if im not sure how their membership stands on that, Omega can war good if they are commited, the real question is if they are.
Monsters are also a wildcard there, they might jump in for their LaF overlords.
-Sanct - I dont even se any of their leadership around, are they a shell or is it a possibility ? Sanct used to be a force, but i havet seen them on the stage for quite abit, i dont know, we need to poke around there
ICN - If you want ICN, someone else than me needs to do that, me and icn are not very good friends..
NA - se sanct
Imag - is a good group to have with you in any conflict, not everyone of them run as good a country as scode, but they show up and pack a punch.
Rage - 11 tagged, i dont know if they would be willing to take a gamble, if LaF decideds to turn their attention to them , it could be bad, i would`t put our goals infront of RAGE`s survival, if they come, we need to bring them in 100% so we have their back too, that goes for anyone that are willing to help, we can`t expect support without anything back, we need to bring something to the table.
Praetor
Dr. anoniem [OFWGKTA]
Posts: 7669
Apr/26/12 22:42:52
"i belive LCN can be pacted out, its atleast worth a try, Jiman doest belive me, but i think they might take it, going further on what Archaic says, is there any interest to draft up a block pact, meaning one of us pact for all 4, package deal unaps ? it`s an idea i`ve been playing with in my head, feel free to shoot it down.">
Yeah, I told Dagga that was our downfall for this reset, because that left SOL as the only target, which is what LaF wanted, at least one of us left in the open.
So I agree on that most certainly. Though, I think that person should be someone away from the spotlight, so that they can't prejudice us because Anoniem/Makinso/Archaic said this or that.
All of sancts best players are in Evo now/All the players that kept the show running. It was an internal falling out with Axa that caused half of their membership to leave (what i was told by some of their leaders awhile back).
Sanct/NA don't seem to have very active leadership from the outside, which I suppose is a case for not "wanting" to war. But Im sure PDM/EVO don't "want" to war. It's not a case of what people "want" it's what you have to do to get what you want, and if that means standing by your friends when things aren't going that well for you then sometimes that's a sacrifice you have to make.
I dunno where NA and Sanct are hosted but i assume boxcar, so that can easily combine resources there with shared forums etc (though TurdCrawler may spy on them). Also ICN i'm not sure of either - i joined them last set for a couple of weeks and it was a ghost town in there. no instruction whatsoever, so we'd have to promise them something or help them to rebuild their alliance. so perhaps a collective of Sanct/NA/ICN is a good thing? bringing them out of obscurity and giving them a reason to be active again/recruit back their old vets for one last hurrah?
I'm sure rage can get 20 tagged. This set is their lowest membership ever? Not sure why.
I agree with the iMag statement. They are a good bunch of people to have on anyone's side and are honest too.
Dr. anoniem [OFWGKTA]
Posts: 7669
Apr/26/12 22:48:05
btw I can monitor who has access to this forum or who has viewed this forum.
I've listed everyone who i've given access to.
Archaic
Posts: 39
Apr/27/12 13:15:43
Tags like ICN, Rage, NA, and Monsters are best left on the sideline. They are not going to be much use to either side in a fight. As a block they might have influence, but statistically, its most likely they would split and cancel each other out.
The alliance that is the biggest wildcard to me is MD. MD's internal workings are pretty opaque. I'd not be so quick to embrace iMag, though they are MUCH better under scode than when soviet ran the show. iNag does not like Sol and they have acted as a Sof proxy in the past.
By bluffing, I meant if they believe we have a coalition that will fight them will they back off? Rather than actually putting one another to the test of dropping Laf as allies, could we make them believe that we have consensus and see if they blink?
Jiman (Sol)
Posts: 23
Apr/28/12 9:52:09
Hail.
I agree with the intentions of everyone here. I dont want to drive any player away from the game and I also dont want to see any wars that are overwhelming in anyones favor (aka I do not agree in gang banging anyone).
Otherwise, I do think the idea of block unaping is a decent idea for the future. I dont like the idea of bluffing. We are either here to play ball or not play ball. If we bluff and we are not prepared we will screw ourselves once again.
I think MD is a democratic system of sorts. They vote for a president every few resets I believe. That is partly why Laf attempted to make Arsenal look like a bad guy to attempt to get MD to switch leaderships when they vote once again (I think).
Omega is a threat in terms that they will come in and defend or attack us for Laf, but they wont be apart of any kind of gang bangs. They will also not be involved in betraying MD as they are strong allies with one another. I am pretty sure Omega will hit us to distract us so Laf doesnt have to deal with us if need be, or call Omega in to even the odds if need be... so I see no reason to strike Omega in any fashion unless they strike SOL first.
MD asked us to unap Omega last reset too, but Omega declined.
I think Rival is willing to war. Apparently according to the leaked chat, Rival members are more willing to war then net... so ya.
Chevs from SOF also came to talk to me about the same thing archaic.
He told me how he didnt like the idea of uneven wars and didnt want anyone to be gang banged. I told him i agreed with him... but that doesnt mean we are not going to be prepared. He also kept on telling me that "If your coalition all of a sudden drop sof/laf as allies its going to be obvoius its going to be a gang bang, and what do you think we are going to do sit ideally back and let that happen?"
Uh. Sorry but I feel that if we pact Sof/Laf right now that we are being bullied into it. I have no wanting to unap Laf next reset at all for any reason.
Monsters want to unap SOL next reset apparently.
Talked to iscode and he said he wanted to get closer to sof/laf but at the same time be close to SOL. To me this means that it is unsure what Imag wants to do exactly.
We LDP Sanct last reset, but AxA did basically say Sanct is just running random what ever.
*humps thread*
Dr. anoniem [OFWGKTA]
Posts: 7669
Apr/28/12 10:41:33
yeah, this isnt about getting revenge or gangbangs. but pacting sof/laf is pretty much being told "pact us or we will war you, but it's ok for us to not pact you when we choose".
That is my whole case for bullying, also if said alliances truly liked even wars then they wouldnt have done as they have done over the past year.
and yeah bluffing won't work because they will just FS and claim that we were the aggressive ones.
it should be we all decide to pact rival/laf/sof or nobody pacts them. i dont want to see anybody's alliance get killed off for a whole set and nobody can help them. it's not even about winning and losing. it's about standing together.
i really appreicated it when sol/tie/imag came to help evo, and even though we lost that was the true spirit of the game.
Makinso
Posts: 43
Apr/28/12 13:25:37
Im late let me read through everything then respond.
Makinso
Posts: 43
Apr/28/12 13:40:07
Alright here's my basic draft of the scenario I believe we should create next set.
Right now the clear sides are.
Side A: LaF/SoF/Rival(They will move at all times for each other).
Side B: SOL/MD/Evo/PDM with PDM being fresh in the equation due to recent events.
Neutrals with allies on both sides: TIE/Monsters/RD
That leaves out in the open: LCN/Omega/Neofed/ICN/Rage/Sanct/Imagnum
Let's analyze these tags and their past few sets of actions and stances from a SOL perspective I would say this:
LCN: Supporting LaF. But only seems to war if really pushed by LaF. Pacted out SOL this set but didn't pact MD at least from what I have been told. LCN seems to want to talk about the situation and doesn't per say involve themselves in LaFs business, they seem to consider it an option. The last arranged war between SOL and LCN and Imag won us some ground with LCN as we gained some mutual respect.
Final verdict: We might me able to talk them into pacting us.
Omega: LaF supportive refused to accept a uNAP. Will fight if we push for LaF. It's a given unless MD can convince them to stay out.
Final Verdict: Might have pull on Omega through MD but don't count on it.
Neofed: Random to me. I can't really place them anywhere atm they seem very neutral. Best case scenario we can win them over worst case we can have them neutral.
ICN/Rage: In shambles, logs of them being talked about as trash/worthless should upset them though. Getting in touch with them and feeling ground would be best. Using these tags to boast numbers would be
Dr. anoniem [OFWGKTA]
Posts: 7669
Post your thoughts here
Apr/26/12 8:15:09
The state of the server
Solutions to the problem.
I'm not advocating running SOF/LAF/RD off of the server or diminishing their numbers, as they've tried to do to us.
I do not hate them, as many people think from AT. I just dislike everything they currently stand for, as it's hypocritical particularly from SOF/LAF.
SOF got botted off the server and are now effectively running innocent netting alliances players off of the server.
PDM/EVO were targetted for the simple reason that we got too big for our boots. They didn't like the fact that we had 60-75 members each, and had to cut us down to size, despite neither one of us trying to be political.
I mean SOL changed their stance towards the game, and received enough beatings at the hands of LaF, but yet they continue.
There is also the fact of some LaF players playing dirty, which I'm sure will come out at some point.
If you want me to create more accounts for your other heads then I will let me know who and I will do it.
This is a place where you can freely post your views, but what I will say this isn't a crusade to destroy LAF/SOF/Rival, but to just give them a taste of their own medicine and show them that even if we become outnumbered we will continue to fight for our respective rights to having friendly wars or netgaining.
Too long have they dictated what we can and can't do.
I know we've all had problems. I mean there was a point last year when EVO/PDM were in logger heads (I think Evo had 70 members and PDM had 40; however in EVO we kept away from war at all costs. We've always played on the defensive.
It's sad really, but we need to come together collectively and trust each other. This isn't about any one of our alliance's, but about all of them.
So leave your prejudices at the door, and let's work together, because if we don't that'll further empower SOF/LAF etc. i.e. in their ability to isolate us and pick us off one by one.
I will dissolve our pact with SOF once the set ends because they FSed PDM. Our pact with LaF also runs out at the end of the set, as does our pact with Rival.
I'm not sure what LCN will do.
But we'll also drop Omega, unless they decide to be helpful and stay out of the conflict, which is unlikely as they only side with whoever has the higher numbers.
We need to rally alliances such as ICN/Rage/NA/SANCT etc.
Dr. Sych [Destocking Whore]
Posts: 5583
Apr/26/12 8:39:17
if this war does happen, can we make sure we're all able to hit the same alliances. i hate the scenario where A can only hit B and C but D can only hit C. it makes joint chats terribly messy and god damn annoying.
Dr. Wat3rBaRr3l [FA]
Posts: 1261
Apr/26/12 16:55:52
I only returned 3 sets ago, so I have many gaps in knowledge of the past history of alliance server. So pardon me if I make statements that may be a little off.
The way I see it, LaF/SoF have got themselves into such deep hatred that makes it impossible to turn back the wheels of war. So war has to happen for this server to vent its emotional frustrations - too many people are calling for blood. To this extent, we need to rally alliances. This will likely be the main focus of this thread.
However, as anon has said, we should not be planning to run LaF/SoF/RD or any other alliance we do not like off the server - it is not healthy and counterproductive to this game. So what kind of server do we want then? Here, I am pointing out that we also need to think hard about Phase 2 (after the war) - reconstructing a stable server where all clans are happy to buy into the status quo.
It cannot be like in the past where netting alliances try to net and war alliances which are bored come in to blindside them. Similarly, it cannot be like now where powerful netting alliances isolate and FS weaker ones - a new kind of netgaining. This ding-donging back and forth between war after war only serves to drive players away from this game.
In my view, the most stable and relatively happy server is one where warring alliances war each other and treehuggers net, and on the side, there can be pre-arranged wars occassionally between war and netting alliances. There will be assholes who just want to pick a fight, so if such idiots appear the community has to work together to put them back in their place and maintain stability in the server. To this effect, alot effort will have to be put in crafting pacts such that there are no loopholes for exploitation from either side. Furthermore, I would advocate improving transparency of pacts by having them posted on AT. Sure people can lie and post fake pacts etc but essentially the hope is that by improving transparency, it makes it harder for clans to lie and to seggregate alliances as others can call their bluff. If we fail to enact such measures, I am afraid we will just keep seeing the same wars happening over and over again.
Last point, the old guard in this server have too much bad blood between each other. If new pacts are to be negotiated, it will have to be from new blood which do not have such deep contempt for each other. I am sure the old guard will continue to influence from behind the scenes, but here the important thing is to remove the psychological barrier of 'negotiating with scum/douchebags/etc'. So my view is that prospective new blood should be groomed for this future role. This does not mean old leaders step down, more that new leaders with 'fresh thinking' come in to establish communication and build relations from there, while taking direction from the top.
Dr. Wat3rBaRr3l [FA]
Posts: 1261
Apr/26/12 17:11:34
Another idea that just popped into my head. As what Sych says, it is just painfully difficult to run coalition wars where clans are constrained from hitting particular clans.
Right now, the fear is also that LaF/SoF and whatever other allies they can muster will likely have sufficient force to counter us. Hence, this is why we need to get the rest of the smaller clans on our side.
So rather than be afraid of the prospect of being outnumbered (due to political backchannels which plot against the other side), we can have a relatively even war where both sides try to maintain parity in numbers against the other side. I.e. I am suggesting that both camps try to ensure even numbers. The relatively weaker side gets the FS. This way, both sides get the blood they want, there is dignity on both sides and the eventual victor gets the sweet taste of victory (it will be down to: may the best man win). Afterwhich, we move in to construct a stable and transparent pact structure.
I'm not saying this will definitely work, but I see it as the best shot we have at getting revenge (albeit on more even terms) as well as creating a stable server for both warring and netting alliances. The key here is to give both sides dignity. We do not need to respect their past actions or like them, but we should still strive to treat each other with the minimum level of dignity we would like each earth member to have.
Dr. Wat3rBaRr3l [FA]
Posts: 1261
Apr/26/12 17:14:00
oh I realised I forgot to add in. When I say even sides, it also means each side can hit each alliance on either side at will: there are no caveats or clauses that allow A to hit B but not to hit C.
Archaic
Posts: 39
Apr/26/12 18:50:50
My name is Archaic and I'm a sex addict . . . oops, wrong forum.
Anyhow -
I'm not really sure that RD belongs in the same category as Sof-Laf. Sof hates RD and wants them gone, residue of their inability to get over the past I suspect. The RD problem is in reality a Silver problem.
Here is my concern: (I actually joked about this with Chevs from Sof yesterday), Laf-Sof are now worried about a mighty Sol-Evo-PDM-MD coalition arising from the ashes to smite them. That SOUNDS great, but in reality what we are looking at is trying to assemble a Makinso-Anoniem-Detmer-Arsenal coalition, which sounds about as likely me stubbing my toe on a gold nugget while mowing the grass. If ever you could find four EE heads with a more divergent set of motivations - well, I'm betting you cannot.
Now obviously I am going to smokescreen Sof in any way possible. I'd love to see Laf-Sof take a turn on the rack and I'd love for us to collectively be the ones to do it to them. But, if we are going to try to act as a coalition, a lot of people are going to have to restrain their ego's and come to a consensus.
It can't be about revenge, or driving them from the game, or asserting superiority. If we want that, we're no better than them. It needs to be about equal footing and accountability. The last thing ANYBODY wants is an endless war of attrition where the survivors are left ruling a wasteland.
Just a crazy thought - what if we bluff? Making them deal with us as equals because they THINK we have a coalition might be more profitable than trying to pull a real coalition out of a hat? This would be easier with Laf than Sof, as Laf thinks about self=preservation, whereas Sof is just a schoolyard bully?
Thoughts?
Dr. Wat3rBaRr3l [FA]
Posts: 1261
Apr/26/12 18:59:50
When you say bluff, do you mean pressure them with the fear of war to agree to certain pact terms (which are in the spirit of equal footing and accountability and do not allow them to sideline any one of us)?
Or do you mean something else?
Dr. anoniem [OFWGKTA]
Posts: 7669
Apr/26/12 22:16:55
I think RD would more than happily just let everyone else fight and wouldn't involve themselves, because if they do they'd probably be the first casualty either way. Also I tried to convince MrSilver that leaving PDM in the cold was not cool, but he was adamant PDM were acting dumb and should have pacted SOF.
I think RD are out of the equation completely.
Personally, I believe everyone can leave their egos at the door for the good of our alliances. I'm not saying we are going to easily beat them or beat them at all, but we have to make a stand for as long as possible to show them that what they're doing is wrong, and we aren't going to leave 1 or the other to get the kicking, but that we can work collectively in adversity.
Also I would suggest that if we do war those two +Rival next set, then after that we agree a period of something such as a year whereby we only have NAPs at the highest with the said parties, to access whether they've changed, because believe me SOF hold grudges and LAF will scheme in order to get hanlong and co more farmland. Evo have been at the brunt of enough LAF wars to know what they're like.
Praetor
Posts: 19
Apr/26/12 22:29:52
First of all, i dont really like these sort of forums, so i`ll restrain myself abit, i myself have had access to many forums like these over the years which i shouldt have had.
I think we all agree on not pacting SoF/LaF, i`ve been trying to win sof over for some time, but flamey`s last AT post just put the last nail in that coffin as far as im concerned, atleast with the current leadership there.
By not pacting SoF/LaF, we can all help each other out, regardless of who is their intended victim next set, that beeing said, SOL is not beeing FSed next set, we will take the fight to them.
So the next question on hand is how do we neutralize their core allies, and what can we do to win over the more perifer ones ?
i belive LCN can be pacted out, its atleast worth a try, Jiman doest belive me, but i think they might take it, going further on what Archaic says, is there any interest to draft up a block pact, meaning one of us pact for all 4, package deal unaps ? it`s an idea i`ve been playing with in my head, feel free to shoot it down.
Omega has expressed willingness to come to LaF`s defence so they are a threat, even if im not sure how their membership stands on that, Omega can war good if they are commited, the real question is if they are.
Monsters are also a wildcard there, they might jump in for their LaF overlords.
-Sanct - I dont even se any of their leadership around, are they a shell or is it a possibility ? Sanct used to be a force, but i havet seen them on the stage for quite abit, i dont know, we need to poke around there
ICN - If you want ICN, someone else than me needs to do that, me and icn are not very good friends..
NA - se sanct
Imag - is a good group to have with you in any conflict, not everyone of them run as good a country as scode, but they show up and pack a punch.
Rage - 11 tagged, i dont know if they would be willing to take a gamble, if LaF decideds to turn their attention to them , it could be bad, i would`t put our goals infront of RAGE`s survival, if they come, we need to bring them in 100% so we have their back too, that goes for anyone that are willing to help, we can`t expect support without anything back, we need to bring something to the table.
Praetor
Dr. anoniem [OFWGKTA]
Posts: 7669
Apr/26/12 22:42:52
"i belive LCN can be pacted out, its atleast worth a try, Jiman doest belive me, but i think they might take it, going further on what Archaic says, is there any interest to draft up a block pact, meaning one of us pact for all 4, package deal unaps ? it`s an idea i`ve been playing with in my head, feel free to shoot it down.">
Yeah, I told Dagga that was our downfall for this reset, because that left SOL as the only target, which is what LaF wanted, at least one of us left in the open.
So I agree on that most certainly. Though, I think that person should be someone away from the spotlight, so that they can't prejudice us because Anoniem/Makinso/Archaic said this or that.
All of sancts best players are in Evo now/All the players that kept the show running. It was an internal falling out with Axa that caused half of their membership to leave (what i was told by some of their leaders awhile back).
Sanct/NA don't seem to have very active leadership from the outside, which I suppose is a case for not "wanting" to war. But Im sure PDM/EVO don't "want" to war. It's not a case of what people "want" it's what you have to do to get what you want, and if that means standing by your friends when things aren't going that well for you then sometimes that's a sacrifice you have to make.
I dunno where NA and Sanct are hosted but i assume boxcar, so that can easily combine resources there with shared forums etc (though TurdCrawler may spy on them). Also ICN i'm not sure of either - i joined them last set for a couple of weeks and it was a ghost town in there. no instruction whatsoever, so we'd have to promise them something or help them to rebuild their alliance. so perhaps a collective of Sanct/NA/ICN is a good thing? bringing them out of obscurity and giving them a reason to be active again/recruit back their old vets for one last hurrah?
I'm sure rage can get 20 tagged. This set is their lowest membership ever? Not sure why.
I agree with the iMag statement. They are a good bunch of people to have on anyone's side and are honest too.
Dr. anoniem [OFWGKTA]
Posts: 7669
Apr/26/12 22:48:05
btw I can monitor who has access to this forum or who has viewed this forum.
I've listed everyone who i've given access to.
Archaic
Posts: 39
Apr/27/12 13:15:43
Tags like ICN, Rage, NA, and Monsters are best left on the sideline. They are not going to be much use to either side in a fight. As a block they might have influence, but statistically, its most likely they would split and cancel each other out.
The alliance that is the biggest wildcard to me is MD. MD's internal workings are pretty opaque. I'd not be so quick to embrace iMag, though they are MUCH better under scode than when soviet ran the show. iNag does not like Sol and they have acted as a Sof proxy in the past.
By bluffing, I meant if they believe we have a coalition that will fight them will they back off? Rather than actually putting one another to the test of dropping Laf as allies, could we make them believe that we have consensus and see if they blink?
Jiman (Sol)
Posts: 23
Apr/28/12 9:52:09
Hail.
I agree with the intentions of everyone here. I dont want to drive any player away from the game and I also dont want to see any wars that are overwhelming in anyones favor (aka I do not agree in gang banging anyone).
Otherwise, I do think the idea of block unaping is a decent idea for the future. I dont like the idea of bluffing. We are either here to play ball or not play ball. If we bluff and we are not prepared we will screw ourselves once again.
I think MD is a democratic system of sorts. They vote for a president every few resets I believe. That is partly why Laf attempted to make Arsenal look like a bad guy to attempt to get MD to switch leaderships when they vote once again (I think).
Omega is a threat in terms that they will come in and defend or attack us for Laf, but they wont be apart of any kind of gang bangs. They will also not be involved in betraying MD as they are strong allies with one another. I am pretty sure Omega will hit us to distract us so Laf doesnt have to deal with us if need be, or call Omega in to even the odds if need be... so I see no reason to strike Omega in any fashion unless they strike SOL first.
MD asked us to unap Omega last reset too, but Omega declined.
I think Rival is willing to war. Apparently according to the leaked chat, Rival members are more willing to war then net... so ya.
Chevs from SOF also came to talk to me about the same thing archaic.
He told me how he didnt like the idea of uneven wars and didnt want anyone to be gang banged. I told him i agreed with him... but that doesnt mean we are not going to be prepared. He also kept on telling me that "If your coalition all of a sudden drop sof/laf as allies its going to be obvoius its going to be a gang bang, and what do you think we are going to do sit ideally back and let that happen?"
Uh. Sorry but I feel that if we pact Sof/Laf right now that we are being bullied into it. I have no wanting to unap Laf next reset at all for any reason.
Monsters want to unap SOL next reset apparently.
Talked to iscode and he said he wanted to get closer to sof/laf but at the same time be close to SOL. To me this means that it is unsure what Imag wants to do exactly.
We LDP Sanct last reset, but AxA did basically say Sanct is just running random what ever.
*humps thread*
Dr. anoniem [OFWGKTA]
Posts: 7669
Apr/28/12 10:41:33
yeah, this isnt about getting revenge or gangbangs. but pacting sof/laf is pretty much being told "pact us or we will war you, but it's ok for us to not pact you when we choose".
That is my whole case for bullying, also if said alliances truly liked even wars then they wouldnt have done as they have done over the past year.
and yeah bluffing won't work because they will just FS and claim that we were the aggressive ones.
it should be we all decide to pact rival/laf/sof or nobody pacts them. i dont want to see anybody's alliance get killed off for a whole set and nobody can help them. it's not even about winning and losing. it's about standing together.
i really appreicated it when sol/tie/imag came to help evo, and even though we lost that was the true spirit of the game.
Makinso
Posts: 43
Apr/28/12 13:25:37
Im late let me read through everything then respond.
Makinso
Posts: 43
Apr/28/12 13:40:07
Alright here's my basic draft of the scenario I believe we should create next set.
Right now the clear sides are.
Side A: LaF/SoF/Rival(They will move at all times for each other).
Side B: SOL/MD/Evo/PDM with PDM being fresh in the equation due to recent events.
Neutrals with allies on both sides: TIE/Monsters/RD
That leaves out in the open: LCN/Omega/Neofed/ICN/Rage/Sanct/Imagnum
Let's analyze these tags and their past few sets of actions and stances from a SOL perspective I would say this:
LCN: Supporting LaF. But only seems to war if really pushed by LaF. Pacted out SOL this set but didn't pact MD at least from what I have been told. LCN seems to want to talk about the situation and doesn't per say involve themselves in LaFs business, they seem to consider it an option. The last arranged war between SOL and LCN and Imag won us some ground with LCN as we gained some mutual respect.
Final verdict: We might me able to talk them into pacting us.
Omega: LaF supportive refused to accept a uNAP. Will fight if we push for LaF. It's a given unless MD can convince them to stay out.
Final Verdict: Might have pull on Omega through MD but don't count on it.
Neofed: Random to me. I can't really place them anywhere atm they seem very neutral. Best case scenario we can win them over worst case we can have them neutral.
ICN/Rage: In shambles, logs of them being talked about as trash/worthless should upset them though. Getting in touch with them and feeling ground would be best. Using these tags to boast numbers would be
Cheating Mod Hall of Shame: Dark Morbid, Turtle Crawler, Sov