The whole thread is silly, with the return to power of Helmut all subsequent actions for the next 10 resets could be predicted.
I not entirely sure how there could be an anti-Sof conspiracy as somehow it seems to involve Sol, when Sol has been, possibly ungroundedly, pro-Sof since 2006, and somewhat still are. Who else does that leave then? Sof is even still listed as one of the clans that Solers highly respect.
I feel like the English at the start of WW2 lol. Don't worry they are good chaps.
Not posting on AT as much because Maki/Steeps gave back some of my forums on GHQ. RIP my decade long blog, my blog even had replies from people who are no longer with us :(.
Basically for anyone still confused, I'll give a summary of the situation. A few sets ago RD killed PDM over retal issues, which was convinient for them since they were warprepping with little choice of targets. At the end of that set a SoF leader made a thread asking if RD had killed PDM without overtly implying anything else. It was quite humourous because we thought they would read more into it than it actually was; a bit of AT trolling. We do that a lot as Evo can testify. AT threats are meaningless, but entertaining. By the sound of things they did take it seriously.
When it came to pacting season we had a bit of difficulty with their FDP SoL. They were unwilling to renew our FDP, because they claimed that they didn't like Ivan. When they found out Helmet was president, they did eventually renew, but it was quite suspicous that a long term FDP was so difficult with us. So, that set we had planned to do our big FS thing without choosing a target. Soon after we heard RD had been aproaching certain alliances to joint FS us, so our decission of who to hit became easy. At the end of the set we received more news about an emerging coalition and that RD had got SoL on board. Numerous alliances were approached, but some of them were our friends and others were alliances that had been directly or indirectly annoyed by SoL's actions in prior sets. To further confirm this we heard nothing from SoLs FA team about renewing until they got FSed later that set.
Where NA fits into all this is that they became FDPs with SoL after almost disbanding, because of their wars with iMaG. They became indebted to SoL. I think it was unlikely that they were going to defend SoL last set, or that SoL would have called them in due to the hopelessness of the situation. It was in both alliances' interest for NA to net and mass recuit so that they could assist SoL in future revenge wars. Our attack was a long term decission. We know SoL like multi-set conflicts and by now they have the political tricks of IX in their itinery too. They just made one fatal flaw, angering 90% of the server before deciding to move against SoF. While there was little sympathy for an alliance like NA that would have been prepared to watch other netters die, while they netted. An alliance with their history too.
There is no point trying to explain it to a SoLer though, they are brainwashed by everything their leadership posts insite. I can guess the kind of rallying calls in their website about unjustifyable gangbangs, other alliances plotting and how their enemies resiliance is weak bla bla bla. There will be nothing about their political failures and their own grand plots though.
Knowing llaar, he's said what he has to say, and doesn't really care much what the rebuttals are.
Nice explanation Flamey. My only three thoughts would be...
- How long has it been since NA actually netted out a full set without getting pulled into a war somehow?
- If SOL angered 90% of the server, why would SoF think that there was a SOL founded coalition forming against them?
- If SoF was so concerned about NA joining said coalition, why not make an attempt to just pact them out of the action?
Unfortunately, the above 3 thoughts lead me to back to my initial conclusion - SoF likes kicking NA's ass whenever they have a half-assed decent excuse, and decided to run with it. I'm just not sure why no one would care to own up to that...it seems logical and normal to me.
1) NA had a succesful netgaining set before we hit them last set I believe. If they hadn't have netted that set they were planning to disband. The set before that they got hit by iMaG and had done the set before too (Although it is debatable who was to blame for the first war). The set before that they were semi war/net gaining and hit SoF because we asked them to (as we had no other targets). Before then they had netted for a while I believe.
2) It was a RD inspired coalition, but SoL became the senior partner who negotiated it as they were more powerful and RD had failed to do so the set before. We thought there was a SoL coalition forming against us because many alliances came to us telling us so. SoL were too politically niave to understand that most the server are annoyed with their actions, but SoL/RD is a small coalition in itself. (We also know SoL were FDPed to NA and were forming new relations with others) They tried telling other alliances that they already had x on board in attempt to persaude them over, but x told us that wasn't the case and SoL had lied to them about y being on board. These are the kind of diplomatic tricks everyone is used to and tired of. Another is SoL picking their own fair wars, usually a collection of unwilling netgainers that add up to their own number.
3)We knew that NA owed one to SoL, not just owed one, but pretty much owed their survival to SoL, so you couldn't keep ignoring their requests for war help forever. That set NA had made a good recovery and would have probably gained a lot of members each set they netted because they are good at that. It would have only been a matter of time as SoL played the waiting game grinding everyone down with repetative revenge wars. We could have pacted NA out buying us a few sets, or we could have did what we did. Hit you and try to force you to leave their sphere of influence and at least if that failed, you'd be less of a threat because your members hate multi-set wars and you would want to net or you'd be in a poor warring state in future sets.
We offered you these terms early last set and you flat refused them on terms of pride. At the end of the set we came back and offered a multi-set uNaP instead, but you were intent on rejecting that and getting revenge against us this set. I don't know how you planned to do that and your FDP SoL didn't do a good job in helping you achieve that. Wouldn't say we are obsessed with warring you when it was 8 months between the last two wars and we offered you the oppotunity to net out this set.
1) By that logic, SOF was netting this set and last set as well? EVERYONE nets right up until they go to war - if you netgained for 20 minutes into the set, you'd have a successful netgaining set up until you went to war. I do find it kinda interesting that now all of a sudden SOF is acknowledging that NA was in fact netting last set though....
I don't know anything about plans for disbanding NA...not sure where that info came from.
2-3) Sooooo.....you wanted to deter NA from hitting SOF in future sets by hitting NA in the middle of an obvious netting set (your words) instead of just attempting to pact them out for a few sets first...which you actually ended up trying to do AFTER you went and burned the FA bridge?
I dunno who's leading the FA efforts over in SOF these days....but might I suggest slapping them upside the head a few times for not having a clue how foreign relations work? It seems the plan of deterring NA from joining a coalition against you by picking a fight with them instead of trying diplomacy first had the opposite effect you guys were hoping for (imagine that!), because so far as I can tell NA membership is now more likely than 2 sets prior to want to help out just about anyone who wants to beat the snot outta SOF. Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone in their right mind could possibly expect any different result....
4) Did you really expect to jump NA in a netting set (again, your own words) with no provocation, and not have folks want to come back for a fight? I mean...are your FA's/leaders really that dumb/delusional? If NA jumped SOF while they were in the middle of a war (I'd say netting set, but I know SOF doesn't net), are you honestly telling me SOF wouldn't want to come back for revenge the following set, or at least as soon as they were able to do so?
Again - logical conclusion = Either SOF has the FA competency of a 5 year old, or SOF saw an easy excuse to kill NA and jumped on it. If SOF didn't want war with NA, you would have come to NA with an offer for a multi-set pact BEFORE you hit them and burned the FA bridge. Why you guys are so hesitant to just come out and say that, I have no idea. It's not like it's some terrible thing or anything. I for one would have a hell of a lot more respect for that than the continuous lame ass excuses that seem to change as often as the pass key on a Vegas vault.
BTW - I may play in NA, but I would call bullfluff on this whole regardless of where I played. The stories just don't add up, and the excuses have too many holes in them.
You don't care that you're making lame excuses for no good reason, or don't care that SOF comes off looking like a bunch of twits who don't know their elbow from their asshole when it comes to FA?
I would be too embarrassed to play in SOF in their current state. SOF used to be great, but currently I think I'd rather make 3 or 4 restarts a set...it's good practice anyways.
NOW3P - Your also getting in good practice at whining.
Seriously dude, lighten up. If you guys didn't want to war this set, then why did you First Strike us?
...If you didn't attack us this set, then there wouldn't have been a NA/SOF war. Seriously just let it go, build a bridge and move on.
Not whining, just calling a spade a spade since SOF doesn't seem to have the cajones to. If you think I'm gonna complain about restarting a few times, you really don't know me that well.
SOF got FS'ed because we'd rather lose another war than bend over and pretend last set didn't happen. You can honestly tell me SOF would't have done exactly the same if the roles were reversed? Didn't think so...
1) Netgaining is not the same as wargaining for us. You can netgain and then turn into a war country, but when I netgain I would consider the casher strat, which I wouldn't in war. I wouldn't go spy heavy while netting, or priorities wafare. I wouldnt consider the defence bonus either. I remember llaar posting on AT that they were on the verge of disbanding because they couldn't get a netting set.
2/3/4) We wanted to make NA unable to interfere in future sets indeed, or if they did it wouldn't be much. We knew that it was a definate already, because of owing your survival to SoL FDP a few sets ago. So hitting you didn't change that. I do not think you are an ordinary NA member who is not prepared to fight multiple sets. I think most members want to net in peace and the leadership feel the same way too, so I do feel you're more likely to want to negotiate on our terms after crushing wars than before it and if you do not want to negotiate and instead want to fight on you are hardly in a state to do it effectively. I know you were netgaining last sets, but as you said you could have turned them into war countries or sent FA (and you did end up hitting LaF unprovoked), but the main reason we did it is similar to what Clint Eastwood said to Ten Bears. It shows we were negotiating with iron. We were not overly upset about having to kill you, because we like war, but it was strategic and you can call us incompetent all you want, but we are the ones getting wars and winning them.
I don't really like the way Ivan explains things on here. Flamey on the other hand, your alright. :) You ever thought about being a sales person in real life? You could sell ice to eskimos. lol You should always speak on behalf of SoF. :)
I don't really like the way Ivan explains things on here. Flamey on the other hand, your alright. :) You ever thought about being a sales person in real life? You could sell ice to eskimos. lol You should always speak on behalf of SoF. :)
+1
<Drinks> going to bed
<Drinks> pm me if I get hit
<-- Drinks is now known as DrinksInBed -->
<DrinksInBed> looks like I'm an alcoholic
Wow. What a sore loser. Quit being such a cry baby. Do you think anyone respects a clan that cries for a month over a war? Get over it.
I can't believe you attacked us and we still have to listen to the crying. Grow some balls.
*Confirms nimrodx's post*
I believe llaar just wanted to show the server why NA FS'd SoF.
[Flamey <-- Was like a son to me in IX and I always supported him there]
As I was updating SoF prior to the FS, I saw most were ready for our FS. Most had plenty of turns along with saved turns. Excellent SDI, good spal and ready to war.
We did have an outside chance of pulling this out or at least making it more interesting even though the numbers were in SoF's favor. We knew we were getting in over our heads but hey, them's the breaks.
The biggest factor for SoF's success in this war was their ability to get online consistently a day or so after the FS. If NA would have had the percentage SoF had getting online......
Anyway, good job on SoF's part in that respect.
Sorry we could not give you a better war. We did a terrible job of getting online and Stonewalling until midway through the war when it was too late to matter.
We made our bed.....
Even with losing this war, it was a way better reset than the last two, being whiped out without having a chance to counter at all. I even got to stonewall a little, which was fun.
I'm sure the rest of EEVIL will agree with me ... and Xin ... and nimmy :)
if we had a nice bot like SoF to send us text i think we coulda made this a pretty close one. if market didnt crash i coulda walled a lot longer but it was fun.
NOW3P: The problem with SOF pacting out NA last set was that it would have left our allies out to dry had SOL called them in (Referring to SOL/RD vs MD/Laf/LCN). Since NA was unwilling to drop their pact with SOL, and I whole heartedly agree with NA's decision, SOF was left with the option to wargain for their allies in the event that NA jumped in the war or to simply hit NA. Although I disagree with the second and chosen choice, Flamey has presented the logic that dictated that decision accurately.
In the end, as an alliance, you attempt to maintain what could be called proper rules of engagement and conduct while satisfying membership wants. SOF members wanted to war and with most of the server tied up already that set, there was few options. I suppose SOF could have hit Imag, but they were or are an ally.
especially when you party naked! NA partied naked and got fluffed!
for the one who said that no SOFer would be beating their chest to beating a clan in the middle of a netting set. how could we be beating our chest to killing NA at all... they fluffing suck at warring. Im sorry NA u guys are all my friends, but the name NETTERS ANONOMOUS suits you all too well. if i was you id stick to netting at all costs. because even if you do prep for war not even half of you participate.
sorry guys... no matter what i still love you! even tho my allegience is with the enemy.
I really don't care why SOF FS'ed NA. I'm just blown away at the fact that a war alliance can't just come out and say what their true motives were for doing it. I really am just fine with "because we felt like it" as a reason....it's not like I haven't used it in the past myself.
uh oh! So after 3 sets of denying that the reasons behind FSing NA were, and lemme count them:
1. 2 sets ago including this one: "We (SoF) wanted to war someone and we found NA. This has NOTHING to do with the LaF/MD/SOL/RD/whoever unbalanced war that we have NOTHING to do with." When the people saw they were obviously larger and more war prepped, they dropped this in 2 days
2. ~2 sets ago: "NA is evil and they ALL cheat. So we FSd them." When that made them look like douches, they dropped this too. Also they denied talking with LaF about these wars and coordinating themselves to kill all 3 clans by overpowering them more than 2:1. This also was later on dismissed.
3. ~2 sets ago: "NA was planning to FS SoF." but obviously, we ran netting countries and we died like flies because as far as we knew we had a pact in the making, or done already with them (I'm no FA, so I'm not current, but I knew at that time we wouldn't have a reason to keep an eye on them), they dropped this too, because that made them look like noobs. llaar posted "You can't FS with Rep Cashers" and they apparently agreed with him.
4. ~2 sets ago: "We looked for a friendly war, but our planned war didnt work out anymore and we FSd NA." When the ppl realized they never approached any NA leaders, they dropped it also (surprise!)
finally they reached this, which is the main reason and the truth:
5. "We FSd NA to keep them out from intervening in helping SOL/RD AND because WE ASSUME these 3 clans had a FDP pact running between them, but we don't know for sure. So...just to be safe, we built war countries, lied around to make them feel safe, then we killed a bunch of netting countries that were no threat for us at that time, but sadly we realize this now."
My conclusion is: why does it have to take 4 obvious lies to reach the truth in a conflict where a war clan like SoF FSs NA in its Reunion set? May I remind you that at that time NA had 90 countries and now we have 30, and at that time we mainly had vets/newbies (around 50 new people and llaar can confirm that) that were not convinced of the fact to remain in the game or leave AND THAT IN FACT, after the SoF FS they said "I'm tired of this game. I wish you the best, but I don't have the time to spend on killruns."
If someone sais AGAIN the phrase: "If they left, this game doesn't need them. We need actives and they're good gone if they're such pussies." I want to tell him something: This is EXACTLY what this game needs. More activity, EVEN if it's little. It's a new country contributing to the data trafic made on the site, which means more money = more development. We brought back many people that now have families and don't have PC related jobs, so they can't stay 24/7 in front of the PC to wall, but they were indeed good additions to this game. SoF killed that.
Now you ask "Why NA FSd SoF?" When we had a stable base of players (able to play at least 5-6 hours a day, building fairly good war countries blah blah) we had to FS SoF, because we didn't have anything to lose more really and as NOW3P said: "We don't like to bend over to larger war clans. We never liked it."
so:
Congrats SoF! Douches :)
PS: Sorry for flaming, but in fact these are ALL my thoughts about this situation. If you wanna answer this, go ahead, but I won't answer back. If you THINK you have better reasons against what I said, send me an email or an ingame message :)
Detoxx: SOF didn't FS NA during the reunion set, it did it the following set. I didn't bother to read what you typed after that, because people fluffing about what others say while not taking the time to know the situation are hypocritical. Flamey has portrayed the truth of everything I heard him say leading up to the reset where SOF hit NA (2 sets ago?). I think llaar would agree that I have been straight forward in all matters involving these conflicts, although I retired just as the set mentioned was starting and never made a country.
NOW3P: The problem with SOF pacting out NA last set was that it would have left our allies out to dry had SOL called them in (Referring to SOL/RD vs MD/Laf/LCN).
Since NA was unwilling to drop their pact with SOL, and I whole heartedly agree with NA's decision, SOF was left with the option to wargain for their allies in the event that NA jumped in the war or to simply hit NA. Although I disagree with the second and chosen choice, Flamey has presented the logic that dictated that decision accurately.
Referring to preventing possible SOL/RD/NA vs MD/Laf/LCN, the later would have a 150% member advantage. FSing one clan to keep them from possibly joining an uneven pre-planned war, I'd say that was like another clan, but I wouldn't do that to you.
The disadvantage to Sof would have been that they would have been entirely left alone. If you ally netgainers allies, Sof would have very few people to play with. Ironically I still like Sof.
Not posting on AT as much because Maki/Steeps gave back some of my forums on GHQ. RIP my decade long blog, my blog even had replies from people who are no longer with us :(.
Detoxx: SOF didn't FS NA during the reunion set, it did it the following set. I didn't bother to read what you typed after that, because people fluffing about what others say while not taking the time to know the situation are hypocritical. Flamey has portrayed the truth of everything I heard him say leading up to the reset where SOF hit NA (2 sets ago?). I think llaar would agree that I have been straight forward in all matters involving these conflicts, although I retired just as the set mentioned was starting and never made a country.
If I said something for you to interpret that we were FSd during the Reunion set, I'm sorry. To clarify: We wer FSd the set after. About everything else...I dunno what to say...My point was that this game has declined since the pacts were starting to be broken and when it was characterized as a "war game" which is not. Someone said that the only way this game does a ranking is through networth classification. This is done through netting. So it's a "strategy game" in which wars should happen only in the most exceptional situations and with even odds on both sides. Not like this :)
PS: I don't hate SoF either, because it would mean all Americans, or all Europeans are bad if their leaders take wrong decisions :P
I couldn't agree more. This is clearly netgaining game, that's why it's so hard and time consuming to attack someone. It takes like a quarter of a million milliseconds to spend your turns attacking someone. That is so discouraging and you have to have oil. Can it possibly get more time consuming or cumbersome? Can I really spend a quarter of a million milliseconds of my day attacking someone after I worked all day?
- pm right here will work just fine tho
