Jun 1st 2024, 16:08:31
[quote poster=Tertius; 52766; 1037148]BH and Drow: I think partially this can be explained due to how politics and pacting have changed over the years (decades??). In the old days, most groups did not pact everyone. They might leave it open to their players grabbing good targets, knowing it could escalate, but the war groups almost never pacted out - they were looking for a war, and if you did not get that pact, you were uneasy most of the set.
Over the years, netters in particular tried to be very diplomatic and pact out as many as they could. In the current state, with the reduced server counts and bots, people have a lot more reason to pact because there's no grabbing benefits and I'd argue that wars where both sides are ready is a lot more entertaining and prevents further loss of players. Of course, there are certainly grudge wars - we've seen some recently but they have always been around, including in the old days where you would finally pact your enemy after three sets and then their ally would war you for another three sets.
All that said, I think M4D was looking to add a little bit more spice into the server, but probably didn't have any specific plans initially. [NB: I'm not privy to any knowledge about M4D at all, and may have an optimistic view of their goals.] Similarly, SoL is probably always interested in a war, and so kept that option open. I could even imagine that with M4D being the new largest tag all of a sudden that some of the war clans wanted to see "what they're made of" so to speak - we see that commonly on other servers. Tag protection is not given, it's earned, for a new group.
Given M4D's large size, and the fact that there hasn't been a real war recently (mostly griefers), probably a lot of people were interested - and it looks like SoL and co had fairly even numbers at the start (probably 2 less?). If Mercs was really keen on breaking a pact or bullying M4D, they could have tagged over more than 7 (they still have 8). I think people just wanted a good fight, and given the recent expertise on the SoL side, they probably could've gone in a little less heavy, but if they were 7 less in numbers and lost, people probably wouldn't remember that they gave up an advantage, just that they lost (and then a war would likely happen the next set with more numbers).
TL;DR: This is all just musings, but mostly to say that I think most probably took this as it was meant to be - in the spirit of the game, enjoying the side of war that both sides were open to (based on forum posts and choice in pacts). It seemed like a number of people had fun (and certainly learned a lot on the M4D side) but that some vets aren't cut out for war anymore (I know I'm not). It'll be interesting if they pact out next set or both want to try again with the new knowledge gained from this set. For whatever reason, best of 3 sets is a common occurrence. [/quote]
Including the 7 mercs that tagged over, SoL had 25 to M4D's 31 and were planning for the FS.
M4D got the jump but messed up imo with the AB FS.
Stones then jumped in, making it 36-31 in Sol's favour, after SoL had already negated the numbers advantage with, I think, 5 kills in the CS. (So effectively it was 36-26 once stones joined)
Give me an hour or two, and yeah, I can give you the numbers on the mercs countries
Make sure you pay close attention too when you do it. Just incase for future trolling on us and steeping out of bounds to push our clan leader around.
I have never attempted to push DD around dude.
I have been honest with him about what is, effectively fluffty behaviours.
Like I said to him directly, and I'll say it publicly, if it was my alliance it was done to, I would be PISSED, because it is effectively pacting in bad faith.
Breaking down the reason why I personally would see it as effectively pacting in bad faith: "Yes, we will sign a pact not to fight you. But, conveniently, half our tag is going to switch to this other tag that *IS* planning to fight you, and we will even tell you straight up that that's exactly what they are doing".
That's not good faith pacting dude, plain and simple.
You don't have to agree with me, you don't have to like that I'm saying it, but them's the facts.
And if, for argument's sake Paradigm countries had tagged over to M4D before war broke out, you'd have blown your top at us too.
I had enquiries when we tag shifted as it was about whether we were trying to quote "avoid pacts" at the time, which I actively followed up on to make sure that everyone knew we were honouring pacts as they stood, and re signing them as neccessary for those leaders who needed that.
If that's not honest and square dealing, I don't know what is.
I like you dude, but I'll still call a spade a spade at the end of the day.
Why would you be pissed? Aren’t you neutral? Are you going to come push DD, the leader of Mercs around everytime he makes a decision you don’t agree with? Especially if it’s something that doesn’t even involve your clan? We’re not gonna let you push Dark Demon around. I’ve seen the screenshots, we’ve all seen it and we are all conclusive in our opinion on what happened.
I've broken down very clearly why I would be pissed.
It's bad faith pacting, plain and simple.
Further, if I pact someone, I try to act with the spirit of the pact in mind, not just the letter.
Again, when we tag shifted, I made sure to reach out immediately to keep people informed.
When I was asked by M4D to police, I also reached out to SoL to offer to police for them too.
We have stayed completely out of the fight, because we were pacted to all sides, because that's the simple respect of honouring pacts. Even with your offer to "overlook" any countries who wanted to tag jump into M4D.
Not because some of us didn't want to, but because we respect our pacted allies more than that.
I've also told you very clearly that what my personal opinions are, and what my policy for my alliance is, are two different things, and I have acted with the best interest of Paradigm in mind consistently regardless of my own personal opinions.
Now, for someone who has specifically said he to hear me speak my mind, you seem to suddenly be unhappy that I am doing so.
As I said, I like you, but I'm not afraid to speak up.
I said I was making a point of dealing squarely, this is a part of it, warts and all.
Over the years, netters in particular tried to be very diplomatic and pact out as many as they could. In the current state, with the reduced server counts and bots, people have a lot more reason to pact because there's no grabbing benefits and I'd argue that wars where both sides are ready is a lot more entertaining and prevents further loss of players. Of course, there are certainly grudge wars - we've seen some recently but they have always been around, including in the old days where you would finally pact your enemy after three sets and then their ally would war you for another three sets.
All that said, I think M4D was looking to add a little bit more spice into the server, but probably didn't have any specific plans initially. [NB: I'm not privy to any knowledge about M4D at all, and may have an optimistic view of their goals.] Similarly, SoL is probably always interested in a war, and so kept that option open. I could even imagine that with M4D being the new largest tag all of a sudden that some of the war clans wanted to see "what they're made of" so to speak - we see that commonly on other servers. Tag protection is not given, it's earned, for a new group.
Given M4D's large size, and the fact that there hasn't been a real war recently (mostly griefers), probably a lot of people were interested - and it looks like SoL and co had fairly even numbers at the start (probably 2 less?). If Mercs was really keen on breaking a pact or bullying M4D, they could have tagged over more than 7 (they still have 8). I think people just wanted a good fight, and given the recent expertise on the SoL side, they probably could've gone in a little less heavy, but if they were 7 less in numbers and lost, people probably wouldn't remember that they gave up an advantage, just that they lost (and then a war would likely happen the next set with more numbers).
TL;DR: This is all just musings, but mostly to say that I think most probably took this as it was meant to be - in the spirit of the game, enjoying the side of war that both sides were open to (based on forum posts and choice in pacts). It seemed like a number of people had fun (and certainly learned a lot on the M4D side) but that some vets aren't cut out for war anymore (I know I'm not). It'll be interesting if they pact out next set or both want to try again with the new knowledge gained from this set. For whatever reason, best of 3 sets is a common occurrence. [/quote]
Including the 7 mercs that tagged over, SoL had 25 to M4D's 31 and were planning for the FS.
M4D got the jump but messed up imo with the AB FS.
Stones then jumped in, making it 36-31 in Sol's favour, after SoL had already negated the numbers advantage with, I think, 5 kills in the CS. (So effectively it was 36-26 once stones joined)
Originally posted by BlackHole:
Drow - I don't think that's accurate. I could be wrong though.
I'd love to hear from someone in leadership at M4D -
Did you all send pact requests to Stones, Rage, SoL, etc? In other words, did you try to pact all alliances. Or did you purposefully not send pact requests at the beginning of the set to some alliances, so that you'd have war opportunities or land grab targets?
I'd love to hear from someone in leadership at M4D -
Did you all send pact requests to Stones, Rage, SoL, etc? In other words, did you try to pact all alliances. Or did you purposefully not send pact requests at the beginning of the set to some alliances, so that you'd have war opportunities or land grab targets?
Originally posted by Coalie:
Originally posted by Drow:
Originally posted by Coalie:
Originally posted by Drow:
Originally posted by TAN:
Do we know the MERCs countries that tagged over? I'd be interested to see if there is any difference in the HPD between native SOLers and MERCs.
That's some scary numbers though.
That's some scary numbers though.
Give me an hour or two, and yeah, I can give you the numbers on the mercs countries
Make sure you pay close attention too when you do it. Just incase for future trolling on us and steeping out of bounds to push our clan leader around.
I have never attempted to push DD around dude.
I have been honest with him about what is, effectively fluffty behaviours.
Like I said to him directly, and I'll say it publicly, if it was my alliance it was done to, I would be PISSED, because it is effectively pacting in bad faith.
Breaking down the reason why I personally would see it as effectively pacting in bad faith: "Yes, we will sign a pact not to fight you. But, conveniently, half our tag is going to switch to this other tag that *IS* planning to fight you, and we will even tell you straight up that that's exactly what they are doing".
That's not good faith pacting dude, plain and simple.
You don't have to agree with me, you don't have to like that I'm saying it, but them's the facts.
And if, for argument's sake Paradigm countries had tagged over to M4D before war broke out, you'd have blown your top at us too.
I had enquiries when we tag shifted as it was about whether we were trying to quote "avoid pacts" at the time, which I actively followed up on to make sure that everyone knew we were honouring pacts as they stood, and re signing them as neccessary for those leaders who needed that.
If that's not honest and square dealing, I don't know what is.
I like you dude, but I'll still call a spade a spade at the end of the day.
Why would you be pissed? Aren’t you neutral? Are you going to come push DD, the leader of Mercs around everytime he makes a decision you don’t agree with? Especially if it’s something that doesn’t even involve your clan? We’re not gonna let you push Dark Demon around. I’ve seen the screenshots, we’ve all seen it and we are all conclusive in our opinion on what happened.
I've broken down very clearly why I would be pissed.
It's bad faith pacting, plain and simple.
Further, if I pact someone, I try to act with the spirit of the pact in mind, not just the letter.
Again, when we tag shifted, I made sure to reach out immediately to keep people informed.
When I was asked by M4D to police, I also reached out to SoL to offer to police for them too.
We have stayed completely out of the fight, because we were pacted to all sides, because that's the simple respect of honouring pacts. Even with your offer to "overlook" any countries who wanted to tag jump into M4D.
Not because some of us didn't want to, but because we respect our pacted allies more than that.
I've also told you very clearly that what my personal opinions are, and what my policy for my alliance is, are two different things, and I have acted with the best interest of Paradigm in mind consistently regardless of my own personal opinions.
Now, for someone who has specifically said he to hear me speak my mind, you seem to suddenly be unhappy that I am doing so.
As I said, I like you, but I'm not afraid to speak up.
I said I was making a point of dealing squarely, this is a part of it, warts and all.
Paradigm President of failed speeling
"EE's DILF" - Coalie