Comming to a set near you!?

World War I? Haven't we had plenty of "world" (or at least server-wide) wars in a couple of different servers already? I can't speak for Alliance as far as the "majority" of clans being involved in war at the same time, but from a relative-outsider's perspective, it seemed like there were enough clans at each others' throats just last set to qualify.

Perhaps on other servers. I havn't felt like any of the times with alot of wars has had any server wide "us vs them" feeling to it. Just alot of random wars, with little or no connection to each other in general.

Well, I did say I can't be sure about this server, but I thought something along those lines developed toward the end of last set. Were there just a lot of alliances that had nothing to do with the fighting anyway?

Or I could be delusional. Wouldn't be the first time.

SoL vs. LaF - Retal policy

Elysium vs. LaF - Farming

ICN vs. SoF - Long standing issue

iMag vs. ICN - SoF called them in

EEVIL vs. Fist - Farming

Collab vs. SoF - Bored, calling in iMag and then bragging about winning

Collab vs. iMag - SoF would've called them in anyways, needed it to be challenging

Collab vs. EEVIL - Too much money would be paid in reps for the taghoppers

PDM vs. Collab - iMag spun "fake" war plans in their favor


That's my understanding. The only two clans I see warring again would be EEVIL/Fist & LaF/SoL. Everybody else seems to have moved on.

why does thomas always post inaccurate things about LaF on every thread he mentions LaF on? :p

I can't speak for SoL, but I know we've moved on and I'm planning on netting... I may go for rank 9 to match slag and qz's last two sets.

also, Collabs reasons for going to war, as indicated in your summary, look like complete pieces of crap compared to every other alliance's reason for war :p

but ya, I wouldn't say that is a world war...

it was all separate wars, the only thing which tied it together was collab getting involved in a few wars that weren't related to each other prior to that.

I'd say the SoL+SoF vs Evo+NA+Collab set would be more WW'ish than last round. Or one of those rounds when the wars were basically defined before the set started.

The current climate isn't all that great for server/world wars. Everyone wants to isolate, and most of the major warmongers aren't attacking other major war mongers -- they're consistently attacking netters who would rather net the next round than build a coalition to fight. It doesn't help that the fighting alliances which hit the netting alliances also tell them "if you FS us next round, we will tie you up in war for a year."

That change in warmonger policy in the last year or year and a half has been responsible for a big dropoff in political activity at that level, which was always the hallmark of the old 1a server.

A key reason why the EC server went down the tubes before was because all the warmongers were working together, starting with TIS (after the RAGE wars) and moving forward from there. The full-time fighters just simply don't want that type of challenge anymore, and would rather kill the server more by fighting people who don't want to fight than actually take eachother on most of the time.

Back in the day, you'd have big fighting alliances leading all of the power blocks -- SoF, SoL, IX, TIE sometimes, MD, UCN, RAGE, ARROW, etc.
Then within the spheres of influence, alliances like LaF, Rival, ICN, Ragnarok, Omega, LCN, Ely, etc, etc would kind of work with one big fighting alliance and would send aid or help out in war sometimes, but netted or did their own thing pretty often.

That kind of died out when EC started and it's been continuing since then :(

^^

+1

Because I clearly have an issue with LaF. Or so you try very hard to make it seem that way.

Obviously if you are planning on hitting SoL back you aren't going to forewarn them. Smoke and mirrors, Pang. You do know what that means, correct? We can only attempt to predict what will happen.

Game Over. Try Again.

But you've posted numerous times on these boards that LaF's the kind of alliance that does the multi-set carry over wars when we get hit. I've refuted your nonsense by posting the facts, yet you keep making posts on that subject as if you're some kind of LaF oracle :p

You assume we're bitter enough to keep fighting, but based on LaF's history, that's just not how we operate, and you should know that. We discussed it a few weeks ago on another thread and you agreed with what I said and retracted your statement. Yet you're making the same statement again here. Short memory, perhaps? :p

It's an attitude like that (that wars SHOULD promote bitterness) that is what helped to zap the fun from the EC server, and caused lots of folks to leave.

But let's talk about my other post, which you've completely ignored thus far, because it is very relevant to the actual topic at hand, and more interesting than us rehashing the same argument we had 3 weeks ago :)

Which post did I ignore?

And just because LaF doesn't have a history of continuing a war beyond 1 set, doesn't mean they're guaranteed not to. Lets face it, most of Earth felt LaF was the best overall alliance. Since they were beat badly by SoL, that opinion has changed. If they ever had a motive to do so, now would be that time.

And you seem to be pretty sensitive about this topic. If it weren't true you probably would have let it go. But it seems to strike a nerve every time, which tells me that what you're saying may well be smoke and mirrors.

The huge recruiting drive had to be done for other reasons than to just try not to lose as bad. I would think you would capitalize on your numbers increase while you had them.

But I guess being logical isn't always the best thing around these parts...

That was never a label we gave ourselves, it was one others gave LaF. We never claimed to be the best fighters, so you're surprised that a fighting alliance that got the drop on us beat us? Or are you claiming that LaF can't net now either because we lost one war? :p
LaF's never really cared about stupid labels like "best alliance" as much as we just care about netting titles... which is why most folks there, including me, play there :p

but like I said, we can rehash the same argument we had 3 weeks ago, or we can discuss the topic that I presented in my big post you didn't notice (apparently twice now :p) which discusses the lack of "world wars" over the last year or two

it's actually an interesting discussion worth having, and needs some more war-oriented opinions for sure :p

Strange, the same can be said of you and SancT, just throwing that out there.



I think it's more that given the numbers advantage, the deep knowledge of the game that LaF possesses, and the leaders, everyone's surprised LaF lost because if the leadership there performed optimally, it would have been a LaF win. That's something SOL recognizes as well, so yes, we are surprised that LaF, though a netting alliance, still lost.

You're not fooling anyone Pangeaerr..

not every set works out in your favour. Both Collab and SoL should know that ;)

but in any case... the actual thread of this discussion was somewhat interesting, but no one wants to talk about that anymore it seems :p

The environment is not condusive to a server wide war.

There are multiple reasons for this.

The main one being the size of the server. When the server grows, the "world" wars will return.

Its going to take an alliance of 120-200 to have the firepower to lead a coalition, and create an "anti group" to take it down.

You also ahve to have the #2 alliance, the best friend, and the lapdogs, and the equivlanet for an anti groups.

Plus a few alliances that are strong enough that can swing back and forth and affect the outcome.

That requires a server that's at least double our size to pull it off.

It also requires a leader with the alliance that has the clout, the political savvy, and the intiative/time it takes to put something like this together.

There are 4 people I can think of that have these skills. If they wanted to put the time into it.
BUt the #'s aren't there to make it happen.

lol, three of them play in Sol.

Gee, I hope I'm the fourth!

Pang - Every set has worked out in our favor *shrugs*

In this game, there is only one way to rank players, this is NW.
I think this is why the better players (like those in LAF) usually prefer netting.

The server wars come in waves when people try to bring in new retal policies. It happened with clan wide retals. It happened at various stages during the L:L creep.

The usual pattern is this:
- An alliance brings in a new policy and ends up at war over it.
- Both alliances in that war form coalitions the next reset and everyone piles it.
- This repeats itself for a couple resets, as the fact that the fight is over a policy gets forgetten.
- The wars continue for a few more resets because everyone has signed FDPs with their coalition members and doesn't want to drop anyone who was such a good friend and went to war to help them recently.
- Eventually, people start declaring "netting resets" again and refuse to sign as many DPs, so the coalitions fall apart.

Frankly, I think that this kind of war (which Pang seems to extol) was a lot worse for the server than the random wars that happen now. It was boring when the same wars would happen for 4 or 5 resets in a row... it was boring when everyone went into resets knowing they'd be going to war and with who.

At the moment, the warring alliances aren't warring each other... but they're also not repeatedly bashing the same people. This means that, if you don't push anyone's buttons, you have a good chance of getting through netting at least every other reset. It gives variety, and gives you the opportunity to try and play political games to stay out of wars. You may or may not succeed, but at least it's not pre-ordained garbage.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

your posts are always slanted thomas. its boring to read what you write because it is so predictable. perhaps you could try writing something that doesnt favor collab and slander the opposition in the same sentence

lolz ...

Thomas, typically you only need to quote a post when:

a) You're replying to something specific and your reply won't make sense without the added context.
and
b) You're referencing a post from much earlier in the thread (as opposed to the one immediately before your own).

If all you're going to do is make a generic response to the post immediately before yours, we really don't need you to quote the most recent thing we read.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I hope I'm not screwing up like Thomas did.

Just to stick up for my fellow Collab leaders, I find it's sometimes necessary to quote a message even if it is the preceding post, because there is always the chance that someone else will post in between and then true meaning can be completely lost. This even applies to responses such as Thomas'. A simple "lolz" can be misconstrued if it's not clear as to which post it is a response to...

You failed at the trend or you would have quoted me dumbass.

*Eats a banana*
Notebook pusher.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Does it really bother you that much? LOL who gives a fluff...

you need more fluff

LoLz

I liked the TIL wars :)

Also liked when IX, SoF and someone else formed Project Arcturus even though it was a short lived venture