Leaderboard

That's a bit of a catch-22 though. Power is fickle. It resides where people believe it resides anyway. Those people at the top "killing the game", whom you call out as the villains of stagnancy are only there by the grace of the masses. And the masses love a winner. The ideal scenario for 80% of the game is this: - Be part of an "efficient" alliance with just enough transparency to allow them to hold on to the illusion of having a say, being heard and "relevant". They may not really believe that they dictate what happens, but as long as enough token is given and as long as point 2 is satisfied, they will drink the koolaid. - Win. This is the big one. People love winning. They don't want risk. They want to illusion of risk: They want to be the badasses taking names. - Grow. Even if you satisfy point 1 and 2, the majority of "regulars" want to grow over time. Stall them long enough with war (winning or not) and they will eventually form dissent. The above applies to nearly all regulars (arrgh-style stuff excluded, though an argument can be made that even arrgh adheres to point 1 - 3, albeit in a different manner). And it reinforces stagnancy bottom-up. Here's how: Those "leaders" who do not satisfy at least 2 out of the 3 of the above points will eventually lose their member base to those who do. It's essentially a bottom-up reinforcement of the same stagnation people complain about. If you're not efficient and transparent enough, but manage to win and grow (with growth being at least higher than counterparts), you're fine even if you don't "win". But relative growth without winning requires pixelhugging (An example would be GPA of old). The other way around it applies too: If I manage to make my alliance win and be "efficient", but fail to allow for (relative) growth, dissent will formulate and turnover will occur. Whether I hold on to power is then dependent on new recruitment pulled from showcasing "winning". Another combo? I can try to "win" and "grow" without being efficient. This requires a diplomatic submission to a more efficient power/dominant power. So, leaders are incentivized by their member's natural tendency towards security (which is id daresay, at its root, the entire reason alliances ever came to be in the first place) to be boring. When a leader disregards this incentive to make a controversial move (thus inciting the drama and Dynamism™ so many pretend to crave), this comes with personal risk: Anything short of victory/success tends to lead to a direct or indirect loss of power (direct in terms of members, indirect in terms of political capital with allies, as the above principles can be applied both at intra and inter-alliance levels). That loss of power would in turn reduce the ability of that leader to try anything Dynamic™ in the future. That's without delving into the psychological effects of above negative reinforcement. If a victory by chance is booked, it tends to lead people to flock towards that leader (and/or entity), thus reinforcing its power and ability to do so again. The problem is... nothing lasts forever, and so once the failure is booked, the herd moves on to the next best thing. Point being: Leaders do not hold the power as you claim. Members do. But as long as the brunt of members follow their basic urges, leaders are disincentivized from taking risk. If members were to start supporting more erratic/risky ventures across the board, leaders will start taking more risk: Every time a plan is hatched, any leader worth his salt weighs the effects his moves might have on his member base, after all. So if you are in a do-nothing alliance with a do-nothing leader and preach change, walk your talk and either become a leader yourself to show the way, or throw your weight behind an ambitious leader who is not risk-averse. Anything short of that makes you a hypocrite. Your move, Shifty.

The other issue is the mechanics are heavily geared towards stagnancy rather than action. People seem to forget just how costly large scale wars are in general. The last war for example, IQ took 111bn in damages, and EMC took 69bn in damages. This is just infrastructure damage, it doesn't even account for the (rough guesstimate) ~100bn in resource costs, which under the market post econ update, is probably worth 200-300bn now. This means it takes months to prepare and/or recover from a large scale conflict. Since you can't fight without resources, this imposes a pretty rigid mechanical restriction in general on how often an alliance can engage in global war generally. Add to this the recent econ update, which game-wide reduced the overall production of resources whilst simultaneously bumping prices, and you have a resource shortage situation that will get exponentially worse over time, resulting in increased resource scarcity and wars that happen further and further apart. This has the natural effect of incentivizing any rational leader, even the most gung ho pro war leaders, to pick and choose their wars carefully rather than just hit anyone anytime they feel like it.

Yes, I think they're right. From what I've read here and heard in these Orbis streets, IQ has been CRYSTAL CLEAR from the start about what their intentions are. I'm under the impression that they've said they're focusing on econ, growth, and they won't initiate a war unless they know for sure they'll win. That seems like the wise thing to do when you're owning the game and everyone is afraid to touch you. The issue is that EMC (I don't know who specifically, but I have a good guess) didn't listen to their rivals, listened to everyone else complaining about them winning (?), and it has somehow made it soooooo much worse and more boring, if that was even possible. Point being, lions pay no mind to the opinions of sheep. If you dominate the game, don't let haters make you feel guilty and make you break up your own success. That's what EMC did and now there's nothing to counter IQ but a bunch of players complaining about IQ killing the game and even less likely to do !@#$all about it. If everyone is bored and complaining of stagnation, the "Dynamic™" thing to do would be to support and make ACTIVE moves to force your enemy to bend the knee. Why kindly ask for your rivals to give up their advantages and pretty please request that they bend the knee, when you can just take a bat to that thing until they hit the ground? Btw, Stratagem is open and recruiting all nations who are about THAT LIFE. Come in at the ground level of the next hegemony to rise!

Well the context when most people refer to a lack of wars is generally global wars, and with the exception of maybe Papers please, there has never really been a complete "curbstomp" in a global war. The last true global war was 9 months ago, all previous wars before that were 3-4 months apart at a time. As for the idea of joining the losing side, whilst its true most alliances join the winning side more often than the losing side, who lost the last war isn't always an indicator towards who will win the next one and there is plenty of cases of people joining the opposite side. And looting opportunities isn't really a factor running through the head of 90% of alliances so idk where you pulled that one from. That assumes everyone has the exact same priorities which they don't. Some alliances wish to grow, others wish to fight, some wish to be the most powerful etc. In general you can break the game down into two different groups, those who avoid damage in order to advance another goal, and those who advance another goal to avoid damage. If avoiding damage is the ends not the means than you are a pixelhugger. My point being, there is plenty of rational reasons to sacrifice an advantage, it depends entirely what your end goal is. Unfortunately this is a wider issue in the game, many alliances have no purpose other than to exist. If your only goal is to exist, then you have no pragmatic reason to go to war at all, and plenty of reasons to act like a pixel hugger. Curbstomps are not a common occurence in global wars and therefore aren't really relevant to the subject. Its not really that hard to avoid a curbstomp in general. Your using examples that don't apply to the conversation. I'm not sure how Arrgh proves your point, Arrgh isn't relevant to the topic at hand either. Arrgh is an outlier, their entire playstyle relies on them being an outlier. If everyone started playing like Arrgh, it would invalidate their playstyle completely because all your prospective targets would also be raiders. Arrghs economic viability relies on the stagnancy of other alliances.

Name: Inf Lost Inf Dest. Soldiers Lost Soldier Kills Tanks Lost Tanks Dest. Jets Lost Jets Dest. Ships Lost Ships Dest. Money Lost Money Looted KT: 17,116.91 177,848.02 1,377,309 3,689,496 22,985 108,014 9,972 32,940 671 1,337 $30,861,092.10 $148,565,967.98

I would term the irrelevant as inactive people who either won't or don't know how to get involved with things. Otherwise your relevance can be chalked up to your actions as long as you have somewhat of an alliance backing you. The problem is, every single alliance in the game right now has no inkling of democratic process or member involvement. If they do, they're a freebooting pirate anarchy. So we have the vast majority of people out there disillusioned with a boring game going inactive, then we have the people who consolidated their power in the name of efficiency and opsec complaining because there's the same handful of people making the big calls and shockingly none of them will change their minds on anything. We need new blood. We need new systems.

needs more KT bashing otherwise good post

Ironically, your girl did that to me last night.

This is your time @Kastor. STRIKE NOW WHILE THEIR DEFENSES ARE DOWN FROM CELEBRATION

Dogpiled

The Holy Land is safe. Praise the Lord! Swift rebuild guys. I know we'll meet again. o/

Deus Vult! I hope that father is God, I know Kastor likes to submit... 'Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time,' - 1 Peter 5:6

He doesn't need her, he's got a deep relationship with his father.

technically we only attacked because you said you would attack us, so if you use that logic, your attacking because of yourselves

The scope of this topic is to aggregate in one place all the Discord servers related to Politics & War. The several servers are categorized and listed alphabetically. For additions, changes, corrections, etc. to the list, please leave a comment below or message me here, in-game or on Discord. Please remember to set any invitation links so that they do not expire, as it can be seen here. So, here we go... (An updated list of active servers can be found in PnW Server Directory.) P&W Discord: Active Alliances and Blocs: Defunct Alliances and Blocs: Banks: Active Radio Shows: Radio Shows in hibernation: Newspapers: Tech Teams: Games: Graphics Companies:

Are they right?

We were originally Then kastor left and we changed Identity Crises Stage And today we announce the new alliance But in all seriousness we believe its time to go back to our roots. I personally started here when we were Lordaeron fell in love with the community as many others have. While some of the old timers have left, we have always been a place where people can come back to and call home once again. Lordaeron stands proud to this day.

I doubt it

This wasn't necessarily a war. You're also misreading the statement. I stated if you're looking to keep fighting to forcibly disband an alliance, it will come back on you. Because you're setting a precedent for it.

I have never heard anyone called “relevant” ever.

Yet another hit-and-fade with no response from Daddy... Yes, god forbid we do anything more than two days of war lest we suffer negative consequences.

Same. Please. I need partisan WoT in my life. @Seb

@Rozalia

I thought you were fat

Fighting NSR is waste of res, come over 1500.

Does he cuddle afterwards?

Here to remind you that Thalmor sucks and swallows.

Yeah, it was short and sweet, at least we got that nice little poem out if it.

I'm having a good time, makes for good memories.

I legit can't believe this is seriously a thing...

yay more shitposting

not sure what you were trying to accomplish, we all already knew you were the most fearsome alliance out here. look at us, we're shaking in our boots. also have a gif

What I'm hearing is the banksters can't be trusted and we should rise up and seize back the wealth!

Everyone coming at me for doing things while your leader/gov just signed another treaty or got rid of one to avoid war. smh

Finally, now I have a reason to call you Lordran.

Roz Wei in 1 picture

We all thought @Mad Max with his ESD --> SetDef --> WeyYu and VE --> GoG was bad..... but this.....

Can confirm. SRD is only attention whoring.

Knights Templar VS Assassin's Order? It's destiny, I suppose.

Avoiding attacking out of the blue the player with the most nukes launched would also help you maintain your precious infra.

I'll take the hit for this. Was a good read through all the pages. Also, pour one out for all the homies lost over the years.

I am confusion

I think it’s more the principle of reliance on one’s self than a lack of trust in their allies. Pantheon has made a mistake which can be divided into three phases: 1. The lack of proper minimum military requirements and/or enforcement of this policy 2. The admission of someone like ValhallaValkyrie into government 3. Failure to send the bank to a proper depository 1: While I am sure Pantheon has MMR in regards to planes/ground, they apparently do not have an MMR set for ships, and/or are not sufficiently enforcing this policy sonar to prevent mishaps like these. 2: ValhallaValkyrie is one of those people who VM’d in Silent, and would optimally be disqualified from government positions, especially high government. 3: Valkyrie did not possess a sufficient, well balanced military. For two, the nation has little war exp. For three, since Pantheons upper tier was being raided, it would have made sense to send the bank to one of their allies rather than a nation that could be targeted easily. (TKR would have been optimal if they allowed it) Having said that, kudos to both TKR and TCW to have had sent counters in without any prior request, counters that have by this point in time effectively saved Pantheons bank from being beiged in as great of an amount as it would have been.

You're still looting a lot with Ground Attacks at that point.

That loot sounds juicy thou.

Ole also shouldn't write DoW's ever again. Holy shit man what's wrong with the formatting?

tl;dr - you're bored. Regardless, have fun with the war.