Jump to content

Zed

Members
  • Content Count

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

276 Excellent

1 Follower

About Zed

  • Rank
    Poopposter

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Leader Name
    Zed
  • Nation Name
    Paradisum
  • Nation ID
    13861
  • Alliance Name
    Some Gay Biker Club

Recent Profile Visitors

1099 profile views
  1. Ayy lmao disband your alliance and join BeeKay
  2. Zed

    The Future

    Absolutely disgusting. Also, do any of you really want paperless back? Really?
  3. >doesn’t have the word “Spectrum” anywhere I, for one, am so triggered.
  4. I, for one, recognize this as the first legitimate landing - as I can hear the radio broadcast of John Coltrane from my backyard.
  5. 👏 AYY 👏 LMAO 👏 👽 😂 😂 Daily reminder to disband your alliance and join BK! 😂 😂😂😂😂
  6. Zed

    Boting talk

    While I would rather not just copy pretty much anything Prefonteen has to say, this blurb is essentially the same thing I would have posted here. We should not be allowing bots to fight wars or handle banking, among other mechanical things. As for recruitment bots, eh. While I would far rather have players who are new to join established alliances that know what they are doing and have track records of player growth or at least large active communities - and thus keeping them from forming dross-tier micros that are irrelevant and lead to them giving up and leaving the game - I can't say I really like most of the concept of the automatic messaging. But advertising those things is hard otherwise, which I do concede. The forums are a hard place for new people to feel welcomed to and learn what it is they are supposed to be doing. I would far rather a new player see a cool theme from something in real life pop culture (e.g., TKR, GotG), or find some interesting concept theme alliance (e.g., t$, Immortals), or see some type of community culture they think is fun and entertaining (e.g., BK, Arrgh), than make some worthless micro and never get involved in the game at all. That said, I don't think we should just have big mass-member alliances either, but I think most veteran players will know the rules and conventions of the game enough to where this isn't much of a problem.
  7. Memes aside, if this is actually a legitimate malicious attack on the game, this is not acceptable. That said, you lot should be using a password manager anyway with random, unique passwords for each site and 2FA when possible.
  8. Since there’s not one good place to respond (chiefly because this has been a mostly decent thread) I’ll just throw it out as an extension to other posts. The forming of Inquisition was a colossal move in the metagame. In my opinion it’s also the last one that has “stuck”, and by that I mean it is the last one that redefined how the game was drawn out and played. There have been a few attempts at rewriting this, but none of them have been successful at changing the dynamic. As surprised as I was at the time personally by that move, it was a bold move by a number of alliances in different deteriorating internal (and in the case of OO, external) situations, and one that breathed a lot of life into the game. That’s a long time to go without a major storyline change in a game like this. I championed t$ signing NPO in advisory chambers back in the day for one particular reason; it was the last thing I could think of that would be a new challenge for the alliance given the state of the meta at that point in time. I had hoped that my paperless adventure years ago would have led to something, but for very-long winded historical reasons that no one is going to want to read, that did not come to pass (tl;dr- The meta didn’t change much around us, and I did not assertively force something to happen). t$ and NPO had never been allied, had very different “phenotypes” (if you will indulge me), and both seemed to be looking for something new. But I was confident that a lot of the “genotype” wasn’t all that different. Two of the largest mover-and-shaker type alliances in this game, with a fairly well-matching set of mechanics in nation building, coming together to form partnership, was quite a thing to see. I was quite happy to write the text of the treaty, and merge a sort of snake (or Dragon) with something from the Pacific (Sir Francis Drake). And off we sailed! There is, frankly, a lot to unpack about that specific relationship/divorce. At the risk of appearing to cop out, I’ll simply state that most of the finer points (that I am aware of, given my tendency to fade in-and-out) aren’t really relevant to this thread, and I’ll leave it at that. People like stories. Ultimately, they are the only real thing that drives games like these forward, as the mechanics alone usually will not suffice. In a way, it is similar to Dungeons & Dragons; you can play the mechanics, but it is the story that makes it more interesting. Nowhere in my post do I mention a grievous complaint or lament about the practices I bring up. I will note one difference. Most of the mechanics that were previously broken, such as the treasure system mentioned here, were designed by the game administration and introduced to bring some substantial changes to the game. Their actual intent was to stimulate gameplay. I don’t think the actual implementation was what the admins intended, as evidenced by what happened. There’s absolutely an argument to make about Dongminion being a major game exploit, and frankly I can’t dismiss it as bollocks because it does hold weight. The mechanics were designed to make a change in how people played the game, and frankly they did - just not in the way that it was imagined. Whereas something like baseball or the referrals were, in Alex’s own words, some little fun distraction or nice bonus for people that wasn’t meant to be a big thing. They were cheap things designed to add some character to the game without significantly impacting the way it was played, unlike the treasure system which was designed to bring competitive practice. But my broader point isn’t about the specific mechanics or those practices at all. Most of my broader point was also discussed by Edward above; namely a look at how mechanics and metagame are investigated.
  9. It's quite interesting, isn't it? You'll have to forgive me, as I've been in-and-out of the game for awhile now. We have reached a point where the "meta" of the game has well outpaced the "mechanics" of the game. Most alliances still remaining that are actually relevant (lol micros) have mostly figured out fairly optimal paths to deal with the simple mechanics of gameplay. The builds, the infra and city building strategy, what units to target, how to raid or conserve resources, etc.; those have generally been well-solved aside from the occasional server hiccup or glitch. The development of major changes to the mechanics of the game has greatly slowed. I suspect this is in large part because the codebase is a very fragile thing at this point, and making even moderate changes of any substance is likely going to require a lot of time and labour to patch. That's not indicative of failure on the part of the game administration, but it does mean that you allow the invested and serious players a chance to really work out the optimal strategies that they feel will work for them. In Coalition A, I've noticed for the most part a relatively steady brain drain over the past few years. Many of the players who were well-known along alliances in Coalition A have either retired or left the game entirely. I would suggest this is because most felt accomplished with the way they have played, and thus they have moved away. Either that, or they feel as though the game does not have much to offer them at this point. There's been a fairly general decay in most of those alliances, yet for the most part they have a relatively diverse set of backgrounds and philosophies. Losing players of that calibre doesn't just hurt those alliances or the coalition itself; it also means that experienced players and personalities have left the game and no longer contribute to making it a community. I think the players in Coalition A are generally ready to move on with the "meta" of the game, but they find themselves unable to do so. Personally I was ready to delete months ago (maybe even beyond a year at this point to be totally honest), but I have stayed on due to the current global war - and had committed to staying on long before I knew I would actually be in the fight. It is more likely than not that I will delete post-war. While the memes of wanting to spite posters from Coalition B who want to drive people out of the game would be the thing that gets clicks and wows, the reality is more that I too, feel relatively accomplished in the game (inb4 lol you didn't do jack), and I have other things out of life that I'd like to turn my attention to. I don't actually think that everyone is like this, or that people will suffer from a lack of morale and leave the game because of this war. I've played these kinds of games for a long time. I honestly don't know why I've stayed on for the past two years even, other than the social community of people in the alliances I have been a part of. In Coalition B, I've noticed an ethos of taking every possible small advantage and rolling them in together to try and elevate beyond their normal limits. From the massive influx of referral bonuses and out-of-game allied help via GPWC and other communities, to providing tools and resources for the game and thus likely being granted some additional access to mechanical features, to well-organized baseball leagues to get cash; the major alliances on the side of Coalition B have found tiny bits of the fluff mechanics and used them to find an extra gear to the normal mechanics that they operate from. I don't think this is an awful thing in and of itself. Is it perhaps against the intended spirit of each of the bonuses? There's an argument about exploitative practice there that holds water. But I think it is perhaps a very good example of the "meta" outstripping the "mechanics", as I alluded to earlier. Other people in this thread have laid out the histories and reasons for why alliances in Coalition A and Coalition B (and I guess the neutrals count too) have acted and behaved in the way they have over the past several months and even few years. I don't have to reiterate that. I think part of the reason that Coalition A feels that Coalition B doesn't care about the PR battle (other than the fact that this is the OWF and it is pretty shi- as a general rule, let's be honest), is because Coalition B has taken the mechanics and imports and decided that they can go it alone without the help of peripheral allies or peeling off anyone from Coalition A to join them in a post-war world. Or, if for some reason they can't do that in a post-war world, then they've decided that Götterdämmerung is their only choice (and even then, it still mostly takes the concept of the PR battle and gives it the moutza). These games seem to have a somewhat limited shelf-life if the mechanics are not tweaked every so often. We have probably hit that point here. There was once a golden era for simulators of this type, but despite this probably being the best contemporary game of its kind, it is really fairly stagnant other than recent imported communities like GOONS and GPWC (who have all been ported over by Coalition B). The personalities aren't being refreshed or added, but rather dying off and stagnating. And if you don't have a new set of ideas to drive the "meta", then without innovations in the "mechanics", you'll come to a grinding stalemate soon enough. That's because our precious downvotes were removed from the forums so this is all we have left, amirite.
  10. Daily reminder to disband your alliance and join Biel-Kay
  11. Zed

    Christmas truce

    If it’s going to be over multiple days, it should be Kwanzaa.
  12. I’m just here to do a slight gravedig, and downvote this suggestion.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.