Mikey

They're no lobsters, but you gotta love 'em.

People just need to focus on relative, rather than absolute growth. If your goal is to be #1 and not to have a specific, ever increasing city count, then suddenly war becomes a perfectly valid, and indeed necessary, mechanism of achieving that. Even leaderboard chasers could focus more on beating down people near them in the rankings vs treating everything as a PvE grindfest. Of course, the latter is less risky, especially for entrenched leaders, so it doesn't happen. On another note, somewhere in this thread (can't remember now), it was suggested that betraying your friends for the sake of dynamism is bad and will result in nobody willing to work with you. I agree completely. But fighting people you get along with != betrayal. Nobody is saying you need to string a friend along and stab them in the back (a la tenages plot against Rose) to be dynamic. Having a clean break with people you once allied with, and treating them as new competitors to take down, is not betrayal. The problem is the entrenched idea that you shouldn't 'give up your friends.' I agree, if you consider someone a friend you should be there when they need you. But facing a war in an online browser game isn't them needing you. Competing against one another in said game isn't giving up the friendship. Its not an attitude we see outside nation sims either, else no group could ever play Risk or Monopoly. Hell the first people I attack in any online game are usually the people I know. In the past we used to have a lot of atwar games to kill time outside PW, and without fail the closest friends would be at each others throats within the first few turns. People here seem to have a hard time separating themselves from their in-game personas. We're not nation leaders, the actions taken purely in game are not done by us IRL against others, but by our pieces on the game board. But because there isn't a game client with graphics, we forget that. The biggest hurdle to having a Hyper Dynamic TM environment is the pervasive notion that OOC friends = in-game allies.

Damnit TKR, must you take everything that made us special? First you cramped our style as another fantasy series themed orange alliance, and now you even leak? That was the one thing we were good at...

Gotta watch out for those loters man, I hear they're bad news.

I actually with Alex on this one. VM is meant for people to temporarily pause playing while they have other distractions IRL. It's not meant to avoid wars. Nor to paralyze alliances by taking control and them VMing, so that regardless of further politics / negotiating between players, it is now impossible to actually do anything for 2 weeks. It's pretty clear VM abuse, and I think we should be more strict on that, not less (especially with wartime shenanigans). If he had stayed in power and tried to hold the alliance hostage, raise the taxes, etc, that would be another thing and he absolutely should not be removed in such cases. Maybe he should have just been forced out of VM, but he definitely should not be allowed to VM while the sole leader of the alliance.

I technically never posted an abdication, therefore I have been King for the last for years and everyone after me was was just LARPing. Besides, I'd never let one of those damned Valyrians on the Iron Throne.

Where's the 1 year NAP? I thought we were trying to break records

I have no problem with them being in the stats (because the wars are obviously related), but I thought the going line was that they are two separate wars, hence why their peace was negotiated entirely separately.

People protect typhon? Don't they just openly raid everybody too?

You need to get your priorities strait. I dropped out in order to advance my political career. Sure, I get the odd glare from my mother when I have to leave the basement for food, but the karma makes it all worth it. Chicks dig it too. Pitty they're too intimidated by my nationsim prowess to approach me. Such is the price of Fame.

I think it was more they got bored with what they were, and decided to call it a day and do other things. Now they've got the band back together. I wouldn't characterize it as them falling apart or disbanding over Papers Please.

I guess technically this is war propaganda, but damned if I'm not hogging a thread for myself.

The Seven Kingdoms Carolers are back for our third annual Christmas Album. This year we are performing 'Christmas (Felkey Please Come Home)' in honor of our good friends in TCW, all of whom haven't quite made it home for the holidays. Felkey has bravely fought his way back from Vacation Mode, but he still hasn't quite made it back to activity. Send your thoughts and prayers everyone, and maybe he'll make it back to TCW for Christmas! Lyrics

35/20 taxes!? Just go full NPO at that point.

BC are not in vanguard and had already cancelled those ties when IQ hit them.

Ripper has gone over the distinctions between regular paperless cooperation (but not alliance), so I will offer my understanding on the paperless treaty vs secret treaty thing. The distinction I have seen made is about how open / acknowledged the relationship is. TEst/Arrgh/RW used to cooperate quite closely with each other and that cooperation was never denied or obfuscated. Guardian and SK probably come the closest to open paperless treaty. In the early days of the game we were both paperless but just as much 'allies' as most treatied alliances.We just didn't see the need to cement some formally binding contract to enforce that cooperation, or prevent us from going separate ways if we felt like it. We were also quite open about that relationship and everybody knew where we stood with each other. On the other hand, GoB held a similar relationship with Guardian without ever acknowledging it, and indeed denying it. Or so the complaint goes.

Sorry, but can I just say it's complete bullshit that the Great VE War name is now settled business? I miss the poll for what, 4 years? And suddenly its a done deal and my vote doesn't count? Some of us don't have the luxury of opening a browser window every few months.

No. The only thing I said was that I don't believe the decision to be exclusively upper tier is itself selfish. Unless you believe TEst, CoS, Guardian and others who have city requirements, are also selfish for it. In which case, fair enough, although I wouldn't agree. Their conduct in consolidation their tier, trying to avoid wars or talking down to new players is another matter which may well merit that epithet. I think I just misunderstood Roq to be mainly criticizing them for not wanting to be part of high taxes or mass recruitment (which I do not view negatively), rather than their other actions and words.

I’m going to address what I see as the main points, because quoting is too hard. If I misunderstood anything, please let me know. It is not my intention to talk past you or misrepresent. 1. GoB are “selfish” because they advertise as elite Maybe its a semantic disagreement between selfish and self interested. The former has an OOC negative connotation that I disagree with. Nobody owes anybody else anything here, and the dynamics of mass members, elite, pvp, etc, exist in all online games. IMO the only responsibility people have is to have fun and not be a dick. If you think we need to focus solely on new player experience, we really ought to ban Arrgh while we’re at it. I’m not going to comment on the VE stuff. I wasn’t there, I don’t necessarily disagree with the choices seeker has made. I get that is the context for this, and I don’t blame ThatGuy for his choices (kudos to him). But the general sentiment has been bandied around before, and I disagree with it. Ok, I think I misunderstood you here. I thought you were primarily targeting them as selfish due to wanting to be an upper tier alliance and not be part of mass recruiting and the aid that goes with it. I stand by my belief that there is nothing wrong with that. GoB's other conduct and words, is another matter entirely. And I don't disagree with labeling them for that. 2. It’s exclusionary to view the game as only important in the upper tier I agree. I think smaller nations, micros, and the like get way too much shit. You can criticize Grumpy for their denigration of smaller nations if you want. But I don’t see it as bad for the games health or exclusionary to new players, for people to focus their own efforts in their tiers. You can do that without belittling newer players. These arguments can be just as easily applied to TEst, CoS and Guardian. 3. Being upper tier tends towards consolidation and not fighting Only if you define upper tier as mega whales focused only on growth. Yeah, if your goal is to grow in farm mode and never fight, that can lead to consolidation. But being upper tier doesn’t mean not fighting. Sure, you might lose your grip on the leader boards, but that isn’t the goal of all upper tier alliances. We were upper tier with no recruitment for a while. We warred a lot. Guardian is one of the most powerful upper tier AA’s, they’ve fought more wars than anyone. Plenty of mid tier guys try and duck the challenge. I agree that trying to gather all the upper tier together and grow above the rest of the game is bad. I don't agree that focusing on the upper tier and trying to dominate it through intrigue and open warfare, as other upper tier AA's have done in the past, is a problem. 4. Universalizing upper tier focus would kill most of the game I don't advocate for its universalization, just as you don't advocate for the universalization of your method. Hell I don't even use it in SK. We aren't taking applicants while we sort some internal issues, but generally we ran one of the highest tax rate/aid packages in the game, to the point where we've lost members over it. But that doesn't mean I oppose other people choosing to focus elsewhere. New players don't need everything paid for them anyway. We all got started without it. Many micros exist and attract members without the big aid packages of TKR or SK or NPO. The real important thing recruiting AA's offer is the community and orientation into the game. Which is important, to be sure. I don't think it would be good if every alliance stopped taking new members, though even if they did, we'd likely see new ones form to accommodate. But even still, I don't believe anybody owes it to "the game" to boost growth for new players if they don't want to. And I don't think its a problem that several alliances choose not to.

For somebody who clearly didn't read anything I wrote, you sure are angry about it The posts that precede mine are people (seeker/roq/sephiroth/srd) arguing about the legitimacy of upper tier alliances. It was claimed that the mere act of being an upper tier exclusive alliance is selfish and bad for the game. That it is wrong for large nations to want to avoid high taxes or redistribution to newer players. I disagreed. This exact same argument has been made against your alliance, which is why I found it funny you are supporting it. Consolidation is irreverent to that question, as it is an entirely separate issue. You can be upper tier and not try and consolidate the entire tier together to avoid war. You can be mid or lower tier and attempt to do exactly that. If you honestly feel I am the idiot you make me out to be, so be it. But maybe criticize what i actually say, rather than lecture me on a separate topic. Especially when I have already publicly taken your same position lol

Fine, you build people too I don't know the internals of all the alliances, which is why in the first post I specifically mentioned I wasn't saying anybody was or wasn't selfish, uncontributing, etc. Because I honestly don't and can't know. Unfortunately that got seized upon and my ignorance came out. Apologies. But I stand by the point that there is nothing inherently wrong with having an upper tier alliance or preferring to be apart of such an alliance vs being in a mass member AA with high taxes and heavy redistribution, a point which in often made and has been made here by certain individuals oriented that way.

Fair enough, in that way you contribute more than Grumpy. But it doesn't change that TEst is still an upper tier oriented alliance which does many of the things prior posters were complaining about. And indeed, has been singled out for the same criticism by some of those same posters. I just don't agree that it is inherently bad for an alliance to be mostly, if not exclusively, upper tier. I brought you up because I found it funny someone in TEst disagreed, when you guys have been subject to the same unfounded criticism. Maybe it was just a misunderstanding of what I meant. The consolidation of so many upper tier nations allying together and avoiding challenges is a problem, not the choice of internal membership policy.

I don't disagree with you about consolidation in terms of allies, ducking wars, or any of the rest. There is a reason I agreed to join this war. But being opposed to mass consolidation among upper tier nations does not mean being opposed to the existence of upper tier exclusive alliances. You can think they are bad too for their own reason, though you're really in the wrong alliance if that's the case The requirements may be lower than Grumpy, but TEst still has a city requirement, doesn't mass recruit, and probably doesn't dish out a lot of aid to new players either. It may be that Alex wants every alliance to be mixed tier or low tier only. I don't know the mechanics of Statekraft. Though given the strong opposition to many of his mechanical changes over the years, I'm not sure "alex thinks it should be like this" is the be all, end all of game play discussions...

I can't say I agree with the idea that Grumpy are somehow selfish for wanting to be an upper tier only alliance. PW is multiplayer, true, but similar dynamics between elitists/mass members, hard core fighters vs casuals, exists in every online game. Make what you want of it and have fun. For the record, I think NPO is well within its rights to demand whatever it wants from its members, and people who criticize them are misguided. But players are equally within their rights to want something different, and group together accordingly. I would call it selfish to grow in an AA then leave before contributing your part. Maybe SRD specifically did that, and deserved the personal attention. I'm not making judgement one way or another on personal histories I didn't experience. But this is a talking point that has been thrown around before, be it at TEst, Grumpy, Guardian, etc. Similar points get made about how awful people are for being raiders/neutrals/papered/paperless/high taxes/no taxes. War against people you disagree with all you want. Hell, do it often! But trying to convince people, OOC, of the "correct" way to play is never going to go anywhere, because the correct way to play is however the hell you want.

Corn Shuckers are the true Rose.