Etat

Sad to see you go TF, however your assistance was appreciated, if not by the minority of people on the various forums, then at least by the majority of folk who are still busy fighting!! Whatever your reasons for entering and subsequently leaving, our reasons for continuing the good fight remain sound in the face of the brittle and largely spurious commentary from coalition B. All the best in your future.

If there is a beige system change, I’d be very supportive of a change that makes it less easy to sit on people for long periods of time (not impossible mind as it’s still a valid strategy, just too easy as it currently stands), and that promotes active fighting of each war. I mean the above are just ideas of course, but mainly any change that supports positive gameplay and progression away from stagnant situations is a bonus imo.

I hate to interrupt this interesting discussion, however it would be remiss of me not to spend a moment acknowledging the OP! o7 TI, I’ve heard nothing but good things about you lot, look forward to working together etc. and I apologise for not posting sooner in this thread ahead of a bunch of triggered coalition B people ?

It seems that the use of bots/scripts has evolved into the game and have tacit approval from Alex. I think the argument can be made quite reasonably for both ends of the spectrum: 1. Although the game rules afaik don’t explicitly prohibit bot use in functions more or less external to specific game play actions, it can be reasonably argued that their use is not in the spirit of the game as it distorts the playing field in favour of the bot user. Not everyone has the time, knowledge or other necessities to develop bots for their own or others use. Most games are intended to be played in a setting allowing for the skill of the players in the game itself, operating within the rules, to determine a winner. Perhaps akin to performance enhancing drugs, you don’t take them while you’re on the field of play, but they give you an advantage nonetheless. alternatively, 2. Through not apparently making definitive moves against bot use (aside from clear cases of cheating/manipulating specific gameplay actions), it does not seem to offend Alex. This might be because it’s seen as a positive feature of the game that adds value to the experience and invests players and alliances more in whatever their desired outcomes are. Kinda like BYO drinks at a restaurant. you don’t need alcohol to have fun, but it certainly helps! Though booze is implicated in contributing to many a great debacle. One thing however; it’s misguided to expect Alex or anybody else who experiences no benefit from your bot(s) to give a care for your lost optional investment should bots be banned. I personally can’t see a problem with a script that goes ‘ping’, nor one that adds up a few numbers. But I do like to think that aa’s would stop short of building some sort of auto-counter bot.

I would say that we currently enjoy what some might call a ‘cumulative’ system. Scaleable in the sense I am postulating is intended to mean that the amount of beige time is different in relation to the nature of the war to which it is associated.

I like the idea of scaleable beige time such that at one end of the scale if it is a close fight then minimum beige time is given, however if you’ve been the victim of IT’s the whole war and unable to score more than a UF you’d get a much larger beige time of an amount allowing the breaking of interminable beige cycling. Alternatively you might link war duration to beige time turn for turn +1, with war expiry giving beige time also e.g. a five day war (some poor mug being sat on) gets 5 days +1 turn of beige (or some variation of this concept). I like this idea best The benefit of this mechanism is it would require people to decide to either fight their wars or give their opponents heaps of beige time and a reasonable chance in round two having been able to rebuild. It also gives people who are experienced, capable and determined fighters, a chance to kick the backsides of those 25 day old 10 city nations who who’ve had everything bought for them. This also does not prevent beige cycling, thought does make it harder. Can't say as I am aware of all the inevitable unintended consequences with such a change, keen to know people's thoughts though!

I like the idea! People play for a range of reasons, and if they don’t want to fight wars then that’s fine!! Probably would mean more players will stay in the game too because it would still be fun for them. They’ll still lose out due to being looted though. Also those inclined to fight could fight many more wars thus getting more loot! Moved the second half of my post to a new topic! This one is worthy enough not to derail.

Welcome, looking forward to fighting by your side ??

Welcome UA, glad to have you alongside the rest of us!

I hate to take the sting out of the usual vehemence and vitriol in this place, but I think it important to refrain from conflating a person’s care factor for bad things that happen to a community with any notion of acceptance of said bad thing(s). It is not for any of us to dictate this sort of moral approach to anyone. People will ordinarily enjoy a level of solidarity commensurate with the respect and positive relationships previously built. Nobody deserves to be hacked in this game (it is a breach of the IC/OOC divide, and such actions bring in to question the safety of this online environment for all), but equally it is so that in the instance one is hacked, one will probably enjoy the degree of solidarity one deserves. By extension to my previous point, this whole nation sim i.e. a representation of features of rl, has had a theme of opposition to hegemony. This goes beyond political ideology into social ideology. We cannot all have exactly the same moral approach to opinion and decision making, to do so leads to suppression of individuals and minorities (indeed, a source of much IC angst). However we do enjoy an ethical code necessary to support a minimum standard of behaviour, and I’ve yet to note anyone breach that by condoning supposed hacking actions. So chill out, keep informed and support the community in making this a safe game for everyone. leave the personal attacks for other threads.

Very sad indeed

Welcome @Sphinx, I don’t know you really, but you lead a worthy bunch of fighters and I look forward to joining with you all in the fun to come???

A dichotomous approach to ideas represented by the upvote/downvote function stifles debate and thus improvement/refinement of said ideas. It is a tool favoured by those who struggle with nuance and depth of understanding, by those prone to herd mentality, and generally promotes division amongst communities.

I don’t get the vehemence behind the detractors of change. Except of course that, irrespective of cause but not of personality, it’s the same people who pop up flapping their gums in opposition time and again, rarely with a logical argument. At least in that sense it’s no surprise. Anyway, I hold the tenuously charitable position that collectively those against this idea have successfully made their dubious point, and encourage them to now mind their own business in the interests of keeping this thread productive. For my part it seems apparent there is a stimulus for change given that many people from all over Orbis have voiced dissatisfaction about the current awards. I’d go so far to say that almost any change that attempts to make these awards more genuine and meaningful is better than what we currently enjoy. This is not to dispute the one player one vote ideal, just that it works as well as democracy almost everywhere else. Whatever happens though, idiots will be triggered (a basic tenet of life in the modern world), but they can also be ignored. This idea of Hope‘s may be a significant improvement, and I think it a worthy undertaking even if it results in failure. Good on you for giving it as go!! I’d happily participate however that might look ?? Have a great day everyone ?

Probably a desire for cultural change. A fixation upon a dichotomous response approach to ideas is contrary to a culture that values debate and compromise. I think it is about supporting a healthier forum for PnW players rather than sitting back and watching the toxicity devolve to ever greater depths. Sometimes all long term change requires is a subtle alteration to a dynamic. We will see given enough time I guess.

I think change to the mechanics that provides a more rapidly decisive victory at the level of a large or global war would be welcome, whatever that looks like. Individual changes are likely to have very specific benefits for some, and deleterious effects for others depending on current circumstances and play style. A multi-pronged approach to changing the mechanics is in order IMO, potentially including your suggestion but also including things like prolonging the time between individual nations being able to declare on one-another, adding capability to units such as ships v planes, modifying cost of and damage done by units to a more realistic level, blockading also impeding the transfer of taxes etc. A war system that increases cost to both sides as long as the war is sustained might work, rather than just favoring the winning side. It would be a true test of alliance and coalition strength, and even if not promoting long term peace, would promote periods of cessation of hostilities and keep the game more dynamic. That is too contentious an idea to support. For all the various strengths and weaknesses, and other's personal opinion of the the various leaders, they are generally the most active and engaged people in Orbis. A mass culling of leaders would not be helpful. It'd likely just cause multiple shadow gov's and possibly fracture considerably a lot of the positive aspects of their gameplay to date. Another way to look at it is 'better the devil you know'.

I'm not certain that cow English has the inherent depth and breadth of expression that would facilitate true understanding of the current issues under public scrutiny. IC being a cow must be a curious experience though, and fits wonderfully with Co A's perception of Co B i.e. herd mentality and forum stampedes. Have a nice day!!

Nobody’s lost yet, that’s why we’re still fighting ?? Our leaders have expressed a willingness to admit defeat given acceptable conditions, though that is not the same thing as actually being defeated in the sense you’re alluding to. In this war Co B has lost much, including credibility and respect (much more valuable than planes, and something that cannot be purchased). In that sense we’re the winners. The only squirming I see is from those whose lies have been exposed in the released logs! Have a great day ?

Two things from a rank and file member. 1. Peace has not been reached because a. your leaders won't talk to our leaders, and b. because the terms that have been made available are worse than peace. This is not rocket science mate, but you may insist on ignoring these facts as you have thus far. And for what it's worth I believe Co B people have been 'whining' more about lack of peace that Co A members, albeit the volume of Co A chatter has increased because this is the only forum upon which peace discussion is happening. Co A posts are generally not whiny at all, in fact they appear pretty consistently opposed to Co B and your goals. 2. The point of dumping logs presumably is to plant the seeds of discontent into the huge cracks in your own coalition. Certainly a healthier war tactic than perma-rolling nations to deletion which you people are doing. You people are now undeniably aware of the disease that is rife amongst your leadership, and time will tell if the healthy and reasonable parts of coalition B will choose to excise the rot. For us the logs only confirm what we already knew, and is a humorous aspect of this game (OOC off limits of course) Being new I'm not sure about the veracity of a lot of what you said, however I appreciate the notion that not all Co B members and leaders support perma-war and nation deletion. This certainly is an area of common ground.

Perhaps you're genuine? As a Co A line member (which includes t$) (and someone not in gov), I'd like the leaders/negotiators of Co B to consider the line members of Co B. Through the release of many Co B logs as well as posts such as yours on this very forum, there is a theme that some Co B players are not supportive of the agenda to bully Co A members into deleting. As a Co A member, I am worried about the welfare and wellbeing of Co B players who may feel disjointed from the narcissistic and immoral motivations of their leadership, and otherwise under threat of the very same bullying tactics to not stand up for yourselves. My plea today is for the leaders/negotiators of Co B, put aside your ego and pride and act in the best interest of your alliance members. There has been a lot of posting recently about the allegation that Co A line members are willing to acquiesce to Co B terms but for our leaders, but I think that this is really just spin and displacing the responsibility of Co B to act in the best interest of their members. Please post below if you also agree that Co B should consider the welfare of their alliance members, and the overall health of the game by reviewing their approach to achieving peace.

It is very interesting, and a breath of fresh air, to see a small glimpse of the history shared between all you long term nation sim players!

I won’t comment further on your diet beyond saying that it just doesn’t sit well with what I think I know. Of course I wish you well in your pursuit of a healthy body constitution! Be careful buddy, help and advice is always there if you look for it

It is not helpful to try to share blame by calling everyone hypocrites, but for what it’s worth I share your anger. Everyone is not responsible for the nastiness, but it is everyone’s responsibility to strive for a healthy game environment that allows for the maintenance of the IC/OOC barrier, and in particular protections for the vulnerable. I wonder where we’d be if people weren’t raising these issues? Deliberately doxxing people should result in an immediate and permanent ban IMO

The narrative that taking advantage of kids is wrong is false??

@SleepingNinja Taking advantage of kids is never ok. Your mercy board is taking advantage of kids. You and all your Goon friends are wrong to think otherwise. I don’t care if someone else did it worse, it’s still not ok. Grow some balls and admit you’re wrong.