Etat
-
Posts
234 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Etat
-
-
On 1/25/2020 at 10:06 PM, Tiberius said:
The system we have now, everyone has developed with. All strategy was devised using the current war system. To make all wars end with beige is going to benefit those with a bigger rebuy the most. Hence it is adding an imbalance to the game and gives one group an advantage over the other. It also nullifies the strategy of up declaring. The suggestion in isolation is a fair one, however it does not take into account the imbalances it will create in the gameplay/meta. Thus I can not support it.
A few things really:
1. The war system as it stands is simple, and so necessarily are the strategies able to be used within the rules. Part of the supposed boredom some people experience with PnW is that gameplay is not dynamic enough. I would welcome an opportunity to develop and test new strategies in a dynamically changing war environment, that would be fun and it would be a true test of individual and alliance capability.
2. I respect your greater experience here, and I make no claims of certainty or extraordinary insight, however I cannot see any drastic imbalance other than perhaps tipping it somewhat in the favour of the proposed beige recipients of any given war. This change does not prevent beige cycling, and as such neither does it prevent effective up-declaring, and if you’re allowing wars to expire prior to declaring on them again, that’s more an issue of the winning side’s due diligence or capacity rather than strategy IMO. it does make cycling harder though, and that is a prospect I would support, as across the board it will keep players engaged, both winners and losers.
Having said that, I’m not sold on this idea myself as I think there are potentially better ideas out there that would achieve similar outcomes. And philosophically speaking if you haven’t reached a peace agreement, still have resistance, are potentially still fighting despite the duration of the war, have you really lost? If the answer is ‘yes’ then beige time ought to be issued and peace declared/enforced by the game mechanics. Notice any similarities here ?
-
1
-
-
It is not useful to criticise with no effort at making it constructive. I think modification of the beige system is in order, have postulated an idea myself, however without which we discuss the problems and potential solutions, we will get nowhere. @Tiberius why would it make it unbalanced?
I think the key to change is to keep it simple, and to make changes that promote activity and hinders passive action such as sitting on zeroed opponents endlessly. I don’t think the ability to beige cycle should be removed altogether though, and this change would ensure greater effort is required of the beige cycling nations.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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 ?
-
2
-
4
-
-
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!
-
4
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:
Domination is the only thing that matters.
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???
-
1
-
-
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 ?
-
1
-
-
On 12/8/2019 at 8:30 PM, Mars said:
is there some actual reasoning behind this action? because i dont think its on account of the handful of users that are in the high negatives but rather some other group id rather not name who has been struggling with their community reputation lately
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.
-
1
-
-
On 12/13/2019 at 3:21 AM, Sardonic said:
Currently, there is not enough of an incentive to win wars. In many, arguably most cases right now, more damage is done during the war and implicitly as a result of the blockade than the final victory. The benefit of being put into beige mode is significantly too high too. I would argue that increasing the velocity of wars and conflict in general would lead to more engaging combat overall, where counterintuative things like letting wars expire, or even intentionally losing the war are not the optimal strategy.
Rather than adding incentives through new systems or complexity I think the most straightforward improvement is to make two simple changes:
Infrastructure Damage from 4% to 8%
Maximum beige mode duration per war lost reduced to 16 hours.
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.
On 12/18/2019 at 8:33 PM, Epi said:Tbh, pinning people is totally pointless. I've explained this to a lot of my own coalition. If we get pinned, we can suicide squad and just stick on them like ticks for over a year. 50 people x 5 wars x 3 days. We can beige 500 people every week xD. And that's legit with nothing but soldiers. It's impossible to actually suppress an opponent in politics and war due to daily bonus and the 100k reserve your opponents can't loot.
The nature of war has changed in the past few years. Losing doesn't really matter politically and it's easy enough to catch up. We need a new system to force parties to surrender, because with the current model we're just waiting for grievances to blow over. And in the case of this war, it's been 7 months and people with 10 years of beef are content to login 3 times a day and express their rage.
I'm happy to be apart of their therapeutic experience but new players didn't sign up for that.
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.
21 hours ago, Critters said:This game doesn’t need a change in war mechanics. This game needs a change in alliance leaders....
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'.
-
9 hours ago, Cathy said:
Dis cowz wonderin hw humanz can taco n so many circlz iss makin ma hoofs ake.
Plz post Goon liez I wanna reed 'em
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!!
-
8 minutes ago, Cathy said:
Juss notice thars a lotta squirmn frum da sid that didn win
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 ?
-
1 hour ago, Teaspoon said:
The way wars have worked in the past could not possibly be less relevant. They do not matter in the slightest and have no bearing on how anyone else conducts war in the present or going forward.
So what if NPO and BK have ulterior motives for presenting terms the way they did? There was still a path to peace on the table for coalition A which its leaders could have taken to spare their members from continued war. That they did not, and without anything resembling leverage with which to change those terms, is entirely on them and their damned pride.
My question is what exactly is the point of all this? Dumping logs, making a dozen threads complaining about how their enemies are treating them - what is the goddamn point? What are they hoping to achieve? Nothing posted here is going to change the minds of coalition b leadership. Y'all are just making fools out of yourselves for the sake of your own pride. You lost. Acquiesce to the victor's surrender terms, disband, or die screaming.
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)
1 hour ago, Epi said:All major alliances try to force the opposition out of the game. And i mean real opposition, ideological and personal. Not the for-fun politics we have from time to time. Personally I've spent 3 years opposing perma-war and trying to keep people in the game. Even those i hated most, might have enhanced someone else's experience and shouldn't be destroyed, just reduced.
The idea this is solely something our coalition is doing or that we alone have the power to do so is ridiculous. That said, of our two coalitions i think our peripherals truly believed we were doing the right thing and a permanent victory wasn't our aim. I guess that's the difference between realists and those of us here that want to preserve competition, we've bought a dead narrative. We're naive. But i for one prefer to live in ignorance and play the game, rather than transform into some keyboard warrior, the likes of which we've only seen more of recently.
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.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
50 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:stuff
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.
-
2
-
4
-
5
-
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
-
1
-
2/5/2020 - Major Announcement Regarding Enforcement of Game Rules
in Announcements & Updates
Posted
Good call @Alex whether this has deleterious effects to the game is inconsequential to the point, and that is doing the right thing. I'm saddened that people would try to oppose mod intervention against cheating. Hopefully those who think cheating is ok in this instance (or any for that matter) will also leave the game. I'm quite surprised to hear a lot of people's responses on here, and paints a picture of rank and widespread narcissism. In the long run I believe this action will have a positive impact on recruitment and retention of players, and fun game-play for everyone.