A Treatise on the Duplicity of Anti-Pirate Activities

[Peter Quill]

I eagerly await Hereno's response.

[TheNG]

Don't worry I've read some threads and heard of your... Err, history. 

 

Uhh... sure.

It's cute that you've browsed through some month old threads and think you're now some sort of expert on us. Just a bit of advice, if all you think you know comes from some circlejerk threads on the OWF, then you don't know jack, and should stop pretending otherwise.

I'd recommend actually talking to some real people, maybe even doing something worthy of note besides being a two-bit forum troll sucking up to the big boys in tS, you'll be less laughable that way.

[Lord of Puns]

All that being said I do agree with you that things are currently terrible here. When UPN/VE/Rose/Alpha all became effectively tied to one another I started referring to this point as the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)-Phase of Orbis. I could be wrong, but I imagine large scale war frequency will dramatically slow down compared to what they've been since the start of this round. When the next war happens it'll likely be positioned so that it's a curb stomp rather than anything close and only happen after treaties are stacked heavily in one sides favor. And all of that is not a problem of mechanics but a problem of the people in charge of the top alliances. Politics is driven by the player base and I feel the player base in charge of politics currently are going to move the world to a (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) climate. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am (but I still hope). Part of which is what I was referring to when I made this post: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11792-sk-celebrates-5-years-of-existence/?p=219948

 

If anything I'd me more worried about the huge influx of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) players rather the tying treaty. As we've seen before again and again on orbis, large scale wars have erupted out of blatant power adjustment. And after the last war political spheres collapsed and new ones were reborn. 

 

Everyone has been crying out since the first major spheres erupted "(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is here! The end is nigh!" but come on, I've seen relatively no (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) based political tactics taking major form except for the basis of the UPN/DEIC/BoC failed blitz (shitz). This tying treaty will do nothing but unravel again once growing paranoia and undermining tactics used to destroy these treaties arise. 

 

I will give credit where it is due that a large part of the reason that (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) political spheres have failed in orbis is because people freak out about stagnation and prepare their asses for war. So while you see this treaty as an issue, its more than likely to be the root of the next major conflicts. While we have some people who only know the ways of getting caught up in treaties, another entire half of the game only know the ways of war and political strategy.

 

They may have numbers but so did Rose when they hit Mensa, hell Rose was supposed to be one of the most militarized alliances in the game and they got their asses handed to them. In the end I doubt that this (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) apocalypse will be anymore than just worry. If you want to base fears on (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) politics dont worry about these treaties: look at the surge of new (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) alliances, that's where the problem is arising.

[EliteCanada]

Uhh... sure.

It's cute that you've browsed through some month old threads and think you're now some sort of expert on us. Just a bit of advice, if all you think you know comes from some circlejerk threads on the OWF, then you don't know jack, and should stop pretending otherwise.

I'd recommend actually talking to some real people, maybe even doing something worthy of note besides being a two-bit forum troll sucking up to the big boys in tS, you'll be less laughable that way.

 

I suppose you missed the part where I said I've heard of your... Err, what's the word to call what you have? Hmm, well I suppose I'll have to use AA to refer to what you "have." Heard implies from others, so in order to respond to your claim of only reading months old threads, I've spoken to some "real" people about your "AA." Most of what ik, thus far, comes from talking to some different guys on IRC who have linked some threads for reference. Not favourable reviews friend. 

 

To the bolded part, would say the same, but *glances at AA* that's not going to be happening any time soon.

 

P.S. I may have only been playing for a few days, but I have a close IRL friend, who besides some of the men I've spoken to on IRC, has played PnW since beta and has explained some of the politics and some things (many short-comings) of your AA.

Edited March 28, 2016 by EliteCanada

[Prefontaine]

If anything I'd me more worried about the huge influx of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) players rather the tying treaty. As we've seen before again and again on orbis, large scale wars have erupted out of blatant power adjustment. And after the last war political spheres collapsed and new ones were reborn. 

 

Everyone has been crying out since the first major spheres erupted "(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is here! The end is nigh!" but come on, I've seen relatively no (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) based political tactics taking major form except for the basis of the UPN/DEIC/BoC failed blitz (shitz). This tying treaty will do nothing but unravel again once growing paranoia and undermining tactics used to destroy these treaties arise. 

 

I will give credit where it is due that a large part of the reason that (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) political spheres have failed in orbis is because people freak out about stagnation and prepare their asses for war. So while you see this treaty as an issue, its more than likely to be the root of the next major conflicts. While we have some people who only know the ways of getting caught up in treaties, another entire half of the game only know the ways of war and political strategy.

 

They may have numbers but so did Rose when they hit Mensa, hell Rose was supposed to be one of the most militarized alliances in the game and they got their asses handed to them. In the end I doubt that this (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) apocalypse will be anymore than just worry. If you want to base fears on (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) politics dont worry about these treaties: look at the surge of new (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) alliances, that's where the problem is arising.

 

Congrats on not comprehending what you quoted and subsequently replied to. I merely said that those alliances treatying up as the starting point of what I'm referring to as the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) politics time, not that it is the sole reason behind my thinking. I'd elaborate by since every point you made is completely irrelevant to my thoughts on the matter it really isn't gonna do any good. So instead I'll merely go with my most overused clip lately.

 

[Lord of Puns]

Congrats on not comprehending what you quoted and subsequently replied to. I merely said that those alliances treatying up as the starting point of what I'm referring to as the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) politics time, not that it is the sole reason behind my thinking. I'd elaborate by since every point you made is completely irrelevant to my thoughts on the matter it really isn't gonna do any good. So instead I'll merely go with my most overused clip lately.

 

No no go ahead, I'd love to hear your reasoning why you believe it's "(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) Politics time" besides the reasoning that you already gave. Because from what your first quote was it appeared that you said since this treaty you began referring to it as "(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) politics time" and gave no other reasoning behind it. 

 

So if you're going to call me out for not understanding at least show me where I'm not understanding. 

[Prefontaine]

So if you're going to call me out for not understanding at least show me where I'm not understanding. 

 

Again you seem to have failed at reading comprehension. 

 

" I'd elaborate by since every point you made is completely irrelevant to my thoughts on the matter it really isn't gonna do any good."

 

I could help someone play darts better probably with a few tips. But if the person can't even hit the wall, let alone the board, my help won't matter.

[Jgoods101]

Best wishes!

[Hereno]

Lets address some of the bullshit. Since your DoE was both IC and OOC lets see if I can avoid a warn talking OOC in IC forums. 

 

Arrgh did not disband Cobalt. TEst did. The weeks leading up to when our raids on their top (see: gov) member(s) began I spent my time getting Rose to cancel their protectorate, and making sure SK wouldn't activate their ODP so that we could attack them. I used politics for war (see what I did there). Claiming to be the cause for FSA to disband isn't something to hang your hat on either. FSA was doomed to disband when they created their second, third, fourth, I've lost track now DoE. SWF, sure I'll give you credit there as I wasn't even paying attention to them. But to get back to my point with Cobalt. Arrgh didn't start attacking until after Rose protection was lifted, which was done through politics, part of the game some people find fun. Plenty of people have different styles in which they wish to play the game. 

 

On to possibly the most important part of your OP, the part where you mentioned me (<3). Sheepy wanted to make a change to the score system previously. He made a post about it that I think he even linked in the OP of the testers thread,and it received the momentous butthurt from Arrgh the likes had not been seen in a game plagued with butthurt. Sheepy, in his attempts to make everyone happy (see: idiot) decided to try a new method which were population based military caps, which again Arrgh cried about and a couple people even quit simply at the idea of them before anyone actually looked and saw they did nothing to stop the problem or have any meaningful impact on low infra raiding. Sheepy still wanted to address the problems highlighted recently by Arrgh due to the score imbalance, and as I had been the one campaigning to get it changed a year ago he asked me to be the public voice of the change. Thus your assumption that it was the closed dev team manipulating him to get what we wanted, he was using me to get what he wanted. It just so happened I wanted it to, but not his system which is why I proposed my system. But whatever, I'm not the admin. Having me be the public mouthpiece was an OOC political move by him because I've used the imbalance in the past, and recently to end the TEst v Arrgh tickle-fest as well as a few times in between. That and I fear no crybaby pirate posts.  

 

The change is not OOC vs IC. The change is fixing a problem with the game. I've played as a low infra build of most econ players 1500 infra up until 10 cities then adding 100 more infra in each city every time I moved up another city (1600 at 11, 1700 at 12 etc..) Standardly I keep a large amount of military on me, and the fact that I could not come close to being in range of a city of equal cities and greater military at the time was ludicrous. Arrgh may not consider 2k infra at 15 cities a small amount, but compared to most players at that level, especially the war avoiding ones, I'm at the low end. The change as I said is to help address the fact that players with massive militaries and much higher caps were only able to be engaged by people with smaller militaries and smaller military caps. But please, continued to cry about it as Arrgh members flee to alliances to avoid the looming pirate hunt once they're in range of nations of similar military strength. 

 

All that being said I do agree with you that things are currently terrible here. When UPN/VE/Rose/Alpha all became effectively tied to one another I started referring to this point as the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways)-Phase of Orbis. I could be wrong, but I imagine large scale war frequency will dramatically slow down compared to what they've been since the start of this round. When the next war happens it'll likely be positioned so that it's a curb stomp rather than anything close and only happen after treaties are stacked heavily in one sides favor. And all of that is not a problem of mechanics but a problem of the people in charge of the top alliances. Politics is driven by the player base and I feel the player base in charge of politics currently are going to move the world to a (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) climate. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am (but I still hope). Part of which is what I was referring to when I made this post: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11792-sk-celebrates-5-years-of-existence/?p=219948

 

So in short. Arrgh isn't as grand as you claim, your accomplishment list was mostly bullshit fluff. They seem to be full of cowards (not all, obviously) who are afraid of fighting on similar footing. I think the game community has gone to shit and has likely been shit even when I was in charge of it but at least I tried to not create a hegemoney. Lastly good luck and hope you have fun even though I have little to no respect for you politically. 

 

Cheers.

 

 

The treaty web exists for a reason, and trying to just not have it without addressing why it came about in the first place is a waste of time and energy. In truth, you're never going to be able to get rid of it, because it isn't rational. Treaties serve a specific purpose, as doe the web. If you really wanted to fight it, you would be supporting alliances like Arrgh! who are more interested in war than avoiding it, because that's what treaties help you to do. Avoid war. You know what else a smart, rational alliance does? Or rational nation leader? They take steps to preserve their pixels and fight wars they know they can win. Above all else anybody here who knows me should know that I'm far from a coward in these type of games. Characterizing Arrgh! as such is just ridiculous, when they're the ones who stay at a low infra level and constantly go to war and actually put themselves at risk.

 

You lay out the real problem in your post without actually addressing it, which is that playing the game and actually going to war and fighting and doing interesting things makes it so that people who just sit around can get a lot more pixel power than you can. What I want isn't to get rid of people who use strong military builds, but encourage actual war in politics and war by making it not possible to just grow forever uninterrupted. Since politics won't accomplish this, since you all try to be so rational, the best way to do it would be to put a cap on just how high you can grow. A cap of about a year's worth of solid growth, maybe 10-15 cities and 1.5-2k infra, is plenty to actually encourage pixels to be used by beating down others below the cap and making people actually do something since they can't grow. That'll never happen, but it would make up for the fact that this game, unlike many others like it, has no reset.

 

I don't know everything that goes on, because point blank, nobody is going to trust someone honest who will tell the truth to everybody, because nobody is interested in the truth being known. Everything from game mechanics to who believes what is completely obfuscated by nature of playing this game, and what I really want is for the OOC and IC to be separate entirely. The only way you can do that is with the freedom of information I've been trying to get since day 1: make the mechanics obvious and lay everything out for everybody to use and know so that there can't be any lying and use of that in the political realm, so that everybody can actually argue and make decisions with all of the information at hand when it comes to changing the game to do this or that. That you admit to playing OOC politics with your suggestion says a lot, as does Sheepy literally asking you to make a suggestion for him to do so. Like what the &#33;@#&#036; is wrong with you guys? This is exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about that makes the game not fun. Am I the last honest person posting on these forums?

 

You're right that I don't like politics, but I'm also just not really cut out for them. I'm not a liar, I'm not manipulative, and I'm really not all that self-interested. Not to mention I'm lazy as shit, terrible with people, and hate most of them. To me, it's a lot more fun to just be who I actually am - especially since it is so different from what most people here do to play the game. You might not like me but I'm a lot more interesting than most of the other people here and it's precisely because I'm willing to actually bring the political game out of the shadows and to where everybody can see what goes on and has a say. If you actually want the game to succeed and grow, what you need is to be more accommodating of the masses, which means not having a game that is a giant ponzi scheme for people who got here back in alpha (of which I was one, for the record) that excludes 99% of the player-base because they haven't spent a decade practicing the craft in CyberNations. You say you don't want this to be like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), and complain that everybody who has control over things are all (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) players, but who else is "competent" and worth trusting in your eyes? Who else was here at ground zero? You say one thing, but really, you support exactly what you have, and so do the rest of you, and it's exactly why shit has gotten so "bad". Complain all you want but you may as well point your finger in the mirror.

[Prefontaine]

The treaty web exists for a reason, and trying to just not have it without addressing why it came about in the first place is a waste of time and energy. In truth, you're never going to be able to get rid of it, because it isn't rational. Treaties serve a specific purpose, as doe the web. If you really wanted to fight it, you would be supporting alliances like Arrgh! who are more interested in war than avoiding it, because that's what treaties help you to do. Avoid war. You know what else a smart, rational alliance does? Or rational nation leader? They take steps to preserve their pixels and fight wars they know they can win. Above all else anybody here who knows me should know that I'm far from a coward in these type of games. Characterizing Arrgh! as such is just ridiculous, when they're the ones who stay at a low infra level and constantly go to war and actually put themselves at risk.

 

You lay out the real problem in your post without actually addressing it, which is that playing the game and actually going to war and fighting and doing interesting things makes it so that people who just sit around can get a lot more pixel power than you can. What I want isn't to get rid of people who use strong military builds, but encourage actual war in politics and war by making it not possible to just grow forever uninterrupted. Since politics won't accomplish this, since you all try to be so rational, the best way to do it would be to put a cap on just how high you can grow. A cap of about a year's worth of solid growth, maybe 10-15 cities and 1.5-2k infra, is plenty to actually encourage pixels to be used by beating down others below the cap and making people actually do something since they can't grow. That'll never happen, but it would make up for the fact that this game, unlike many others like it, has no reset.

 

I don't know everything that goes on, because point blank, nobody is going to trust someone honest who will tell the truth to everybody, because nobody is interested in the truth being known. Everything from game mechanics to who believes what is completely obfuscated by nature of playing this game, and what I really want is for the OOC and IC to be separate entirely. The only way you can do that is with the freedom of information I've been trying to get since day 1: make the mechanics obvious and lay everything out for everybody to use and know so that there can't be any lying and use of that in the political realm, so that everybody can actually argue and make decisions with all of the information at hand when it comes to changing the game to do this or that. That you admit to playing OOC politics with your suggestion says a lot, as does Sheepy literally asking you to make a suggestion for him to do so. Like what the !@#$ is wrong with you guys? This is exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about that makes the game not fun. Am I the last honest person posting on these forums?

 

You're right that I don't like politics, but I'm also just not really cut out for them. I'm not a liar, I'm not manipulative, and I'm really not all that self-interested. Not to mention I'm lazy as shit, terrible with people, and hate most of them. To me, it's a lot more fun to just be who I actually am - especially since it is so different from what most people here do to play the game. You might not like me but I'm a lot more interesting than most of the other people here and it's precisely because I'm willing to actually bring the political game out of the shadows and to where everybody can see what goes on and has a say. If you actually want the game to succeed and grow, what you need is to be more accommodating of the masses, which means not having a game that is a giant ponzi scheme for people who got here back in alpha (of which I was one, for the record) that excludes 99% of the player-base because they haven't spent a decade practicing the craft in CyberNations. You say you don't want this to be like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), and complain that everybody who has control over things are all (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) players, but who else is "competent" and worth trusting in your eyes? Who else was here at ground zero? You say one thing, but really, you support exactly what you have, and so do the rest of you, and it's exactly why shit has gotten so "bad". Complain all you want but you may as well point your finger in the mirror.

TEst doesn't have treaties. They have one that basically says they can enter any war if they want. The right any alliance has. So I'm not sure what the &#33;@#&#036; you're talking about in fighting against the treaty web, as we are by not having treaties. Support Arrgh? Please, I had no issue with Arrgh til they started raiding TEst nations before the tickle-fest. The reason Arrgh are cowards is not because they're picking smart, winable fights. It's because they beat their chests as the biggest bad-asses in the game while making sure to avoid fighting anything that could be considering hard. I'd be the best fighter alive if I only fought 5 year olds too. That and their reaction to the change are what make them cowards.

 

The game actually has a built in cap, somewhere in the realm of 65 cities (which will likely not be reached but lol anyway). The next city after that costs more money than a nation can have on hand. But I do get your point and have no real problem with a cap outside of once people reach it there's nothing to really force them to start fighting and not simply hoard war resources forever for when a big war ultimately happens.

 

If you want OOC and IC separate why did you make an IC alliance for OOC reasons? The reason I made the public suggestion thread rather than Sheepy for the change was because I have a better opinion on the matter than he does. I have experience dealing with the mechanic on both sides, he does not. I publicly went against the mechanic a long time ago, he did not. I'm the better spokesman for the change than he is, and I didn't mind dealing with the BS replies in the thread. I wanted the change a year ago for reasons of wanting a more reasonable war declaration range system, not because it gives me an edge. It actually hurts TEsts ability to swing up at the top tier without top tier reprisal. The decision about the thread basically went like this:

 

Pre: We should make this a public thread if we're gonna make a change this big.

Sheepy: Already did that it went horrible when I last suggested it.

Pre: Still need to fix the problem. Still need a public thread.

Sheepy: You want to do it since reasons (see above)?

Pre: *makes thread*

 

As for your last paragraph, I'm pretty sure I said things were probably shitty when I was in charge too. What you don't get is that these games are all about trying to recreate what people found great in them before. For me I want these games to be the kind of fun I had in Lunar Wars. For a lot of people they want the game to be like the fun they had in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways). They're constantly trying to recreate the experience they had that brought that initial spark that keeps us here today still. It's like the family that goes on the same vacation every few years to relive the original fun they had, instead of trying something new. Good luck fighting that tide. 

[Valakias]

How many players are running that kind of build?  4-5 at most... I assume.

 

Even one would be considered broken, because eventually someone will have to deal with them, and the only way to do so is wreck your nation, and end up in range buth with less improvements, or get someone to nuke you. 

 

That is the most counterintuitive shit in the world. 

 

Defending that, because it grants you an advantage, leads me to agree totally with Pre when he calls pirates cowards. I have nothing against raiders, by all means, raid all day, it keeps alliance internal politics going, but if have to deal with constant impossible BS, its just annoying.

[Hereno]

TEst doesn't have treaties. They have one that basically says they can enter any war if they want. The right any alliance has. So I'm not sure what the !@#$ you're talking about in fighting against the treaty web, as we are by not having treaties. Support Arrgh? Please, I had no issue with Arrgh til they started raiding TEst nations before the tickle-fest. The reason Arrgh are cowards is not because they're picking smart, winable fights. It's because they beat their chests as the biggest bad-asses in the game while making sure to avoid fighting anything that could be considering hard. I'd be the best fighter alive if I only fought 5 year olds too. That and their reaction to the change are what make them cowards.

 

The game actually has a built in cap, somewhere in the realm of 65 cities (which will likely not be reached but lol anyway). The next city after that costs more money than a nation can have on hand. But I do get your point and have no real problem with a cap outside of once people reach it there's nothing to really force them to start fighting and not simply hoard war resources forever for when a big war ultimately happens.

 

If you want OOC and IC separate why did you make an IC alliance for OOC reasons? The reason I made the public suggestion thread rather than Sheepy for the change was because I have a better opinion on the matter than he does. I have experience dealing with the mechanic on both sides, he does not. I publicly went against the mechanic a long time ago, he did not. I'm the better spokesman for the change than he is, and I didn't mind dealing with the BS replies in the thread. I wanted the change a year ago for reasons of wanting a more reasonable war declaration range system, not because it gives me an edge. It actually hurts TEsts ability to swing up at the top tier without top tier reprisal. The decision about the thread basically went like this:

 

Pre: We should make this a public thread if we're gonna make a change this big.

Sheepy: Already did that it went horrible when I last suggested it.

Pre: Still need to fix the problem. Still need a public thread.

Sheepy: You want to do it since reasons (see above)?

Pre: *makes thread*

 

As for your last paragraph, I'm pretty sure I said things were probably shitty when I was in charge too. What you don't get is that these games are all about trying to recreate what people found great in them before. For me I want these games to be the kind of fun I had in Lunar Wars. For a lot of people they want the game to be like the fun they had in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways). They're constantly trying to recreate the experience they had that brought that initial spark that keeps us here today still. It's like the family that goes on the same vacation every few years to relive the original fun they had, instead of trying something new. Good luck fighting that tide. 

 

The jab I was making at TEst wasn't that you don't put your money where your mouth is by not having any treaties, the jab I was making is that ultimately it's just purposefully gimping yourselves in the name of trying to create a situation where everybody purposefully gimps themselves. It's not more fun when you don't know what's going to happen - if anything, not being sure who will do what makes people less likely to actually go to war, because it isn't smart to go to war when you might be walking right into your own death.

 

I played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) since 2008 and the magic, for me, is not what killed the game; that is, the ponzi scheme aspect that made it impossible for any newbies to ever get to be on top, pixel-wise. The magic for me was always making trouble and doing dumb shit and actually having fun and not taking everything so seriously. Oh, and attacking Nazis. You want people who actually start losing wars? You're looking at that type of person. I can actually have fun while losing, and I lose pretty often, and I daresay none of you who are so wrapped up in everything and your reputation and trying to be so great at everything are ever gonna do anything like that. You guys try to push everybody to play the game like you do but there's more to it than just constantly politicking behind the scenes. If you really understood my point, like you said you did, about why I support there being a cap, it shouldn't be a mystery to you as to what I'm talking about when I say you support the status quo in an OOC sense despite your own alliance bucking the trend.

 

I really didn't make an alliance at all. You really think anybody is actually going to join me when in my DoE I called out not only the game developer but every major alliance in the game, while simultaneously all but selling out the only people who were decent enough to take me in and give me any kind of freedom? You can't fight crossing the IC/OOC barrier without doing it yourself, and I wasn't really comfortable posting all of this while still ostensibly under someone else's protection. My wars with BK went south, Arrgh! is pretty demoralized by constant direct attacks on them by the game developer, and honestly, with things the way they are, I'm not even sure if I'm going to keep playing. As you said with your posting that suggestion thread, I'm the best person to make a thread like this. No ties, few friends, and an inside perspective from the alliance everyone seems to love to hate.

 

And for the record, I already knew the game had a built-in cap, but like you said, it probably won't ever actually even be reached, so what point does it really serve? For all intents and purposes the game has no cap. I think if you guys want to encourage people to join this game you should make it so they have a fighting chance, and forcing them to join an established alliance for months and months when they could just get their feet wet on their own with some help and maybe a protectorate agreement or something is basically a built-in way for those who already have the best nations and the best ability to play politics yet another advantage over the newbie.

 

You all claim to hate Arrgh! for what they do to hurt new players but you yourself have admitted that even I was giving us far too much credit for causing the destruction of newbie alliances. And you've flat out admitted that you collaborate with Sheepy about major changes to the game mechanics behind the scenes, as though the closed development forum wasn't enough to let us know what's really going on when it's filled with pretty much everybody who benefits from the continuation of being able to buy themselves benefits at the expense of the rest of the player-base.

 

I'm tired of Sheepy interfering with the game politics and taking sides against certain alliances publicly, while favoring certain players and even having in the past participated in the bullying of myself by the majority of the player-base back when I was running SI. Simply put, he's destroying his own game for a quick buck and you're all sitting there advising him to do it while calling out Arrgh! for making suggestions in their own interests when all of you are doing exactly what you claim they are. It's the biggest bunch of hypocritical bullshit I've ever seen and it doesn't at all respect the IC/OOC line. He's 18, you're all jerks, and it shows. Big time. And my detachment from the in-game politics lets me say it loud and clear without having to worry about screwing over all my friends for it.

[Prefontaine]

The jab I was making at TEst wasn't that you don't put your money where your mouth is by not having any treaties, the jab I was making is that ultimately it's just purposefully gimping yourselves in the name of trying to create a situation where everybody purposefully gimps themselves. It's not more fun when you don't know what's going to happen - if anything, not being sure who will do what makes people less likely to actually go to war, because it isn't smart to go to war when you might be walking right into your own death.

 

I played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) since 2008 and the magic, for me, is not what killed the game; that is, the ponzi scheme aspect that made it impossible for any newbies to ever get to be on top, pixel-wise. The magic for me was always making trouble and doing dumb shit and actually having fun and not taking everything so seriously. Oh, and attacking Nazis. You want people who actually start losing wars? You're looking at that type of person. I can actually have fun while losing, and I lose pretty often, and I daresay none of you who are so wrapped up in everything and your reputation and trying to be so great at everything are ever gonna do anything like that. You guys try to push everybody to play the game like you do but there's more to it than just constantly politicking behind the scenes. If you really understood my point, like you said you did, about why I support there being a cap, it shouldn't be a mystery to you as to what I'm talking about when I say you support the status quo in an OOC sense despite your own alliance bucking the trend.

 

I really didn't make an alliance at all. You really think anybody is actually going to join me when in my DoE I called out not only the game developer but every major alliance in the game, while simultaneously all but selling out the only people who were decent enough to take me in and give me any kind of freedom? You can't fight crossing the IC/OOC barrier without doing it yourself, and I wasn't really comfortable posting all of this while still ostensibly under someone else's protection. My wars with BK went south, Arrgh! is pretty demoralized by constant direct attacks on them by the game developer, and honestly, with things the way they are, I'm not even sure if I'm going to keep playing. As you said with your posting that suggestion thread, I'm the best person to make a thread like this. No ties, few friends, and an inside perspective from the alliance everyone seems to love to hate.

 

And for the record, I already knew the game had a built-in cap, but like you said, it probably won't ever actually even be reached, so what point does it really serve? For all intents and purposes the game has no cap. I think if you guys want to encourage people to join this game you should make it so they have a fighting chance, and forcing them to join an established alliance for months and months when they could just get their feet wet on their own with some help and maybe a protectorate agreement or something is basically a built-in way for those who already have the best nations and the best ability to play politics yet another advantage over the newbie.

 

You all claim to hate Arrgh! for what they do to hurt new players but you yourself have admitted that even I was giving us far too much credit for causing the destruction of newbie alliances. And you've flat out admitted that you collaborate with Sheepy about major changes to the game mechanics behind the scenes, as though the closed development forum wasn't enough to let us know what's really going on when it's filled with pretty much everybody who benefits from the continuation of being able to buy themselves benefits at the expense of the rest of the player-base.

 

I'm tired of Sheepy interfering with the game politics and taking sides against certain alliances publicly, while favoring certain players and even having in the past participated in the bullying of myself by the majority of the player-base back when I was running SI. Simply put, he's destroying his own game for a quick buck and you're all sitting there advising him to do it while calling out Arrgh! for making suggestions in their own interests when all of you are doing exactly what you claim they are. It's the biggest bunch of hypocritical bullshit I've ever seen and it doesn't at all respect the IC/OOC line. He's 18, you're all jerks, and it shows. Big time. And my detachment from the in-game politics lets me say it loud and clear without having to worry about screwing over all my friends for it.

 

You've gone off the deep end now. I had a big long reply, but that would just prompt you to reply again and I foresee a very circular debating coming soon that I want no part off. Have fun on that soap box, have fun buying your own hype, have fun shooting anyone trying to lend help to your claims, have fun on the island you want to be on. 

 

I momentarily forgot your personality, thanks for reminding me mate. Have fun. I'm out!

Edited March 28, 2016 by Prefontaine

[Wayne]

Even one would be considered broken, because eventually someone will have to deal with them, and the only way to do so is wreck your nation, and end up in range buth with less improvements, or get someone to nuke you. 

 

That is the most counterintuitive shit in the world. 

 

Defending that, because it grants you an advantage, leads me to agree totally with Pre when he calls pirates cowards. I have nothing against raiders, by all means, raid all day, it keeps alliance internal politics going, but if have to deal with constant impossible BS, its just annoying.

 

 

Mensa nations have no need to wreck their accounts in order to 'deal' with us.  The vast majority of them could build up and would be on par with us, some would even have larger armies!  You consider it broken because you feel the need to have higher then 1300-1500 infra.  It's broken because some people have a number in their head for the ideal city/infra count, it's broken because some people have built their acounts in such a way that they have seriously nerfed their military power in exchange for economic greed.

 

No one is defending the improvement bullshit, I think most are in favour of them being removed upon the loss of infra.  Yes, having 44 improvement slots per city in an account of less then 1200 score is OP, but also very very rare.  Some would maybe argue that it's to help beaten nations manage a fight back, but as we have seen time and time again, once you lose the first round, it's very rare that you can fight back effectivly in the second round. 

 

Calling people 'butthurt' and 'cowards' for opposing this particular change is not helpful.  Butthurt and cowardness have nothing to do with my opposing of it.  I oppose it due to it being a shit idea.  It's handing already rich players with high infra, yet another advantage.  It will breed inactivity.  Had this change been brought up a month or 2 ago, when I was still in Mensa, I would still be opposed to it.  It's got sod all to do with Arrgh.  They are not the only ones who use a variation of this low score/high military tactic.  Coupled with the population caps on all Military Units, the best tactic now is to pad your cities full of infra seeing as it gives all the benefits without any downsides now, decom as soon as you can, move all your resources and cash to a 'safe' account and missile and nuke your enemies infra, then build up for the second round and curbstomp him due to the population caps.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Wayne

[Vassili Dovgan]

something something i don't need to see boobs everywhere all the time something something sexual objectification of women something something aren't you supposed to be a leftist something something i hate this !@#$ game

 

I am a leftist, but I am also a man. I don't like beer though...

[Boony]

~Stuff~

 

Two things

 

1) I haven't seen Sheepy take sides ever. Maybe he did at the beginning of the game, but people called him out on it and he stopped. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

2) A nation cap isn't needed because there is a mechanic to take down super large nations with 3k-4k infra. You can mass nuke them. Currently, these large nations find it hard to down declare, so with coordination, three decently sized nations can up declare, destroy their military and then mass nuke them. It may take two-three rounds to completely wreck a large nation, but it shouldn't be easy to bring down a years work. 

 

I just don't think the problem is as bad as you're trying to make it.

[Boony]

~Stuff~

 

Technically, these "super nations" are exploiting the mechanics. The purpose of the current mechanics regarding improvements is so nations can fight back even after getting their armies and infra destroyed. The purpose is not so nations can stay in low infra forever and raid. 

 

Is Sheepy's suggestion going to &#33;@#&#036; the game up? I have no clue. I don't pay attention, and let smarter people figure it out. But something should be done about the situation because it can become a massive problem in the future. What if after the next war, an whole alliance that got stomped decides to implement this strategy? It becomes a nightmare. You might think it's okay because it forces people to coordinate, yada yada. But in reality, it forces an eventual cluster&#33;@#&#036; in the middle tier. Suddenly, it becomes optimal for every alliance to have certain members sacrifice their nations in order to protect the alliance as a whole. You might think that's fine. I think it's dumb. 

 

And if a 12 city player can fight a 8 city player, something is wrong. 

[Young]

A- Kudos that was a brazen DOE, i like that  
B- I think the low infra high improvement loophole should not be kept, although i agree you should have the freedom to run your nation as you please, hell it even says in game ' In Politics & War you call the shots. but at the same time, i think it is unfair arrgh are attacking micro's with their small nations but high military, have fun but don't ruin other peoples fun, as if you do that you are simply a &#33;@#&#036;. No one wants to log on to see their nation destroyed, obviously, but if you do it to the extent where they can not even play without getting trampled, then it is shit, and tbh, you ruin the game for other people, not hating on arrgh, i think they are a good alliance, i just don't like that tactic. simples, 

[Young]

Technically, these "super nations" are exploiting the mechanics. The purpose of the current mechanics regarding improvements is so nations can fight back even after getting their armies and infra destroyed. The purpose is not so nations can stay in low infra forever and raid. 

 

Is Sheepy's suggestion going to !@#$ the game up? I have no clue. I don't pay attention, and let smarter people figure it out. But something should be done about the situation because it can become a massive problem in the future. What if after the next war, an whole alliance that got stomped decides to implement this strategy? It becomes a nightmare. You might think it's okay because it forces people to coordinate, yada yada. But in reality, it forces an eventual cluster!@#$ in the middle tier. Suddenly, it becomes optimal for every alliance to have certain members sacrifice their nations in order to protect the alliance as a whole. You might think that's fine. I think it's dumb. 

 

And if a 12 city player can fight a 8 city player, something is wrong. 

more eloquent version of what i was trying to say 

[Memph]

No one is defending the improvement bullshit, I think most are in favour of them being removed upon the loss of infra.  Yes, having 44 improvement slots per city in an account of less then 1200 score is OP, but also very very rare.  Some would maybe argue that it's to help beaten nations manage a fight back, but as we have seen time and time again, once you lose the first round, it's very rare that you can fight back effectivly in the second round. 

 

I'm not entirely sure that's true. Most of the game's biggest wars (VE war being the main exception) were pretty even sided. Usually the winners had an advantage in a key tier, but not in another.

 

Marionette War: UPN/DEIC could have potentially fought back at the lower tiers, especially since many of their nations had beige protection, but the war ended before that could happen.

 

Proxy War: Guardian could have recovered somewhat and started pushing back against VE alongside Mensa after getting destroyed by VE's upper tier. Similarly Rose probably could have controlled the lower tiers against t$ although admittedly I haven't paid too close attention to that front. However, the war ended before that could happen.

 

Octoberfest: TEst, SK and t$ got beaten down pretty bad and were starting to push back. UPN's lower tiers likely could've beaten their opponents and started to push back.

 

168 day war: UPN and Roz Wei would have had a good change to push back in the lower tiers if the war had lasted longer. The situation with Guardian, Mensa and VE was very similar to Proxy war, except that Guardian didn't get knocked down as bad and had better war chests for rebuilding. We went from a low of about 35% max military* to about 55% when the war ended and would have rebuilt most of our nations' military given a couple more days and pushed back against much of VE's upper tier (which we were already starting to do with Mensa - see SRD, Samwise, MoonPie, Gogo).

 

 

Plus of course Arrgh/PP.

 

 

*By that I mean the % of the max military score that comes from ground and air (i.e. not including ships, missiles and nukes which aren't that important).

Edited March 28, 2016 by Memph

[Caecus]

Well, then how about this: we could have an improvement decay curve.

 

For example, after you have lost infrastructure, you could have improvements "lose power" over a period of time. For example, after you have fought a battle and your total infrastructure in one city only supports 20 improvements, but you have 40, every 6 turns (or whatever time frame), an improvement is lost, until you are left with the improvements that your infrastructure can handle. That way, it forces people to rebuild up back to their infra level, but doesn't destroy the improvements fast enough for someone losing the war to be screwed forever.

 

 

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11966-improvement-decay-curve/

Edited March 28, 2016 by Caecus

[Saru]

I'm not entirely sure that's true. Most of the game's biggest wars (VE war being the main exception) were pretty even sided. Usually the winners had an advantage in a key tier, but not in another.

 

Marionette War: UPN/DEIC could have potentially fought back at the lower tiers, especially since many of their nations had beige protection, but the war ended before that could happen.

 

Proxy War: Guardian could have recovered somewhat and started pushing back against VE alongside Mensa after getting destroyed by VE's upper tier. Similarly Rose probably could have controlled the lower tiers against t$ although admittedly I haven't paid too close attention to that front. However, the war ended before that could happen.

 

Octoberfest: TEst, SK and t$ got beaten down pretty bad and were starting to push back. UPN's lower tiers likely could've beaten their opponents and started to push back.

 

168 day war: UPN and Roz Wei would have had a good change to push back in the lower tiers if the war had lasted longer. The situation with Guardian, Mensa and VE was very similar to Proxy war, except that Guardian didn't get knocked down as bad and had better war chests for rebuilding. We went from a low of about 35% max military* to about 55% when the war ended and would have rebuilt most of our nations' military given a couple more days and pushed back against much of VE's upper tier (which we were already starting to do with Mensa - see SRD, Samwise, MoonPie, Gogo).

 

 

*By that I mean the % of the max military score that comes from ground and air (i.e. not including ships, missiles and nukes which aren't that important).

 

The main issue with fighting back at that stage is that all of your members have been knocked down, and continuing to fight you will do minimal damage. Whereas your enemies will have plenty of upper tiers left, which will go unchallenged, and obviously they are making significant money in the meantime. So in terms of relative advantage, it almost isn't worth it. So while it's possible to drag out some sort of stalemate, ultimately you are still the loser -- and maybe even by a larger margin.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Saru

[greatkitteh]

I'm not entirely sure that's true. Most of the game's biggest wars (VE war being the main exception) were pretty even sided. Usually the winners had an advantage in a key tier, but not in another.

 

Marionette War: UPN/DEIC could have potentially fought back at the lower tiers, especially since many of their nations had beige protection, but the war ended before that could happen.

 

Proxy War: Guardian could have recovered somewhat and started pushing back against VE alongside Mensa after getting destroyed by VE's upper tier. Similarly Rose probably could have controlled the lower tiers against t$ although admittedly I haven't paid too close attention to that front. However, the war ended before that could happen.

 

Octoberfest: TEst, SK and t$ got beaten down pretty bad and were starting to push back. UPN's lower tiers likely could've beaten their opponents and started to push back.

 

168 day war: UPN and Roz Wei would have had a good change to push back in the lower tiers if the war had lasted longer. The situation with Guardian, Mensa and VE was very similar to Proxy war, except that Guardian didn't get knocked down as bad and had better war chests for rebuilding. We went from a low of about 35% max military* to about 55% when the war ended and would have rebuilt most of our nations' military given a couple more days and pushed back against much of VE's upper tier (which we were already starting to do with Mensa - see SRD, Samwise, MoonPie, Gogo).

 

 

Plus of course Arrgh/PP.

 

 

*By that I mean the % of the max military score that comes from ground and air (i.e. not including ships, missiles and nukes which aren't that important).

No one won or lost the 168 day war, so its a little unfair to say "UPN could have not lost."

[LordRahl2]

No one won or lost the 168 day war, so its a little unfair to say "UPN could have not lost."

Really?

[Buorhann]

No one won or lost the 168 day war, so its a little unfair to say "UPN could have not lost."

 

There was only one positive scoring alliance on that side of the war ( Alpha ), the rest were either zeroed out militarily or were awfully close to it.