State of Orbis

[Sans]

When you get  a huge swing alliance, it pretty much gives an advantage. It was pretty much gone over in that treaty thread the position it put your side in. We were never given any opportunity. The fact that you think we have to unilaterally split up for you to take any action is hilarious.  It would just leave us raidable in  brush fire wars like you did with Arrgh/Roz Wei. No one said keeping treaties because of friendships isn't fine, but it's just going to lead to stagnation when you have a concentration of active alliances on one side which everyone has said. You were never going to really move and there were just more and more treaties. At least Holton is admitting the real motivations are there is no reason for you to and that's fine. It'll just stagnate things. I just want people to admit it.

 

You never tried to play and there was no reason for us to split. Like I said, splitting up just leaves us extremely vulnerable to brushfire wars and everyone knew that. Your side has beaten up plenty of isolated alliances in the past.  Again, you never address the actual things I said about who your side hated, so it's just "trust us. if you had spit up, things would have been totally different."

 

I already gave my reasons and I don't deny that (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is at an endgame stage. You guys deny it here.

 

You're the one who couldn't avoid invoking your boogeymen  from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), so I feel bad for you. I really don't care about your opinion of us.

 

>Swing alliance

Yeah, it swung the advantage towards us instead of towards your side, so you're pissy about it. "But we were never given a chance" so what? Lets cut off an arm and stab out an eye so NPO has a chance everyone. The fact that you use your political enemies not handing you a swing alliance as evidence of some great wrong they've done to you is beyond words. 

 

> Thinking that tC+NPO and friends had to split up before things could move forward. 

 

Hell yes we did, the second largest sphere in the game better break up too before I do anything. What did you want us to do, break up right after Paragon left so tC+NPO could be the largest single sphere in the game? Get over yourself. That wasn't going to happen, you know that wasn't going to happen. That side knew where we stood as far as the spheres go, we were willing to play ball but when the ravens went out that tC and friends had no inclination to meet Paragon's, move all bids were off. What is actually hilarious is you thinking otherwise. 

 

>Roz/Arrgh

You mean when Arrgh raided us and RW postured as if they'd defend them? That's your argument's crowning jewel? I mean if NPO was stupid enough to raid us or our allies after pissing in our direction I would have hoped s we'd roll the living crap out of you too. If that is you and yours great reason for not breaking up, it is less than flimsy. 

 

>I don't care about your opinion of us

I mean thats pretty evident in the fact that you're getting wrecked right now. Keep on keeping on. 

[Boony]

Also, to be honest, the problem outlined in the OP is only one aspect. The other thing is the "COME WIN WITH US. JOIN THE WINNERS CIRCLE GET THEM WS" culture that is promoted in this game. Most of the alliances that end up switching sides weren't military powerhouses, but it just adds more NS to deal with. When someone makes a new alliance, they usually want to be associated with the winners as well, so it's a self-perpetuating cycle. The game culture presently is severely problematic for this reason.

Are you forgetting that people also switch the the losing side? SK? Sparta was originally on "our side" (tS protectorate) but switched and switched back. TLF is a similar story in which they were a tS protectorate and switched over to the other side and I guess now back. NK also dropped us and joined the other side.

[Boony]

It's not a grand conspiracy. MI6 members are prominent across alliances and obviously have carried biases over. Of course, it's not just them and there are other people who are holding grudges over other things and there are people who didn't get very high in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) but are doing well here so they don't want it to be like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but they have always tried to deny it motivating their politics. In Kayser's case, he decided to play the hypocrisy card due to our actions in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), which I had addressed previously and I remember him being very bitter when MI6 was rolled last year.

 

It's pretty natural to like a game where you win/matter, so it doesn't surprise me, but it's hilarious to be so open about it.

And I assume you are going to claim you have no bias what so ever from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)?

[Roquentin]

>Swing alliance

Yeah, it swung the advantage towards us instead of towards your side, so you're pissy about it. "But we were never given a chance" so what? Lets cut off an arm and stab out an eye so NPO has a chance everyone. The fact that you use your political enemies not handing you a swing alliance as evidence of some great wrong they've done to you is beyond words. 

 

> Thinking that tC+NPO and friends had to split up before things could move forward. 

 

Hell yes we did, the second largest sphere in the game better break up too before I do anything. What did you want us to do, break up right after Paragon left so tC+NPO could be the largest single sphere in the game? Get over yourself. That wasn't going to happen, you know that wasn't going to happen. That side knew where we stood as far as the spheres go, we were willing to play ball but when the ravens went out that tC and friends had no inclination to meet Paragon's, move all bids were off. What is actually hilarious is you thinking otherwise. 

 

>Roz/Arrgh

You mean when Arrgh raided us and RW postured as if they'd defend them? That's your argument's crowning jewel? I mean if NPO was stupid enough to raid us or our allies after pissing in our direction I would have hoped s we'd roll the living crap out of you too. If that is you and yours great reason for not breaking up, it is less than flimsy. 

 

>I don't care about your opinion of us

I mean thats pretty evident in the fact that you're getting wrecked right now. Keep on keeping on. 

 

You said you gave people chances. I didn't say that. It's not about doing a great wrong. It's about consolidation that cements the current political dynamic. I'm not using it in moral terms. It's you chose to make a move that would cement Syndisphere as the leading sphere. That's it.

 

TC/NPO isn't that big and OO/tS/Mensa/15 other alliances are a lot bigger.  You were never going to break up OO for instance, so that's a statistical base already.  Paragon stayed together and got SK but split off TC/NPO. TC/NPO is just one half. I don't think TC/NPO is even much bigger than Paragon/SK.

 

It was just an example. The point was they were isolated and you did it without hesitation. You've beaten up other isolated alliances like TOG. If I have to invoke every incident where your side was willing to mass raid/beat up smaller alliances, I'm not going to boher.

 

If we had constantly to be sucking up to you and watching our every move hoping it doesn't offend(like the UPN treaty cited as a reason or not joint decomming ) to not get rolled it's not worth it. Simple as that. Too high maintenance and cowardly.

[Roquentin]

And I assume you are going to claim you have no bias what so ever from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)?

Everyone has a bit, but i've tried to avoid it. I've given the example with Steve in the past. We really didn't get along. I also tried to avoid it with TKR, but they held onto their issues. 

 

When we were in Vanguard and we signed Rose, a lot of people were like "wtf why are we treatying an alliance made up of MI6 and GPA members?" and I said we shouldn't be crossing things over.

[Hooves]

 

For educational purposes.

[Boony]

Everyone has a bit, but i've tried to avoid it. I've given the example with Steve in the past. We really didn't get along. I also tried to avoid it with TKR, but they held onto their issues.

 

When we were in Vanguard and we signed Rose, a lot of people were like "wtf why are we treatying an alliance made up of MI6 and GPA members?" and I said we shouldn't be crossing things over.

Not that you do it often, but maybe you should stray away from simply writing someone off and calling "bias" on them. *shrugs*

[Roquentin]

Not that you do it often, but maybe you should stray away from simply writing someone off and calling "bias" on them. *shrugs*

I mean, it was literally brought up that I was being hypocritical for what I do in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is saying that I don't want the game's politics to stagnate with one side in power and that I had to be judged my actions there when talking about the metagame, so it was biased

[Boony]

I mean, it was literally brought up that I was being hypocritical for what I do in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is saying that I don't want the game's politics to stagnate with one side in power and that I had to be judged my actions there when talking about the metagame, so it was biased

Yeah but I'd called that reasonable bias. I don't even play or have ever played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but knowing you guys dominate there makes me immediately wary of you guys here. Heck, knowing you guys roll people constantly there makes me want to not even give you a chance to have that opportunity here.

 

That point he made is valid. If you never brought up or tried to stop stagnation in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), why should people believe that you aren't complaint about stagnation simply because you aren't the ones in power? It's a question of trustworthiness and character. Only reason our sphere would split up is if we believed that politics would actually more lively and not that the other side would simply try and take hedgonomy.

[Roquentin]

Yeah but I'd called that reasonable bias. I don't even play or have ever played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but knowing you guys dominate there makes me immediately wary of you guys here. Heck, knowing you guys roll people constantly there makes me want to not even give you a chance to have that opportunity here.

 

That point he made is valid. If you never brought up or tried to stop stagnation in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), why should people believe that you aren't complaint about stagnation simply because you aren't the ones in power? It's a question of trustworthiness and character. Only reason our sphere would split up is if we believed that politics would actually more lively and not that the other side would simply try and take hedgonomy.

 

I mean, people are saying they want to avoid crossover politics.It would be better to judge us on our actions here.  I've already commented several times that we don't possess the hegemonic potential people keep attributing to us. I mean, there were other alliances who rolled people in other games and became dominant(LW, PT) and they weren't sidelined. I don't see it as reasonable when people have constantly talked about separating the games. If you don't want to separate the games, just say so.

 

I've made a point of playing PW differently than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). But at the end day in terms of trusting it, it comes down to our capacity. I already said we will never match you guys in capacity on a material basis. Plenty of alliances are well ahead of us. People don't like being dominated either. That's why the idea that we head a sphere is kind of funny.

[Kastor]

I remember when tS said that they wanted the game to not be stagnant and that was why they wanted to hit VE(pre Proxy).

 

Now the game is stagnating.

[Buorhann]

<Ogaden>: what really makes me sad about this war
<Ogaden>: is how when Alpha and Fark hit Mensa, noone Mensa was fighting double bought
<Ogaden>: but when Mensa was relieved, they did

 

 

 

GG RIP NOSCOPE GETREKT

[Sisyphus]

The other thing is the "COME WIN WITH US. JOIN THE WINNERS CIRCLE GET THEM WS" culture that is promoted in this game.

If they were more honest and simply admitted "I like this game because I win here and remain relevant," it'd at least seem far less disengenuous.

On the same page, even.

[Boony]

I mean, people are saying they want to avoid crossover politics.It would be better to judge us on our actions here. I've already commented several times that we don't possess the hegemonic potential people keep attributing to us. I mean, there were other alliances who rolled people in other games and became dominant(LW, PT) and they weren't sidelined. I don't see it as reasonable when people have constantly talked about separating the games. If you don't want to separate the games, just say so.

 

I've made a point of playing PW differently than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways). But at the end day in terms of trusting it, it comes down to our capacity. I already said we will never match you guys in capacity on a material basis. Plenty of alliances are well ahead of us. People don't like being dominated either. That's why the idea that we head a sphere is kind of funny.

The question isn't if you have the potential to have a hegemoney right now. The question is, if you had a hegemoney in this game, would you try and break it up or keep it. In this sense, we have to look at the character of people leading alliances and when dealing with character, bias is always going be an influence. For example, I'm not going to trust someone in this game if they're known for lying in another game even if they say they're different.

 

And I'm one of the people in tS who's been complaining that we should do something new and different. I just understand why people don't want to do that.

[Foltest]

I remember when tS said that they wanted the game to not be stagnant and that was why they wanted to hit VE(pre Proxy).

 

Now the game is stagnating.

 

Residing in inactive alliances results in a skewed perspective of the game's activity.

[Roquentin]

On the same page, even.

 

They're addressing two different things and aren't incompatible. I'm referring to some people liking this game better than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) because they win in this game. The other one is the culture where it's promoted to bandwagon onto the winning side at all costs. 

 

 

The question isn't if you have the potential to have a hegemoney right now. The question is, if you had a hegemoney in this game, would you try and break it up or keep it. In this sense, we have to look at the character of people leading alliances and when dealing with character, bias is always going be an influence. For example, I'm not going to trust someone in this game if they're known for lying in another game even if they say they're different.

 

And I'm one of the people in tS who's been complaining that we should do something new and different. I just understand why people don't want to do that.

 

There would need to be some disagreement and that's why I emphasized that before(no drama in a dominant sphere killing the game) but I wouldn't try to keep it together at all costs and to be honest, I gave my reasons why putting the energy into radically changing things in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) isn't appealing to me because no one cares anymore and the fact that a lot of us know each other too well for splits. A lot of people started the game off at a different stage of their lives and became less invested in it as time went on and they moved on to other things.  They keep them around since having a 10, 9, 8 year old nation is cool. The majority of players aren't particularly active and those are the ones you have to get to do things.

[Sans]

You said you gave people chances. I didn't say that. It's not about doing a great wrong. It's about consolidation that cements the current political dynamic. I'm not using it in moral terms. It's you chose to make a move that would cement Syndisphere as the leading sphere. That's it.

 

TC/NPO isn't that big and OO/tS/Mensa/15 other alliances are a lot bigger.  You were never going to break up OO for instance, so that's a statistical base already.  Paragon stayed together and got SK but split off TC/NPO. TC/NPO is just one half. I don't think TC/NPO is even much bigger than Paragon/SK.

 

It was just an example. The point was they were isolated and you did it without hesitation. You've beaten up other isolated alliances like TOG. If I have to invoke every incident where your side was willing to mass raid/beat up smaller alliances, I'm not going to boher.

 

If we had constantly to be sucking up to you and watching our every move hoping it doesn't offend(like the UPN treaty cited as a reason or not joint decomming ) to not get rolled it's not worth it. Simple as that. Too high maintenance and cowardly.

 

Ya and you know what helps consolidation? When the two spheres you have been fighting for 6 wars straight attack you after they've been crying to the world for the entire post war period how much they want change. You know what helps consolidation? When an entire sphere refuses to break up even though they have absolutely no reason for existing, in fact their existence is a detriment to each alliance.

 

>Sphere size

15 other alliances. Right because extreme exaggeration is going to make people forget about facts. Yes, Syndi is large than tC/NPO but we aren't bigger than ParaCov and the folks who pushed back against balkanizing the sphere cited this exact war as the reason not to. They cited tC/NPO's stubbornness as the exact reason not to. They cited the paperless aggression as the exact reason not to. You know what, they were exactly johnny on the spot. ParaCov did not stop being a thing as we were attacked by it and the paperless. But, its our fault for not making ourselves more vulnerable to attack so by some miracle you and your allies actually manage to win a war.  

 

>arrgh/rw

 

Yes, we attacked without hesitation. BoC attacked Arrgh without hesitation when they pissed in their cherrios. Cornerstone attacked RW and Arrgh without hesitation when they pissed in their cherrios. Clearly  we had a vendetta against paperless and we couldn't wait for them to slip up so we could roll them. 

 

You're scrapping the bottom of the barrel, it's getting sad. 

 

There were folks who were willing to work with NPO, there were folks who were willing to work with UPN, there were even folks who were willing to work with Alpha, but your side in your stubbornness, pride, and paranoia refused to make a single move towards a new reality. 

 

We have ample evidence of who really is and isn't willing to forge a new political reality in this game. Newflash, it isn't ParaCov. That is a fact, we can point to instances supporting it. Continue in your corner all you want. No one really cares. Just stop crying while you're over there.

[Roquentin]

Residing in inactive alliances results in a skewed perspective of the game's activity.

I've shown the statistics. Less than half the playerbase has logged in the last week. Some of those are new nations or micro raiders that don't get anywhere and micro alliances that peter out. The game's activity isn't really great. I'd say it has a cult following of maybe 500-800 people and that's it rather than being a super active game.

[Yosodog]

We should just "split up" OO and tS/Mensa sphere and then next war "work together" to roll our "enemies" lmao

Edited September 16, 2016 by Yosodog

[Buorhann]

We should just "split up" OO and tS/Mensa sphere and then next war "work together" to roll our "enemies" lmao

 

 

We can say we were preempting them due to their buildup and that they set a precedent on attacking us.

[Peace and War]

If you guys are like me, you've got a lot of love for this game. So really I don't think we'd really let this game die. Things are slow right now, but there's no way this game is anywhere near end game.

[Roquentin]

Ya and you know what helps consolidation? When the two spheres you have been fighting for 6 wars straight attack you after they've been crying to the world for the entire post war period how much they want change. You know what helps consolidation? When an entire sphere refuses to break up even though they have absolutely no reason for existing, in fact their existence is a detriment to each alliance.

 

>Sphere size

15 other alliances. Right because extreme exaggeration is going to make people forget about facts. Yes, Syndi is large than tC/NPO but we aren't bigger than ParaCov and the folks who pushed back against balkanizing the sphere cited this exact war as the reason not to. They cited tC/NPO's stubbornness as the exact reason not to. They cited the paperless aggression as the exact reason not to. You know what, they were exactly johnny on the spot. ParaCov did not stop being a thing as we were attacked by it and the paperless. But, its our fault for not making ourselves more vulnerable to attack so by some miracle you and your allies actually manage to win a war.  

 

>arrgh/rw

 

Yes, we attacked without hesitation. BoC attacked Arrgh without hesitation when they pissed in their cherrios. Cornerstone attacked RW and Arrgh without hesitation when they pissed in their cherrios. Clearly  we had a vendetta against paperless and we couldn't wait for them to slip up so we could roll them. 

 

You're scrapping the bottom of the barrel, it's getting sad. 

 

There were folks who were willing to work with NPO, there were folks who were willing to work with UPN, there were even folks who were willing to work with Alpha, but your side in your stubbornness, pride, and paranoia refused to make a single move towards a new reality. 

 

We have ample evidence of who really is and isn't willing to forge a new political reality in this game. Newflash, it isn't ParaCov. That is a fact, we can point to instances supporting it. Continue in your corner all you want. No one really cares. Just stop crying while you're over there.

 

You kept signing intra-sphere treaties severely limiting change. Like I said, I don't expect you to change, which is why we needed at least a stalemate here and why we went for it. It's not a detriment when you don't change yourself and are too tightly knit. I don't expect you to break up and I never did. I just pointed out why it's bad. If you expect people who value their relationships cancel treaties just for a chance at pixel hugging, you're dreaming. If none of you have any ambition outside of doing the sphere, that's fine, just don't pretend this game isn't stagnant.

 

It's not a huge exaggeration. It's closer to 10-12.

Um, I already cited another instance. There  also wasn't really a  lot of diplomacy involved in preventing the war and I think you were criticized for it on the basis of not attempting it due to their isolation. Pretending your sphere doesn't like hitting isolated alliances is funny. 

 

There weren't. Interesting to bring up Alpha at all. You vastly overestimate the outreach your side has done. Your side has kept consolidating. Not everyone is just going to beg you for a spot in the winner's circle. Pride is something more alliances could use here.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Roquentin

[Memph]

I agree with you in regards to the politics likely becoming stagnant, but I don't think tS or whomever else should be blamed for it. I think it's just a natural consequence of these type of games, and would of been the case with other alliances involved had things shaped differently. Unless we see a surge in new players and alliances I think the politics may get pretty bland.

I think a massive change in game mechanics could change things. It's been brought up almost 2 years ago now, but right now the incentives are to push all the major alliances into two spheres that fight every few months.

 

Those being:

 

a) Wars are very destructive for both sides. Although it's worse for the loser, even if you win all the wars that happen every 3 months, you're still spending close to half your income on war related expenses like rebuilding and stockpiling.

 

It takes several wars for a sphere to attain hegemoney over another similar sized sphere, and the advantage gained often has as much to do with nations quitting or leaving one sphere than falling behind in growth.

 

 

I also still think it's too difficult for small nations to catch up to big ones. Maybe it's not as bad as in other games, but if you play the game well, you should be able to close the gap with nation that aren't that into the game and don't play that well and have only been around longer.

[Foltest]

I've shown the statistics. Less than half the playerbase has logged in the last week. Some of those are new nations or micro raiders that don't get anywhere and micro alliances that peter out. The game's activity isn't really great. I'd say it has a cult following of maybe 500-800 people and that's it rather than being a super active game.

 

1. I haven't seen the stats

 

2. 1k active players sounds about right for our very niche genera. Why is that "a dying game" to you? lol

 

 

 

If you want an actually shocking stat, have the FA guys march out and quote how many different people they see log on to IRC/discord/forums daily even during war.

 

 

Now, take a guess at how many people actually speak or post more than once a week.

 

 

 

People logging in to X communication method, I think 1000 people may be accurate if you include forum lurkers for every single alliance.

 

People speaking/posting? Probably the same hundred or so people, tops.

 

 

 

This will never be a million-member game or genera. That doesn't mean it's dead or stagnating.

[Sisyphus]

I think a massive change in game mechanics could change things. It's been brought up almost 2 years ago now, but right now the incentives are to push all the major alliances into two spheres that fight every few months.

 

Those being:

 

a) Wars are very destructive for both sides. Although it's worse for the loser, even if you win all the wars that happen every 3 months, you're still spending close to half your income on war related expenses like rebuilding and stockpiling.

 

It takes several wars for a sphere to attain hegemoney over another similar sized sphere, and the advantage gained often has as much to do with nations quitting or leaving one sphere than falling behind in growth.

 

 

I also still think it's too difficult for small nations to catch up to big ones. Maybe it's not as bad as in other games, but if you play the game well, you should be able to close the gap with nation that aren't that into the game and don't play that well and have only been around longer.

Point B in particular is pretty significant. Games like this always have to update to help newer players get towards the top. Even an update as simple as starting new nations off with 3-5 cities instead of one would make a difference, to keep the bottom always at pace with the rest of the game.

 

Destructive wars, I'd argue, actually help because they allow you to drag down whales before they enter the stratosphere and create their own orbit.