Attack of the numbers.

[Roquentin]

Too bad there is no LiquidMercury here to lead the losers to their karmic promised land.  Or is that who you think you are, Prefontaine?

I'd rather not delve into that reference, but Pre made it clear he isn't looking for something like that since he said he isn't just going to align with everyone outside even if he doesn't like them to make that sort of thing happen, which is what that would have required. It's not really feasible anymore, though. Such an occurrence requires months of coalition building and actual FA coordination which Paracov lacked. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Roquentin

[Sisyphus]

The one true fix to this "problem" is and has always been fresh people, people with no preconcieved notions of the players or even the game. Fresh people bring in new politics, new powers, new ideas, both to challenge the old, and to shake it up. If you look back at that other game's history, alliances joining like GOONS and dare I say, /b/ (before it went thermonuclear) kept the game fresh and active. Once new players stopped joining and things settled into what they eventually became, that is when people started complaining that one side was too powerful and that they couldn't win. Basically if we want this game to succeed where that one has stagnated, we need to keep Sheepy active and committed to developing and promoting the game so we can keep an influx of new players to keep churning the machine.

As new invasion alliance would be cool.

 

Why rely on Sheepy though? Why not form a player managed promotion group dedicated to tapping into external gaming/Internet communities?

 

Alliances literally dedicate hours to recruiting players, it's not like we don't have the skill set for this kind of thing.

[Mikey]

The one true fix to this "problem" is and has always been fresh people, people with no preconcieved notions of the players or even the game. Fresh people bring in new politics, new powers, new ideas, both to challenge the old, and to shake it up. If you look back at that other game's history, alliances joining like GOONS and dare I say, /b/ (before it went thermonuclear) kept the game fresh and active. Once new players stopped joining and things settled into what they eventually became, that is when people started complaining that one side was too powerful and that they couldn't win. Basically if we want this game to succeed where that one has stagnated, we need to keep Sheepy active and committed to developing and promoting the game so we can keep an influx of new players to keep churning the machine.

 

I agree this is super important. I don't know that we will need an ever increasing  number (beyond replacement rate) but we need more than we have now. It's not necessarily needed to see change again in this game, but when you only have 20 odd major AAs and a handful of others, there are only so many FA permutations.

 

Certainly I think the game would be much more interesting with a greatly expanded player base, but the I think my life would be more interesting with a greatly expanded bank account. Some things are easier said than done. I do hope we get there.

[Roquentin]

As new invasion alliance would be cool.

 

Why rely on Sheepy though? Why not form a player managed promotion group dedicated to tapping into external gaming/Internet communities?

 

Alliances literally dedicate hours to recruiting players, it's not like we don't have the skill set for this kind of thing.

 

An issue is Sheepy would have to make the game one where an alliance of new players would be able to function and build on its own. You can't start an alliance with all new players unless you have external funding, which ends up being a patronage system since they'll tie into an established sphere, which defeats the purpose and possibly makes the issues worse. The other problem is, these games don't attract people that much when they can play EVE if they like spending time on games for instance and other more casual games are available where activity isn't as important for the other extreme. With any invasion community, you will see huge attrition as well.

 

The invasion alliances mentioned like GOONS and /b/ got into the game relatively early. Anyone who starts playing now will be 2  and a half years behind.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Roquentin

[Doktor Avalanche]

The invasion alliances mentioned like GOONS and /b/ got into the game relatively early. Anyone who starts playing now will be 2  and a half years behind.

Now that is a name I have not heard in a very long time.

[Charles Bolivar]

Shark Week 2016 anyone?

[Auctor]

Yeah, the issue with invasion alliances showing up is a function of how difficult it is to function after joining the game. Invaders are drawn to games where they can flood it and be ready to fight almost instantly, whereas here you're stuck with a heck of a curve if you're not being funded by established players.

[Charles Bolivar]

A flood of 3/4 city nations mass raiding other small nations would be pretty entertaining.

[Roquentin]

Now that is a name I have not heard in a very long time.

If you've heard of that one, you'd proabbly know the other as Elitist Lunar Superstructure.

[greatkitteh]

Or we can all agree to have some !@#$ fun and superficially delete all treaties, hire NPO number magicians to calculate the (active) powers of all alliances into exactly 50/50, agree on a date, and !@#$ each other in that date. It'll be started on x day and ended on Y day with the winner getting bragging rights. Then everyone would be beaten up to roughly the same level, and we would all join in on the fun

[Doktor Avalanche]

If you've heard of that one, you'd proabbly know the other as Elitist Lunar Superstructure.

Yup.

 

I often wonder if there are any members of Something Awful.com still floating around. No matter though, that 4channers, specifically /b/tards are in great supply anywhere on the internet.

Edited November 23, 2016 by The King in Yellow

[Chunky Monkey]

 

I often wonder if there are any members of Something Awful.com still floating around.

We're still here.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

I suspect after TI disbanded due to Sheepy's rule changes, you'll see some fraying of the current structure.  It was a brilliant move to unite a sphere in economic prosperity.  With its impending demise, I mean, it isn't like everyone on side "We win" is happy with the politics either.

 

But, again, as I said in my alliance's internal forums, being friends with winners is good, and being friends with losers is bad.  Why set yourself up to fail like SK did with that Rose treaty?  I'd expect to see more paperless going forward in general.

[Prefonteen]

Or we can all agree to have some !@#$ fun and superficially delete all treaties, hire NPO number magicians to calculate the (active) powers of all alliances into exactly 50/50, agree on a date, and !@#$ each other in that date. It'll be started on x day and ended on Y day with the winner getting bragging rights. Then everyone would be beaten up to roughly the same level, and we would all join in on the fun

 

> makes no sense because cities

 

> I dont give much of a !@#$ about the war mechanics. The overarching politics are what interests me. Personally? If it were *just* about burning pixels in a spreadsheet sim in a vacuum, i'd be bored quick and quit.

[Vack]

> makes no sense because cities

 

> I dont give much of a !@#$ about the war mechanics. The overarching politics are what interests me. Personally? If it were *just* about burning pixels in a spreadsheet sim in a vacuum, i'd be bored quick and quit.

 

Politics and War Shitposting and Spreadsheets.

[LordStrum]

Politics and War Shitposting and Spreadsheets.

Hmmm. Sitting at work, too busy to write up another !@#$ing spreadsheet. Real lazy. Trying to save some money on a $8000 repair bill on my (fully paid off) $110000 protectorate. Real lazy. Guess Ill just go home to my (fully paid off) $1000000 alliance tonight and break out a notepad and the calculator. First though, I'll check on my two quietly sleeping archdukes, then crack a beer and smell the fresh Orbis ocean air wafting up from the beach, then my Viceroy will roll me a monster joint and then, and only then will I think to myself "yeah, Yosodog was correct. I am a lazy !@#$. How's your evening shaping up?"

[hadesflames]

The overarching politics are what interests me.

Same. If only we had some of that. =p

[Prefonteen]

Same. If only we had some of that. =p

Meh. I never had trouble finding controversy and or politics.

 

If you sit around complaining and hoping things happen instead of trying to innovate and maneuver, you're part of the problem.

 

As much as the supposed "hegemoney" is.

 

And no, by that I don't mean "lol do something about it" so spare me the "omg they're too big" stuff. Alter your goals and ways. Think out of the box.

[Ole]

Meh. I never had trouble finding controversy and or politics.

 

If you sit around complaining and hoping things happen instead of trying to innovate and maneuver, you're part of the problem.

 

As much as the supposed "hegemoney" is.

 

And no, by that I don't mean "lol do something about it" so spare me the "omg they're too big" stuff. Alter your goals and ways. Think out of the box.

 

Omg you'r Box is too big, i cant Get out of it

[greatkitteh]

> makes no sense because cities

 

> I dont give much of a !@#$ about the war mechanics. The overarching politics are what interests me. Personally? If it were *just* about burning pixels in a spreadsheet sim in a vacuum, i'd be bored quick and quit.

So we can make it perfectly equal, but apply it only to the top 20 alliances or so. It'll make micros joining more relevant and force real consessions, besides giving new faces a time in the center of attention.

[Prefonteen]

Omg you'r Box is too big, i cant Get out of it

 

Try climbing

 

So we can make it perfectly equal, but apply it only to the top 20 alliances or so. It'll make micros joining more relevant and force real consessions, besides giving new faces a time in the center of attention.

 

But if you are arbitrarily making two "equal" sides (meaning that a third party creates them, neglecting any and all political history), that skips the entire political part which usually leads up to wars.

 

But let's say something like this occurs and we now have two completely equal sides.

 

It will only take 1 war or a !@#$ up or two on either side for the other side to pull ahead. At this point, you will see he world fall back into the *exact* same pattern which you currently complain about:

 

Either:

- One side wins and incurs an advantage coming out of the war

- Losing side stays together. next war, winning side wins again; this time with a wider margin. Advantage grows

- Repeat until collapse

 

Or:

- One side wins

- Losing side splinters (to a larger or smaller degree) due to dissent over in-coalition !@#$ups/interactions

- Next war, winning side consolidates victory over weakened losing sides.

 

These aren't the solutions that will incentivise alternative gameplay. In that sense, syndisphere is the symptom. Not the problem.

 

 

As for giving new faces a time in the center of attention:

 

Nothing should be given. New faces can easily get into the center of attention, provided that they make the moves to get there. But people tend to prefer the safety of conforming to pre-existing structures, and therefore voluntarily end up following the major powers.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Partisan

[hadesflames]

Meh. I never had trouble finding controversy and or politics.

 

If you sit around complaining and hoping things happen instead of trying to innovate and maneuver, you're part of the problem.

 

As much as the supposed "hegemoney" is.

 

And no, by that I don't mean "lol do something about it" so spare me the "omg they're too big" stuff. Alter your goals and ways. Think out of the box.

You think I'm not doing anything, but it's actually more that nothing is happening.

[Eumirbago]

You think I'm not doing anything, but it's actually more that nothing is happening.

You deserve it. Anyone who thinks inside the box deserves it.

[Chunky Monkey]

Politics and War Shitposting and Spreadsheets.

Hey that's mine.

[Roquentin]

Try climbing

 

 

But if you are arbitrarily making two "equal" sides (meaning that a third party creates them, neglecting any and all political history), that skips the entire political part which usually leads up to wars.

 

But let's say something like this occurs and we now have two completely equal sides.

 

It will only take 1 war or a !@#$ up or two on either side for the other side to pull ahead. At this point, you will see he world fall back into the *exact* same pattern which you currently complain about:

 

Either:

- One side wins and incurs an advantage coming out of the war

- Losing side stays together. next war, winning side wins again; this time with a wider margin. Advantage grows

- Repeat until collapse

 

Or:

- One side wins

- Losing side splinters (to a larger or smaller degree) due to dissent over in-coalition !@#$ups/interactions

- Next war, winning side consolidates victory over weakened losing sides.

 

These aren't the solutions that will incentivise alternative gameplay. In that sense, syndisphere is the symptom. Not the problem.

 

 

As for giving new faces a time in the center of attention:

 

Nothing should be given. New faces can easily get into the center of attention, provided that they make the moves to get there. But people tend to prefer the safety of conforming to pre-existing structures, and therefore voluntarily end up following the major powers.

 

While you're right, I'm not really seeing any alternative solutions out here. I've never subscribed to the belief that the global political dynamics should be sole reason people play since it's too contingent on factors that are usually at least partially outside of the control of most and the fact  the vast majority of players don't play for the politics, but for the politically active demographic things are kind of at an impasse.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Roquentin