War. War Never Changes.

[Roquentin]

>attempted to make dynamic moves in the past

>"shakey to nonexistant"

 

>"less I want Syndisphere to split"

>It's literally the only thing brought up when talking about dynamic moves

 

>"As for started aggressive wars against it, given you've started aggressive wars to eliminate threat"

>completely forgets that once our 4 alliance group started that we were attacked 3 times

 

 

Yeah...

 

I don't really know what moves those were aside from ODPs. I've pointed out the issue with that a million times.

 

I mean, the only other thing would be some sort of frankenstein coalition forming of everyone else vs Syndisphere. It's unlikely to materialize, especially with alliances losing the passion for sphere wars or wanting to  "break out of the cycle".

 

I'm not sure which wars you're considering here. Hopefully not proxy. But anyway, the issue is you let go of the designation of being a defensive coalition by choosing to go on the offensive yourselves. I no longer am really invested in the defensive/offensive stuff when the distinction only matters in terms of the narrative each side wants to present. "You brought it on yourself" when someone's on the defensive so nothing to be gained by being on the defensive for whatever party you may attack since they'll get shat on and get zero sympathy and get stuff like "you're playing the victim" or "Pre is crying lol".  Then it's victimhood  in the form of "We were attacked for no reason" when someone else goes on the offensive.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Roquentin

[Dubayoo]

To be fair, the opportunity for dynamic moves was during peace negotiations at the end of the war here.

 

Massive amounts of paper should have been simultaneously shredded and redrawn to create new alignments so both IQ/Cov and Syndisphere wouldn't be paranoid of breaking up just for the opposition to not breakup as well.  For example, you guys could have signed a treaty like this:

1. The top ten non-paperless alliances will be paired together between highest and lowest i.e. 1/10, 2/9, etc.  This would create 5 new teams, and none of the teams would be permitted to sign paper with the other teams.  If any paper was ever signed like that, the other 3 teams would automatically get a casus belli against them, creating an innate 3v2 advantage in enforcement.
    
2. Those alliances would then draft among the next 20 non-paperless alliances 4 alliances each. These alliances would not be allowed to sign paper with the other team leaders, but could sign paper with up to 4 members of other teams.  Signing paper inappropriately would suspend the alliance from the team it belonged to.  If the team failed to suspend the alliance, all the other teams would get a casus belli against that team to enforce the suspension.
    
3. All remaining (paperless) alliances below rank 30 could be signed paper with at will.
    
4. The tiers of team leaders and members would be reassessed at the beginning of every month.  Any member that rose above the score of one's own leader would replace that leader of the team.  The former leader would become a member in exchange.  Any non-member that rose above the score of a member would take the place of that member.  The former member would henceforth become a non-member.  Paper would be adjusted accordingly.  Members becoming leaders would have paper shredded with all other teams.  Leaders becoming members would be allowed to sign new paper with other team members.  Non-members becoming members would shred paper with all but four members of other teams.  Members becoming non-members could sign paper at will.

As it stands, that would make the following 5 pairs of alliances the teams moving forward:

 

TKR-Mensa

Pantheon-TTO

KT-Rose

t$-Zodiac

BK-NPO

 

The following alliances would be up for draft:

 

NK, TCW, Lord, SK, CKD, Guard, Alpha, GOB, Acadia, Valk, CS, UPN, Fark, GoG, OWR, Resplendent, tC, Ragnarok, Sparta, Charming Friends

 

All other alliances could be signed paper with freely.

 

Discipline Clause: If a member is judged to be insubordinate by the team's leaders, the team must first offer to trade that member for another to all other teams.  If multiple teams accept the offer, the offering team may pick which team to finalize its offer with.  If no trade can be found, then the alliance may be replaced by the next highest non-member alliance.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Argotitan

[Charles Bolivar]

All this mention of a dynamic move....was nothing dynamic about it at all , sloppy and half assed was the term we used for it back when it actually happened. I suppose viewing it in hindsight the label dynamic could be used but at the time it wasnt viewed in quite the same manner

 

Was meant to be a gradual shift away from VE's influence and the reason it became "dynamic" is because cynic went and leaked logs. It nearly backfired on everyone involved too until Impero came over rather heavy handed and pretty much galvanised every tS member into opposing VE's influence more so. Can't complain though, the results gave us all plenty of fun for a few years.

 

I have a question though, since when did paracov and IQ become known as " the left"?

Edited June 16, 2017 by Nemesis

[Senatorius]

 

 

I have a question though, since when did paracov and IQ become known as " the left"?

It is kinda wierd (and probably not very healthy for OWF) that this has happened... still anyone that disagrees with me is an ignorant radical now so thats nice Edited June 16, 2017 by Senatorius

[Keegoz]

Could always go all paperless. I'm sure you guys are strong enough allies now to withstand it and those who aren't might make it interesting. That goes for all sides.

[Sketchy]

-snip-

Okay then. Layout exactly what you think it would take to achieve "political dynamism" and what that specifically entails under your definition.

 

 

The problem I keep seeing historically is both sides say the other side should break up to promote political diversity lmfao. How about all these people who supposedly want it come to the table and hash out possibilities? 

 

Seems like the same argument over and over but rarely are their any solutions, just shifting blame or asking their opposition to do things against their own self interests for the sake of the game. 

[greatkitteh]

Why? Because

 

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)

[Big Brother]

It's less I want Syndisphere to split, but rather that it is one of the only strong possibilities for dynamism in the game.

 

Didn't a split just happen a little while ago though? Are Zodiac, BK and Cornerstone not enough? How many times does Syndisphere have to split and why would any sphere willingly divide itself merely to appease others?

 

-snip-

 

This is interesting but I sincerely doubt the willpower, coordination and level of cooperation exists in and between all these alliances in order for it to be realized. It seems to be too drastic, too idealistic. I don't believe people will be willing to commit to such radical changes across existing spheres and treaties.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Big Brother

[Bollocks]

Migrate to a new game, boom, diversity

[Dubayoo]

I have a question though, since when did paracov and IQ become known as " the left"?

 

They're in the left column on the wiki page for the most recent war.

 

 

This is interesting but I sincerely doubt the willpower, coordination and level of cooperation exists in and between all these alliances in order for it to be realized. It seems to be too drastic, too idealistic. I don't believe people will be willing to commit to such radical changes across existing spheres and treaties.

 

If it didn't exist, then they wouldn't be as good at FA or IA as they are.  It's not idealistic either.  It's a practical approach to understanding how both sides are wary of the other side not simultaneously splitting up.

 

All they have to is have a meeting on some Discord server that restricts who can type/talk in a channel to the leaders of the alliances.  They would schedule the meeting a week or two in advance as well to make sure everyone's available to do it.

[ComradeMilton]

So, as for forcing two randoms alliances together is already a bad idea and thankfully is easily fixed if it's attempted.

[Sisyphus]

The problem is these potential shifts are usually in a germinal at best stage. It's far more likely to people outside for things to proceed as they have, rather than expecting a shift to materialize, especially when it is nowhere near real implementation. It's not "for no good reason" when the risk is real of you hitting first going off the track record.

1.) If something is germinating and you want it to grow and flourish, do you A: Let it Grow and nurture it or B: Declare War and kill it in its infancy?

 

The IQ answer seems to be B. You even had a very promising sapling sprouting up before last war, too, and you couldn't help but uproot it.

 

Your sense, and narrative, of inevitability really twists around itself when you start to scrutinize the decisions you guys have made over the last couple of war cycles.

 

2.) It was for no good reason because the risk wasn't real at all. No one is gunning for your throat and we've all been operating in a primarily defensive and reactive stance for a couple of years now.

 

Your track record is a great example of how perilous self-fulfilling prophecies can truly be.

[Dubayoo]

So, as for forcing two randoms alliances together is already a bad idea and thankfully is easily fixed if it's attempted.

 

If two alliances that don't mesh well get paired together, one of the members of the team will eventually become better than the leader and will replace it.

 

The treaty I wrote allows for perpetual evolution that tears apart the existing stagnating relationships which are turning this world into a carebear quagmire.

[Dubayoo]

1.) If something is germinating and you want it to grow and flourish, do you A: Let it Grow and nurture it or B: Declare War and kill it in its infancy?

 

The IQ answer seems to be B. You even had a very promising sapling sprouting up before last war, too, and you couldn't help but uproot it.

 

Your sense, and narrative, of inevitability really twists around itself when you start to scrutinize the decisions you guys have made over the last couple of war cycles.

 

2.) It was for no good reason because the risk wasn't real at all. No one is gunning for your throat and we've all been operating in a primarily defensive and reactive stance for a couple of years now.

 

Your track record is a great example of how perilous self-fulfilling prophecies can truly be.

 

Obviously, NPO is impatient, but Roq's leadership there isn't really the issue.

 

The issue is players within alliances get bored.  If there's no activity worth playing, then they leave the game and become inactive.  Something needs to happen every so often or else the opportunity will be completely squandered. 

[Dio Brando]

{...}

As it stands, that would make the following 5 pairs of alliances the teams moving forward:

 

KT-Rose

{...}

 

...I wouldn't mind having such a thing. 

 

It's an interesting idea, though I don't think the community is particularly open to having such a thing at this time. Maybe when all is ending and Alex is going to pull the plug? 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Aristodemus

[Crust]

I'd be stoked if most alliances went paperless or went down to simply one or two treaties per AA. However, it's kinda illogical to think that the best idea is to simply pair up alliances based on size. We're all trying to maximize the most fun/dominance for ourselves in Orbis. Pairing yourself with a random alliance you may have little to no relationship with sounds like the absolute worst way of doing so. Nor does it open up for dynamic plays.

 

If (real world) history has thought us anything, it will surely be that the world reacts in a similar fashion to how a nation or alliance acts. When one alliance gears itself up to have as many within its group, its enemies will do the same. As long as IQ keeps having a giant treaty cluster, so too will syndisphere find a need for it. The rational thing is to scale back, strengthen your unity within the few alliances you have and then use a bigger cluster's whale size to its disadvantage.

[Dubayoo]

I'd be stoked if most alliances went paperless or went down to simply one or two treaties per AA. However, it's kinda illogical to think that the best idea is to simply pair up alliances based on size. We're all trying to maximize the most fun/dominance for ourselves in Orbis. Pairing yourself with a random alliance you may have little to no relationship with sounds like the absolute worst way of doing so. Nor does it open up for dynamic plays.

 

If (real world) history has thought us anything, it will surely be that the world reacts in a similar fashion to how a nation or alliance acts. When one alliance gears itself up to have as many within its group, its enemies will do the same. As long as IQ keeps having a giant treaty cluster, so too will syndisphere find a need for it. The rational thing is to scale back, strengthen your unity within the few alliances you have and then use a bigger cluster's whale size to its disadvantage.

 

Eh... if anything, it's the best since you anticipate that prior relationships will be erased.  It creates a blank slate for new relationships to be written up which creates the most opportunities for dynamic gameplay.  This also breaks up the clusters you talk about easily since the scaling back process doesn't worry about the other side failing to scale back despite how you do, and it defines a universal standard for the quantity of how large a cluster should be.  

 

Clusters don't get broken up because people don't want to be left hanging by the other side breaking up despite how you don't, and they worry that they'll be smaller than the other side which keeps them vulnerable to being ganged up on. 

 

The rational side of this is any alliances that refuse to participate will be looked upon as conspiring with ulterior motives.  It would motivate all the other alliances to participate in order to have a casus belli to enforce the refusing alliances to participate.

[Ripper]

The rational side of this is any alliances that refuse to participate will be looked upon as conspiring with ulterior motives.  It would motivate all the other alliances to participate in order to have a casus belli to enforce the refusing alliances to participate.

 

Sounds like... the "Papers, Please" conflict.

[Crust]

Not only is that unlikely, considering most top 30 alliances have some prior experiences with one another, be it from seeing how the act on discord/the forum or just how they've been behaving during wars or interacted with certain members of the Alliance.

 

But it's also unlikely cause that type of rearrangement takes a lot of time and effort. It's a wide scale project that needs around a hundred different people (considering most alliances have more than just one leader) to get involved and each Alliance would have to persuade their members of the advantages of doing so. The amount of time and effort compared to the reward just ain't worth it. And it hinges on more than a majority of these alliances being willing to go along with this idea.

[Dubayoo]

Not only is that unlikely, considering most top 30 alliances have some prior experiences with one another, be it from seeing how the act on discord/the forum or just how they've been behaving during wars or interacted with certain members of the Alliance.

 

But it's also unlikely cause that type of rearrangement takes a lot of time and effort. It's a wide scale project that needs around a hundred different people (considering most alliances have more than just one leader) to get involved and each Alliance would have to persuade their members of the advantages of doing so. The amount of time and effort compared to the reward just ain't worth it. And it hinges on more than a majority of these alliances being willing to go along with this idea.

 

I considered that when I first designed the treaty, but the numbers I came to were too large.  Originally, I conceived of a three team system among the top nine where each team drafted seven alliances among the next 21, but there would be way too many relationships to keep track of.  It wasn't worth it compared to the existing treaty web.

 

A five team system with four members per team drastically reduces the amount of effort needed to maintain FA compared to the existing alliance web.

[Dr Rush]

Eh... if anything, it's the best since you anticipate that prior relationships will be erased.  It creates a blank slate for new relationships to be written up which creates the most opportunities for dynamic gameplay.  This also breaks up the clusters you talk about easily since the scaling back process doesn't worry about the other side failing to scale back despite how you do, and it defines a universal standard for the quantity of how large a cluster should be.  

 

Clusters don't get broken up because people don't want to be left hanging by the other side breaking up despite how you don't, and they worry that they'll be smaller than the other side which keeps them vulnerable to being ganged up on. 

 

The rational side of this is any alliances that refuse to participate will be looked upon as conspiring with ulterior motives.  It would motivate all the other alliances to participate in order to have a casus belli to enforce the refusing alliances to participate.

Your not really getting it. Mensa is 100% not going to break up with allies we have had for years to team with some random scrubs with entirely different playstyles. We earned our place in the world and we will not just throw it away to please people who can't be bothered to do the same.

 

I do have an alternate plan though. Perm roll IQ for the next 6-12 months while we build up into a tier so high, neither sphere will be relevant to the other ever again.

[Dubayoo]

Your not really getting it. Mensa is 100% not going to break up with allies we have had for years to team with some random scrubs with entirely different playstyles. 

 

I get that point.

 

The point is if that's your plan, then the rest of the alliances at hand should go to war with you for not balancing out the rest of the world.

 

Merely having different playstyles doesn't automatically imply a problem either.  Team chemistry comes in many forms.

 

 

 

We earned our place in the world and we will not just throw it away to please people who can't be bothered to do the same.

 

There's no such thing as "earning" a place in the world in games like this.  Treating the game like that stagnates it just so you can remain the center of attention.  It permanently discourages future players from joining the game, putting it past maturity into decline.  The next youngest, next youngest, and so on generations leave underneath you until you're left just playing by yourself.

 

(Again, this is why I suggest a server reset and Hall of Fame.)

 

I do have an alternate plan though. Perm roll IQ for the next 6-12 months while we build up into a tier so high, neither sphere will be relevant to the other ever again.

 

This is something that should have been figured out before the peace agreement.  There's no problem with you wiping out the opposition, but merely wiping it out doesn't provide a solution as to the future of the game.  Something else has to go with it (which is why I suggested proxy wars to compete over influence earlier).

[Roquentin]

Didn't a split just happen a little while ago though? Are Zodiac, BK and Cornerstone not enough? How many times does Syndisphere have to split and why would any sphere willingly divide itself merely to appease others?

 

 

This is interesting but I sincerely doubt the willpower, coordination and level of cooperation exists in and between all these alliances in order for it to be realized. It seems to be too drastic, too idealistic. I don't believe people will be willing to commit to such radical changes across existing spheres and treaties.

 

The issue is, that would have been the case if the Paracov side was fully intact. It wasn't though and those three had to anchor the side. Most of the alliances were severely diminished, some people just weren't interested in fighting and it affected enthusiasm, and one had even joined the other side fully.  If the column was the same as Silent with the addition of those three definitely, but between Silent and IQ, Syndisphere added Rose, TCW, GOB, the Fed, and TFP, which blunted the blow somewhat. Only BK would have been considered a major player in Syndisphere.  I've never said it had to divide itself to appease others. A sphere will only split if there are differing visions like BK, CS, and Zodiac wanted things to change and the others were more reluctant, so an organic split occurred. If they just want to be on top forever, they can do that, but they lose any claim to pushing dynamism or wanting it to be different from other nationsims.

 

 

1.) If something is germinating and you want it to grow and flourish, do you A: Let it Grow and nurture it or B: Declare War and kill it in its infancy?

 

The IQ answer seems to be B. You even had a very promising sapling sprouting up before last war, too, and you couldn't help but uproot it.

 

Your sense, and narrative, of inevitability really twists around itself when you start to scrutinize the decisions you guys have made over the last couple of war cycles.

 

2.) It was for no good reason because the risk wasn't real at all. No one is gunning for your throat and we've all been operating in a primarily defensive and reactive stance for a couple of years now.

 

Your track record is a great example of how perilous self-fulfilling prophecies can truly be.

 

I said germinal at best. In Manthrax's case, he had no implementation planned for whatever he had in mind . A war was more likely to break out before it. When the war directly preceding Silent was initiated by Syndisphere, there was no reason to believe there'd be no repeat or attempts to pick off isolated pockets. 

 

 

It's not for no good reason as for the past year your side has gone on  the offensive several times to eliminate potential threats.  Either too many treaties or too many upper tier nations. It's just the nature of how things have gone down.

 

 

As for IQ, let's look how it went down.

 

1. People get really upset at them for allying someone they consider an enemy.

2. Syndisphere circles the wagons in response, militarizes multiple times, and consolidates(Mensa-TKR, Rose-Pantheon)

3. Alliances outside of Syndisphere are courted ostensibly for deployment against IQ(VE, HBE, some others where it didn't materialize.)

4. VE coup/potential rolling of tVE

4. Syndicate discusses war plans with allies which gets back to us.

5.war happens.

 

I would have been fine with another month or two with no war, but the intelligence prompted IQ to act.

 

Okay then. Layout exactly what you think it would take to achieve "political dynamism" and what that specifically entails under your definition.

 

 

The problem I keep seeing historically is both sides say the other side should break up to promote political diversity lmfao. How about all these people who supposedly want it come to the table and hash out possibilities? 

 

Seems like the same argument over and over but rarely are their any solutions, just shifting blame or asking their opposition to do things against their own self interests for the sake of the game. 

 

It would entail less rigid sides every war.  The atmosphere earlier on in the game had more shifting alliances and that's a quality that was lost. The paperless thing might be considered. People when they want dynamism don't want everything to be ultra-predictable. Many touted this game as being super dynamic with changing sides as a plus over other games. 

 

A major problem with anything is there is little interest in resolution of grudges with people still considered as major threats. I think many would feel unencumbered if the grudges didn't run so deep. 

 

 

 

 

Your not really getting it. Mensa is 100% not going to break up with allies we have had for years to team with some random scrubs with entirely different playstyles. We earned our place in the world and we will not just throw it away to please people who can't be bothered to do the same.

 

I do have an alternate plan though. Perm roll IQ for the next 6-12 months while we build up into a tier so high, neither sphere will be relevant to the other ever again.

 

 

I mean, this has been the de facto trajectory for a while so it'd be interesting if you just adopted it officially.  It's always funny though when people complain about others not growing into range to get hit easily when this has been the MO. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Roquentin

[ComradeMilton]

If two alliances that don't mesh well get paired together, one of the members of the team will eventually become better than the leader and will replace it.

 

The treaty I wrote allows for perpetual evolution that tears apart the existing stagnating relationships which are turning this world into a carebear quagmire.

I don't think BK is going to do this at all. You're welcome to try it, but it's not going to be a thing.

 

Your not really getting it. Mensa is 100% not going to break up with allies we have had for years to team with some random scrubs with entirely different playstyles. We earned our place in the world and we will not just throw it away to please people who can't be bothered to do the same.

 

I do have an alternate plan though. Perm roll IQ for the next 6-12 months while we build up into a tier so high, neither sphere will be relevant to the other ever again.

If IQ is so bad that you have to roll them for six to twelve months, I thank you for the very thoughtful compliment. You can do it without attacking even more quickly, though.

[Charles Bolivar]

If everyone cancelled the majority of their treaties and instead agreed to all have only a few each, all that would happen is someone during a war would simply activate a few under the table gentleman agreements and win that way. Don't fool yourselves into thinking less treaties would give IQ and paracov any sort of advantage by imposing a handicap on syndisphere.

 

Treaties essentially mean nothing, it's the underlying relationship which matters and that is what IQ and paracov fail to learn or even comprehend.

Edited June 16, 2017 by Nemesis