The Real Problem

[Dubayoo]

Several months ago, I argued that all Easy Mode needs to do to not worry about backlash in case its members compete against each other is annihilate IQ.  The way proposed was it should downsize and downdeclare to take out the guys on top, and gradually whittle down.  The response I got to this is it's too expensive to do so since the rebuilding costs would take too many resources.  Those who denied this were labeled as ridiculous.

Last night, I proposed the opposite strategy in voice chat with several alliance leaders, saying that all IQ needs to do to win is inhibit Easy Mode's development.  It needs to regularly target mid-tier members so they don't build up.  The implication is, IQ will gradually approach the level of the whales, and will overwhelm them.  The response I got to this is it's NOT too expensive for Easy Mode to downsize and downdeclare since the rebuilding costs are feasible.  Those who asserted the contrary were labeled likewise as ridiculous.

This fundamental contradiction shows what's really going on, and I say this especially in light of the abundance of information and familiarity people have on both alliances' composition.  It cannot be argued that the reality is uncertainty in judgment.  The fact of the matter is people have the information they need to make the judgment call on what to do.

Instead, it seems that the real problem is those in power simply revel in making contradictions and simply doing nothing.  Clearly, one course of action or the other should be happening, but it hasn't been and it hasn't been for quite some time.  Even if an argument is made that the rate of excitement is a matter of opinion, that's not the point here.  The point is a rational strategy is available where one side or the other can win for good in the current era for things to move on, but the strategy is not being enacted.  

I say this especially because I've argued elsewhere (including OWLS) that there is value in factions and sphere realignment, but on both sides, there has been an eager claim that factions and realignment create chaotic uncertainty which isn't fun because it's too risky.  What this means is neither side is restricted right now out of concern of everyone not being on board with the gameplan.  Clearly, they are confident in loyalty and dedication towards following through on a strategy because the alternative would create fracturing factions that create the very risk they're trying to avoid.  If one side or the other didn't follow through on the gameplan, then the opposite side could take advantage of them.  Therefore, they must follow through or lose.  

 

Edited November 12, 2017 by Dubayoo

[Prezyan]

hUR duR wHY doNt yUo dO iT urSELF
- Generic Response

People are just too afraid of losing their pixels, and then therefore making it more difficult to win the next war. Little do these people know though, is it seems that both sides are willing to sit back and wait regardless.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Prezyan

[Dubayoo]

31 minutes ago, Prezyan said:

hUR duR wHY doNt yUo dO iT urSELF
- Generic Response

People are just too afraid of losing their pixels, and then therefore making it more difficult to win the next war. Little do these people know though, is it seems that both sides are willing to sit back and wait regardless.

Exactly.  This isn't a matter of this sphere or that sphere having the problem.  It's just a bunch of trolling oldtimers who are wasting time instead of realizing how the more wars that are had, the more exciting the game becomes.  Yes, the mechanics are simple.  That's why the number and speed of wars is important.  When you have a simple experience, the goal is to get as much of it as possible to make the most of it.

They like to blame the nonsense on the forum, but the fact of the matter is their contradictory mindsets are what fuel the nonsense to begin with.  

I'm also suspecting that the leaders are blurring the IC-OOC distinction as well because a lot of them like to say the rate of excitement which the game should have is a matter of opinion, so it isn't your right to expect others to be exciting.

This is a real world value which certainly applies.  After all, different people have different opinions what what qualifies as an exciting life.  It's nobody's entitlement to tell others what's exciting...

...but in a gameworld like this where we have already consented to participate, we have to understand where the excitement of the game comes from.  Is negotiating and maneuvering important?  Yes, but that's secondary.  The fact is the game mechanics themselves function around actually declaring war and fighting battles.  We consent to participate within how those game mechanics function.  Therefore, the subjectivity of functionality is not an issue here.

[Apeman]

If both sides were to line up a "fair fight", im sure both would be more willing. Stop the treaty counters and see the devil roll out. Fear is real and so is cowardice 

[Buorhann]

I actually had a pretty lengthy post about this topic, but then I realized it was a Dubayoo topic and I really need to lay off from those.

[Dubayoo]

4 hours ago, Apeman said:

If both sides were to line up a "fair fight", im sure both would be more willing. Stop the treaty counters and see the devil roll out. Fear is real and so is cowardice 

The thing is we don't even need to do that as complicated as that might be.

On OWLS, the notion of arena fights and limited war has come up time and time again.

The problem is nobody wants to officially negotiate anything on there.  They just want it to remain a roundtable discussion room instead of granting it authority.