Jump to content
Kastor

The Future of PnW

Recommended Posts

The future will probably be the same, war ends, alliances rebuild, then they rebuild their resources and cash, build up their military and then war for a lengthy time and then repeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

23 hours ago, Micchan said:

All the alliance leaders should agree to a max number of days for a war, let's say 3 months, before the limit you have to agree on peace terms

Who's going to Police that. 

Jk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ryan1 said:

Since there aren't global wars 3-4 times a year anymore, most major alliances are able to sit around and gather huge warchests, which makes it much easier for the losing side to fight for longer periods of time and deal more damage to their aggressor. This is similar to what TKR did, except in their case there was a lot more ego and a lot less strategy involved.

The final terms didn't force TKR to stop using their bot, just undo mistrades with the coalition they were fighting. So the terms did get better for them at least.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Noctis said:

The final terms didn't force TKR to stop using their bot, just undo mistrades with the coalition they were fighting. So the terms did get better for them at least.

The terms did not change. Certainly not because of anything TKR did, which amounts to just bleeding everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

The terms did not change. Certainly not because of anything TKR did, which amounts to just bleeding everywhere.

Originally the terms said they had to make Kosonome stop using his bot; now it just says to fix any mistrades with the coalition. So for the Coalition fighting them the terms are just as good; although at least TKR can still use their bot.

Whether the terms would have been adjusted had they not fought as long, I doubt it.

Also Arrgh withdrew their terms as well, so that also changed.

Edited by Noctis
arrgh terms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of it is just the length of the game and the game having few mechanics to prevent warchest inflation.  As the game ages, the average nation age gets longer and the average size of warchests go up.

And longer wars lead to alliances feeling like they need bigger warchests (to be able to sustain a long war), which leads to longer wars, which leads to people working on even bigger warchests and even longer periods of peace.  And allow people who happen to be relatively untouched by a war to build up big warchests while everyone else is busy.

Overall I think it's bad for the game from a player retention perspective.  I don't think most new players are going to be very excited to stick around for a game where they only see action once a year or so.  Both periods of war and periods of peace become boring for most players when they last for too long.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seconded on the problem with massive warchests leading to long wars. Of course, I personally like long wars; having alliances sit around bashing corpses and getting raided / nuked back is entertaining, but would most players choose to play a game where you're under intensive war for months?

 

Put another way, I was discussing mass blockade and how it could have allowed your opfor to steal your bank. Unfortunately, my correspondent pointed out that you'd only need to shift funds from  an alliance, then refound bank AAs to get around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A weaker alliance would have just accepted the terms as is probably; although terms tend to change if an alliance holds out for a better deal. So even if the terms didn't change much; I think they changed enough TKR was able to find the compromise acceptable.

So I don't view the long war to be reflective of much, other than TKR wanted to hold out for a better deal & were finally able to get a compromise they found acceptable. All the alliances who were urging TKR to just accept the terms as is probably would and will fold much faster to whatever terms are given in future wars; while there are other alliances where the war will last really long if the initial terms they consider unacceptable without any flexibility without a long war first. Being more compromising on terms given sooner would be one solution if people want shorter wars; although I don't think alliances having the ability to hold out for a long time if given terms they find unreasonable is a bad thing at all.

There was an issue with the Arrgh terms on whether it would effect their ability to protect their Protectorates, which was a reasonable concern. Also needing to agree to stop all future use of their bot I personally would have found unacceptable in their shoes when so many alliances use bots; however they got a compromise on that. So while the winners can dictate what terms they offer; I don't view TKR holding out as long as they did foolish or letting ego get in the way.

If you're willing to fight longer, eventually you'll get better terms than the initial ones given. If an alliance is quick to just accept whatever is offered; then they tend to end up with terms they regret later. So I think TKR probably made the best choice given the circumstances, both in holding out as long as they did & eventually agreeing to the terms which were modified a bit to fix some concerns they had with them.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Noctis said:

A weaker alliance would have just accepted the terms as is probably; although terms tend to change if an alliance holds out for a better deal. So even if the terms didn't change much; I think they changed enough TKR was able to find the compromise acceptable.

So I don't view the long war to be reflective of much, other than TKR wanted to hold out for a better deal & were finally able to get a compromise they found acceptable. All the alliances who were urging TKR to just accept the terms as is probably would and will fold much faster to whatever terms are given in future wars; while there are other alliances where the war will last really long if the initial terms they consider unacceptable without any flexibility without a long war first. Being more compromising on terms given sooner would be one solution if people want shorter wars; although I don't think alliances having the ability to hold out for a long time if given terms they find unreasonable is a bad thing at all.

There was an issue with the Arrgh terms on whether it would effect their ability to protect their Protectorates, which was a reasonable concern. Also needing to agree to stop all future use of their bot I personally would have found unacceptable in their shoes when so many alliances use bots; however they got a compromise on that. So while the winners can dictate what terms they offer; I don't view TKR holding out as long as they did foolish or letting ego get in the way.

If you're willing to fight longer, eventually you'll get better terms than the initial ones given. If an alliance is quick to just accept whatever is offered; then they tend to end up with terms they regret later. So I think TKR probably made the best choice given the circumstances, both in holding out as long as they did & eventually agreeing to the terms which were modified a bit to fix some concerns they had with them.

In depth and highly inaccurate analysis. The point of the trade bot term was accomplished for everyone fighting, thus no concession. Had they offered that compromise in the first week of negotiations it would have been accepted. The hang up was in the art stupidity that TKR had. They valiantly fought in hopes of keeping art for return trades. Definitely worth it. Arrgh decided it didn’t want the Arrgh term. It was dropped per their request while there were still other issues. 

 

The main reason you’re so absolutely utterly wrong is there was NO reason to drag the fighting out that long outside of laziness/stupidity on TKR spheres side OR they just didn’t want the war to end yet. The conclusion that was reached could have been reached months ago had TKR sphere made any effort in peace talks. They were obscenely inactive. Had the terms we ended with been reached in the first few days the war would have likely been over within the week of the agreement. Them holding out and fighting did not get them better terms. They would have gotten the same terms without holding out two extra months. That’s why you’re wrong. There was no point to holding out unless it’s what they wanted. Besides that it was pure ineptitude by all of their leadership. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Prefontaine said:

In depth and highly inaccurate analysis. The point of the trade bot term was accomplished for everyone fighting, thus no concession. Had they offered that compromise in the first week of negotiations it would have been accepted. The hang up was in the art stupidity that TKR had. They valiantly fought in hopes of keeping art for return trades. Definitely worth it. Arrgh decided it didn’t want the Arrgh term. It was dropped per their request while there were still other issues. 

 

The main reason you’re so absolutely utterly wrong is there was NO reason to drag the fighting out that long outside of laziness/stupidity on TKR spheres side OR they just didn’t want the war to end yet. The conclusion that was reached could have been reached months ago had TKR sphere made any effort in peace talks. They were obscenely inactive. Had the terms we ended with been reached in the first few days the war would have likely been over within the week of the agreement. Them holding out and fighting did not get them better terms. They would have gotten the same terms without holding out two extra months. That’s why you’re wrong. There was no point to holding out unless it’s what they wanted. Besides that it was pure ineptitude by all of their leadership. 

Needing to undo mistrades with just the alliance's they were fighting is hardly comparable to needing to stop using it altogether. So you guys still got what you wanted; however for them I think that difference was probably a big deal. Your posts in the peace thread made it sound like the terms were a take it or leave it kind of thing; so maybe there was some miscommunication there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

In depth and highly inaccurate analysis. The point of the trade bot term was accomplished for everyone fighting, thus no concession. Had they offered that compromise in the first week of negotiations it would have been accepted. The hang up was in the art stupidity that TKR had.

2

I'm sorry, but, I'm truly confused. Can we call their art demands stupid while also viciously defending the joke terms of this war as inconsequential and utterly non-punitive?

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hodor said:

I'm sorry, but, I'm truly confused. Can we call their art demands stupid while also viciously defending the joke terms of this war as inconsequential and utterly non-punitive?

You absolutely can. The joke terms were not what held up the peace talks. There were moments that they slowed things down, yes, but what caused months of stagnation was the desire to protect Vacation Mode Nations/War Dodgers and The bot. And delays caused by joke terms were handled in a fraction of the time, and honestly could have been entirely handled in a day or two should representatives in the negotiations been more active. The people handling negotiations for their side were a joke. When still wanting to get art for returning trades is the hill you want to die upon for months then yes, I will call that stupid. The GOB  term which clogging things up was resolved pretty quickly once SRD/Ripper made an effort to resolve it beyond the initial GOB response of "fark you". The hiccup between Guardian and TEst was resolved with "If you don't like the term months after agreeing to it, you can buy your way out or simply suggest something similarly styled and we can work it out". 

 

Our joke terms didn't grind down the negotiations for months. Their desire to keep art requirements for returned funds did. That's the difference.

7 minutes ago, Keegoz said:

Spam treaties more and the longer wars will take to happen.

 

This war took 4-5 months of prep work in bringing people together. You're not wrong. 

5 hours ago, Noctis said:

Needing to undo mistrades with just the alliance's they were fighting is hardly comparable to needing to stop using it altogether. So you guys still got what you wanted; however for them I think that difference was probably a big deal. Your posts in the peace thread made it sound like the terms were a take it or leave it kind of thing; so maybe there was some miscommunication there.

It's called political maneuvering. I made it sound like it was take it or leave it, and like you said, we got what we wanted. There wasn't miscommunication. Simply the political theater of it all. 

Edited by Prefontaine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is not true, but feel free to push your narrative Pre.  I guess we wont mention your sides utter unwillingness to negotiate for quite some time as a reason why this dragged out.   I had to go to back back channels to be like, hey if you want this war to end, you need to make counter offers to our offers rather than just saying no.

Your side was making the demands, if you really wanted peace all you had to do was drop them, you won the war, we were happy to surrender, that wasn't good enough for you so it dragged on.  I am sure there were a bunch of alliances on your side that were thrilled that their war coalition was pushing ridiculous terms and standing firm on them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Well that is not true, but feel free to push your narrative Pre.  I guess we wont mention your sides utter unwillingness to negotiate for quite some time as a reason why this dragged out.   I had to go to back back channels to be like, hey if you want this war to end, you need to make counter offers to our offers rather than just saying no.

Your side was making the demands, if you really wanted peace all you had to do was drop them, you won the war, we were happy to surrender, that wasn't good enough for you so it dragged on.  I am sure there were a bunch of alliances on your side that were thrilled that their war coalition was pushing ridiculous terms and standing firm on them.

Yes yes yes, clearly our unwillingness to budge from your sides refusals was clearly the reason it dragged out 🙄. As I said had the terms reached been proposed by your side early on the war would have been done long ago. We didn't have a need to peace out, due to all the winning. Virtually all the talk I saw in our channels was "We're fine letting this go as long as it needs to". No needed a peace, was there even a want? Not really. It was a more apathy towards peace. If it happens it happens, if not, that's okay too. 

 

The fact that you think the terms were ridiculous just further solidifies the fact of how little you actually understand about these games. The fact that you think the side who supplied the original terms had to make counter offers is hilarious. As someone who actually does contractual negotiations, when coming from the position of power (see: winning side) and you go "we want X", and the side coming from no power (see: losing side) goes "no". The onus doesn't fall on us to find a compromise when there's no reason to. You guys need to come up with something we find acceptable. 

 

The fact that you don't understand that sort of thing.. I mean.. SRD my man. I'm at a loss for words. Going to go back to ignoring you, consider your overwhelming ignorance a victory.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Yes yes yes, clearly our unwillingness to budge from your sides refusals was clearly the reason it dragged out 🙄. As I said had the terms reached been proposed by your side early on the war would have been done long ago. We didn't have a need to peace out, due to all the winning. Virtually all the talk I saw in our channels was "We're fine letting this go as long as it needs to". No needed a peace, was there even a want? Not really. It was a more apathy towards peace. If it happens it happens, if not, that's okay too.

Did you just admit to dragging this war out?  I appreciate that Pre. 

And when you have to write things like I am going to go back to ignoring you again, that generally means the exact opposite, so I also appreciate your time and effort reading the stuff I write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every day of war was another day of Akuryo being butthurt so it was worth :awesome:

 

I appreciate what Arrgh did, if you are a pirate you join war to do damage, get the loot and drink rum, you have no mercy and you don't want any mercy, Arrgh doesn't know politics and the word peace, therefore doesn't sit at a peace meeting

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

-snip-

Bad on you.  You replied to Noctis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Micchan said:

Every day of war was another day of Akuryo being butthurt so it was worth :awesome:

 

I appreciate what Arrgh did, if you are a pirate you join war to do damage, get the loot and drink rum, you have no mercy and you don't want any mercy, Arrgh doesn't know politics and the word peace, therefore doesn't sit at a peace meeting

I'm happy to have entertained you. :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Senatorius said:

Why are we arguing over a war being too long? Didn't everyone say how much they love war and want more of it?

I'm not arguing over it, and I'm one of the louder folks who loves it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Senatorius said:

Why are we arguing over a war being too long? Didn't everyone say how much they love war and want more of it?

Longer periods of war lead to longer periods of peace as people feel the need to build bigger warchests.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Wilhelm the Demented said:

I'd argue long periods of peace have a lot less to do with war chests and much more to do with politcal maneuvering.  

It's actually relatively easy to build a war chest if you know what you're doing. And while it certainly takes a bit of time, it just can't be the main factor by itself. 

Two points: 

1.) I think it's fair to say most alliance leaders actively avoid wars, particularly ones that don't have easy odds. There are certainly more antagonistic sorts, and plenty of movers and shakers who are admirable. BUT if you polled every gov member in this game i bet you find most would agree to two key tenets "It is my job to look after my members' best interests" and "long term economic gains tend to do more for an alliance than a successful war" (especially so in about 2/3 of every triumvirate). 

2.) Building a successful coalition of alliances is difficult even when you have everything going for you - and most successful coalitions begin disagreeing almost immediately after they've all agreed to declare war. Establishing all the necessary contacts and trust is definitely the most time consuming aspect of a prolonged peace and after war is declared getting everyone to agree on terms is certainly the most time consuming aspect of war. This is why I prefer IA.

 

Combine both of those points and you end up in a situation where there is no particular incentive to antagonize the game any more than one has to, so they can build political relations and prepare their alliance for war AND no incentive for the victorious coalition to peace out promptly as an adversary that is pinned down is preferrable to one that's free to maneuver both financially and politically, for the most part. Especially if that enemy is voluntarily re-throwing themselves on the sword which is basically what happens every time somewhere after round three or four when all the good whaling opportunities have dried up. 

 

Realistically, if you want a more fluid and fast paced game - you'd need to reduce the potential costs of taking (and failing) risks + a much larger and diverse range of alliances and players + more balanced and competitive mechanics (particularly ones that are actively re-worked to keep things on an even tier). This game offers none of those things. 

If you want to succeed at a persistent nation sim, the first step is creating a nation and the second step is simply persisting long enough for every other player in the game to get bored and delete. 

 

Frankly,  I'm surprised this game has remained as interesting as it currently is,  and a lot of that credit goes to competent alliance leaders who are actively stirring the pot. The problem is this game is mechanically biased against stirring the pot, no matter how competent you think you are.

Well said Wilhem

I talked about it in another thread, I think the community has a major role in the state of the game and its future. I think we need more people and more major alliances. Ive seen it quit a few times in just this playthrough, quality people not wanting to lead alliances anymore(And sometimes not even wanting to be in the game at all) because of the community. Ive seen several talented morally straight people loose all interest in the game because of what they saw or because of what people said to them

People who have gone from loving the game 100% to ready to quit, even after investing lots of time in their alliances/nations. It happens so quick and I have tried everything I could do to help them, but the interest is just lost.

We've mostly the same alliances* for years, I think more people and more spheres is what we need ultimately(Unless sheepy really does figure out a way to fix the issues you stated), but with a literally insane and toxic OWF culture I don't think it can happen.

Edited by The God Emperor of Mankind
The Emperor!
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solution time.

Thunder Dome Weekends. Two nation's enter into war for 48 hours and battle to the death, no limits.

Think of the side bets. Think of The fraggles who would drop hundreds of nukes on one nation.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.