Jump to content
Kastor

The Future of PnW

Recommended Posts

46 minutes 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.

These things were also true in the early months and years of the game when wars were a lot shorter and more frequent.  Some of that could probably be attributed to a less mature and stable political culture.  New alliances coming to the game and being relatively competitive because "older" players hadn't been around enough to create a big gap between newer and older players.  Less established treaties and groups of allies.  And we were also lucky to have relatively even coalitions that created conditions for relatively even wars and frequent rematches.

I don't really disagree with any of your points, but there are a few competing points that I would make:

1) Alliance leaders have to keep their members entertained if they want them to keep playing and stay in their alliance.  If an alliance doesn't go to war for a long time, many of it's members might become bored and quit the game or join another alliance.

2) Both players and alliance leaders generally don't want to go to war when they don't feel prepared for war.  When they don't have enough resources to fight competitively or to stow money aside to jumpstart rebuilding afterward.  They are a lot more likely to avoid war and/or avoid agitating for war when they don't feel prepared for it.

3) In-game timeframes often sets the context for how long it takes political moves to be made and the sense of urgency alliance leaders have to act.  If you don't expect a war to happen for several months, you'll act less quickly than you would to make political moves than you would if you were expecting it in a few weeks.  If alliance leaders are used to wars lasting for many weeks or months, they don't have as much of a sense of urgency to negotiate terms quickly.

4) While I agree it's not hard to build a warchest if you know what you're doing, that timeframe has still gotten longer as the game has aged.

Ultimately it also is to a large degree a function of the age of the game itself.  The longer a game has been going, the more time people have had to build up a lead and the more invested they are in their nations and are more concerned with keeping what they've built.  People have a lot more to lose when they've been playing for years instead of just months.

Share this post


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

These things were also true in the early months and years of the game when wars were a lot shorter and more frequent.  Some of that could probably be attributed to a less mature and stable political culture.  New alliances coming to the game and being relatively competitive because "older" players hadn't been around enough to create a big gap between newer and older players.  Less established treaties and groups of allies.  And we were also lucky to have relatively even coalitions that created conditions for relatively even wars and frequent rematches.

I don't really disagree with any of your points, but there are a few competing points that I would make:

1) Alliance leaders have to keep their members entertained if they want them to keep playing and stay in their alliance.  If an alliance doesn't go to war for a long time, many of it's members might become bored and quit the game or join another alliance.

2) Both players and alliance leaders generally don't want to go to war when they don't feel prepared for war.  When they don't have enough resources to fight competitively or to stow money aside to jumpstart rebuilding afterward.  They are a lot more likely to avoid war and/or avoid agitating for war when they don't feel prepared for it.

3) In-game timeframes often sets the context for how long it takes political moves to be made and the sense of urgency alliance leaders have to act.  If you don't expect a war to happen for several months, you'll act less quickly than you would to make political moves than you would if you were expecting it in a few weeks.  If alliance leaders are used to wars lasting for many weeks or months, they don't have as much of a sense of urgency to negotiate terms quickly.

4) While I agree it's not hard to build a warchest if you know what you're doing, that timeframe has still gotten longer as the game has aged.

Ultimately it also is to a large degree a function of the age of the game itself.  The longer a game has been going, the more time people have had to build up a lead and the more invested they are in their nations and are more concerned with keeping what they've built.  People have a lot more to lose when they've been playing for years instead of just months.

On the whole the political "maturity" of this game was at least on par, if not better, back in the day than it currently is. I'd argue it was more mature by miles, but am certainly biased. The community was, in fact, smaller and less diverse but still dynamic and very interesting - in large part because a lot of the foundational communities in this game were overtly designed that way. With a strong emphasis on paperless relations and small, particular spheres of power. Things didn't get "bipolar" for quite awhile, and to reiterate a point from my previous post that owes a lot to competent alliance leaders stirring the pot. 

I will concede that the age of the game is a big factor though - at that point 16 cities was "whale tier" and I arrived late to the party. I will contest the notion though, that the longer somebody has had a nation the more "invested" they are in it, there are 20+ city players who couldn't give a shit about their nation and 5 city nations who are maticulously calculating their every purchase  because they're so invested  - a lot of that boils down to playstyle and thats why we have different alliances tbqh. 

The age of the game really only matters because it effects strategic culpability in the sense that experience, resources, and city counts all have a tendency to cluster up in tiers and as the top tier tries to run away that disparity becomes all the more noticeable. And has much more to do with politcal and individual maneuvering than stockpiles. 

Now on to your specific points: 

1.) Blue Balls is real. That's why defense slots are the most coveted resource in the game. But trust me, you don't have to fight every two months to keep your members entertained if you know what you're doing. Going much farther than that on this point is nebulous though - again it reflects a lot more on playstyle than alliance leadership and war cycles. Players that like to fight will generate a fight, but for every fighter there are 2 pixel huggers and 10 players that fall somewhere in the middle. Again, this is why we have different AAs - splinters happen for this very reason and a healthy AA shouldn't mind it so long as their core remains viable. 

I'd also like to point out this isn't really a competing point either because by the time your members should be getting bored they should have had ample time to build up a stockpile. And, generally speaking, members are more entertained when they're winning and that takes a lot of time to pull off properly.

2.) Again, this sort of boils down to playstyle but ultimately it seems you're,  by and large, ignoring morally and mission motivated AAs which will scrap with anybody win, lose, or draw to prove a point. In general though, I'll agree preparedness is an important thing most alliances consider before entering a war but it is not the deciding factor at all. Political support, opportunity, moral direction, and the best interests of the alliance (including keeping those bored members entertained) as a whole are much more important considerations in general. And to reiterate: building a war chest just isn't that difficult if you know what you are doing.

3.) Definitely more a symptom than the cause. But I'll add: if you're acting out of a sense of urgency you are probably just a tad too late. 😛

4.) The timeframe has gotten longer more by the scale and size of the current alliances and lack of diversity (clustering) than the age of the game, imo. Anybody who's been around more than half a year should be adequately prepared and that preparedness should roll over from war to war and improve. If you aren't keeping up it's because you're expanding the AA too quickly or lack any semblence of discipline.

Though i will note here that it is easier to grow and prepare an AA when you already have an established core of developed nations and haven't recently lost a war. Which is why it just sucks to be a micro, or even a less established AA, most of the time - but when have either instigated a largescale conflict, really? Most micros, recently fought, and newer AAs operate almost exclusively in the periphery.

Again, I can't necessarily fault players or alliance leaders - the mechanics are biased against stirring the pot as I said before. My main disagreement with you is that something as simple as stockpiles are the main culprit of extended peacetime and warring cycles - it just isn't true. There is too much extra going on to boil things down to that level of simplicity. 

 

Edited by Wilhelm the Demented
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game doesn't have a future.

It's why I went into vacation mode for 6 months and just came back last night.

Then again, most games don't have a future. Video games in general are becoming incredibly more toxic while toxic players get away with labeling non-toxic players as toxic.

The biggest problem is games take up so much time from players' lives that it's getting to the point that they literally can't support themselves in real life unless they're spoiled brats.

Therefore, decent people don't play games, and indecent people are all that's left. Indecent toxicity is resulting in worse and worse games getting made, and even the toxic players don't want to play them anymore.

Remember boys and girls, if you're constantly making fun of others, then you eventually won't have anything fun to do. The people you make fun of will go away, and all the people who make fun of others won't have anything creative to offer.

Edited by Dubayoo
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


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

2.) Again, this sort of boils down to playstyle but ultimately it seems you're,  by and large, ignoring morally and mission motivated AAs which will scrap with anybody win, lose, or draw to prove a point. In general though, I'll agree preparedness is an important thing most alliances consider before entering a war but it is not the deciding factor at all. Political support, opportunity, moral direction, and the best interests of the alliance (including keeping those bored members entertained) as a whole are much more important considerations in general. And to reiterate: building a war chest just isn't that difficult if you know what you are doing.

Morality shouldn't exist in a game like this.

People should just have a sense of friendly competition like playing basketball with your friends after school. The fun of the game comes from playing to win.

The only difference is that once you win, you're supposed to take on bigger and bigger challenges since winners get a long-term advantage. It's not like when you play basketball, every game resets the score from zero.

TKR's failure was it bit off way more than it could chew. It was ahead, but it wasn't that far ahead. How do you end up at war with your parent alliance, parent's rival, and lose your own closest allies?

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond the game, yea, it's moral.

Within the game, it's not.

It's like when you sit down to play Risk with your friends.

Everyone's trying to conquer the world. Do you declare a casus belli to do so? No. You just do it...

...but when someone wins, you say gg and move on.

Edited by Dubayoo
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Beyond the game, yea, it's moral.

Within the game, it's not.

It's like when you sit down to play Risk with your friends.

Everyone's trying to conquer the world. Do you declare a casus belli to do so? No. You just do it...

...but when someone wins, you say gg and move on.

That isn't the same thing though; P&W is a persistent game that cannot, and should not be comprehensively conquered. When someone wins a non-persistent game, then there's somewhere to move on to, the game goes back in the box to be played anew later on. In this game, if someone conquered the world... the game would be won, and therefore over, but we couldn't move on within the game.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear to god I thought Inst was a Dubayoo multi or reroll for the longest time.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, if you're considering the basis of the game, it's based on beating the shit out of people and making them cry. That's what keeps people together: a hunger for power, a need for identity and community, etc. Ironically, if we're talking about "political maturity" in an Azaghul or Wihelm sense, that means a level of cynicism about the game itself, that the game is what it is and that players are generally asshats.

 

I suppose I haven't made it obvious, but this is mechanically-based, not necessarily the fault of the players. The game is PvP-centric, and the PvP level is not "sportsman"-like but rather, giving the time involved for organization building, military preparation, and political maneuvering, bitter. We've discussed people who have in the past spent 10 hours a day on this game, there's the NPO-er who admitted to having run like near 24 hour ops in another game, and so on. Making these people "lose" is not that different from snatching candy from a baby and crushing it underneath your heels.

 

====

 

But if you're here, you're either in denial or you've accepted the toxicity to an extent. The most toxic players and alliances can, of course, be rolled because it's always entertaining to knock out the biggest bullies, but there's always going to be this level of toxicity intrinsic in the mechanics.

 

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

I swear to god I thought Inst was a Dubayoo multi or reroll for the longest time.

Dubayoo never stated his desire to throw a convention for the players of one such game, lock the doors, and set the hall on hire.

 

===

 

Of course, if you want to point out as to why the game has no future, first, that's too deterministic. Alex could always step in and make radical reforms for game health that actually work. Then again, pigs could fly.

 

But pragmatically, the problem is that the active player count is relatively stagnant, in-game, you're seeing massive consolidation in various tiers, SynDIQ just headed off an attempt by TKR-sphere to impose long-term hegemony through upper-tier control, and even if TKR loses, Syndisphere/Rosesphere will simply take TKR's place.

 

The toxicity has some effect on game health, but is not deterministic in itself. When the game was at its most toxic, when Paragon and Covenant were being swatted like flies, when alliances moved quickly to obliterate any sign of weakness, the game was actually growing. Put another way, toxicity in one language is dynamic in another.

Edited by A Boy Named Crow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War length are in general determined by set of goals the agressors went out to achieve [given the agressor wins] and the amount of damage the defending AA thinks is good enough for the agressors to teach a lesson [given the defending AA wins].

Now as for orbis wide scale a war that is coming as a total surprise to the defending one are very low [probably need to go far back to silent war but still it was obvious back then that a war is coming only the sides were not clear enough]. So having said that we can safely assume that even before the war begins both sides have sort of an idea about what they are trying to achieve. Oh by the way keep those meme terms out of discussion they are more for fun rather than anything else. 

Now coming to the main topic why the war length is increasing?

It's simple previously alliances had 3/4  nations in 20-25 city range whom they can rely on to generate revenue even when a massive war is going on now top tiers are in the region of 30+ cities, But still the main fight occurs in the 13-18 city level which is more or less same as earlier case. So the thing is both side gets enough fuel to fight out wars in the middle tier than it was before, And in addition to that what happens at the end of the war is when a side knows that they can't win they simply start nuking now in the past when whales are rolled and started nuking they would hit cities of say 13-15 level with some 1.2k-1.5k infra so nukes doesn't mattered much but again now the time has changed when you are ZIed and ZMed and you nuke a 20 city folk with 2k-2.5k infra per city you actually start making positive damage and if you have a bank to guarantee your rebuild then keep on nuking is a better term than agreeing to reps (btw any AA gave out more than 1bn reps till now? just asking i wasn't around for some time)  or some term that hurts your "Ego".

 

Now what are my personal opinions?

I think war length totally depends on your target set . if you can achieve your target after 2 round it's best to peace out , if you need to fight for 1 year to get your terms so be it.

And as a concluding remark I would say I strongly believe all top AA leaders thinks about their own members first (unless he/she is a stupid) , If he/she feels that their alliance is loosing activity level , good members due their own egoistic issues they will and must peace out ASAP. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue is the lack of improvement within the game, more so the fighting.

Wars would not last as long and would happen more often if it was not solely based on how many nations an alliance has, I am not great at explaining my thoughts sorry for anyone who has a hard time understanding what I'm trying to say now.

You all want to win wars but how many of you want it to be based on an even footings, I look forward to a time where a nation with 5,000 land kills five times more planes than a nation with 1,000 land simply as the attacking planes has a lot more land to cover therefore has a higher risk of dying, War where your spies can tell you where improvements are, only one for each spy attack, and you can order your planes and missiles to hit that target if you so wish, but this is not to say they will be able to do so but a chance is all you need to knock out power. and please for the love of GOD give us a project of Anti aircraft guns that give us a chance to shot planes down even if we have no air force, in most wars around the world you will find more planes are hit from stingers and alike than other planes

Also if you have 40 improvements and go down to 250 infra all those improvements should run at 50%.

Right now the bigger alliances have billions all over the place even in banks that are controlled by those they are at war with, rebuilding should never be an issue, but when someone has no infra, that should be it for them, they shouldn't be able to buy 50,000 men with a pop of 20,000 and so on, make it a little more real and wars will be shorter, more enjoyable and we will see far better trade prices too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

That isn't the same thing though; P&W is a persistent game that cannot, and should not be comprehensively conquered. When someone wins a non-persistent game, then there's somewhere to move on to, the game goes back in the box to be played anew later on. In this game, if someone conquered the world... the game would be won, and therefore over, but we couldn't move on within the game.

If anything, it should be the exact opposite.

Because it's a persistent game, it should be regularly conquered nonstop. The issue in this game should be neverending wars that constantly keep people pinned down, not wars that literally take several months to build up to while the top tier becomes unreachable.

19 hours ago, Buorhann said:

I swear to god I thought Inst was a Dubayoo multi or reroll for the longest time.

I honestly don't understand how people are ever motivated to multiaccount. I get the idea on a rational basis to cheat, but that turns the game into work which isn't fun.

It's not like when people commit identity fraud IRL to hack people's bank accounts for a windfall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

I mean, if you're considering the basis of the game, it's based on beating the shit out of people and making them cry. That's what keeps people together: a hunger for power, a need for identity and community, etc. Ironically, if we're talking about "political maturity" in an Azaghul or Wihelm sense, that means a level of cynicism about the game itself, that the game is what it is and that players are generally asshats.

 

I suppose I haven't made it obvious, but this is mechanically-based, not necessarily the fault of the players. The game is PvP-centric, and the PvP level is not "sportsman"-like but rather, giving the time involved for organization building, military preparation, and political maneuvering, bitter. We've discussed people who have in the past spent 10 hours a day on this game, there's the NPO-er who admitted to having run like near 24 hour ops in another game, and so on. Making these people "lose" is not that different from snatching candy from a baby and crushing it underneath your heels.

 

====

 

But if you're here, you're either in denial or you've accepted the toxicity to an extent. The most toxic players and alliances can, of course, be rolled because it's always entertaining to knock out the biggest bullies, but there's always going to be this level of toxicity intrinsic in the mechanics.

 

Dubayoo never stated his desire to throw a convention for the players of one such game, lock the doors, and set the hall on hire.

 

===

 

Of course, if you want to point out as to why the game has no future, first, that's too deterministic. Alex could always step in and make radical reforms for game health that actually work. Then again, pigs could fly.

 

But pragmatically, the problem is that the active player count is relatively stagnant, in-game, you're seeing massive consolidation in various tiers, SynDIQ just headed off an attempt by TKR-sphere to impose long-term hegemony through upper-tier control, and even if TKR loses, Syndisphere/Rosesphere will simply take TKR's place.

 

The toxicity has some effect on game health, but is not deterministic in itself. When the game was at its most toxic, when Paragon and Covenant were being swatted like flies, when alliances moved quickly to obliterate any sign of weakness, the game was actually growing. Put another way, toxicity in one language is dynamic in another.

This isn't true though. People spend way more time doing nothing than actually fighting wars. If the goal was to win wars, then people would literally be declaring war on each other all hours of the day. Politics should be in a post-apocalyptic mindset of setting up a roaming gang that constantly runs over everything in its path.

The idea of winning to make others cry isn't friendly competition either. If anything, players with that mindset should be deliberately targeted since they're discouraging others from taking initiative. When you get rid of the sadists, you'll end up with more wars from people realizing the game shouldn't be taken so seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purely basing this on what I've seen on the forums, and maybe I'm being naive in thinking like this but I think a big reason for the slow peace process was the initial trolling of TKR in the negotiation channel, the "war heroes" thing. Making a toxic negotiation environment is a great way to put up a roadblock in talks, and looking at the difference between the original terms and the revised terms as well as the course of the war after the initial talks (no notable improvement in TKR sphere position and the hit on TFP) I think I'd be correct in saying TKR didn't stall talks purely for strategic reasons, so it must've been something else. Hence why I say it was the approach to talks.

Call them stupid, incompetent or whatever, I think not putting up for shit talk is more or less in line with TKR's culture and the will of their memberhsip. If Coalition A was interested in ending the war in December then a better approach would've been to pry further into TKR's objections with an open mind rather than laugh them out.

Edited by Vack
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Vack said:

Purely basing this on what I've seen on the forums, and maybe I'm being naive in thinking like this but I think a big reason for the slow peace process was the initial trolling of TKR in the negotiation channel, the "war heroes" thing. Making a toxic negotiation environment is a great way to put up a roadblock in talks, and looking at the difference between the original terms and the revised terms as well as the course of the war after the initial talks (no notable improvement in TKR sphere position and the hit on TFP) I think I'd be correct in saying TKR didn't stall talks purely for strategic reasons, so it must've been something else. Hence why I say it was the approach to talks.

Call them stupid, incompet or whatever, I think not putting up for shit talk is more or less in line with TKR's culture and the will of their memberhsip. If Coalition A was interested in ending the war in December then a better approach would've been to pry further into TKR's objections with an open mind rather than laugh them out.

SRD started the trolling, and really set the tone for what peace talks would be. Throughout the entire treaty talks it was apparent that EMC didn't have any leverage, but you might have thought they were winning the war based on the way they talked. Coalition A was ambivalent to ending the war in December, they gave the terms then, and if peace was signed it was signed, if not oh well. As you can see there was no real change in what they signed from what was originally given to them. These factors all tied into the trolling they received, since frankly, they deserved to be trolled based on their behavior.

Edited by The Mad Titan

Share this post


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

Purely basing this on what I've seen on the forums, and maybe I'm being naive in thinking like this but I think a big reason for the slow peace process was the initial trolling of TKR in the negotiation channel, the "war heroes" thing. Making a toxic negotiation environment is a great way to put up a roadblock in talks, and looking at the difference between the original terms and the revised terms as well as the course of the war after the initial talks (no notable improvement in TKR sphere position and the hit on TFP) I think I'd be correct in saying TKR didn't stall talks purely for strategic reasons, so it must've been something else. Hence why I say it was the approach to talks.

 Call them stupid, incompet or whatever, I think not putting up for shit talk is more or less in line with TKR's culture and the will of their memberhsip. If Coalition A was interested in ending the war in December then a better approach would've been to pry further into TKR's objections with an open mind rather than laugh them out.

I did get claims that elements in SynDIQ also wanted a long war. They needed to attrit TKR-sphere down, in terms of both members and warchest, so that they wouldn't need to launch a rehit. TKR-sphere calling it quits early would have been antithetical to their political aims.

Edited by A Boy Named Crow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Mad Titan said:

SRD started the trolling, and really set the tone for what peace talks would be. Throughout the entire treaty talks it was apparent that EMC didn't have any leverage, but you might have thought they were winning the war based on the way they talked. Coalition A was ambivalent to ending the war in December, they gave the terms then, and if peace was signed it was signed, if not oh well. As you can see there was no real change in what they signed from what was originally given to them. These factors all tied into the trolling they received, since frankly, they deserved to be trolled based on their behavior.

I wouldn't overlook the difference between what was initially proposed and what ended up being signed. EMC went out of their way to aruge for a change in wording that ammounts to little more than semantic difference, but it was clearly important to them otherwise they'd have accepted first time. As far as who shot first in the talks, I only know what I've read and the only publically discussed talks-related issue that I can recall having been commented on by both parties was that a joke copy of the treaty was made to troll EMC and they didn't show up to arranged talks for a while after that. If you shared the logs so that the rest of the game could draw their own conclusions it would clear the air a bit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I wouldn't overlook the difference between what was initially proposed and what ended up being signed. EMC went out of their way to aruge for a change in wording that ammounts to little more than semantic difference, but it was clearly important to them otherwise they'd have accepted first time. As far as who shot first in the talks, I only know what I've read and the only publically discussed talks-related issue that I can recall having been commented on by both parties was that a joke copy of the treaty was made to troll EMC and they didn't show up to arranged talks for a while after that. If you shared the logs so that the rest of the game could draw their own conclusions it would clear the air a bit.

Well they needed it changed because they backed themselves into a corner. When you tell your members "we will never accept the terms", what are you going to do when you actually have to accept the terms? Thus changing wording helps the cognitive dissonance of folding and having all the initial terms be accepted and being able to tell their members that holding out was worth it.
I personally don't have anything against sharing the logs, but that's not a unilateral decision on my part. However, this is the very first thing said during the first peace discussions:

SRD 11/18/2018
Finally cracked 200k infra damage done, with my goal met, we can now end the war
i dont know what the hold up here is tho, white peace for everyone, and we let IQ go tear a path of terror thru all of orbis.

So yea that's the tone it started off with. The no-show/fake treaty is being conflated a little bit. Essentially they were arguing to extensive lengths about how being called a war dodger is derogatory blah blah blah till we finally just put forth the exact same term with every instance of war dodger replaced with war-hero. It was more to highlight how the wording was irrelevant as long as the effect is the same, which it is looking at the first terms and the current ones. The no-show incident needs a little context. Essentially the talks had a repeating cycle. We would meet, they would try to to talk down the terms, we'd say no. They'd walk away for times that would get shorter and shorter each time. However one time they set up a meeting time and no-showed their own meeting, and then trolled our side when we asked if it was still on. 

Edited by The Mad Titan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Mad Titan said:

However one time they set up a meeting time and no-showed their own meeting, and then trolled our side when we asked if it was still on. 

We "no-showed" a meeting right after everyone on both sides had all agreed to running talks, the entire point of which was not to have set meeting times since those were getting hard to stick to as the holidays drew closer and were always difficult for the Europeans to make. Stop trying to act like we intentionally tried to stand you up when it was evidently nothing more than a misunderstanding on both sides. Also, you didn't ask if it was still on, you pinged us and accused us of walking away again.

You should listen to Vack a little more, he has a much better understanding on the situation from our perspective than you've ever displayed. We've literally said as much multiple times on the OWF, the peace talks channel, and in private discussions with some of you but you chose to ignore everything we said in favor of the narratives you pushed on us for each of those issues. If dragging on the war was your goal, that's fine, you definitely succeeded in doing so and gave us fuel to keep fighting. I don't believe it was though, given the reaction of several alliance leaders within your coalition, yourself included, when we decided we didn't want to deal with your nonsense and left.

Edited by Nizam Adrienne
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Mad Titan said:

SRD 11/18/2018
Finally cracked 200k infra damage done, with my goal met, we can now end the war
i dont know what the hold up here is tho, white peace for everyone, and we let IQ go tear a path of terror thru all of orbis

Bruh. Do you even Orbis? This is the weakest troll effort of all time. I would however love to see logs of other instances. I'm personally not without experience in the whole "TKR is stubborn as frick" realm, because TKR is stubborn as frick. But if you're gonna spin SRD being SRD-lite as trolling, you're gonna run into issues with that narrative. And, per the universally accepted stat tracker, Grumpy did in fact do very well for themselves. It's obnoxious as frick, but it's not false.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason wars are longer has nothing to do with the changing playerbase. The war system was changed.

The old system let you just sit on and cycle people repeatedly with air strikes over and over for 5 days, and then immediately sub someone in to hit once the war expired, there wasn't much of a way to comeback. Which meant once people were down, they were out, and surrendering was rational as no amount of pride would let you do more damage to your foes.

Now its almost impossible to be pinned down permanently. So now wars are only really ended when one side gives out or runs out of resources. You can continue to fight and do damage to your opponent indefinitely. This means things like what terms are presented make far more of an impact in how long the war goes. Before if you asked for 1bn in reps, they had to pay it or suffer it and more in damages, with no path for recourse.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, if you don’t want long wars - pay attention to what terms you’re trying to press.

Its why we (TGH/KT) kept the war going against TKR group and why TKR group kept the war going against SyndIQ coalition.

Once I saw how big that list was (Granted half of it was goofy stuff), I knew it wouldn’t be a short war.

Not that it’s bad to have long wars, but if your expectation is to have a short one - well, the terms of the war is generally the best part to be mindful of.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Mad Titan said:

SRD started the trolling, and really set the tone for what peace talks would be. Throughout the entire treaty talks it was apparent that EMC didn't have any leverage, but you might have thought they were winning the war based on the way they talked. Coalition A was ambivalent to ending the war in December, they gave the terms then, and if peace was signed it was signed, if not oh well. As you can see there was no real change in what they signed from what was originally given to them. These factors all tied into the trolling they received, since frankly, they deserved to be trolled based on their behavior.

Your peace requirements where the real troll, but its never Titan's fault, just remember that guys.

But yes, that quote was from me, because at that point I was under the obviously false impression that the war had been fought with pretty good will, with no real hate on our part.  Since we should have been taken down years ago, and I had no issues losing a war, its why you probably the least amount of crying from the losing side on the OWF, probably ever.   I am sad how Titan didn't post the part where he took offense over that nothing statement, and I apologized right afterwards.

All this talk about being dynamic, I assumed we would just call it a day and let the dynamism kick off. Instead a bunch of you feeling victory for the first time, and knowing you had us, felt the need to try to violate our sovereignty, and caused the war to drag out for another 2.5 months.  My goal going into that war was that I knew we were going to lose, but we would do as much damage as possible and take a look at how other alliances performed and see who could be potential future allies.  I guess the nice thing about this war was before it kicked off I didn't really view anyone as a true enemy, but I got some now!

BTW when are we going to start being dynamic?

Edited by Sweeeeet Ronny D
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I am sad how Titan didn't post the part where he took offense over that nothing statement, and I apologized right afterwards.

Well... you could post the log I guess :P maybe we will get the entire log one post a time like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, can we stuff the peace term arguments back into the "Global Peace Term" thread? That thread needs to hit 40 pages. It's silly, neither side will admit to stalling, so you both are going to end up accusing each other of the act. In reality, both sides were stalling, what with the stop-and-go peace negotiations and a peace negotiation that wasn't actually a "negotiation" since the terms were unconditional. I mean, if the point is to go roll IQ post-war, I'm saving up banked cash for that, but I'm wondering how drunk I'll have to be to jump in the next go-around.

Edited by A Boy Named Crow

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.