Prefontaine Preponderance Ponderings

[Queen M II]

18 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

 

tl;dr Your allies don't have to be your friends only. Your foes don't have to be enemies. Hold your leadership to make things happen, or if you're leadership take a chance. We hold onto political grudges too long. Grudges make the game, but like treaties you should keep the same ones for too long. 

This may have been said or implied elsewhere, but there are a lot of missed opportunities—specifically, regarding allyship and grudges—due to a basic lack of communication, which then gives way to a lack of trust. There have been several instances where allied govs go into peace talks with the opposition and find out their opposition are more reasonable or more appealing to work with in the future than their current allies (or their ally’s ally). Lots of pillow talk and plans for a future can be made after a bed is made and the dust is settled. Wars can turn allies into enemies and vice versa, but not being honest and trustworthy will forever be a primary hurdle. Too much backstabbing and lying makes everything infinitely more difficult than it should be.

[Sir Scarfalot]

4 hours ago, Malleator said:

War in this game is inadvisable if one seeks purely national success and growth.

War IS national success. Peace being anything other than preparation for war is stagnation. Not competing means you're not playing a game, you're playing with a toy.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot

[Leftbehind]

4 hours ago, Malleator said:

Correct, one doesn't need to break even on investments before going to war, but it's certainly the correct move. If ones resources are currently in the form of cities and infrastructure, all those resources aren't in a liquid form or in an engagement ready form and therefore, war wouldn't be efficient or the best course of action for continued unfettered success.

But in my eyes, that's not the real core issue. There issue here is that there's not much point to war beyond growth disruption. This isn't a zero sum game, the complete destruction of one's opponents is impossible through ingame mechanics, and war is often extremely costly for everyone involved with little to no gain. The only reason to go to war is for a meta reason of boredom or the desire to temporarily disrupt an opponent's growth at the cost of one's own growth. War in this game is inadvisable if one seeks purely national success and growth.

And really, if what I was typing in this post and in my previous post wasn't true, then why are pacts made? Why aren't we all at war 24/7?
You guys are trying to fruitlessly kick against the most efficient emergent gameplay and why? Because it doesn't suit you?
If it doesn't suit you, declare war on whom ever you please right now, cause another global war directly solely at you, and maybe then you'll be taught why what's currently happening is the most efficient form of long term success in game and in war.

 

You do realize that there is no end goal. No finish line in this game. An individual's success isn't judged by the infrastructure or land they have but by their contribution to the greater game. A player can be less than 5 cities and be more impactful than the mightiest whale. 

This is why Roq, Leo, Partisan and others are viewed as successful. By simply putting your own personal growth ahead of the game itself proves you and people like minded do not understand the game but simply exist as tools. It is that poor playing style that creates political stagnation and eventually, death. 

[WISD0MTREE]

18 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

came back for one last hurrah.

Can you even call it a last hurrah without a pipe bomb?

 

[naTia]

4 hours ago, Malleator said:

Correct, one doesn't need to break even on investments before going to war, but it's certainly the correct move. If ones resources are currently in the form of cities and infrastructure, all those resources aren't in a liquid form or in an engagement ready form and therefore, war wouldn't be efficient or the best course of action for continued unfettered success.

But in my eyes, that's not the real core issue. There issue here is that there's not much point to war beyond growth disruption. This isn't a zero sum game, the complete destruction of one's opponents is impossible through ingame mechanics, and war is often extremely costly for everyone involved with little to no gain. The only reason to go to war is for a meta reason of boredom or the desire to temporarily disrupt an opponent's growth at the cost of one's own growth. War in this game is inadvisable if one seeks purely national success and growth.

And really, if what I was typing in this post and in my previous post wasn't true, then why are pacts made? Why aren't we all at war 24/7?
You guys are trying to fruitlessly kick against the most efficient emergent gameplay and why? Because it doesn't suit you?
If it doesn't suit you, declare war on whom ever you please right now, cause another global war directly solely at you, and maybe then you'll be taught why what's currently happening is the most efficient form of long term success in game and in war.

 

I think what you have stated indicates an understanding of (and subsequently the motivations behind) becoming the largest nation/alliance in the game. It is clear to me, and I'm sure many others, that the leaderboards, nation score, alliance score, and such representations of progress are benefited by an aversion to war. What you are getting flak for is not about whether or not it is wise to invoke large alliance wars, but rather whether or not it is fun and worthy of our collective time.

 

What this post represents, at least to me, is a plea to make this game less about preservation and political stagnation and more about friendly, interactive competition. What I believe Pre is asking for is a change of heart regarding the culture and mindset of the game. Thus, I believe, it is impossible to try to determine what would be best for one's nation and simultaneously best for themselves. While it may seem the most obvious to find nation score paramount to personal enjoyment, I implore you to reconsider.

 

I understand that you need to build a nation to play the game, and that sometimes the downtime isn't too exciting, but when I think back on my time spent in this game, I can barely recall my decisions in building my cities. I can barely recall how I came to max production or commerce. I can barely recall what I was thinking as I waited for the hour to change. I especially don't remember the nitpicky mechanics of the game, but what I can recall are the war times. I remember the lead up. I remember the declarations. I remember feeling strong emotions whenever I saw my enemy's stupid little icon. I remember trying to outfight in the game and outwit in the forums. OWF fights were petty, and sometimes they weren't so light-hearted, but goddamn were they fun. I remember staying up until 4 AM because @$%&ing Keegoz wanted to catch our enemy off-guard. I remember hating his guts for it, but respecting the play. Even more importantly I remember what I did in those times to help those around me. I remember how desperate I was to make a difference in a war; all the time forgetting that all that mattered was I had someone's back. Then, when tensions fell and everyone's nations were destroyed, I remember playing video games with those I called my enemy just hours previously. Stupid Pfeiffer and his pesky clan of Dio-lovers, but damn did he put up a fight in Rust. To me, that is what makes this game.

 

What I am trying to ask of you, and anyone, is to find meaning in this game outside of the score of your nation. I think we may find ourselves having more fun than we realized we might.

[Auctor]

NPO has always been open to a serious overature that shakes the previous dynamic up. That's how why we jumped at the shot to join IQ upon formation.

[Prefontaine]

2 hours ago, Nao said:

I think what you have stated indicates an understanding of (and subsequently the motivations behind) becoming the largest nation/alliance in the game. It is clear to me, and I'm sure many others, that the leaderboards, nation score, alliance score, and such representations of progress are benefited by an aversion to war. What you are getting flak for is not about whether or not it is wise to invoke large alliance wars, but rather whether or not it is fun and worthy of our collective time.

 

What this post represents, at least to me, is a plea to make this game less about preservation and political stagnation and more about friendly, interactive competition. What I believe Pre is asking for is a change of heart regarding the culture and mindset of the game. Thus, I believe, it is impossible to try to determine what would be best for one's nation and simultaneously best for themselves. While it may seem the most obvious to find nation score paramount to personal enjoyment, I implore you to reconsider.

 

I understand that you need to build a nation to play the game, and that sometimes the downtime isn't too exciting, but when I think back on my time spent in this game, I can barely recall my decisions in building my cities. I can barely recall how I came to max production or commerce. I can barely recall what I was thinking as I waited for the hour to change. I especially don't remember the nitpicky mechanics of the game, but what I can recall are the war times. I remember the lead up. I remember the declarations. I remember feeling strong emotions whenever I saw my enemy's stupid little icon. I remember trying to outfight in the game and outwit in the forums. OWF fights were petty, and sometimes they weren't so light-hearted, but goddamn were they fun. I remember staying up until 4 AM because @$%&ing Keegoz wanted to catch our enemy off-guard. I remember hating his guts for it, but respecting the play. Even more importantly I remember what I did in those times to help those around me. I remember how desperate I was to make a difference in a war; all the time forgetting that all that mattered was I had someone's back. Then, when tensions fell and everyone's nations were destroyed, I remember playing video games with those I called my enemy just hours previously. Stupid Pfeiffer and his pesky clan of Dio-lovers, but damn did he put up a fight in Rust. To me, that is what makes this game.

 

What I am trying to ask of you, and anyone, is to find meaning in this game outside of the score of your nation. I think we may find ourselves having more fun than we realized we might.

Well said. 

[Mikey]

People just need to focus on relative, rather than absolute growth. If your goal is to be #1 and not to have a specific, ever increasing city count, then suddenly war becomes a perfectly valid, and indeed necessary, mechanism of achieving that. Even leaderboard chasers could focus more on beating down people near them in the rankings vs treating everything as a PvE grindfest. Of course, the latter is less risky, especially for entrenched leaders, so it doesn't happen.

On another note, somewhere in this thread (can't remember now), it was suggested that betraying your friends for the sake of dynamism is bad and will result in nobody willing to work with you. I agree completely. But fighting people you get along with != betrayal. Nobody is saying you need to string a friend along and stab them in the back (a la tenages plot against Rose) to be dynamic. Having a clean break with people you once allied with, and treating them as new competitors to take down, is not betrayal.

The problem is the entrenched idea that you shouldn't 'give up your friends.' I agree, if you consider someone a friend you should be there when they need you. But facing a war in an online browser game isn't them needing you. Competing against one another in said game isn't giving up the friendship. Its not an attitude we see  outside nation sims either, else no group could ever play Risk or Monopoly. Hell the first people I attack in any online game are usually the people I know. In the past we used to have a lot of atwar games to kill time outside PW, and without fail the closest friends would be at each others throats within the first few turns. People here seem to have a hard time separating themselves from their in-game personas. We're not nation leaders, the actions taken purely in game are not done by us IRL against others, but by our pieces on the game board. But because there isn't a game client with graphics, we forget that. The biggest hurdle to having a Hyper Dynamic TM environment is the pervasive notion that OOC friends = in-game allies.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Mikey

[Micchan]

14 hours ago, Auctor said:

NPO has always been open to a serious overature that shakes the previous dynamic up.

Leave IQ and sign TKR

[Auctor]

1 hour ago, Micchan said:

Leave IQ and sign TKR

 

 

 

 

se·ri·ous

/ˈsirēəs/

adjective

adjective: serious

1. 1.

   (of a subject, state, or activity) demanding careful consideration or application.

   "marriage is a serious matter"

   synonyms:

   important, significant, consequential, of consequence, momentous, of moment, key, grave, weighty, far-reaching, major; More

   antonyms:

   trivial, unimportant, superficial

   • (of a person) solemn or thoughtful in character or manner.

     "her face grew serious"

     synonyms:

     solemn, earnest, grave, sober, somber, unsmiling, poker-faced, stern, grim, dour, humorless, stony-faced; More

     antonyms:

     lighthearted, cheerful, jovial

   • (of thought or discussion) careful or profound.

     "we give serious consideration to safety recommendations"
   • (of music, literature, or other art forms) requiring deep reflection and inviting a considered response.

     "he bridges the gap between serious and popular music"

     synonyms:

     intellectual, highbrow, heavyweight, deep, profound, literary, learned, scholarly, cultured; More

     antonyms:

     light, lowbrow, populist

2. 2.

   acting or speaking sincerely and in earnest, rather than in a joking or halfhearted manner.

   "actors who are serious about their work"

   synonyms:

   in earnest, earnest, sincere, wholehearted, genuine, meaning what one says; More

   antonyms:

   uncommitted, halfhearted, flippant

3. 3.

   significant or worrying because of possible danger or risk; not slight or negligible.

   "she escaped serious injury"

   synonyms:

   severe, grave, bad, critical, acute, alarming, worrying, grievous, dreadful, terrible, dire, extreme, dangerous, perilous, precarious;  archaicparlous "four of the victims received serious injuries"

   antonyms:

   minor, negligible

4. 4.

   INFORMAL

   substantial in terms of size, number, or quality.

   "he suddenly had serious money to spend"

   synonyms:

   considerable, sizeable, substantial, appreciable, significant; More

   antonyms:

   paltry, trifling

Origin

[Khai Jäger]

On 3/30/2019 at 6:12 AM, Prefontaine said:

Not sure it's quite "putting your alliance first" when making a move like that, unless you're alliance favors risks and war. But I agree that reaching across isles is the way to go. Unexpected moves often produce more interesting results.

 

Alliances can get comfortable, it's easier to keep old allies around versus going out to try something new. 

From my point of view, you are putting your alliance first. You as the leader would be taking the initiative to stay ahead of the political game. Therefore putting your alliance in a superior position than previously. Your example of Partisan portraits this idea perfectly, and if his plan had followed through the game would be very different than it is now. 

[Micchan]

@Auctor I'm very serious, drop everything including protectorates, we do the same, t$ does the same, them we create a bloc with our 3 alliances and everyone will go crazy thinking about our possible secret treaties

[Auctor]

42 minutes ago, Micchan said:

@Auctor I'm very serious, drop everything including protectorates, we do the same, t$ does the same, them we create a bloc with our 3 alliances and everyone will go crazy thinking about our possible secret treaties

So TKR doesn't want to do anything different going forward, huh?

[Micchan]

2 hours ago, Auctor said:

So TKR doesn't want to do anything different going forward, huh?

Pre said it's good for the game to chnge allies, maybe by leaving friends for enemies, for all my time in TKR your alliance was the #1 rival so I can't think a more shocking move than a TKR-NPO MDP

I just give a idea, then it's up to leaders and FA do treaties

[The Mad Titan]

2 hours ago, Micchan said:

 more shocking move than a TKR-NPO MDP

Would be pretty shocking considering how that worked out for NPO the first time around.

[Sketchy]

1 hour ago, The Mad Titan said:

Would be pretty shocking considering how that worked out for NPO the first time around.

Because nothing says dynamic like 3 year old grudges amirite lol

[katashimon13]

On 3/30/2019 at 6:39 AM, Prefontaine said:

You could have given Syndicate v Pantheon XD

im down

rawr

[丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™]

17 hours ago, The Mad Titan said:

Would be pretty shocking considering how that worked out for NPO the first time around.

The good ol' days.

Also, my goal is to always be against the crowd and the crowd wants IQ and consolidation gone

So I for one, will do the opposite of Pre's post.

That's is true dynamism. 

[Prefontaine]

9 hours ago, ?ϟħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™? said:

So I for one, will do the opposite of Pre's post.

Guess I'll have to leak those incriminating screen shots I have of you that kept you from leaking TEst based plans.

[Artifex]

The amount of hugboxing present currently and hostile reactions to honest differing opinions is staggering.

Do you guys want an actual honest discussion on this topic, or do you guys just want to downboat what makes you feel bad?

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

54 minutes ago, Malleator said:

The amount of hugboxing present currently and hostile reactions to honest differing opinions is staggering.

Do you guys want an actual honest discussion on this topic, or do you guys just want to downboat what makes you feel bad?

Another person who complains about being down voted and says it's cause they made everyone feel bad.

No, we downvoted you because we think you are wrong, stupid, or both. It's that simple. You get hostile reactions because you sound like a pixel hugger. The community typically does not like people described as pixel huggers.

It's not rocket science. If you expected any other reaction you really are stupid, everything was entirely predictable.

I just hope you don't corrupt the rest of NPO.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Akuryo

[Prefontaine]

53 minutes ago, Malleator said:

The amount of hugboxing present currently and hostile reactions to honest differing opinions is staggering.

Do you guys want an actual honest discussion on this topic, or do you guys just want to downboat what makes you feel bad?

Just because it's your opinion getting disliked, doesn't mean everyone's ganging up on you. You're opinion could just be rubbish. You can't really complain about people not wanting an honest discussion when you're against people not liking what you have to say. 

 

I'll give you some honesty. Your first post in this thread greatly missed the purpose of this thread. Your point about investments taking time refers to nation building. Infra takes x amount of days to yield a positive net profit, sure. But you're always growing when you're not fighting so thus you've always got profit to to maximize thus you should never fight according to your logic. Then you pivot towards alliances having long term agreements, which is more directed at treaty longevity, which is on point for this thread. Long term treaties don't net you much of anything honestly. Is a 3 year treaty more likely to burn their pixels for you over a 2 week treaty? Depends on who you ask. You can always find different allies, so that mentality that you need to keep a treaty for an exceedingly long time is extremely flawed. Wasn't Knightsfall NPOs first true victory in a war? It happened by working with people you don't normally work with. IE New treaties, even though it was a simple 1-war agreement. 

Your second post I'm not going to break down because that's more of a you v Sketchy thing, and your standpoint, as Buorhann briefly commented on simply highlights the ideological differences between you two. I will say if you don't understand the point war in these games, that probably is why you're missing the point of this thread.

[Guest Epi]

4

Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi

[Auctor]

The war cycle doesn't actually affect NPO's growth in quite the way seemingly being described. If anything, longer peaces makes the emphasis saving larger war chests since we know that the war itself will have to be a knock down drag out affair to really reset the war cycle and give us time and space to invest.

[Chapsie]

This is part of the reason I left for so long. I'm still largely gone, but I'm attempting a comeback and I'm ashamed that the situation with treaty locked alliances are still an item.

I suppose Issac Newton's first law wasn't wrong and doesn't only apply to physical objects. Someone needs to get the ball rolling really.