Jump to content

Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?


Sphinx
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Hodor said:

This is too much to read, but, like, my 2 cents, who the frick enters an offensive war without first shoring up support to give them the best chance at victory? You're not reallllly a badass if you enter aggressive wars consistently knowing you'll lose... you're just stupid and should probably let someone else run your alliance. That goes for literally everyone TGH included.

Yes, well, there's a reason why I'm not doing our FA; every time I've run the FA of an alliance I've run the game to the ground. Not just my alliance, no, I mean the whole game; so perhaps you do have a point there :v

(I still say that entering aggressive wars occasionally despite knowing you'll lose is good fun, shakes up the meta, and perhaps most importantly strengthens your alliance's unity and gives extremely valuable war experience. Obviously you can't do that consistently on a large scale without a hefty income stream to support it, like raiding, mercenary contracts, or the like, but after an extended period of peace you gotta shake out the rust with a good hard challenge. let's do that soon pleeeeease? :3)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

(I still say that entering aggressive wars occasionally despite knowing you'll lose is good fun, shakes up the meta, and perhaps most importantly strengthens your alliance's unity and gives extremely valuable war experience. Obviously you can't do that consistently on a large scale without a hefty income stream to support it, like raiding, mercenary contracts, or the like, but after an extended period of peace you gotta shake out the rust with a good hard challenge. let's do that soon pleeeeease? :3)

Yeah, this is entirely on point. Wars in general are a crucible through which you can forge better warriors, and more importantly better members in your alliance, but there's a certain upper limit to how much you can push an alliance's membership before they stop becoming stronger by fighting losing wars, and just start losing interest in the game over-all. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are people even arguing on this forum page? This was to celebrate BK and tCW's new treaty and friendship. If people are salty, go make your own forum page and complain about things on THAT page. Leave this one alone.

  • Downvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tarroc said:

Why are people even arguing on this forum page? This was to celebrate BK and tCW's new treaty and friendship. If people are salty, go make your own forum page and complain about things on THAT page. Leave this one alone.

Generally, when you post an announcement on the World Forums, you’re indicating to the rest of the world that this is something you want publicly known, and even discussed. Discussion need not always hold positive tones - in fact, given that this game is primarily suppose to be conflict driven, not expecting criticism on the forums is just naive. 

That said, at times this thread has gotten a bit more heated than some may have wanted. Communication over text often lacks the nuances of verbal communication, so it’s not hard to see why people might misinterpret things/not really get what the others trying to say. 

Oh well. It is what it is. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dio Brando said:

Generally, when you post an announcement on the World Forums, you’re indicating to the rest of the world that this is something you want publicly known, and even discussed. Discussion need not always hold positive tones - in fact, given that this game is primarily suppose to be conflict driven, not expecting criticism on the forums is just naive. 

That said, at times this thread has gotten a bit more heated than some may have wanted. Communication over text often lacks the nuances of verbal communication, so it’s not hard to see why people might misinterpret things/not really get what the others trying to say. 

Oh well. It is what it is. 

No, I understand that much. I have no qualms with discussions, so long as they do not become aggressive and personal, and it seems we both agree that at times people have gotten heated. Bringing up events from years prior is also not needed, as this is in fact a game, and these are the forums, holding grudges for so long isn't needed either. If people have issues with each other, arguing and insulting on the forums is childish. Settle it between between the people involved, and if you need to fight, use your nations to do so.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Mad Titan said:

You have contributed pretty much nothing overall to the changing FA of the game. You mention two years but what exactly did you do in two years? Nothing in T$, and nothing in CoS. It took Ripper joining as leader to actually make CoS relevant. And no, hitting a few pantheon members for half a round isn't being relevant. 

I take it all back praise our new overlords in BK.

Lmfao.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2019 at 6:25 PM, Theodosius said:

Okay, fair. Somehow UPN/Acadia have doubled (imagining the horror of two pigeons right now..)

r1yTKAn.png

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dio Brando said:

Yeah, this is entirely on point. Wars in general are a crucible through which you can forge better warriors, and more importantly better members in your alliance, but there's a certain upper limit to how much you can push an alliance's membership before they stop becoming stronger by fighting losing wars, and just start losing interest in the game over-all. 

Wars are fun for the first 2-3 weeks. After that they are pretty much decided and it's just how much the sides want to grind each other down. Long wars are much more boring and damaging to the member base than long periods peace will ever be. Long wars also lead to long periods of peace as people rebuild and restock.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Who Me said:

Wars are fun for the first 2-3 weeks. After that they are pretty much decided and it's just how much the sides want to grind each other down. Long wars are much more boring and damaging to the member base than long periods peace will ever be. Long wars also lead to long periods of peace as people rebuild and restock.

 To be clear, I haven't commented on the appropriate length of war. What I have commented on is this odd perception held by some that it's 'cool' to engage in losing wars repeatedly, when you could have maneuvered more appropriately, particularly when you're aware your membership is beyond the point, but I will indulge this comment anyway.

Long wars are fairly hard to manage, that's correct, and often counter productive to keeping a healthily engaged member-base. After the initial enthusiasm and motivation dies away, you're left to bring members into the fray time and time again only if there's still a 'thrill' in doing so. That often isn't the case with long(er) wars, but if you can't make a war 'fun' for more than 3 weeks, you've either chosen an incredibly easy target, or aren't particularly good at keeping members interested. That said, some times warring for 'extended' periods of time is quite necessary; a couple weeks doesn't cut it. There are many scenarios where this policy applies. One of them is when there's a sizable enough tier imbalance, in which over the course of the first two or so rounds, you're merely attempting to bring the other side down to your level. The destruction part follows. 

Edited by Dio Brando
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Who Me said:

Wars are fun for the first 2-3 weeks. After that they are pretty much decided and it's just how much the sides want to grind each other down. Long wars are much more boring and damaging to the member base than long periods peace will ever be. Long wars also lead to long periods of peace as people rebuild and restock.

Bruh I been pushing for limited scope, limited duration wars for too long... it just doesn't fly in this game, which is a damn shame.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stopped at page 2 and have no idea what's going on in this thread, I'm just here for the rep.

BK Bad, Dynamism Good.

Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2019 at 12:11 AM, MoonShadow said:

All this reading and I forgot popcorn :(

 

This is very sad... I can try and send some and hope it arrives in time...

Dorky Weeb One 

Yw8p02d.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2019 at 7:52 AM, Hodor said:

Bruh I been pushing for limited scope, limited duration wars for too long... it just doesn't fly in this game, which is a damn shame.

There appears to be a non-insignificant amount of people, including alliance leaders, who agree with the idea of quick wars. The war mechanics lend themselves to quick wars as well, I think.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

There appears to be a non-insignificant amount of people, including alliance leaders, who agree with the idea of quick wars. The war mechanics lend themselves to quick wars as well, I think.

Quick wars, long wars it do not really matter does it ?, i mean what benefit do you get from a quick war when most of the top alliances are sitting on billions in rebuild and resources, would not be shocked if the top five alliances have well over 10m of each resources and easy 30 billion as rebuild aid.

poor people generally want a quick war as they can not maintain the level of fighting.

 

Edited by MoonShadow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MoonShadow said:

Quick wars, long wars it do not really matter does it ?, i mean what benefit do you get from a quick war when most of the top alliances are sitting on billions in rebuild and resources, would not be shocked if the top five alliances have well over 10m of each resources and easy 30 billion as rebuild aid.

poor people generally want a quick war as they can not maintain the level of fighting.

 

Mate, NOBODY can maintain a level of fighting capable of any notable depletion of stockpiles like that. It just ain't gonna happen, the participants would die from blood loss as their members disappear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

There appears to be a non-insignificant amount of people, including alliance leaders, who agree with the idea of quick wars. The war mechanics lend themselves to quick wars as well, I think.

No actually the mechanics lend themselves to drawn out wars of attrition. They used to lend themselves to quick wars, but now you can basically keep fighting until either you run out of stockpiles (which is hard in an attrition war when you are losing since resource burn is tiny), or you decide to peace.

Long wars will remain the meta unless the leaders of the game decide to disincentive it or the mechanics are changed. The former is unlikely to happen as most leaders have adjusted to the long nature of war and don't care as much as the people complaining about it do.

  • Upvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

No actually the mechanics lend themselves to drawn out wars of attrition. They used to lend themselves to quick wars, but now you can basically keep fighting until either you run out of stockpiles (which is hard in an attrition war when you are losing since resource burn is tiny), or you decide to peace.

Long wars will remain the meta unless the leaders of the game decide to disincentive it or the mechanics are changed. The former is unlikely to happen as most leaders have adjusted to the long nature of war and don't care as much as the people complaining about it do. 

I dont necessarily agree with that, the last war could have ended after a month, but i dont think the winning side wanted it over that quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I dont necessarily agree with that, the last war could have ended after a month, but i dont think the winning side wanted it over that quickly.

There's some truth in this (the "winning side" was not a completely cohesive coalition, as I am sure you experienced. :P ). I think the fairer way to put it is that both side's reps talked past each other for a while, and then decided "well screw this, we'll just keep fighting". The holidays being in the middle of the war lent themselves to a diplomatic shutdown as well, as I recall.

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

There's some truth in this (the "winning side" was not a completely cohesive coalition, as I am sure you experienced. :P ). I think the fairer way to put it is that both side's reps talked past each other for a while, and then decided "well screw this, we'll just keep fighting". The holidays being in the middle of the war lent themselves to a diplomatic shutdown as well, as I recall.

Which I would say was the issue. I think that long wars really have only one scope and it is cutting your opponent down to size through a thorough beating. This tends to have a humiliating effect which then incentives the war dragging out for issues of pride and/or the hope that the loser can somehow flip the damage or cut the deficit as they reach a point of having nothing to lose.

Shorter wars with limited scopes are less toxic, albeit perhaps less satisfying, because you'll always exit knowing more damage could've been done, but also the knowledge that the next war will come quicker.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Placentica said:

Kinda surprised BK gets any shit.  Seems like they are the one alliance that routinely mixes it up despite being on top. And that's not treaty ass-kissing either, I'm just surprised they don't get more respect for the amount of interesting FA moves they've made over the past several years.  Like them or not, they have been really good for this game.

Never change Steve. Keep on showing everyone why you are the sharpest mind in PW!

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Placentica said:

Kinda surprised BK gets any shit.  Seems like they are the one alliance that routinely mixes it up despite being on top. And that's not treaty ass-kissing either, I'm just surprised they don't get more respect for the amount of interesting FA moves they've made over the past several years.  Like them or not, they have been really good for this game.

They do change it up.  There's no denying that.  It's the way how they handle some of the FA issues that clouds the moves they make.

As for "been really good for this game" - Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh................  We can debate on that one.  I can see both sides of that particular statement.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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