Jump to content
Cooper_

A Problem For Discussion

Solutions  

70 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Khai Jäger said:

 

This entire notion is naive. This is a game, and saying that anyone is going to not abide by peace terms as they have done time and time again is ridiculous. TKR has surrendered to BK, just as KT has surrendered to TKR. This is normal game play. 

Rid your mind of such implausible notions. Not to mention, it doesn't benefit the community but rather intends to divide.

Yeah, no. That much is visible to me just from negotiating for my own peace. 

You have people who legitimately think the best way to ward off someone attacking then again is to treat them harshly now, and doing so in utter disregard of over a decade of history in nationsims proving that's not how it works.

Rational people can learn to trust or otherwise find it somehow. The irrational and the fearful and the hateful will claim to be doing that while taking action which only ensures the opposite effect.

It's a positive feedback loop, and most of both sides are trapped in that mindset right now. It's not unbreakable. Rose was feeling that way weeks back and I like to think I did my share in helping turn the ships rudder away from those rocks. 

But first you have to realize you're heading for them, and then you have to trust whoever's trying to steer the rudder that they're turning the right way. If you can't do that, it'll be paranoia and fear governing decisions of a force bipolar environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Mad Max said:

I mean, even though you're Koalition B scrubs, I like you Khai - but Mr. AlotofScarf is pretty on the button. Spend some time talking to your own slave coalition if you even have access and the opposition as well, you'll soon find out that - sure they are seeing eye to eye - but that common ground is both sides not backing down. Unless something drastically changes, which I doubt it will - 1) both will not accept a loss as both feel they have not lost. 2) white peace is somehow 'out of the question' 3) levels of twatness and ego will keep the war engaged until someone just decides frick it. 

Knowing slave coalition from previous wars, you know the aggro, you know the possibilities.
Knowing the constant drama argument since the war happened, you know the tension.

There are deep cuts. If you think this is just going to be a simple 'haha' peace out on a whim, wrong.

Pragmatically, TKR is still growing, and most member loss has been seen in the BKNPO coalition. Until TKR begins losing members catastrophically (to 99 or something), they're not ready to quit yet.

 

Peace talks, FYI, are almost always political theater of some kind. The only time peace talks actually are substantial are when both sides are ready to talk terms. In Knightfall, both core coalitions were willing to stall out the war to achieve political ends, and only when both TKR and NPO were satisfied with their strategic objectives (buying time, weeding out unreliables, destroying as much of TKR membership as possible) did both sides peace out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mad Max said:

I mean, even though you're Koalition B scrubs, I like you Khai - but Mr. AlotofScarf is pretty on the button. Spend some time talking to your own slave coalition if you even have access and the opposition as well, you'll soon find out that - sure they are seeing eye to eye - but that common ground is both sides not backing down. Unless something drastically changes, which I doubt it will - 1) both will not accept a loss as both feel they have not lost. 2) white peace is somehow 'out of the question' 3) levels of twatness and ego will keep the war engaged until someone just decides frick it. 

Knowing slave coalition from previous wars, you know the aggro, you know the possibilities.
Knowing the constant drama argument since the war happened, you know the tension.

There are deep cuts. If you think this is just going to be a simple 'haha' peace out on a whim, wrong.

Well the point they are trying to make is that neither side is able to trust each other to peace out which is completely wrong. All sides have a history of upholding their peace terms.

I am not addressing the peace/terms itself, but the supposed "lack of trust" which is brought up here.

2 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

-snip-

Above^

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think the best way to help the games population is to copy dispatches etc. over from NS - simple addition that will over time keep people more. Also this poll needs an option for no opinion - I was forced to pick war goals, but I think none of them are realistic options.

Share this post


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

It's a positive feedback loop

Technically speaking, peace talks aren't lovey dovey discussions in which everyone is happy. Someone takes a hit when they lose, and it doesn't feel good to lose a war. Someone typically gives in unless it's a clean white peace for both sides.

13 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

You have people who legitimately think the best way to ward off someone attacking then again is to treat them harshly now

This has nothing to do with trust issues between sides. If one side/alliance decides to turn someone into an enemy then that is their issue. I agree treating people harshly isn't the best way to have good relations. However, you don't need good relations to have peace talks. 

16 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Yeah, no. That much is visible to me just from negotiating for my own peace. 

Do explain what trust issues you may have with negotiating peace with us. I'm curious.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Khai Jäger said:

Technically speaking, peace talks aren't lovey dovey discussions in which everyone is happy. Someone takes a hit when they lose, and it doesn't feel good to lose a war. Someone typically gives in unless it's a clean white peace for both sides.

This has nothing to do with trust issues between sides. If one side/alliance decides to turn someone into an enemy then that is their issue. I agree treating people harshly isn't the best way to have good relations. However, you don't need good relations to have peace talks. 

Do explain what trust issues you may have with negotiating peace with us. I'm curious.

I didn't say I had trust issues. I'm not here afraid of any of you attacking me in the future. I'm also not any of the big talking bobbly heads on the forums saying the game is dying or everything not my friend is an enemy secret allied until the end of all time. 

On the other hand, your own negotiator tells me a big part of people pushing for more punitive shit on me was "Concerns that you would attack them aggressively again." Well, ok, i'll round up my 20 guys in 2 weeks and give you an early halloween? :P
A more serious note, if anybody is 'concerned' i'll hit them in the future - permawar me. Because i can almost guarantee it'll happen unless you forcibly drive me from the game.

Point me to where i said you needed good relations for peace talks. 
 

Technically speaking, point me again to where i said they were lovey-dovey conversations. If all you're gonna do is strawman literally everything i say you can show yourself the door. I have no time for puppets who can't pay attention.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears, multiple choice has left the vote tied. kek

Share this post


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

Well the point they are trying to make is that neither side is able to trust each other to peace out which is completely wrong. All sides have a history of upholding their peace terms.

I am not addressing the peace/terms itself, but the supposed "lack of trust" which is brought up here.

Above^

Trust would be needed in general to even have an adult conversation on the matter. Trust is what delivers a dialogue - if both sides don't have trust in each other, both sides wouldn't be reluctant to sit down and hash out end terms. Big talk this war has been the idea that the aggressiveness would just boil over again into another war or political engagements post war to drop the 'hegemony' of IQ from the game and be the dymanic heroes in the world creating minispheres.

Trust, whether you choose to believe it or not, is needed on both sides and without that connection, we'll continue this war.

This is likely why IronFront was unable to achieve simple white peace with the opposition. We brokered a deal, even had a term from SOUP that I needed to name one of my cities after Pika. Waited a few days and instead of white peace, we were countered with a public surrender. We are tiny players in the game with the mouth pieces being the big guys - we can't argue terms, negotiate deals, or approach opposition in the same manner as them - it's just how it is. 

Speaking with leadership on both sides, there is a clearrrr divide in opinion - hell - just read the forums.Trust is needed, our coalition needs to take a step back and reevaluate the game as a whole and think about the future. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a none of the above option for the meta and other things? Given how I can't vote without picking one of the options and none of the above are something I'd find problematic to deal with :P 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Is there a none of the above option for the meta and other things? Given how I can't vote without picking one of the options and none of the above are something I'd find problematic to deal with :P 

Not even the toxicity one? Surely that's a good one isn't it? 🤔

Share this post


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

Not even the toxicity one? Surely that's a good one isn't it? 🤔

How would one go about reducing inter-alliance toxicity? :P 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

How would one go about reducing inter-alliance toxicity? :P 

I dunno but that doesn't make it a bad idea to try and figure out 😛

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Akuryo said:

I dunno but that doesn't make it a bad idea to try and figure out 😛

Haha touche. I'll give it a thought :P 

Share this post


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

I dunno but that doesn't make it a bad idea to try and figure out 😛

All we gotta do is start all acting like Canadians. Sorry goes a long way 😋

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, hope said:

@Buorhann First instance I found, and I'm sure there's many more

7JcKKD1.png

asL3ued.png

My point is simply in the past, your side has celebrated deletion of IQ nations as being a good thing. Don't act like you didn't participate

 

That isn’t celebrating their deletions, that’s using their deletions as a political talking point.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

All we gotta do is start all acting like Canadians. Sorry goes a long way 😋

source.gif
tenor.gif

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, MCMaster-095 said:

 

That isn’t celebrating their deletions, that’s using their deletions as a political talking point.

Lol is this really a hill you want to die on. KT celebrates people leaving on their main page. Nice try though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a radical idea but...

 

remember when Alex removed the ability to have max improvements and max military when your infra was shot? Add that back, which means its harder to hold people down. Incentives getting new players, and makes it harder for one alliance or one tier to dominate long-term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kastor said:

This is a radical idea but...

 

remember when Alex removed the ability to have max improvements and max military when your infra was shot? Add that back, which means its harder to hold people down. Incentives getting new players, and makes it harder for one alliance or one tier to dominate long-term.

Pretty sure that's still there to some extent. At least that's what my nations telling me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kastor said:

This is a radical idea but...

 

remember when Alex removed the ability to have max improvements and max military when your infra was shot? Add that back, which means its harder to hold people down. Incentives getting new players, and makes it harder for one alliance or one tier to dominate long-term.

I mean I think a viable solution would be to lose an improvement once a day or so if you have more improvements than infra, with mil and power being last priority.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Khai Jäger said:

This entire notion is naive. This is a game, and saying that anyone is going to not abide by peace terms as they have done time and time again is ridiculous. TKR has surrendered to BK, just as KT has surrendered to TKR. This is normal game play. 

Rid your mind of such implausible notions. Not to mention, it doesn't benefit the community but rather intends to divide.

I think the implication here is that trust is more of just a consistency in what you say and your actions.  I mean it's a fact that everybody is paranoid about the "other side," and that in itself is a suffocating dynamic, ideal for stagnation.  Most often this is achieved through more inter-alliance communication, which is a strategy that TKR has attempted to employ recently, including with you guys although y'all don't talk too much :P.  Maybe it's idealistic but I wouldn't call it naive to have more conversations between enemy factions where people actually hear each other out before moving to walls on the OWF.  

*Note: This was my interpretation of the point suggested by another player, so these views are only my own on this point.

7 hours ago, Epi said:

It appears, multiple choice has left the vote tied. kek

The goal here was to let people indicate interest for as many ideas as they thought valid.  Restricting it to one choice seems stupid since many of these ideas are not mutually exclusive.  It's simply a gauge of general interest for Alex and all of our viewing.  Maybe from that point, we can start to work out solutions that have broad support.  The actual rankings by percentage are less relevant.

5 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Is there a none of the above option for the meta and other things? Given how I can't vote without picking one of the options and none of the above are something I'd find problematic to deal with :P 

I think y'all can like at least one thing there.

4 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

How would one go about reducing inter-alliance toxicity? :P 

Some of these are more conceptual-based, but, in cases like this, the goal is to display the universal (or lack thereof) of these ideas.  If there is clear support for something like reducing inter-alliance toxicity, then now we have a framework at least to start making progress.

 I'm a true believer in communication, as aforementioned in response to Khai, and this essentially forces all of us to see everyone's views unfiltered by politics and agenda through Australian ballot.  I should say, though, that if this attempts to solve problems that aren't necessarily affecting member loss but still endemic in Orbis, I'll still be satisfied.  

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

I think y'all can like at least one thing there.

There are answers to all four questions which are so nebulous that they're essentially meaningless, but question 2 is particularly bad. None of the "solutions" is remotely enforceable and most of them are so ill-defined that I'm not even sure what's being suggested. (To see why, take the verb in each answer and tell me what a specific, consensus definition of it would be in this context.)

Rather than claiming a false mandate from a fallaciously-constructed vote, include a "none of the above" option to see how many people disagree with the premise in the first place.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Edward I said:

There are answers to all four questions which are so nebulous that they're essentially meaningless, but question 2 is particularly bad. None of the "solutions" is remotely enforceable and most of them are so ill-defined that I'm not even sure what's being suggested. (To see why, take the verb in each answer and tell me what a specific, consensus definition of it would be in this context.)

Rather than claiming a false mandate from a fallaciously-constructed vote, include a "none of the above" option to see how many people disagree with the premise in the first place.

I sometimes agree with you Gruber, and other time I understand why John threw you off the Nakatomi Building

The options are basic summaries of people's points in the post, basically summarized by the edited first post of this page. So I mean, Understandably they're going to be semi-nebulous. Especially if the person's idea was a WoT with many different points and arguments for the idea. Even if none of the solutions for question 2 AREN'T enforceable mechanic wise, they're mainly a shift in perception/attitude by the community.

So, if you don't understand the points, maybe question the people who made them and find out more info from them. Might be more beneficial than just knocking what's supposed to be a poll about generalized ideas.

If then you don't like any of the ideas, then I'll agree there should have been a "NotA" option.

Edited by Pasky Darkfire
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

I sometimes agree with you Gruber, and other time I understand why John threw you off the Nakatomi Building.

I watch that movie for Alan Rickman. The fact that it has Bruce Willis is just extra.

21 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

The options are basic summaries of people's points in the post, basically summarized by the edited first post of this page. So I mean, Understandably they're going to be semi-nebulous. Especially if the person's idea was a WoT with many different points and arguments for the idea. Even if none of the solutions for question 2 AREN'T enforceable mechanic wise, they're mainly a shift in perception/attitude by the community.

So, if you don't understand the points, maybe question the people who made them and find out more info from them. Might be more beneficial than just knocking what's supposed to be a poll about generalized ideas.

If then you don't like any of the ideas, then I'll agree there should have been a "NotA" option.

There are two main issues here.

First are the "solutions" themselves. It's not that I don't understand them, it's that don't I think there's a single understanding for most of them. I'm not going to endorse something that will get used as a vacuous talking point later on, especially since some of these aren't much more than vacuous talking points to begin with, even in their best-articulated formats.

Second is the notion on which the question is implicitly based. I don't think it's reasonable to decide what the metagame will be in committee. I have no reason to respect whatever outcome the vote here produces, and I don't expect anyone else to respect it either if they feel they can achieve a better outcome through other means.

Discussing the metagame can be quite productive, which is why I didn't bring this particular point up when it was still just a discussion. Pretending that a vote on anything less than a concrete, well-defined course of action is meaningful, though, is just silly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

This entire notion is naive. This is a game, and saying that anyone is going to not abide by peace terms as they have done time and time again is ridiculous. TKR has surrendered to BK, just as KT has surrendered to TKR. This is normal game play. 

Rid your mind of such implausible notions. Not to mention, it doesn't benefit the community but rather intends to divide.

Naivete is believing that once trust has been broken, nothing changes, and everything continues as if nothing had happened.

While enemies have been able to make peace before, that was only possible due to the existence of an environment where trust had not yet been broken. Now that it has, the environment that enabled those prior peace deals no longer exists, and thus no-one can rationally consider prior success to be indicative of anything going forward.

Incidentally, I'd like to acknowledge that there's not really been any single event that's broken trust; what matters is the perception of broken trust. IQ believes what they believe, EMC believes what they believe, and whoever is actually right is irrelevant to the decision making process of either.

3 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

I mean I think a viable solution would be to lose an improvement once a day or so if you have more improvements than infra, with mil and power being last priority.

That's the opposite of a solution.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.