Question for all Coalition leadership.

[Prefontaine]

I know different alliances have different reasons for fighting, to still be fighting, seeking peace, or whatever stance you currently have in this war. I don't want to debating the validity of those reasons, and I don't want the thread to go down that route (not that this part will be listened to) knit-picking the reasons people have but I wanted to ask the various leadership a question. Recently a certain idea has been presented by both major sides, that this war is a "zero sum" war, or a "fight to the death". Both sides blame the other for bringing it to this point. My question is why is it? I get wanting to see the other sides pixels burn, I get wanting to defeat them, I get wanting some form of terms for surrender and such. What I don't quite get is why you would want to eliminate the enemy entirely in a game like this. So why is this war a zero sum game now, why is it a fight to the death? What brought it to that point? What events does your side view the other side of having done to cause this? If you're not some level of gov, I'd rather you stay out of the conversation for the most part unless you have something to add to a post of your leadership. If you're just going to troll there are several other threads you can take the opportunity to do so. 

Having a civil thread would be a nice change of pace, no? Maybe having a respectful conversation about things could even help. 

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I know this topic was aimed at the leadership of the coalitions,  and I'm certainly not leadership, but I'd hazard a guess this comes down to a history of bad blood. I wasn't in the game back then, but as far as I know, the bad blood between Black Knights, The Knights Radiant, New Pacific Order, and The Syndicate goes back nearly three years at this point, back to Trail Of Tiers. I don't know where the bad blood that exists between BK, NPO, and KT comes from, but I'd guess Ayyslamic Crusade. Leadership on both sides clearly dislikes the other side's leadership, and there has been multiple big wars between those two sides, further solidifying everything in the trenches they are then. The Zero-Sum War likely stems from the assumption that the next major war will likely be once again between these groups, so when one side has a chance to beat the other side down as much as possible, and weaken them as much as possible in a war where they have the dominant position, it seems natural to capitalize on the chance while it exists, to benefit them the next time the war comes around.

 

As I said however, I don't know any of these things, I'm not gov, I don't lead the coalitions, and I haven't been around long enough to have experienced these things for myself. This is just my guess, and is not an official statement from BK.

[Prefontaine]

Just now, Tarroc said:

I know this topic was aimed at the leadership of the coalitions,  and I'm certainly not leadership, but I'd hazard a guess this comes down to a history of bad blood. I wasn't in the game back then, but as far as I know, the bad blood between Black Knights, The Knights Radiant, New Pacific Order, and The Syndicate goes back nearly three years at this point, back to Trail Of Tiers. I don't know where the bad blood that exists between BK, NPO, and KT comes from, but I'd guess Ayyslamic Crusade. Leadership on both sides clearly dislikes the other side's leadership, and there has been multiple big wars between those two sides, further solidifying everything in the trenches they are then. The Zero-Sum War likely stems from the assumption that the next major war will likely be once again between these groups, so when one side has a chance to beat the other side down as much as possible, and weaken them as much as possible in a war where they have the dominant position, it seems natural to capitalize on the chance while it exists, to benefit them the next time the war comes around.

 

As I said however, I don't know any of these things, I'm not gov, I don't lead the coalitions, and I haven't been around long enough to have experienced these things for myself. This is just my guess, and is not an official statement from BK.

I appreciate the effort, but the reason I'm targeting leadership specifically for this question is that I'm trying to avoid speculation. 

[Harry Flashman]

If the governments won’t walk away from the war, perhaps alliance members should walk away from the governments.  It’s all just a bit embarrassing now.

[Prefonteen]

I consider this war a "fight to the death" because of the absense of an option to peace for my alliance. Should those circumstances change, then it follows logically that this is no longer a fight to the death.

That's not what you want to hear or talk about though, so let me see if I can tackle this question...  It's a hard one as the answer isn't straightforward. There is a myriad of events and factors which affect the nature of this war. Let's try though:

1. There are historical grievances in play which go back to 4 years ago as well as more recent grudges.

Knightfall and this war are the first 2 wars where a side which had incurred a lot of consecutive losses over the years, managed to flip the script and have their old nemesis at its knees. Irrespective of how they got their: They find themselves in a position of power and scores are to be settled. I will leave my opinions on the justification or validity of these grudges at the door. That's a conversation for another time.

- NPO and The Covenant are alliances you can think of as ones with grievances going back years. BK's grudge fest with TKR is at this point a few years old, but relatively new compared to the other ones.

2. Simultaneously, a lot of the party components making up coalition A just had their pipe dream shattered.  

t$ awoke from the nasty reality that its project with NPO - a project intended to move the game away from the EMC v IQ grudgefest- is shattered. Both t$ and NPO feel betrayed, and it's opened up a lot of barely healed wounds from past grudges. All diplomatic progress made to mend relations over the past year appears undone with the brush of a stroke (on both sides). Again, leaving personal convictions on those events aside. 

KETOG and Chaos had their ideological utopia of a fractured minisphere world with short wars between multiple competing spheres shattered. Having been forced back into bipolarity, they view the remerger of NPO-BK as not just an existential threat, but the manifestation of the playstyle they sought to avoid.

Consequently, the view exists among a lot of coalition A parties, the war is both ideological and existential in nature. That combination raises the stakes significantly, and hence you see a higher degree of defiance.

3. The combination of the import of an NPO-centric GPWC and the invasion of a war-centric GOONS has not just impacted the battlefield;

it has shifted the balance of power within coalition B to a degree where the succesful occupation of coal A alliances is no longer contingent on the more moderate fringes. This allows for the more radical elements within coalition B to force their objectives (which involve maximizing damage by delaying the war) without having to concern themselves with the fringes. Fringes in turn are pressured to follow for the ride for fear of retalliation (see: OWR/CTO).  Where normally war weariness among moderates would begin factoring in, forcing the conclusion of a war before total annihilation has been reached, this is mitigated.

4. The game mechanic do tend toward linear increase in average war length

As the game ages stockpiles increase and alliances can sustain their wars close to indefinitely. 

5. Certain parties have been unable to move past old grudges, even if one could technically consider it fulfilled.

This point is a continuation of the other points. A lot of people on both sides have been entrenched to a point where discourse is no almost no longer really possible. Trust has evaporated and paranoia rules the day. This lends itself well to self fulfilling prophecies.

There's a lot more than can be said. Maybe i'll chip in again later. This should be a good conversation starter.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

I think some kind of white peace would probably make sense, although would probably already be sick of trying to surrender if Coalition A.

[Micchan]

The real problem? This kind of game

You are forced to play with everyone, you can't just play with your friends like with a videogame, move to another server or block that user to avoid him, to solve this situation you could move one of the two coalitions to another server, but we have one... when we are lucky

There's no end or goal, no real rules, if you want to break a treaty and you don't care about your reputation you just do it, if you want to win a war you just have to join the biggest coalition, if you want to statpad your military stats you go to Arrgh in peace time and then you move in the winning coalition during war, if you want to pixel hug you go to RR

Not all the players are equal, at best only 20% of us is really playing the game, and I don't talk about only activity but mostly knowledge of what happens in the game, this because not everyone can spend too much time for the game and becuase there's a lot of things you need to read and know, so there's an 80% of us who does what their gov wants and know what their gov let them know, an example are IQ players who ask why we don't surrender, I link the recent logs and they are like what? wtf?

Government is a grat thing but can also really bad because only them can play politics and often just a few of them, the normal player has to follow the direction chosen by his gov, has no power to vote unless the gov is open to listen, has no power to decide who is in the gov, his only power is leaving the alliance, but it's hard to leave the alliance when you are there from the start and you made friends etc.

The game sucks because is in an eternal beta version, a lot of things needs to be fixed but Alex is alone, then it's easy to use some mechanics to take advantage of other people, or just run a bot to make your life easy, right IQ? 

The game is very easy so to perform you need 1% skills, 19% activity, 80% numbers, and there's no real way to have a 33%-33%-33%

Communities are too closed, most of the players spend their time only with their alliance, people lose objectivity easily and usually we all act like in sport where the ref always screwed your team and the other won for pure luck

 

So the reason why we are in this situation is because the game is shit and we are too stupid to play a better game

[Roquentin]

6 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

I know different alliances have different reasons for fighting, to still be fighting, seeking peace, or whatever stance you currently have in this war. I don't want to debating the validity of those reasons, and I don't want the thread to go down that route (not that this part will be listened to) knit-picking the reasons people have but I wanted to ask the various leadership a question. Recently a certain idea has been presented by both major sides, that this war is a "zero sum" war, or a "fight to the death". Both sides blame the other for bringing it to this point. My question is why is it? I get wanting to see the other sides pixels burn, I get wanting to defeat them, I get wanting some form of terms for surrender and such. What I don't quite get is why you would want to eliminate the enemy entirely in a game like this. So why is this war a zero sum game now, why is it a fight to the death? What brought it to that point? What events does your side view the other side of having done to cause this? If you're not some level of gov, I'd rather you stay out of the conversation for the most part unless you have something to add to a post of your leadership. If you're just going to troll there are several other threads you can take the opportunity to do so. 

Having a civil thread would be a nice change of pace, no? Maybe having a respectful conversation about things could even help. 

When the last war was ongoing, people raised the question of what would happen after. Would TKR/Guardian/GOB/etc. be more angry at the ex-EMC who had hit them or at Inquisition? The question was answered pretty quickly. It would be Inquisition. They coalesced with their brethren who had fought them and their brethren who had sat out the war to plot against the Inquisition. Their battlecry had always been that Inquisition was seemingly overpowered. Even though steps were being taken to fulfill the split, it became an uneasy affair when the knowledge became known the more rambunctious half would be likely targeted regardless. Thus, a stipulation was asked for to the FA head of tS that if the rest of the game ganged up on them, we would have the ability to enter. We knew their condition was relatively fragile. They had been targeted about a year before and largely heckled for their decision to stick with IQ before that and it did have an impact on the economies of all the alliances on that side.

In contrast, EMC had barely been impacted by Knightfall. The attrition was the real damage and that was because they had coddled those members for years by avoiding harder fights in the upper tier. The TKR low gov had openly stated at the start of Knightfall that the war would accomplish nothing. As a result, the only damage done was losing members who could not cope with the hard fight. The financial dominance of former EMC was not affected in the slightest by the war. They felt entitled to beat down their traditional bugbears, however. When they interrupted their playfight, it became clear that they would be in an unparalleled position of dominance if the BK/COvsphere could not hold them off. One war had done little to them aside from the attrition. They were back to full form or as full as they could be given the attrition partially offset by the incorporation of KT/TGH/Oblivion and Rose to a lesser extent. They all cackled with glee at their initial success and only bad things could result. Rumors of forced treaty cancellations circulated.

When we chose to try to make it a non-curbstomp, their entitlement incensed them into a rage and they vowed permanent enmity more or less. Simply not winning against "IQ" was beneath them. Only they could bring each other down. No one else. The rubicon had been crossed and it was clear they would not take it as a normal war. It was an existential struggle and they would only change their minds when it stopped going well for them. The words were not forgotten and it was clear who would benefit more from a quick peace. The historical elites sought to entrench themselves further and go for a better shot and with tS most likely with them. We dealt with the threat when they played their hand.

The other side knows that is is easier for them to financially set back Coalition B vs vice versa. Thus, they play the victim of the long war. A long war requires more discipline and it can get tiresome, but that is the hand we have had to play. The refusal to come to the table earlier pushed us into more extreme stances. When people abandoned the coalition when it was about a refusal to surrender, they did so on the premise of seeking shelter from hostile powers. When this type of precedent has been historically enabled, action is required to thwart it becoming a norm.   It has become clear they will treat any war as a severely rancorous conflict if it is not a playfight. It's not about eliminating them but there is no other way to wear them down until a suitable deal can be reached. They'll be fine if it ever peaces. They brag about how well off they are. Don't worry about them.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Roquentin
had bugaboos instead of bugbears

[Horsecock]

6 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

When the last war was ongoing, people raised the question of what would happen after. Would TKR/Guardian/GOB/etc. be more angry at the ex-EMC who had hit them or at Inquisition? The question was answered pretty quickly. It would be Inquisition. They coalesced with their brethren who had fought them and their brethren who had sat out the war to plot against the Inquisition. Their battlecry had always been that Inquisition was seemingly overpowered. Even though steps were being taken to fulfill the split, it became an uneasy affair when the knowledge became known the more rambunctious half would be likely targeted regardless. Thus, a stipulation was asked for to the FA head of tS that if the rest of the game ganged up on them, we would have the ability to enter. We knew their condition was relatively fragile. They had been targeted about a year before and largely heckled for their decision to stick with IQ before that and it did have an impact on the economies of all the alliances on that side.

In contrast, EMC had barely been impacted by Knightfall. The attrition was the real damage and that was because they had coddled those members for years by avoiding harder fights in the upper tier. The TKR low gov had openly stated at the start of Knightfall that the war would accomplish nothing. As a result, the only damage done was losing members who could not cope with the hard fight. The financial dominance of former EMC was not affected in the slightest by the war. They felt entitled to beat down their traditional bugaboos, however. When they interrupted their playfight, it became clear that they would be in an unparalleled position of dominance if the BK/COvsphere could not hold them off. One war had done little to them aside from the attrition. They were back to full form or as full as they could be given the attrition partially offset by the incorporation of KT/TGH/Oblivion and Rose to a lesser extent. They all cackled with glee at their initial success and only bad things could result. Rumors of forced treaty cancellations circulated.

When we chose to try to make it a non-curbstomp, their entitlement incensed them into a rage and they vowed permanent enmity more or less. Simply not winning against "IQ" was beneath them. Only they could bring each other down. No one else. The rubicon had been crossed and it was clear they would not take it as a normal war. It was an existential struggle and they would only change their minds when it stopped going well for them. The words were not forgotten and it was clear who would benefit more from a quick peace. The historical elites sought to entrench themselves further and go for a better shot and with tS most likely with them. We dealt with the threat when they played their hand.

The other side knows that is is easier for them to financially set back Coalition B vs vice versa. Thus, they play the victim of the long war. A long war requires more discipline and it can get tiresome, but that is the hand we have had to play. The refusal to come to the table earlier pushed us into more extreme stances. When people abandoned the coalition when it was about a refusal to surrender, they did so on the premise of seeking shelter from hostile powers. When this type of precedent has been historically enabled, action is required to thwart it becoming a norm.   It has become clear they will treat any war as a severely rancorous conflict if it is not a playfight. It's not about eliminating them but there is no other way to wear them down until a suitable deal can be reached. They'll be fine if it ever pieces. They brag about how well off they are. Don't worry about them.

tldr: IQ actually broke up. EMC is the real hegemony. Anyone who doesn't like IQ automatically belongs to EMC. EMC is responsible for the war stil not being over. IQ literally never did anything wrong.

[Josh of Clan Mason]

"Why do people take this game so seriously?" is what you really want to ask. The answer? It's people's hobby and a lot of people around here only have control, power, and the ability to talk trash behind a keyboard.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Josh of Clan Mason

[Raphael]

The leaders are more interested in upvotes, antagonism, and PR than they are in diplomacy.

 

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

13 minutes ago, Josh of Clan Mason said:

"Why do people take this game so seriously?" is what you really want to ask. The answer? It's people's hobby and a lot of people around here only have control, power, and the ability to talk trash behind a keyboard.

Yet you’re aligned with NPO, NpO, Goons & all those purely focused on control. Not stuck there if out of place. Join the light.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

15 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

The leaders are more interested in upvotes, antagonism, and PR than they are in diplomacy.

I’m more of interested in results & rather be underestimated; then the other extreme by potential rivals.

[Azaghul]

Having been in gov with a close ally of an alliance Roq led for many years in another world, he is very paranoid and no level of statistical advantage or dominance is going to likely ever be enough for him to feel "safe".  I say this not in an attempt to attack him but to provide context for his viewpoints and NPOs actions.  No matter how much he hurts an opponent he's never going to be happy that they aren't a future threat, so he's never going to be happy with a peace agreement.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

1 hour ago, Azaghul said:

Having been in gov with a close ally of an alliance Roq led for many years in another world, he is very paranoid and no level of statistical advantage or dominance is going to likely ever be enough for him to feel "safe".  I say this not in an attempt to attack him but to provide context for his viewpoints and NPOs actions.  No matter how much he hurts an opponent he's never going to be happy that they aren't a future threat, so he's never going to be happy with a peace agreement.

People who still want to try surrendering at this point are probably a lost cause anything & deserve dealing with BS. ?

[Zed]

It's quite interesting, isn't it? You'll have to forgive me, as I've been in-and-out of the game for awhile now.

We have reached a point where the "meta" of the game has well outpaced the "mechanics" of the game. Most alliances still remaining that are actually relevant (lol micros) have mostly figured out fairly optimal paths to deal with the simple mechanics of gameplay. The builds, the infra and city building strategy, what units to target, how to raid or conserve resources, etc.; those have generally been well-solved aside from the occasional server hiccup or glitch. The development of major changes to the mechanics of the game has greatly slowed. I suspect this is in large part because the codebase is a very fragile thing at this point, and making even moderate changes of any substance is likely going to require a lot of time and labour to patch. That's not indicative of failure on the part of the game administration, but it does mean that you allow the invested and serious players a chance to really work out the optimal strategies that they feel will work for them.

  In Coalition A, I've noticed for the most part a relatively steady brain drain over the past few years. Many of the players who were well-known along alliances in Coalition A have either retired or left the game entirely. I would suggest this is because most felt accomplished with the way they have played, and thus they have moved away. Either that, or they feel as though the game does not have much to offer them at this point. There's been a fairly general decay in most of those alliances, yet for the most part they have a relatively diverse set of backgrounds and philosophies. Losing players of that calibre doesn't just hurt those alliances or the coalition itself; it also means that experienced players and personalities have left the game and no longer contribute to making it a community. I think the players in Coalition A are generally ready to move on with the "meta" of the game, but they find themselves unable to do so.

Personally I was ready to delete months ago (maybe even beyond a year at this point to be totally honest), but I have stayed on due to the current global war - and had committed to staying on long before I knew I would actually be in the fight. It is more likely than not that I will delete post-war. While the memes of wanting to spite posters from Coalition B who want to drive people out of the game would be the thing that gets clicks and wows, the reality is more that I too, feel relatively accomplished in the game (inb4 lol you didn't do jack), and I have other things out of life that I'd like to turn my attention to. I don't actually think that everyone is like this, or that people will suffer from a lack of morale and leave the game because of this war. I've played these kinds of games for a long time. I honestly don't know why I've stayed on for the past two years even, other than the social community of people in the alliances I have been a part of.

In Coalition B, I've noticed an ethos of taking every possible small advantage and rolling them in together to try and elevate beyond their normal limits. From the massive influx of referral bonuses and out-of-game allied help via GPWC and other communities, to providing tools and resources for the game and thus likely being granted some additional access to mechanical features, to well-organized baseball leagues to get cash; the major alliances on the side of Coalition B have found tiny bits of the fluff mechanics and used them to find an extra gear to the normal mechanics that they operate from.

I don't think this is an awful thing in and of itself. Is it perhaps against the intended spirit of each of the bonuses? There's an argument about exploitative practice there that holds water. But I think it is perhaps a very good example of the "meta" outstripping the "mechanics", as I alluded to earlier. Other people in this thread have laid out the histories and reasons for why alliances in Coalition A and Coalition B (and I guess the neutrals count too) have acted and behaved in the way they have over the past several months and even few years. I don't have to reiterate that. I think part of the reason that Coalition A feels that Coalition B doesn't care about the PR battle (other than the fact that this is the OWF and it is pretty shi- as a general rule, let's be honest), is because Coalition B has taken the mechanics and imports and decided that they can go it alone without the help of peripheral allies or peeling off anyone from Coalition A to join them in a post-war world. Or, if for some reason they can't do that in a post-war world, then they've decided that Götterdämmerung is their only choice (and even then, it still mostly takes the concept of the PR battle and gives it the moutza).

These games seem to have a somewhat limited shelf-life if the mechanics are not tweaked every so often. We have probably hit that point here. There was once a golden era for simulators of this type, but despite this probably being the best contemporary game of its kind, it is really fairly stagnant other than recent imported communities like GOONS and GPWC (who have all been ported over by Coalition B). The personalities aren't being refreshed or added, but rather dying off and stagnating. And if you don't have a new set of ideas to drive the "meta", then without innovations in the "mechanics", you'll come to a grinding stalemate soon enough.

 

2 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

The leaders are more interested in upvotes, antagonism, and PR than they are in diplomacy.

That's because our precious downvotes were removed from the forums so this is all we have left, amirite.

[Roquentin]

1 hour ago, Azaghul said:

Having been in gov with a close ally of an alliance Roq led for many years in another world, he is very paranoid and no level of statistical advantage or dominance is going to likely ever be enough for him to feel "safe".  I say this not in an attempt to attack him but to provide context for his viewpoints and NPOs actions.  No matter how much he hurts an opponent he's never going to be happy that they aren't a future threat, so he's never going to be happy with a peace agreement.

Thing is, I'm not the only one holding these beliefs. Most people who prefer peace just want it because the war is long or they want to make peace time income without looking at the wider numbers.  The logs said 3.5 but that was including wars NPO fought in more or less. It would go back to 4.5 maybe that some version of this war has been fought. Until this war,  it had been without success and advantages accumulated over time after Paracov definitively fell.  Even someone at war with us currently acknowledged the rubicon had been crossed and there is no strategic incentive to peace without a favorable outcome.

[Charles Bolivar]

6 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Thing is, I'm not the only one holding these beliefs. Most people who prefer peace just want it because the war is long or they want to make peace time income without looking at the wider numbers.  The logs said 3.5 but that was including wars NPO fought in more or less. It would go back to 4.5 maybe that some version of this war has been fought. Until this war,  it had been without success and advantages accumulated over time after Paracov definitively fell.  Even someone at war with us currently acknowledged the rubicon had been crossed and there is no strategic incentive to peace without a favorable outcome.

You just proved Aza's point and I don't think you even realise it. Let it go, you don't have to burn the world down in some tantrum because someone doesn't like you.  

9 minutes ago, Zed said:

It's quite interesting, isn't it? You'll have to forgive me, as I've been in-and-out of the game for awhile now.

We have reached a point where the "meta" of the game has well outpaced the "mechanics" of the game. Most alliances still remaining that are actually relevant (lol micros) have mostly figured out fairly optimal paths to deal with the simple mechanics of gameplay. The builds, the infra and city building strategy, what units to target, how to raid or conserve resources, etc.; those have generally been well-solved aside from the occasional server hiccup or glitch. The development of major changes to the mechanics of the game has greatly slowed. I suspect this is in large part because the codebase is a very fragile thing at this point, and making even moderate changes of any substance is likely going to require a lot of time and labour to patch. That's not indicative of failure on the part of the game administration, but it does mean that you allow the invested and serious players a chance to really work out the optimal strategies that they feel will work for them.

  In Coalition A, I've noticed for the most part a relatively steady brain drain over the past few years. Many of the players who were well-known along alliances in Coalition A have either retired or left the game entirely. I would suggest this is because most felt accomplished with the way they have played, and thus they have moved away. Either that, or they feel as though the game does not have much to offer them at this point. There's been a fairly general decay in most of those alliances, yet for the most part they have a relatively diverse set of backgrounds and philosophies. Losing players of that calibre doesn't just hurt those alliances or the coalition itself; it also means that experienced players and personalities have left the game and no longer contribute to making it a community. I think the players in Coalition A are generally ready to move on with the "meta" of the game, but they find themselves unable to do so.

Personally I was ready to delete months ago (maybe even beyond a year at this point to be totally honest), but I have stayed on due to the current global war - and had committed to staying on long before I knew I would actually be in the fight. It is more likely than not that I will delete post-war. While the memes of wanting to spite posters from Coalition B who want to drive people out of the game would be the thing that gets clicks and wows, the reality is more that I too, feel relatively accomplished in the game (inb4 lol you didn't do jack), and I have other things out of life that I'd like to turn my attention to. I don't actually think that everyone is like this, or that people will suffer from a lack of morale and leave the game because of this war. I've played these kinds of games for a long time. I honestly don't know why I've stayed on for the past two years even, other than the social community of people in the alliances I have been a part of.

In Coalition B, I've noticed an ethos of taking every possible small advantage and rolling them in together to try and elevate beyond their normal limits. From the massive influx of referral bonuses and out-of-game allied help via GPWC and other communities, to providing tools and resources for the game and thus likely being granted some additional access to mechanical features, to well-organized baseball leagues to get cash; the major alliances on the side of Coalition B have found tiny bits of the fluff mechanics and used them to find an extra gear to the normal mechanics that they operate from.

I don't think this is an awful thing in and of itself. Is it perhaps against the intended spirit of each of the bonuses? There's an argument about exploitative practice there that holds water. But I think it is perhaps a very good example of the "meta" outstripping the "mechanics", as I alluded to earlier. Other people in this thread have laid out the histories and reasons for why alliances in Coalition A and Coalition B (and I guess the neutrals count too) have acted and behaved in the way they have over the past several months and even few years. I don't have to reiterate that. I think part of the reason that Coalition A feels that Coalition B doesn't care about the PR battle (other than the fact that this is the OWF and it is pretty shi- as a general rule, let's be honest), is because Coalition B has taken the mechanics and imports and decided that they can go it alone without the help of peripheral allies or peeling off anyone from Coalition A to join them in a post-war world. Or, if for some reason they can't do that in a post-war world, then they've decided that Götterdämmerung is their only choice (and even then, it still mostly takes the concept of the PR battle and gives it the moutza).

These games seem to have a somewhat limited shelf-life if the mechanics are not tweaked every so often. We have probably hit that point here. There was once a golden era for simulators of this type, but despite this probably being the best contemporary game of its kind, it is really fairly stagnant other than recent imported communities like GOONS and GPWC (who have all been ported over by Coalition B). The personalities aren't being refreshed or added, but rather dying off and stagnating. And if you don't have a new set of ideas to drive the "meta", then without innovations in the "mechanics", you'll come to a grinding stalemate soon enough.

 

That's because our precious downvotes were removed from the forums so this is all we have left, amirite.

Pretty much nailed it right here. The game needs a shake up both gameplay wise and politically.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Charles the Tyrant

[Roquentin]

4 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

You just proved Aza's point you pathetic little man.

Not sure how I proved it. I would be paranoid and nothing would be good enough if the numbers stacked up in such a way, yeah, but it's not the case. It's been an uphill climb and when you've gotten this far, to give up the tenuous advantage you have is problematic. If we were really in the best position ever, then we wouldn't have had any dissent and these concerns wouldn't exist outside of my own if we were going with the concept of me being paranoid being a given. 

Here's a post acknowledging the situation:

On 11/28/2019 at 3:21 AM, Avakael said:

 If I was in their shoes, I wouldn't see a benefit to peace at all; the Rubicon has been crossed in such a large way that it's hard to imagine a negotiated peace turning out to be any more than a 6 month armistice. If peace terms do ever arrive, they will be designed to win the next war. I hope they aren't permanently crippling, and I hope they are only pointed at alliances, and not individuals.

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Roquentin

[Charles Bolivar]

33 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

 If we were really in the best position ever, then we wouldn't have had any dissent. 

 

 

Again proving Aza's point that no matter what level of dominance your side has, it will never be enough to placate your paranoia and that you will never feel safe.  There will always be some dissent, on our "side" or in your own and trying to foolishly end it all is a fool's pursuit. Do you even realise you just proved him right?

All smack talk aside, Coal A is defeated and a shell of their formerselves, probably lucky if 200 of us are still declaring wars and these of us still fighting are living off loot essentially. 

How much is enough? Do you actually want to kill whole communities and eradicate any hint of future opposition? Turn the game into a stagnant wasteland where no one ever does anything besides buy cities because your paranoia and ego demands it? Where the hell is the challenge in that going forwards?

Enough is enough roq, let the paranoia go and be the better man. We are beaten, you beat us at long last. I suspect a large amount of our side will form new AAs with new leaders out of disgust at how this war has become a giant pissing match between leaders staking whole communities on the grudges of a few. Either that or they will cut ties with former coalition allies much as KT has done. We are done as a coalition and if our own leaders don't realise that then they are fools too.

If you wish to continue the war on for a month or so to get your last kicks in, go ahead and do it, get your last kicks in and have all the fun you want. At the very least start granting and broadcasting lenient terms for individuals not wishing to fight any longer who want out of this mess of a war and who are rightfully pissed at their own leaders for how this has went down.

You won,  now it's time to end this charade.

Edit: As for Ava's comment, well, I disagree with him. And if he and whoever else wants to take your side on again in 6 months they will be doing it on their own.

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Charles the Tyrant

[Prefonteen]

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

Not sure how I proved it. I would be paranoid and nothing would be good enough if the numbers stacked up in such a way, yeah, but it's not the case. It's been an uphill climb and when you've gotten this far, to give up the tenuous advantage you have is problematic. If we were really in the best position ever, then we wouldn't have had any dissent and these concerns wouldn't exist outside of my own if we were going with the concept of me being paranoid being a given. 

Here's a post acknowledging the situation:

 

Why are you quoting avakael to illustrate your point? He is holds no authority in t$...

[Roquentin]

52 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

Again proving Aza's point that no matter what level of dominance your side has, it will never be enough to placate your paranoia and that you will never feel safe.  There will always be some dissent, on our "side" or in your own and trying to foolishly end it all is a fool's pursuit. Do you even realise you just proved him right?

I'm talking about a particular type of dissent. The dissent has been one largely related to material concerns throughout the war. If the material concerns weren't an issue and no one had to sacrifice stuff, then we'd have only ideological dissent at most which would be low.

Quote

All smack talk aside, Coal A is defeated and a shell of their formerselves, probably lucky if 200 of us are still declaring wars and these of us still fighting are living off loot essentially. 

That's now yeah. I know plenty of coal A people who are just waiting for the war to end to get active again since they don't want to bother with the guerilla tactics.

Quote

How much is enough? Do you actually want to kill whole communities and eradicate any hint of future opposition? Turn the game into a stagnant wasteland where no one ever does anything besides buy cities because your paranoia and ego demands it? Where the hell is the challenge in that going forwards?

We're not trying to kill whole communities. They're still around. It's not any hint. It's a consolidated group that has indicate its intention for quite some time. It won't be a stagnant wasteland where no one does anything but buy cities. If anything, this has helped curb inflation in that regard. Most of our problems in the war have been precisely because people want to buy stuff and just build without warring. The challenge would still be there. I mean, we had EM using his nation size to get out of justice and Coalition A rallying around him and his vision has always been buying cities endlessly. You might want to look in the other direction if you want to talk about just buying cities and not fighting. 

Quote

Enough is enough roq, let the paranoia go and be the better man. We are beaten, you beat us at long last. I suspect a large amount of our side will form new AAs with new leaders out of disgust at how this war has become a giant pissing match between leaders staking whole communities on the grudges of a few. Either that or they will cut ties with former coalition allies much as KT has done. We are done as a coalition and if our own leaders don't realise that then they are fools too.

I think you're alone in this type of stance. Most people on your side are happy with what Adrienne, Keegoz, Theo, Buorhann, Sketchy, and so on have been doing. With KT, it's hard to tell what te actual motivations are given the evacuation of principal leaders has  been to combat "IQ" from a distance. They don't agree with your assessment for sure and they've been deadset on unifying more. This isn't really about people who jumped in as rerolls or new players in the middle to be honest, so I can get why you're more irritated since you're not a stakeholder.

Quote

If you wish to continue the war on for a month or so to get your last kicks in, go ahead and do it, get your last kicks in and have all the fun you want. At the very least start granting and broadcasting lenient terms for individuals not wishing to fight any longer who want out of this mess of a war and who are rightfully pissed at their own leaders for how this has went down.

It's less about just shitting on people and strategy. I mean, like I said, I wouldn't be opposed to letting people who aren't integral go to a POW AA or somewhere else  since it's not about your rerolled nation or any of the other people who came in and joined  a TKR, TGH, etc. We don't care about setting you back personally. You don't have the stuff they do. I mean, if you're hurting that much I'm sure tS or TKR can spare you some stuff from their infinite hoards of cash. No one seems upset with any of them.

Quote

You won,  now it's time to end this charade.

Edit: As for Ava's comment, well, I disagree with him. And if he and whoever else wants to take your side on again in 6 months they will be doing it on their own.

 

Like I said I'm sympathetic if you feel this way genuinely but it's not the case in terms of what the brass has in mind on your side.

 

 

  

3 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Why are you quoting avakael to illustrate your point? He is holds no authority in t$...

It doesn't matter if he has authority or not. I didn't say tS' leader said it. I said someone on your end could see the rationale and knows it's not in our strategic interest.

This is especially given you feel you were betrayed and have continuously used the logs to illustrate some sort of innocence on your end and victimhood.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Roquentin

[Keegoz]

31 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

I think you're alone in this type of stance. Most people on your side are happy with what Adrienne, Keegoz, Theo, Buorhann, Sketchy, and so on have been doing. With KT, it's hard to tell what te actual motivations are given the evacuation of principal leaders has  been to combat "IQ" from a distance. They don't agree with your assessment for sure and they've been deadset on unifying more. This isn't really about people who jumped in as rerolls or new players in the middle to be honest, so I can get why you're more irritated since you're not a stakeholder.

I think you'll find that the reason why I left was because we no longer saw KT's original goal being viable any longer (minispheres is a dead dream). Horse believed he could take KT in a different direction and we agreed to allow him to do it. We however did not want to be in his version of KT and so we went our seperate ways.

I've always been pretty open that I was going to join TKR but decided to join KT instead a long time ago. So I decided that I'd join them this time, there was no agreement for me to have any position within TKR and currently I am just a member. I am combating you because you're at war with me and because it seems you have an intent to disband this coalition or knock it so far into the dirt that you'll have a advantage that can never be questioned. I know you enjoy making boogeymans out of everyone but you made me your enemy not the other way around. Stop using any sort of resistance as an excuse to continue this war. We're unified in the belief that you don't want this conflict to end (despite us trying to conclude it) and that your ultimate goal is to eradicate us. It's the classic saying that an enemy of my enemy is my friend at this point.

[Roquentin]

1 minute ago, Keegoz said:

I think you'll find that the reason why I left was because we no longer saw KT's original goal being viable any longer (minispheres is a dead dream). Horse believed he could take KT in a different direction and we agreed to allow him to do it. We however did not want to be in his version of KT and so we went our seperate ways.

I've always been pretty open that I was going to join TKR but decided to join KT instead a long time ago. So I decided that I'd join them this time, there was no agreement for me to have any position within TKR and currently I am just a member. I am combating you because you're at war with me and because it seems you have an intent to disband this coalition or knock it so far into the dirt that you'll have a advantage that can never be questioned. I know you enjoy making boogeymans out of everyone but you made me your enemy not the other way around. Stop using any sort of resistance as an excuse to continue this war. We're unified in the belief that you don't want this conflict to end (despite us trying to conclude it) and that your ultimate goal is to eradicate us. It's the classic saying that an enemy of my enemy is my friend at this point.

That's not really how it reads. It reads as if you are planning to do stuff in your new alliances to unify further

I don't recall you being open about it. It has been confirmed that you and Chaos had planned to stick together post-war for several months now. Don't dress it up otherwise.  I said it before, but the only thing that is harmful to you is attrition and there is no way of telling who is actually gone or who will come back post-war and is just chilling out. Any attrition is ultimately on you. With what you have accumulated there is no way to "eradicate" you, only decrease the gap by limiting further accumulation or terms.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

I have a feeling this probably is only maybe Part 1 of a multistage war which will last much longer & who knows who will end up on the worst end of it when a conclusion is reached.

Why I think just ending it with Ripper gets to make a Comic of a choice to signal the end; put all the grudges behind at the end & set examples these wars don't need to end with harsh terms at all. Unless NPO thinks they can win forever, setting bad precedent here should be the last thing they'd like to do...

Good luck Roq realizing I'm right here.