Jump to content

Question for all Coalition leadership.


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

A question for Coalition A leadership. 

With minispheres a big part of your future outlook and something you were wanting to push, why did you decide that combining 2 spheres against 1 was the best way forward for minispheres? For me it goes against everything minispheres stand for and opposed the principle of them. Remember I'm asking this in light of the policy of minispheres rather than what was best for your alliance(s) in a war. From a general member point of view, it looks to me that combining spheres for this war gave you the advantages necessary to take down BK sphere or at least give you a good shot of doing so. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We didn’t decide on that as you think it went down.  We literally only partnered up due to your leads plot to hit both of our spheres and other issues that supported it.

Again, had there been no interference or leaks, you would’ve seen us continue our own conflict.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, AppealDenied said:

Thank you for this amazing compliment.

 

You aren't a part of either coalition and will not be present in any form during any peace talks.

Don’t want to be part of fake peace talks meant to stall anyways. Although I still believe in white peace and don’t think my war should complicate things if Coalition B has a change of heart toward that direction and it’s not to late for that.

libertyribbon.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

A question for Coalition A leadership. 

With minispheres a big part of your future outlook and something you were wanting to push, why did you decide that combining 2 spheres against 1 was the best way forward for minispheres? For me it goes against everything minispheres stand for and opposed the principle of them. Remember I'm asking this in light of the policy of minispheres rather than what was best for your alliance(s) in a war. From a general member point of view, it looks to me that combining spheres for this war gave you the advantages necessary to take down BK sphere or at least give you a good shot of doing so. 

I think we've addressed this earlier, but given the length of responses and in keeping with the cordial tone of this thread I can offer our rationale.

The fact of the matter is, in a minisphere environment 2v1s are not to be forbidden. In fact, it's a component of this game that sheer numbers lends a significant advantage in many cases, so it might even be common in a minisphere environment. What we were hoping for would be that the opponents would be an ever shifting landscape. So the fact that Surfs Up happened would not preclude the chance for KETOG and CHAOS to work together in the future. Similarly, if N$O and KETOG worked together, hypothetically, it would not preclude the chance of them being adversaries down the line. It creates a more dynamic environment, almost king of the hill, where you can have a myriad of wars and a myriad of coalition combinations.

That being said, we felt that we were signaling with Surfs Up our commitment to the above future. When we received actionable intel that BK and perhaps NPO were going to revert us to the status quo, we united in defense of our shared vision. I understand and do sympathize with the fact that this action taken in a vacuum would be fine by everyone (I should hope), but NPO read it in light of their entire history on Orbis, a terrible practice that too many of us continue to adhere to. So, in that sense I think it is all a difference in perspective and how we allowed our histories inform our interpretations. I will state emphatically, CHAOS and KETOG still had many an axe to grind and had no intention whatsoever of allying after this war at the outset.

Edited by Hodor
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Horsecock said:

Philosophical question: Is it actually a 2v1 when the "1" has twice the numbers of the "2"?

It was actually a 3v2,   Citadel, Covenant, Bk sphere vs. Ketog Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Di Vali said:

It was actually a 3v2,   Citadel, Covenant, Bk sphere vs. Ketog Chaos

If we count Citadel separate from BK Sphere maybe, although all that is besides the point. If KETOG had actually tried making the other side disband, would expect them to lose a lot support trying it if unprecedented.

So best thing for Coalition B to do would be just treat that as war banter & not sink down to that level.

libertyribbon.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

It was a an observation, genuinely no negative connotation intended. :)

To clarify this; I didn't take it negatively at all.

3 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Don’t want to be part of fake peace talks meant to stall anyways. Although I still believe in white peace and don’t think my war should complicate things if Coalition B has a change of heart toward that direction and it’s not to late for that.

White peace will not be happening, lol.

  • Haha 1

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, AppealDenied said:

To clarify this; I didn't take it negatively at all.

White peace will not be happening, lol.

Probably true, good reason for me not to have any interest in those talks if attempted.

libertyribbon.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

tl;dr A history of Roq's action is fair game for everyone, but if we look at the same with regards to you folk, we're paranoid, power hungry game killers. We're tired of that nonsense and decided to flip the script. Here we are. 

If you guys want to play that role, kind of creates an obligation for others to at least try stopping you if they don’t favor game death. It’s no longer paranoia if you decide to make it true.:P

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum

libertyribbon.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

snip

First off, ?

Second, I think you fleshed out in large part what I said in short form, so we see eye to eye. Our respective histories heavily color the way we interpret the actions of our adversaries.

That being said, do you want to change this? I do. I don't think this silly grudge match system is fun in the long term.

Additionally, are we at a point where we can now agree on the above points and discuss peace in a manner that isn't tainted by our worst parts?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, not like I was surprised by anything from the leaks or peace not working. I don’t really think goons had much of a choice on entering the global either and had a purpose in mind when brought here. My thoughts are either people can rise to the challenge or deserve the cost of failure in doing so. :P

libertyribbon.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Buorhann said:

We didn’t decide on that as you think it went down.  We literally only partnered up due to your leads plot to hit both of our spheres and other issues that supported it.

Again, had there been no interference or leaks, you would’ve seen us continue our own conflict.

Yet had BK sphere hit Chaos and N$O hit KETOG that truly would have been minispheres at work. Why not let that play out? Or st the minimum Chaos could have gone in on BK without Ketog and Ketog could have hit N$O without Chaos? To me the way you acted by combining makes sense on an alliance survival level, as in it was better to team up to get better odds of victory against BK sphere. However on the level of minisphere principles which was sold as everyone has their own sphere which they will operate within, it does not make sense. There was 2 options that fit in with minispheres in my personal view and one that didn't. To me you took the route that didn't  

The reason you gave for not hitting N$O is that you trusted their assurances they weren't going to hit you. Having been given those assurances why did KETOG then decide to hit BK who via the leaks only planned to hit Chaos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ComradeMilton said:

Open the peace server on Discord and begin.

Haven't been allowed to.

6 minutes ago, Edward I said:

New game mechanics and metagame rules.

New game mechanics because there's not much to stimulate or sustain competition in the first place. We farm infra to build warchests to fight wars to gain a relative advantage in farming infra. Anyone who doesn't focus on this will either eventually be out-competed by people who do, or already has such large warchests and nations that they effectively force others to follow that formula just to catch up. (The ability to accumulate money and resources far in excess of what's needed to wage wars is another instance of bad mechanics.)

Metagame rules are what make these types of games into giant, in-character dramas, which is always what they are when they're at their best. Without a common language and common tools to collectively tell a story ("valid" CBs, treaty chess, norms on raiding, trading and so on) they tend to devolve into a glorified multiplayer sparring match in which the only things that matter are, fundamentally, out-of-character. When that happens, it takes the focus away from a collective story and its characters (us) and instead puts it on isolated episodes that have little relation to one another. The ostensibly multiplayer game becomes a less robust version of a single-player game when the inter-player interactions are impoverished or diminished as a part of gameplay.

If you want some anecdotal evidence of this, think about your favorite memories from any of these games. More likely than not, their defining features are the stories behind them (how people acted, what they said, whether they stabbed each other in the back, whether they made you feel as if the silly game you played as a hobby had some kind of deeper, social meaning) rather than the mechanics behind them (how evenly matched the sides were, etc.).

 

In practice, a successful implementation of what I outlined would tend to put power in the hands of groups that have the highest "aggregate activity." By that, I mean a combination of the absolute number of players a group has plus however much they collectively go above and beyond the daily floor on effective activity. In PW, that floor is probably around several logins per week in peace and one login per day in war.

Higher in-game activity (baseball, trading, spending MAPs as they accrue) obviously helps you; so does higher out-of-game activity (smoky backrooms, etc.). Having lots of cities or large stockpiles doesn't count for much in my formula (those are dividends from past activity rather than present activity), and neither does having old friends who you know won't fight against you (again, dividends from past activity rather than present interests). Large strength disparities between nations/players also tend to be detrimental to this because they shift the focus and incentives away from activity and towards control of the largest, most powerful, most productive nations. Basically, whoever is best at telling and driving the story in the here and now deserves to be in the driver's seat, and very few other considerations matter.

These suggestions probably won't be very popular. They'd require significant mechanical updates to the game; would very likely force incumbents (older, well-connected players and players with larger nations) to cede some of their de facto power to newer, more numerous players; and would likely necessitate liberal usage of threats and military force to maintain (I'm now waiting for someone to cry "hegemony"). On that darker note, I'll end the wall of text.

This post is going to be underrated.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're still at war because TS refused to enter peace talks and because ketog/chaos/rose walked out of negotiations on the 13th of last month for some reason. I'm more than willing to send another invite to the peace server to ts to begin negotiations, or even to their allies if the snek's ego isn't a good enough reason for them to keep fighting. 

  • Upvote 1

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

On 12/12/2019 at 12:12 AM, Zed said:

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.

lolwut? Your alliance organized the objectively worst exploit in the games history where you bought all the treasures you could and invited nearly your entire sphere to join the aa to rake in massive amounts of cash. It wasn't a novel idea, but Paragon and the Covenant never saw borderline abuse as valid strategies and figured no one would ever attempt something like that. And now people are shocked over a few baseball games and referral bonuses complaining it's an unfair advantage, lmfao.

The most abusive and "borderline exploit" practices that are currently in the game are a reflection of how EMC acted when they had a hegemony. Get down off your cross, build a bridge, and get over it.

Edited by Malal
  • Upvote 1

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

26 minutes ago, Malal said:

lolwut? Your alliance organized the objectively worst exploit in the games history where you bought all the treasures you could and invited nearly your entire sphere to join the aa to rake in massive amounts of cash. It wasn't a novel idea, but Paragon and the Covenant never saw borderline abuse as valid strategies and figured no one would ever attempt something like that. And now people are shocked over a few baseball games and referral bonuses complaining it's an unfair advantage, lmfao.

The most abusive and "borderline exploit" practices that are currently in the game are a reflection of how EMC acted when they had a hegemony. Get down off your cross, build a bridge, and get over it.

Maybe them complaining over people making small amounts off that is reflective of how long it’s dragged out beyond the reasonable. While complaining isn’t cool & people should just fight until better peace can be achieved; at some point they need to bring attention to it when the goal has shifted to killing off most of the active war alliances & it’s completely lopsided against them.

After the logs about different ways to drag it out, have a hard time thinking you guys are serious about peace without terms you can make public for them at least.:P

libertyribbon.png

 

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.