Jump to content

Peace at last - what have we learned?


Phoenyx
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, WarriorSoul said:

I actually have no idea why I continue to do this, but for the fact that I like to hear myself speak, but no one's trying to censor you. But you're on here arguing with people who have been playing this game and its predecessor(s) for significant parts of two decades who are trying to explain to you, to absolutely no avail, that this is just how things go.

You could spend another half dozen threads "investigating" the causes for this war. Wars are constantly manufactured because a) people are always looking to cut down other alliances/spheres and b) folks get hella bored with no war.

So many people have asked that you just listen, but you have thus far refused, so now they just ask you to shut up, which has proven equally fruitless. Nobody wants to hear about "censorship" when you've cranked out nearly 500 posts in 3 months.

I've found that a lot of the time, people confuse the difference between listening and -agreeing-. I have listened a great deal to what many of you have to say. It's just that I don't -agree- with a lot of it. I've played war games for a fair amount of time myself, though this one is new to me. One thing I will admit, I have never been in a war game where the reasons for starting wars can be so important in the game. I like it. War shouldn't be something that is started for frivolous reasons in my view, even in a game.

 

However, part and parcel with that is that people aren't always going to -agree- as to why a war started. This is certainly the case here. Now some may say that once the war is over, why the war started no longer matters. I'd strongly disagree with this, for the primary reason that if we don't learn from our mistakes, we're bound to repeat them. To me, it seems very probable that this war started based on false information. I still haven't figured out how -much- of it was false, but it's not for lack of trying. Again, some may say, what does it matter, the war's over. It matters for one very important reason- credibility. In this war, a lot of leaders' credibility was questioned. I spoke to various leaders in this conflict- Ronnie, Tyrion, Partisan, Adrienne. Of the leaders I spoke to, none of them seemed to be trying to deceive me. However, it was literally impossible for all of them to be right on some things, not least of which because some of the things they stated contradicted what others stated.

 

I did my best to figure out whose versions of events made the most sense. I think most if not everyone here knows what side I ultimately chose to believe, but just in case- I chose the side of TFP and Immortals. In a general sense, I also chose the anti Quack side, but specifically TFP and Immortals. The reason was relatively straight forward. Their side made the most sense. I had spoken to the leader of Immortals as well as one of the leaders of TFP and they had directly denied any involvement in plans to attack Quack first. On the other side of the story, all we had were rumours. Boyce certainly wasn't a part of the anti Quack forces- to this day, most if not all of us have no idea where he got this notion that TCW/HM/Swamp was going to attack Quack in December/January. Oh, I've been told that there were various TCW sources in a conversation I had with Adrienne, Cooper and others, but what exactly did those sources say exactly?

 

The reason I believe this is so important can be reasoned with the a certain story from a non Quack source, Ronnie, leader of Grumpy. He believed, and perhaps still believes, that Swamp had at one point in time been reaching out to HM to see if they'd help attack Quack. When it was first brought up, Quack took this as vindication that they were right all along- they even made an ad from a few things that Ronnie said. But once I started looking at Ronnie's words more closely, the story seemed to unravel. For starters, no one from Swamp had actually spoken to Ronnie about such a plan. Instead, he'd heard it from -another- HM leader, whose identity is still unknown to me and the public at large. That source, in turn, made a statement that was far more ambiguous than Ronnie's own. Clearly, it would be nice if we could ask a few questions of this HM source- what did he mean? And, probably even more important, who was -his- source, or sources? 

 

These are the types of questions that matter for those who take credibility -seriously- as opposed to those who just ask their followers to trust them. Everyone can pick the type of leader they have. I think it's clear what kind of leaders I'm looking for personally, and I know I'm not the only one.

6 hours ago, Hime-sama said:

It's not censorship, it's a warrant for your arrest. You're disturbing the peace!

An interesting way to put it. But I am not disturbing -everyone's- peace. Furthermore, in an internet forum, it is pretty easy to ignore what any particular person has to say. I've been told that a group has formed with the specific goal of putting me on ignore here. I contend that the main reason that some here are disturbed by what I say has nothing to do with -me- saying it, per se, but rather, that others will say it too. In effect, what is going on here is a war of memes, or ideas. In the one faction, you have people in positions of power who don't want to be questioned and have the means to make like difficult for anyone who would challenge this status quo. And on the other, you have those who would question them anyway. This is a war of a different sort then the one we just fought, but I think that ultimately, it is a more important one and one that will have much more lasting consequences. 

Edited by Phoenyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nukey6 said:

Did you enjoy the war, Phoenyx? Or at the very least do you enjoy wartime more than peacetime?

 

No, I've never been a fan of war. This may seem like a paradox, seeing as I joined this game to begin with. One might question why I did so, and why I continue to play it. The reason is fairly straightforward- it has to do with the fact that wars/battles tend to bring people together to face a common threat. Without such an impetus, it can be easily to stick to oneself. So in essence, I joined this game, as I have joined other war games in the past, not for the wars per se, but for the community and the politics that such wars create.

3 hours ago, dtc justice said:

So phoenyx, am I understanding you correctly when you say you think there shouldn't be any wars that include basically all top 50 alliances?

 

Not per se, no. This game had war designed into it and I'm fine with that. My issue is not with starting a war, but on determining the credibility of those involved in it. This is -not- a straightforward issue of determining that x or y side is being deceitful. In wars with relatively decent leaders, no side has to be trying to deceive others. The issue here is more subtle- who does more research to find out the truth? I've clearly come to certain conclusions on that. In a way, it's actually pretty easy to determine- just see who -doesn't- want to answer certain key questions in a war and by that method, you can easily determine who isn't a fan of uncovering the whole truth. 

Edited by Phoenyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mayor said:

First of all, a lot of us specifically don't want to avoid wars like this and put serious effort into starting wars. No matter the war someone is always salty about it (the blame game). As many have stated before[,] wars in this game basically start for no reason at all.

 

Wars between nations, sure. I sincerely doubt that most global wars started for no reason at all though. Certainly not this one.

 

7 hours ago, Mayor said:

You may associate Arrgh with complete and utter anarchy and mindless raiding but it used to be a more organized and traditional alliance (still raided). Many wars were started because whoever was in charge decided it was a great idea when drunk. Jacob Hanson declared war on Rose, DEIC, and UPN all at the same time because he was wasted and slowly walked that back over the next day (we still totally destroyed DEIC though). Many Arrgh wars started simply because the other person was weaker or isolated and we thought we could take them down. Sometimes the leader hated some alliance and attacked them for a personal reason. I personally had a vendetta with Grealind and another guy called George Clooney and I did everything in my power to destroy those guys alliances when I was in government in Roz Wei, Arrgh, and Rose.

 

You're making my case for me. Whether good reasons or bad, most wars are started for reasons. They may be bad reasons that make no sense when sober, but reasons nonetheless.

 

7 hours ago, Mayor said:

I mean with George specifically I ruthlessly raided his alliance NAC, then they merged into DEIC to form Acadia and I raided those guys until they formed a military bloc with someone else. Sometimes if I could get help I would and get help on my raids or hire mercs. He definitely remembered this over the years. All alliances I was in gov with were never allied to George or Acadia and fought them several times in official alliance/global wars. The only time I fought on the side of Acadia I believe was the other Knightfall war and some of the other NAC guys and me chatted (the first time we did as allies after years of conflict) but of course George never said a word and neither did I since you gotta keep that rivalry going to the bitter end.

 

I certainly understand anger and resentment, I feel them myself. However, they're not states that I like to be in. Now, some can and will certainly do what you've done with this George fellow. Personally, however, I tend to believe what many AA groups have stated in various ways, "“Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.”  I'd rather try to explain -why- I got to feeling this way about someone, to myself and with others, in an effort to draw the poison out of my system. Whether the other party or parties wish to do the same is up to them. 

 

7 hours ago, Mayor said:

In the end wars start because they are fun or you don't like the other guy or some other alliance and want to wreck them in a period of weakness or revenge for past wars or really any other reason. There are so many reasons to fight that it is kind of silly to think that these kind of wars could ever be avoided. Though I do think that you probably would have liked the GPA if it was still around.

 

I'm not saying that global wars will stop. However, it is my hope that in the future, people are a little less trusting of sources that are essentially passing on rumours because they are too far from the original sources to ensure reliability. Now, those on the Quack side of this war and even some on the anti Quack side of this war can believe and even argue that the sources stating that TCW/HM/Swamp really were going to attack Quack first. But the proof is in the pudding- go to the sources themselves and this time, ask them more reaching questions. Thing is, the parties who have the power to do this don't want to. Why is that? Food for thought.

6 hours ago, Harry Flashman said:

It’s time Phoenyx, why don’t we let them all in on the joke? We agreed to release you from TFP and onto the forums to wear them all down with mental disintegration.  We did it old chum, you’re a war hero.

 

I must admit this made me laugh :-p. It's not true of course, but I wonder if perhaps, after you and your Alliance felt that I wouldn't be a good fit for TFP, you came to realize that I could be beneficial for your sphere. Not so that I could mentally disintegrate the opposition as you say, but rather because I would challenge the beliefs that got them into this war. I would go so far as to say that my many arguments questioning the reliability of the sources they relied on both to initiate the war (Boyce) and to continue it (Ronnie's statement) may well have helped end the war- because who wants to continue a war when they suspect that they got into it for the wrong reasons and are continuing it for the same?

Edited by Phoenyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Viselli said:

More like the Phoenyx Wont Stop Talking War

It takes 2 to tango. I'd have posted a whole lot less if I had gotten little if no responses. I have even gotten some positive feedback, which is generally the lifeline for anyone who writes. Not much point in writing if I feel I'm not getting through to anyone. 

4 hours ago, Asierith said:

image.png.c28fd99dc965167aff17318b96e232d6.png

Are you alright there?

 

I'm fine. It's not my fault so few others make threads of this nature. And clearly, whether people like me or not, quite a few people feel the desire to respond to them. Some even appreciate what I have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

It takes 2 to tango. I'd have posted a whole lot less if I had gotten little if no responses. I have even gotten some positive feedback, which is generally the lifeline for anyone who writes. Not much point in writing if I feel I'm not getting through to anyone. 

 

I'm fine. It's not my fault so few others make threads of this nature. And clearly, whether people like me or not, quite a few people feel the desire to respond to them. Some even appreciate what I have to say.

And then, there were less.

isvf1mG.png

image.png?ex=65f5acc8&is=65e337c8&hm=1606ce00348e48cf652f897b3bc05280d703dba4c8d18f7b009ab2ca44a5283b&

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

 

No, I've never been a fan of war. This may seem like a paradox, seeing as I joined this game to begin with. One might question why I did so, and why I continue to play it. The reason is fairly straightforward- it has to do with the fact that wars/battles tend to bring people together to face a common threat. Without such an impetus, it can be easily to stick to oneself. So in essence, I joined this game, as I have joined other war games in the past, not for the wars per se, but for the community and the politics that such wars create.

 

Not per se, no. This game had war designed into it and I'm fine with that. My issue is not with starting a war, but on determining the credibility of those involved in it. This is -not- a straightforward issue of determining that x or y side is being deceitful. In wars with relatively decent leaders, no side has to be trying to deceive others. The issue here is more subtle- who does more research to find out the truth? I've clearly come to certain conclusions on that. In a way, it's actually pretty easy to determine- just see who -doesn't- want to answer certain key questions in a war and by that method, you can easily determine who isn't a fan of uncovering the whole truth. 

And there we have it. You do realize all of pnw economics rely on wars that cost hundreds of billions, and now trillion+ damage? Global wars are necessary to make the flat earth go sideways. You also admitted you dislike wars which means you're a pixelhugger, you just happen to be the most vocal one

Go play Farmville 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What have I learned?" you ask.

Well, I learned to immediately downvote forum posts from an individual named Phoenyx. The fastest hand in the west, they say.

"Anything else?"

No, nothing else.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

And there we have it. You do realize all of pnw economics rely on wars that cost hundreds of billions, and now trillion+ damage? Global wars are necessary to make the flat earth go sideways.

 

I see no reason that we need to have global wars and the fact that it seems to only happen around twice a year makes it clear that while it may be cyclical, there are significant pauses between these events. 

 

  

13 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

You also admitted you dislike wars which means you're a pixelhugger, you just happen to be the most vocal one

 

There is a difference between someone who dislikes wars and someone who is a "pixelhugger". The main issue here is -why- one dislikes wars. Now I think that most people can agree that they don't like having their militaries and infra destroyed, but people different in what they're willing to do to avoid having this done. Some may not care that much for this and live for the thrill of the virtual fight, for a continual stream of wars. I think pirates best fit this description.

 

Others may favour a more restrained version, cooking up various reasons to get into a fair amount of wars. Finally, there are those, like me, who are in this more for the community then for the wars. Now I've heard some stop playing the game part and just continue talking with people they've met here. Perhaps one day I'll do that, but I think that would make more sense once I have played the game for a long period of time. For now, I like the fact that when one of my Alliance or sphere members are attacked and I'm in a good position to do so, I can counter attack, and it feels good when, if I'm attacked by a formidable foe, I can get helped in return.

 

As a side note, I actually did try farmville and found it to be dull. Real life has adversity and I do like some realism in my games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

No, I've never been a fan of war. This may seem like a paradox, seeing as I joined this game to begin with. One might question why I did so, and why I continue to play it. The reason is fairly straightforward- it has to do with the fact that wars/battles tend to bring people together to face a common threat. Without such an impetus, it can be easily to stick to oneself. So in essence, I joined this game, as I have joined other war games in the past, not for the wars per se, but for the community and the politics that such wars create.

Smartly said 🤔 Do you think the communities could unite like in wars in peacetime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

 

 I joined this game, as I have joined other war games in the past, not for the wars per se, but for the community and the politics that such wars create.

 

Yet you manage to turn the entire community against you because you can't seem to let things go or acknowledge differences of opinion? I have been lurking here for not long but you seem legit unable to pick up on social cues. It seems you want to be the "go to source" for information and use that to elevate your status within  the community. I'd recommend a different approach. You could use this time to spotlight other communities you think are great, find MVP's of the past war and elevate their status, write your own predictions on the future landscape of the community, wars, and economics. You say you love the community but you seem more infatuated with the cogs of knowledge within the game and not being one of them than you are giving back to the community you so "love."

Edited by Vice
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nukey6 said:

Smartly said 🤔 Do you think the communities could unite like in wars in peacetime?

 

Well, I think over time the regulars may become more communal, but the wars may help with this. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vice said:

Yet you manage to turn the entire community against you because you can't seem to let things go or acknowledge differences of opinion? I have been lurking here for not long but you seem legit unable to pick up on social cues. It seems you want to be the "go to source" for information and use that to elevate your status within  the community. I'd recommend a different approach. You could use this time to spotlight other communities you think are great, find MVP's of the past war and elevate their status, write your own predictions on the future landscape of the community, wars, and economics. You say you love the community but you seem more infatuated with the cogs of knowledge within the game and not being one of them than you are giving back to the community you so "love."

 

I think you're getting into a lot of abstractions and it's easy to get lost when we do that. I started out wanting to know why this war started. So I spoke to various Alliance leaders, such as Kaz, Ronnie, Partisan and Tyrion about it. I came to the conclusion that each of them knew a fair amount about their own Alliance, but not necessarily past that. Kaz and Tyrion were adamant that they had no plans to attack Quack. Partisan stated what he believed, but not being part of the anti Quack side, I felt that he was relying on second and third hand information. Ronnie made an excellent portrayal of HM politics leading up to the war, but I found that his portrayal of Swamp being at least temporarily interested in attacking Quack to be suspect because he never actually spoke to anyone in Swamp. So I brought up my concerns. Many here didn't like them. But no one came up with points that I felt countered my arguments, so I'm still here pointing these things out. Some listen, but I thin it's understandable that they don't want to get attacked like I do, so they tend to stay quiet on here for the most part. 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

 

I see no reason that we need to have global wars and the fact that it seems to only happen around twice a year makes it clear that while it may be cyclical, there are significant pauses between these events. 

 

  

 

There is a difference between someone who dislikes wars and someone who is a "pixelhugger". The main issue here is -why- one dislikes wars. Now I think that most people can agree that they don't like having their militaries and infra destroyed, but people different in what they're willing to do to avoid having this done. Some may not care that much for this and live for the thrill of the virtual fight, for a continual stream of wars. I think pirates best fit this description.

 

Others may favour a more restrained version, cooking up various reasons to get into a fair amount of wars. Finally, there are those, like me, who are in this more for the community then for the wars. Now I've heard some stop playing the game part and just continue talking with people they've met here. Perhaps one day I'll do that, but I think that would make more sense once I have played the game for a long period of time. For now, I like the fact that when one of my Alliance or sphere members are attacked and I'm in a good position to do so, I can counter attack, and it feels good when, if I'm attacked by a formidable foe, I can get helped in return.

 

As a side note, I actually did try farmville and found it to be dull. Real life has adversity and I do like some realism in my games. 

Without global wars, the market would be flooded with rss and excess cash, inflation would be worse than Zimbabwe. Global wars are necessary. If you feel otherwise maybe take a look at the data visualization charts.

People also play pnw for the global was. raids and small alliance wars are rather boring and offer far less planning, coordination, and overall macromanagement which makes the game actually fun.

Inb4 you say 'I disagree with that'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

Without global wars, the market would be flooded with rss and excess cash, inflation would be worse than Zimbabwe. Global wars are necessary. If you feel otherwise maybe take a look at the data visualization charts.

People also play pnw for the global was. raids and small alliance wars are rather boring and offer far less planning, coordination, and overall macromanagement which makes the game actually fun.

Inb4 you say 'I disagree with that'

 

Honestly, this isn't something I'm really interested in right now. I started this thread to try to take stock of what we've learned from this global war and, hopefully, what we can continue to learn from it. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Honestly, this isn't something I'm really interested in right now. I started this thread to try to take stock of what we've learned from this global war and, hopefully, what we can continue to learn from it. 

Thats my point. You're trying to say global wars 1-2 times a year is far too much but you're a brand new nation.

I should ask what have YOU learned from this war?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

Thats my point. You're trying to say global wars 1-2 times a year is far too much but you're a brand new nation.

I should ask what have YOU learned from this war?

 

A great deal. One thing for sure- haters' going to hate :-p. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Phoenyx said:

 

A great deal. One thing for sure- haters' going to hate :-p. 

And have you learned anything about how things work in pnw? Because you aren't going to change anything. Globals will continue to happen 2 times per year on average, and sometimes globals will happen because people are bored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dtc justice said:

And have you learned anything about how things work in pnw? Because you aren't going to change anything. Globals will continue to happen 2 times per year on average, and sometimes globals will happen because people are bored.

 

I think I've learned that I can affect things, despite the many denials I've heard here. How best to affect things is still a work in progress.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

I think I've learned that I can affect things, despite the many denials I've heard here. How best to affect things is still a work in progress.

The only things you affect are annoyance levels and patience.

Edited by Adrienne
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

 

I think I've learned that I can affect things, despite the many denials I've heard here. How best to affect things is still a work in progress.

You forgot to learn in-game mechanics.

  • Like 2
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.