Jump to content

Partisan's hot takes: Episode 1


Prefonteen
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Raoul Duke said:

kill women and children

Instructions unclear, 50 casualties taken.

  • Haha 1

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2021 at 10:07 AM, Roberts said:

To have fallen so far and learned nothing.

 

The leadership is not to blame. As much as you and your elitist ilk like to pretend that online nationsim politics is so hard and advanced beyond the means of the everyman, it isn't. Anyone can aspire, politic, and plot. It's your archaic methods in the major alliances and the entanglements of treaties that bind you thusly.

 

Do you want PnW to be interesting?

DEMOCRATIZE YOURSELVES - No nation should be slave to their alliance. The alliance should answer to the people. Your typical defense is OPSEC, which is laughable. What opsec have we seen in PnW? Every member, gov or otherwise, rushes to gossip about any unfolding event as quickly as they can. Democracy or no. Plans leak, wars spark, and that is thankfully the only thing that drags politics forward through the mire in which we find ourselves. You want more interesting things happening? Tired of the same old leadership? Then democratize and start seeing turnover and new blood. Your members aren't inactive, they're merely disinterested in investing three years of their lives to maybe get promoted into a position that you'll simply steal back when you unretire every three weeks.

  • gov should be elected via some method, especially the top leader. Arrgh, for example, elects the Grand Admiral and then he/she appoints the rest.
  • treaties, wars, and major decisions should not only be a vote but a discussion.

 

Are you tired of nothing ever happening?

SHED YOUR PAPER - I'm really not sure how treaties got carried over from other nationsim games like we learned nothing. I expect because in CN and other games we were too strict, too opsec, too self-contained within our own element of government that we didn't inform the masses who came here and took up the mantle. Treaties fricking suck. They kill intrigue, they kill plotting, they kill politics. Treaties reduce this game of would-be thrones into a mundane exercise in contractual obligation. Congratulations, you're simulating a relationship with a bank. So fun right? FA heads tell me honestly - who do you spend the majority of your time talking to and what do you talk about? It's not your allies unless you truly have a special relationship. You spend your time trying to make new treaties. Upper gov the same. You spend all your political time and energy trying to do something new. Something new is fun, exciting, as it should be. Yet you simple-minded apes can't connect the cause to the effect. You sign a treaty, you now may get an occasional check-in from that ally. More than likely, you'll get radio silence for awhile because the fun has been had and the honeymoon is over.

 

The thing people fail to understand is that a paperless alliance can also obligate itself to defend another alliance. It's an agreement like any other but it's not announced or celebrated and it comes with risk and opportunity. If you agree to defend someone and don't hear from them again until next year - that agreement may be revisited. Similarly, it opens opportunity for politicking on another level. Backstabs, betrayals, disloyalty, plots... Things we pretend to decry in public but crave in private.

 

Just some early morning thoughts from your friendly neighborhood Pirate.

I've been playing games like this since 2007.   If I only learned one thing from it all, its that democracies do not work here.   And the rare time you get one that does I tend to chalk it up too a broken clock being right twice a day.   The most successful are always meritocracies.

:nyan:The Volleyball :nyan: 

Avanti Immortali

 

..one, two, Jimmy's coming for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Dr James Wilson said:

I've been playing games like this since 2007.   If I only learned one thing from it all, its that democracies do not work here.   And the rare time you get one that does I tend to chalk it up too a broken clock being right twice a day.   The most successful are always meritocracies.

Genuinely no offense, but a history of Fark and TI (or using CN experience, a failed game) doesn't apply to a discussion of how best to run things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Roberts said:

Genuinely no offense, but a history of Fark and TI (or using CN experience, a failed game) doesn't apply to a discussion of how best to run things

I don't know much about Fark, but I've been a fan of The Immortals for a while now. They may not be your cup of tea, but they actually have quite a few friends, as well as a fair amount of members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2021 at 10:06 AM, Roberts said:

I really can't begin to have a conversation in good faith with someone who thinks democracy should mean "voting with your feet." The general attitude of "if you don't like it, get out" completely ignores any other factor at play. I could hate t$ internal or foreign policy but I stay for protection, my friends, laziness, comfort, etc. so now I'm "stuck" in an alliance that I'm disinterested in because - quite relatably - I'm more invested in chatting / voice chatting / playing games other than PnW with my buddies than trying to become their political rivals. "Vote with your feet" is a lazy answer that doesn't actually address wider player engagement. This is a political simulator. People are here for politics which includes - votes, voting, elections, democracy.

  'Vote with your feet' would be an unreasonable dismissal if we were talking about real nations and people, but this nation-sim does not present the same barriers to free movement; anyone can leave their alliance at any time to join another one or even start their own, meaning there is unlimited opportunity here to find or make an alliance that reflects your interests. 'Vote with your feet' is a practical guiding principle for everyone, and more accessible and realistic than revolutionising the structure of one's current alliance. Of course 'vote with your feet' does not mean one doesn't have other options such as first voicing one's concerns to leadership, which leadership should weigh against the possibility of losing the member or others with similar concerns. It's a practical, accessible, guiding principle, with the power and influence of the constant threat that members will simply walk away from alliances that do not adequately serve the interests of their members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2021 at 9:40 AM, Prefonteen said:

You say a lot of stuff that can make sense.

But you lose me with your railing against elitism and paper, respectively. 

Paper works constricting in the manner you describe only when  it is viewed as more than a political tool utilised in pursuit of some mutual agenda. Ideally, when the agendas ceases to overlap, you either part ways or adjust the agendas to alignment again. There must always be an objective. 

I'd say about 90% fail to do this, and so fall into the trap where they either become stagnant husks dragged around by more politically active players, or they find themselves caught in the crossfire of other people's designs. Or both. 

With regards to leadership: nations vote with their feet. But moreover, leaders hold only as much power as they are given in these games. Lastly... Democratisation tends to stagnate a Shitton because it comes at the expense of political ambition in these games. 

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

On 2/12/2021 at 7:06 PM, Roberts said:

I really can't begin to have a conversation in good faith with someone who thinks democracy should mean "voting with your feet." The general attitude of "if you don't like it, get out" completely ignores any other factor at play. I could hate t$ internal or foreign policy but I stay for protection, my friends, laziness, comfort, etc. so now I'm "stuck" in an alliance that I'm disinterested in because - quite relatably - I'm more invested in chatting / voice chatting / playing games other than PnW with my buddies than trying to become their political rivals. "Vote with your feet" is a lazy answer that doesn't actually address wider player engagement. This is a political simulator. People are here for politics which includes - votes, voting, elections, democracy.

I think you're putting far too much simple thought into the whole "voting with your feet".  It's not necessarily telling players to leave if they don't like it, it's moreso players will leave on their own if they don't like the direction the alliance is going.

But there's far more complexities here.  @Prefonteen is simply pointing out that "voting with your feet" is the final decision of a player.  There's many other options out there, but what keeps things in check for alliances is simply that statement.  When all other options fails, people will leave and leadership can crumble from a severe player migration.  There was a show I did that talked a bit on this, where leaders needed to reach out and listen to their members, otherwise they'll simply leave and find a home elsewhere.

Simply put, democracies and leadership growth happen one way or another.  There's no penalty for players to leave their alliances and join others, unlike in real life where it can potentially be a life or death situation.

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

On 2/13/2021 at 2:07 AM, Roberts said:

To have fallen so far and learned nothing.

 

The leadership is not to blame. As much as you and your elitist ilk like to pretend that online nationsim politics is so hard and advanced beyond the means of the everyman, it isn't. Anyone can aspire, politic, and plot. It's your archaic methods in the major alliances and the entanglements of treaties that bind you thusly.

 

Do you want PnW to be interesting?

DEMOCRATIZE YOURSELVES - No nation should be slave to their alliance. The alliance should answer to the people. Your typical defense is OPSEC, which is laughable. What opsec have we seen in PnW? Every member, gov or otherwise, rushes to gossip about any unfolding event as quickly as they can. Democracy or no. Plans leak, wars spark, and that is thankfully the only thing that drags politics forward through the mire in which we find ourselves. You want more interesting things happening? Tired of the same old leadership? Then democratize and start seeing turnover and new blood. Your members aren't inactive, they're merely disinterested in investing three years of their lives to maybe get promoted into a position that you'll simply steal back when you unretire every three weeks.

  • gov should be elected via some method, especially the top leader. Arrgh, for example, elects the Grand Admiral and then he/she appoints the rest.
  • treaties, wars, and major decisions should not only be a vote but a discussion.

 

Are you tired of nothing ever happening?

SHED YOUR PAPER - I'm really not sure how treaties got carried over from other nationsim games like we learned nothing. I expect because in CN and other games we were too strict, too opsec, too self-contained within our own element of government that we didn't inform the masses who came here and took up the mantle. Treaties fricking suck. They kill intrigue, they kill plotting, they kill politics. Treaties reduce this game of would-be thrones into a mundane exercise in contractual obligation. Congratulations, you're simulating a relationship with a bank. So fun right? FA heads tell me honestly - who do you spend the majority of your time talking to and what do you talk about? It's not your allies unless you truly have a special relationship. You spend your time trying to make new treaties. Upper gov the same. You spend all your political time and energy trying to do something new. Something new is fun, exciting, as it should be. Yet you simple-minded apes can't connect the cause to the effect. You sign a treaty, you now may get an occasional check-in from that ally. More than likely, you'll get radio silence for awhile because the fun has been had and the honeymoon is over.

 

The thing people fail to understand is that a paperless alliance can also obligate itself to defend another alliance. It's an agreement like any other but it's not announced or celebrated and it comes with risk and opportunity. If you agree to defend someone and don't hear from them again until next year - that agreement may be revisited. Similarly, it opens opportunity for politicking on another level. Backstabs, betrayals, disloyalty, plots... Things we pretend to decry in public but crave in private.

 

Just some early morning thoughts from your friendly neighborhood Pirate.

Jesus, it's like I've met my doppelganger.

Fine points dear sir. Fine points indeed.

I would just like to add that much of the criticism aimed at democracy in games such as PnW and CN comes down to the notion of elections and how they are typically misused and/or abused. The typical "democratic" alliances are pretty much nothing more than the usual tried and tested elitist alliance  model where instead of meritocracy (nepotism most of the time), we have the veneer of democracy disguising yet again another elitist model where a few key individuals with the right connections make the decisions as per their own interests and thoughts. Very rarely do we see an outsider come in and shake things up in either the typical meritocracy or the so called democratic AAs. Most of the time it's just easier to form a new AA and avoid the trouble of debating it out with the gov of an alliance.

But back to elections. Sure, the leaders of an alliance have been elected, and that's the issue. The same bunch with the same guiding ethos tend to be elected over and over and they tend to make decisions which cater to their own interests be it treaties, taxation, government structure etc. How many of these so called democracies actually put the actual decisions to a vote? How many gov leaders considering a taxation change actually put the proposal to their members, give them the relevant information and likely benefits to arise from such a taxation change and let them make the decision?

Not many I believe.

So what's my point? It's not elections which make a democracy but adherence to the principles of democracy which matter. Namely collaborative and consultative practices, open and transparent discussion and genuine efforts to build consensus. 

Also, I also find the logic that "democracies don't work in this game because the few AAs to have attempted it have all failed" to be particularly amusing. I reckon at least 95% of the alliances claiming to be merit based have also failed, some spectacularly so, but you don't see anyone using that logic against them.

Indeed, a few of the alliances I've been in over the years which employed the utilisation of democratic principles have been pretty successful. Early tS (as partisan will know) was quite democratic internally in its outlook with most of the old guard and experienced members, even outside of gov, being involved in the discussion making progress with their viewpoints often making a difference to the final decision reached. Arrgh is another example, perhaps the best for that matter. Sure, they don't fit the traditional mould of a democratic AA but their adherence to members having considerably more say in how their alliance operates, individual decision making power and open transparency sets them as pretty unique in this game. I doubt very strongly anyone could make a reasonable case to say arrgh hasn't been successful, indeed, they have outlived easy 95% (probably closer to 99% if I must be honest) of the alliances in this game.

So yeah, in short, I don't believe effective democracies are inherently inferior. I do believe they are harder to achieve, implement and maintain but I also believe a fully functioning democratic AA employing democratic principles is inherently superior in every category to the traditional meritocracy model. A knowledgeable and active membership base engaged with their alliance's direction, passionate about their alliance's interests because they have a real stake in the alliance prospering? That's unbeatable and no cookie cutter elitist model alliance with a majority of their alliance membership excluded from the decision making process with little stake in the alliance's success  will ever be able to match that level of engagement.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2021 at 4:26 PM, Roberts said:

Genuinely no offense, but a history of Fark and TI (or using CN experience, a failed game) doesn't apply to a discussion of how best to run things

First of all, any comment that starts with no offense is clearly implying offense so why bother with such a misguided dismissal?   There are more nation sim and games of similar design based off other concepts like space or medieval times and its entirely possible to play more then one at a time.  So, try not to just dismiss my opinion because you only know of my history here.

:nyan:The Volleyball :nyan: 

Avanti Immortali

 

..one, two, Jimmy's coming for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/16/2021 at 1:48 AM, Buorhann said:

I agree wholeheartedly with this.

I think you're putting far too much simple thought into the whole "voting with your feet".  It's not necessarily telling players to leave if they don't like it, it's moreso players will leave on their own if they don't like the direction the alliance is going.

But there's far more complexities here.  @Prefonteen is simply pointing out that "voting with your feet" is the final decision of a player.  There's many other options out there, but what keeps things in check for alliances is simply that statement.  When all other options fails, people will leave and leadership can crumble from a severe player migration.  There was a show I did that talked a bit on this, where leaders needed to reach out and listen to their members, otherwise they'll simply leave and find a home elsewhere.

Simply put, democracies and leadership growth happen one way or another.  There's no penalty for players to leave their alliances and join others, unlike in real life where it can potentially be a life or death situation.

If we're here to discuss the meta of the game I think some modicum of thought is deserved. Quite frankly, we've been trying your/Partisan's way of politics for years and we're still in the stale meta. We carried over treaties from CN which was understandable but now we've really seen what the result is. There is no clever political move when signing that defense contract - you've simply stifled action. Multiply this out a thousand times with all the paper in the game and no wonder we're looking at stagnant, repetitive politics.

The leadership is stagnant and needs to shuffle frequently for real politics to happen. Democracy is the only way to have this reliably and regularly happen. Democracy is also the only reliable and tried method to have membership involvement - competent or otherwise. I'm here to tell you it's ok to not run your alliance like a business but instead as a game community. It's ok to make a mistake while trying to do something cool. It's ok to get rolled in pursuit of a goal. It's ok to roll someone else. That's all part of the fun.

 

The same tired line of "we need to teach leadership how to be Machiavellian with their treaties" has been repeated ad nauseum for a very long time. Old people may recognize the name Ivan Moldavi - who tried to run a "villain academy" back in like 2009. It failed to produce any results but was probably fun to attend. I feel the same way about Partisan's potential ramblings. They'll be fun to read, but will likely produce no results. Not for the lack of trying, but because "training to be machiavelli" while ignoring all the pieces of the current system which contribute to the lack of Machiavellianism in politics is going to result the same way your (Buo) radio show did. It was fun to listen to, but ultimately we're still in the same boat. 

 

Furthermore, Paper Delenda Est.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2021 at 6:00 PM, Roberts said:

If we're here to discuss the meta of the game I think some modicum of thought is deserved. Quite frankly, we've been trying your/Partisan's way of politics for years and we're still in the stale meta.

"My style" wasn't done for years.  Only one other group attempted to go along with what I envisioned.

EDIT:

I take that back.  2 technically attempted it, but it wasn't "my style" when the other group attempted it.

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

9 hours ago, Buorhann said:

"My style" wasn't done for years.  Only one other group attempted to go along with what I envisioned.

EDIT:

I take that back.  2 technically attempted it, but it wasn't "my style" when the other group attempted it.

What two came to mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Buorhann said:

"My style" wasn't done for years.  Only one other group attempted to go along with what I envisioned.

EDIT:

I take that back.  2 technically attempted it, but it wasn't "my style" when the other group attempted it.

That is fair, but it's also fair to say you were a major figure in politics for at least a full year and you chose to follow more-or-less the same path trod by Partisan, Roquentin, Abbas, and others.

I appreciated microspheres and miniblocs for what it's worth. I think it's just hard to get away from the dogpile mentality when only a handful of people actively play at the highest levels of politics. Which is why we need democracy. The tired cycle isn't going to break when only a handful of players are calling shots year after year. We gotta shake it up and bring more people into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2021 at 8:00 PM, Roberts said:

If we're here to discuss the meta of the game I think some modicum of thought is deserved. Quite frankly, we've been trying your/Partisan's way of politics for years and we're still in the stale meta. We carried over treaties from CN which was understandable but now we've really seen what the result is. There is no clever political move when signing that defense contract - you've simply stifled action. Multiply this out a thousand times with all the paper in the game and no wonder we're looking at stagnant, repetitive politics.

The leadership is stagnant and needs to shuffle frequently for real politics to happen. Democracy is the only way to have this reliably and regularly happen. Democracy is also the only reliable and tried method to have membership involvement - competent or otherwise. I'm here to tell you it's ok to not run your alliance like a business but instead as a game community. It's ok to make a mistake while trying to do something cool. It's ok to get rolled in pursuit of a goal. It's ok to roll someone else. That's all part of the fun.

 

The same tired line of "we need to teach leadership how to be Machiavellian with their treaties" has been repeated ad nauseum for a very long time. Old people may recognize the name Ivan Moldavi - who tried to run a "villain academy" back in like 2009. It failed to produce any results but was probably fun to attend. I feel the same way about Partisan's potential ramblings. They'll be fun to read, but will likely produce no results. Not for the lack of trying, but because "training to be machiavelli" while ignoring all the pieces of the current system which contribute to the lack of Machiavellianism in politics is going to result the same way your (Buo) radio show did. It was fun to listen to, but ultimately we're still in the same boat. 

 

Furthermore, Paper Delenda Est.

 

And don't forget, Machiavelli might be famous for the Prince, but The Prince was just one of many books he wrote about government and it's forms and how each form should be run and operated for best results. 

It's telling that he suggested the monarchy to dispatch well aimed and timed cruelty to maintain order, I think.

Telling especially when you actually research the guy and his work and realize that in his opinion, Republics were the best, no contest, and that he wrote things like The Prince under duress.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Akuryo said:

And don't forget, Machiavelli might be famous for the Prince, but The Prince was just one of many books he wrote about government and it's forms and how each form should be run and operated for best results. 

It's telling that he suggested the monarchy to dispatch well aimed and timed cruelty to maintain order, I think.

Telling especially when you actually research the guy and his work and realize that in his opinion, Republics were the best, no contest, and that he wrote things like The Prince under duress.

Pretty much this. "Discourses" is a far better and more substantive work.

  • Upvote 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Roberts said:

That is fair, but it's also fair to say you were a major figure in politics for at least a full year and you chose to follow more-or-less the same path trod by Partisan, Roquentin, Abbas, and others.

This is also false.  For two things.  I've been a major figure in politics for a longer period than a year, but I refused to follow the same path as them.  When I was in Mensa and Syndicate, yeah, you're right.  After those times?  No.

I was, and still am, a firm advocate for mini spheres.

Keep in mind, mini spheres is pretty much what you're advocating, but you're just wanting more separation of paper.  Nothing will stop a dogpile outside of proper FA and not doing stupid shit.
 

4 hours ago, Relic said:

What two came to mind?

Chaos and 'TEst, Arrgh, Roz Wei' grouping way back when Papers, Please happened.   Outside of KETOGG that is.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2021 at 9:06 PM, Roberts said:

See above regarding the "vote with your feet" lazy argument. To address your actual point: See my reply to Ronny. A democracy only works as well as the people within the democracy. If the people fail, so too does the democracy. If dummies such as "Joe Schmo" win their election bid via a police force platform... well I think that alliance has bigger problems than one scrub becoming gov.

You are aware that there are perfectly interesting alliances that aren't democratic, right? Weebunism for example is a meritocracy, as are most other alliances I've noticed. That system works and nobody really complains, except Arrgh of course.

The voting with your feet argument is not lazy, in fact it would occur with or without democracy. If I'm in an alliance, and it's going a way I don't like, I leave. Period. End of story. Democracy only works in alliances that want it. I do not want to be in a democratic alliance, but I recognize the successes of democratic alliances in Orbis. Saying that everyone should be a democracy is silly, because it doesn't work that way. Not everyone wants to be in a democracy, and a democracy is not fool proof. See the 2016 election and 2020 election and every election in between. 

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Buorhann said:

I was, and still am, a firm advocate for mini spheres.

Keep in mind, mini spheres is pretty much what you're advocating, but you're just wanting more separation of paper.  Nothing will stop a dogpile outside of proper FA and not doing stupid shit.

Note: Royal you
Minispheres can't work unless you've got guiding principles though.  Namely, that other spheres aren't engaging in paperless treaties.  No amount of "proper FA" responds to the political incentives when you get even a few bad faith actors.  The only thing that has changed in past iterations of minispheres is whether those same group of political actors puts their cards on the table or hides them in smokey back-channels.

What's the point of having a small sphere if your potential enemies have a giant paperless web?  Is there any incentive for you to just not make your own paperless web or blob your own sphere in size?  

 

The end result is no different from bipolarity as long as you can't trust other actors with some basic standards of conduct.  I think the last few wars have showcased that pretty perfectly where we run through the perpetual gambit of one side slowly amplifying calls of hegemony and then proceeds to 3 v 1 said "hegemony."  The "pseudo-minispheres" that you heavily influenced have mostly been a "do as I say; but not as a I do" where FA is determined by the secret ties you can scrounge from the people you knew since your time in CN.  

The worst offenders are usually the people who try to come off as the strongest defenders of minispheres simply because minispheres and the hegemony narratives are politically expedient for their interests.  And it's part of why the past set of wars have been so uncompetitive and built on pretty weak narratives.  

Personally, I'd love to see a true multipolar, minispheres world, but the precedents we have so far are quite disappointing.  Until we have a global understanding that minisphere doesn't mean free reign to paperless, we won't have a successful minispheres meta.  That starts with the people who holler the loudest about minispheres and hegemonies who have also done the most to hurt it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

Note: Royal you
Minispheres can't work unless you've got guiding principles though.  Namely, that other spheres aren't engaging in paperless treaties.  No amount of "proper FA" responds to the political incentives when you get even a few bad faith actors.  The only thing that has changed in past iterations of minispheres is whether those same group of political actors puts their cards on the table or hides them in smokey back-channels.

What's the point of having a small sphere if your potential enemies have a giant paperless web?  Is there any incentive for you to just not make your own paperless web or blob your own sphere in size?  

 

The end result is no different from bipolarity as long as you can't trust other actors with some basic standards of conduct.  I think the last few wars have showcased that pretty perfectly where we run through the perpetual gambit of one side slowly amplifying calls of hegemony and then proceeds to 3 v 1 said "hegemony."  The "pseudo-minispheres" that you heavily influenced have mostly been a "do as I say; but not as a I do" where FA is determined by the secret ties you can scrounge from the people you knew since your time in CN.  

The worst offenders are usually the people who try to come off as the strongest defenders of minispheres simply because minispheres and the hegemony narratives are politically expedient for their interests.  And it's part of why the past set of wars have been so uncompetitive and built on pretty weak narratives.  

Personally, I'd love to see a true multipolar, minispheres world, but the precedents we have so far are quite disappointing.  Until we have a global understanding that minisphere doesn't mean free reign to paperless, we won't have a successful minispheres meta.  That starts with the people who holler the loudest about minispheres and hegemonies who have also done the most to hurt it.

That is a chicken or the egg argument if I have ever seen it.  Would mini-spheres need to team up if one sphere is so giant that none can stand against it?  What I find interesting about minispheres is that they can team up one war to fight someone, and the next war they could be fighting each other.  It just doesn't work when one sphere is so large they cant be stopped without the other spheres teaming up.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

Note: Royal you
Minispheres can't work unless you've got guiding principles though.  Namely, that other spheres aren't engaging in paperless treaties.  No amount of "proper FA" responds to the political incentives when you get even a few bad faith actors.  The only thing that has changed in past iterations of minispheres is whether those same group of political actors puts their cards on the table or hides them in smokey back-channels.

What's the point of having a small sphere if your potential enemies have a giant paperless web?  Is there any incentive for you to just not make your own paperless web or blob your own sphere in size?  

 

The end result is no different from bipolarity as long as you can't trust other actors with some basic standards of conduct.  I think the last few wars have showcased that pretty perfectly where we run through the perpetual gambit of one side slowly amplifying calls of hegemony and then proceeds to 3 v 1 said "hegemony."  The "pseudo-minispheres" that you heavily influenced have mostly been a "do as I say; but not as a I do" where FA is determined by the secret ties you can scrounge from the people you knew since your time in CN.  

The worst offenders are usually the people who try to come off as the strongest defenders of minispheres simply because minispheres and the hegemony narratives are politically expedient for their interests.  And it's part of why the past set of wars have been so uncompetitive and built on pretty weak narratives.  

Personally, I'd love to see a true multipolar, minispheres world, but the precedents we have so far are quite disappointing.  Until we have a global understanding that minisphere doesn't mean free reign to paperless, we won't have a successful minispheres meta.  That starts with the people who holler the loudest about minispheres and hegemonies who have also done the most to hurt it.

Practice what you preach 🙏 

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

20 hours ago, Cooper_ said:


Minispheres can't work.

I fixed it for you 👍

If you want a multi-polar world, it needs to be derived from natural divides between alliances. It can't be forced or "agreed to" out of "principles" since it will simply never work due to human nature being rather, well, self-serving. 

Truth be told, I'm thinking ingame scarcity resource might be the true answer. Most wars arise from largely out of game interactions, leaders plotting against other leaders due to personal feelings or indeed, in response to plotting itself. If we had mechanics ingame such as having team colours and/or treaties offering enough worthwhile benefits to cause actual conflict, this competition might be enough to cause meaningful differences between alliances and spheres for a multi polar world to develop. Mechanics which granted significant bonuses to dominating teams, colours or even continents for that matter, might drive the creation of multipolar conflicts because after all, right now we are all forced to rely upon the words of these few lucky enough to be in gov. Which yeah, hasn't turned out well...

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

That is a chicken or the egg argument if I have ever seen it.  Would mini-spheres need to team up if one sphere is so giant that none can stand against it?  What I find interesting about minispheres is that they can team up one war to fight someone, and the next war they could be fighting each other.  It just doesn't work when one sphere is so large they cant be stopped without the other spheres teaming up.

Exactly what Chaos and KETOGG did.  I agree wholeheartedly with this.

EDIT:

To those stating that minispheres couldn't work.  No matter what "system" you guys put into place, none of it will work according to your expectations. 

Every alliance paperless?  You'll still get alliances working together.

Minispheres?  You'll still get multiple spheres working together.

One !@#$yuge treaty web?  You'll still get alliances working together, even if they're tied up by their third cousin and working against/for each other.  (Example would be Syndisphere back in the day, how @Prefonteen managed to wrangle up various support at odd times)

The idea of paperless alliances (Like @Roberts is wanting) and minispheres (Where only a small cluster of alliances are tied together in their own little corner of the world) is the perception of flexibility - just like what @Sweeeeet Ronny D said in the quote.

 

EDIT #2:  @Cooper_ - TKR benefited from KETOGG turning and helping Chaos out.  If we practiced what you preached, Chaos would've been burned to the ground and TKR would be forced into...  whatever the hell NPO and BK wanted out of your alliance.  You'd fight, but they wouldn't relent.  

Edited by Buorhann
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2021 at 5:00 PM, Buorhann said:

This is also false.  For two things.  I've been a major figure in politics for a longer period than a year, but I refused to follow the same path as them.  When I was in Mensa and Syndicate, yeah, you're right.  After those times?  No.

I was, and still am, a firm advocate for mini spheres.

Keep in mind, mini spheres is pretty much what you're advocating, but you're just wanting more separation of paper.  Nothing will stop a dogpile outside of proper FA and not doing stupid shit.
 

Chaos and 'TEst, Arrgh, Roz Wei' grouping way back when Papers, Please happened.   Outside of KETOGG that is.

I agree that social pressure can go a long way. Anyone who thinks minispheres can't work is cynical. In a game with a total population of a few thousand people and only 1% of that actually calling the shots? Social pressure can easily force a meta that the mechanics may not necessarily deem optimal. Any other opinion is cynical laziness.

Same with paperless. Same with democracy.

This is a political simulator but we've turned it into a political simulator for the 1% and a farmville-slave-simulator for everyone else. You're lucky if you don't pay taxes, but guess what: leave your alliance/coalition during a war you disapprove of? Dodger for life, good luck being taken seriously ever again without ridiculous PR effort.

Most people that play PnW pay taxes (which is fine btw but in this case without democracy taxation is literally theft) to their alliance leadership who then decides where that money and those resources go. To some extent or another most players have no actual choice where their in-game currencies go. Build orders enforced by the IA department, war orders enforced by milcom, treaties signed by your FA person(s)... Genuinely speaking if I described this game to you before you had played it and told you only 1% of players ever get to do the actual politicking... none of us would be here.

But because it's socially accepted in the community taxes even without representation or agreement are fine. Signing treaties without a vote from the members is fine because both they and you (the leaders) have been coached to believe OPSEC is more important than player choice... The list goes on. It may sound crazy but I assure you this is a game and the way we're choosing to play it is one of the least fun ways one could imagine.

On 2/21/2021 at 5:37 PM, Aqua-Corpsman said:

You are aware that there are perfectly interesting alliances that aren't democratic, right? Weebunism for example is a meritocracy, as are most other alliances I've noticed. That system works and nobody really complains, except Arrgh of course.

The voting with your feet argument is not lazy, in fact it would occur with or without democracy. If I'm in an alliance, and it's going a way I don't like, I leave. Period. End of story. Democracy only works in alliances that want it. I do not want to be in a democratic alliance, but I recognize the successes of democratic alliances in Orbis. Saying that everyone should be a democracy is silly, because it doesn't work that way. Not everyone wants to be in a democracy, and a democracy is not fool proof. See the 2016 election and 2020 election and every election in between. 

"Meritocracy" has always been a buzzword used to dissuade the populace of their notions of democracy. In truth your system is autocratic. Just because you choose who you (the leader) thinks is best does not make the system based on merit. When's the last time anyone ever saw actual requirements for a government position? You don't because you can't quantify a competent FA guy or a good milcom person with meaningful criteria. Thus you choose them based on your sole, sometimes a group vote within the vaunted halls of government, opinion.

Also lol at trying to use the IRL USA as an argument against democracy.

On 2/22/2021 at 12:46 AM, Cooper_ said:

Note: Royal you
Minispheres can't work unless you've got guiding principles though.  Namely, that other spheres aren't engaging in paperless treaties.  No amount of "proper FA" responds to the political incentives when you get even a few bad faith actors.  The only thing that has changed in past iterations of minispheres is whether those same group of political actors puts their cards on the table or hides them in smokey back-channels.

What's the point of having a small sphere if your potential enemies have a giant paperless web?  Is there any incentive for you to just not make your own paperless web or blob your own sphere in size?  

 

The end result is no different from bipolarity as long as you can't trust other actors with some basic standards of conduct.  I think the last few wars have showcased that pretty perfectly where we run through the perpetual gambit of one side slowly amplifying calls of hegemony and then proceeds to 3 v 1 said "hegemony."  The "pseudo-minispheres" that you heavily influenced have mostly been a "do as I say; but not as a I do" where FA is determined by the secret ties you can scrounge from the people you knew since your time in CN.  

The worst offenders are usually the people who try to come off as the strongest defenders of minispheres simply because minispheres and the hegemony narratives are politically expedient for their interests.  And it's part of why the past set of wars have been so uncompetitive and built on pretty weak narratives.  

Personally, I'd love to see a true multipolar, minispheres world, but the precedents we have so far are quite disappointing.  Until we have a global understanding that minisphere doesn't mean free reign to paperless, we won't have a successful minispheres meta.  That starts with the people who holler the loudest about minispheres and hegemonies who have also done the most to hurt it.

I personally believe paperless politics works best as an all-or-nothing take on things. I think the propagandist attitude against paperless treaties is stupid though. If someone wants to announce one treaty and keep another one a secret it may leave a bad taste in the mouth and call into question whether that treaty existed prior to its use but it's still valid either way. It's just yet another example that people don't need contractual obligation to act on their own interests or even against their own interests.

Things work if you make them work and can come together with enough people to enforce it through social pressure and real action. See my response to Buo at the top of this post for reference. The argument you make is not against minispheres as a concept, it's against paper as a concept. You're so close yet fell on the wrong side of the fence. Paper will always beget more paper. Hidden, public, webs, mini, it doesn't matter. Eventually someone will begin to form a web and their enemy will begin to do the same out of fear. The difference is that if these webs were paperless, the agreements made are far more likely to evaporate over time. If you've ever been in a top FA position you would know treaties die long before they're actually cancelled but people will keep them if they offer the slightest bit of advantage or protection - even if that protection only exists on paper.

On 2/22/2021 at 9:14 PM, Charles Bolivar said:

I fixed it for you 👍

If you want a multi-polar world, it needs to be derived from natural divides between alliances. It can't be forced or "agreed to" out of "principles" since it will simply never work due to human nature being rather, well, self-serving. 

Truth be told, I'm thinking ingame scarcity resource might be the true answer. Most wars arise from largely out of game interactions, leaders plotting against other leaders due to personal feelings or indeed, in response to plotting itself. If we had mechanics ingame such as having team colours and/or treaties offering enough worthwhile benefits to cause actual conflict, this competition might be enough to cause meaningful differences between alliances and spheres for a multi polar world to develop. Mechanics which granted significant bonuses to dominating teams, colours or even continents for that matter, might drive the creation of multipolar conflicts because after all, right now we are all forced to rely upon the words of these few lucky enough to be in gov. Which yeah, hasn't turned out well...

See my above responses but I just want to hit on your thoughts on in-game scarcity: Every time we've tried mechanical incentives for people to fight, they end up being exploited.

Example1: Tech and the top 100 nations rule in CN. The winners of each successive war (partially due to cheating and multis, turns out PnW was not Roquentin's first game where he cheated and broke rules) retained more and more of their tech. Imagine if the winners of PnW wars net-gained infra or cities every time they won a war. This combined with any nation in the top 100 being able to hit any nation in the top 100 made it impossible for the "losers" to gain an upper tier. Thus enforcing multiple years of hegemony. The winners kept accumulating score and the ability to further retain/enforce it.

Example2: Treasure Island. Treasures were Alex's way of trying to force competition over a resource but people instead turned to abusing it via metagaming instead of fighting over it.

 

Basically scarcity in a game turns into a hegemony-creator for the winners via a snowball effect. If the resource is valuable enough to fight over, it typically gives too much of an advantage to the possessors to be fair. If the resource is not valuable enough, no one will fight for it thus defeating the purpose. It's an annoying circle.

On 2/22/2021 at 9:32 PM, Buorhann said:

Exactly what Chaos and KETOGG did.  I agree wholeheartedly with this.

EDIT:

To those stating that minispheres couldn't work.  No matter what "system" you guys put into place, none of it will work according to your expectations. 

Every alliance paperless?  You'll still get alliances working together.

Minispheres?  You'll still get multiple spheres working together.

One !@#$yuge treaty web?  You'll still get alliances working together, even if they're tied up by their third cousin and working against/for each other.  (Example would be Syndisphere back in the day, how @Prefonteen managed to wrangle up various support at odd times)

The idea of paperless alliances (Like @Roberts is wanting) and minispheres (Where only a small cluster of alliances are tied together in their own little corner of the world) is the perception of flexibility - just like what @Sweeeeet Ronny D said in the quote.

 

EDIT #2:  @Cooper_ - TKR benefited from KETOGG turning and helping Chaos out.  If we practiced what you preached, Chaos would've been burned to the ground and TKR would be forced into...  whatever the hell NPO and BK wanted out of your alliance.  You'd fight, but they wouldn't relent.  

Just to clarify and wrap up this giant wall of text- A paperless or more paperless system of FA is actually meant to encourage more cooperation. Not less.

Think of every scrub satellite alliance in the game right now who has never made a political wave in their life. Now imagine if they couldn't get a protectorate. They would either have to put in effort to FA or possibly face their doom. Either way is a net positive for the game because bad alliances disbanding usually leads to either new alliances or new members in better alliances thus giving them more leverage to do interesting things.

Similarly the power players would need (likely) more FA people. Thus giving more players a chance to get involved.

 

Lastly but importantly - big shout out to @Prefonteen for sparking a solid discussion about alliance and political meta.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Roberts said:

I agree that social pressure can go a long way. Anyone who thinks minispheres can't work is cynical. In a game with a total population of a few thousand people and only 1% of that actually calling the shots? Social pressure can easily force a meta that the mechanics may not necessarily deem optimal. Any other opinion is cynical laziness.

Same with paperless. Same with democracy.

This is a political simulator but we've turned it into a political simulator for the 1% and a farmville-slave-simulator for everyone else. You're lucky if you don't pay taxes, but guess what: leave your alliance/coalition during a war you disapprove of? Dodger for life, good luck being taken seriously ever again without ridiculous PR effort.

Most people that play PnW pay taxes (which is fine btw but in this case without democracy taxation is literally theft) to their alliance leadership who then decides where that money and those resources go. To some extent or another most players have no actual choice where their in-game currencies go. Build orders enforced by the IA department, war orders enforced by milcom, treaties signed by your FA person(s)... Genuinely speaking if I described this game to you before you had played it and told you only 1% of players ever get to do the actual politicking... none of us would be here.

But because it's socially accepted in the community taxes even without representation or agreement are fine. Signing treaties without a vote from the members is fine because both they and you (the leaders) have been coached to believe OPSEC is more important than player choice... The list goes on. It may sound crazy but I assure you this is a game and the way we're choosing to play it is one of the least fun ways one could imagine.

"Meritocracy" has always been a buzzword used to dissuade the populace of their notions of democracy. In truth your system is autocratic. Just because you choose who you (the leader) thinks is best does not make the system based on merit. When's the last time anyone ever saw actual requirements for a government position? You don't because you can't quantify a competent FA guy or a good milcom person with meaningful criteria. Thus you choose them based on your sole, sometimes a group vote within the vaunted halls of government, opinion.

Also lol at trying to use the IRL USA as an argument against democracy.

I personally believe paperless politics works best as an all-or-nothing take on things. I think the propagandist attitude against paperless treaties is stupid though. If someone wants to announce one treaty and keep another one a secret it may leave a bad taste in the mouth and call into question whether that treaty existed prior to its use but it's still valid either way. It's just yet another example that people don't need contractual obligation to act on their own interests or even against their own interests.

Things work if you make them work and can come together with enough people to enforce it through social pressure and real action. See my response to Buo at the top of this post for reference. The argument you make is not against minispheres as a concept, it's against paper as a concept. You're so close yet fell on the wrong side of the fence. Paper will always beget more paper. Hidden, public, webs, mini, it doesn't matter. Eventually someone will begin to form a web and their enemy will begin to do the same out of fear. The difference is that if these webs were paperless, the agreements made are far more likely to evaporate over time. If you've ever been in a top FA position you would know treaties die long before they're actually cancelled but people will keep them if they offer the slightest bit of advantage or protection - even if that protection only exists on paper.

See my above responses but I just want to hit on your thoughts on in-game scarcity: Every time we've tried mechanical incentives for people to fight, they end up being exploited.

Example1: Tech and the top 100 nations rule in CN. The winners of each successive war (partially due to cheating and multis, turns out PnW was not Roquentin's first game where he cheated and broke rules) retained more and more of their tech. Imagine if the winners of PnW wars net-gained infra or cities every time they won a war. This combined with any nation in the top 100 being able to hit any nation in the top 100 made it impossible for the "losers" to gain an upper tier. Thus enforcing multiple years of hegemony. The winners kept accumulating score and the ability to further retain/enforce it.

Example2: Treasure Island. Treasures were Alex's way of trying to force competition over a resource but people instead turned to abusing it via metagaming instead of fighting over it.

 

Basically scarcity in a game turns into a hegemony-creator for the winners via a snowball effect. If the resource is valuable enough to fight over, it typically gives too much of an advantage to the possessors to be fair. If the resource is not valuable enough, no one will fight for it thus defeating the purpose. It's an annoying circle.

Just to clarify and wrap up this giant wall of text- A paperless or more paperless system of FA is actually meant to encourage more cooperation. Not less.

 

 

Lastly but importantly - big shout out to @Prefonteen

Hence why I'm more inclined to view teams/continents or even regions as being a suitable catalyst for driving ingame conflicts deriving from resource scarcity. The issue with treasures for treasure island, and treasures in general for that matter, is the only thing fixed about them is the number of spawns and the random nature of the spawns themselves. There is no actual resource scarcity with them due to them being easily transferrable.

Hypothetically, I'd be more inclined to support some tying of team bonuses to continent and regions bonuses where alliances can ad hoc claim a region and receive bonuses for having numerical superiority in that region or continent. One alliance can't claim multiple regions since they wouldn't have the numbers to do so in turn forcing them to focus their efforts within one area thus driving competition for actual material benefits. Spheres may attempt to claim multiple regions for themselves but due to the limited amount of regions (hypothetically say 30), they would be under competitive pressure to do so from not only their own sphere, but also opposing spheres wishing to benefit their own sphere members by getting more of the pie essentially.  

If a sphere was big enough to claim a majority of regions and shun opposing spheres to a few regions, it would naturally lead to conflict over resources. I suspect it would also lead to the development of regional based spheres which you could label as multispheres. You could achieve it via the current team colour bonus and assign varying bonuses for team colour domination but I believe tying it to regions on the game map might be more likely to induce conflict. Could even link it to pref's commodity idea now I think on it. Specific regions provide specific commodities, dominating a specific region would provide a bigger buff to the % inducing regionalisation and the promotion of sphere trade and ultimately competition and conflict.

The difference is though, that such a multisphere proposition would be driven by ingame resource scarcity and not simply the plottings of a few in gov. Which has well, been a lesson in why multispheres simply can't work due to human nature and self interest.

And with treasures in general, it's a simple fix to prevent alliances accruing too many and becoming OP. Each treasure should have a buff along with a nerf. Say 10% buff to commerce revenue coupled with a 10% nerf to military rebuys. Accrue too many and sure, you will have great revenue but you will also be wrecked military wise.

I'm well aware of roq in CN. I was at war with his tech farms for a considerable period of time 🤣 but tech wasn't a fixed scarce resource in CN in the proper sense and certainly not in the sense I am advocating. Tech sellers were I suppose but then again they just cheated and created multis to supply the tech so it wasn't exactly a fixed level of resource scarcity which induced competition.

Tldr: if we want multispheres, we have to have game mechanics in place which encourage it. 

Edited by Charles Bolivar

Untitled.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.