From the desk of Prefontaine

[Prefontaine]

I mentioned this briefly in the second half of the bootleg show, but part of this universes success is on our shoulders. Right now it looks like we're failing, in my opinion at least. Currently 40% of the front page alliances are militarily tied to one another, that's 46.8% of the front page membership, and 42.9% of the front page total strength. This effectively kills any chance for political diversity. In the rush to create a hegemoney (some claimed this goal), or safety (others have claimed this goal), you've forced a boring, two dimensional political world. Us Vs Them. There's no chance for a third side to emerge and help make things more interesting. Instead you force people who were trying to play the fence and thus create a third side to pick a side or face overwhelming odds should someone go for an end-game scenario 3 months into this world. I've seen it before. I've been in it before, on both sides. Neither is fun. It gets old fast. Sitting on top with no rivals, being the cheeky rebellion. Sure it's fun for a little. Then what're you left with? A void of activity until a new verse appears where many people try the same thing that just happened. Jumping from world to world hoping for continued fun while we do our best to prevent it from happening. 

 

Aspire for something different than replicating the past, from past places.

[naTia]

Beating a dead horse is fun and all, but maybe we should consider trying to make less treaties and make more opportunities.

[Phrogg]

Make it happen. If you complain without offer a solution, you are only adding to the problem.

[Prefontaine]

Make it happen. If you complain without offer a solution, you are only adding to the problem.

 

I'm pointing out what I perceive to be the problem, and have been working to not be part of the problem.

[Jodo]

Make it happen. If you complain without offer a solution, you are only adding to the problem.

"The only winning move is to not play."

 

Ever notice how the game was more populated and active during beta as opposed to now? There is no solution, as we know that no one will change on either side.

[ooohu]

I agree with you completely on this. The proliferation of treaties and blocs for a game this young and small would only see it harmed.. it'll stagnate politics by ensuring the order of those few alliances and establish a lasting peace. Sadly, people fail to realize that lasting peace does little to attract more players or entice people to the forums. You know what made (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) stand out in it's early days? When it had a couple of invading alliances from big communities come into it; whether that be FARK, SA, LUE or what have you they brought with them large communities that grew the game. Why did they come? Because it was a new untested place and so there were little wars here and there that made it interesting to play.

 

It wasn't until a much later time when (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) was firmly established and growing that the game began to benefit from the drama of treaties and blocs... why later? Because there were more alliances and players moving behind the scenes and so if a war destroyed 20 alliances, another 20 were still in place to drive the drama. But right now if the top 10 alliances wreck each other it'll severely hinder the possibility for excitement in this game.

 

Wars my friends, not peace, are the driving force in drama and entertainment that makes us play these political simulators. Treaties and blocs among the many only serve to make sure they never happen.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Thulium

[Culdee]

I'll take things as they come.  But no doubt it seems history is repeating itself.  Gzzz...when a certain unnamed alliance has secured a bloc of 4 mutual defense treaties, three of which alliances are #2, #3, and #4, it creates a an intimidating front.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Culdee

[Shellhound]

They find comfort and safety in what they know best, what they know best has killed the games they have come from. Grow a pair, try something new.

[Redrum]

Make it happen. If you complain without offer a solution, you are only adding to the problem.

 

 

Usually I dont disagree with you but I have to here generally you are right but I believe that he is just trying to make people aweare of the problem not really complaining about it.  This allows for a discussion about it.  I think and correct me if I am wrong, that you are trying to get a discussion going to make a solution.

[Shellhound]

Other than making people aware of the problem there's not much else you can do about it except not be a part of it. I mean there's really no way to force people to not !@#$ up the game, unless we beat them into submission, which would make us the problem.

[Prefontaine]

Usually I dont disagree with you but I have to here generally you are right but I believe that he is just trying to make people aweare of the problem not really complaining about it.  This allows for a discussion about it.  I think and correct me if I am wrong, that you are trying to get a discussion going to make a solution.

 

It's not a problem that can be solved by one person, or one alliance. It's part of what I hoped to discuss if a summit ever happened. It's a problem for all of us regardless of what side fall of things you fall on, in the blocs or not.

 

EDIT: So yes, I want a discussion for a solution.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Prefontaine

[Placentica]

I can understand where Prefontaine is coming from and games that really have taken it on the chin due to side a vs. b politics.  But sometimes the cold war isn't so bad.  Of course the winner, if it's decisive, will no doubt stagnate things and that's what I think Prefontaine is getting at.

[Clarke]

Well war isn't going to be the same as it is in other worlds, alliances can jump back quickly so mass deletions and general inactivity shouldn't be a major concern. I don't think it would take months to rebuild so we're good on that front. 

 

I'll take things as they come.  But no doubt it seems history is repeating itself.  Gzzz...when a certain unnamed alliance has secured a bloc of 4 mutual defense treaties, three of which alliances are #2, #3, and #4, it creates a an intimidating front.

I can see how that looks, 3 of the top 5 alliances allying each other. There is certainly other alliances though so it's not overly one sided. 

[Shellhound]

Well war isn't going to be the same as it is in other worlds, alliances can jump back quickly so mass deletions and general inactivity shouldn't be a major concern. I don't think it would take months to rebuild so we're good on that front. 

I can see how that looks, 3 of the top 5 alliances allying each other. There is certainly other alliances though so it's not overly one sided. 

The thing that concerns me isn't just that there's one big side, it's that there's two of them. The majority of relevant alliances have some kind of treaty with one side or the other, the real issue at hand is that we're forming blocs and treaties which is normally fine; but we don't have the membership base and enough relevant alliances to be doing all of that so early.

[Vincent]

Is there really any problem with alliances having treaty with one another? Why must anyone feel threatened by the fact that the other alliance are signing treaty or bloc? I mean those Blocs, if you are referring to The Convenant,  are not meant to threaten anyone, unless that someone has some hidden agenda ( only known to themselves) , in which of course they will the the Bloc as a threat to his/ their agenda..

Edited October 24, 2014 by vincentsum8

[Shellhound]

We're not threatened by people signing treaties, we know that's going to happen. What is more concerning is that it looks like two sides are making advances in establishing a hegemoney, as of right now everyone except for GPA, SK and Guardian have essentially picked a side. It's only 3 months into the game and we're already having the issues that people have talked about in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). It's not that I feel threatened by The Covenant or what the hell ever the TAC group are calling themselves, I feel Guardian is more than capable of holding its own, I've seen games do this early on and in the end those games died.

 

Brief history lesson on what I'm talking about, in a game called LordEmpires that Guardian was a part of there were two sides, Guardian + SK and the other side who were a bunch of !@#$s. What ended up happening was we all went to war in a global conflict after months of not !@#$ happening, and after that conflict the game just died. It was boring, no interesting politics were happening because everyone already knew what side they were on. Sound familiar? When we try to rush and pick sides so early there's a tendency to let the game stagnate because no one wants to go against what has been decided as the status quo.

 

edit: wow !@#$s isn't a censored word? Odd.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Shellhound

[Prefontaine]

And at that time, Guardian was limiting itself to 1 treaty at a time because of power imbalance. If the alliances at the top exercise restraint in the treaty department it can leave room for multiple "sides", and political depth. Right now what we have is One bloc, with another bloc trying to be their counter in terms of strength. One alliance having so many treaties forces others to try and do the same because if they didn't, and lets say the existing bloc wanted to start picking off alliances, they could do so unopposed. You can't sign a ton of military treaties and not expect people to not try and protect themselves with similar numbers, it's going to happen. Side A doubles brings 4 friends to their side, side B's going to want that many or more friends. 

[Aisha Greyjoy]

This one is solely on the players and alliance leaders.  

 

To many emigrees from Planet Bob if you ask me.  Brought all that baggage with them.

 

But why would any one side disarm their diplomacy "for the good of the world".  That would require a willingness to lose "for the good of the world", and everyone wants to win too bad for that.

 

Edit:  Other alliances could always wage war against blocs for the sake of defeating blocs.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Aisha Greyjoy

[Reagan]

To many emigrees from Planet Bob if you ask me. Brought all that baggage with them.

The issue is that the majority of people still interested in playing text-based sims are in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). We need as many of them as possible because there's no one else. I like having experienced players, but I really like to see it when they come over with a fresh mindset rather than simply migrating their existing alliance and politics. It's hard to do. Most have played together a long time and have established opinions and views of one another that won't change simply because you change your alliance name. Most groups have history that follows them. (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) wasn't like this in the beginning because it was really the first of it's kind, uncharted territory. You can't replicate that.

[Abbas Mehdi]

The fact of the matter is with the new war already happening, the 2 side theory has already been put into action. To make politics fun a third side is always a good option, but now they will be considered swingers. I do think it is still a bit immature to judge how the covenant side reacts to the politics after the current war is over since there is a possibility there will be a change in opinions and re-evaluation of relations on both sides. 

[Ayayay]

The Endless were trying to crate a third sphere in Alpha but they ended up failing and then dying as far as I know.

 

Of course, Guardian and SK could abandon their paperless ways and form a third sphere    

[Tenages]

My ego doesn't allow for anyone else to get too close. Not enough room and all.

[Alex]

This is an excellent discussion you guys are having. I'm glad someone is actively working towards finding a solution to the issues we've seen so far in the social aspect of the game.

 

Many great points have been made already, but I'd like to throw in my 2 cents as well.

 

I think that if we had more alliances, more alliance leaders, and more ideas for how to manage alliances, etc. things would be fresher. Obviously, I can't force anyone to break off and create their own alliances, but its something that I think might help things. The other trouble is that we just don't really have enough players for there to be 30 different large alliances. Getting more players is a top priority for me, and hopefully you guys (the players) will also agree that more players will make for a funner game, and encourage new players to come and try out P&W. Don't immediately raid them all out of the game, help them learn and encourage them to take advantage of the bonuses available to grow their nations.

[Solomon]

The Endless were trying to crate a third sphere in Alpha but they ended up failing and then dying as far as I know.

 

Of course, Guardian and SK could abandon their paperless ways and form a third sphere    

It's the spheres that cause the problems. Sooner or later, shit happens between them and they need the paper to wipe up the mess.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

It's the spheres that cause the problems. Sooner or later, !@#$ happens between them and they need the paper to wipe up the mess.

 

What happens if you're paperless and !@#$ happens?  Sounds messy.