Jump to content

Why we can't have nice things


Isjaki
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Isjaki said:

Maybe some of the smaller spheres, if they are concerned about getting rolled, can sign prots within larger spheres. You can't have both safely and independence just as you can't have your cake and eat it to.

I kinda like the idea of a sphere being the protector of another. Just like a protectorate treaty. I expect only the smallest sphere(s) will want to do that, for example the Johnsons. That way the small spheres can fell safer, although, if a bloc doesn't work, you may as well disband it and look for a better home

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dorian Grey said:

I kinda like the idea of a sphere being the protector of another. Just like a protectorate treaty. I expect only the smallest sphere(s) will want to do that, for example the Johnsons. That way the small spheres can fell safer, although, if a bloc doesn't work, you may as well disband it and look for a better home

 

I personally think that wouldn’t make them a sphere though. Just a bloc within a sphere.

  • Upvote 4

Humans cannot create anything out of nothingness. Humans cannot accomplish anything without holding onto something. After all, humans are not gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Leftbehind said:

Not sure if you are joking or not.

Im not

 

16 hours ago, Charles Bolivar said:

We really shouldn't have been able to manage a victory.

Was in HW's side, got overrun lower tier with my micro 😔

 

11 hours ago, Vice said:

The white peace given was a pity term. 

 

If it looked like Hollywood won, and it smelled like Hollywood won… doesn’t matter what the peace terms said. 

Yep

TCM3_1_281x175.png.d5f909d45f36d3dcb3722580e7b7ecc2.png
Coal Duke (Imperator Emeritus) of The Coal Mines
Diety Emeritus of The Immortals, Patres Conscripti (President Emeritus) of the Independent Republic of Orange Nations, Lieutenant Emeritus of Black Skies, Imperator Emeritus of the Valyrian Freehold, Imperator Emeritus of the Divine Phoenix, Prefect Emeritus of Carthago, Regent Emeritus of the New Polar Order

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Kyubnyan said:

I personally think that wouldn’t make them a sphere though. Just a bloc within a sphere.

I’m not sure I wholly agree with that assessment. They could be entirely separate on the basis that say Johnson’s in the example given we’re working towards establishing their sphere further, however just need a larger sphere say HW to protect them while they do it. 

output11.gif&key=7dd46fc9c31afd4fac113d5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alexio15 said:

I’m not sure I wholly agree with that assessment. They could be entirely separate on the basis that say Johnson’s in the example given we’re working towards establishing their sphere further, however just need a larger sphere say HW to protect them while they do it. 

I mean, was Obsidian Order a sphere? Is Nexus? I just think that if a sphere is explicitly protecting another one then they are one and the same until one decides to go their own way.

  • Upvote 3

Humans cannot create anything out of nothingness. Humans cannot accomplish anything without holding onto something. After all, humans are not gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bloc is a multilateral treaty among 3 or more alliances.
A sphere is (traditionally in pnw meta) a major alliance and their allies+allies of their allies who coalition together; or (more in the micro realm) 3 or more alliances that hold multiple treaties among each other and other allies or allies of allies, without a formal organization, that have coalitioned together at least 2 times for the purpose of defense, political bargaining, or offensive war.

A bloc inside of a sphere, is not a sphere, but a bloc. A bloc which brings along their outside allies along with their bloc mates outside allies, act as a sphere. Rectangles can be squares, but only a square can be made up of 2 equally sized right triangles. There's nothing acute about flying off the handle here people. Don't sweep this under the rug.

||I bite my tongue hearing people talk about "bloc" level treaties. God they drive me up the wall. We have a name for those type of relationships already.||

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truest tragedy of this war is that Clock wasn't able to hit Mystery Inc alone. Coulda called the war "Clockin' Around the Mystery" :(

  • Haha 1

Humans cannot create anything out of nothingness. Humans cannot accomplish anything without holding onto something. After all, humans are not gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Rose's change of leadership (and the fact that they sat out of this one, showing they don't hold any more paperless ties), we've actually managed to achieve a true minisphere meta, which is a 1st. Any old timer in this game remembers how it used to be, literally the 2 same sides fighting each other every single time, with a few exceptions.

In the past wars were more frequently caused by hate of the other side, namely from the sphere NPO was a part of, and Roq didn't fool anybody as to who his real enemies were, which made wars very predictable and boring.

Right now we have the healthiest meta we've ever had, sure you could argue that 2 of the spheres don't seem to embrace it but after the clapping they're getting for trying to break that same meta, I'm pretty sure this will serve as a cautionary tale to any alliance leader wanting to try something similar in the future.

Sure this might end but I don't see any reason as to why, since current big alliance leaders, namely the 3 most influentiual (Rose, t$ and TKR) seem to support the minisphere meta. The only thing that makes me doubt a bit is some alliances' paranoia with HW's supposed upper tier consolidation, which hopefully will disappear since for instance Rose sphere also has a pretty vast upper tier, and BW and Clock have pretty respectable tiering as well.

Other than that I can't see any other factor that could push for the dissolution of the minisphere meta in the near future.

Edited by Insert Name Here
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Insert Name Here said:

Since Rose's change of leadership (and the fact that they sat out of this one, showing they don't hold any more paperless ties), we've actually managed to achieve a true minisphere meta, which is a 1st. Any old timer in this game remembers how it used to be, literally the 2 same sides fighting each other every single time, with a few exceptions.

In the past wars were more frequently caused by hate of the other side, namely from the sphere NPO was a part of, and Roq didn't fool anybody as to who his real enemies were, which made wars very predictable and boring.

Right now we have the healthiest meta we've ever had, sure you could argue that 2 of the spheres don't seem to embrace it but after the clapping they're getting for trying to break that same meta, I'm pretty sure this will serve as a cautionary tale to any alliance leader wanting to try something similar in the future.

Sure this might end but I don't see any reason as to why, since current big alliance leaders, namely the 3 most influentiual (Rose, t$ and TKR) seem to support the minisphere meta. The only thing that makes me doubt a bit is some alliances' paranoia with HW's supposed upper tier consolidation, which hopefully will disappear since for instance Rose sphere also has a pretty vast upper tier, and BW and Clock have pretty respectable tiering as well.

Other than that I can't see any other factor that could push for the dissolution of the minisphere meta in the near future.

t$ losing will make minispheres go away

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Lxr4VfE.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2021 at 9:57 AM, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

Honestly, let's make it like dodgeball in high school. We get 2 captains, and they take turns picking thier teams, and then we go at it. NAP for X months, then repeat, wiht new captains.

feel like this solution is being seriously considered......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

feel like this solution is being seriously considered......

It is seriously considered bad if that's what you mean. :3

Edited by Kyubnyan

Humans cannot create anything out of nothingness. Humans cannot accomplish anything without holding onto something. After all, humans are not gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One option is to get rid of the idea of blocs and spheres. Make the politics actually meaningful rather than groups just continuing to try and one up each other and get rid of the stigma around alliances signing treaties 'outside' their sphere. We'd have far more unpredictable conflicts, more alliance vs alliance wars rather than massive slugfests between spheres and an overall more dynamic experience for all as things become less predictable.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, namukara said:

One option is to get rid of the idea of blocs and spheres. Make the politics actually meaningful rather than groups just continuing to try and one up each other and get rid of the stigma around alliances signing treaties 'outside' their sphere. We'd have far more unpredictable conflicts, more alliance vs alliance wars rather than massive slugfests between spheres and an overall more dynamic experience for all as things become less predictable.

These games naturally turn into groups.  Having 4-5 groups is far more dynamic than what was in the recent past with NPO.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Darth Revan said:

These games naturally turn into groups.  Having 4-5 groups is far more dynamic than what was in the recent past with NPO.  

I'd say we have 4/5 groups. But the level of actual separation or distinctiveness between them is minimal at best. Nearly every war since NPOLT has developed into a bipolar state of affairs between two opposing globalist coalitions anyway due to secret treaties, private arrangements or just convergent interests etc between the various groupings. This war being a good indicator of where things can go in the future, but again, it's hard to tell about the impact and influence posed by the NAP on the current war and if there hadn't been an NAP, would this war have assumed the traditional dualistic nature where the main 4-5 spheres coalesce together anyway into two opposing sides.

Basically, I don't think we have minispheres yet at all. Proto-minispheres perhaps where we have the beginnings of regionalisation within the treaty web , but we still have a fair bit to go. Truth be told I think there is a proclivity amongst most alliances to utilise "minispheres" as a disguise for the pursuing of hegemonic goals and the lessening of potential strategic threats which affect their own dominance. In that sense it kind of echoes the rise of the Delian league under Athens' stewardship in a manner of thinking.

In order to have true minispheres, we need to have at the very least a distinct number of groups who are at least on comparable strength terms to one another, and who will not take part in global wars which don't affect their own interests . We simply aren't there yet. Getting there but still a fair way to go as can be witnessed by the current war in which mystery and oasis are simply being slaughtered for lack of a better term across the board due to differences in membership composition etc. There is no actual incentive right now for oasis and mystery to remain at their current sphere strength because to do so simply opens them up to the risk of future defeats. They clearly need access to stronger allies if they wish to stand a chance in future conflicts, but attempting to do so will likely lead them back to their current situation. So in that sense I still think the game has a fair bit to go before we can truly say we have reached a new 'meta' of in-game balance in regards to minispheres.

Personally I think we need to see an in-game mechanic which actively encourages the treaty web to fragment further. Utilising geographical placement on the in-game map or even team colour so as to act as an incentive for conflicts to evolve away from globalist tendencies might be the better option. Of course that would require significant work to the code so I have no idea if it's feasible. But I don't believe relying on alliance leaderships to achieve a true minisphere state of being is viable as the alliances with weaker member compositions are naturally going to band together to seek some form of security against the stronger alliances, with this banding together to be in turn viewed as a threat to the dominance of stronger AAs and spheres. It's human nature at the end of the day and relying on leaders, whose authority rests on providing security to their members, to take actions which lessen their own relative security is always going to be unreliable at best. We have seen this on numerous occasions (infact every occasion I think) from NPOLT and even this war itself is much the same if we take into account the treaty which allegedly kicked off the war itself.

In short, lots of work to do yet before we get where we want to be. 

  • Upvote 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2021 at 10:42 PM, Thalmor said:

Pardon for any spelling or grammar mistakes. I'm tired and I also don't feel like proofreading this:

I disagree with the OP pretty strongly. I still think politics are the best they've ever been.

Some of you guys really don't understand how good y'all have it. Wars in 2015-2020 were almost entirely just the same two sides going against each other. Maybe one time it was Para-Convenant against Syndisphere, and another time it was Inquisition against 'Easy Mode Coalition' or whatever; but for much of the game's history, that's pretty much all that ever happened, and people planned for that. People wanted it to be different as early as 2017, but you didn't really see any big changes until 2019. Then, we had to - tragically - fight a war of extermination that resulted in the worst elements of the community being driven out of the game entirely. Although it's been a long road, the meta of the game is finally a point where I think we've broken out of that bipolar (in more ways than one) world that we inherited. 

Look, I'm sorry that dawgpiels happen. I'm sorry that Oasis and Mystery had such a bad case of feeling impotent and buck broken that they scrambled to the bunkers because half of Clock built a few tanks. I'm sorry that secret treaties are something we still might have to deal with (or are dealing with, depending on what narrative you want to push). I'm sorry that this isn't a game with 30,000 players and dozens of blocs who all have something different and interesting going on. I'm sorry that P&W is kinda a shit game that doesn't give us anything to really fight over (which leads to the weird cognitive dissonance of people saying that they don't care about CBs until they get hit, then they suddenly care about CBs). I'm sorry that the meta still has a way to go before we're all happy.

But, with where we are now, we are in the wild west of politics. Blocs split and join up with each other. When somebody mils up, nobody knows what they're doing because there's so many directions for a person to swing at. Globals ends with a sudden white peace that nobody really saw coming. Entire swaths of the game are making agreements on how they'll approach peace terms (the NAP end 4 out of 6 blocs signed right before the war started). That in particular in something I haven't seen in years.

A lot of people seem quick to read the eulogy of minispheres, but I'm just not seeing it. Now, we have a global with TKR and Rose staying out. Did anybody see that coming? Would anybody see it coming if Rose and TKR did decide to come in? Who knows! Hell, did anyone see this current war coming? What was supposed to be 2 alliances against an entire bloc turned into two blocs on another two blocs. The current flexibility of politics is only possible thanks to the commitment to minispheres that people have been pushing for.

Mystery-Oasis forming a megabloc because they got scared does not kill minispheres. Lord Tyrion does command a lot of power within Oasis, but he isn't some demigod who is capable of blowing up a massive chunk of the meta based on his political posturing. The reality of P&W is that we went from boring, predictable wars that eventually led to one side trying to win the game, to a very dynamic, open political situation where alliances, blocs, and decision makers have a much wider toolbox of options to use when executing their political agenda- whatever that may be. 

I'll believe minispheres are dead when we're back to, like, how politics were back in 2015-2016. And if you don't even know what I'm talking about, then I'll repeat myself: You don't know how good you have it. 

i'm sorry, i don't disagree with you, but do you know how much you sound like a grumpy old man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2021 at 10:42 PM, Thalmor said:

Pardon for any spelling or grammar mistakes. I'm tired and I also don't feel like proofreading this:

I disagree with the OP pretty strongly. I still think politics are the best they've ever been.

Some of you guys really don't understand how good y'all have it. Wars in 2015-2020 were almost entirely just the same two sides going against each other. Maybe one time it was Para-Convenant against Syndisphere, and another time it was Inquisition against 'Easy Mode Coalition' or whatever; but for much of the game's history, that's pretty much all that ever happened, and people planned for that. People wanted it to be different as early as 2017, but you didn't really see any big changes until 2019. Then, we had to - tragically - fight a war of extermination that resulted in the worst elements of the community being driven out of the game entirely. Although it's been a long road, the meta of the game is finally a point where I think we've broken out of that bipolar (in more ways than one) world that we inherited. 

Look, I'm sorry that dawgpiels happen. I'm sorry that Oasis and Mystery had such a bad case of feeling impotent and buck broken that they scrambled to the bunkers because half of Clock built a few tanks. I'm sorry that secret treaties are something we still might have to deal with (or are dealing with, depending on what narrative you want to push). I'm sorry that this isn't a game with 30,000 players and dozens of blocs who all have something different and interesting going on. I'm sorry that P&W is kinda a shit game that doesn't give us anything to really fight over (which leads to the weird cognitive dissonance of people saying that they don't care about CBs until they get hit, then they suddenly care about CBs). I'm sorry that the meta still has a way to go before we're all happy.

But, with where we are now, we are in the wild west of politics. Blocs split and join up with each other. When somebody mils up, nobody knows what they're doing because there's so many directions for a person to swing at. Globals ends with a sudden white peace that nobody really saw coming. Entire swaths of the game are making agreements on how they'll approach peace terms (the NAP end 4 out of 6 blocs signed right before the war started). That in particular in something I haven't seen in years.

A lot of people seem quick to read the eulogy of minispheres, but I'm just not seeing it. Now, we have a global with TKR and Rose staying out. Did anybody see that coming? Would anybody see it coming if Rose and TKR did decide to come in? Who knows! Hell, did anyone see this current war coming? What was supposed to be 2 alliances against an entire bloc turned into two blocs on another two blocs. The current flexibility of politics is only possible thanks to the commitment to minispheres that people have been pushing for.

Mystery-Oasis forming a megabloc because they got scared does not kill minispheres. Lord Tyrion does command a lot of power within Oasis, but he isn't some demigod who is capable of blowing up a massive chunk of the meta based on his political posturing. The reality of P&W is that we went from boring, predictable wars that eventually led to one side trying to win the game, to a very dynamic, open political situation where alliances, blocs, and decision makers have a much wider toolbox of options to use when executing their political agenda- whatever that may be. 

I'll believe minispheres are dead when we're back to, like, how politics were back in 2015-2016. And if you don't even know what I'm talking about, then I'll repeat myself: You don't know how good you have it. 

I never thought there ever would be a time I would back Thalmor up on his point of view and opinion / agree with him on anything. lol

  • Upvote 1

? Kitschie 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2021 at 9:38 PM, Joe Schmo said:

i'm sorry, i don't disagree with you, but do you know how much you sound like a grumpy old man?

Only if all you took away from that speech was: "Listen here, sonny, you don't know how good you have it. Back in my day..."

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2021 at 5:43 PM, Charles Bolivar said:

I'd say we have 4/5 groups. But the level of actual separation or distinctiveness between them is minimal at best. Nearly every war since NPOLT has developed into a bipolar state of affairs between two opposing globalist coalitions anyway due to secret treaties, private arrangements or just convergent interests etc between the various groupings. This war being a good indicator of where things can go in the future, but again, it's hard to tell about the impact and influence posed by the NAP on the current war and if there hadn't been an NAP, would this war have assumed the traditional dualistic nature where the main 4-5 spheres coalesce together anyway into two opposing sides.

Basically, I don't think we have minispheres yet at all. Proto-minispheres perhaps where we have the beginnings of regionalisation within the treaty web , but we still have a fair bit to go. Truth be told I think there is a proclivity amongst most alliances to utilise "minispheres" as a disguise for the pursuing of hegemonic goals and the lessening of potential strategic threats which affect their own dominance. In that sense it kind of echoes the rise of the Delian league under Athens' stewardship in a manner of thinking.

In order to have true minispheres, we need to have at the very least a distinct number of groups who are at least on comparable strength terms to one another, and who will not take part in global wars which don't affect their own interests . We simply aren't there yet. Getting there but still a fair way to go as can be witnessed by the current war in which mystery and oasis are simply being slaughtered for lack of a better term across the board due to differences in membership composition etc. There is no actual incentive right now for oasis and mystery to remain at their current sphere strength because to do so simply opens them up to the risk of future defeats. They clearly need access to stronger allies if they wish to stand a chance in future conflicts, but attempting to do so will likely lead them back to their current situation. So in that sense I still think the game has a fair bit to go before we can truly say we have reached a new 'meta' of in-game balance in regards to minispheres.

Personally I think we need to see an in-game mechanic which actively encourages the treaty web to fragment further. Utilising geographical placement on the in-game map or even team colour so as to act as an incentive for conflicts to evolve away from globalist tendencies might be the better option. Of course that would require significant work to the code so I have no idea if it's feasible. But I don't believe relying on alliance leaderships to achieve a true minisphere state of being is viable as the alliances with weaker member compositions are naturally going to band together to seek some form of security against the stronger alliances, with this banding together to be in turn viewed as a threat to the dominance of stronger AAs and spheres. It's human nature at the end of the day and relying on leaders, whose authority rests on providing security to their members, to take actions which lessen their own relative security is always going to be unreliable at best. We have seen this on numerous occasions (infact every occasion I think) from NPOLT and even this war itself is much the same if we take into account the treaty which allegedly kicked off the war itself.

In short, lots of work to do yet before we get where we want to be. 

Eh. I mean realistically, the current game state is as dynamic as I've seen in the predominant nation sim in yeeeears. Consider the major globals since NPOLT:

 

- Quack v HM/Swamp/Rose

- Quack v Swamp

- HW vs Rose/Oasis/MysInc

- HW vs BW/Rose

- BW/Clock vs Oasis/MysInc

 

This, from my perspective, shows a fair amount of dynamism in the politics of the game. I agree it isn't perfect, but the above clearly demonstrates a trend away from any sort of bipolar world as has so often cursed this game and its immediate predecessor. Perhaps true "minispheres" is a pipe dream because it requires 100% authentic cooperation, but even were that goal itself to be unreachable, it doesn't preclude a more lively game.

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.