Popular Post Director Nyus Posted February 11, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) No, they aren't. Y'all are a bunch of doomers. Now on to the actual point of discussion: What are politics like currently? How do they compare to old politics? I think trying to sum it up all neatly in one little paragraph would be unfair, both to the history of the game and the people who made said history, so WoT incoming. That said, for the sake of brevity, I'll be skipping over the specific causes of wars and moreso focusing on the politics behind them, and the effects of gameplay on them. I'll fully admit to this being ripe with bias, this is more meant to start a genuine discussion. I'll admit I'm not entirely sure when this switch happened, other than knowing it was increasingly obvious post-NPOLT, but there's been a shift in politics. In the past, the "base political unit" (thanks for the wording, zev) was an individual alliance. Today, the base political unit is the various spheres. Lets discuss both in more detail, along with their benefits and downsides. In the alliance unit era, politics were very fluid and at times, unpredictable. In this era, CBs and roleplay were king. Justification for every action had to be there and ready to be defended lest you bring unwanted attention to hostile actions. In this era, we had relatively common shifts in relations, as alliances were expected to have relations with other alliances on a more personal level. This lead to leaders being proactive in politics - making their intentions clear, making themselves known, and above all, being ready to defend any actions they felt like taking. This added a level of intrigue to the game with FA leaders being public faces of their own alliances, being known by the community, and being held responsible for their actions. The main downside to this that I can see is the skill gap. Some people with proper experience, be it PnW, IRL, or other games, could run circles around newer blood. Another potential downside is that alliances were less likely to see off-the-cusp events happen, such as betrayals, as leaders were held individually responsible for their actions and many didn't care to play the villain, which oft lead to a more bipolar political landscape. In the current era, we have a set of major groups (Blackwater, Mile High Club, Hollywood, and Clock), all "led" by a single person/alliance publicly. These small groups of people take the brunt of the responsibility in pushing politics, as in many of the spheres, the other alliances partake almost exclusively intrasphere. The benefits are fairly obvious: We have multi-polarity. It's wonderful and a great breath of air. But there's significant downsides: The roleplay is... almost non-existent. CBs are weak, or not even CBs at all. Many wars recently are fought with the CB being military meta (tiering, consolidation, etc) with there being no lasting negative effects post-war (will expand later). Wars feel empty, and the OWF is a ghost-town outside of the aforementioned leads. Let's get a little more in depth about CBs. In the past, roleplay (and scheming) were a lot more prevalent. This lead to wars based on FA actions, with more political intrigue. CBs currently are just... weak. Indicting myself in this as well, war viability seems to be more based on the numbers rather than the offense. There's a big focus on only going into wars that are numerically favorable, which stalls and hurts the overall politics of the game. Because my ADHD has been acting way up and I've been stuck on that last paragraph for about an hour now, I'll leave more of an open request for opinions on peace terms vs no peace terms. I'm interested to see the various opinions that people have on if we should begin using them again or not. Edited February 11, 2022 by Emperor Adam 1 26 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post zevfer Posted February 11, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2022 the game can go in 2 directions politics wise 1) make the base political unit be a single alliance, not a sphere 2) have 50-60 spheres of current size in either direction, the amount of political units increases from the current 5 spheres we have right now which do you prefer? why? 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Director Nyus Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 1 minute ago, zevfer said: the game can go in 2 directions politics wise 1) make the base political unit be a single alliance, not a sphere 2) have 50-60 spheres of current size in either direction, the amount of political units increases from the current 5 spheres we have right now which do you prefer? why? I mentioned this in RON/in DMs a bit, but I'd adore seeing a return to option 1. It has its downsides but it encourages every AA to participate, and makes for more interesting politics. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Kevanovia Posted February 11, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2022 Just you wait. #JohnsonsWillRise 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Kell Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) This weekend I hope to publish a piece I've been working on for over a week titled A Proposal for the Culture of Orbis. I have been cultivating this piece with help from @zevfer @CitrusK @Kevanoviaand input from @Emperor Adam as well as leaders of individual alliances who agree with my sentiments but are withholding public support until they read the finished piece. This piece will detail exactly how we got here and the best shot we have to getting back to world where Alliances speak for themselves, the politics of this game involve in-character dealings and not OOC, and we get more player engagement with the diverse and amazing world of Orbis. I hope you all read it. Preface to be written by @Kevanovia Pictured, J Kell writing. Edited February 11, 2022 by J Kell Needed to update credits 2 4 Quote Listen to J Kell's new single: About The Author An early member of Roz Wei in 2015, J Kell went on to stay within the paperless world of Empyrea before signing with Soup Kitchen while scoring a record deal in 2019. J Kell went on to release multiple Orbis Top 40 hits. In 2020, J Kell took a break from Orbis. He's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgiumFury Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 3 minutes ago, zevfer said: the game can go in 2 directions politics wise 1) make the base political unit be a single alliance, not a sphere 2) have 50-60 spheres of current size in either direction, the amount of political units increases from the current 5 spheres we have right now which do you prefer? why? If we have enough people playing this game for 50 spheres of the current size the game would have to grow a lot, and we'll of we have that many people these kind of spheres would indeed have to lead orbis' politics. Those will probably clump togheter too but I digress. option one is theoretically possible, but I ask you how? Seems nesrly impossible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Director Nyus Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 1 minute ago, BelgiumFury said: option one is theoretically possible, but I ask you how? Seems nesrly impossible. Is it? All it takes is for FAs from various alliances that are fairly quiet (BK, ASM, etc) to stop being that, and start participating in FA outside of their sphere. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinesomeMC Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 Wow no shoutout for my help 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgiumFury Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 6 minutes ago, Emperor Adam said: Is it? All it takes is for FAs from various alliances that are fairly quiet (BK, ASM, etc) to stop being that, and start participating in FA outside of their sphere. I agree. But you know, I don't think it's that easy. I'm quite the useless fa person, but I feel / recall many alliances aren't a big fan of having less grip over others. In unity is strength or something. Id say smaller alliances are often affraid to speak out because the sway in their sphere isn't too big already, but it's bigger that way then not being in a strong sphere at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Director Nyus Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, BelgiumFury said: I agree. But you know, I don't think it's that easy. I'm quite the useless fa person, but I feel / recall many alliances aren't a big fan of having less grip over others. In unity is strength or something. Id say smaller alliances are often affraid to speak out because the sway in their sphere isn't too big already, but it's bigger that way then not being in a strong sphere at all. I agree completely, which is why I've directly called out alliances I want to see step up as well as mentioned sphere leaderships by name. I think the balancing act and unity is why we're ending up with most of the CBs being boring as hell. I want more personal stakes. I want to see alliance members feel passionate about the wars their in, not because of some numbers, but because somebody wronged their alliance and they want blood. More radically, I want to see alliances seek retribution on their own, without the help of spheres on either side. I want MDPs to be non-chaining as a standard, and to see more 1v1s/1v2s etc. Enough of every war being a global, take a page from our micros. Be interesting! Be fun! Stop making everything forced to be one big group vs another when most of the groups involved have no stakes in the conflict other than helping their ally. I want to see more alliance leaders being straight up with their intentions, not pre-emptively assuming everyones going to be involved, but being so damn sure of their CB that they believe that allies of the one their attacking look at it and go "!@#$ that, you have this one coming. We'll help you with the rebuild, but we're not burning for it." I want an Orbis with shifting sides, shifting goals, and above all, meaningful interactions. Enough of this numbers bullshit. Enough of this tit-for-tat "you hit us last war it's our turn to hit you". It's so unbelievably fricking boring. Orbis can do better, and so can it's leaders. Edited February 11, 2022 by Emperor Adam 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malichy Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 Non-chaining MDPs, it's been a while and it would take a fairly big shift in thinking from most alliances. Interesting though. 4 Quote MofFA United Purple Nations Former Grosskomtur, FA Minister and Spitler (IA) -Teutonic Order. Former Reclusiarch (IA) - UPN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Director Nyus Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 3 minutes ago, Malichy said: Non-chaining MDPs, it's been a while and it would take a fairly big shift in thinking from most alliances. Interesting though. It's genuinely a shame it ever stopped. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post darkblade Posted February 11, 2022 Popular Post Share Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Emperor Adam said: Because my ADHD has been acting way up and I've been stuck on that last paragraph for about an hour now, I'll leave more of an open request for opinions on peace terms vs no peace terms. I'm interested to see the various opinions that people have on if we should begin using them again or not. I believe that there should be peace terms. The current meta with peace treaties is absolute garbage. The only improvement last year is the push away from long naps. but other that that, it has gotten boring. Having these white peace's is kind of a slap in the face of the victors and a slap on the wrist for the losers. Lets take Gun's and Roses for example. Hollywood won that war, there is no discussion there. I think it would have been fun for Hollywood to force terms on Roasis for dogpiling them one by one as the war progressed, like writing a essay on why TKR is such a great alliance, or have every alliance in Roasis make an announcement about whatever HW wants them to say. Instead they offered a white peace, which in my opinion was kind of a slap in the face for everyone in HW who was fighting their butts off. Next, lets talk about E522, this should be the base of your peace treaties (assuming there is a victor). admission of defeat. and adding the term that adrienne owed sval a potato. It fueled the politics of the game and would help fuel what would become GW22. Only thing I didn't like about the treaty was the 3 month nap. But other than that this should be a good starting point for GW treaties. Next, lets talk about Armenia's Revenge. It would have been funny if mystery and oasis had to write an essay on why you should never make your secret treaties public since that was the whole reason for this war. Instead, we got another white peace. Now I understand why all parties white peaced since clock was getting ready to hit rose. And BW didn't want to drag it on. But it felt like mys-oasis got a slap on the wrist for their actions. Now, lets talk about GW22. Now based on the current state of the war it is clear that BW is losing. And if I see this war end with a white peace, I'm going to be very angry. I would love to see HW push some terms to make this war feel like a lost. For example, I wouldn't mind if HW forced me to make memes making fun of BW, or having one of the leaders of BW read a love letter to grumpy. It's really up to the imagination to be honest. But having these bland white peace's is boring when there is a clear victor, or having the same old bland treaties makes the politics of having wars boring. And I would love to see more creativity from both parties when it comes to discussing peace treaties. TL;DR make better peace treaties that fuels the politics of the game Edited February 11, 2022 by darkblade changed a few words around 6 13 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Schmo Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) 56 minutes ago, darkblade said: I believe that there should be peace terms. The current meta with peace treaties is absolute garbage. The only improvement this year is the push away from long naps. but other that that, it has gotten boring. Having these white peace's is kind of a slap in the face of the victors and a slap on the wrist for the losers. Lets take Gun's and Roses for example. Hollywood won that war, there is no discussion there. I think it would have been fun for Hollywood to force terms on Roasis for dogpiling them one by one as the war progressed, like writing a essay on why TKR is such a great alliance, or have every alliance in Roasis make an announcement about whatever HW wants them to say. Instead they offered a white peace, which in my opinion was kind of a slap in the face for everyone in HW who was fighting their butts off. Next, lets talk about E522, this should be the base of your peace treaties (assuming there is a victor). admission of defeat. and adding the term that adrienne owed sval a potato. It fueled the politics of the game and would help fuel what would become GW22. Only thing I didn't like about the treaty was the 3 month nap. But other than that this should be a good starting point for GW treaties. Next, lets talk about Armenia's Revenge. It would have been funny if mystery and oasis had to write an essay on why you should never make your secret treaties public since that was the whole reason for this war. Instead, we got another white peace. Now I understand why all parties white peaced since clock was getting ready to hit rose. And BW didn't want to drag it on. But it felt like mys-oasis got a slap on the wrist for their actions. Now, lets talk about GW22. Now based on the current state of the war it is clear that BW is losing. And if I see this war end with a white peace, I'm going to be very angry. I would love to see HW push some terms to make this war feel like a lost. For example, I wouldn't mind if HW forced me to make memes making fun of BW, or having one of the leaders of BW read a love letter to grumpy. It's really up to the imagination to be honest. But having these bland white peace's is boring when there is a clear victor, or having the same old bland treaties makes the politics of having wars boring. And I would love to see more creativity from both parties when it comes to discussing peace treaties. TL;DR make better peace treaties that fuels the politics of the game The potato picture has grievously harmed TKR. Truly an offense that is unforgivable. Do they think us so lowly and poor as to work for exposure and not pay? How dare they doubt our artistic abilities to believe themselves above paying for the fruits of our labors. TKR demands reparations for the exhausting toll and gargantuan price we (namely Adrienne) dearly paid for such an exquisite drawing that Roasis had wrongfully demanded - nay, stolen from us! Justice for TKR! Edited February 11, 2022 by Joe Schmo 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkblade Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 5 minutes ago, Joe Schmo said: The potato picture has grievously harmed TKR. Truly an offense that is unforgivable. Do they think us so lowly and poor as to work for exposure and not pay? How dare they doubt our artistic abilities to believe themselves above paying for the fruits of our labors. TKR demands reparations for the exhausting toll and gargantuan price we (namely Adrienne) dearly paid for such an exquisite drawing that Roasis had wrongfully demanded - nay, stolen from us! Justice for TKR! TKR's true cb: the reconquest of adrienne's potato. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 1 hour ago, Emperor Adam said: Because my ADHD has been acting way up and I've been stuck on that last paragraph for about an hour now, I'll leave more of an open request for opinions on peace terms vs no peace terms. I'm interested to see the various opinions that people have on if we should begin using them again or not. Hell naw. Peace terms should be light-hearted, chill, and with the thought in mind that "what goes around comes around." White peace, joke terms, a reasonably short NAP... All fine, but asking for reps? Humiliating terms? Nah. It's too easy to win wars in PnW simply with a blitz advantage or a dogpile. While the temptation to "be the villain" may exist in this sense, I think there are more constructive ways to do so. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigbigadorlou Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 I couldn't help myself 2 1 Quote Hey Krampus, the signature edit is under account settings. Actually, here's the link. https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/settings/signature/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Emperor Adam said: Is it? All it takes is for FAs from various alliances that are fairly quiet (BK, ASM, etc) to stop being that, and start participating in FA outside of their sphere. Mood, ADHD is shit. I think that certainly works for BK, and maybe some other alliances. But others, like your second mention, not so much. I mean let's not sugar coat it guys, c'mon, when's the last time anyone took ASM as a serious political entity? Unless your Alliance section on your nation says "Rose" the answer probably ranges from years to never. And like we're well aware of that, we're well aware that until recently the alliance had been slowly atrophying in membership and city growth. A fact that only changed... *Checks watch* 6? 8? Weeks ago. Whenever the war ended and Sakura returned to yelling at people that she wanted recruitment on again and also can someone make a sheet for her by these vague directions and vision she has for it. Hell, that last war went kinda crap for us but it was way better than GnR and that was with the milcom still half asleep at the wheel, before being thoroughly disciplined by... The milcom, of course I'm just saying, if the brightest days you have ahead are because a schizophrenic started yelling about things and celebrating that they learned to color the cells on a sheet recently, and who delivered the best recent war result while half asleep and barely trying, it might be a *tad* difficult to go publicly strutting FA legs, yanno? Hard to move your weight when you've been starving to death. Takes time to heal that stuff too, it's been going on for years, and we've only just begun so, a moment please! Blitz someone other than rose for once everyone 😛 Edited February 11, 2022 by Zei-Sakura Alsainn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Director Nyus Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said: I mean let's not sugar coat it guys, c'mon, when's the last time anyone took ASM as a serious political entity? Unless your Alliance section on your nation says "Rose" the answer probably ranges from years to never. I mentioned this in RON, but to restate it here t$ had actually reached out to ASM with a treaty idea. That said - I'm not expecting overnight changes and it wouldn't be fair to do so. I am, with as much capacity as I can as a well-known player that's nothing more than a raider currently, reaching out a hand and encouraging everyone else to do the same. I've openly done the same for both UPN and Camelot as well. The game needs more active alliances in the political scheme. The game needs it's older alliances to get involved again. Take the time you need, but I anxiously await ASM's return. Edited February 11, 2022 by Emperor Adam 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katashimon13 Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) ooookay badam can you elaborate on how changing the scope of political interaction leads to/away from a bi polar/multi polar world cause it feels like a false equivalence rn the rest of it escaped from my mind already sorry not sorry p.s. drink water 2 hours ago, Emperor Adam said: The roleplay is... almost non-existent. @Justin076 rawr Edited February 11, 2022 by katashimon13 rawr 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spukey Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 2 hours ago, Emperor Adam said: BK Hi! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Cannot Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 *reads WoT* *Sighs* "What can i do o'lord, Oh what can i do to change this tasteless fruit." *Shuffles documents* *Loud sip of coffee* "would that work? no no, of course not, maybe? errr no, no." *Internal Screaming* "Duck it." I may not be worth much as my booty has depreciated in value, was it ever valued to begin with? oi @Ducc Zucc does this post make my butt look fat? anyway ill tell yeah what generic named person @Emperor Adam adam... adam what a stupid ducking name if my mother named myself that i'd be dangling 6 feet high. Anyways i do think alliances could use a little IC RP for spicey interpersonal and thus intra alliance rivalry, like actors on a stage giving a grand dance that dazzels the audience for the members that pay attention, would at least make for a good story. "yeah loin fruits, gather round the fire your ole paw has a story about how i burned the blubber of the mighty whales." So ill make myself a fursona ... P&Wsona which i never really thought of one / had one, was always the more analytical type given my p&w work has always been internals but it'll be a fun thing to try out, who knows maybe it'll go somewhere for me. anyway i suppose ill get thinking, then doing or err typing? in OWF, embassy & your mothers DMs although i doubt your WoT was meant for low ranking individuals and more towards the leadership of the silent & major powers but it'll at least give me a good laugh. "It'll just be like creating a DnD Character sheet Sweden, how god damn hard could it be?" Sincerely, a soon to be changed ball... i think? 1 Quote Hi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Kell Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 45 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said: I couldn't help myself OK, how do you know how I sound like? 2 Quote Listen to J Kell's new single: About The Author An early member of Roz Wei in 2015, J Kell went on to stay within the paperless world of Empyrea before signing with Soup Kitchen while scoring a record deal in 2019. J Kell went on to release multiple Orbis Top 40 hits. In 2020, J Kell took a break from Orbis. He's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Cannot Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 2 hours ago, Malichy said: Non-chaining MDPs, it's been a while and it would take a fairly big shift in thinking from most alliances. Interesting though. "im signed to you, not your entire family and your 'special' friend." ~ Partisan 53 minutes ago, katashimon13 said: ooookay badam can you elaborate on how changing the scope of political interaction leads to/away from a bi polar/multi polar world cause it feels like a false equivalence rn the rest of it escaped from my mind already sorry not sorry p.s. drink water @Justin076 rawr will drink water, thank you for the reminder. 1 2 Quote Hi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlyWolf21 Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 So what I'm hearing is all the alliances need to return to the old Aurora way of thinking. Where we used to declare war on TCM, raid Oceanias offshore, and be in the news every other day because of some alliance v alliance conflict. So much in fact that if we did get into it, I don't think Oasis would've helped us out lmfao. Something that could be implemented potentially a "tribute" mechanic? For peace you sign a treaty, you give xyz percent of an alliances income until that treaties up? No idea how it could be effectively implemented but could lead to better peace deals, different ways of thinking in terms of chaining wars, etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.