A Proposal on the Culture of Orbis (Poll Included) - Published by HarvardU

[J Kell]

Published by

by

@J Kell

@zevfer

Preface by @Kevanovia

   Tick tock The clock seems to be inching ever closer to our impending doom. How do we pass the time of the dangers that loom? Do we spend it trying to go out and find love? No, we instead spend it donating our pixels to the ones above. With this wasted time, do we take control of our own PnW story? No, we tend to pass off all of that fun and glory. What is the answer? Please do tell...

   May I present to you, the teachings of JKell. James Keller Jr makes a compelling point as to how we have arrived to the current political entrapment we find ourselves in. Jonathan Keller is a Orbis-renowned author and artist, some call him a philosopher. I think he's closer to a prophet. Do his solutions hold the key to what we crave? Only time will tell. One thing I know for certain, Jeremiah Keller Esquire's words provide some real value and thought provoking ideas. I sincerely hope you enjoy the fluid thoughts of JKell, my friend

Introduction

   Orbis is at a crossroads. The game Politics and War has become one of conflicting philosophies on how to play the game. We see culture wars over alliance spheres, automated bots, and whether this game reflects in-game personalities or out of character personalities. There are divisions everywhere, most of them very blatant and exposed for the world, others hidden from the public eye but have been allowed to stew for far too long. This game which depends so much on community, has a community that cannot even agree on basic gameplay mechanics. I hope to begin healing the divide, but first we must look deeply at the divisions within the community and how to fix them.

 

I.               Proposal - Thesis

    Alliance leaders should strive to be more focused on their own role-playing element, members, and what benefits them as an individual alliance. No longer should spheres be the dominate deciding factor in determining war and politics. The foreign affairs of most alliances have been reduced to only contact within their respective sphere with a heavy reliance that the head alliance in the sphere would then engage in good faith negotiations with the opposing spheres. Alliances should pursue wars and peace terms where their specific alliance’s goal and vision is met. No longer should alliance leaders rely solely on their paper to determine their next war. Wars should be fought on a much more individual alliance level that way specific alliances benefit from the wars they wage and not just the general sphere they are in. Additionally, alliances should be willing to impose economic sanctions, reparations, and demilitarization in peace negotiations in order to pursue the best outcome for their respective alliance.

 

 

II. NPO and Sphere Silos

 - JaxTeller

 

            When NPO was dissolved there was a gut reaction to go the opposite direction of what NPO was doing such as demanding reparations, demilitarization, and permanent disbandment. This is understandable as NPO was engaged in tactics that were very unsavory and could cause the causal player to either shrink away in fear or join in to simply avoid conflict. To this day we still hear the cries of “don’t be like NPO” or “NPO tactics!” This has gone from players making sure no one else steps in to be abusive to the community, to players demanding that people keep within accepted social norms that were only newly created in this post-NPO world. 

            What has resulted from these new social norms is a world that NPO sorely wanted, one of limited action (an argument I will not include here because I do not have the research done for it is that NPO actually invented the modern alliance sphere we see today and that other alliance leaders adopted it because it was so successful). There are 5 spheres that control the entirety of the game. In avoiding having a specific sphere being the dominating and controlling force within the game, we have allowed the game to be boiled down to 5 controllable players. Players have recently rejoiced that the number of major spheres is growing, this is a shortsighted celebration. They believe that this will lead to more politics, which it will, but not at the scale Orbis was accustomed to before NPO’s wipe. Instead, we have, what some in the community has lovingly referred to, a “merry-go-round of war.” There are 5 spheres that operate as individual units. The alliances within those spheres do not step outside their sphere out of fear that they will be abandoned for going against the sphere FA. These alliances within the spheres can only attack the alliances their sphere has decided to attack. Thus, the only wars, by necessity, the alliances within the spheres can engage in are global. Global wars, because of their size and scope, end all most solely in “white peace.” The white peace gives the spheres fighting enough time to rebuild so then within the next coming weeks they can fight another one of the 4 spheres at their disposal. What is there to debate or allow for politicking? The two sides fight for a time, white peace is agreed upon, and then move on to the next war where it is rinse and repeat. Typically, the only FA that occur in these encounters are the spheres’ FA leaders discussing when they want it to end.

            I challenge my friends in FA to dispute the above scenario. Perhaps I am over generalizing the issue, there may be exceptions. But given the sheer number of global wars that have occurred in the last 2 years, I don’t think I’m exaggerating the issue. I think I’m hitting the nail on the head. There is barely any FA that occurs outside of the spheres’ FA leaders discussing peace terms with the other spheres. Alliance to alliance FA outside of spheres is limited and that, in turn, limits the politics that can occur. Therefore, it is in our best interest, as players, to engage in more alliance-to-alliance FA regardless of spheres. Sphere’s borders should be removed so that alliances are not restricted by what their sphere’s FA leaders agree to.

 

III. Discord, OWF, and Out of Character Communication

- Sweeeeet Ronny D

 - Agent Guyn

            One of the greatest tools that has come to Orbis is the use of third-party communication. Discord has allowed for more communication between alliances and nations that never was possible in-game and through the OWF. Real time discussions and voice chat has allowed us to gain friends we would never have gotten sticking to in-game messaging, alliance announcements and OWF threads. However, all this real time communication has blurred a line, a real line that has helped create the paper filled mess we find ourselves in; where our real life personality begins and our in-game character ends. 

            Unfortunately, I do recognize that any game will cause toxic players to go after real life personality. It happens and it is unavoidable, what is avoidable is for regular in-game interactions to stay within character. We are playing characters, characters that can have differing or similar personalities to the real-life person playing the character. What the character in the game believes, says, and does should not be considered reflective of the beliefs and character of the real person. We need to preserve this line.

            We must be proactive in this in two ways, ensure players know we are in character and secondly, utilize OWF more as this is a buffer zone of “certain to be in character.” Discord with all it benefits causes the most problems in determining whether someone is in character or out of character. When someone posts on OWF, however, it is very clearly (or it should be) a statement from the character the player is playing. While Discord allows fast paced politics to take place where emotions can run wild (allowing real world personality take hold), OWF forces the player to take a step back an realize what they are typing. There is no rush to respond. Time can be taken to make a response.

            Of course, players have to take the initiative to act in good faith and keep other’s own out of character personalities away from the discussion on OWF and Discord. If players are actively trying to bring in someone’s outside personality or life into the game, nothing can combat this. The game will be infected with personal stigma that will ruin the community. The hostilities within the game should stay within the game and not go with the person once we step out of Orbis.

            Besides all of the above points, playing a character instead of being yourself is just more fun in Orbis. I want to be the balls to walls type of person here that I am not in the real world. I would hope people would agree and want to pursue it, but the last few years have shown this to not be a popular sentiment.

 

IV. Conclusion and More to Come

            This is but the tip of the iceberg. I have a lot more to come that will be published in the following weeks including peace terms, how to keep this game friendly, and bots. Please follow me for updates. I will not have time to respond to all the comments in this thread, unless Orbis completely ignores this, so instead of individually replying, I will make a response to criticisms in a separate post (one to come very soonish in order to properly respond to @Keegoz). Please be civil. We are here because we love this game and playing it with one another. If the people you despise were not playing the game, then who would you fight?

 

Endorsed by the Following

@KillzBob@James XVI @Emperor Adam@Scrognoot @Zach LaVine@darkblade@Krampus

Dedicated to @Rozalia

I AWAIT YOUR DISCORD...

TL;DR - but please read it before you comment

 

I. Preface: Yo listen up!

II. Intro: Yo, no one can agree on anything and the game is stagnate! I think I can help!

III. Thesis: Alliance leaders should strive to be more focused on their own role-playing element, members, and what benefits them as an individual alliance.

IV. NPO and Sphere: Yo, we are stuck in the world of huge spheres were individual alliances have limited influence over the wars they fight as the big daddy sphere alliance does all the FA. 

V. IC vs. OOC: Yo, people be using Discord and OWF to not RP which leads  to OOC insults and vendettas which doesn't help the game or META.

VI. Conclusion: Yo, I'll be back with responses to criticisms and more analyzation of the state of Orbis.

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by J Kell
Photos didn't load

[Krampus]

WoT Galore!

[J Kell]

Thanks to @Emperor Adam for catching the fact that my photos did not load. oops.

[Hodor]

1 hour ago, J Kell said:

               We must be proactive in this in two ways, ensure players know we are in character and secondly, utilize OWF more as this is a buffer zone of “certain to be in character.” Discord with all it benefits causes the most problems in determining whether someone is in character or out of character. When someone posts on OWF, however, it is very clearly (or it should be) a statement from the character the player is playing. While Discord allows fast paced politics to take place where emotions can run wild (allowing real world personality take hold), OWF forces the player to take a step back an realize what they are typing. There is no rush to respond. Time can be taken to make a response.

[OOC] Spot on. A large part of my name change was driven by this. I realized that I myself have played a character far too close to my real life personality and that's been hard for me to separate IC and OOC, something I'm sure isn't uncommon. By criticizing t$ for doing something somewhat similar, I was being somewhat hypocritical. I wanted to make sure that I also strive to improve the way I interact the game as a result of the great discussions being had. I do think this will be a hard line to walk. I am hoping to make all OWF posts, unless denoted otherwise, IC, but Discord will prove more challenging and, I'm sure, at times feel very schizophrenic, but that may prove to be very fun in reality.

I'm hopeful that others will embrace what you've said here and examine their own in-game character and decide to make some changes, however small, for the better of the greater game. [/OOC]

Edited February 13, 2022 by OttoVonBisbark

[Grey_wall]

Absolutely brilliant and spot on. 

[Kevanovia]

Ignore the pagan thoughts of Jason Keller III!

[TitanJazza]

Very based

Shame no one wants to disband their sphere or give individual alliances more power. Just the same spheres switching members and who they hate at this point

[James XVI]

It was a very good summary I thought. Very much approve of varying peace/surrender terms into the more aggressive and extreme, and for promotion of characters in this game, at least in public spaces, as opposed to just 'people'.

 

Nice work as always Josh.

Edited February 13, 2022 by James XVI

[Jacob Knox]

Surely an interesting, thought provoking piece. I look forward to further works you produce.

As a nation that came into existence post-NPO, I have only ever known the post-NPO politics and relations. To me, it is almost unfair that we are depriving newer nations of some of these experiences and bogging down politics for them with nothing but "sphere sphere sphere." I understand that what NPO did was unacceptable to most, but to let their shadow loom over all of us and prevent us from varying this game in the slightest is almost to have let them win and that is quite disappointing.

 

[A bit OOC] As for IC versus OOC, I agree that Discord truly blurs the lines and that's why I have been enjoying the re-emergence of the OWF as a platform for IC discussions. I enjoy playing the role of a war-hungry monarch who has been converted to the religion of Serpen, because that is practically the complete opposite of who I am in the real world.

[Mohammad]

I enjoy the flurry of new civil discussions on OWF. this is the cure to the current situation we have here; dialogue. 

I agree, that we are having a lot more wars now, and they are all global. Before NPO, when I was in Chola & Pantheon, we used to always hear about random but very exciting 1 v 1 wars, and those really seemed to be the soul of the game. Skirmishes here and there, and then once in a blue moon, you got to be in a world war with a massive amount fo action. Then peace, sually with terms, and then we repeat. That seemed like a whole lotta fun (i was a kid tho, so everything seemed fun)

 

But i think many things have changed since; namely, we now have enough whale nations, that globals do not effect economic growth, except temporarily. Rose rebuilt in 2 weeks after Guns and Rose. Wars are meant to cause change, but the shear quantity of safekeeps, and massive whale revenue a lot of aa's have access to makes war noting more than just "look at me, I have 1 bn in net damage on ctowned.net"

 

But ay thats my 2 cents. Im just a reroll who remembers being a kid back in the day, checking if his nation got declared, and trying to win Chola elections. But Im happy with the direction thigns are moving. Hopefully the big bois in the game can work out something to change the Sphere-Sphere Mortal Kombat we have rn.

[Grave]

Ultimately to me this just seems to be an excuse to let war hungry macros mass bully micros between wars. 

 

Global wars are being started by the same 5 players  because they understand the advantage of blitzing and are the first ones getting ROI.

 

There's no realistic solution to this that doesn't decrease the amount of wars without mechanic changes.

 

The only solution at all I see really is for those 5 alliances to sit back and wait for alliances that typically don't look to attack first make the first move. Which makes the game more stale when those wars don't come. 

I will say there Definitely needs to be more trash talk from all levels of gov without having an FA head mention your alliance leader saying something like 'so this is the official position of your alliance/bloc, we see how it is' 

Edited February 13, 2022 by Grave

[Aglet Guyn]

Hey, I got mentioned!  I got mentioned!    

But it was in the Discord discussion next to that young Orbis whippersnapper Sweet Ronny D. 

So let me add the following:

Ayy LMAO, my fine peeps, if you're reading this, disband and join BK.  If we all join the exact same alliance, Sheepy's head will figuratively explode and he'll have to redo the commerce part of PnW so that it no longer sucks.  Come on, let's do it!  You first!  It'll be how 99% of NaR all joined Digital Dopamine there, and then the game keeled over and died, except here it will be fun!  It will solve all the problems mentioned in this thread if we were ALL in the same bloc/sphere except one 14 or 15 year old guy in SoS, DPE, whatever it's called, and his 1400 inactive applicants.  Let's DO it!  For Keller! (who I think is original Leo.)  

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Again what is this magical world you are talking about before IQ?  I have been in leadership positions since the start of this game, and I am straight up telling you, we are currently in the golden age of interesting politics in PnW.   Back in this magical land of PnW you seem to remember, I believe my old alliance VE fought Guardian almost every single war.  We had 2 major globals a year and people would complain constantly on the OWF how boring shit was because we would go months between wars. It would generally be the same groups hitting each other, with a few alliances shifting back and forth every war.  Go to the wiki, go look it up.

Alliance leaders are not going to dissolve their blocks, because its not in their best interests, you would have the 3 or 4 biggest alliances just roll in and destroy anyone they want.  That is the entire point of having blocs, it gives smaller alliances the chance to compete on the same footing as the big dogs.   This is why alliances form blocs in the first place, for security, and to help them work toward their political goals.  If you are in a bloc, and you don't agree with what your bloc is trying to do, you should leave your bloc.

Now I cannot speak about how all blocs work, but I can say that in my bloc, all member alliances have a voice, its not just Guardian, or TKR, or TI, that decides what our bloc does.  If someone really doesn't want to do something, either we don't do it, or we go our separate ways (except Oblivion, they just do whatever they want) If one alliance is railroading your entire bloc, again, I would recommend you leave your bloc, and find one that is more in-line with your politics.

For the record, NPO did not create bloc politics, we have had blocks since the start of the game.  The reason we are seeing more isolated blocs is because when the treaty web was an actual web, treaty chains would cause huge headaches with things like opsec, and also allow shitty alliances to dodge out of wars, and no one likes it when alliances hide behind their treaties to avoid wars.  Isolated blocs forces everyone to fight and people know exactly who they can count on when the time comes.

As for post war terms, that is a slippery slope, you put crushing terms on someone, but they are going to come back and try to do the same thing to you, and its going to escalate back and forth until you have a 9 month war, and a 10 page peace document.  In theory you think putting terms on somebody is fun, and it can be fun to wield that power over a defeated opponent.  But what is not fun, is when someone does it to you, and you have no leverage to stop them, the only leverage you have is to drag out the war and hope that the winning side decides its better to end the war than humiliate its opponent, this is how wars drag on for months.  That is not the game you want to play, I promise you that.

You refer to GnR as an example of Rose getting white peace and that being boring.  Here is a little secret we haven't shared, holding down 3 blocks at the same time is not easy and extremely resource intensive.  It was in our best interest to get that war ended when we did. We def won that war, but if they wanted to drag out the peace negotiations because we asked for something crazy, there is a chance we could have eventually lost.

As for people being able to build back after a war, this is what all well run alliances should be able to do.  This has been the case since the beginning of the game.  If you have half a brain, you don't start a war you cannot afford to recover from, plus your econ department should always have enough funds to be able to bounce back afterwards, that's why its called a warchest.  If it takes you more than say a week to get back up and running after a war, your alliance has failed you.

Would it be more fun for everyone if alliance leadership could get its entire membership involved with large scale decisions, I bet most alliance leaders would love to do it (I believe grumpy is the only alliance in the game that does this).  The problem is they cant, because you always have a few people in every alliance that cant keep their mouths shut, and that basically destroys any chance of an alliance being able to do anything.  So 98% of the player base is stuck in the dark till the absolute last minute.  It's why general membership loves leaks, because it lets them in on the secret, but the sad part is, if they could be trusted to keep their mouths shut, they wouldnt need leaks, because their alliance could just tell them.

 

3 minutes ago, Aglet Guyn said:

Sweet Ronny D. 

if there's not 5 e's its not SWEEEEET Ronny D!

[Sval]

It's quite something to consider that a full two years after leaving the game due to cheating, NPO's actions traumatised Orbis so deeply that the very ghost of them still dominates the narrative of how we conduct our politics.

Until we come to terms with that and choose to step away as a community, nothing here is ever going to change.

[Joe Schmo]

I feel like a good first step is someone invoking the O part of mdOap sometimes, for ideological reasons.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Joe Schmo

[Harambe the Second]

Honestly I’d like to see some MDPs that don’t double as peace treaties. Would make politics more fun.

[Prefonteen]

5 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Again what is this magical world you are talking about before IQ?  I have been in leadership positions since the start of this game, and I am straight up telling you, we are currently in the golden age of interesting politics in PnW.   Back in this magical land of PnW you seem to remember, I believe my old alliance VE fought Guardian almost every single war.  We had 2 major globals a year and people would complain constantly on the OWF how boring shit was because we would go months between wars. It would generally be the same groups hitting each other, with a few alliances shifting back and forth every war.  Go to the wiki, go look it up.

Alliance leaders are not going to dissolve their blocks, because its not in their best interests, you would have the 3 or 4 biggest alliances just roll in and destroy anyone they want.  That is the entire point of having blocs, it gives smaller alliances the chance to compete on the same footing as the big dogs.   This is why alliances form blocs in the first place, for security, and to help them work toward their political goals.  If you are in a bloc, and you don't agree with what your bloc is trying to do, you should leave your bloc.

Now I cannot speak about how all blocs work, but I can say that in my bloc, all member alliances have a voice, its not just Guardian, or TKR, or TI, that decides what our bloc does.  If someone really doesn't want to do something, either we don't do it, or we go our separate ways (except Oblivion, they just do whatever they want) If one alliance is railroading your entire bloc, again, I would recommend you leave your bloc, and find one that is more in-line with your politics.

For the record, NPO did not create bloc politics, we have had blocks since the start of the game.  The reason we are seeing more isolated blocs is because when the treaty web was an actual web, treaty chains would cause huge headaches with things like opsec, and also allow shitty alliances to dodge out of wars, and no one likes it when alliances hide behind their treaties to avoid wars.  Isolated blocs forces everyone to fight and people know exactly who they can count on when the time comes.

As for post war terms, that is a slippery slope, you put crushing terms on someone, but they are going to come back and try to do the same thing to you, and its going to escalate back and forth until you have a 9 month war, and a 10 page peace document.  In theory you think putting terms on somebody is fun, and it can be fun to wield that power over a defeated opponent.  But what is not fun, is when someone does it to you, and you have no leverage to stop them, the only leverage you have is to drag out the war and hope that the winning side decides its better to end the war than humiliate its opponent, this is how wars drag on for months.  That is not the game you want to play, I promise you that.

You refer to GnR as an example of Rose getting white peace and that being boring.  Here is a little secret we haven't shared, holding down 3 blocks at the same time is not easy and extremely resource intensive.  It was in our best interest to get that war ended when we did. We def won that war, but if they wanted to drag out the peace negotiations because we asked for something crazy, there is a chance we could have eventually lost.

As for people being able to build back after a war, this is what all well run alliances should be able to do.  This has been the case since the beginning of the game.  If you have half a brain, you don't start a war you cannot afford to recover from, plus your econ department should always have enough funds to be able to bounce back afterwards, that's why its called a warchest.  If it takes you more than say a week to get back up and running after a war, your alliance has failed you.

Would it be more fun for everyone if alliance leadership could get its entire membership involved with large scale decisions, I bet most alliance leaders would love to do it (I believe grumpy is the only alliance in the game that does this).  The problem is they cant, because you always have a few people in every alliance that cant keep their mouths shut, and that basically destroys any chance of an alliance being able to do anything.  So 98% of the player base is stuck in the dark till the absolute last minute.  It's why general membership loves leaks, because it lets them in on the secret, but the sad part is, if they could be trusted to keep their mouths shut, they wouldnt need leaks, because their alliance could just tell them.

 

if there's not 5 e's its not SWEEEEET Ronny D!

You should break up gg, Ronny.

 

Love

 

Parti

 

 

[Kevanovia]

11 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Snip

Not saying your points aren’t correct, because most of them are. However, I’m not seeing where JKell said that things were magical/different/much better a few years ago. I’m only see him give his take on what could lead to a more interesting/fun political atmosphere. (Granted, I’m an old man now. As I’m sure you understand, us old men tend to miss something from time to time due to our poor eyesight) 

Also, NPO did technically create bloc politics with the creation of World Unity Treaty (The Initiative) in another world. You can thank Dilber for that one.

[Leftbehind]

16 hours ago, Kevanovia said:

Not saying your points aren’t correct, because most of them are. However, I’m not seeing where JKell said that things were magical/different/much better a few years ago. I’m only see him give his take on what could lead to a more interesting/fun political atmosphere. (Granted, I’m an old man now. As I’m sure you understand, us old men tend to miss something from time to time due to our poor eyesight) 

Also, NPO did technically create bloc politics with the creation of World Unity Treaty (The Initiative) in another world. You can thank Dilber for that one.

WUT was formed after GW1 when a coalition formed to fight them. Just a a normal progression of the world as the game had naturally split into competing factions. WUT (NPO and Friends) being one and League (Lue and friends) being the other. So no, you don't have to thank NPO for that. It's evolution baby!

This game has evolved into a game of blocs not alliances since no alliance can do anything on their own thus its more beneficial to be apart of a bloc with unified goals than it is to lone wolf it. If we lived in a world where every Alliance matched up fairly equally than by all means go for it but we don't. Hell, most blocs barely match up close enough to fight a war without someone crying like Goldilock about teirs. "This tier is too big" 

Like SRD said if your alliance doesn't have a voice in your current bloc join a better one so you can play politics. 

Am I the only person that believes we are over thinking it when we talk about stale politics? So let's reel it back in abit. When I call out the politics of the game being dull I'm not talking about world shaking events not happening. They do, and it's pretty often. Quack breaking up, HW forming, Clock forming, Swamp reforming but than not reforming, the constant fear of the Johnsons. That's all less than a year.

I'm talking about the use of back channels and tightly held secrets we pretend that are OpSec but not at all. It's time to allow more stuff to be shared with the regular rank and file members instead of the select few. 

It also really wouldn't hurt us if we could take some risks to create drama for the masses. Things like poking other leaders or alliances publicly instead of "SUPRISE ITS WAR TIME". I know this game's leadership has become too smart for the normal drama creating of years gone like spy rings but we still need to figure out ways to keep the membership interested and we have to do better. 

Lastly, this is a game. It's not personal please learn to separate the two. Not many people are aware that who I am in this game has nothing to do with who I am as a person. One of the things I hated the most while being a leader was hearing all the stuff people would say about what I must be like in RL because of the character I play in this game. 

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

13 hours ago, Leftbehind said:

It also really wouldn't hurt us if we could take some risks to create drama for the masses. Things like poking other leaders or alliances publicly instead of "SUPRISE ITS WAR TIME". I know this game's leadership has become too smart for the normal drama creating of years gone like spy rings but we still need to figure out ways to keep the membership interested and we have to do better.

I love doing this, but the community also punishes you for doing this.  Wana has told me when I threatened to hit them in a podcast during GnR we were both in. (i dont remember specifically threatening him, but i am sure i did since i basically threatened everyone on that podcast)  He said that was one of the reasons they targeted us when ts/rose hit us a few months back.  

So people want stuff like this to happen, but when the person that does it gets punished for it, it makes it tough to keep doing it.  During quack, I straight up told the truth and let people behind the curtain about how we were not actually planning to hit Quack.  I got absolutely dragged for doing that.  This is why people cant have nice things.  Whenever I try to be entertaining, or give more insight to things people dont see.  I get punished for it, which makes me not want to deal with the headache. 

 

[Leftbehind]

1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I love doing this, but the community also punishes you for doing this.  Wana has told me when I threatened to hit them in a podcast during GnR we were both in. (i dont remember specifically threatening him, but i am sure i did since i basically threatened everyone on that podcast)  He said that was one of the reasons they targeted us when ts/rose hit us a few months back.  

So people want stuff like this to happen, but when the person that does it gets punished for it, it makes it tough to keep doing it.  During quack, I straight up told the truth and let people behind the curtain about how we were not actually planning to hit Quack.  I got absolutely dragged for doing that.  This is why people cant have nice things.  Whenever I try to be entertaining, or give more insight to things people dont see.  I get punished for it, which makes me not want to deal with the headache. 

 

Wana can use that excuse all he wants but everyone knows that BW was coming for HW the moment you formed. tS was posturing the first night. 

I dont really have a problem with the things you said or even Wana using the threat you made as an excuse since that's politics. Playing an aggressive style only works for so long before the community will clap back since that is just nature. It shouldn't discourage anyone from taking up the mantle. 

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

15 hours ago, Leftbehind said:

Wana can use that excuse all he wants but everyone knows that BW was coming for HW the moment you formed. tS was posturing the first night. 

I dont really have a problem with the things you said or even Wana using the threat you made as an excuse since that's politics. Playing an aggressive style only works for so long before the community will clap back since that is just nature. It shouldn't discourage anyone from taking up the mantle. 

Yes, but that is the downside of making yourself the bad guy, while it is a ton of fun to do, long term you are going to get hammered for it.  I think that really discourages most people from taking up that mantle.  When we hit Rose in GnR, we knew we were rolling in as the bad guys, and we were going to eventually get hit for it.  But this is one of the biggest reasons I have been pushing for shorter wars, is so when your turn does come, you aren't getting destroyed and sat on for 2-4 months, you take your earned beating for a few weeks, and you call it a day, it makes wars a lot more fun.  (despite the cynics out there that think I only want short wars because it allow for us to take less damage)

Speaking of Rose, the largest alliance in the game, you never hear a peep from any of them on the forums, to help them avoid any possible controversy.  I do hope they start showing more of a presence around here.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Sweeeeet Ronny D

[Mayor]

10 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Speaking of Rose, the largest alliance in the game, you never hear a peep from any of them on the forums, to help them avoid any possible controversy.  I do hope they start showing more of a presence around here.

It is the members, I never held my tongue as a member of Rose on the forums. They are a more inclusive community that engages in discord rooms rather than on the forums and has been that way for quite a while (even in Slack). Nothing to do with controversy but I share your opinion hoping more Rose members speak on the forums.

About the OP, the last time I remember a chaotic world with independent warring alliances was before all the Arrgh nerfs, when all those Mensa HQ guys left Arrgh the alliance really never recovered. If I remember the score changes and the military upkeep/infra mechanic permanently ended my war economy. Back then there were a lot of alliances not in a sphere or bloc or with bad tiering with their allies and Arrgh would destroy them. Now days, besides Knights Templar, most raiding alliances are not able or equipped to target the top 10 where before Arrgh did often and regularly. I don't know if this can really be changed but I do think if people want a more interesting and dynamic game with independent wars then they should get off their asses and start attacking people. There is no rule that enforces alliances to attack/raid bloc wide but we all know certain alliances just want to grow peacefully and blob together to protect themselves and this is what stops these wars everyone wants. Making a bunch of WoTs isn't going to change this mentality for these alliances.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Mayor