Ideals are Dying

[Lysander]

We all know there are issues with the way politics are at the moment. There have been multiple suggestions on how to fix this, from a return to bipolarity, a stronger move to minispheres, and even making a broad move to democracy for alliances. 

 

I admit, I was not here for NPO’s Last Time, so I don’t have the full experience of the nine months of war and the struggle that went on during that time. However, the game needs to move past NPOLT. Not making moves because you don’t want to be related to NPO, or because you’re scared of being linked to IQ; this is part of the issue. Being afraid to be seen as an aggressor, wanting to play the victim and cry foul, is an issue for much of the game. Even certain spheres who’ve been fairly aggressive in the political arena still cry foul over “bad” CBs.

 

One thing that’s been really ironic to watch is all the popularity behind the idea of minispheres. So many people are supportive of the idea of really small spheres, and yet we’ve arguably been taking numerous steps back from that direction. There are alliance leaders who publicly say they’re for minispheres, and yet they won’t work towards them. I understand the idea behind this; “we’re not going to shrink down unless they shrink down.” And yet, unless someone takes that first step, can we ever get to minispheres? And, as mentioned later in this post, are minispheres even possible without decision-makers being willing to involve micros?

 

Democracy is a suggestion that is both problematic and a great idea at the same time. Part of the reason why this has been suggested (at least, part of the reason I’ve seen) is to open up alliances to fresh ideas and fresh government members. It could facilitate minispheres, facilitate new wars, new alliances, and even new treaties and spheres. At the same time, democracy is a bad idea, because, well, duh? Many members don’t pay enough attention to understand what the best policies for them are. They may not really understand what candidates are the best option for them. Limits on who can vote, who can run, etc. may work to resolve this, but they will also limit what ideas and individuals can actually lead an alliance. That ultimately defeats part of the purpose of having democracy in the first place.

 

Something that has been one of the most irritating statements I’ve seen in recent times is the statement that “we need a villain.” Yes, we could use a villain. But that’s not really the issue. There are two major issues. The first was listed above - people, and some decision-makers in particular, are scared of being aggressive. They don’t want to be seen as the villain or the bad guy in any situation. That comes with drawbacks - less interesting CBs, less interesting politics, etc.

 

The second, and more prominent issue, is that this game despises villains. In order to survive as a villain, you have to either be nearly unkillable. That narrows who a villain can be to two groups - pirates, or a mega-sphere. NPO (and their allies) were, from my understanding, able to stay a villain and stay un-wiped because of sheer size. They were competent enough and large enough to fight wars as villains, and they had a chance to win. A pirate alliance could be a villain, because we’ve seen pirate alliances survive wars (long wars, wars where they are desperately outnumbered, and more). But anyone else aspiring to be a villain gets utterly crapped on by the game.

 

A prime example many people may remember is Lord Alan of Black Skies. He wasn’t afraid to play the villain and cut garbage out of the equation; this ultimately led to him being rolled, mocked, and then issued irl death threats. A much older example would be Jayce, of the Assyrian Empire, who tried to form a bloc with some micros and was basically doxxed out of the game. These are players labeled “villains” because their points of view differ from the norm. Even actual villains, like SpAnKy, are abused to a rather ridiculous extent. SpAnKy absolutely causes chaos and deserves some of the things that fly his way, but the game as a whole trend towards hating on him (and people like him), and discrediting what he does.

 

This is one of the biggest issues with current politics. We all agree the current mold is bad. We all agree it needs to be broken. And then we destroy those who dare to break the trend. Everyone can agree on the need for some fresh blood, yet we beat the crap out of micros and people with new ideas. And then we refuse to allow them any chance at a possible redemption. That is why we’re stuck with what we have - because we take down everything else that is proposed. If y’all actually want minispheres, fresh ideas and leaders, and overall, spicier politics, then as a community we need to tone down the bashing of people who don’t follow the trend. 

 

Otherwise, all the potential good ideas out there that could really revitalize our politics will be shot down with the bad ones.

[Leftbehind]

Oh great another one of these. 

[Darth Ataxia]

1 minute ago, Leftbehind said:

Oh great another one of these. 

there'll be another twenty before the war is done, don't worry

[Lysander]

Lol I’m sorry for timing it with the Global. Been working on it for a few days, not paying attention to the militarization, and it got done tonight...

[Nokia Rokia]

to be fair me and greene made better villain's than Alan without even trying

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

1 hour ago, Lysander said:

A prime example many people may remember is Lord Alan of Black Skies. He wasn’t afraid to play the villain and cut garbage out of the equation; this ultimately led to him being rolled, mocked, and then issued irl death threats. A much older example would be Jayce, of the Assyrian Empire, who tried to form a bloc with some micros and was basically doxxed out of the game. These are players labeled “villains” because their points of view differ from the norm. Even actual villains, like SpAnKy, are abused to a rather ridiculous extent. SpAnKy absolutely causes chaos and deserves some of the things that fly his way, but the game as a whole trend towards hating on him (and people like him), and discrediting what he does.

I have no idea who any of these people are.  But yes, I have talked about this before, there is no real advantage to being the bad guy.  I say this as someone who has been the "bad guy" and who some still view as a bad guy.  All you are doing is cashing in fun in the short term for future pain and retribution.

Also I would say at least from my point of view, we are well past the NPO thing, the current political landscape doesn't really have anything to do with them, the NPO thing gets brought up now for cheap political points.  

We are basically in the middle of a cold war, because the 3 major blocks know whoever doesn't fight is the real winner in a war between two of us.  I will say I am surprised Clock is wasting resources on hitting BR, but I guess if they feel BR is a legit threat to them, or BR is a fun war with a guaranteed easy victory to keep their membership engaged, more power to em.

[Velekk Hemlock]

I remember when the game was still divided upon IQ. As a newbie in Lordaeron I remember listening to people chat about game politics with starry eyes and a good deal of confusion. It wasn't clearly defined alliances or blocs, or even spheres you can see on the treaty page, it at least appeared to be more complicated. 

One of the things I learned during my time off and after coming back is that you don't necessarily need bad guys to hate, you need a compelling story. For example, micro wars are usually laughed at and tbf with good reason. Most of the time it's a matter of raids televised to everybody. But when my alliance went and did our little fight against The Vision and posted our DoW and eventual treaty on the forums we had incredibly positive reception. Imo, it was because there was a story there for people to latch onto. 

When I think of my favorite wars in this game I don't think of the ones that I did really well in or where I got my ass kicked a bunch. I always remember the wars where I felt excited to login to the game and fight the war, whether I was winning or losing battles. These have been minor micro conflicts and massive global wars. The war with Vision was not profitable at all, Vision's leader at the time had liquidated most of their bank but it was fun as hell for my alliance and for those on the forums. It caused several Vision people to go form their own alliances and created new political dynamics within the admittedly minor and very amateur micro scene.

When I think of my favorite alliances, it's never pixel hugging people who are worried about having lots of cash, it's the people that provide unique experiences in the game. Many are so focused on growing and winning that they forget the real fun of the game, for the majority of players, isn't as simple as seeing a number go up or bullying an enemy to death. It's having bitter enemies, high-stake fights, crazy characters, and ultimately a compelling narrative to grow fond of and talk about with your non-P&W friends. I could talk about my experiences in the Ayyslamic Crusade not because pixel went up or down but because I was genuinely invested in the fighting and the characters involved. I can talk about those wars in terms of people and politics, not just in "yeah I got a Lotta loot and totally wrecked his army". Even a recent war in OWR where I was personally losing for a lot of it was made to be compelling because our MA had an excellent framing for the conflict. I felt like I was actually contributing to the cause despite not making great military gains. 

TL;DR I think players and especially leaders should focus less on growing big and approaching the game with the idea of "get as big as possible", but should try and create compelling drama for people to be invested in. It's not that you need a villain who gets shit on by everyone who wants to be heroic and strong, you need leaders moving away from the desire to be heroic and strong and towards being interesting and compelling. Be interesting not minmaxed and safe. If you have a grudge, maybe go start some shit. If you have an idea you always wanted to try, go do it. Being perfect is the enemy of good.

[hidude45454]

Is the following statement a hot take? I think that we are currently in a consolidation phase of the game, which may be followed soon by a correction and decentralization phase. So I am not convinced game politics will stay like this forever especially because you can't keep a lid on discontentment forever.

Actually, I think the problems we're facing today are more contemporary problems than NPO-remnant problems, and there is an argument to be made that tripolarity is arguable worse than bipolarity -- reason being, in a bipolar world, at least you have only one enemy to worry about not letting get ahead of you, whereas in tripolarity, there is only one more possible 1v1 combination at the much more significant cost of always having one of your rivals get ahead of you no matter which war you pick. The solution in my eyes is a dramatic downscaling of sphere size. Preferably, Celestial, HW, Clock, and Backrooms should all split in half and create 8 minispheres. That would result in a more equal contention with HM and Johnsons, which then gives us a notable 45 possible 1v1 combinations between 10 minispheres, many many more interesting multi-sphere globals, the potential reintroduction of politically viable secret treaties, and less of a fear of falling behind rivals. 2021 having the most wars in game history with 4 major spheres was I think very good evidence this could work. Eventually, I am optimistic someone will succeed in making a strong first step towards this, and I encourage people to try.

I think there is one HUGE advantage to being a villain, and that's that playing the bad guy gives you INITIATIVE, which is probably one of the single most underestimated boons in the game (think about it -- in a movie, the bad guy is always the one to make the first move, and then the good guy has to respond to it). Alliances will be rolled at some point no matter what. So, in my eyes, why is there such a need to play the good guy when it's going to happen anyways? Rose was generally nice and avoidant for most of 2020 and 2021 and still got rolled twice. All it takes is some political daring and a spark of genius.

An example of an excellent villain right under your nose -- HoF. I don't need to re-mention all their conquests during 2021, so instead I will bring up that HoF basically played the part of militarizing the entire game in the past week, and weren't even the one to lift a finger at the end of it. A lot of people hate them and yet they've done more than most people reading this will do in five years of playing. So, you don't have to be a pirate or megasphere to be a villain, even though HoF are quite good at the former. You just have to be militarily competent and/or politically gifted and take a chance betting against the game meta, and eventually it will pay dividends.

So yes, the current state really sucks, but it's a work in progress. I actually think it's okay for a lot of ideas to be struck down because we're in a period of brainstorming and it's okay for most ideas to be duds. But eventually, I'm optimistic someone will find a good opportunity to take advantage of a fresh idea and things will happen. All I can do is play my part and hopefully get this topic on the minds of more people.

[Buorhann]

I didn't read all of the word of text, because the whole "villain" bit made me go "Who are these people?"

In any case, I just wanted to state that the game has pretty much moved on from NPOLT.  There's been multiple conflicts without all the major players involved in it.  They've had their own separate wars and whatever else.

 

 

Also, there's no villains or heroes.

[Leftbehind]

5 hours ago, Lysander said:

Snip

Fine, I'll make a serious comment. 

Everyone and their dog likes to lay claim that the game is boring or dead while forgetting that this a political sim not a roller coaster. Politics isn't about being flashy with instant gratification, it's a long and slow process. Complaining about it only goes to show how people do not understand how it works. So let's pull up a chair to hear some wisdom. 

This game has basically two areas of politics/entertainment; The META!!! And whatever it is others do, let call it fringe for simplicity. 

In the meta we have the three majors plus a floating sphere. These three majors watch tiers, growth and focus solely on war cycles in order to limit the advantage of its opposing spheres. Not much risk is taken nor will there be much since unnecessary risk will remove them from contention. There is no goal other than limiting growth so they can keep the balancing act. Like SRD said "We are basically in the middle of a cold war, because the 3 major blocks know whoever doesn't fight is the real winner in a war between two of us."

That doesn't mean there isn't anything going on with them since if you paid some attention you will see them still eyeing each other up waiting for that moment. It just takes time. No one here can tell me that sky trash doesn't want to get its pound of flesh from Hollywood or Clock for getting embarrassed. No different than Hollywood wouldn't mind taking a swing at a strong Clock to finally answer the question of who is better. Problem is none of these people are derps so it's unlikely the mistake will be made. 

Now that's where the red headed stepchild Backroom comes into play and as much as people don't want to admit it their role is vital. They basically act as a swing bloc that can king make or break a war. It's up to the major three to take advantage of situations that are created by them. Like for example today. Clock and BR had bad blood, some of it I truly wished was all in the open for you all to see since that would have been a hell of a build up to a war but alas it doesn't always work like that. Even though there have been trolling and mocking along with other nonsense going on in public for awhile, this is how Clock knew that eventually BR would find a dance partner for a war. Again... majors aren't dumb. 

The only criticism I can give BR about trying to line Clock up was their inability to read the room. HW and SkyTrash has bigger fish to fry than Clock and Clock is the smallerish major with a history of being willing to throw down. That means it's unlikely they would have found support among the other majors. Personally, I was trying to lay seeds of Johnsons BR doing a war on Clock.

Why Lefty you used to be a leader there? Simple my friends, it would have been fun to see a war where whales were basically useless and honestly... I dont think Clock is that amazing either.

They would never win the score war but they could choke out the lower end members which would cause Deca's head to explode due to the squeals of the noobs complaining about being cycled. People still forget that there are two ways to win a war, on the scoreboard and on nation pages. Most alliances need a steady stream of new players to fill the ranks of older players who can't be bothered anymore. (Minus grumpy the AIG of the PnW world too big to fail.) It's a fun fact tbh and it doesn't take long wars to annoy noobs enough that they want to leave for greener pastures especially when most of the game is at peace. 

I'm not even sure if I'm still on topic anymore I'm sorta just running in circles at 2 am... oh yeah the Fringe players. 

Look we all love to shit on these people because they aren't playing the meta but in reality they do a great job keeping the game interesting during the slow times. They aren't playing for anything grander than their own entertainment which is why they do so well. What people have to understand is they are playing the same game but in a different world so meta and fringe players are not comparable. Both are valuable to the active community seeking entertainment so quit over thinking the game, politics and the state of it. 

[WarriorSoul]

Respectfully, I think anyone complaining about how stale the current state of the game is has never actually played in a stale meta. There are currently four larger/substantial spheres, two of which have formed out of others in the last few months. There is also a handful of other notable spheres. Two of these spheres are currently fighting each other, which makes it the sixth different combination of alliances fighting each other in a significant war within the last year. Obviously there is some overlap in those wars, but that’s probably as dynamic a meta as I have seen in a nation sim in a very long time.

Of course there is always room for improvement, but to look at the current state as the same tired old dynamic when, in reality, the game is quadri-polar (tri-polar at a minimum) strikes me as letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.

[Alastor]

Keegoz raised a good point on my debate server:

We're rapidly running out of "secondary" powers that don't evaporate in their first losing war.

 

Part of the reason is that the meta is boring and many groups disengage from global politics. Johnsons couldn't care less about what HW/Clock/Celestial are fighting over, for example.

Part of the reason is the concentration of experience, activity, and tiering in the major alliances. TKR, for example, could probably solo some spheres. So could Rose or t$.

Part of the reason is pride - a lot of smaller groups refuse to take advice or help, and a lot of larger groups refuse to take protectorates out of their own pride not wanting to be responsible for "sub-par" alliances. The latter is the largest issue imo. If people are receptive and willing to take advice then larger AA's have to care and put in the effort there.

[Kevanovia]

24 minutes ago, roberts said:

Johnsons couldn't care less about what HW/Clock/Celestial are fighting over, for example.

Normally us Lords and Ladies don't bother ourselves with the issues of peasants. However, we are watching this situation unravel closely.

Edited May 21, 2022 by Kevanovia

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

8 hours ago, Leftbehind said:

No different than Hollywood wouldn't mind taking a swing at a strong Clock to finally answer the question of who is better.

Wait there is a question here? 

[Leftbehind]

1 hour ago, roberts said:

Snip

Part of the problem is people believing that the meta is the only place of value forgetting everyone else. Look, as much as the major alliances are a big focus its not solely on them to keep us entertained, it's on us. 

Wtf is this secondary powers bullshit? You are either in the meta following a major alliance or you aren't. There is no in-between not to mention that we already have smaller groups trying to do their own thing. BR and Johnsons. 

As I've said before, we need to start sharing our discontent with everyone else to push the drama to the front. The non major blocs need to start realizing that the majors don't care about them so don't be scared to have fun. 

[Mayor]

2 hours ago, roberts said:

Keegoz raised a good point on my debate server:

We're rapidly running out of "secondary" powers that don't evaporate in their first losing war.

 

Part of the reason is that the meta is boring and many groups disengage from global politics. Johnsons couldn't care less about what HW/Clock/Celestial are fighting over, for example.

Part of the reason is the concentration of experience, activity, and tiering in the major alliances. TKR, for example, could probably solo some spheres. So could Rose or t$.

Part of the reason is pride - a lot of smaller groups refuse to take advice or help, and a lot of larger groups refuse to take protectorates out of their own pride not wanting to be responsible for "sub-par" alliances. The latter is the largest issue imo. If people are receptive and willing to take advice then larger AA's have to care and put in the effort there.

Didn't you form an alliance, build and hype it up, go inactive, flame your members for calling you an inactive leader and then you merged into TKR without their input? Sometimes it is hard to take you seriously at all when you make posts such as "Retired Leaders are killing the game" (you are retired gov in TKR) or giving your opinion on "secondary powers" or game activity like you are here. You come off as a massive hypocrite who doesn't even listen to their own suggestions. You say people should be receptive and willing to take advice but you have shown yourself that you don't take advice from your own members in your own alliance before you sold it to TKR for cash for yourself allegedly. Expert leadership from Roberts. Waiting for the book release.

[Buorhann]

Some of us “retired leaders” deserve a break.  A few of us put a lot of effort into this game.

[Cpt Crunch]

Aye someone make me leader of an entire bloc and I'll gladly be the villain, trust. 

[Buorhann]

5 hours ago, Cpt Crunch said:

Aye someone make me leader of an entire bloc and I'll gladly be the villain, trust. 

Work on it yourself like the rest of us did.

[Cpt Crunch]

On 5/21/2022 at 11:40 PM, Buorhann said:

Work on it yourself like the rest of us did.

Clearly you don't know what sarcasm is. Maybe work on that

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

37 minutes ago, Cpt Crunch said:

Clearly you don't know what sarcasm is. Maybe work on that

FYI your nation link does not link to a current nation.

[Mayor]

1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

FYI your nation link does not link to a current nation.

No one gives a shit about that lol, I have told like 5-6 different people and no one cared including Placentia who had their profile link to incorrect nation for like years before they fixed it.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

6 minutes ago, Mayor said:

No one gives a shit about that lol, I have told like 5-6 different people and no one cared including Placentia who had their profile link to incorrect nation for like years before they fixed it.

how am i supposed to properly judge a persons terrible post if i cant confirm that they have 5 cities and are like a month old?

[Wendell]

Of course ideals are dying. Several alliances have sold their ideals to instead become chromos.

Alot of top ten alliances are there not because of hard work or ideals,they are there because of the date they were created and their relative popularity. You would seem legit too if you were hovering around for 7 years and most of the game supported you like the Royal Family. And like the royal family they have little legal power, own private assets and are generally unprepared when it comes to actual politics. They have no legitimacy to actually be considered in charge of anything but their own assets. Also, like the Royal Family they don't work hard. 

Micros (real ones  and not noobs trying to boss someone around) provide safety, respect and help for their members. Being so small means you have alot to lose if a member leaves. 

Coming back around to the point: Is your alliance shit? Does member count actually equal a great alliance or is that just lazy people clicking the first alliance they see and assume it's great? 

Here is an example:  There are Walmarts all over your city. They want you to buy their notoriously rotten produce. And you see crowds buying it. Do you buy it as well because everyone else is or do you go to Publix where there is fresh clean produce. 99% of the time people will literally buy rotten fruit because everyone else is. People shame smaller chainstore Publix because it's "not as big and popular as Walmart" however their products are similar in price but superb in quality. It's really your loss if you buy into the hype over at Walmart. 

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by Darth Tryptophan

[Firwof Kromwell]

1 hour ago, Darth Tryptophan said:

Of course ideals are dying. Several alliances have sold their ideals to instead become chromos.

Alot of top ten alliances are there not because of hard work or ideals,they are there because of the date they were created and their relative popularity. You would seem legit too if you were hovering around for 7 years and most of the game supported you like the Royal Family. And like the royal family they have little legal power, own private assets and are generally unprepared when it comes to actual politics. They have no legitimacy to actually be considered in charge of anything but their own assets. Also, like the Royal Family they don't work hard. 

Micros (real ones  and not noobs trying to boss someone around) provide safety, respect and help for their members. Being so small means you have alot to lose if a member leaves. 

Coming back around to the point: Is your alliance shit? Does member count actually equal a great alliance or is that just lazy people clicking the first alliance they see and assume it's great? 

Here is an example:  There are Walmarts all over your city. They want you to buy their notoriously rotten produce. And you see crowds buying it. Do you buy it as well because everyone else is or do you go to Publix where there is fresh clean produce. 99% of the time people will literally buy rotten fruit because everyone else is. People shame smaller chainstore Publix because it's "not as big and popular as Walmart" however their products are similar in price but superb in quality. It's really your loss if you buy into the hype over at Walmart. 

 

Most aa's are what seems to be authoritative cookie cutter aa's that indoctrinate their members to their benefits. That would also include locking them in a grant/tax trap where it turns out supposed grants are really loans & low taxes  are really medium to high-ish taxes. If aa's are able to make ppl into what benefits them the most throu enforcing restrictive & regulative terms while making it seem normal, then you are being brainwashed into conformity & obedience. Ppl want that due to a desire to rule ppl, be over others for their own conviction to be true above all, half the time anything more or less will be disregarded as well assumed as destructive argument against the ruling regime further looked at more n more disobedient/non-conforming the more one questions another. If one cannot gain knowledge throu self curiosity, propel their own future throu mainly their own drive, while still being able to work w/ each other on a two way street aside willingly on minimally controlling n invasive policies, then one isnt playing the game, one is being used as another's pawn.