Jump to content

No one wants to take over the game


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 1/8/2023 at 12:50 AM, Kastor said:

The goal of the game is to guide your alliance into a hegemony.

The goal of the game is to have FUN!

As others have said, this can be what you view the goal of the game to be but, as others have also said, this game isn't winnable. It's a dynamic game that shifts with player's priorities and the metas. I think that many of these arguments nowadays are just a symptom of the game being older now. We've now tried a number of different novel ideas for how the FA stage could be set, so now we're just going to be in a tug of war between the prevailing preferences for past plans absent changes in mechanics/gameplay.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

Except I didn't lose until Quack. Your timeline is off.

 

 

 

P.s gobble on these. I'm no villain.

You are DEFINITELY a villain. 
 

also, I think you’re misreading. I’m saying VE/UPN lost, not you. I guess I could’ve worded it better.

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2023 at 5:04 PM, Charles Bolivar said:

First of all, I don't think anyone is wishing to screw over the game.

I think rarely anyone purposefully seeks out to grief others, but if you think it doesn't happen at all then you're fooling yourself. NPO was very interested - as shown in publicly available discord logs from their highest gov chats - in ruining other player's game if it meant fewer political enemies to oppose their group. To the extent that they actively wanted and tried to get people to delete their nations by refusing peace deals and extending the war. This is to say nothing about inadvertently ruining the game via creating an unchallengeable force.

Just to be clear: A hegemony is not a group with a tiering advantage or the largest bloc in a multipolar world. A hegemony is a force that cannot be challenged even if the rest of the game combined. People called Hollywood and Quack a hegemony, even though they both easily lost wars when coordination was applied.

On 1/11/2023 at 5:04 PM, Charles Bolivar said:

Very few hegemonies, if any for that matter, arise out of some general desire to dominate the game and ruin it for everyone. Hegemonies arise due to a collective goal of providing security to nations and alliances grouped around a common collective 'pole' who stand in some form of collective opposition to nations and alliances grouped around an opposing 'pole'. The only sure way an alliance leader or group of alliance leaders can provide this security is via greater numbers (with a dash of quality and superior internal systems of organisation but at some point it is still a numbers level).

I agree with parts of this, and it's been something on my mind as well in this past year. TKR only sought out maybe 3 or 4 wars this past year, yet we were actively involved in some conflict or another for almost 11 out of 12 months in 2022. Be that from rogues, raider groups, Midgard, HoF, etc. We spent almost a full year at war, 2 months longer than NPOLT. I know you're in Guardian so maybe you'll empathize here: I was a proponent of splitting up Hollywood for a more interesting world - yet now that we've conformed to the minisphere meta we've seemingly been punished for almost a year since. Security is starting to appeal to me more than everyone else's "interesting" narratives.

 

Solid WoT overall, even if I disagree with bits. Have an upvote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Roberts said:

You lost when t$ signed NPO homie

I wasn't there when t$ signed NPO. Technically. Ergo, I didn't lose.

5 minutes ago, Kastor said:

You are DEFINITELY a villain. 
 

also, I think you’re misreading. I’m saying VE/UPN lost, not you. I guess I could’ve worded it better.

I accept your apology.

Just now, Roberts said:

I think rarely anyone purposefully seeks out to grief others, but if you think it doesn't happen at all then you're fooling yourself. NPO was very interested - as shown in publicly available discord logs from their highest gov chats - in ruining other player's game if it meant fewer political enemies to oppose their group. To the extent that they actively wanted and tried to get people to delete their nations by refusing peace deals and extending the war. This is to say nothing about inadvertently ruining the game via creating an unchallengeable force.

Just to be clear: A hegemony is not a group with a tiering advantage or the largest bloc in a multipolar world. A hegemony is a force that cannot be challenged even if the rest of the game combined. People called Hollywood and Quack a hegemony, even though they both easily lost wars when coordination was applied.

I agree with parts of this, and it's been something on my mind as well in this past year. TKR only sought out maybe 3 or 4 wars this past year, yet we were actively involved in some conflict or another for almost 11 out of 12 months in 2022. Be that from rogues, raider groups, Midgard, HoF, etc. We spent almost a full year at war, 2 months longer than NPOLT. I know you're in Guardian so maybe you'll empathize here: I was a proponent of splitting up Hollywood for a more interesting world - yet now that we've conformed to the minisphere meta we've seemingly been punished for almost a year since. Security is starting to appeal to me more than everyone else's "interesting" narratives.

 

Solid WoT overall, even if I disagree with bits. Have an upvote.

Welcome to reality. Need any pointers? I've been here a while.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kastor said:

You are DEFINITELY a villain. 
 

also, I think you’re misreading. I’m saying VE/UPN lost, not you. I guess I could’ve worded it better.

I never considered Partisan a villain tbh even tho I fought Syndicate many times. I fought Jessica Rabbit, Flame of the Flawed, and a few other tS guys and they were always chill af. Partisan helped Arrgh many times due to his relationship with Ogaden and he was never considered a villain imho. I considered Grealind a villain, or maybe even Infinite Citadel from TKR since they attacked Roz Wei so much and spied us all the time. Either way I am not sure saying someone is a "villain" is very accurate. I would say Roq was a villain, and many of the IQ leaders were at the time but it is all perspective.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2023 at 4:04 PM, Charles Bolivar said:

There are only two poles,with these poles being comprised of multiple spheres linked by common interests, security and their alignment with other alliances within that same pole and most importantly, their opposition to alliances found in the opposing pole.

See but there isn’t. There are a few alliances that absolutely will not ally themselves with other certain alliances, but for the most part in the past two years everybody done did everything with everybody. This dichotomy that you’re depicting does not exist any more. tS went from fighting rose, to allying rose, TKR went from allying tS to fighting tS. Midguard arose as a tripartite to the typical TKROSESYNDICATE rivalry (which in itself is a set of three poles) HOGG has arisen as a separate sphere again. The idea that the entire world operates around two poles is blatantly false.   Time and time again, the three major players in orbis politics continue to be consumed by other mini conflicts that begin to create new powerhouses. 
 

The reality is that you’re seeing these divisions because you’re looking for them. Age old rivalries shaped our spheres and our mindsets as players for years. New rivalries and lines are being drawn and it’s not just straight in half. I mean shit, we had three major conflicts occurring with completely different parties in the past two months alone. 

  • Upvote 1

22:26 +Kadin: too far man

22:26 +Kadin: too far

22:26 Lordofpuns[boC]: that's the point of incest Kadin

22:26 Lordofpuns[boC]: to go farther

22:27 Bet: or father

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2023 at 7:01 PM, Thalmor said:

You also have to be very competent to enact that spirit as well; and again, I don't think anybody is competent enough to do so. A lot of the big power players would have to undergo a complete shift in principles, and then band together, and then stay together, and then survive all internal and external attempts to unmake their grouping, and then maintain a specific status quo indefinitely through diplomacy and war making.

I did not find any gov in NPO particularly impressive. They had an average intelligence with the exception of Roquentin and Anna which were near geniuses. So like other alliances their gov was pretty average in competence. 

You have to remember the ideology behind NPO was a major driving force and it is what melded together the PNW version of NPO. It goes back now almost 20 years. They've played and "ruined" different online games with their ambitions. 

I don't think they were bad or good just here and discovered a way to "win" PNW. They were patient enough to wait 5 years and gather enough support. They had a mathematical precision and only thought that their way was the only way to beat PNW. 

There is no winning PNW but you can dominate for a time. People within those dominate parties have the same ambitious tastes as NPO and do wish to once again "win". I don't think that mindset left with Coalition B mass deletions. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like history. Also PnW history. 

 

But I don't understand why NPO is talked about so much? Has there really been no progression at all since then? Hasn't Fear and HoF been suprisingly effective scare AA's for some time at least? Hasn't TKR formed a close knitted community since then? Or even bigger, RON? Tech guys made non NPO tech, drama's have come and gone since then and players have gotten attention alot without being connected to NPO or Roq. 

Referencing to a gone aspect of the game makes it sometimes seen to me that the game/community has stagnated since then, when it didn't really if you read above posts (and simply skip the NPO parts). 

I really enjoy the game without thinking it's connected to NPO at all. Vein and Pascal are doing awesome, HOGG failed terribly. Camelot is making a comeback. Nokia Rokia is been forgiven. George still didn't pay me my 200m back. I'm c33, highest I've ever been. I like to see the alliances FA moves, tkr fighting, cata trying but failing for the moment, the inevitable moment eclipse will loose (2023?). And of all this without freakin non existing NPO!

 

 

(*Insert appropriate meme here*)

Edited by Arthur Wellington
Terrible use of English
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another perspective to consider on this, from a newer (less than 1 year) player who leads a smaller alliance: having a total hegemony like that wouldn't be all that great for most people — especially those of us who aren't in the larger alliances which are contenders for the top position. While, of course, my alliance, for example, is trying to grow, we are, at this point, only at rank 116 or so, and a total hegemony would basically mean that smaller factions wouldn't be able to grow as well, which would effectively cause stagnation throughout the game, because I'd say the presence of said smaller alliances allows for more interesting events in the game.

Though, I haven't been here for all that long (less than a year), so maybe not. I'm just saying what I think would happen to the numerous small alliances of Orbis if something like that were to happen again.

  • Upvote 1

Hello. I don't know what to put here right now.

I hope you're having a lovely day : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Nyx said:

Just another perspective to consider on this, from a newer (less than 1 year) player who leads a smaller alliance: having a total hegemony like that wouldn't be all that great for most people — especially those of us who aren't in the larger alliances which are contenders for the top position. While, of course, my alliance, for example, is trying to grow, we are, at this point, only at rank 116 or so, and a total hegemony would basically mean that smaller factions wouldn't be able to grow as well, which would effectively cause stagnation throughout the game, because I'd say the presence of said smaller alliances allows for more interesting events in the game.

Though, I haven't been here for all that long (less than a year), so maybe not. I'm just saying what I think would happen to the numerous small alliances of Orbis if something like that were to happen again.

That isn’t true at all. I would go into detail about why but history shows this simply to not be true. 

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kastor said:

That isn’t true at all. I would go into detail about why but history shows this simply to not be true. 

As I said, I'm somewhat new, so I wasn't really here or at least not involved in the community while everything was going on with NPO, so everything I said may be wrong. That's just what I was initially thinking, but I don't know all that much history here.

Hello. I don't know what to put here right now.

I hope you're having a lovely day : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 2:47 AM, Roberts said:

I think rarely anyone purposefully seeks out to grief others, but if you think it doesn't happen at all then you're fooling yourself. NPO was very interested - as shown in publicly available discord logs from their highest gov chats - in ruining other player's game if it meant fewer political enemies to oppose their group. To the extent that they actively wanted and tried to get people to delete their nations by refusing peace deals and extending the war. This is to say nothing about inadvertently ruining the game via creating an unchallengeable force.

Just to be clear: A hegemony is not a group with a tiering advantage or the largest bloc in a multipolar world. A hegemony is a force that cannot be challenged even if the rest of the game combined. People called Hollywood and Quack a hegemony, even though they both easily lost wars when coordination was applied.

I agree with parts of this, and it's been something on my mind as well in this past year. TKR only sought out maybe 3 or 4 wars this past year, yet we were actively involved in some conflict or another for almost 11 out of 12 months in 2022. Be that from rogues, raider groups, Midgard, HoF, etc. We spent almost a full year at war, 2 months longer than NPOLT. I know you're in Guardian so maybe you'll empathize here: I was a proponent of splitting up Hollywood for a more interesting world - yet now that we've conformed to the minisphere meta we've seemingly been punished for almost a year since. Security is starting to appeal to me more than everyone else's "interesting" narratives.

 

Solid WoT overall, even if I disagree with bits. Have an upvote.

I think you are confusing NPO's motivations for forming a hegemony with what they did when they finally achieved (albeit briefly) that hegemon status before it all imploded.  I'm the last person to be an NPO apologist since I despised them as much as the next person, but I think we can all generally agree that the only way to achieve real security is via being able to project some form of indirect dominance upon the game from a position of strength. One is never totally secure as long as a serious rival is present. Once you take into account NPO's earlier history of defeat after defeat, their economic and tiering models and so on, then NPO's motivations for attempting some form of hegemony really aren't all that surprising. Now, what they did to maintain that hegemony is a whole other different story which can't be condoned. Not all hegemons are the same after all, and I don't recall tS, TKR, rose or any other current and/or previous hegemons employing the extreme methods utilised by NPO.

I also disagree with your definition of what a hegemony actually is. There have been many would be and actual hegemons labelled as such in this game's history. They have all fallen one after the other. No one is untouchable. This game's own history actually indicates as much and if the current meta isn't indicative of former hegemons being humbled then I don't know what is. We could argue over who was and wasn't a hegemon, but considering the term gets thrown around rather loosely I think such a venture might be ultimately futile.

And that's precisely what minispheres was, an idyllic narrative divorced from the game's own material reality. Particularly in regards to the upper tier dynamics which render the notion of minispheres particularly problematic and hard to achieve.

Edited by Charles Bolivar
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 3:13 AM, Lord of Puns said:

See but there isn’t. There are a few alliances that absolutely will not ally themselves with other certain alliances, but for the most part in the past two years everybody done did everything with everybody. This dichotomy that you’re depicting does not exist any more. tS went from fighting rose, to allying rose, TKR went from allying tS to fighting tS. Midguard arose as a tripartite to the typical TKROSESYNDICATE rivalry (which in itself is a set of three poles) HOGG has arisen as a separate sphere again. The idea that the entire world operates around two poles is blatantly false.   Time and time again, the three major players in orbis politics continue to be consumed by other mini conflicts that begin to create new powerhouses. 
 

The reality is that you’re seeing these divisions because you’re looking for them. Age old rivalries shaped our spheres and our mindsets as players for years. New rivalries and lines are being drawn and it’s not just straight in half. I mean shit, we had three major conflicts occurring with completely different parties in the past two months alone. 

The presence of two poles does not mean that alliances are unable to cross from one hemisphere to another though?  We had plenty of that occurring in the past too? BK being a rather prominent example

A bipolar world doesn't automatically imply a non-changing world. It's simply a term used to describe a set of relations which exist within the game's larger meta as it exists at any given point in time. Alliances will change in their goals, interests and alignments much as they always have done.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 9:42 AM, Arthur Wellington said:

I really like history. Also PnW history. 

 

But I don't understand why NPO is talked about so much? Has there really been no progression at all since then? Hasn't Fear and HoF been suprisingly effective scare AA's for some time at least? Hasn't TKR formed a close knitted community since then? Or even bigger, RON? Tech guys made non NPO tech, drama's have come and gone since then and players have gotten attention alot without being connected to NPO or Roq. 

Referencing to a gone aspect of the game makes it sometimes seen to me that the game/community has stagnated since then, when it didn't really if you read above posts (and simply skip the NPO parts). 

I really enjoy the game without thinking it's connected to NPO at all. Vein and Pascal are doing awesome, HOGG failed terribly. Camelot is making a comeback. Nokia Rokia is been forgiven. George still didn't pay me my 200m back. I'm c33, highest I've ever been. I like to see the alliances FA moves, tkr fighting, cata trying but failing for the moment, the inevitable moment eclipse will loose (2023?). And of all this without freakin non existing NPO!

 

 

(*Insert appropriate meme here*)

 

There are many real life analogies for some thing continuing on, and sometimes making great achievements and developments, while yet being stagnated as an entity and/or sundered of their former glory or heights. I think there are certainly things that have stagnated in the game and the meta, but it does not mean the entire game is at a standstill. Here is a different thought - when was the last major change to the meta of fighting a war, in terms of the mechanics used? It certainly has been a few years. And this says nothing of improvements or resources or other things like that - basic mechanics which have a hard reality to them which after some period of time have been well worn and better resolved.

Pacifica are also a convenient scapegoat to anathematize. This is why they can be brought up and discussed, even though we are coming up on 3 years without them, and they are not in the memory of a lot of our playerbase.

  • Like 1

In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem.
Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cüm Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NPO showed us how to ruin a game and failed in the process.  @Arthur Wellington For the record TKR has always been a close knit community despite NPOLT or anything else.  That is not to say a few didn't hibernate at the time, or we didn't experience any degree of attrition.  As for the term hegemony, it is used flippantly these days, and no one group of us has come anywhere near the excesses of NPO (which is why they're so commonly referenced btw).  Also from my perspective Partisan is a potent turkey, that is all.

  • Like 1

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Etat said:

NPO showed us how to ruin a game and failed in the process.  @Arthur Wellington For the record TKR has always been a close knit community despite NPOLT or anything else.  That is not to say a few didn't hibernate at the time, or we didn't experience any degree of attrition.  As for the term hegemony, it is used flippantly these days, and no one group of us has come anywhere near the excesses of NPO (which is why they're so commonly referenced btw).  Also from my perspective Partisan is a potent turkey, that is all.

Did you just namecall me friend?

  • Haha 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2023 at 2:19 PM, Etat said:

NPO showed us how to ruin a game and failed in the process.  @Arthur Wellington For the record TKR has always been a close knit community despite NPOLT or anything else.  That is not to say a few didn't hibernate at the time, or we didn't experience any degree of attrition.  As for the term hegemony, it is used flippantly these days, and no one group of us has come anywhere near the excesses of NPO (which is why they're so commonly referenced btw).  Also from my perspective Partisan is a potent turkey, that is all.

Even if one would think NPO ruined the game, I still don't think that should matter all that much at this moment. I feel the 1000+ active nations at this moment don't need a big bad wolf (imagined, NPO wasn't that) to function at this time.

Hegomony is a really silly term to use, as there hasn't been one given the diversity of gameplay. Just look at the award nominations, there is no consensus over any of the major categories at all, and the largest alliance, Rose, is hardly considered a hegemon by anyone.

Politics and war is doing fine without the  hero/devil worship of NPO/Roq. 

Edited by Arthur Wellington
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2023 at 7:09 AM, Arthur Wellington said:

Politics and war is doing fine without the  hero/devil worship of NPO/Roq. 

I mostly agree, though it is worth remembering what happened lest history repeat itself :)

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2023 at 7:39 AM, Arthur Wellington said:

Even if one would think NPO ruined the game, I still don't think that should matter all that much at this moment. I feel the 1000+ active nations at this moment don't need a big bad wolf (imagined, NPO wasn't that) to function at this time.

Hegomony is a really silly term to use, as there hasn't been one given the diversity of gameplay. Just look at the award nominations, there is no consensus over any of the major categories at all, and the largest alliance, Rose, is hardly considered a hegemon by anyone.

Politics and war is doing fine without the  hero/devil worship of NPO/Roq. 

It's hard for those who didn't live that period to understand the impact it had on players.
Those fighting NPO quit the game in droves due to toxicity, entire alliances disbanded, and then when it fell on Opus Dei's face? They quit the game too. Thousands of players gone. Yeah, the game is better for it now, but the situation was very shitty.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2023 at 4:27 PM, Tartarus said:

It's hard for those who didn't live that period to understand the impact it had on players.
Those fighting NPO quit the game in droves due to toxicity, entire alliances disbanded, and then when it fell on Opus Dei's face? They quit the game too. Thousands of players gone. Yeah, the game is better for it now, but the situation was very shitty.

Even this is a heavy understatement. It was to the point that even the most active players in this game no longer wanted to engage anymore and that takes a substantial effort. When even alliance gov and leadership don't have the heart to continue and start going inactive, that's a new level of fatigue. It was more mentally and emotionally draining than any game ever has a right to be and there was no end in sight. We were fighting an opponent who was quite literally determined to eliminate us from the game and they were doing a rather good of it up until the point the cheating scandal broke. The end of that war was incredibly abrupt and the only reason it did stop was because of the opposing member response to temporary bans handed out to their leadership from the cheating scandal verdict. As you stated, had a heavy toll on the game and thousands of players - friends, alliance mates, alliances, etc. - were gone. We've all got friends from then we've never heard from again.

It's something I'm glad we're recovering from - and yeah, honestly, I would still say we're in recovery in some ways and I'll agree with the general sentiment that the game as a whole may still be a bit gun shy over it all and I hope we continue to move beyond that - but it's leaps and bounds beyond where we were even a year ago. We'll continue recovering and moving on but I hope we'll never forget because the last thing we need is a repeat.

Edited by Adrienne
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

BrOQBND.jpg

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.