Of Dead Alliances

[Raphael]

These are just my personal thoughts on a topic that is a bit controversial.

 

I've felt recently that there are quite a few alliances in existence that don't participate in the wider community, don't really initiate or even contribute to politics, and generally only ever fight defensive wars when their inactivity or incompetence becomes the center of someone else's war of boredom. The reason I write this is because I feel that there has become an oversaturation of these alliances and we seemingly are living in a time of change for Orbis, so maybe this writing will prompt action.

The problem with these groups is usually not their inactivity as they log in often enough to function, sometimes just barely, as an alliance. The problem also does not lie with their incompetence, as the meta and politics are both relatively easy to learn and navigate. The issue is that stubborn pride is like a glacier: Locking up fresh water, inaccessible to the world. These alliances are host to several active players usually working hard to keep the wider group afloat, locked away from the community, and usually stuck in lower government positions long enough to drive them inactive.

Cora from UPN is a good example of a potentially great player in an alliance fallen from greatness long ago, and now can only be described as insular on their best day. UPN, The Immortals and Mortals, Dark Brotherhood, TCM, USN, and Gods of Orbis -- just to name a few from the top 50 -- have over 400 nations between them. 

That's almost 10% of all active nations, locked up like a glacier in insular communities that generally don't drive or even participate in politics. Food for thought.

[CoraMcstrap]

Ahhh alliances who don't play the Roberts preapproved way must all disband rather then exercise their freedom to enjoy the game the way they want. I better go disband UPN. Oh wait no the other thing. 

[Altheus]

Thanks for your thoughts,

The issues are that it's hard to know what it's like to be in an alliance without actually being in it and that people look for different things in an alliance, hence the great variety of styles in the game (which is a strength)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being in an aggressive alliance, a pirate alliance, a very wider community driven alliance and all those things, but it's not for everyone. The fact that a good number of the alliances you're quick to criticise are both sizable and stable says to me that they are fulfilling a niche in the game for members who find their highly varied styles of engaging in the game attractive.

i.e. I wouldn't worry about it. They're plenty of happy people in UPN and I suspect the others you've mentioned

[BelgiumFury]

45 minutes ago, Roberts said:

Cora from UPN is a good example of a potentially great player in an alliance fallen from greatness long ago, and now can only be described as insular on their best day. UPN, The Immortals and Mortals, Dark Brotherhood, TCM, USN, and Gods of Orbis -- just to name a few from the top 50 -- have over 400 nations between them. 

 

Perhaps, just maybe Cora from UPN is enjoying her best life in a community she enjoys, and indeed perhaps are many others.

I am not against making this game competitive, indeed I don't mind that big alliances have advantages because that is how competition works and competition in a game is good (imho). But what exactly is the reason these people would care for your message? Do you truly think if these people hated their misserable lives as you think they do, they'd still be volunteering to do it? Do you think Cora (just taking her as you mentioned her by name) would not be able to find an alliance if she wanted to?

Perhaps, just perhaps they are indeed living their best life.

Edited June 19, 2023 by BelgiumFury

[Tartarus]

It's the same argument as smaller/dying alliances who refuse to merge etc, and it all revolves back to stubbornness. Don't wish to leave XXX alliance because of time investments/connection. Don't want to transmute the alliance because they want to stay true to the "original" inception.

 

Tdlr: people be stubborn

[Kevanovia]

4 hours ago, Roberts said:

These are just my personal thoughts on a topic that is a bit controversial.

 

I've felt recently that there are quite a few alliances in existence that don't participate in the wider community, don't really initiate or even contribute to politics, and generally only ever fight defensive wars when their inactivity or incompetence becomes the center of someone else's war of boredom. The reason I write this is because I feel that there has become an oversaturation of these alliances and we seemingly are living in a time of change for Orbis, so maybe this writing will prompt action.

The problem with these groups is usually not their inactivity as they log in often enough to function, sometimes just barely, as an alliance. The problem also does not lie with their incompetence, as the meta and politics are both relatively easy to learn and navigate. The issue is that stubborn pride is like a glacier: Locking up fresh water, inaccessible to the world. These alliances are host to several active players usually working hard to keep the wider group afloat, locked away from the community, and usually stuck in lower government positions long enough to drive them inactive.

Cora from UPN is a good example of a potentially great player in an alliance fallen from greatness long ago, and now can only be described as insular on their best day. UPN, The Immortals and Mortals, Dark Brotherhood, TCM, USN, and Gods of Orbis -- just to name a few from the top 50 -- have over 400 nations between them. 

That's almost 10% of all active nations, locked up like a glacier in insular communities that generally don't drive or even participate in politics. Food for thought.

I may not agree with all of the alliances you listed, but your point is absolutely correct.

[matt2004]

3 hours ago, Roberts said:

I've felt recently that there are quite a few alliances in existence that don't participate in the wider community, don't really initiate or even contribute to politics, and generally only ever fight defensive wars when their inactivity or incompetence becomes the center of someone else's war of boredom.

Just because someone isn't kicking and screaming in public doesn't mean they're not contributing to politics.
Could some alliances be more proactive in going out to the public square, sure. That doesn't mean that alliances are not engaging or contributing to politics.

I'm going to flat out say that this mentality of the community to write off an AA as "dead", "incompitent", or "inactive", directly contributes withdrawal from the public areas where some people will regurgatate the same garbage over and over again, with sycophants blindly believing it. There is no point in trying to argue with a brick wall.

It baffles me that people can make poorly-informed claims, and others will blindly believe the first thing they read/hear.

 

3 hours ago, Roberts said:

The issue is that stubborn pride is like a glacier: Locking up fresh water, inaccessible to the world. These alliances are host to several active players usually working hard to keep the wider group afloat, locked away from the community, and usually stuck in lower government positions long enough to drive them inactive.

We are a democratic AA (with PR). If someone new really wants to run we will encourage them to do so, or take them on as a deputy until they would like to run.
If the AA doesnt like the direction, they'll vote us out - plain and simple.

I'll also say that a significant chunk of the UPN membership would flat out delete if the AA disbanded.

Alliances are not prisons. If someone feels they're not getting anyware with us than they're free to hop around.

 

3 hours ago, Roberts said:

That's almost 10% of all active nations, locked up like a glacier in insular communities that generally don't drive or even participate in politics.

Read as: That's 10% of all active nations, who have actively chosen to join an alliance that an extremely vocal minority of the community label as inactive because we don't participate in the screaming-fest.

[Kevanovia]

39 minutes ago, Matt2004 said:

Just because someone isn't kicking and screaming in public doesn't mean they're not contributing to politics.
Could some alliances be more proactive in going out to the public square, sure. That doesn't mean that alliances are not engaging or contributing to politics.

I'm going to flat out say that this mentality of the community to write off an AA as "dead", "incompitent", or "inactive", directly contributes withdrawal from the public areas where some people will regurgatate the same garbage over and over again, with sycophants blindly believing it. There is no point in trying to argue with a brick wall.

It baffles me that people can make poorly-informed claims, and others will blindly believe the first thing they read/hear.

 

We are a democratic AA (with PR). If someone new really wants to run we will encourage them to do so, or take them on as a deputy until they would like to run.
If the AA doesnt like the direction, they'll vote us out - plain and simple.

I'll also say that a significant chunk of the UPN membership would flat out delete if the AA disbanded.

Alliances are not prisons. If someone feels they're not getting anyware with us than they're free to hop around.

 

Read as: That's 10% of all active nations, who have actively chosen to join an alliance that an extremely vocal minority of the community label as inactive because we don't participate in the screaming-fest.

I think what he means by ‘dead’ is that a lot of these alliances are fairly inactive, have a large number of nations on grey, generally get destroyed in war and don’t make FA moves. This is largely why a lot of those alliances get called ‘incompetent/inactive’. People aren’t just calling alliances out randomly, there’s generally meat behind the criticism. Again, I don’t agree with all of the alliances he listed - but his point is correct.

[MasterChief]

The Forgotten Realms is confirmed to be relevant. 🤔🤔

[Tartarus]

1 hour ago, Matt2004 said:

"incompitent"

Incompetent 

[KiWilliam]

The fact 3 UPN people posted here out of the 11 (including my own) post, in the ~7 hours this has been up, actually shows UPN is plenty active. But I'm not obtuse and I understand your point Roberts. I think the question should be framed as; how can we involve more alliances into inter-alliance spaces or action. If it's just dialogue, there is evidence aplenty that there's something foul in pnw. No one wants to use the forums. I logged into my account here for the first time in a long time, because RON (which recently changed hands) posted a link in a debate channel which is a cross-server effort from another server that's not used, that itself was made because RON can't house everyone, and you have at least 3 other news servers (well one just disbanded/merged into RON/is now a radio show server), least of all other community servers or the official pnw discord. Most people do not agree about where to interact and even perform the most basic of actions that is informing the community of what your alliance is doing. We are fragmented, and people (rightly or not) are set in their ways after many years of this festering to the point where it's normal. Most people haven't been around 3, 6, 12 years; they've been around 6 or 18 months and the forums being dead, and them being in one of 3 or 4 "news" or community discords that all cover different sub-sets of Orbis is the norm.

More effort to facilitate healthy dialogue and community events (such efforts to host debate in RON for example was a good effort by someone I know) or the recent dev-talk hosted on RON (I believe?) with Alex and community members was a great effort in bridging this gap. But there is no one sin to point towards.

Edited June 20, 2023 by KiWilliam

[Buorhann]

@Roberts isn't wrong.  UPN should've disbanded a long time ago.

 

Just not for the reasons he listed.

[MinesomeMC]

11 hours ago, Roberts said:

These are just my personal thoughts on a topic that is a bit controversial.

 

I've felt recently that there are quite a few alliances in existence that don't participate in the wider community, don't really initiate or even contribute to politics, and generally only ever fight defensive wars when their inactivity or incompetence becomes the center of someone else's war of boredom. The reason I write this is because I feel that there has become an oversaturation of these alliances and we seemingly are living in a time of change for Orbis, so maybe this writing will prompt action.

The problem with these groups is usually not their inactivity as they log in often enough to function, sometimes just barely, as an alliance. The problem also does not lie with their incompetence, as the meta and politics are both relatively easy to learn and navigate. The issue is that stubborn pride is like a glacier: Locking up fresh water, inaccessible to the world. These alliances are host to several active players usually working hard to keep the wider group afloat, locked away from the community, and usually stuck in lower government positions long enough to drive them inactive.

Cora from UPN is a good example of a potentially great player in an alliance fallen from greatness long ago, and now can only be described as insular on their best day. UPN, The Immortals and Mortals, Dark Brotherhood, TCM, USN, and Gods of Orbis -- just to name a few from the top 50 -- have over 400 nations between them. 

That's almost 10% of all active nations, locked up like a glacier in insular communities that generally don't drive or even participate in politics. Food for thought.

Err, i would argue that alliances especially such as DB, and i could say tI and maybe UPN are definitely improving and not dead. Dark Brotherhood especially should not be in this list, i feel they are much more active politically.

Now TCM and GoO are just really bloated micros, especially the case for GoO. We see a few of these all the time, sometimes they end up improving and becoming promising political entities like tI. 

USN is pretty much like NpO, Fark, WTF, which is that its an old type knit community that just hangs around. 

[namukara]

I'm not sure I agree with this take.

There are a lot of alliances that don't want to be right at the forefront of political decisionmaking in this game, whether that be because they don't want the stress, they'd rather stay neutral or their members would prefer them to take more of a back seat. These alliances may however be very enjoyable places for members to be; I didn't leave TI because I was bored of it for example, I enjoyed my time there. Other players may find alliances like TI and UPN to not suit their play style atall which is also absolutely fine; alliances exist for those who prefer to raid for example. The diversity of possible playstyles is one of the few things that makes this game great.

[WarriorSoul]

Local leftist denies people the right to self-organize :serious:

Kidding aside, I think it’s important in a game like this for people to be able to freely associate without the threat of needing to pack it up and find a new home because their alliance wasn’t involved enough. For many, I would even suggest a majority, the community element of the game is far more important than the politicking that goes on.

Further, I think communities generally self-organize in such a way that the active players find active alliances, and others find communities that fit them in other ways. In your own case, for instance, you didn’t leave Arrgh to join one of these less-active alliances, but TKR, your own micro, TKR, then Rose, before making your way back to Arrgh. 
 

Finally, I do feel like picking this fight with UPN specifically is kinda lol considering they’ve got a 15+ year legacy they want to uphold, which is a rarity in any game, let alone nation sims. Perhaps that goes to your stubbornness point, but folks are unlikely to throw in the towel because “oh shit, folks are mad we haven’t merged yet”.

[Raphael]

21 hours ago, CoraMcstrap said:

Ahhh alliances who don't play the Roberts preapproved way must all disband rather then exercise their freedom to enjoy the game the way they want. I better go disband UPN. Oh wait no the other thing. 

There was a second part of this post, but I got cut short by IRL stuff.

UPN was a major player for the first couple of years of PnW. You cannot deny your alliance's fall from grace. Disbandment is not a bad thing when you've spent more years as a looked-down-upon alliance than a major player. If you guys want to do something else then that's also fine, but I think it's safe to say you and several other long-standing groups need radical change to stay or become competitive with the other alliances in the game.

Sorry if that offends you, these are my personal thoughts and by no means some kind of religious proscription. You can play the game any way you want but you can't be mad when people call your alliance bad when... your alliance is bad.  

21 hours ago, Altheus said:

i.e. I wouldn't worry about it. They're plenty of happy people in UPN and I suspect the others you've mentioned

Just to re-emphasize my above reply, that's great. UPN is just, unfortunately, not the competitive alliance it was in the earlier parts of the game. If we're being honest it's a pain I share with you, being in Arrgh: We're constantly working to bring ourselves back into relevance after being a big-ish player in the early game. So I hope this doesn't come across as preachy, but rather just shared experiences.

[Raphael]

15 hours ago, KiWilliam said:

The fact 3 UPN people posted here out of the 11 (including my own) post, in the ~7 hours this has been up, actually shows UPN is plenty active. But I'm not obtuse and I understand your point Roberts. I think the question should be framed as; how can we involve more alliances into inter-alliance spaces or action. If it's just dialogue, there is evidence aplenty that there's something foul in pnw. No one wants to use the forums. I logged into my account here for the first time in a long time, because RON (which recently changed hands) posted a link in a debate channel which is a cross-server effort from another server that's not used, that itself was made because RON can't house everyone, and you have at least 3 other news servers (well one just disbanded/merged into RON/is now a radio show server), least of all other community servers or the official pnw discord. Most people do not agree about where to interact and even perform the most basic of actions that is informing the community of what your alliance is doing. We are fragmented, and people (rightly or not) are set in their ways after many years of this festering to the point where it's normal. Most people haven't been around 3, 6, 12 years; they've been around 6 or 18 months and the forums being dead, and them being in one of 3 or 4 "news" or community discords that all cover different sub-sets of Orbis is the norm.

More effort to facilitate healthy dialogue and community events (such efforts to host debate in RON for example was a good effort by someone I know) or the recent dev-talk hosted on RON (I believe?) with Alex and community members was a great effort in bridging this gap. But there is no one sin to point towards.

Good thoughts that I agree with. This thread is part of my attempt to refocus discussion back onto the forums, as realistically there can be no communal space that is privately run, as privatization naturally creates exclusion.

While I didn't mean to kick UPN in particular, they have been the bulk of people responding. So I hope they don't feel hated or unwanted in the community when the contrary was my point: I want these people and more to come back into shared spaces and take proactive political and internal action to better themselves.

6 hours ago, WarriorSoul said:

Local leftist denies people the right to self-organize :serious:

 

Self-organizing is just anarchy in disguise, the central committee will organize the people.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

47 minutes ago, Roberts said:

Good thoughts that I agree with. This thread is part of my attempt to refocus discussion back onto the forums, as realistically there can be no communal space that is privately run, as privatization naturally creates exclusion.

While I didn't mean to kick UPN in particular, they have been the bulk of people responding. So I hope they don't feel hated or unwanted in the community when the contrary was my point: I want these people and more to come back into shared spaces and take proactive political and internal action to better themselves.

Self-organizing is just anarchy in disguise, the central committee will organize the people.

Then, honestly, I think you've got the wrong focus here.

 

You're yelling at them, criticizing them for leaving these spaces, but as far as my memory serves every single of one of these groups, at one point in the past during just my history in the game was once around and participated in such spaces. 

Not as much as others, but more than they do today, and there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement for why they leave these places. Your theory seems to be it's proof of internal decay, while observation from the POV of these parties reveals it to be proof that they don't want to be in these places, because, frankly, they are toxic. They're toxic, because the community is.

 

Always has been, honestly, to what varying degrees at what varying times you can argue at your leisure, but it seems to me every notable party whose ever withdrawn like this has fairly similar reasoning, going all the way back to IQ, who I daresay, probably wouldn't have gone on such a paranoid trip if they were more connected to the wider community.

But the old is like new, those spaces were often if not always predisposed to hostility towards them. And all these parties have one thing in common too - they don't play by or bend over to try and uphold the agreed upon at that time meta. That has multiple meanings in its own right, but it's the connecting through thread. 

 

As someone who disconnected from all these spaces herself, over two years ago now, I can't blame them for it. It's a lot more peaceful without, and I've filled the time I would've spent in those spaces doing things much more enjoyable.

 

I assume these folks have as well, cause even of those who do participate actively in those spaces, I haven't found or seen much disagreement from them about that toxicity.

 

[Raphael]

1 hour ago, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:

frankly, they are toxic. They're toxic, because the community is.

I don't buy into this oft-repeated platitude. It's a lazy blanket to hide under, that's all. Some newer players may get roped into this line of thought by the older players repeating this ad nauseum, but that really feeds back into my point that these old, tired groups are a net-loss for their own members and the wider community.

When you look at the peak of activity here, in Cyber Nations, in Nationstates, and every other similar game it's during the peak times of alleged toxicity. NPOLT or earlygame PnW were ferocious on the forums, people trading essays and claiming that XYZ was out to get them.

 

Me "yelling" (aka- saying anything about the reality of the situation) at these people doesn't drive them away, their disinterest keeps them away and my "yelling" in fact brings some here to defend themselves. This is a political/nation simulator, disagreements and criticisms are core gameplay elements.
 

It just boils down to having cake and eating it too. If you're happy, as some in this thread claim, with your current status - then by all means stay the course. I'll be in your defensive slots looting your stuff, and my gameplay experience will not be worsened for it. I post these threads to call attention to, and hopefully get read by, the people who are languishing in these insular or dead groups like the low gov who are genuinely interested in PnW but stuck in a bad AA.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Roberts

[CoraMcstrap]

4 hours ago, Roberts said:

Good thoughts that I agree with. This thread is part of my attempt to refocus discussion back onto the forums, as realistically there can be no communal space that is privately run, as privatization naturally creates exclusion.

While I didn't mean to kick UPN in particular, they have been the bulk of people responding. So I hope they don't feel hated or unwanted in the community when the contrary was my point: I want these people and more to come back into shared spaces and take proactive political and internal action to better themselves.

Self-organizing is just anarchy in disguise, the central committee will organize the people.

The trouble is that you consider us bad because we chose not to engaged the game in the same way you do. We provide a community for like minded people who enjoy our play style. I'm not going to change that because you don't like playing that style. There is no "right way to play". Also if you don't like being called out when people think you are wrong maybe don't name drop them from your soap box

Edited June 20, 2023 by CoraMcstrap

[Kevanovia]

2 hours ago, CoraMcstrap said:

The trouble is that you consider us bad because we chose not to engaged the game in the same way you do. We provide a community for like minded people who enjoy our play style. I'm not going to change that because you don't like playing that style. There is no "right way to play". Also if you don't like being called out when people think you are wrong maybe don't name drop them from your soap box

I think what he means by ‘bad’ is that a lot of these alliances are fairly inactive, have a large number of nations on grey, generally get destroyed in war and don’t make FA moves. This is largely why a lot of those alliances get called ‘incompetent/inactive’. People aren’t just calling alliances out randomly, there’s generally meat behind the criticism. Again, I don’t agree with all of the alliances he listed - but his point is correct.

[Mayor]

23 hours ago, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:

Then, honestly, I think you've got the wrong focus here.

 

You're yelling at them, criticizing them for leaving these spaces, but as far as my memory serves every single of one of these groups, at one point in the past during just my history in the game was once around and participated in such spaces. 

Not as much as others, but more than they do today, and there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement for why they leave these places. Your theory seems to be it's proof of internal decay, while observation from the POV of these parties reveals it to be proof that they don't want to be in these places, because, frankly, they are toxic. They're toxic, because the community is.

 

Always has been, honestly, to what varying degrees at what varying times you can argue at your leisure, but it seems to me every notable party whose ever withdrawn like this has fairly similar reasoning, going all the way back to IQ, who I daresay, probably wouldn't have gone on such a paranoid trip if they were more connected to the wider community.

But the old is like new, those spaces were often if not always predisposed to hostility towards them. And all these parties have one thing in common too - they don't play by or bend over to try and uphold the agreed upon at that time meta. That has multiple meanings in its own right, but it's the connecting through thread. 

 

As someone who disconnected from all these spaces herself, over two years ago now, I can't blame them for it. It's a lot more peaceful without, and I've filled the time I would've spent in those spaces doing things much more enjoyable.

 

I assume these folks have as well, cause even of those who do participate actively in those spaces, I haven't found or seen much disagreement from them about that toxicity.

 

When in doubt just blame everyone else for being utterly toxic, nice. All the alliances that are "inactive" act just as toxic as the other alliances and imho are just as insufferable sometimes. If these alliances wanted to improve they should work on themselves rather than be isolated and blame everyone else for their issues. If they don't care about growth or whatever than that is fine but it is not anyone else fault.

I don't agree with Roberts, as I think people should just go and stay where they want and that is their own decision. However alliances like UPN, Immortals, ASM, Wei only have themselves to blame for their lack of presence on forums, reputation, and slow growth. Wei never bothered to fix their bad economics and on top of that had their bank stolen, UPN didn't redouble their recruiting or try to fix their milcom as their fighters have been the same for nearly half a decade and they continually make the same errors every war, Immortals seems to think that recruiting more and more members will make up for their poor and inactive government, and ASM literally did nothing but stand beside Rose for years and cause drama on the forums now and again. There are reasons why these "inactive" alliances do not have the best reputation and that makes recruiting and engagement more difficult for them. They can either deal with it or ignore it.

There are many alliances out there that were doing badly and got their shit together and turned it around. People need to make a conscious decision to engage with others, fix recurring problems, and work on themselves and not isolate and ignore issues that have come up. I don't think these alliances should disband of course but they should also have a plan for growth and improvement because imho that is what they owe to their members for supporting the alliance.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

22 hours ago, Roberts said:

When you look at the peak of activity here, in Cyber Nations, in Nationstates, and every other similar game it's during the peak times of alleged toxicity. NPOLT or earlygame PnW were ferocious on the forums, people trading essays and claiming that XYZ was out to get them.

That is you looking back with rose colored glasses.  Early game PnW was not that bad, and the forums during IQ may have seemed active but that is because it lasted 8-9 months, and you just remember some of the more popular threads. 

I believe the issue you run into today, is people spend less time on the forums and more time in all these discord news channels.

[Diocletian]

On 6/20/2023 at 2:38 PM, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:

Then, honestly, I think you've got the wrong focus here.

 

You're yelling at them, criticizing them for leaving these spaces, but as far as my memory serves every single of one of these groups, at one point in the past during just my history in the game was once around and participated in such spaces. 

Not as much as others, but more than they do today, and there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement for why they leave these places. Your theory seems to be it's proof of internal decay, while observation from the POV of these parties reveals it to be proof that they don't want to be in these places, because, frankly, they are toxic. They're toxic, because the community is.

 

Always has been, honestly, to what varying degrees at what varying times you can argue at your leisure, but it seems to me every notable party whose ever withdrawn like this has fairly similar reasoning, going all the way back to IQ, who I daresay, probably wouldn't have gone on such a paranoid trip if they were more connected to the wider community.

But the old is like new, those spaces were often if not always predisposed to hostility towards them. And all these parties have one thing in common too - they don't play by or bend over to try and uphold the agreed upon at that time meta. That has multiple meanings in its own right, but it's the connecting through thread. 

 

As someone who disconnected from all these spaces herself, over two years ago now, I can't blame them for it. It's a lot more peaceful without, and I've filled the time I would've spent in those spaces doing things much more enjoyable.

 

I assume these folks have as well, cause even of those who do participate actively in those spaces, I haven't found or seen much disagreement from them about that toxicity.

 

It always been to some extent, yes, as all communities, online or off always will be. However, the quality of the playerbase has tanked significantly since I last played in 2018. A lot has changed since then, I'm glad that sheepy/Alex has admitted his part in it, but the general playerbase is most to blame. This used to be a community where individual alliances had some sort of identity and were proud of it. I have noticed for the most part that is not the case anymore. We are all individuals with our own unique story to tell, but we are all here for a common goal: to enjoy the game and pass the time. I think if we all just focus a bit less on being negative that will improve the experience for everyone playing PnW. 

Edited June 22, 2023 by Diocletian

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

11 hours ago, Diocletian said:

It always been to some extent, yes, as all communities, online or off always will be. However, the quality of the playerbase has tanked significantly since I last played in 2018. A lot has changed since then, I'm glad that sheepy/Alex has admitted his part in it, but the general playerbase is most to blame. This used to be a community where individual alliances had some sort of identity and were proud of it. I have noticed for the most part that is not the case anymore. We are all individuals with our own unique story to tell, but we are all here for a common goal: to enjoy the game and pass the time. I think if we all just focus a bit less on being negative that will improve the experience for everyone playing PnW. 

See my post above, this is also incorrect, take off the rose colored glasses bud, maybe you think so because you are currently at 5 cities and you only interact with little crap nations, but the level of play in game within the major spheres is at or very close to the highest it has ever been.   And it is still a community with alliances that have an identity and are proud of it, see my alliance for a quick and easy reminder, or the one you are currently in.