From Uncle's Lap #3: Mr. Woods

[Spaceman Thrax]

We sip, we die, we sip again.

 

Quote

 

Why did replying to this idea appeal to you?

 

Best way to get my voice across without resorting to an alliance affairs post.

 

How would you describe your in-game political outlook?

 

Comfortable around *most* of my allies, disagree with a few of them and their positions/goals.

 

What is an ideal state for this game to be in, in your opinion?

 

Isolated wars every two months with the odd global ones thrown in every now and then. However, isolated wars don't work because of the number of treaties currently around. It's impossible to attack a tertiary alliance such as Fark or Vox Populi without causing a global war. With the current global NAP, it's possible for alliances not encompassed by the NAP (those who didn't take part in the war but are allied to those that did) to kick off an isolated war for whatever reason they want, but for some reason it hasn't happened. A few years back, this wouldn't be a problem at all because most alliances had 1-2 MDPs and past that, most of them wouldn't trust their ally's allies such as in TEst's case in the VE war with their side switch. Now I have no problem with how long the global wars are but the frequency of them is starting to become ridiculous. Earlier in the game, wars that scale would happen every other month with, surprisingly, isolated wars or alliances threatening others such as the Rose-Cobalt/CU fracas. If things could return like that, I guarantee that the player retention rate would be greater.

 

How would you describe the general state of the game right now (mechanically and/or politically)? Do you have thoughts on the end of the last major war?

 

Mechanically, the war system should be retooled back to when Arrgh and Mensa fought. Updeclares were actually possible to allow what most people would assume to be the losing side, to win even after taking devastating damage.

 

Go through as much of the main alliance list as you please and give your opinions on each AA. If you can, try to provide at least one positive and at least one negative for each.

 

TKR - Of the top 5, they definitely do not deserve to be #1.

Pantheon - probably the most ambiguous top 10 alliance around, could become the major driving point in a sphere if given enough support.

tS - far from what it was before and is continuing to be further away from it everyday.

NPO - far too good to be around their current allies, even though they receive the most stick from the peanut gallery.

 

Make a bunch of short inflammatory and/or divisive political statements about alliances or events in the game that you can actually back up/make a case for. We'll follow up on these in the interview.

 

TKR is far from trustworthy: I'm a supporter of keeping grudges for even the littlest of things. During NPO's first time, TKR tried to worm themselves out of defending NPO by claiming attacking the alliances attacking NPO would mean they would then break another treaty. Now although this makes sense, it certainly doesn't excuse them from the fact that TKR knew during the planning of the war that NPO and friends would be targeted by a whole host of alliances. Their refusal to tell NPO that they would be attacked is tantamount to TKR attacking NPO themselves. If they disagreed with how NPO was proceeding, the very least they could have done is informed them that they didn't appreciate it and if things didn't change within the next few weeks, the treaty could have been dropped. How they managed to win most honorable alliance of the year a few months down the road is because of the circlejerk on the forums.

 

New sphere should be created right now or they should forget about it: There are a lot of rumors going around that KT, Lordaeron, OWR and by extension, TTO wanted to create a new sphere because they did not want to continue the Syndi-NPO war cycle. Now would be the best time to create the new sphere purely because there are numerous alliances on both sides wanting things to change. One good example would be the UPN-NPO treaty being cancelled, which I believe would be their second treaty they have dropped in this incarnation of PnW. If the rumors are true, then it speaks wonders about Thalmor's and Kastor's ability to convince people to trying new things. The longer they wait, the less likely people would want change and meaning more people would likely remain as they are right now because they know what can happen in the future rather than face two possible hostile spheres breathing down their neck.

 

Last war leaks should be posted publicly: On the OWF, there are rumors of the CB being shown to Syndisphere and NPOsphere alliance leaders, to which few can confirm and many others deny. Thanks to a few people in IQ, this is true. Many alliance leaders have seen the supposed CB for the previous war and I can confidently tell you, the actions taken by the people that originally tipped off IQ are completely justified, no matter how damning the contents of the CB are. People like Roquentin and DVDCCHN can continue spurting out that the CB is properly justified by their own means and verified but it isn't really a CB if the evidence isn't shown to the masses. Many would reject it, few would embrace it but a lot of Syndisphere leaders will be left red faced because of it.

 

Is there an alliance or player that you think deserves more respect/recognition, that you may be unable to express from your current political position? Explain.

 

I'll happily be the first to say publicly NPO's gov should deserve more recognition and respect after everything they've done. Under pressure from what seems like 70% of the OWF and 50% of the alliances in the game, they've thrived under it. Their growth plans may seem backwards to people not accustomed to their reasoning for it but it makes perfect sense militarily. The only way NPO could be fully pinned down would take the combined efforts from BK + Lordaeron or for the other side, Spectrum + Resplendent + TKR and even with the latter, I'm not entirely sure they could manage it. What seems to be a major trend is alliances or alliance leaders emigrating from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) to PnW, taking their relations from there and using it to stand. When NPO first arrived in the released version of PnW, everyone wanted them to be on their side because they know what they can accomplish if given enough time to do it. Instead, NPO took the safe route and stuck with their (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) friends or people they knew from there (Alpha, UPN, VE, TKR, tS to a smaller degree). It didn't work because they still had a (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) thinking process rather than what the current PnW meta is. I still believe they could control the game if they can get their allies to be like them or even getting better allies if the former doesn't work.

 

If you could change one thing about the game, what would it be?

 

Which alliances are allied to who. That said, treaties are part of the metagame so there is absolutely no way of controlling them. My alliance right now has a paperless connection to another and as such, regardless of the treaty being public or not, I fully trust my alliance to defend them or at the very least, support them so they can be in a better position while sacrificing our own abilities. As such, even if people could limit the number of treaties their alliance could sign, it won't work. It's safe to say most alliances in PnW are cowardly in their treaty approaches. Many of them believe infra > friends is the right way to go, to earn respect of others depending on who they may or may not be defending. For the few alliance leaders that are ignorant to how people perceive them, that is not true at all. There are plenty criticizing alliances such as HBE (yes I know they technically defended TKR but really?) and Valkyrie for sitting out of the last war and some are even attempting to switch sides. Even those that exit wars early do not deserve to have allies for they are no better than those that sit out of it entirely.

 

 

Uncle offers his utmost thanks to Mr. Woods for an interesting interview. It was a pleasure speaking with him, and I hope everyone enjoys his insight.

[Kastor]

There is no third sphere.

[Dubayoo]

OP is spot on.  +1 all around.

[Ripper]

56 minutes ago, Kastor said:

There is no third sphere.

Reminds me of the "There will be no war" 2 hours before the blitz of the previous war. XD

Edited July 4, 2017 by Ripper

[Felkey]

>Yet to win a major war

>Let allies burn to protect ego

>Don't get enough respect for all they've done

[Cazaric]

Man, this imaginary CB keeps getting juicier! I can't wait until you guys can decide what it is.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Cazaric

[Buorhann]

Quote

"Last war leaks should be posted publicly: On the OWF, there are rumors of the CB being shown to Syndisphere and NPOsphere alliance leaders, to which few can confirm and many others deny. Thanks to a few people in IQ, this is true. Many alliance leaders have seen the supposed CB for the previous war and I can confidently tell you, the actions taken by the people that originally tipped off IQ are completely justified, no matter how damning the contents of the CB are. People like Roquentin and DVDCCHN can continue spurting out that the CB is properly justified by their own means and verified but it isn't really a CB if the evidence isn't shown to the masses. Many would reject it, few would embrace it but a lot of Syndisphere leaders will be left red faced because of it."

Please drop these logs.  I won't be red faced, I'll be smiling so much at the opportunity of showing our side and what we have.

Also, I disagree a lot with this person.  A lot.  I also hate this new forum change.  TKR doesn't deserve to be #1 for example?  What is this person's criteria for #1 then?

A third sphere won't work until a person steps up, willing to give direction/take lead of a coalition against the other two spheres.  And is willing to go to war aggressively (Doesn't mean they have to, but we've seen from IQ and Easy Mode, that both sides are willing to enact an aggressive war).

"What about defensively?"  Everybody should be willing to wage a defensive war, that's a no brainer.  That's the basic need of maintaining an alliance of your own.  If you're not willing to do that, then don't even bother running an alliance.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Buorhann

[Micchan]

20 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

TKR - Of the top 5, they definitely do not deserve to be #1.

Well mr. Woods, you have an alliance right? If you want a 1 vs 1 we are here ready to show you why we are #1 

[Sans]

2 hours ago, Gabranth said:

If you're so confident in your ability to act independently then why does TKR have so many treaties?

There was an attempted 3v3 once with the paperless alliances. I don't mean to bring that up, but when you say stuff like this I feel as if I'm forced to. 

There are a number of factors involved in who and how many alliances we enter into paper with at any one time. I'm confident in my alliance's ability as any member who loves their alliance, but that confidence does not mean we will ignore those factors that take part in our fa decisions. 

Nice mix of perspectives we're getting from this venture, looking forward to the next one. 

[Insert Name Here]

I just like how, apparently, the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) filter is here to stay.  

Edited July 5, 2017 by Insert Name Here

[Charles Bolivar]

"Their growth plans may seem backwards to people not accustomed to their reasoning for it but it makes perfect sense militarily"

 

Except their growth plan is why they keep losing everything conflict. They don't have the troop numbers gained from higher average city counts to successfully win a war on a military basis and they can't produce or purchase enough resources to sustain the prolonged war efforts they seem to enjoy.

Their plan is fundamentally flawed.

[Dubayoo]

1 hour ago, Nemesis said:

"Their growth plans may seem backwards to people not accustomed to their reasoning for it but it makes perfect sense militarily"

 

Except their growth plan is why they keep losing everything conflict. They don't have the troop numbers gained from higher average city counts to successfully win a war on a military basis and they can't produce or purchase enough resources to sustain the prolonged war efforts they seem to enjoy.

Their plan is fundamentally flawed.

 

In real life, I'd agree since communism innately demoralizes people.

In a game like this though, many people just enjoy letting someone else make the technical decisions while they relax until the moment's right.  

We have to understand this game is not played by a complete cross-section of real life humanity, and this game has automated production unlike in real life where people have to make a physical effort to produce.  Some personalities will be preferred, and the lack of real effort means those who enjoy being passively patient will have their niche.

Case in point, many whales sit around and do nothing.  They're still active though despite the lack of needing to make technical decisions on a day-by-day basis.  They just relax and wait for the world to go around.

Perhaps the real problem is a lack of good IA to make sure people remember to check in.  They might get distracted by other real life activities.  Just because other alliances get by with poor IA beyond recruiting doesn't mean they should be imitating them.

[Micchan]

40 minutes ago, Dubayoo said:

In real life, I'd agree since communism innately demoralizes people.

In a game like this though, many people just enjoy letting someone else make the technical decisions while they relax until the moment's right.  

We have to understand this game is not played by a complete cross-section of real life humanity, and this game has automated production unlike in real life where people have to make a physical effort to produce.  Some personalities will be preferred, and the lack of real effort means those who enjoy being passively patient will have their niche.

Case in point, many whales sit around and do nothing.  They're still active though despite the lack of needing to make technical decisions on a day-by-day basis.  They just relax and wait for the world to go around.

Perhaps the real problem is a lack of good IA to make sure people remember to check in.  They might get distracted by other real life activities.  Just because other alliances get by with poor IA beyond recruiting doesn't mean they should be imitating them.

Ok but this is not related to the quote 

[Dubayoo]

18 minutes ago, Micchan said:

Ok but this is not related to the quote 

The base of it is NPO's policy in refusing to build up its players to a greater strength.  NPO does this because it's trying to save resources in focusing on quantity before quality.  The problem with NPO is it doesn't have the number of players it needs to take things to the next level because many of its players go inactive.  Without more players, it won't have more income to support further growth.

 

[Dubayoo]

18 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Please drop these logs.  I won't be red faced, I'll be smiling so much at the opportunity of showing our side and what we have.

Also, I disagree a lot with this person.  A lot.  I also hate this new forum change.  TKR doesn't deserve to be #1 for example?  What is this person's criteria for #1 then?

A third sphere won't work until a person steps up, willing to give direction/take lead of a coalition against the other two spheres.  And is willing to go to war aggressively (Doesn't mean they have to, but we've seen from IQ and Easy Mode, that both sides are willing to enact an aggressive war).

"What about defensively?"  Everybody should be willing to wage a defensive war, that's a no brainer.  That's the basic need of maintaining an alliance of your own.  If you're not willing to do that, then don't even bother running an alliance.

To be fair, this game needs a lot more than three spheres.  Three spheres will just reinforce defensive gameplay since any war had between two spheres will expose them to being mopped up by the third.  It needs to become a multi-polar world instead.

[Apeman]

Someone say nuke bloc?

[Dubayoo]

32 minutes ago, Apeman said:

Someone say nuke bloc?

Nuke Bloc's increasingly looking like a bunch of TKR tools.  There's nothing really 3rd sphere about them.

[Apeman]

Not wanting to see some good peeps get hit is not being a tool. Truth be told when I step out I don't want help, I want panties. Obviously you must have some kind of info not even I'm privy to because I believe just NK is allied to TKR, not Alpha, Fark, or even WTF has any formal ties. Not to say we all play nice at the group orgies but yeah we have some fun. I don't blame you for picking the wrong alliance. We all been there once.

[Buorhann]

3 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

To be fair, this game needs a lot more than three spheres.  Three spheres will just reinforce defensive gameplay since any war had between two spheres will expose them to being mopped up by the third.  It needs to become a multi-polar world instead.

Does it?  The game has survived thus far with only 2 major spheres.

[Dubayoo]

7 hours ago, Apeman said:

Not wanting to see some good peeps get hit is not being a tool. Truth be told when I step out I don't want help, I want panties. Obviously you must have some kind of info not even I'm privy to because I believe just NK is allied to TKR, not Alpha, Fark, or even WTF has any formal ties. Not to say we all play nice at the group orgies but yeah we have some fun. I don't blame you for picking the wrong alliance. We all been there once.

Well have fun splitting among yourselves when TKR drags NK along.  That's not exactly a sign of a unified third sphere.

5 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Does it?  The game has survived thus far with only 2 major spheres.

Perhaps, but survival isn't everything.

Even a sinking ship floats until it's sunk.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Dubayoo

[Apeman]

You really have no idea how the spelled out treaties work do you? Maybe I'm reading the meaning of a mutual defense treaty wrong. Is it not to have mutual defence? Anybody disagree? Hit one of the nuke bloc and you might as well hit us all. The rest of the nuke bloc doesn't need to participate in anything except my immediate defense. 

So on to the TKR treaty.....hit them and you might as well hit NK. You still with me Jimmy? 

I'm not arguing about anything except you called us the nuke bloc, a tool of TKR. When I said "did someone say nuke bloc?", I was advertising us and because of your superior intellect, we have recieved the most fame I could've ever hoped for.

A few times in my time here, I have had the opportunity to make some brothers. Don't hate the love. The trick is becoming one.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Apeman
New Ape masterbation technique.

[Fraggle]

Why poke the Ape?   He's all caged up and fed very well. No need to poke him.

 

I'll go rub his belly. Knock it off with this nonsense. He just wants to be left alone.

[Keza Purple]

So send him to his Ape Island?