WTF happened to this place?

[Sailor Jerry]

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks or sees things this way, but.........WTF happened here.  In the early days this place was jumpin'.  Folks posting all over the place, a ton of activity.  All there seems to be now is the same old crack-heads over in the debate area still trying to best each other.  There's the occasional alliance post here or there.  I mean this place is deader than a cemetery after midnight!  With all the alliances and what not, no one wants to fight anymore.....just hug their pixels and grow.  I hate to say it, but this place seems like it has turned into......yes......I'll say it.......I swear I will........(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)!!!!!  There are times I wonder why I bother with these games anymore.  They're sort of like masturbating with a cheese-grater, sure they're both fun in the beginning......but eventually, they both become annoying and even a little painful to keep doing.

 

EDIT:  It's funny how "See-N" turned into that big ball of !@#$!

 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Sailor Jerry

[Queen M II]

Never change, @Sailor Jerry. Never. Change.

[Micchan]

Only a world war can save us

[Dark Kermie]

Not even that @Micchan 

In the two years I've been playing, it went from constant war (I fought in 3 during my one year in TKR) and debate to sitting around and people starting to OOC attack and start stupid anti-this and that decrees. This game is beyond dead now, and I only return for the few people I don't hate on Orbis. Unless the game structure is dramatically changed by Alex (Lets stop kidding ourselves, it wont.) then PnW is going to be see-N without the hardcore 10+ yr players that somehow keep that shithole going.

Edited October 31, 2017 by GalacticManatee

[Micchan]

10 minutes ago, GalacticManatee said:

Not even that @Micchan 

In the two years I've been playing, it went from constant war (I fought in 3 during my one year in TKR) and debate to sitting around and people starting to OOC attack and start stupid anti-this and that decrees. This game is beyond dead now, and I only return for the few people I don't hate on Orbis. Unless the game structure is dramatically changed by Alex (Lets stop kidding ourselves, it wont.) then PnW is going to be see-N without the hardcore 10+ yr players that somehow keep that shithole going.

People are scared and don't want to go to war because now you need a lot of time to rebuild after war and return to your previous warchest, Alex has to fix this, maybe with turns of 1 hour instead of 2 hours

[hidude45454]

32 minutes ago, Micchan said:

People are scared and don't want to go to war

Hmmmmmmmmmm

[Ripper]

Of course it's Alex's fault. People really have to save money for that city #21+ and 3k infra. They cannot be going to war now.

[PackAnimal]

No one else concerned that Jerry would find masturbating with a cheese grater fun initially?? And even then it only becomes 'annoying and slightly painful'. Gives a new meaning to balls of steel for certain

[Dubayoo]

We really need an arena agreement among nations like what I said on OWLS' server.

Oh... and when you make a post that deals with making fun of people who do nothing, but it gets -4 reputation, you know the game's dead and has no hope of reviving.

The fact is people, especially the biggest people, here don't care to play the game. They treat it like work as if their lives depend on it. 

[Insert Name Here]

1 hour ago, Ripper said:

Of course it's Alex's fault. People really have to save money for that city #21+ and 3k infra. They cannot be going to war now.

 

Nope, it's gotta be Sheepy's fault that 5 months have passed since the end of the last world war. It's not the collective pixel huggery and lack of balls, no siree. We have to follow the good principle that it's always Sheepy's fault coz reasons.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Insert Name Here

[Dubayoo]

People need to remember PnW is a game, nothing more.  Heck, if it was real life, there would be tons more real life political debate, and you'd see people going to war just from having real life political disagreements.  At best, we see fascist alliances get crushed, but it's the smallest of real life ideologies.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Dubayoo

[Charles Bolivar]

The problem is pretty much wholesale stagnation not just within the treaty web but within each alliance internally. 

Treaties and the subsequent treaty web are reflections of opinions and views held within each alliance's leadership. Treaties are essentially expressions of mutual friendship between the leaders of each alliance and don't necessarily reflect the substance of the relationship between the actual alliances themselves. Therefore little change in the actual leadership composition of each alliance will lead to little change within the subsequent treaty web itself.

How do we fix this? Who the hell knows. Personally I'd recommend anyone even remotely interested in forming and leading an alliance to do so and to start looking beyond the traditional protectorate agreements with the established larger alliances and to really start thinking outside the box which we inherited from the other game. 

[Thalmor]

5 minutes ago, Tormund Giantsbane said:

How do we fix this? Who the hell knows. Personally I'd recommend anyone even remotely interested in forming and leading an alliance to do so and to start looking beyond the traditional protectorate agreements with the established larger alliances and to really start thinking outside the box which we inherited from the other game. 

1

I would be curious to see how the game would change if every alliance upper-gov were replaced with people who have no experience with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) or any other nation sim.

EDIT: TL:DR Mentioning C.Y.B.E.R.N.A.T.I.O.N.S or its common abbreviation gets it replaced with "(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)"

Edited November 1, 2017 by Thalmor

[Dubayoo]

18 minutes ago, Tormund Giantsbane said:

The problem is pretty much wholesale stagnation not just within the treaty web but within each alliance internally. 

Treaties and the subsequent treaty web are reflections of opinions and views held within each alliance's leadership. Treaties are essentially expressions of mutual friendship between the leaders of each alliance and don't necessarily reflect the substance of the relationship between the actual alliances themselves. Therefore little change in the actual leadership composition of each alliance will lead to little change within the subsequent treaty web itself.

How do we fix this? Who the hell knows. Personally I'd recommend anyone even remotely interested in forming and leading an alliance to do so and to start looking beyond the traditional protectorate agreements with the established larger alliances and to really start thinking outside the box which we inherited from the other game. 

I've brought up on OWLS how a sphere reform involving simultaneous coups needs to happen, but people mention how that brings a ton of risk and is difficult to restabilize.

The real problem seems to be people are too risk averse.  They've forgotten how games like this are fun because they're exciting.  Yea, you play to win, but winning a game like this involves control.  If you're constantly following a leader in an alliance, then you're losing, not winning.  Loyalty matters, but only so much.  There comes a point where loyalty creates demoralization, and people become stuck in their ways not out of resistance, but petrification.

People need to remember this is a game based around ambition.  Being another's tool is not ambitious.

[Anneal]

Yeah guys, !@#$ Sheepy. It's not my fault the game's politically stagnant!

[丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™]

The fact is no one cares. This is what happens guys. You did this.

I can make P/W great again at a cost.

[Charles Bolivar]

4 hours ago, Thalmor said:

I would be curious to see how the game would change if every alliance upper-gov were replaced with people who have no experience with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) or any other nation sim.

EDIT: TL:DR Mentioning C.Y.B.E.R.N.A.T.I.O.N.S or its common abbreviation gets it replaced with "(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)"

We can probably look to other online games and gaming clans for inspiration. The hang up is we all inherited the typical format of executive gov consisting of dept heads and one or two leaders above them from the other game and no one has ever made a serious attempt to do otherwise besides maybe arrgh whom I believe do operate along different lines.

4 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

I've brought up on OWLS how a sphere reform involving simultaneous coups needs to happen, but people mention how that brings a ton of risk and is difficult to restabilize.

The real problem seems to be people are too risk averse.  They've forgotten how games like this are fun because they're exciting.  Yea, you play to win, but winning a game like this involves control.  If you're constantly following a leader in an alliance, then you're losing, not winning.  Loyalty matters, but only so much.  There comes a point where loyalty creates demoralization, and people become stuck in their ways not out of resistance, but petrification.

People need to remember this is a game based around ambition.  Being another's tool is not ambitious.

I totally agree.

[hidude45454]

9 hours ago, Micchan said:

Only a world war can save us

8 hours ago, Micchan said:

People are scared and don't want to go to war

5 hours ago, Tormund Giantsbane said:

Personally I'd recommend anyone even remotely interested in forming and leading an alliance to do so and to start looking beyond the traditional protectorate agreements with the established larger alliances and to really start thinking outside the box which we inherited from the other game. 

5 hours ago, Thalmor said:

I would be curious to see how the game would change if every alliance upper-gov were replaced with people who have no experience with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) or any other nation sim.

5 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

If you're constantly following a leader in an alliance, then you're losing, not winning.

All good points. Mind leading by example?

9 hours ago, GalacticManatee said:

Unless the game structure is dramatically changed by Alex

8 hours ago, Micchan said:

Alex has to fix this

Alex is 5% of the problem. It would be so much easier to just change your own alliance culture and get rid of the old guard that are incapable of letting go of the past.

6 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

Oh... and when you make a post that deals with making fun of people who do nothing

That's an...interesting definition of "making fun" >.>

[Thalmor]

1 minute ago, hidude45454 said:

All good points. Mind leading by example?

 

I have no experience with C.Y.B.E.R.N.A.T.I.O.N.S or any other political sim (except maybe NationStates, but that's different). Thus, I am leading by my own example.

[hidude45454]

Nvm, misread your statement as "every alliance upper-gov were replaced with people who have no experience with politics" >.>

I would like to see above statement happen though

[Dubayoo]

5 hours ago, hidude45454 said:

All good points. Mind leading by example?

Leading by example is sequential, not simultaneous.

[hope]

i get the whole “war is costly” argument...but does it really matter when the game is a dead POS in which nothing ever happens 

fun > logic tbh  

[Sailor Jerry]

3 minutes ago, Hope said:

i get the whole “war is costly” argument...but does it really matter when the game is a dead POS in which nothing ever happens 

fun > logic tbh  

Yep.  Also, the folks who say war is costly, are also the big ass whales who are sitting at like 3k Infra in each of their 25+ cities.  They are also the ones who are sitting on a ton of cash and could probably rebuild themselves in short order.  Hell, alliance banks are working in the billions now easily.  rebuilding from a war wouldn't take long at all.

[Queen M II]

Jerry, let's hit AIM! That'll get the kids talking 

EDIT: Seems like there's nothing to it but to do it. If players want to make the game more dynamic, it's in our hands. We honestly have absolutely no one to blame but ourselves. Players want a war? Quit talking about it and start one (oh hey, Sparta!). Tired of game politics? Don't get involved with them (or do and just eff it up for lulz). Just burn this mf-er down. You/We have nothing to lose that can't be replaced.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Queen M
Further deep thoughts and reflections...

[hope]

1 hour ago, Sailor Jerry said:

Yep.  Also, the folks who say war is costly, are also the big ass whales who are sitting at like 3k Infra in each of their 25+ cities.  They are also the ones who are sitting on a ton of cash and could probably rebuild themselves in short order.  Hell, alliance banks are working in the billions now easily.  rebuilding from a war wouldn't take long at all.

*are the people who are #2 in the alliance rankings (yes Roq that’s you i’m talking about)

people are just too afraid of losing. to that i say, i don’t care. get your head out of your ass, realize that you’re the problem, and do something 

can’t complain about the game being non dynamic when you’re sitting on 5+ MD level treaties and you’ve never made any politically dynamic moves.