The Problem With Planet Bob

[Sarmatian Empire]

Oh yes, attacking AcTi, an alliance that is full of nations who dont want to war, would surely bring the game back to life and not cause some of them nations to quit because they simply dont care.

You think there needs to be more war? Why didnt you let Argent get their peace of the action? What you really want is to be able to attack people without consquence. You declare on someone without a reason and when whispers start of someone preparing to do the same to you, you stop, disband and call it moralism.

[Earogema]

Stop being stupid. "Moralism" is just a way to RP. If you want to just attack things, then use Tournament Edition.

Nobody wants to play a text-based nation simulator which consists of clicking everyday. People play for the community. You can make drama without war and in fact, some drama without war is better (war is just usually a cluster$%&@ of bad propaganda anyway).

Also back in the day posts were more along the lines of "LOL THE ORANGE CAEK IS A LIE" and "DO YOU LIEK MUDKIPS" and it was easier for newer players to join the community. Now everybody just makes fun of them

EDIT: Hell, if PB had let the NEW war happen, that would have been crazy. They didn't because they didn't want to weaken their position for this war. That had nothing to do with moralism unless you're going to claim that PB is moralist.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Earogema

[the rebel]

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1303517572' post='2697197']
You think there needs to be more war? [b]Why didnt you let Argent get their peace of the action? What you really want is to be able to attack people without consquence. You declare on someone without a reason and when whispers start of someone preparing to do the same to you, you stop, disband and call it moralism.[/b]
[/quote]

If thats true then that bunch who was in Thriller are the biggest cowards going

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1303517572' post='2697197']
Oh yes, attacking AcTi, an alliance that is full of nations who dont want to war, would surely bring the game back to life and not cause some of them nations to quit because they simply dont care.

You think there needs to be more war? Why didnt you let Argent get their peace of the action? What you really want is to be able to attack people without consquence. You declare on someone without a reason and when whispers start of someone preparing to do the same to you, you stop, disband and call it moralism.
[/quote]


You don't think 2 to 1 odds against us as the aggressors was bad enough? It needed to be 6 to 1? And then at the end of that, a victory for an alliance like AcTi? No, I think that the way the situation was handled was in the best interests of both AcTi and Thriller. As for all the moralists that wanted to get in on the action, I would politely invite them to go start their own - and on fair terms.

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1303517860' post='2697200']
Nobody wants to play a text-based nation simulator which consists of clicking everyday. People play for the community. You can make drama without war and in fact, some drama without war is better (war is just usually a cluster$%&@ of bad propaganda anyway).[/quote]

I haven't seen much drama in quite some time that didn't revolve around war or ingame actions that was actually entertaining. What happened to all the good drama?

[quote]Also back in the day posts were more along the lines of "LOL THE ORANGE CAEK IS A LIE" and "DO YOU LIEK MUDKIPS" and it was easier for newer players to join the community. Now everybody just makes fun of them[/quote]

This seems like a problem too.

[quote]EDIT: Hell, if PB had let the NEW war happen, that would have been crazy. They didn't because they didn't want to weaken their position for this war. That had nothing to do with moralism unless you're going to claim that PB is moralist.[/quote]

Politics stinks a lot of the time, too.

[Sarmatian Empire]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303518002' post='2697203']
You don't think 2 to 1 odds against us as the aggressors was bad enough? It needed to be 6 to 1? And then at the end of that, a victory for an alliance like AcTi? No, I think that the way the situation was handled was in the best interests of both AcTi and Thriller. As for all the moralists that wanted to get in on the action, I would politely invite them to go start their own - and on fair terms.
[/quote]

You just raided an alliance for no reason..and you wanna talk about fair terms? Also the odds dont matter, YOU started it. I could declare on MHA by myself, but I'm not going to turn around and say, oh well pssh its 600 to 1. You went in knowing the odds were against you, you knew, or should of known, the world would react in the way that it did.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303518285' post='2697206']
I haven't seen much drama in quite some time that didn't revolve around war or ingame actions that was actually entertaining. What happened to all the good drama?
[/quote]
Well, I suppose there hasn't been something that was as entertaining as before, that's true. No good coups or rivalries these days. All we had was MK and NPO and that was just eh.

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1303518434' post='2697210']
You just raided an alliance for no reason..and you wanna talk about fair terms? Also the odds dont matter, YOU started it. I could declare on MHA by myself, but I'm not going to turn around and say, oh well pssh its 600 to 1. You went in knowing the odds were against you, you knew, or should of known, the world would react in the way that it did.
[/quote]

A million NS doesn't just pop out of thin air and attack someone for "no reason". There was clearly a reason, even if it was as simple as "you have annoyed me many times". In essence, that's what every war here has been started over. And we had objectives for the attack, which we accomplished better by ending it when we did than we would have by fighting to the death. Our objective was to try to get done what we wanted to get done, and we did that as well as we could. Our objective was not just destruction. That's boring. We wanted to see change.

[Banksy]

It's got nothing to do with moralism or any political !@#$ within the game. It's because 5 years ago there were enough nerdy teenagers and college students who had time to play and actually cared about the outcome. We grew up and now we don't have the time or the enthusiasm to keep on playing. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the player base has gotten older (as can be seen from the political discussions, read the old threads, they're awful), and they're not being replaced by younger, more enthusiastic players due to the complex nature of the political game. We've (unintentionally) imposed a glass ceiling.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Banksy

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1303519112' post='2697223']
It's got nothing to do with moralism or any political !@#$ within the game. It's because 5 years ago there were enough nerdy teenagers and college students who had time to play and actually cared about the outcome. We grew up and now we don't have the time or the enthusiasm to keep on playing. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the player base has gotten older (as can be seen from the political discussions, read the old threads, they're awful), and they're not being replaced by younger, more enthusiastic players due to the complex nature of the political game. We've (unintentionally) imposed a glass ceiling.
[/quote]

So what you're saying is that all political leaders should just retire and let the new generation figure things out on their own? Now THAT actually does sound entertaining.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303519263' post='2697227']
So what you're saying is that all political leaders should just retire and let the new generation figure things out on their own? Now THAT actually does sound entertaining.
[/quote]
Not really. Even if that happened, they would still be constrained by the norms we've put in place (alliances, rules of war etc). They wouldn't actually be able to start afresh because we've entrenched so much of our ideas into this game that I doubt anyone could create a 'new' version. It might be interesting in the short term, but long term the ~older generation~ would still be there.

[wickedj]

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1303517572' post='2697197']
Oh yes, attacking AcTi, an alliance that is full of nations who dont want to war, would surely bring the game back to life and not cause some of them nations to quit because they simply dont care.

You think there needs to be more war? Why didnt you let Argent get their peace of the action? What you really want is to be able to attack people without consquence. You declare on someone without a reason and when whispers start of someone preparing to do the same to you, you stop, disband and call it moralism.
[/quote]
Sarm, you hit Mafia for the same reasons...stop posting

[Sarmatian Empire]

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1303519587' post='2697231']
Sarm, you hit Mafia for the same reasons...stop posting
[/quote]
Yep, I had full intention of quitting.

Did I say going rogue and rogue actions were evil evil evil? No I did not, I've been talking about people !@#$%*ing about moralism and odds and you backing down when someone else came to play.

Also you have too very different scenerios.

AcTi: Your annoying! Your warchests suck!

Mafia: Hatred stemming from personal RL insults. Yeah they are annoying too, but $%&@ everyone is annoying.

But ya know...annoying in game...personal insults...same !@#$ right?

[AirMe]

It was a moralist that prevented the alliance you merged with to create Athens, from becoming a Valhalla lapdog.

Food for thought.

[Ryan Greenberg]

Moralism isn't bad. It's just a word to describe the "good vs. evil" politics we've always seen. Vox was a Moralist alliance.

I would agree that people's apathy for the game is at the highest it's ever been at and it's continuing to rise.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Ryan Greenberg

[Azaghul]

Part of the problem is structural with the game, and that has to do with the time the game has been around. It takes a lot longer than it used to build a nation to a relevant size or large size, and unless you have a huge warchest, to rebuild to a relevant or large size. The larger the average nation is, and the longer it takes to build to that size, the longer things will usually take to happen. That's because it takes longer to build, longer to rebuild, longer for reps that will have a significant in-game impact to be paid, etc. The only real solution is to cap nation growth, in terms of money one can have on hand, wonders, and tech or the tech damage modifier. Infra is already self limiting to a major degree.

Another problem as you say is that wars are pursued to a massive degree. A lot of that is just a consequence of the above. Part of that is that some nations that start out with almost all wonders and huge warchests can fight for months and then rebuild with leftover warchest, only out part of their warchest and a couple thousand tech, while mid-sized nations take a lot more to recover. Wars are pursued to the point where they have a significant impact on the biggest nations, and as a consequence have an unreasonably devastating impact on mid-sized nations. Or pursued to the point where they impact enough small and mis-sized nations that people will accept the smaller impact on the bigger nations. This will just be magnified with the recent trend of losing alliances trying to hide most of their upper tier in peace mode to escape war.

As you say moralism inhibits progress. There's a balance there. We don't want it to be TE. But when major wars don't happen for over a year or more, that's a problem. The political system of CBs that we have is good if it actually produces CBs in reasonable intervals. But when everyone just stares at each other over very long periods of time even though they obviously are itching for a fight and baiting each other with things that aren't actionable to cause war, because the system of CBs is too restrictive, something is wrong. And because CBs are rare, people pursue them for all they can.

There are a couple of things that could/should be done:
1) In-game: Money on hand should be capped to something like a billion dollars. Wonder count should be capped, at something like 15 wonders. Tech should be capped at 5000. Decrease the average size of nations and how long it takes to get to the "maximum size", and the "build time" will decrease and we may see more action. Also reducing the disparity between mid-sized and huge nations will help even out the impact of wars.
2) Using peace mode over large NS ranges to avoid major wars entirely should be restricted and unacceptable.
3) Reps should be limited or ended. Hopefully #1 would help with this.
4) People need to focus less on CBs.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Azaghul

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1303520246' post='2697243']
It was a moralist that prevented the alliance you merged with to create Athens, from becoming a Valhalla lapdog.

Food for thought.
[/quote]

I like you AirMe, even if you don't think much of me. But can't you agree that the game needs action? You've been here since about day 1, and you're still here. Wasn't it better for you in the old days? Don't you want to see it get better again?

[Azaghul]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1303520246' post='2697243']
It was a moralist that prevented the alliance you merged with to create Athens, from becoming a Valhalla lapdog.

Food for thought.
[/quote]
The problem isn't that any moralism is bad, but that it has gone way overboard, and everyone wants to be moral all the time. That isn't sustainable.

Edit: Because I can't write clearly.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Azaghul

[Prime minister Johns]

Rush you have raised some interesting points and here is my take on the state of the world and how it can be made better.

1: On morality

Morality for me is a personal code of behavior that I apply to myself, and this code is pretty simple. I do to others only what I would like them to do to me. I do not raid, because I would not like to be raided. I do not troll because I do not like being trolled, and I do not interfere with other people having fun because I would not like others to interfere with my fun. This is the simple golden rule. But as I said this is a personal code of behavior I do not expect anyone else other than myself to live up to this code. And the rest of this dissertation should be taken in this context, it is a suggestion that I think would be wise to follow but if you choose not to then that is your choice, it is not a moral code that I expect you to follow.

2: On Fun

My concept of fun is a simple one, and it is quite similar to what you have described. Fun is different for everyone, but for this game to survive we must realize this, And if you want lots of alliance wars then it is in your best interest to ensure that you do not utterly destroy all of your opponents or place them under terms that lock them out of the game for years, for this is the path to stagnation and the universal peace for the world, but this will be the peace of the grave. The world will be a lifeless monoculture with all the dissenters scared into silence or gone to other worlds with better community cultures where they can have more fun.

3: On War

My ideal for war is for wars to be considered to be games, for two sides to form and fight until one side concedes then for both sides to shake hands and for it to be done, fighting to drive someone away from the world is not good for the health of the world, and carrying a grudge from one war into the next war is not healthy either since this makes that war essentially a replay of the last world and stops the rise of new ideas because the old ideas do not fade away to make room for them.

4: On Beer

A good ale should be a light orange-yellow color with a crisp and clean yet slightly bitter taste, varying degrees of sweetness are acceptable since this contributes to the variety of the drinking experience and makes it more enjoyable.
A good stout should be a dark brown-black in color with a rich and full bodied taste with many subtle notes of flavor, this drink is for when the ale has become tiresome and I seek more from my beers.
And a good chaser for the beer is either a dark rum or whiskey which is at least 5 years old, 15 years old or older is the ideal but these spirits are expensive and need to be reserved for special occasions. And I once had the sublime pleasure of sampling a 150 year old whiskey which is was like the nectar of the gods.
And you may be wondering why I took off on this tangent, but it does serve a point to the overall topic. When you walk into a bar and see a man drinking a beer or spirit you do not like you do not pay them anything more than a passing thought, and you settle down and drink the libation of your choice and perhaps sit next to that guy and have a chat and perhaps become friends with him despite what you think of his drink. This analogy can be extended to the world of planet bob when you see a player or alliance doing something you would not do and it does not effect you then you should not become upset, it is none of your business and perhaps the guy doing it is a really nice guy.

5: On Raiding , Protection & Recruiting

You may wonder why I have chosen to lump these ideas that seem at first blush to be as dissimilar as chalk and cheese together.
And this is because they are both necessary and vital elements in the everyday cut and thrust of life on planet Bob and when they get out of balance with each other chaos and disorder will ensue to the detriment of the entire world.
They are linked to each other in a most profound manner which I will explain.
Raiding serves as a political force that drives nations into alliances that offer protection and makes it possible for them to achieve their large numbers.
And the offer of protection and aid is something something that can make a alliance great, since if they can offer these things then people will join that alliance out of enlightened self-interest and greatness of an alliance can truly be judged by how they treat their members, because if an alliance mistreats their members they will vote with their feet and leave to join an alliance that treats its members well. And if they can not offer protection then the members will leave since the alliance has failed in its pseudo-feudal obligations.
And finally on recruiting, this is the third element in this triad of force. It is the thing that serves to form communities out of individual players on the world stage. It makes alliances and can break alliances, an alliance that recruits actively grows while one that does not falls prey to entropy and slowly dissolves over time as members leave. Both raiding and protectionist alliance need it like we all need air to breath, they need it to get the members necessary to be what they are.
And on a final note raiding and protectionism are not mutually exclusive ideas, A raiding alliance can also offer protection from raiding and on some level this makes a degree of sense since it is better to ride the tiger than be eaten by it.

Tl:dr version: Have fun but realize that everyone else also wants to have fun as well. And do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Prime minister Johns

[AirMe]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303520470' post='2697248']
I like you AirMe, even if you don't think much of me. But can't you agree that the game needs action? You've been here since about day 1, and you're still here. Wasn't it better for you in the old days? Don't you want to see it get better again?
[/quote]

I don't disagree that the game needs action. But moralism isn't the issue. More people need to go out on a limb and try to do things like infiltrating their enemies. Sadly, we have trackers like bros who can track someone down. Well I guess not sadly, he is good at what he does.

As a community we have become so intertwined with each other that it is impossible to have any friction with anyone else without pissing one of your allies.

Plus, no one knows how to keep a secret anymore.

Edited April 23, 2011 by AirMe

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1303519112' post='2697223']
It's got nothing to do with moralism or any political !@#$ within the game. It's because 5 years ago there were enough nerdy teenagers and college students who had time to play and actually cared about the outcome. We grew up and now we don't have the time or the enthusiasm to keep on playing. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the player base has gotten older (as can be seen from the political discussions, read the old threads, they're awful), and they're not being replaced by younger, more enthusiastic players due to the complex nature of the political game. We've (unintentionally) imposed a glass ceiling.[/quote]

I honestly don't see any change in the complexity of the political game. The problem is not the politics, the faux moralism, or anything of the sort. The problem is that this is a five year old game, fewer people are coming through the turnstiles into the "amusement park", and some refuse to change their way of playing to adjust for it.

"Oh God, he's going to give his speech on raiding..."

Nope. You've already heard it too many times.

Admin is taking steps to get the game more exposure in venues such as Facebook and that is a good thing. To be honest though, I think we're probably nearing a point where there needs to a Beta 3.0 release, with some obvious mechanics patches put in place and some additional "chrome" added (new visuals, new units, etc.) to freshen up the game for us who have been at it for so long that we can pay bills, collect taxes and fight wars in our sleep.

I am and will continue to be optimistic for the future of the game, though that optimism is tempered with the knowledge that revitalization is EVERYONE's job and some of you need to take it a hell of a lot more seriously.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1303520731' post='2697253']
I don't disagree that the game needs action. But moralism isn't the issue. More people need to go out on a limb and try to do things like infiltrating their enemies. Sadly, we have trackers like bros who can track someone down. Well I guess not sadly, he is good at what he does.

As a community we have become so intertwined with each other that it is impossible to have any friction with anyone else without pissing one of your allies.

Plus, no one knows how to keep a secret anymore.
[/quote]
Moralism comes into play there, because if you try to do something like spy on an enemy you'll be condemned as the aggressor. The fundamental problem is the excessive moralist demonization of aggression.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303521022' post='2697262']
Moralism comes into play there, because if you try to do something like spy on an enemy you'll be condemned as the aggressor. The fundamental problem is the excessive moralist demonization of aggression.
[/quote]

That's part of the politics though.

If you have a good enough case you can sway people to yourside. But people don't want to take the time to do that. They want to trot out their war machine and then let their crap posters take over.

I hate to say it, a strong NPO is good for the game and you guys shot that to hell for a really long time.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303516254' post='2697174']
In order to strengthen the community as a whole, there should be limits placed on what anyone tries to do to anyone else, aimed at not allowing the unjust eradication of nations from the world. I shouldn't be able to do whatever I like to others unless it's within reason, nor should others be able to do whatever they like to me unless it's within reason.[/quote]

Moralist

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303516254' post='2697174']The community should establish this sense of reason, but right now the culture of moralism had it set up so that you can't DO anything to anyone, [/quote]

If there really IS (which there isn't} a "culture of moralism" - it has been set up by the community - so apparently the "community" thinks it is reasonable.

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303516254' post='2697174']but if you do the whole world can jump on you and curbstomp you to oblivion.[/quote]

You did what you wanted, and that didn't happen.

Really, all your saying is that you don't like the current "rules" and that you don't want to follow them. Instead what you want is for people to follow the "rules" you set instead. In effect, YOU want to define what is "moral."

Why not drop the "it's the moralists fault" gig and just say "hey world, why don't we do it my way" without trying to make some sort of false enemy called "moralist"?

Edited April 23, 2011 by White Chocolate

[Azaghul]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1303521456' post='2697269']
That's part of the politics though.

If you have a good enough case you can sway people to yourside. But people don't want to take the time to do that. They want to trot out their war machine and then let their crap posters take over.[/quote]
Do you think even if you tried to "take the time" that people would buy it? I doubt it. Plus the game takes too long for things to happen as it is. And as you said, people can't keep secrets. More than likely they'd just get rolled for spying.

[quote]I hate to say it, a strong NPO is good for the game and you guys shot that to hell for a really long time.
[/quote]
Strength is worthless if you never do anything with it. And honestly, that would only be true if their style of play wasn't almost always bad for the game. When winning they do everything they can to avoid anything even close to even wars. When losing they simply refuse to fight and hide in peace mode. Both approaches are awful for the game. Their unique culture is good (even if I dislike it IC), but their style of play is awful. Contrast that with MK, we tend to start relatively even wars (not perfectly balanced, but far more than those of the past), and when we lost, we actually fought with almost everything we had.