Warrior Declaration of WAR

[Confusion]

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1289544533' post='2511030']
The war was predicted by everyone, not decided. It was decided on the battlefields. Besides, it's not even half way through the round yet. This war lasted long enough. It's like you've never even played before. [b]The bigger wars that grind nations down to nothing happen at the end of round.[/b] If you grind your nation down to nothing now, you've thrown away half the round. That's not fun - that's stupid.
[/quote]

Which is exactly why TE is where it's at. Many alliances are afraid of losing all their pixels too early into the round...And that's why nothing ever changes. And how is going all out 2 weeks before the end of the round, fun? You have nothing to look forward to except reset. Which was my main point. Anyhow, I do agree on one thing, everyone will play how they want to play, and nothing will change that.


Confusion.

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1289544259' post='2511028']
I'm with this. If you love politics that much go play SE and stay out of TE. Seriously, most people hate pure politicians and for many, many, good reasons not worth wasting pixels on. I hate all that crap, and I think it's a main reason SE is down to about 20,000 players. SE sucks, TE is much more fun. The loss of TE players is just reflective of the SE loss. Most people have real-life restrictions on their free time; they just don't have time for all this stupid convoluted stuff. I think more of that tripe will only mean less players, not more. Less fun and not more fun, as well.

Do what you want tho. You want to play the game a certain way, you're welcome to go it. No one can stop you. Just sitting around crying because people won't play the game the way you want them to, won't do anything tho.
[/quote]

Crying is one thing, talking about it is another. I'll say it again, TE politics are not SE politics which is why the two are separated. I'm just thinking openly. Not expecting a change immediately or at all. Just pitching ideas into a crowd of those who have liked the current style for a while. More tripe means more war. TE politics are simple not extravagant. They tend to be straight forward.

I don't think SE should ever be related to TE. But at that I don't think war should ever be unrelated to politics.

[Clash]

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1289544773' post='2511034']
Which is exactly why TE is where it's at. Many alliances are afraid of losing all their pixels too early into the round...And that's why nothing ever changes. And how is going all out 2 weeks before the end of the round, fun? You have nothing to look forward to except reset. Which was my main point. Anyhow, I do agree on one thing, everyone will play how they want to play, and nothing will change that.[/quote]
Yeah, losing all your stuff right at the start of the round means you have a poor rest of round. When you nations get beat down too early, the number of inactives you have go way up. You can look at every time massive early wars have ever happened and see it. If someone gets their nation too far beat down too early they quit playing. That's not fun for most people. Why would it be? It tells them they've just wasted their time.

Why is that hard to understand? You saw it happen with MHA. You saw it happen with MI, and it's happened every other time as well with early massive wars that go wayyy too long. Hell I think that's why TE has lost some good potential players as it is - that's a very poor introduction to the game.

You thinking means TE loses players - not gains them.

How can going all out 2 weeks before the end of round NOT be fun?
I see no logic in your thinking at all.

How good of a war can it be anyways if people have not had much time to build their nations up for fighting? It seems like you want a bunch of 100 infra nations fighting til they have nothing. That sounds pathetic not fun. In a very short period of time you can't fight at all. Or you're buying back 137 soldiers because that's all your nation can support. Yeah that's big fun right?

At the end of round, your nation is bigger now so you can fight longer and have more fun doing it. You know that reset is coming, so if your nation gets beat down to nothing, you know you get a new one very soon. It's the most fun you can have when your round builds up to a nice big explosive finish. This is why most people do it this way!

I also believe your kind of thinking promotes curbstomps.
We've really tried to get away from that in TE.

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1289546699' post='2511045']
Yeah, losing all your stuff right at the start of the round means you have a poor rest of round. When you nations get beat down too early, the number of inactives you have go way up. You can look at every time massive early wars have ever happened and see it. If someone gets their nation too far beat down too early they quit playing. That's not fun for most people. Why would it be? It tells them they've just wasted their time.

Why is that hard to understand? You saw it happen with MHA. You saw it happen with MI, and it's happened every other time as well with early massive wars that go wayyy too long. Hell I think that's why TE has lost some good potential players as it is - that's a very poor introduction to the game.

You thinking means TE loses players - not gains them.

How can going all out 2 weeks before the end of round NOT be fun?
I see no logic in your thinking at all.

How good of a war can it be anyways if people have not had much time to build their nations up for fighting? It seems like you want a bunch of 100 infra nations fighting til they have nothing. That sounds pathetic not fun. In a very short period of time you can't fight at all. Or you're buying back 137 soldiers because that's all your nation can support. Yeah that's big fun right?

At the end of round, your nation is bigger now so you can fight longer and have more fun doing it. You know that reset is coming, so if your nation gets beat down to nothing, you know you get a new one very soon. It's the most fun you can have when your round builds up to a nice big explosive finish. This is why most people do it this way!

I also believe your kind of thinking promotes curbstomps.
We've really tried to get away from that in TE.
[/quote]

Your covering points that have already been covered.

[Clash]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1289545798' post='2511040']I'll say it again, TE politics are not SE politics which is why the two are separated. I'm just thinking openly. Not expecting a change immediately or at all. Just pitching ideas into a crowd of those who have liked the current style for a while. More tripe means more war. TE politics are simple not extravagant. They tend to be straight forward.

I don't think SE should ever be related to TE. But at that I don't think war should ever be unrelated to politics.[/quote]
I agree with that first part - but it very much seems you advocate SE politics in TE. The methods you and Confusion had talked about are very SE-like, especially the wars you want. Long drawn out wars early in the round that punish players and make the rest of their round a waste of time. Long drawn out stupid politics wars are exactly SE-style.

Again: Most people HATE politics and especially hate politicians.
You might think what you advocate will be fun - but I don't think most people will agree.

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1289546920' post='2511047']
Your covering points that have already been covered.[/quote]
No one has covered that your thinking causes loss of players in TE.
Try reading it.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Clash

[Judge X]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1289542467' post='2511001']
I still think the lack of politics will be bad. Not SE politics where its all treaty signing and complaining, but TE politics. TE politics as in, a motive for war. Strategically using political aspects of the game for wars. I don't know if I even thought about the current motive for wars or brought it up. My view on things have shifted as others participated in the discussion. But it really is as confusion has said. Who didn't look at this war and think, oh goodbye RE (no offense RE but given round history as a mass recruiter, it happens).

The war was decided by everyone before anything really happened. And its already at a peace. But overall we all do have our own ways of playing as has been said but never trying anything outside of the comfort zone of each and everyone will only limit things. Maybe we will stumble upon a greater way of play through exploring. I've played this system for a few rounds now. As has everyone, I'd just find it fun to try something else now. At an artists standpoint, the first idea generally never is the best, so my ideas were not the best at first but I did try. With a collective of everyone though something good should ensue.
[/quote]
If you want to spice it up so bad in TE maybe you should try flashy and entertaining DoW's. Another option would be to have a witty, colorful, and entertaining post in the threads you post in, not constantly whining. Sometimes making the best of what you have and trying to make it better within the boundries (60 days) we are given. You would try and instill long term politics in a 60 day round. you strike me as a person that holds a grudge for a long period of time and that is what makes things unfun. It's battle royal, no holds barred fun. I'm sorry that you seem to have skipped learning how to play checkers and have gone straight to chess. Make no mistake, TE is checkers, SE is chess If you try to play chess in TE it WILL have an unfun effect.

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1289547069' post='2511049']
No one has covered that your thinking causes loss of players in TE.
Try reading it.
[/quote]

I don't believe me thinking causes loss of TE players, or the fact I'm throwing ideas around. I have yet to do anything. Clearly the loss of TE players has to do with something that CURRENTLY is in effect.

[quote]If you want to spice it up so bad in TE maybe you should try flashy and entertaining DoW's. Another option would be to have a witty, colorful, and entertaining post in the threads you post in, not constantly whining. Sometimes making the best of what you have and trying to make it better within the boundries (60 days) we are given. You would try and instill long term politics in a 60 day round. you strike me as a person that holds a grudge for a long period of time and that is what makes things unfun. It's battle royal, no holds barred fun. I'm sorry that you seem to have skipped learning how to play checkers and have gone straight to chess. Make no mistake, TE is checkers, SE is chess If you try to play chess in TE it WILL have an unfun effect. [/quote]

As for this I never hold a grudge. I've had so many grudges held against me its ridiculous though. Currently there are grudges held in TE. Changing things won't suddenly bring that concept into play.

As for the chess/checkers analogy if you play chess without pieces its the same as playing checkers without pieces. Just a thinking out loud that we are missing a valuable part of the game. Idk when you started playing but I'll assume you joined in the past 6 rounds.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Frostfirefox

[Clash]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1289588017' post='2511270']
I don't believe me thinking causes loss of TE players, or the fact I'm throwing ideas around. I have yet to do anything. Clearly the loss of TE players has to do with something that CURRENTLY is in effect.[/quote]
Ahhhh but I think it will and I gave very good reasons why - reasons you didn't bother to address. Facts are that if someone gets their nation beat down to nothing in a stupid overly long early war, they really do tend to become inactive. Most people HATE politics. They sure don't want someone's stupid politics getting them curbstomped to where the game isn't even fun anymore. That's even logical based on Occam's Razor, much less examples given, and that anyone who's been paying attention for a while has already seen it.

SE is down to just over 20,000 nations. TE is drawn from SE for the most part. In a way it's harder in TE because you have to be more active than SE. In SE you can check in on your nation every 3 weeks if you want to, and it's likely it's been untouched. You have to be active a lot in TE - under your thinking, people would probably have to be MORE active than they ever are now. People have jobs, son. And school, and significant others, and they don't have a lot of free time as it is.

If you really were just saying "hey here's an idea" that would be one thing, but you're trying to say your answer is one that will completely make the game better than it is right now. I don't think you're right. Plus putting it in a war thread of course, and arguing it beyond reason.

All right so hopefully I really am done with you this time lol

[Frostfirefox]

SE's average is 20,000 - it achieves 25,000 when a bunch of people during summer are all drawn into the game for something to do.

I'm unsure on TE's average. I recall it being approximately 10-13% of SE, so around and 2,000-2,300. In summer months I remember it at 2,500-2,600. (unsure overall on the numbers, going from memory of rounds back)

Sorry if I did not address the points, I was going to sleep at the time.

In the length of wars and the time of wars:

I think they shouldn't be longer for a meaningless thing. Just like the current situation, if we extended the wars that are had right now it would just get into a slump of slapping each other. However, I bring this up a lot. The creativity of leaders plays a large role. Do you want to play competitively, or mindlessly. If your losing, do you just bend over and take it? Or do you do something to win. This is where I find it boring. The lack of competition. Competition derives from the political aspiration of becoming the best alliance and wanting to win at all costs. Things should be more fluid and random. People should always look to win and not look to survive until end of round so they can have the only all out war of the round. The problem with end round wars, is generally they get cut off. Fighting could still continue but things are generally always cut off (some exceptions on earlier starts). It's an all out war, that is split into a fraction and becomes just like the previous wars except a more aggressive start. As for starting wars early, not as in like 1 week people are starting to hit each other. Although that already happens sometimes in the current war system and it's nothing new. But at 2 weeks - 3 weeks nations are fairly large. It does not take a long period of time to grow to the size and destroy things. And on the note of being destroyed. I've been destroyed this round already. And I have already told my opponent (Ernie) that we should have a grudge match once I rebuild.

I have a job, I go to school and I have family/friends and someone I tend to take care on a regular basis (by that I mean she spends a lot of time around me as her parents drop her off [or she walks over to my house] and I teach her things drawing wise). At this moment with an increased work load (projects I'm working on since last week that will be worked on till Christmas or a possible extension into july), between work and school, I'm nearly pulling a 6AM - 9PM schedule with the occasional afternoon/night to myself. I then either work through the night or catch up on sleep. I check up on things. It does not take more than a few minutes of a break to do this. I also have weekends for the most part besides the family/friends/tending part. To me it sounds like, 'TE has been going for a while now, and people are generally getting busier so we will let it get into a lazy slump to make things easier.' Using quite general politics - not treaties, not anything like SE - just general politics which could at most use the same amount of time it takes to post in this forum, I think things could be more competitive.

I am not saying my answer is the best for the game. I have already destroyed my previous answer to the question of how to possibly change the game. All I'm left specifically supporting is a war system change. No change elsewhere. Just more competitive wars. More reason to play and have a war. As for the war thread, it kind of is directly related to the war as this war is the kind of general war that happens now. And plus Confusion was brought up for whatever reason and you insulted me because I said (partially joking at that) 'Confusion is our savior' then explained why I said it. After that it kind of expanded into this because I was saying I favored what Confusion had done in the past.

Anyways I'll emphasize this again. These are just ideas. Food for the thought. I cannot force anything to be done but I can share my view on things. Nobody is wrong and there is no wrong way to play TE. Just producing an effort to try and change TE in anyway people could agree on because I think there could be a better experience from it. It has been agreed on by many for a while that TE is declining. Yet only really small things are ever done to try and fix it.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Frostfirefox

[scytale]

How about this:

Next round, everyone just builds for 30 days. After the 30 days, we all begin a giant brawl that goes to end of round with re-rolls and all. At the end, the alliance with the nation at the top wins. That alliance gets something like maybe a thread dedicated to them where everyone has to write how good they are (or something). But, the top nation must have been in many wars. I guess we could use casualty numbers for verification.

Just a thought. If you like the basic premise, please add, modify or correct it.

I suspect some interesting dynamics develop if we do this. Sort of like "Survivor"

[dogbite]

[quote name='scytale' timestamp='1289618610' post='2511578']
How about this:

Next round, everyone just builds for 30 days. After the 30 days, we all begin a giant brawl that goes to end of round with re-rolls and all. At the end, the alliance with the nation at the top wins. That alliance gets something like maybe a thread dedicated to them where everyone has to write how good they are (or something). But, the top nation must have been in many wars. I guess we could use casualty numbers for verification.

Just a thought. If you like the basic premise, please add, modify or correct it.

I suspect some interesting dynamics develop if we do this. Sort of like "Survivor"
[/quote]
Or nobody joins a aa and we all go as none.

[lazaraus45]

i like the idea of a timed NAP/MDP bloc,

basically several alliances get together declare an NAP for the first 20 days or so, and hold an MDP together until that time is up, then on day 20 the wars start, this would cause utter chaos, plus no one could be caught off guard, basically a TE wide free for all

[Judge X]

[quote name='lazaraus45' timestamp='1289669127' post='2511916']
i like the idea of a timed NAP/MDP bloc,

basically several alliances get together declare an NAP for the first 20 days or so, and hold an MDP together until that time is up, then on day 20 the wars start, this would cause utter chaos, plus no one could be caught off guard, basically a TE wide free for all
[/quote]
Now that is an excellent idea. Maybe run that from 14 days on the short end to 20 days on the long end. I would have to be for the 14 day NAP so that new TE players would not get bored and quit. A 14 day build model could greatly increase the NS of alliances yet would ensure that not all nations have nukes. A limited nuke count will help with teaching lower tier "training" nations the chance to learn to fight effectively.

[Stelios]

Ok, No people just need to stop crying and play the game. This is TE, as we all know and are tired of hearing. If you get warred, get over it and rebuild and get some revenge.

[Mikeyrox]

I must say, I really like the idea of a 14-20 day NAP at the start of the round. War is fun, and that is what we are here for, but it is infinitely better after you have had some time to grow, and have a large military, an air force, and maybe some CMs a nuke and a navy. If we all go to war during the first week, its ok, but larger nations breed better wars.

[Stelios]

14 days is a lot of time. And then one thing leads to another and its... SE again

...Im sure we can make something happen. But if some AA's dont want it. Dont go on a crusade against them because they dont want it. And yes some AA's can do this and some others not, maybe like temporary blocs. But dont make them permanent so its always one side vs the other... Pretty much what i am saying is with every action, there is a reaction. The positives are going to be there for both as well as the negative, but those are changes EVERYONE will have to take on.

[dogbite]

You make me lol. Trying to make a preround deal never works. At best you get half but in the end the outher half dont see your way as a good ideal. You cant change what te is. Its a free for all where the killers kill and the sheep get sheared.

[Stelios]

I make you lol? Im down for keep it the way it is. We got hit twice. Once at the start. Im not complaining

[Judge X]

I redact my last statement. It would make it too SE like.

[LeDee]

Game theory suggests that, if a 14 day period was adopted, your alliance would be best to go in on day 13 and get first strike. I just don't see how this works beyond the idea of a "go" switch that turns into a free for all. That sounds like a blast, but people are smart enough to jump in early and get the advantage.

[Mikeyrox]

[quote name='LeDee' timestamp='1289755173' post='2512827']
Game theory suggests that, if a 14 day period was adopted, your alliance would be best to go in on day 13 and get first strike. I just don't see how this works beyond the idea of a "go" switch that turns into a free for all. That sounds like a blast, but people are smart enough to jump in early and get the advantage.
[/quote]

Not if all alliances had an MDP with themselves until day 14 - striking early would be to invite the potential retaliation of all the other alliances following the 14 day plan, so it still wouldnt be in their interest.

[Thomasj_tx]

What specifically is the "problem" for which we are looking for a "solution"?

[Mikeyrox]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1289852943' post='2513736']
What specifically is the "problem" for which we are looking for a "solution"?
[/quote]

Good question. Honestly, I'm not quite sure, I just flock to an argument like a moth to a flame

[KOwens06]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1289852943' post='2513736']
What specifically is the "problem" for which we are looking for a "solution"?
[/quote]

Idk I lost everything after page 4 something how TE is boring/monotonous so we need to get 30 alliances on a NAP for the first 14 days or whatever. Which makes me

[lazaraus45]

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1289852943' post='2513736']
What specifically is the "problem" for which we are looking for a "solution"?
[/quote]

you answered your own question, the problem is a lack of desire by the parties in power to do anything that MIGHT shift the dynamic of TE in a way that doesn't favour them unless there's some kind of "problem" that would make it a worthy risk, that's the same thing that has caused stagnation in SE and that's what will eventually cause stagnation in TE.

Edited November 15, 2010 by lazaraus45