anti-break

I was chatting with Helmet a few days ago and apparently some of what I've been saying has been taken completely out of context or spun to the point that my initial point was not actually received. I thought it would be beneficial for everyone to get a more clear view, so here's a quick post on the topic -- no spin, no affiliation and it comes from someone who, as an admin, wants to see this server succeed. With the current spirit SoF is bringing forward to try and make the server a better place, this post is somewhat timely as well.

Apparently, my posts re: wanting SoF and SoL to stop working together were taken as me wanting SoF and SoL to fight eachother so the netting-focused alliances could have a break. This was not my intention at all.

The point I was bringing forward was the idea that SoF and SoL should stop working so closely together because the server would be better balanced by SoL and SoF working with OTHER alliances against eachother.

If SoF and SoL were to create sides again (like we used to see) where smaller fighting alliances and netting-focused alliances would be pulled into the sphere of influence, that would do a lot to help balance the server in a lot of ways. This wouldn't be something that only SoF and SoL need to do either -- it would be something that other alliances would need to buy into as well to help make the server a better place. As I said previously, everyone has a responsibility to make this server and game a better place, not just the admins, not just the fighters and not just the netters.

It seems like a symbiotic relationship for the different types of alliances to work together, rather than fragmenting based on playing style. Netting alliances would gain from being able to fight alongside a strong, war-focused ally and having an ally to help back up their netting through promissory force. War alliances gain from having strat-minded netters involved in their war effort and by having a variety of options when doing political planning, as netting alliances would be likely or even obliged to fight more often on their ally's behalf.

This type of situation would help make netting alliances into better fighting alliances, which is something I think the fighters would like to see. It would also help introduce netting concepts to some of the fighting folks who may not focus on that part of the game, which is good to keep innovation up in fighting alliances.

This would also move to a model where wars could be more balanced in terms of who was prepared and willing to fight. If alliances plan their pacts to "keep alliances out" of a larger war, like they used to on the old 1a, that would help to add a layer of structure to things which we've lacked since SLIT moved to EC.

I guess the bottom line of what I wanted to get across previously is that the path to a better future is one where everyone is more involved and the divisions aren't fighter vs netter. It's up to everyone to take part and make this server a better place, and in the spirit of looking to revitalize this server, I hope everyone will consider this in the context it's meant -- improving the server -- and not immediately jump to flaming.

Kudos to SoF and SoL for building two great alliances, probably the best two we've seen on EE thus far, but the positive change this server needs will need to be initiated by you guys. I've been pleased with what I've seen SoF doing thus far, so maybe this post will be received in that same mindset.

Cheers,
Pang

No! Friends forever!

Where does that leave clans like PDM, that suck at both warring and netting, and where we piss off everyone on all sides??!

I don't think we really suck at netting... we just don't try anymore =P

It also leaves us ON A BUS TO ANIMAL LAND WITH WAFFLES.

fair enough pang, give us a server war first :P

Warring SoL continously gets boring. Did it for 2 years straight while in IX, then suicided on them for half a year, then was in the anti-slit coalition. Now you want me to fight continous day 10 wars with them again...zzz.

well i think the biggest sad point was back in the days we tried to stack ourselves as much as possible and it didn't kill the server because there was much more players/alliances that two big ones allying together wasn't the end of the world.

its sad how now if the two largest alliances FDP together it spells doom for everyone else. wasnt this way in the past =)

Who said anything about continuous 10 day wars?
Who said SoF and SoL would actually need to fight eachother every single set?

I'm simply talking about realigning the politics to create a different kind of dynamic -- one which fosters relationships and actual politicking while working to make smaller, less war-centric alliances get better at fighting or be more willing to fight

This set we have alliances who are willing to step up and fight SoF in a pre-arranged war, which is great, but I don't see that as a sustainable either.

I personally want to see more netter vs netter wars more than I want to see fighter vs fighter wars, to be honest, but the netters are likely still reluctant to do attack one another. I've always felt this was because they feel that they need to net every chance they can get, because war with a well-prepped war-focused opponent could be right around the corner. Netting alliances are still burnt out from the wars at the end of EC and the wars so far on EE.

My point is that it's not so much about the actual wars themselves as much as changing the current political culture that exists here to get everyone more involved in enjoyable playing without needing to walk on eggshells.

of course -- but a massive influx of experienced players and leaders isn't something we can just drop on the game from nowhere.

When we do bring new players in here, I want them to go to a plethora of alliances who are active and vibrant. To do that, we need to facilitate positive changes which help to pull alliances up and create a fun playing environment for everyone.

also, @ PDM:

umm.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M54rv3hfIkc

oh btw, this isn't meant to be something I'm saying should immediately start out of nowhere, but I'd like for everyone to consider it in the same context they're considering SoF's arranged war offers for next set -- incrementally positive steps to improve the environment of the server :p

it would also help if a lot of the alliances would stop pacting the fluff out of each other.

absolutely correct, and I addressed that as well if you read my first post more thoroughly :p

Or you could get wog back and have three opposing sides!

that'd be even better! :p

Pang we are not your puppets and will do as we decide. If we want to remain friends we will. In the future please keep any advise for SOL to yourself. So far we have done pretty well without your help- i mean seriously, the last time you tried to do any thing for us was when you helped to Blindside FS us remember? Now your trying to be peacemaker? Please...

sorry about that, must've missed that pang.

also, raise your hand if you give a damn what deerhunter thinks.

Deerhunter,

AT are not your puppets and will do as we decide. If we want to ignore you we will. In the future please keep any advice for the AT community for yourself. So far we have done pretty well despite your attempts at help- I mean seriously when was the last time you tried to do anything productive except to troll and start problems? Now you're trying to be helpful? Please.......

i care, only because someone has to :)

I just want to capture this as the essence of everything that is wrong with this server. The negativity and closed-mindedness that dominates this discussion most of the time is a major detriment to moving the server forward, so I'm not going to participate in it.

I've said my piece; I just wanted to clarify what I was getting at in my previous posts which were not received how I thought they were apparently. This is not a place to rehash the SoL vs LaF debate -- which is not at all related to anything I posted on this thread.

SOL wants to war every reset. I think you are looking at this one sided. Forming coalitions means war every reset in my mind. Getting left out of it with only 12-14 alliances is going to be a lot harder than the situation now, with SOF netting every other reset and SOL doing what they do.

Stippers!

more strippers would help!

I think I'm looking at this from both sides, aponic...

no one's saying that two specific alliances should fight eachother every single round -- that would be bad as well and is not at all what I'm discussing.

what I'm talking about is basically moving apart and forming power blocks that will work with each alliance outside of eachother, inevitably leading to conflict and friction.

basically SoL and SoF become the main power broker for their side and work the politics that way, not necessarily fight eachother every round. With the current way things are going, either SoF or SoL will need to fight every single alliance at least once every 2-3 rounds -- SoF and SoL will make up nearly 1/3rd of the server next round, with Rage in there.

Maybe it's a good time to start these type of discussions since SoF is already showing leadership in this area? :)

I like football and peanut m&m's

Pang the only way i see breaking the cycle is for a third powerhouse alliance or group of alliances to come together. This however is going to be much harder to accomplish, with the various alpha types wanting their way in how things get run.

Basically we do not have enough smaller alliance to merge together to make something like this viable.

As for asking either SoL or SoF to not pact each other even on an every other reset basis. This would go against their own survival instincts, in the sense of: Why should they weaken their own positions to allow others to grow and replace them?

Both alliance had to fight to get to where they are today, and if someone is to take this position away from them they will need to fight for it and want it even more. I simply do not see either alliance willing stepping aside and letting go of something they fought hard for.

What is good for the server is truly irrelevant, very similar to why untags have no basic rights on the alliance server. I can have fun with it all day long, but at its core it is just a fact and realization which needs to be accepted for what it is. It would take someone willing to dedicate a huge amount of their own personal time to reverse this trend in any meaningful way. Even then someone taking on such a project would need to go in knowing there is no guarantee of success, just a potential and a possibility of things falling into place just right.

in that case:

LaF is accepting mergers from any midsized alliance who wants to form a third powerhouse alliance.

now taking applications!

Read and must say a few nice posts.

Though I would like to point out a few things.


Where in the past 3 - 4 sets have SOL and SoF explicitly worked together or teamed up? We simply haven't knowing if we team up we could probally take any combination of tags and there is no fun. The reason we keep our pacts in place are our own though a few points have been adressed in this thread.

Next is the fact SOL as SoF have been less agressive then we normally are we're not randomly FSing alliances.

And then there is the fact that coalition or grouped warfare would only harm this server as 70% of the netters won't war unless they are forced and the server simply can't sustain it. On the other hand I think SOL and SoF have both been helping out other allies then each other and keeping each other in check in terms of what we do.

To make 2 examples.

This set Imag FSed SOL. After SOL tagkilled Imag we put them on 72 hours farm negotiations on a CF were simply a waste of time due to differences. So SoF stepped in and brokered a deal.

SOL also FSed LCN this in defense of Rage. Other LCN allies could've easily stepped in there without interference unless it would've liked doubled/trippled the numbers.


What you really need is more players more players will allow alliances to expand. Expanding alliances causes division, which leads to new alliances spinning off from old tags with vets to lead and somewhat newer players as membership. Or new tags simply get formed with a fresh recruiting spree.

With those new players new powerhouses will also rise up. Alliances like LCN, LaF, RD and Sanct are potential future powerhouses if they boost their membership.

They have a strong veteran leadership who know how to do bussines . They just need fresh blood to boost their ranks.

Shortly summarized.

Facebook app --> New recruiting pool --> Alliances grow --> alliances divide and emerge + old powerhouse regain membership thus power --> Server dynamic changes.

Does this mean SOL and SoF Will never war in the future? not at all. But it will be on friendly terms, we will simple not revoke our friendship untill the server has more stable alliances and a more steady playerbase.

wow, Pang mate, how does it feel to not be at the center of the server politics!:p

I'll catch you on msn and reveal to you numerous actions by both SoF and SoL the last 2 sets that are aimed at keeping the other one #2 and themselves #1...

Why do you think i feel like fluff that Rage eventually had to merge into SoF but couldn't give equal thanks to SoL our other main ally.

i'm guessing some other alliance randomly FSed LaF two resets ago then? ;)

You call that random.

We call it defended our strict policy on no L : L which LaF took without FA contacts.

alright, keep digging the server into a deeper hole then since it's obvious both sides are unwilling to do anything on this front proactively.

short term pain for long term meh it is!

also, if you want to rehash that stupid argument, take it to a new thread guys.... the intention here isn't to make this about politics, it's about discussing some things to move the server forward.

Where am I debating politics?....

PDM tried to create a third bloc, but no one involved really took it seriously.

here is your post on the subject:


hlw made one prior -- I'm just nipping that in the bud, as that kind of debate isn't the point of this thread.

I'm not concerned with how anyone got to this point, what I was simply suggesting was that the whole server should look towards a new political reality which makes more sense for the current clan-base. SoL and SoF would need to be key players to make it work. They are unwilling... the thread is basically over then. :p

well the problem now isn't about a third block, it's that we need a SECOND block at this point.

if your talking about our little thing a while ago it was too difficult Tan.

we had no involvement from the likes of lcn/laf/evo.

+ imag = sof, and rage allied to both.

i don't see much action form laf/evo on the subject of a second block......

maybe if laf committed to being a long term FDP for a year and fighting alongside whichever of sol/sof drops the other you could scrap a 2nd block together? ;-)

EDIT: After reading Pangs 2nd post my first line was unneeded.

We all know everyone wants to move forward. However with the current numbers this server has it won't happen as to many alliances are to scared to give up the somewhat stability or growth they have in membership for shifts in playing style or pact shiftings. The best way to solve that is giving them a bigger recruiting pool and fresh player base.

Right now every player lost in an alliance weighs way to heavily on a tag for it to be even remotely interesting to make a shift in anything.

Whilest 3 - 4 yrs ago you could afford to drop 10 - 25% in members by making political shifts due to the heavy warring that always relates 2 it, it's simply not affordable right now for most alliances to do that. You could afford those drops as you had bigger pools to recruit from when the server went into the recovery phase of a period of wars due to a political alignment shift.

And to be honest speaking for SOL in this case, it's that for us aswell. I invested alot of energy with Praetor & steeps + mid leadership to move back to the 70+ members we have now. ALOT of energy. I simply don't have a second wind in me right now to do that again if we drop a big number of members within a set or two.

i actually wasn't around when that happened, so i'm not going to comment on it ;) my original comment was sort of tongue in cheek...



i would sign up :P although you really think SOL would want to FDP us for the other block? ;)

I think you're missing the point entirely, maki, and trying to make a completely different one....

I'm not talking about an uppity political shift where everything is thrown into disarray and forced to fight it out for supremacy, what I was talking about everyone working together to create a new, better political reality. Good on you and the other SoL'ers for building SoL up. No one's knocking you for it. But with the power that SoL has gotten has come on the backs of other alliances. Standing beside the other largest war-focused alliance and rotating through the server choosing who to kill based on who is interested in a friendly war or who the opportunity target de jour is just isn't sustainable on this server environment. Eventually you and SoF will part ways -- likely whenever you and Ivan get into a fight -- and things will re-balance that way. That's how it always goes, there will eventually be a fallout. I'm saying that this is an opportunity where we could all think about how we want this server to move and move in that direction collectively, but it falls on SoL and SoF to be a driving force behind that kind of change.

Posts like you just made, Maki, make you look like someone who's more bent on retaining the power you've gained than actually helping promote the growth of this server and this game. If that's the case, that's within your right, although not the reaction I was hoping for.

since when did maki got any point you are trying to make pang? ;P

hmmm the smaller alliances can form a coalition to take down the big dawgs =P

This is my favourite post of this thread. So many good points Maki. I'm not sure what you want pang if its not SoF and SoL to war each other to give the netters a breather? Like Maki pointed out its not like we have been on the same side of a war in a super long time....

Give me a scenario of your ideal server? heres one I came up with

SoF and SoL have your "falling out"
LaF FDP SoF
SoL FDP Collab
SoF FDP Imag

SoL fs LaF
LaF calls in SoF
SoL call in Collab
SoF beat everyone down but imag is jealous that SoF is having all the fun so they FS Collab/SoL
Then Server war. set after set. after set.
Then SoF + SoL members dwindle after 5 sets of warring
LaF is the largest tag with 40 Members.


Is that what you want?

the server could not handle sof v sol in a real 100% committed war.

fluff would get real.

I'm tlaking real SLIT v anti-SLIt war committment here but.

they did that a year ago

remember the wars where Evo, Collab, Omega and a few others did created a power block and took the fight to the war alliances that were aligned against them?
the result was that the fighters just kept going until Evo basically just had to roll over, as everyone wanted to net.
All sides are still tired from that, and some great leaders on the netting side got really burnt out.

But this thread topic doesn't preclude that type of thing from happening again -- I hope that some great alliance with some really focused and positive leaders will emerge as a new powerhouse. I'm sure that eventually it will happen, but my point continues to be that this could be a defining moment to move the server forward collectively. We can make it a great place for the new players who are necessary for the long term success of this server and this game.

[quote poster=Chevs; 7185; 121464]

i'll be brutally honest, if that happened, i wouldn't be sad ;P

but pang will probably be =)

They werent so great if they got burnt out from a few sets of war. Nothing should be expected of 2 alliances just because they have retained more members. If the smaller clans want to have a different change of game, how about they set up new forms of pacts, how about they have meetings to discuss survival strategies to counter the bigger netting / war clans, cover each other for retalling, actually go to war over there new policy and fight for something they believe in.

They should be the ones changing to fight for survival, and they should be thinking out of the box to do so, which would change the game politically and put a new spin on it.

But i assume those leaders have gotten lazy, and just can only complain.

wow... maybe you should try running your alliance for a change ;P it's a bunch of hard work. you can look at SoF as a example, they were down for a bit when their leadership got burnt out (martian/et al) and made a comeback when they got a new active leader again (ivan).

stuff like that happens, the way you are saying it just tells me you have no idea what it takes to run an alliance, especially how we have other real things to worry about (our job/our real lives/etc.)

and there were times when SOL was smaller, leaders were less active. just because SOL is at a high point relatively in activity doesn't mean the rest of us aren't "that great". all great alliances have ebb and flow where they are more dominant at times than others depending on how active the leaders can be due to their other time commitments.

we can all point and laugh when the tables turn in the future, but i don't think that would be constructive