Endora wrote:burgingham wrote:
I believe the devs didn't intend it to be one.
If we're talking intent then anarchy or at least minimalist intervention seems to be the name of the game. In any system of anarchy the rules are going to be defined by the actors themselves, anarchy is what actors make of it. As a student of International Relations (at the risk of sounding like an obnoxious prick) I can't help but draw comparisons between the theory I've been taught and the ideology underlying how this game works. Just as war has defined periods of history, so too has order and governance, and it seems that this game is also taking such a transitory phase. I don't think the devs ever intended this to be game to be driven by them. They can set the ground rules, and limits, in the same way that physical and earthly limits act upon our own actions, but by and large this game is community driven. If we want to see any return to the sort of gameplay that dictated the actions of great factions in world 3 (I wasn't around by then, but from what I've heard from players in game and read on the forums it was mostly a different state of affairs) then players need to take it in that direction. However as it stands, great factions have been pressing towards an anarchy dictated by the rules of the jungle, lesser factions and equal factions can only follow in that direction. If we want to see a return to World 3 politics, older players need to return, set up a new faction and take it in that direction probably through force, or the current players need to switch their mentality. I can't see it happening through dev forced intervention. I could be entirely wrong though.
You forget that there is a game in terms of having a predefined set of possible actions underlying each and every possible way of development here. That games mechanics are favoring certain ways of gameplay over others. Particularly when there is an unbalance in place, an unbalance of let us say the anarchic status you are mentioning. This unbalance is what we are discussing here.
I agree with you whole heartedly about you way to grasp the meaning of the game, yet when the mechanics don't allow us to play in such an equilibrium then we need to discuss possible changes. In my opinion we are at such a state right now where violence, killing etc are heavily favored, but punishment at the same time is heavily disadvantaged. That might sound paradox in the beginning, but anyone playing knows it to be true and knows it to be possible. It is the mix of flawed siege systems, teleporting, bug abuse and permadeath loosing its meaning causing those problems. Those flawed mechanics are the reason for the environment being like it is, not a certain stage in a normal historical cycle. I am not a fan of pure historical analysis anyway. There always has to be a sufficient set of defining conditions (in our case game mechanics, but probably also relationships, communities etc) in place to cause a particular setting to take place.
So while I agree with your definition on how the game should be built and with your analysis on the development of certain stages alternating between peace and war etc. I also think there is a sickness within the pre-defining terms of game mechanics which are kinda like the laws of physics in the real world to the players of this game. These mechanics need to be in a decent balance to create an acceptable game environment and then I am fine with whatever state we are in. War, peace, barbarian tribes, high cultures, you name it.
by Endora » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:03 am 
