Apr 19th 2012, 4:34:03
This survery is flawed, and our petty attempts to blame one another for the games failure is also flawed.
There are two prospectives when addressing the actions that alliances take on one another and how it affects the game and its player base. That isnt to say of course there is no shades of grey in between these prospective, but both views must be considered when determinning what really matters to the survival of the game and its future.
1) This is a community first then a game second.
"We must consider how our actions will affect other players within the game. Simply acting without thinking how it affects others will further destroy the community and drive players away."
2) This is a game first and a community second.
"I have the right to defend myself the way I choose too. I have no wish to drive players away, but I will not hesitate to take action if I believe I have the right too."
Quickly looking over this, we can see that there are flaws with these two prospectives. First, as players our main focus and concern should not have to be on the wellfare of the game and its future, that responsibility is on the admins and devs shoulders of the game. It isnt wrong for the player base to care for the games future, but it shouldn't be a number one priority. Our piriouty should be to have fun, and really who is having fun right now? In the end, the people who control the game will decide whether the game will live or die.
Secondly, it doesnt matter what we think or do, the game is self destructive as long as there are two prosespectives on how to play this game. Netting and war. Netters hate warring, and when there was a large population a lot of netters didnt have to fear warring one another. With warriors, well, without the possibility of peace every alliance would simply fight each other all the dam time, basicly creating a game with no politics.
Without the possibility of warring with netters those, all you guys would be doing is playing with a calculator.
Back to my original point, right now as you can see there is no balance to the game WITHOUT the players themselves, this is the major flaw to the game. The game has no control on what will occur in the game. It is its inherent behavior is to destroy itself. It doesn't matter what we try or try not to do. A large population can create the re-balance needed, but the dependency will always be there.
To further make my point in terms of why this survey is flawed, this game has "TWO" gaming behaviors. Either War or Netting. As with both of these prospectives, there are shades of grey of what alliances wish to do.
Netting fits on prosective (1) the best and war fits on prosective (2) the best. Right now the game is very heavy on netters vs war alliances. More so, the survey itself comes from the prospective of (1) already, further flawing the survey from being unbiased.
(end rant)
