Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

User avatar
Aergistal
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sun 03 Jun, 2007 16:07
Reputation: 30
Guild: Alpha: [CUBE]
Beta: [-PM-]
Location: Taoth Vaclarush
Contact:

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Aergistal » Sat 02 Jan, 2016 08:58

-PM-/BORG will move to the next level and we provoke you all to do the same: from theories and ideas to something practical and real.

In 2016 BORG will stop sending recruitment spam to guilded players (1 member guild not included). I hope this will be a real contribution (even if it's small) to the server health in general and for better relations between our guilds.

User avatar
Orat
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun 08 Nov, 2009 09:14
Reputation: 0
Guild: A:SPuD - B:BLOOD
Location: East/West of Utopia

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Orat » Sat 02 Jan, 2016 09:10

Hi folks

first...

Image

Well Aergistal, we have seldom seen eye to eye on a great many things. But now you finally succeeded in dragging me into these realms. Whether a good or bad thing I leave for others to decide.

Despite the fact that your post lacks some crucial first steps, I do not disagree with your sentiments, quite the contrary. Nor do I disagree with some of your suggestions. However, and I take this opportunity to address absolutely everyone who possess in their fictitious toolbox even the smallest of the opportunities to make a difference:

If we at all should succeed in building a new culture, one that to a greater extent could resemble that of alpha, which I personally think is a requisite framework for any positive development, then we must begin with rudimentary changes. To the server landscape.

One of these is, without at this stage want to say much about quantity, sizes or anything: FAIL needs to de-merge. That block needs, at least to me, to prove that they are willing to change. Without this simple first step I cannot see any hope that we will get in place even the simplest of rules. So I am onboard with DoW as well as oldbuck and others.

Therefore, on behalf of BLOOD, I am willing to discuss a fundamental framework for fundamental changes, any day and any time. But without any concrete signs of willingness to go the first mile I see no point in discussing the length, size and nature of the rest of the road. If and when someone in the high towers of FAIL are willing, or interested, then that interest might lead somewhere.

But a change for the sake of change is simply not going to be enough unless entailed by consistency. If we are to change the landscape of this server then that will inevitably be a lengthy process. During which time trust might slowly grow back enough to make it worthwhile to discuss details in more granularity.

Until then.. thank you for the attention :)

P.S. I seriously doubt mocking with anyone's views, forum impertinence or condescending speech will do any good for a change of climate, or if you please, climatic change. Nor will it promote or favor the hope that we can change the server's future.

Teachers may open doors,
You enter by yourself.
I lost my head - You Rang?.
User avatar
Awol
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 2178
Joined: Thu 17 May, 2007 04:14
Reputation: 61
Guild: FAIL

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Awol » Sat 02 Jan, 2016 11:25

Fail breaking up would be meaningless without safeguards in place to protect the parts because we would be quickly forced back together. GODS and SS are two guilds in name only and would jump on any opportunity to wipe out all or part of any guild that is not GODS/SS. This is the current climate.

Image
User avatar
Orat
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun 08 Nov, 2009 09:14
Reputation: 0
Guild: A:SPuD - B:BLOOD
Location: East/West of Utopia

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Orat » Sat 02 Jan, 2016 11:31

We have managed this before with less friends. Besides, it was your constellation that eventually forced us to taker similar measures. To begin with you could easily stay in the same galaxy and/or move in parallel. In any event, since you were the first to form a superguild and set a new standard you have the initiative.

No change = status quo.

Teachers may open doors,
You enter by yourself.
I lost my head - You Rang?.
User avatar
Oldbuck2
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat 02 Jan, 2016 03:28
Reputation: 0

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Oldbuck2 » Sat 02 Jan, 2016 11:55

This large neutral guild could result in anything from a "Simmers united" to a haven for anyone without suicidal tendencies which could be the result of joining a real guild under this system, or even a new home for "multis". They could function as false flags for real guilds, who wish to conduct attacks but not want to take responsibility. Could members of such a universal guild conduct operations together in coordinated attacks? While there are some aspects of it I like, I wouldn't want any part of it until it was much more clearly defined and regulated.

User avatar
Orat
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun 08 Nov, 2009 09:14
Reputation: 0
Guild: A:SPuD - B:BLOOD
Location: East/West of Utopia

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Orat » Sat 02 Jan, 2016 12:07

Agree oldbuck, and long before we get to that point, we need to change fundamentals. From where I see it the initiative is in FAIL courtyard but this far it doesn't look like there will be any initiative. Thus less likely they will do what we have, i.e. demonstrate (once again) that it is possible to be part of a union but also be separate entities.

One thing is clear (to me) , if FAIL does not show any interest in breaking up their super guild then an initiative to change the server will die regardless. As for safeguarding, that's something you guys have to take up with GODS/SS.

Teachers may open doors,
You enter by yourself.
I lost my head - You Rang?.
User avatar
Jason_PT
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun 16 Aug, 2009 15:56
Reputation: 28
Guild: Many
Contact:

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Jason_PT » Sat 02 Jan, 2016 12:50

The main issue by limiting a guild to a member size, is that small or large guilds need capable and willing players to lead, and YOU DON'T HAVE PPL willing do devote hat time into AE anymore.

If there isn't in Alpha, much less in Beta

I'm not saying Kahar is the devil, neither is Gus, neither is Nazgul or Aergistal, the fact is between these 4, only one has he capacity to cripple ppl gameplay by the use of family.

Unless stated otherwise, my forum posts express my personal view/opinions non-related to my guild.
A:[BORG]-B:[SS]-AA:[SMILE]-E:[FTW]-F:[SL]
User avatar
Orat
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun 08 Nov, 2009 09:14
Reputation: 0
Guild: A:SPuD - B:BLOOD
Location: East/West of Utopia

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Orat » Sat 02 Jan, 2016 13:58

You're most likely right jason but the landscape would be different if the block issue wasn't so .. polar. We could make it work but without strong enough/mutual interest and commitment to a first, I guess it's stillborn or pointless.

Teachers may open doors,
You enter by yourself.
I lost my head - You Rang?.
Agent Dawg
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue 13 Mar, 2007 04:56
Reputation: 1
Guild: gggg

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Agent Dawg » Sat 02 Jan, 2016 14:32

My thoughts

1. Dividing up the guilds into 20 would create about 20 viable guilds. The issue would come into play of fleet size. It would stand to reason that most players will stay with their guild members. guilds created from SS and some god member would have an unbelievable amount of fleet which i think Awol was alluding too in his comments

2. Alpha is a good template. I think there were some good rules from the speed server that could be modified for beta(maybe having admin involved to make some game changes)

I dont think it could hurt trying SOMETHING different just to see if it works. yea SS dont like Fail and Fail dont like SS, blah,blah, but as someone made the point, it oesnt matter. Build a structure and TRY it.. Having Fail de-merge is a step in the entire process that doesnt need to happen until the I's are dotted and the t's are crossed. SS and Gods just have too much fleet and really still one guild.

"Agent. . . you can kiss your guild goodbye as there will never be a cf, ever." 7/04/08

Legionary

System
"The game account of player Legionary was deleted" 07/16/08
:owned:
User avatar
Jason_PT
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 508
Joined: Sun 16 Aug, 2009 15:56
Reputation: 28
Guild: Many
Contact:

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Jason_PT » Sat 02 Jan, 2016 18:26

Orat wrote:You're most likely right jason but the landscape would be different if the block issue wasn't so .. polar. We could make it work but without strong enough/mutual interest and commitment to a first, I guess it's stillborn or pointless.


Let me grab these two points Orat from Awol post.
Bare that i'm not against changes that really help the gameplay of Beta.
However i'm neither stupid or naive to the point of accepting things first hand, and those that think better re-frame their way of thinking and doing stuff.

1. Guild sizes capped at 15 members (these guilds should be made up of active players which means only a short time would need to be allotted for their creation)
2. 1 Neutral guild is formed that all players who are not in an active 15 member guild will join. If player cap is reached the guild will be an alliance of 2 guilds.

One thing is 15 members and another is 15 accounts.
And Orat you know what i'm refering.

From Point 2, i can only smile and nod the head.
Everyone that is a leader knows what is possible by having certain positions within a guild.
And having MY GUYS, under any kind of control or semi-leadership from FAIL is NOT a option while i play AE.
I'll rather delete to give such order, hell i'm certain most would do it if i did.

Calling us Nazis, is ofc a serious offence by all the historical reasons from WWII
If you do not know what our tag MEANS, search for it.

********************************

So bottom line, 15 cap guild members means we would have 20+ possible guilds.
And ppl in charge for them? JGs? pfff please.

Their goal with this?
Simple divide us, they know they have no other choice to stop running.
This is the only play they have left.

And this is my last forum statement toward this subject.

@Awol: You can even be well intentioned, but looking back and seeing the server, has I (personally) see it, this is all just a front to try something that have no chances for success and not by SS fault.

Unless stated otherwise, my forum posts express my personal view/opinions non-related to my guild.
A:[BORG]-B:[SS]-AA:[SMILE]-E:[FTW]-F:[SL]
User avatar
Dreamslayers
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 337
Joined: Mon 03 Sep, 2007 03:39
Reputation: 7
Guild: B:FAIL
Galaxy: Beta
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Dreamslayers » Sat 02 Jan, 2016 19:21

this thread needs more salt.

Image
    I think your guild is rubbish.
Pilot Luke
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat 13 Jun, 2015 21:26
Reputation: 0
Guild: Variable by server.
Galaxy: Alpha

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Pilot Luke » Sat 02 Jan, 2016 19:47

Let me get it on this.

I'm the diplomat of Dark, one of the few small guilds still kicking that's been affected by the changing (and what is largely accepted as collapsing) of Beta. Aergistal is far from my favorite person. However, when I got the message with the link to this thread I felt obligated to take a look. This is something that I've thought about numerous times over the past few years as this has been going on, not just in Beta but in most of the other AE servers that don't begin with an "Al." The very fact that it hasn't happened in Alpha can probably be attributed to their system. It sets balances of power and feeds the growth, development and refreshment of the game over a long-term time frame. It's something to look at if we're actually, finally, deciding to do something about what's happening in our own server. I like the idea of a member cap. I agree that organizing the new guilds would be a pain in the *beep*. I like the ideas of new rules on combat and such. I understand that it's practically impossible to set those with fairness to everyone. But we've got the conversation kicked off now. No one should toss the idea aside. Hashing something out and making an effort is what we need to make a brighter future for Beta. Let's keep talking and try to make the game playable again.

Vandal Leader The Sorrow Quote - Msg - Report 2 Apr 2013, 05:02:23
If they make a big issue of that little hit then I will back you on it and baffle them with *beep*.
User avatar
Awol
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 2178
Joined: Thu 17 May, 2007 04:14
Reputation: 61
Guild: FAIL

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Awol » Sat 02 Jan, 2016 20:51

1st. I don't believe it is up to fail to take the initiative because fail doesn't hold the power. Anything we do to reduce our defensive capabilities would result in our death. This is why a frame work needs to be in place prior to a breakup (which we would welcome)

2nd. I don't care who leads the neutral guild. It's the charter that matters. They won't be allowed to conduct war only enforce a few basic rules and control the WH so that the smaller active guilds can play the game without trusting each other.

3rd. I didn't mention this because I have an agenda to break SS up, you know me better than that Jason an you know the sacrifices I have made to try to put a beta pact in place which would improve gameplay for everyone.

JG and WH use, rules of independance, rules of engagement, declarations or war and cease fire agreements would be worked out in advance. All wars would be agreed upon by both sides in advance the terms of the wars would be public knowledge as would be the terms of the victory. The neutral guild would be Switzerland with open borders a place where people could vacation and partake in legal drugs.

It would not matter if a guild was closely tied to another because they could not act as one outside of agreed upon wars.

It would not matter if a guild was made up of multis real or perceived because gang bangs and shenanigans would be policed. Also I'll take my 15 member active guild over a bunch of multis every day of the week.

It does not matter if there aren't enough leaders to create a guild for everyone. Because if we only have 7 it's better than what we have now. I for one know 5 people who would happily lead a small guild if they knew they couldn't be ambushed. I know I would.

This can be done and it can work but current leadership will resist, on both sides, for valid reasons, unless the players lobby for it.

Image
Pilot Luke
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat 13 Jun, 2015 21:26
Reputation: 0
Guild: Variable by server.
Galaxy: Alpha

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Pilot Luke » Sat 02 Jan, 2016 20:56

Awol wrote:1st. I don't believe it is up to fail to take the initiative because fail doesn't hold the power. Anything we do to reduce our defensive capabilities would result in our death. This is why a frame work needs to be in place prior to a breakup (which we would welcome)

2nd. I don't care who leads the neutral guild. It's the charter that matters. They won't be allowed to conduct war only enforce a few basic rules and control the WH so that the smaller active guilds can play the game without trusting each other.

3rd. I didn't mention this because I have an agenda to break SS up, you know me better than that Jason an you know the sacrifices I have made to try to put a beta pact in place which would improve gameplay for everyone.

JG and WH use, rules of independance, rules of engagement, declarations or war and cease fire agreements would be worked out in advance. All wars would be agreed upon by both sides in advance the terms of the wars would be public knowledge as would be the terms of the victory. The neutral guild would be Switzerland with open borders a place where people could vacation and partake in legal drugs.

It would not matter if a guild was closely tied to another because they could not act as one outside of agreed upon wars.

It would not matter if a guild was made up of multis real or perceived because gang bangs and shenanigans would be policed. Also I'll take my 15 member active guild over a bunch of multis every day of the week.

It does not matter if there aren't enough leaders to create a guild for everyone. Because if we only have 7 it's better than what we have now. I for one know 5 people who would happily lead a small guild if they knew they couldn't be ambushed. I know I would.

This can be done and it can work but current leadership will resist, on both sides, for valid reasons, unless the players lobby for it.

I think that last line is the biggest thing: Resistance. As long as there are people saying "Nope" we can't get anything done. Yet we've already argued why it's necessary. Details require debate and disagreement. Denying the necessity of change itself, however, is simply ignorance.

Vandal Leader The Sorrow Quote - Msg - Report 2 Apr 2013, 05:02:23
If they make a big issue of that little hit then I will back you on it and baffle them with *beep*.
Elmnt80
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1435
Joined: Thu 31 Aug, 2006 01:16
Reputation: 28

Re: Beta Pact 2016 - The last attempt to save the Beta Server

Postby Elmnt80 » Sun 03 Jan, 2016 03:04

If you really want a different (and fairly pessimistic) perspective, take mine.

In reality, there is nothing short of heavy developer and admin action that can really happen to save the older servers of this game. That is because there is a massive butterfly effect that I've watched happen since the start of AE whose origin is in the very core of the game and its mechanics. Simply put, There is no chance for someone starting out in this game that doesn't immediately join a major group to grow in the older servers given the conditions and playstyles that have developed on them. The players on these servers have progressed to the point that their production outstrips any possibility for their base income to support it. This means always hunting for targets, constant war, constantly recycling fleet and constantly maintaining occupations. Except those targets for attacks tend to be newer players, indy players and those in small groups who can't defend against a major guild's efforts to wipe out their fleets to feed their own production queues. This presents them with 3 options. They can join a larger group, be constantly occupied or quit. None of these options is healthy for the game and none of them promote growth and expansion.

Now, I'm going to put forward a somewhat unpopular opinion. Long periods of peace and simming are good for the game. Larger numbers of smaller groups is good for the game. Being able to be an independent player is good for the game. A large number of smaller guilds introduces something to the game that isn't in the spelled out mechanics. Its politics. This is what kept alpha and beta alive for so long. The politics of so many different groups trying to live spread out next to each other across the server made it so that attacking someone small guild generally meant attracting the wrath of someone bigger, someone meaner and someone you didn't want to *beep* with. This allowed the smaller groups to grow, develop their own political connections, begin to protect themselves from predators and the game became even more complex. This made the forums for that server as active as the newest of servers, not the stagnation, inactivity and decline we see now.

The real question is how do we change this, how do we fix this? In short, we can't. Rules like these are an excellent first step, but they are limited. The real problem will always exist and that is old accounts have to be fed with debris from attacks to keep themselves growing. What is needed is the devs to actually look to these old servers and see what it would take to bring the economies of these servers up to the point that the average account can largely support their growth without a constant need for attacking and occupying other players. If you want proof of this, look at the early days of every server that has come out. When you're still in that point where economic growth can largely keep pace with account development, politics rule and you see large amounts of activity. Once the production capacities outstrip income, people begin using others to fuel their accounts. People begin merging into larger groups to protect themselves and the decline and stagnation starts.

Even with this done, there will always be those who play aggressively and grow their accounts primarily by attacks. In a server where it generates discussion, political maneuvering, posturing and encourages discussion and interaction between the players beyond "click buttan, recieve derbs" it is a healthy thing. In a server where its the norm and is passed off as "well, you should be in a bigger guild, be on the blob or just a case of who cares" it damages the game and actively works to kill the server. I say this as someone who has played in every way possible, as someone who has played this game since the early days of the alpha server (starting in A11 with the first wave of players to join from cybernations) and who has watched as step by step, a combination of human nature and never changing base mechanics has slowly choked the life out of a game I truely enjoyed. This more than anything has contributed to my growing apathy towards the game, but I can promise you, if tomorrow I logged in to find that the devs were taking a look at the basic structure of the game to address this, I'd have more interest in AE than I've had for years.

Educatio est omnium efficacissima forma rebellionis

Return to “Beta”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest