Coalition Reform

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • FeedbackAccount wrote:

      1.) I'am curious how you have drawn the conclusion that my logic is specious. The principle of "asssuming-good-faith" is common among any internet communities. But if you find my logic still specious, I do suggest you re-read my posts but yet carefully and with the required attention.
      However, you do obviously assume bad faith and intentions. Thus you make it a principle. But why can't this be a principle? The answer is kinda simple: Because a principle like "assuming-bad-faith" would undermine any cooperation within the game. No alliances, communities, coalitions and even games itself would work because your principle of bad faith would divide all players, leading to no one trusting each other.
      Alliance members would always need to assume that they allies are betraying them with another alliance, members within a community would always need to assume someone is doing something to harm them and developers are of course only balancing things and introduce more stuff to milk the cash cows. The list of things that would not work is endless. In short: Our cooperation would not work at all.

      So, the opposite must be right: Assuming good faith as a principle. And yes, people join coalition for their own best interest, of course. But at the same time they do this while assuming the good faith of the other members. And assuming the good faith is the fact that they won't harm each others because it cannot be the interest of ones coalition member to harm the other one because this would decrease their chances of winning. This only counts for active coalition members of course.


      2.)Being inactive or playing infrequently was never a topic regarding the exploit of a coalition. Also, I never said the coalition is designed to enforce a victory for multiple members. You would have known all that by now, if you had read my posts carefully and not missunderstood them intentionally because you did not want to see the arguments. Furthermore, I layed down how the "enforcment of trust" is realised in a coalition by design. If you had skip that part, go ahead and re-read it please as well.In the end: I soundly stated the inherent trust built in by the developers but yet you lack to state your claim that this trust is neiher intended nor designed by the developers. Until then: Your assumption that there is no principle of good faith an inherent built-in trust in coalitions stays just a claim. And this is the only truth I need.
      1.) Curious? Why? Because you don't know what "specious" means? OK, let me help- Specious: superficially plausible, but actually wrong. For example, your "common among internet communities" is a whole lot of wrong. First of all, that is anecdotal, so in other word, just your BS opinion. Second, if anything, the exact opposite is more true with encryptions and passwords, and all sorts of things devoted to the fact that you can't trust anyone on the internet. Third, there may be a "community" such as this Forum, or the CoN Discord, but the "community" does not exist within the context of the game. It is a war game. Everyone is your opponent. The object is to win. Either by yourself, or thru a coalition. A coalition that is in no way designed to have any trust implicit in it. The coalition's design is enlightened self interest, and it is your job (and everybodys' job in that coalition) to maintain reasons for everyone else to remain because it is in their best interest.

      I do not assume bad faith and bad intentions, I assume everyone acting in their own best interests and would be foolish not to. You don't need an assumed blind trust to cooperate. It's like the new maxim: Trust but Verified. That you don't see that and think that it has to be a binary between a free for all and luvy dovy smootchy trust is also an example of your specious logic. Things are rarely binary. The thing is, you want to introduce YOUR requirement of trust in the game that doesn't require it at all. I have never back stabbed anyone for a win, nor have I had anyone try to back stab me for a win. WHY? Trust but Verified.


      2.) "Being inactive or playing infrequently was never a topic regarding the exploit of a coalition."- Sure it was, I introduced exactly those reasons as justifications in my last post. "Also, I never said the coalition is designed to enforce a victory for multiple members."- No, YOU didn't I did, because that's what it's purpose actually is, and nothing to do with your ideas. What you said about enforcement of trust is totally irrelevant because it proceeds from a false premise that their is trust inherent in the design.

      And YOU are definitely the one NOT getting what Germanico said to wit: " Some play valiantly
      while others revel in devious plots and backstabbing.
      Both are allowed in our game and to a degree endorsed: we want to allow
      players to live out their way of playing the game. "

      That there tells you there is no implicit trust in the design. It is designed to accomplish working together AND Backstabbing. Where in the world you pull out anything that could even remotely be used to back up your echo box ideas is beyond belief. It's right there in blue and white.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • ewac123 wrote:

      Why are you liking your own post
      the reason no one reads your post is because it's boring and if it doesn't meet my 30 second attention span or DoD's 0.1 second attention span then it won't be taken seriously
      because no one else does?


      jemandanderes wrote:

      But being bound to someone in a coalition can also be bad, e.g. if someone just takes the cities you've just cleared. There are a lot of options to annoy someone in your coalition if you can't leave. And if coalitions are going to be static, some people would also do that and you can't do anything against it, but in return you only have a very slight disadvantage in a war against a backstabber.
      solution is easy: sell out their info to other people; being stuck with them forever goes two ways :D
      I am The Baseline for opinions