EE PatronFeb 2nd 2011, 20:15:59
I do think that aponic is making a lot of good points. Both SoL and SoF have to worry about their own alliance's health. Every alliance has issues with leadership burnout. The server health is definitely important, but there's no point in fixing the server if a large portion of members are lost in the process (especially as the influx of new members is agreed to be a big part of a cure).
In theory, having a big, bad villain that the server comes together to overcome is fun. In reality, a lot of current players are veterans who either did the war thing and like it (and continue to do it) or found that it wasn't their thing or they don't have enough time for it. So even if the server politics is shaken up a bit, the dichotomy between warring and netting will always exist. The political power will always be in the hands of the warring alliances as they're the ones who choose who nets and who doesn't. That's probably the reason it looks like the war alliances are being singled out, because they have the biggest choice in the matter.
Finding the balance in warring responsibly (in the sense that the server is healthy and your members are satiated) is not easy. SoF has taken some very difficult steps in order to help where they can, and they are definitely commended for it. I'm guessing the main idea that Pang is trying to get across is that if SoF and SoL are not pacted and war each other at least occasionally, then there is that much pressure to war removed from netting alliances. Considering in the entire history of EE that LaF and Evo have only netted at the same time ONCE speaks to that. However, if that is not what is best for SoF and SoL, then it can't really be helped, and that seems to be the fundamental difference between where aponic is coming from, and where pang is coming from. The whole agree to disagree.
On a side note, I agree that Pang can have a very negative light in his posts, and then follow it with a smiley that doesn't seem genuine. Maybe that's not the intention, but not having a horse in this race, that's how it comes out to me (though this also includes my view from your Pang's posts dating back to when I found EE again many months ago). Something in your writing style can quite easily be taken as condescending and confrontational. But hopefully we can all be rational enough to give everyone the benefit of the doubt as reading emotion and intention from text is not always easy. *shrugs*
In theory, having a big, bad villain that the server comes together to overcome is fun. In reality, a lot of current players are veterans who either did the war thing and like it (and continue to do it) or found that it wasn't their thing or they don't have enough time for it. So even if the server politics is shaken up a bit, the dichotomy between warring and netting will always exist. The political power will always be in the hands of the warring alliances as they're the ones who choose who nets and who doesn't. That's probably the reason it looks like the war alliances are being singled out, because they have the biggest choice in the matter.
Finding the balance in warring responsibly (in the sense that the server is healthy and your members are satiated) is not easy. SoF has taken some very difficult steps in order to help where they can, and they are definitely commended for it. I'm guessing the main idea that Pang is trying to get across is that if SoF and SoL are not pacted and war each other at least occasionally, then there is that much pressure to war removed from netting alliances. Considering in the entire history of EE that LaF and Evo have only netted at the same time ONCE speaks to that. However, if that is not what is best for SoF and SoL, then it can't really be helped, and that seems to be the fundamental difference between where aponic is coming from, and where pang is coming from. The whole agree to disagree.
On a side note, I agree that Pang can have a very negative light in his posts, and then follow it with a smiley that doesn't seem genuine. Maybe that's not the intention, but not having a horse in this race, that's how it comes out to me (though this also includes my view from your Pang's posts dating back to when I found EE again many months ago). Something in your writing style can quite easily be taken as condescending and confrontational. But hopefully we can all be rational enough to give everyone the benefit of the doubt as reading emotion and intention from text is not always easy. *shrugs*