Originally by: DigitalCommunist

---

Edited by: DigitalCommunist on 18/04/2008 01:24:57
You get props for trying to see the big picture, but your analysis always falls short of full points.

A long term war of attrition isn't determined by game mechanics in the least, its just something people use as an excuse when they're frustrated. Even when game mechanics are not flawless, everyone is forced to play by the same rules. At the very least they're fair.

Plus, the mechanics we have today are much better than the ones we had when the war broke out. That didn't stop the fight then, so why should it stop now? (hint: because people want it to end)

This war ground to a halt because BoB, whilst outnumbered by simple comparison, has been fighting for one single reason since inception. One agenda vs dozens of often conflicting agendas. One alliance vs dozens of often conflicting alliances. Its pretty elementary crap, sir.

When all is said and done, most of the Coalition participants were satisfied enough by some combination of recognition, purpose, riches, security or territory. Half of them wouldn't exist today without this easy option.

Satisfying egos has always played a large part, but a year has gone by and the enemy has improved. The amount of people willing to do 90% of the effort for 10% of the gains simply to satisfy their ego is measured in the dozens.

Attacking an alliance like BoB isn't going to get the same show of hands now, and most of the people in Delve now are doing it for the sake of PVP, boredom and moral high ground. Alliances get invaded when they present the attacker with opportunities, either by being weak or direct provocation. That's the next phase of the war, where those few dozen people try and convince the rest using whatever BoB does next as leverage.

They've already started building expectations; that if BoB tries to regain its former size, they'll be beaten back in the same way. I'd keep going but I have a bluberry fritter in front of me, and its actin' all ****ty and whatnot.

---