The Draconian

Sometimes I wonder if the whole "friendship" thing has ruined CN wars. We've all been around so long here that we're all basically friends with everyone. So when you line up for a war you think "these guys are my friends I don't want to really fight them. I just kind of have to do it." Adding to that most of the real hatred and revenge motivated stuff is usually shouted down and ridiculed.

So recent wars are more about simply just hitting buttons instead of why you're hitting buttons. If we got back to actually targeting people in back channels for stuff they've actually done and not just for fun then we could possibly pump some more fun into this game.

I guess MK and PB sort of done that with Polar, but the other side seems not to really want to get angry at the people they're fighting. Schatt tried to do it by targeting GOONS, but that fell apart too.

Anyway good post.

I had a huge rant typed up about the problems I see with this game but I don't think it's even worth it to bring it up.

All I will say is that this game's politics are about on the level of bunch of junior high kids. The economics is over simplified. Nation building is predictable rather than having actual talent and using market forces to determine a nation's economic success or failure.

Nations are not nations. I don't know how this game was ever called cyber nations when it is really cyber alliances. People create a city or a state or a province and they choose to merge it with what you all call alliances which in fact are nations. These alliances that are really nations form true alliances when they sign treaties. The Mushroom Kingdom nation is allied to the GOONS nation and Umbrella nation which declared war on the nation of the New Pacific Order.

Well, I guess I did go off a bit after all. But you get the idea that I think there is a ton wrong with the set up here and it's no suprise it carried over to the politics of the game. Over simplied everything so you get oversimplified low level junior high drama type politics.

(I actually saved my wall of text to word pad, if anyone is interested in reading it).

Good points. Indeed, the real "thrill" of a war comes more easily when there's a reason for it beyond treaty obligations.

«There's nothing inherently good or fun about doing the same battery of attacks day after day.»

Oh GOD, I am agreeing with Xiph.

And making funneths.

The world's about to end.

Then why stick around?

And I don't mean the OWF crowd, which gets stupider and more disconnected from reality with every year,

Hey! I resemble that remark!

Otherwise solid points.

Then why stick around?

Because we're a pretty awesome community. :3

Then why stick around?

I'm apathetic enough to ride the CN wave till it crashes.

Interesting blog. However I'd disagree with the following:

UJW rearranged the sides - into BLEU and Q - and that wasn't positive long-or-short term for the game.

Whilst a long and sometimes boring peace did follow the UJW, I believe the war more than any other was essential to prevent a potentially very one-dimensional world in which the League/Aegis constantly battled the Orders/Drinking Buddies/Initiative till kingdom come.

The UJW generated a new axis into the game (east-west as opposed to the old north-south if you like) which has had long lasting ramifications right up to this day.

Of course the OWF as a whole seems to dismiss that extra depth to the game as a weakness and there is much talk of wanting to go back to the simple days of GW2 & 3, but I think that's a case of grass being greener on the other side. CN is better for being the complicated, confusing jumble of mixed-up loyalties it has now, it has the potential to generate the much sought after multi-polar world we're looking for and I think the UJW helped to create that.

The UJW generated a new axis into the game (east-west as opposed to the old north-south if you like) which has had long lasting ramifications right up to this day.

It generated a new axis and killed the old one, except the two axis' left were tied at the hip and full of very, very subpar leadership. So I'll have to disagree on it being remotely a good thing for the game.

It generated a new axis and killed the old one, except the two axis' left were tied at the hip and full of very, very subpar leadership. So I'll have to disagree on it being remotely a good thing for the game.

I don't think it did kill the old north-south axis, as evidenced by the very stark differences between Pacifica & Polaris' policies afterwards. Whilst Polaris was opposed to TOP during that time, effectively a spin-off conflict from the UJW, Pacifica and it's allies were intent in reviving old antagonisms which culminated in the No-Vision war against GATO. The differences were so stark in fact that TOP, whilst opposed to Polaris spend that same era allied to Pacifica.

So therefore the very inappropriately named One Vision bloc contained within it two very different and sometimes opposing movements.

Unless you're talking about the era of peace that immediately followed after the UJW, internal tensions notwithstanding. If you are then you would have to equally criticise the Karma War and the Bipolar war for the same reason.

As for the "subpar leadership", that's just a pure opinion of which I'd be interested to know why you have come to that conclusion. But even if you did take a leap of faith on the supposition and agree that the leadership was poorer, why would that negatively affect the game itself?

Rearranging sides like LEGOs and such is a blast to do and to watch, but all change isn't exactly good. UJW rearranged the sides - into BLEU and Q - and that wasn't positive long-or-short term for the game. The initial fun didn't outweigh how little was possible in the years that followed, would be the bullet point here, or more broadly - you can't ascribe abstract things like War = Good to CN in any real way.

Totally agree with the topic sentence. I'm not well-versed enough on the history to comment one way or the other. I will say that this particular war looks an awful lot like an elimination of all viable opposition and further entrenchment of the powers-that-be. I think the result will smother the game much as Q ultimately did and possibly even worse.

Unless you're talking about the era of peace that immediately followed after the UJW, internal tensions notwithstanding. If you are then you would have to equally criticise the Karma War and the Bipolar war for the same reason.

I criticize it because that wasn't peace-peace. Think back to Tela and NoWedge and all that. It was kind of unified witch hunt by frankly, really poor leaderships that suddenly got handed a lot of power. SG [and the aftermath of Karma] was not a witch hunt, as much as I tried, and neither was the war [Echelon/NPO being the only people who got really bad terms and only because I insisted]. Compare that to UJW and the disbandments, etc.

As for the "subpar leadership", that's just a pure opinion of which I'd be interested to know why you have come to that conclusion.

Interaction. Knew most of them and saw very little reason to respect them. Not incapable of doing so, I respected [some] of the League's leadership in certain aspects, but I never saw anything redeemable about Q/BLEU's from then.

But even if you did take a leap of faith on the supposition and agree that the leadership was poorer, why would that negatively affect the game itself?

Because the leaderships of the top alliances/blocs really dictate the climate of CN for that period.

I will say that this particular war looks an awful lot like an elimination of all viable opposition and further entrenchment of the powers-that-be.

Probably will end up that way, but I'm not concerned about it much. The folks who talk like Q did in PB/DH/etc aren't the ones who are capable of getting those blocs to do !@#$ like that.

I criticize it because that wasn't peace-peace. Think back to Tela and NoWedge and all that. It was kind of unified witch hunt by frankly, really poor leaderships that suddenly got handed a lot of power. SG [and the aftermath of Karma] was not a witch hunt, as much as I tried, and neither was the war [Echelon/NPO being the only people who got really bad terms and only because I insisted]. Compare that to UJW and the disbandments, etc.

How can you suggest disbandments are worse than "really bad reps" in this blog and say the opposite in your other blog?

Side-Note: As I'm often left defending disbandment to fellow leaders/allies/etc, it's often suggested that instead either harsh reps ought to be imposed, or otherwise all terms should be dropped because wouldn't it be fun to encourage more wars? It seems obvious.

But I find it really disagreeable - I've paid reps before, it's a pretty shameful process - and ours only lasted one month or so. NPO's lasted, I think, a little over a year

You think thats shameful? Imagine every thing you've worked for over x number of years. Imagine all the members or your alliance. Imagine the community you have built up. Now imagine someone like you on a power trip comes in and says all that is over. Your choices are being slowly beaten to death and seeing the alliance you built taken apart until even the most loyal supporters are beaten off the planet or turning your back on all I previously mentioned because one person decided it was within his power. Now imagine that alliance is GOD. You think paying reps is shameful? Try disbandment or eternal war and tell me again which is shameful.

Any alliances who preach this nonsense are a throwback to the old GOON/old \M/ & nowedge days

Now imagine that alliance is GOD. You think paying reps is shameful? Try disbandment or eternal war and tell me again which is shameful.

That's entirely my point. I'd rather die fighting than spend a year+ in slavery. There's more honor in it, and presuming I'm allowed to continue playing elsewhere I consider it a good policy.

That's entirely my point. I'd rather die fighting than spend a year+ in slavery. There's more honor in it, and presuming I'm allowed to continue playing elsewhere I consider it a good policy.

I agree. I’d rather fight on than pay any reps but you are emphasising intentionally setting out to forcibly disband alliances. That means there is nowhere for the alliance to go and nothing to fight for. That’s not the same as holding out for white peace, which happens to be something you are against.

BAPS where once told they were to be exterminated after refusing to submit and pay out reps. They fought flat out for about 3 months until bill lock took them. If the extermination order was not lifted they would not be here today. This was an active alliance with members who fought all out until they had nothing left to fight with. In your book they were worthy of forced disbanding because their membership disappeared. At that time no one came out and ran head on into a fight like that. FAN and GOONS sat in peace mode. GATO and GPA refused to use nukes. No matter how great or crap an alliance is the total destruction of an alliance who comes out and fights is unavoidable. The alternative is EZI with bill lock or life in peace mode.

Telling an alliance they are to be killed off can make it a self fulfilling prophecy even for a good alliance. You give an alliance no prospect of a future and they will, if they have any self respect do a suicide charge and go down fighting. Does that mean they were crap and worthy of disbanding? I dont think so.

Does that mean they were crap and worthy of disbanding? I dont think so.

Maybe, maybe not. I think the key thing there would be the FA mistake - why you were involved in the war, and how much planning/work you'd put in to ensure you won it. That's what I mean when I talk about raising the stakes - no one can sit back and let others do it, or that's the end of em.