DBDC: Friend or Foe? LNN wants YOUR opinion!

[The Zigur]

 

You're not that exciting though, tbh.

 

Then step up to the plate yourself and be exciting, rather than criticizing everyone else for not doing so :p

[Auctor]

 

Then step up to the plate yourself and be exciting, rather than criticizing everyone else for not doing so :P

 

I only pointed out you weren't, didn't make a blanket statement.

[The Zigur]

 

I only pointed out you weren't, didn't make a blanket statement.

 

"I could argue that what makes CN boring is that so many moves are coldly calculated and players take far too few risks."

 

I just don't understand the correlation between decisions being calculated, and risks not being taken. Most people are not risk takers by nature, which is why opportunities abound for those who are. I personally find carefully, subtly considered decisions made by "boring" alliance leaders far more interesting that crass, loudly blared "we are friends infra doesnt matter lol" types of activities. But of course that's why I play CN rather than the myriad other games without good politics.

[Auctor]

The political implications of these wars would be rather boring if *everyone* made the "rational" choice and joined the winning side or sat out though. Remember the postKarma-preBipolar era? Things were dreadfully dull.

[The Zigur]

The political implications of these wars would be rather boring if *everyone* made the "rational" choice and joined the winning side or sat out though. Remember the postKarma-preBipolar era? Things were dreadfully dull.

 

It is dull if you are unwilling to accept risks and work your way up the ladder. During times of peace and stability, war simply transfers into the diplomatic arena. That is the time to analyze the situation and find a government to work your way into, rather than simply sit in one alliance like sheep. It is only dull if you are an outsider, but the nice thing about a game like CN is you can take the risks to become an insider without OOC consequences. Alternatively, if you are warlike, or lack government talent, join or form a micro where things are inherently less stable.

 

"All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means." Zhou Enlai

Edited February 17, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[jerdge]

 

How would you describe your foreign policy agenda?

Friends > Infra

That's not an agenda, it's a value/principle.

[Rush Sykes]

DBDC are a threat to CN stability.

Since when did we care about stability?

 

Sir, Tywinn's rants are ALL based on a false desire for stability.

[Neo Uruk]

There is nothing that prevents any player from both playing in a "coldly calculated" way and also taking risks. I have done both throughout my CN experience.

this is incredibly debatable unless you're talking about the distant past.

So far the only risk you've taken is looking crazy when you talk in in-character forums.

[The Zigur]

this is incredibly debatable unless you're talking about the distant past.So far the only risk you've taken is looking crazy when you talk in in-character forums.

I guess ignoring my posts lasted about two days.

[Max Power]

The political implications of these wars would be rather boring if *everyone* made the "rational" choice and joined the winning side or sat out though. Remember the postKarma-preBipolar era? Things were dreadfully dull.

Although I had a new nation then and didn't understand what the hell was going on, looking back it was actually a really interesting time. Most of history has had some kind of hegemony or at least a driving force. That may have been the one time when there wasn't one. Then you had events like the Athens raid of Knights of Ni! and the TPF War which were so anomalous and strange. The idea of us being in a "well, what do we do now?" situation is pretty cool when you think about it.

[Starcraftmazter]

 

Friends > Infra is a dying relic for a foreign policy model, and one doomed to failure. The Disorder war was a necessary step in that process.

 

 

Yep, now it's

Land > Tech > Friends > Infra

[TBRaiders]

 

 

Yep, now it's

Land > Tech > Friends > Infra

 

Land > Tech > Casualties > Friends > Infra

[The Zigur]

 

Land > Tech > Casualties > Friends > Infra

 

In-game yes, but politically more like the following:

 

[Neo Uruk]

I would put land under tech; I get more money from selling off raided tech.

[ChairmanHal]

*sigh*

 

This is going about as expected, But why not...

 

 

I would not worry much about dbdc until they decide it's time to insert their political will on the community by way of setting global policy and restrictions.

 

You mean like picking on a nation in a 3 vs. 1 smackdown because they decide that token reps are bad?  Nahh...they'd never do that.  Oh wait.

 

I don't really care. They are an interesting lot who are changing the dynamics a bit. 

 

However the mechanics need a bit of an update. No way a 500k should be hitting a 100k.

The mechanics need fixed.  But that's an argument that needs to be made directly to Admin in private.

 

 

 

Well, we were a threat to Val before they lost their entire top tier.

 

Upper tier is still there, you simply knocked down 4 nations of it, and each of us is handling rebuilding in a different way.  But hey, all you are really doing is making the case that there is a dramatic game imbalance that needs to be addressed by Admin, not really proving that you're superior gamers.  Put another way, I'm pretty sure I could pull some high school kids off the street, give them an hour of instruction in CN, take your nations and do exactly what you are doing now with them.  It's all a big "meh" really.  Those of us outside to the top 250 will play our game, you play yours. Eventually you'll have no one to play with but yourselves, no pun intended.  It's lonely at the top--it should be.

[Artigo]

*sigh*

 

This is going about as expected, But why not...

 

 

You mean like picking on a nation in a 3 vs. 1 smackdown because they decide that token reps are bad?  Nahh...they'd never do that.  Oh wait.

 

The mechanics need fixed.  But that's an argument that needs to be made directly to Admin in private.

 

Upper tier is still there, you simply knocked down 4 nations of it, and each of us is handling rebuilding in a different way.  But hey, all you are really doing is making the case that there is a dramatic game imbalance that needs to be addressed by Admin, not really proving that you're superior gamers.  Put another way, I'm pretty sure I could pull some high school kids off the street, give them an hour of instruction in CN, take your nations and do exactly what you are doing now with them.  It's all a big "meh" really.  Those of us outside to the top 250 will play our game, you play yours. Eventually you'll have no one to play with but yourselves, no pun intended.  It's lonely at the top--it should be.

 

So sad.  :shakes head:

 

Whatever, man. Have a good life.

[jerdge]

Put another way, I'm pretty sure I could pull some high school kids off the street, give them an hour of instruction in CN, take your nations and do exactly what you are doing now with them.  It's all a big "meh" really.

This is actually correct, for any nation. I've always found funny how people brag in OOC context about their CN war skills/superiority, like it wasn't about just not screwing it up and the roll of dice.

 

This discussion is about DBDC use of their stats for political ends, though, and (marginally) about the game mechanics being or not OK as they are... Mixing them is a bad way to address either issue on an OOC level, IMHO: DBDC can't be faulted for using the present game mechanics, and the game mechanics are or not OK regardless of who's making use of them. Tywin should have put this in WA, I think.

[Starcraftmazter]

 

In-game yes, but politically more like the following:

 

 

 

Haha, we're one above you! Oh wait...

 

 

This discussion is about DBDC use of their stats for political ends,

 

What's that, a discussion about DBDC playing the game in other words?

 

[jerdge]

This discussion is about DBDC use of their stats for political ends,

What's that, a discussion about DBDC playing the game in other words?

 
Exactly. Nothing bad about that, as I had said:

DBDC can't be faulted for using the present game mechanics, and the game mechanics are or not OK regardless of who's making use of them.

 
Me not being biased against DBDC isn't exactly news... hopefully realizing it isn't too much of a cultural shock for you! :P

[Xanth]

 I have seen a lot of accusations from you but to me (and apparently a majority of the community) these accusations are baseless and only serve to profile your personality and not any actual global issue.

 

 

 

In-game yes, but politically more like the following:

 

Edited February 19, 2014 by Xanth

[Max Power]

I love how the coalition that just won a global war is apparently at the bottom of the pyramid.

 

OOC CN skills are more along the lines of coordinating solid TCs and tech deals than the actual war button clicking, I'd say, although things like not blowing staggers are surprisingly tough for even some vets to remember. It's more about being consistently on the ball than it is about actual difficulty of tasks you have to do.

[Prodigal Moon]

Political alliances against DBDC would be necessary but not sufficient to counter them.

[The Zigur]

I would like to clarify some points about my DBDC commentary:

★ I have not advocated direct action against DBDC. It is much smarter to organize a popular campaign to fix game mechanics than try to offensively organize a bunch of number crunchers. However, I have advocated continued political unity in the face of a potential political threat.

★ As UnknownSmurf has noted, DBDC is a minimal military threat in itself. Its power derives from the ability to dominate against a limited target selection. They are bad for the highest tier, but in operation are no different than low tier rogues who enjoy an advantage over inactives.

★ DBDC is a potential political threat only because there are some who are deceived into believing they can win a war by aligning around DBDC. it is a destructive line of thinking that may require a war in the future to defeat in totality.

★ It is very easy to retaliate against DBDC should they continue in their activities, it is merely a matter of creativity and execution, both of which were demonstrated by Polardoxia in the last war.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[ChairmanHal]

This is actually correct, for any nation. I've always found funny how people brag in OOC context about their CN war skills/superiority, like it wasn't about just not screwing it up and the roll of dice.

 

This discussion is about DBDC use of their stats for political ends, though, and (marginally) about the game mechanics being or not OK as they are... Mixing them is a bad way to address either issue on an OOC level, IMHO: DBDC can't be faulted for using the present game mechanics, and the game mechanics are or not OK regardless of who's making use of them. Tywin should have put this in WA, I think.

Tactics are a bit more complicated than that, just as acquiring a set of trades is more complicated than simply maxing out the number of bonus resources.  I'm saying that once you are overpowered beyond a certain point, you can do a lot of things inefficiently and still destroy someone.

 

Let me restate so that we're clear and completely OOC: Even a casual player sees a 637k NS nation attacking a 144k NS nation and it doesn't pass their eyeball test--it just looks like something in the mechanics is broken, without any need to do any in depth analysis of who is in what alliance and whether or not they are neutral/pro-x/pro-y/pro-z, or taking the extra step of doing an analysis of the last 50-100 wars that lasted longer than 5 days involving top 250 nations.  That people are turning this into an IC issue and guarding the current way of doing things like a clutch of prize eggs is to be expected.  However, that doesn't mean that the current way of doing things should be the way things are done in the future.

 

But let's go back to November 2008.  (DAC)Syzygy proposed the following:

 

 

      

I dont think I "speak for everyone". I just have an opinion. And this opinion is: The current NS range is way too large. I even agree with Matt Millers reasoning, that why I said that you should be ALWAYS able to declare or be declared by the 500 nations around you (+250 ranks / -250 ranks to your own).

But not by 3 guys of each 200% your strength.

The problem of CN is that no one "can run away" or "hide". Every nation is simply track- and traceable. In most other games you can outmaneuver stronger opponents until you have enough firepower to enter a real battle, in CN you cannot. This is why every game has protection mechanisms to make sure 3 higher up guys cannot constantly gangbang lower players. Because that makes fighting back basically impossible.

I honestly cannot see what would be bad about a 75-133% maximum range with a the minimum range of 500 nations. "Complicated"? Not really more complicated then "50-200% but 50k+ is free for all".            

 

I bolded some of that for emphasis. (DAC)Syzygy was attempting to address the same problem I see now.  Admin implemented his suggestion on November 12th.

 

 

 

11-12-2008
Based on discussions from this suggestion the war declaration and spy operation range has been narrowed from 50%-200% to 75%-133%.
The 50K war declaration line has been removed from the game. The game will now use the strength range of 75%-133% as well as 250+/250- rankings based on strength for war declarations and spy operations. (DAC)Syzygy described this best here. This update does not affect Cyber Nations Tournament Edition.
Based on this suggestion the tax collection and bill payment screens will now calculate your current bills and taxes for you even if you have already paid your bills that day.

 

What I'm saying now is, and others as well, is that (DAC)Syzygy had the right idea, but it didn't go far enough or it may have gone far enough at the time, but no longer does.  Removing the 250+/- rankings clause would be the solution I would implement.  If Admin instead wishes to do something more incremental to see how it plays out, such as narrowing that down to 150 or 100 ranks, I'm fine with that too.  But change is necessary for the good of the game.  I understand that others may feel otherwise--I do not believe them to be the majority of players however.

[Starcraftmazter]

★ DBDC is a potential political threat only because there are some who are deceived into believing they can win a war by aligning around DBDC. it is a destructive line of thinking that may require a war in the future to defeat in totality.

 

I don't think many of us care about winning wars, so much as fighting with allies whom are equally competent. We've been doing this for too long to put up with crap and !@#$%footing from allies.

 

DBDC is a no-bullshit alliance who will put up every time to support their allies. I think you'll find some of us wish to be with them, merely because there is (amazingly still) a simple lack of such alliances for allies.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Starcraftmazter