I Like the Direction that CN is Moving In

[Malik Shabazz]

I think that CN is moving in a positive direction. We are getting past the post-Karma order and ideology of "stability" and moving towards chaos. I think that chaos is good for CN because the current order makes the game stagnant, but the order that Doomsphere (if they win) promotes chaos and disorder, which is why I believe that I am fighting on the right side, unlike previous wars where it was always wishy-washy.

 

Why do you think there is more activity in CN during times of war? Simple: the more conflict there is in CN, the more people want to play. The terrible system of one-two wars a year sucks, and I believe that CN should be in a constant state of strife and conflict. There should be hegemonies, yes, but hegemonies should work towards keeping CN as chaotic as possible, much like pre-Karma NPO did.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Loki Laufeyson

[smurthwaite]

This theory only works if there are more, less lengthy wars.  Otherwise, it will drive people away, if they feel they have just been in an x-number-of-months war and will not have the opportunity to rebuild.

[Malik Shabazz]

This theory only works if there are more, less lengthy wars.  Otherwise, it will drive people away, if they feel they have just been in an x-number-of-months war and will not have the opportunity to rebuild.

I agree completely.

[saxasm]

This theory only works if there are more, less lengthy wars.  Otherwise, it will drive people away, if they feel they have just been in an x-number-of-months war and will not have the opportunity to rebuild.

Or if wars can be fought between alliances or power spheres without dragging the entire rest of CN in. Then they could be more frequent and as long without everyone getting exhausted.

[Malik Shabazz]

Or if wars can be fought between alliances or power spheres without dragging the entire rest of CN in. Then they could be more frequent and as long without everyone getting exhausted.

CN should be split into two spheres. Alliances from both spheres can go to war as often as they want to, without dragging the larger powers in. While the larger powers merely play support roles until they feel the need to intervene.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Loki Laufeyson

[swag nationale]

CN should be split into two spheres. Alliances from both spheres can go to war as often as they want to, without dragging the larger powers in. While the larger powers merely play support roles until they feel the need to intervene.

And what benefit does a larger power get from having everyone get mad at it for not intervening when they're randomly attacked?

[Malik Shabazz]

And what benefit does a larger power get from having everyone get mad at it for not intervening when they're randomly attacked?

If they feel the need to intervene they should.

[smurthwaite]

Or if wars can be fought between alliances or power spheres without dragging the entire rest of CN in. Then they could be more frequent and as long without everyone getting exhausted.

 

Also true.

[Mogar]

Or if wars can be fought between alliances or power spheres without dragging the entire rest of CN in. Then they could be more frequent and as long without everyone getting exhausted.

I await you peacing out with aftermath after a week then.

[Hereno]

this game is pretty much completely explained by the prisoner's dilemma
 

Because betraying a partner offers a greater reward than cooperating with them, all purely rational self-interested prisoners would betray the other, and so the only possible outcome for two purely rational prisoners is for them to betray each other.[1] The interesting part of this result is that pursuing individual reward logically leads both of the prisoners to betray, when they would get a better reward if they both cooperated. In reality, humans display a systematic bias towards cooperative behavior in this and similar games, much more so than predicted by simple models of "rational" self-interested action.[2][3][4][5] A model based on a different kind of rationality, where people forecast how the game would be played if they formed coalitions and then they maximize their forecasts, has been shown to make better predictions of the rate of cooperation in this and similar games given only the payoffs of the game.[6]

There is also an extended "iterated" version of the game, where the classic game is played over and over between the same prisoners, and consequently, both prisoners continuously have an opportunity to penalize the other for previous decisions. If the number of times the game will be played is known to the players, then (by backward induction) two classically rational players will betray each other repeatedly, for the same reasons as the single shot variant. In an infinite or unknown length game there is no fixed optimum strategy, and Prisoner's Dilemma tournaments have been held to compete and test algorithms.

The prisoner's dilemma game can be used as a model for many real world situations involving cooperative behaviour. In casual usage, the label "prisoner's dilemma" may be applied to situations not strictly matching the formal criteria of the classic or iterative games: for instance, those in which two entities could gain important benefits from cooperating or suffer from the failure to do so, but find it merely difficult or expensive, not necessarily impossible, to coordinate their activities to achieve cooperation.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Hereno

[Mogar]

Also accurate for the RPs as well there Hereno.

[Master Hakai]

Loki: The Anti-Tywin, or, Antywin.

[Malik Shabazz]

Loki: The Anti-Tywin, or, Antywin.

That's a claim I can accept.

[Dcrews]

Just don't start your own radio show.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

My theory is that theories in CN are bollocks. CN can be whatever you want it to be, whenever you want. Doesn't make it true, but truth is a commodity controlled by the highest bidder. Usually.

[Keysariyt Hanssen]

My theory is that theories in CN are bollocks. CN can be whatever you want it to be, whenever you want. Doesn't make it true, but truth is a commodity controlled by the highest bidder. Usually.

 

I think that theory can be applied to CN itself, rather than just the theories in CN.

[IYIyTh]

CN is a lot simpler than people would like to think it is.

[YOLO SWAG]

this game is pretty much completely explained by the prisoner's dilemma
 

 

The prisoner's dilemma is bullshit though.

[Hereno]

Also accurate for the RPs as well there Hereno.

 
agreed 110% 

The prisoner's dilemma is !@#$%^&* though.

how so?

[YOLO SWAG]

 
how so?

 

I'll have to look for a source, but I read there was a study done where the prisoner's dilemma scenario was played out with actual prisoners and neither betrayed each other. 

[Axel3200]

I'll have to look for a source, but I read there was a study done where the prisoner's dilemma scenario was played out with actual prisoners and neither betrayed each other. 

You aren't showing a very proper understanding of the dilemma.... The point is that two purely rational players would betray each other. Humans are not purely rational; we have considerable leanings towards cooperation.

[YOLO SWAG]

You aren't showing a very proper understanding of the dilemma.... The point is that two purely rational players would betray each other. Humans are not purely rational; we have considerable leanings towards cooperation.

 

No, I understand the dilemma. Theory is great, but I'm simply stating that when the precise scenario was recreated, human beings did not behave the way the dilemma predicts they would. People seem to always assume that human beings are by nature greedy and self serving but I don't subscribe to that point of view.

Edited November 22, 2014 by YOLO SWAG

[Opaque]

Post modernism is terrible, you should feel bad.

[Malik Shabazz]

Ok, this thread got stupid fast.

[swag nationale]

Yeah, like in the OP.