Moratorium on tech raiding

[Walford]

I've tried to stay out of this one, but these statements are beyond the pale.

 

I believe man operates on his highest spiritual plane when at war. War integrates the individual into the collective, builds his strength, teaches concepts like honor, duty, sacrifice and loyalty.

 

How in blazes is a bunch of acne-encrusted pissants -- who know that they can run to their Mommy alliance's skirts if things get difficult -- dog-piling a non-aligned with the reason for declaring "Tech-Raid, retaliate = ZI" going to teach anything worthwhile? "You join my alliance or some other group of similar scum or you'll be continually attacked." And we have seen in NONE/LoFN that if non-aligned dare defend each other, multiple alliances will then hunt them down and hound them until they leave.

 

And then their nihlistic response is that the world is better off w/o them. By the fact that they successfully burned down other people's houses, that means that they are superior as our numbers continue to shrink.

 

How much does it take for us to realize that this way isn't working and we need to try something else?

 

 

Therefore I cannot agree with the assessment that sheltering noobs from war is a good thing. I believe in immersing noobs in warfare, but not crushing warfare, just to teach them their strengths and weaknesses.

 

Nobody's talking about "sheltering noobs from war." This is about allowing a separation between the non-aligned and those in alliances. If not for the general war declared on the non-aligned in the aftermath of the 2nd and 3rd Great Wars, there were large non-aligned nations who would still be here. At that time, there were more non-aligned [11K] than there are total nations on Planet Bob now [7.5K]. At that time there were 45K nations. GATO, The Legion and GPA had about 1,000 nations each. NPO, LUE and GOoNS had 800. There were several alliances with 600 nations.

 

The aftermath of those wars of lulz and hegemony marked the beginning of the decline. It was my assessment then and it is now that cutting off the non-aligned before they have a chance to grow played a major part in this. The alliance system is beyond hope and can only be revitalized with new blood, so the likes of your mentality will be diluted.

That can only happen with new people coming in and having a chance to choose for themselves how they want to operate, rather than being forced to choose between jumping into one of the slithering piles of maggots or being beaten down before they've had a chance to decide whether they like it here or not.

 

Lots of new nations are being created, but most do not stick around for very long.

 

Again I must remind you that how the mechanics work on Bob are not going to appeal to those wanting a pure war-game. Such people have short attention spans and need all kinds of kewl graphics showing plenty of blood and guts in 3D and booming sounds pounding what's left of their tiny brains through their headphones.

 

This is supposed to be a nation simulation. There is supposed to be diplomacy and rhetoric with war being a risk, not the entire point. There should be no room in such a paradigm for they type of people who start wars out of boredom. Only boring people get bored.

 

We could have so much more than this game of Ten Little Indians we're playing -- we just keep knocking each other off the cliff and fight over the shrinking remains.

 

Then I teach them how to salute and follow orders, I put them in battle rattle, and send them off to their first glorious conquest.

 

What you will do is send people off to look for places where they can interact with people who have moved out of their mother's basements.

 

Who would not enjoy such an experience? I now wish there was an alliance that recruited me like that when I first joined.

 

 

If you are the type of person who would join an alliance that "recruited" you by gang-attacking you and threatening you with more unless you became one of them, you are a parasite and a coward -- and a boring one at that.

 

This Planet needs less of you and the others who think like you and more of something else. We need fresh blood. Whomever that is, it will not be me and it will not be you.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Walford

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Walford makes some good points.

 

I believe this game is better played as a cooperative game with a PvP element rather than the other way around.

 

I honestly don't see any practical way of correcting that course now, we have gone astray for so long, but it's certainly worth thinking about.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir

[The Zigur]

Are you kidding me? PVP is what makes this game great! I can't stand boring games that hold your hand and protect you from the consequences of bad decisions.

Walford I think you are making a whole bunch of assumptions that are based more on idealism than reality. We fought together last war and you probably remember how ruthlessly I targeted the enemy low tier. If the strategy of controlling the low tier was important in wartime why not in peace time?

I think raiding has bad connotations because of the way old lulz alliances behaved, but I think my members have set a good example for raiders everywhere with their discipline, professionalism and willingness to help active noobs. I could introduce you to a number of my officers who I raid-recruited and you will hear stories about people who were bored and close to quitting on none, yet are now invested, productive new players of this game.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Not kidding you at all.

 

Having the pvp element there, as a small part of the mix, makes the game better. Focusing on it as the primary reason to play does not.

 

You keep talking about the virtues of alliances, but what exactly does that mean? Does your alliance teach your members to work together for the benefit of all?

 

Or is just about beating on those smaller than you and sucking up to those bigger?

 

People use the word 'community' a lot around here but they don't often seem to understand what it means.

[Dajobo]

Every person here is speaking from their own experience and perspective, including myself. The issue is we aren't listening to each other and are more focused on convincing people our way is best instead of focusing on understanding their point of view.

 

Rather than continuing this could you please re-read the OP.

 

I'm not suggesting any way is better. I am suggesting after 8+ years of doing it one way, we try 8 weeks of doing it a different way, then we examine the results.

[Walford]

Every person here is speaking from their own experience and perspective, including myself. The issue is we aren't listening to each other and are more focused on convincing people our way is best instead of focusing on understanding their point of view.

 

Actually, I think that some are speaking from wishful thinking based upon their myopic view of how things should work and how they would like things to be rather than fact. Apparently some of us think that they would enjoy a world in which the non-aligned are fair game and will stick around and become part of the alliance system as it stands now rather than leave -- which is the actual reality.
 

Rather than continuing this could you please re-read the OP.

 

I'm not suggesting any way is better. I am suggesting after 8+ years of doing it one way, we try 8 weeks of doing it a different way, then we examine the results.

 

 

I am absolutely suggesting another way is better. The status quo is unworkable and the current trajectory has the population continuing to decline until there are a series of final battles amongst the ever-shrinking remainder. Hence we have an increasing number of us musing about what other games would be suitable once Planet Bob finally crashes and burns for good.

 

We do have an example of things working a different way, but only a minority of us still here were around at that time. In the pre-GW2 & 3 Era, in the 1st year of Bob, non-aligned were largely left alone unless they started something. And even if they did, they were not pounded out of existence for making a minor error in judgement by attacking a nation protected by an alliance. There were several large non-aligned nations that had gone nearly a year w/o being in a war.

 

The population was growing steadily here until a mentality became dominant in which people decided that they should try to "win" a game that does not end -- and a large part of that included driving people away who did not play the same way they did. We started eating our own, crossing the OOC/IC line by attacking players rather than nation rulers. "Good riddance," they said as they thumped their thin little chests, declaring that destruction is superior to creation.

 

So by all means let us try this experiment and abstain from unprovoked wars. And I maintain that a crucial part of it must include the non-aligned being spared the treatment they're getting now.

 

Give them a chance to settle in, get to know the social and technical dynamics rather than pruning them off when the first leaf begins to sprout.

 

What do we have to lose, people like Tywin? I'd say that might be worth the risk.

 

And to make this clear, I am not proposing having protected spheres on various color teams. There must be mutual, voluntary agreement to leave the non-aligned alone for this to work. If this degenerates into some kind of power play in which some non-aligned are claimed as protectorates, the experiment will fail.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Walford

[Walford]

Let me add something here with a theory as to why a group of pure gamer-trolls decided to change things in the first place and why they'd work hard to ruin the experiment.

 

They saw a level of rhetoric here that they lacked the intellectual capacity to match. They also didn't like that there were independent nations running around who were not under their control. So they used force to change the population to suit their limited capabilities -- that could only be expressed in-game. Only a minority liked how Might-Makes-Right replaced independence, diplomacy, rhetoric, free-association, etc., so the population has been shrinking ever since.

 

But these trolls don't care; they'd rather the Planet be destroyed than have it function -- and even thrive -- under a paradigm that they cannot dominate.

 

They are juvenile nihilists and their way must be marginalized if not end altogether if Planet Bob is to have any sort of future.

[The Zigur]

"Actually, I think that some are speaking from wishful thinking based upon their myopic view of how things should work and how they would like things to be rather than fact."

Walford I don't know if you realize it but this entirely describes your last two posts. You remind me of certain libertarian types I used to associate with who say "if only people wouldn't use force society would be peaceful."

In reality people are primarily driven by self interest, it is the self-interest of nations that is the primary force that creates an alliance in the first place, because the sum is greater than the parts. And the alliance too, when properly lead, acts out of self-interest, or else withers and dies.

So the idea that nations and alliances should act outside of their own self-interests to hold up useless idealism is silly. Idealism must serve the needs of the alliance.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Walford I don't know if you realize it but this entirely describes your last two posts. You remind me of certain libertarian types I used to associate with who say "if only people wouldn't use force society would be peaceful."

 

That's not a libertarian, that's a pacifist. Here's the difference. A libertarian would say 'if no one initiated force society would be peaceful.'

 

And that's completely true, it's tautalogical. If no one started any there wouldn't be any. Every violent confrontation is the result of someone initiating force.

 

 

 

 

In reality people are primarily driven by self interest, it is the self-interest of nations that is the primary force that creates an alliance in the first place, because the sum is greater than the parts. And the alliance too, when properly lead, acts out of self-interest, or else withers and dies.

 

I don't disagree at all. People are inherently driven by self interest of one form or another. But brutal, short-term self interest is only the form pursued by brutal people with short memories.

 

More intelligent people pursue what is called 'enlightened self interest.' They realize that they are part of a larger world. They realize that pursuing selfish short-term gains can sometimes conflict with more important gains that take longer to reach. They realize that it sometimes make sense to do things that the brute with short memory would falsely believe were against his self-interest.

 

Those who take the fuller and more long run view pursue their self interest no less than the brutes with short memories, they just pursue a better, more intelligent version of self-interest.

 

 

So the idea that nations and alliances should act outside of their own self-interests to hold up useless idealism is silly. Idealism must serve the needs of the alliance.

 

The alliance must serve the needs of its members.

[Canik]

Nobody's talking about "sheltering noobs from war." This is about allowing a separation between the non-aligned and those in alliances. If not for the general war declared on the non-aligned in the aftermath of the 2nd and 3rd Great Wars, there were large non-aligned nations who would still be here. At that time, there were more non-aligned [11K] than there are total nations on Planet Bob now [7.5K]. At that time there were 45K nations. GATO, The Legion and GPA had about 1,000 nations each. NPO, LUE and GOoNS had 800. There were several alliances with 600 nations.

 

The aftermath of those wars of lulz and hegemony marked the beginning of the decline.

lol wut? GWII there was only about 12k nations, we didn't get to 45k until a while after those wars. It was closer to Karma times when decline really started.
 

We do have an example of things working a different way, but only a minority of us still here were around at that time. In the pre-GW2 & 3 Era, in the 1st year of Bob, non-aligned were largely left alone unless they started something.

I've heard stories from pre-GWI nations that speak otherwise. CN has never been a place for the faint of heart.
 

 

 

Let me add something here with a theory as to why a group of pure gamer-trolls decided to change things in the first place and why they'd work hard to ruin the experiment.

 

They saw a level of rhetoric here that they lacked the intellectual capacity to match. They also didn't like that there were independent nations running around who were not under their control. So they used force to change the population to suit their limited capabilities -- that could only be expressed in-game. Only a minority liked how Might-Makes-Right replaced independence, diplomacy, rhetoric, free-association, etc., so the population has been shrinking ever since.

 

But these trolls don't care; they'd rather the Planet be destroyed than have it function -- and even thrive -- under a paradigm that they cannot dominate.

 

They are juvenile nihilists and their way must be marginalized if not end altogether if Planet Bob is to have any sort of future.

More revisionist !@#$%^&*. Might Makes Right did make it more difficult to be independent, but diplomacy and rhetoric were still essential tools to those in power, and they used them brilliantly, for a while at least. The population didn't start shrinking the moment 'Might Makes Right' became a meme. The only people who are going to buy this crap are newbs.

 

Edited October 2, 2015 by Big Ego

[LeicaBoss]

Speaking from my own experience, I was raid recruited by Immortal Junka.

The raid recruitment grabs the attention of the new recruit.

At least it did with me.

I was unaligned, received countless messages from alliances, but ignored them.

Was somewhat bored with the game, but conducted my own raiding to gain experience with the war features.

Then I noticed someone had actually declared war on me.

I spoke with Immortal Junka in game about what his ideas were on declaring war on me, while he never actually attacked my nation.

And we started talking about things and I ended up finding a great active alliance that has helped grow my nation, and allowed me to contribute back to it.

Immortal Junka, as well as other members of our alliance, conduct raiding in a professional matter, targeting nations that are inactive.

Some never attack their targets, while others wait a few days before actually attacking, since it's a sign they are not active.

[Walford]

"Actually, I think that some are speaking from wishful thinking based upon their myopic view of how things should work and how they would like things to be rather than fact."

Walford I don't know if you realize it but this entirely describes your last two posts. You remind me of certain libertarian types I used to associate with who say "if only people wouldn't use force society would be peaceful."

In reality people are primarily driven by self interest, it is the self-interest of nations that is the primary force that creates an alliance in the first place, because the sum is greater than the parts. And the alliance too, when properly lead, acts out of self-interest, or else withers and dies.

So the idea that nations and alliances should act outside of their own self-interests to hold up useless idealism is silly. Idealism must serve the needs of the alliance.

 

True self-interest does not entail eating the crops when they have barely germinated.

 

It is in all of our interests to look for ways to help save Planet Bob from its continual decline in population in terms of quality and quantity. Dajobo's idea of an experiment in forgoing tech-raiding by mutual agreement is sound and is worthy of consideration. I have offered my own take on this.

 

Your tacit defense of the status quo falls flat by the evidence. Planet Bob is dying.

 

We must find a way to get the new nations to stay rather than leave -- as currentlly do the majority.

 

But I am not optimistic. The cancerous mindset that things are just too boring and we need more warz n stuff dominates and I don't see that changing.

---------------------------------------

And I'm not going to entertain any disputes about interpretations or accounts of history. My historical accounts were offered to describe my perspective of the root of the decline and to offer solutions for the future based upon those assessments. It's easy to criticize other people's solutions when you lack the capacity to develop and articulate your own.

[Canik]

And I'm not going to entertain any disputes about interpretations or accounts of history. My historical accounts were offered to describe my perspective of the root of the decline and to offer solutions for the future based upon those assessments. It's easy to criticize other people's solutions when you lack the capacity to develop and articulate your own.

So because it's easier to criticize than create you're going to ignore all criticism? Spoken like a truly delusional fucktard.

[Canik]

Your argument for ignoring criticism is still stupid, as are your theories in general. However, I must correct myself.. it wasn't [i]that[/i] long after GWIII that nation population peaked.  http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/126759-nations-in-the-world/?p=3393524

Still, the initial drop can be blamed on the losers of GWIII quitting, then we hold steady around 30k nations until Karma, which afterwards the decline seemed to increase.

There have been countless discussions on CN's decline already, and most agree it has everything to do with CN's mechanical flaws and text-based web browser games becoming out-dated, and very little to do with raiding unaligned nations.

[enderland]

With such a rapidly declining played base I feel now is the time to try it. For this to work it needs the support of all alliances and may even require ingame enforcement on a few.
At the end of the eight weeks we go back to normal while we analyze and discuss the findings.

Please discuss and tell me if I'm insane or this is worth trying for the short time it would take.

 

What problem is this trying to solve?

 

If your concern is purely number of nations, perhaps this is an ok approach. But if your concern is that the game is dying how does this help?

 

The negative outcome of raiding normally is people who are not really playing the game anyways. Just weight and numbers, realistically. Even if I grant that raiding drives these players from the game - is that actually a negative? Sure there are less people, but if CN had 5000 people who were really seriously playing the game (which isn't just logging in and paying bills/collecting taxes) it'd be in a way better place than if it had fewer actually playing but more nation.

 

There are a lot of people who get more involved in CN as a result of raiding - whether the one who is raiding or the raided person.

 

The problem that CN has it that the alliance structure deliberately contributes to stagnation because so few of the remaining players are actually interested in doing anything (myself included, I hardly know why I'm still here to be honest). To make this interesting, to keep people around, you need a reason to care, have a goal, etc. For years there were goals that drove people to care - the whole cycle of the GWII/GWIII all the way through Karma - that was a story arc that was actually interesting. It was FUN to be part of politics trying to take down NPO. It was a draw.

 

But now? What is there? If we turn this place into a giant hugglefest and peace party it gets boring as hell.

 

At least the people raiding are doing something. They are creating interactions, causing tension. At this point no one even cares about that though.

 

You want to help fix CN? Get an alliance together of one huge nations that are now less than 10k NS and have them enforce the NONE anti-raiding policies. Enforce it against all alliances. Stir up something. Cause drama.

 

But not raiding none? Even if it solves everything you want to solve with it (players leaving) it's not going to address what has been killing this game for years - apathy and boredom.

[The Zigur]

If people did what you said and made a neo-NONE these nations would inevitably become predators themselves.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

The negative outcome of raiding normally is people who are not really playing the game anyways.

 

Why do you think you get to decide that the way they play the game doesn't count, that they don't count?

[Walford]

Speaking from my own experience, I was raid recruited by Immortal Junka.

The raid recruitment grabs the attention of the new recruit.

At least it did with me.

I was unaligned, received countless messages from alliances, but ignored them.

Was somewhat bored with the game, but conducted my own raiding to gain experience with the war features.

Then I noticed someone had actually declared war on me.

I spoke with Immortal Junka in game about what his ideas were on declaring war on me, while he never actually attacked my nation.

And we started talking about things and I ended up finding a great active alliance that has helped grow my nation, and allowed me to contribute back to it.

Immortal Junka, as well as other members of our alliance, conduct raiding in a professional matter, targeting nations that are inactive.

Some never attack their targets, while others wait a few days before actually attacking, since it's a sign they are not active.

 

That's how it worked for you. I would submit that many new nation rulers -- remember, being completely unfamiliar with how things work here -- faced with the choice of becoming a part of an alliance system that they might not be interested in or being continually attacked would instead choose to leave. There is no way to quantifiy that; we cannot interview the vast majority of those who created nations here and then left.

Having actually founded and worked closely with non-aligned nations, I can say from direct experience that many are so independent that they would never join an alliance or even register on forums. So they refused to join NONE because that was too much organization for them.

 

Are these people worthless? Are they, by your definition, "inactive" because they don't want to talk to the likes of you here or on your alliance forums?

 

Your argument for ignoring criticism is still stupid, as are your theories in general. However, I must correct myself.. it wasn't that long after GWIII that nation population peaked.  http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/126759-nations-in-the-world/?p=3393524

Still, the initial drop can be blamed on the losers of GWIII quitting, then we hold steady around 30k nations until Karma, which afterwards the decline seemed to increase.

There have been countless discussions on CN's decline already, and most agree it has everything to do with CN's mechanical flaws and text-based web browser games becoming out-dated, and very little to do with raiding unaligned nations.

 

That chart eloquently illustrates the point I have made and bolsters my theory, hence it is copied below.

 

 


 

 

I certainly do agree that a major reason for the decline of nations was due to entire alliances 6-800 strong [NAAC, LUE] leaving the Planet rather than be subjugated by the victors of GW2 & 3. It is imporant to point out that such subjugation and hegemony was essentially nihlistic; the aftermath was just as bad for the "winners" of those wars as well as the similar ones that followed. And I also add that recovery was made nigh impossible due to an all-out war upon the non-aligned that began leading up to those wars and continued afterward.

 

I also predicted at the time that the victors of those wars would inevitably turn on each other and there would be a paradigm established in which civilization deteriorated into roving gangs fighting over bones, rags and rubble.

 

 

 

...The negative outcome of raiding normally is people who are not really playing the game anyways. Just weight and numbers, realistically. Even if I grant that raiding drives these players from the game - is that actually a negative? Sure there are less people, but if CN had 5000 people who were really seriously playing the game (which isn't just logging in and paying bills/collecting taxes) it'd be in a way better place than if it had fewer actually playing but more nation.

 

There are a lot of people who get more involved in CN as a result of raiding - whether the one who is raiding or the raided person.

 

Like I said, I'm not optimistic. This is the mentality that has blithely gone along as we have whittled down the population to <20% of its peak. Apparently the problem is there are just too many "inactive" and "boring" nations and we need to keep kicking each other off the Planet so we will attain futher and further purification until every one of us is EXCELLENT.

 

It doesn't work that way. We have deteriorated in quantity and quality. The type of people who find diplomacy and rhetoric to be boring and want war to be not just a risk, but the entire point are not quality people at all -- as we have found with the latest cancerous group that is working hard find new ways to destroy and drive more people away. Should they succeed, so there are nothing but vermin like them, it will be the same as a group of rats that have consumed all of the available food; they will then start eating each other.

 

And then, like the locusts they are, they will move on to find something else to putrify.

 

This is what those of you who are defending the status quo are fighting to protect.
 

 

There are a lot of people who get more involved in CN as a result of raiding - whether the one who is raiding or the raided person.

 

 

That is not borne out by the facts. Independent nations that are gang-attacked and threatened with ZI if they dare fight back do not become more involved. They leave and we are all the poorer as a result.

 

 

The problem that CN has it that the alliance structure deliberately contributes to stagnation because so few of the remaining players are actually interested in doing anything (myself included, I hardly know why I'm still here to be honest). To make this interesting, to keep people around, you need a reason to care, have a goal, etc. For years there were goals that drove people to care - the whole cycle of the GWII/GWIII all the way through Karma - that was a story arc that was actually interesting. It was FUN to be part of politics trying to take down NPO. It was a draw.

 

Certainly having to defend one's self and allies can be compelling to a point, but when people are forced to choose between their independence and freedom or being bullied into to joining a gang that just drove off hundreds of your friends, what is there to care about?

 

But now? What is there? If we turn this place into a giant hugglefest and peace party it gets boring as hell.

 

 

Planet Bob is a Nation Simulation, not a pure war-game. As I said earlier, if we want to go that route, then we should campaign for Bob to emulate so many other animated 3D MMORPGs that already exist.

 

What we had is unique and is worth salvaging.

 

I am certainly not proposing pacifism by any means; I'm just saying we need to be realistic and brutally honest with ourselves about how things got this way and what sort of world we can build that will prosper and thrive. There was no "huggle-fest" going on prior to GW2 & 3. There was lively debate and war was a risk. I came here just after getting formal education in International Politics and was very impressed by the level of rhetoric here. There was a Papal Schism at one point. Fantastic RP by people who were obviously knowledgable and well-educated in IR.

 

But the difference is, nobody was trying to conquer the entire world -- and try to eliminate those who do not want to choose between being predators and prey -- and nothing else.

 

Many of the nation rulers were females and older than is the case today; for a long time the mentality here is essentially male and juvenile.

 

 

You want to help fix CN? Get an alliance together of one huge nations that are now less than 10k NS and have them enforce the NONE anti-raiding policies. Enforce it against all alliances. Stir up something. Cause drama.

 

In the immediate aftermath of GW2 & 3 I organized non-aligned to defend themselves and each other. The members were recruited by finding non-aligned under attack and offering to coach them to fight on their own in their existing wars. Only those who were willing to fight were admitted. Then we organized mutual defense; contacting the attackers first to let them know that their non-aligned target had friends and that if they persisted in their attacks, they would find themselves in a fight.

 

We were called terrorists for doing this and were thus hunted down and exterminated.

 

But not raiding none? Even if it solves everything you want to solve with it (players leaving) it's not going to address what has been killing this game for years - apathy and boredom.

 

Raiding, warring and other forms of action at the expense of others -- doing things that you would not tolerate having been done to you -- is never satisfying. It's like a narcotic.

 

If people did what you said and made a neo-NONE these nations would inevitably become predators themselves.

 

Indeed they may and have. As Morgaine mentioned, when I got my first command after GW1, it was over the smallest nations in my first alliance. The declaration ranges had just been opened up from ±10% to ±50%. 

 

In the largest alliance, we found ourselves under attack by roving gangs of non-aligned who would attack and then disappear again. Sometimes they would sport temporary AA, sometimes they would just fly the same flag. They apparently kept in touch with each other in-game only. There were some good-sized groups, maybe 30-50 nations that hid amongst the non-aligned and would pop-up out of nowhere, attack, then fade away again.

 

That was very exciting and challenging to deal with that.

 

But remember, non-aligned are naturally independent and would not be able to organize themselves in large enough numbers to be a threat to the alliance system. But they would keep us on our toes.

 

So, I am certainly not a pacifist or looking for a huggle-fest. I want to increase the diversity of the nation rulers and I want things to be exciting for everyone -- and an essential part of that entails leaving the non-aligned to do their thing while those in alliances do theirs. And when they do intersect, let the non-aligned be the ones who draw first blood. The responses should be proportional.

 

It will be better for all concerned. Those who want mostly war will have that. Those who want to concentrate on rhetoric and diplomacy can do that. And those who want to just be independent can do that also.

 

We have nothing to lose here and everything to gain.

 

 

Why do you think you get to decide that the way they play the game doesn't count, that they don't count?

 

Hence is the root of the problem. As we have seen, it is possible to utilize the pure game aspects of Planet Bob to establish hegemony, subjugation -- or just create an atmosphere of gang warfare.

 

Such a world is boring, limited and is doomed to die.

Edited October 4, 2015 by Walford

[enderland]

 

Why do you think you get to decide that the way they play the game doesn't count, that they don't count?

 

Because ultimately, if everyone here only played the nation simulator aspect, the "game" (which encompasses a political simulator, the nation simulator aspects of buying things, paying bills, etc, is secondary aspect to this for nearly everyone) would be dead.

 

As a nation simulator, CN has nothing to offer for entertainment compared to numerous games out there. If the "draw" of CN is people to sign in daily, do a few clicks, and "play" a game and that's fine - but if that is the primary "draw" to CN it will ultimately doom CN.

 

 

I am certainly not proposing pacifism by any means; I'm just saying we need to be realistic and brutally honest with ourselves about how things got this way and what sort of world we can build that will prosper and thrive. There was no "huggle-fest" going on prior to GW2 & 3. There was lively debate and war was a risk. I came here just after getting formal education in International Politics and was very impressed by the level of rhetoric here. There was a Papal Schism at one point. Fantastic RP by people who were obviously knowledgable and well-educated in IR.

 

 

This is exactly my point!

 

That was all done by facets of this game other than the "nation simulator" aspects. The events leading up to GW2/GW3? Were those led by people who treated this as a nation simulator and played it without engaging others? Who sat on None and didn't coordinate/interact with other players? Or was it by people who considered it a political simulator?

 

The thing that has been missing from CN for many years is the interesting political simulator aspects. And for many, the ability to compete against other games which satisfy the daily "looking for entertainment" aspects. If CN's greatest draw is a daily nation simulator it will fail to keep up with other games that are far more entertaining/interesting on a daily basis.

 

 

 

Having actually founded and worked closely with non-aligned nations, I can say from direct experience that many are so independent that they would never join an alliance or even register on forums. So they refused to join NONE because that was too much organization for them.

 

 

This more or less is exactly why I don't think that losing those nations really matters. As nations if they don't want to partake in the greater game that is happening (the political simulator, alliances, OWF, etc) then all CN loses when they leave is a trade partner.

 

 

Are these people worthless? Are they, by your definition, "inactive" because they don't want to talk to the likes of you here or on your alliance forums?

 

 

 

It's amusing to me that in your lengthy post everything you talk about as a positive/interest from CN is only possible because you were involved in some sort of non-nation simulator aspects (OWF, alliance, political simulator, etc). 

 

None of the things you are extolling as a reason to play the game are part of the game for those who sit on "none."

 

 

In the immediate aftermath of GW2 & 3 I organized non-aligned to defend themselves and each other. The members were recruited by finding non-aligned under attack and offering to coach them to fight on their own in their existing wars. Only those who were willing to fight were admitted. Then we organized mutual defense; contacting the attackers first to let them know that their non-aligned target had friends and that if they persisted in their attacks, they would find themselves in a fight.

 

We were called terrorists for doing this and were thus hunted down and exterminated.

 

 

 

So it didn't work over EIGHT years ago so it won't work again? How many nations during this time had billions upon billions in their warchests?  How many had significant military wonders, WRCs, Manhattan Projects, etc?

 

As a single nation I could personally finance 6 nations in a 2015-NONE setup indefinitely even if I came under constant attack for a year straight given my warchest. And whenever (if?) I ever got small enough, I'd have the means to wreck completely anyone below 10k NS.

 

There are alliances that do this and have for presumably years. GPA has had a "load up small nations with nukes for tech raid defense" program that appears to be called Small Sentinels  - build up a small, 6000 NS nation with nuclear weapons to discourage tech raiders in their lower ranks.

 

I know it's easier to complain/lament the times in the past, and dream of a better tomorrow, but there are so many more nations in position now to take up the NONE banner effectively than ever before.

 

Get a Manhattan Project (you aren't using your aid slots, but have DRA/FAC, so in 20 days you can get the 100M and I'm sure there are people in your alliance would be more than happen to sponsor it who are in similar position to me - tons of cash, not using aid slots). Get the Hidden Nuclear Silo next and you're good to go.

 

My point is, if this is something you are so passionate about there are many, many ways you can take actions that are far more effective than simply lamenting the good times of nearly a decade ago.

[White Chocolate]

I spent the better parts of my career managing my micro alliances and screwing around with folks.  Lots of good fun.  Will always have fond memories of those times.  RIA is the first "real" alliance I've ever been a part of.  My idea of retirement was to become an RIA triumvir.

Hail to micro alliances!  Hail also to those larger alliances who are willing to take the time to help them out as opposed to ignore them. 

 

Every person here is speaking from their own experience and perspective, including myself. The issue is we aren't listening to each other and are more focused on convincing people our way is best instead of focusing on understanding their point of view.

 

Rather than continuing this could you please re-read the OP.

 

I'm not suggesting any way is better. I am suggesting after 8+ years of doing it one way, we try 8 weeks of doing it a different way, then we examine the results.

 

If you or someone else wants to come up with a detailed plan regarding how this study is going to work and then let me know, I will use what power I have within Doom to take part.  I'm sure we can leave a select group alone if that is what is being proposed and we are aware of who that group happens to be. 

 

However, don't expect me to be involved in setting this up.  I've worked for these issues in the past and I'm burned out.  At this point I want to spend the talent and time I have with people who are clearly active and engaged in our world.  I have that where I am.

 

I respect people's choice to remain entirely independent.  However it is a choice that has both benefits and drawbacks just as making the choice to join an alliance results in receiving benefits and also has drawbacks. 

 

I am sympathetic to new people, but at some point in my opinion it is a lack of respect to the non-aligned to assume that they need anything from the rest of us, including needing us to leave them alone on a military level.  There is a difference between giving a nation time to get to know our world and paternalism.  If someone doesn't want to take our offers, who are we to assume that it means that they are only looking for peace.  Perhaps it has everything to do with wanting a challenge. 

 

 

Speaking from my own experience, I was raid recruited by Immortal Junka.

The raid recruitment grabs the attention of the new recruit.

At least it did with me.

I was unaligned, received countless messages from alliances, but ignored them.

Was somewhat bored with the game, but conducted my own raiding to gain experience with the war features.

Then I noticed someone had actually declared war on me.

I spoke with Immortal Junka in game about what his ideas were on declaring war on me, while he never actually attacked my nation.

And we started talking about things and I ended up finding a great active alliance that has helped grow my nation, and allowed me to contribute back to it.

Immortal Junka, as well as other members of our alliance, conduct raiding in a professional matter, targeting nations that are inactive.

Some never attack their targets, while others wait a few days before actually attacking, since it's a sign they are not active.

 

Very nice post.  Happy to see someone who hasn't posted on the OWF before taking part in this discussion.

Edited October 4, 2015 by White Chocolate

[The Zigur]

I am sympathetic to new people, but at some point in my opinion it is a lack of respect to the non-aligned to assume that they need anything from the rest of us, including needing us to leave them alone on a military level.  There is a difference between giving a nation time to get to know our world and paternalism.  If someone doesn't want to take our offers, who are we to assume that it means that they are only looking for peace.  Perhaps it has everything to do with wanting a challenge.

 

Well spoken, Milady. I dare say perhaps even the majority of active new nations desire to be warriors, though some are denied their true potential in stagnating alliances.

[Captain Enema]

I think we should round up all the unaligned and put them in re-education camps. 

[Morgaine]

If you or someone else wants to come up with a detailed plan regarding how this study is going to work and then let me know, I will use what power I have within Doom to take part.  I'm sure we can leave a select group alone if that is what is being proposed and we are aware of who that group happens to be. 

 

The select group who are spared "tech-raiding" should be everybody, but I think that the un-aligned should be the ones who are specifically spared; not because of sympathy for them, but because they would be the ideal control group in the experiment to see if the population will grow if new nations are given some breathing room before being forced to choose between independence or being mobbed by those whose aggression is protected by alliances.

 

 

However, don't expect me to be involved in setting this up.  I've worked for these issues in the past and I'm burned out.  At this point I want to spend the talent and time I have with people who are clearly active and engaged in our world.  I have that where I am.

 

 

What is there to set up? We in alliances should agree to take (at least) two months and see what happens if "tech-raiding" is suspended across-the-board for that period of time. I also fear that this would be sabotaged by some because they know that the population would increase and, because of the limitations in their intellect and character, they do not want it to work. They would rather the world die their way rather than live in one in which they could not control, or at least destroy.

 

I respect people's choice to remain entirely independent.  However it is a choice that has both benefits and drawbacks just as making the choice to join an alliance results in receiving benefits and also has drawbacks. 

 

 

The point being made here is that there are "drawbacks" to everyone if things continue as they are. 

 

That graph illustrated earlier was telling. It showed a steep increase in population until it peaked in the Spring of 2007. Then the decline has been steady ever since. If it were merely the novelty of a new game wearing off, the shape of that graph would have been different. The slope upward and downward would have been more gradual. But something changed during that short amount of time that impelled thousands of players, both in and out of alliances, to precipitously discard the product of months worth of investment of time, and in some cases, real money. 

 

Theories have been offered as to what it was that changed at that time, but I would say that if at the very beginning the un-aligned were subject to the kind of constant attacks (as well as alliances being subject to conquest or obliteration) that began immediately before and after the peak , it is likely that such initial growth would never have occurred in the first place. 

 

I am sympathetic to new people, but at some point in my opinion it is a lack of respect to the non-aligned to assume that they need anything from the rest of us, including needing us to leave them alone on a military level.  There is a difference between giving a nation time to get to know our world and paternalism.  If someone doesn't want to take our offers, who are we to assume that it means that they are only looking for peace.  Perhaps it has everything to do with wanting a challenge. 

 

 

I would suggest that the un-aligned nations do not "need" or want anything from us. Instead, we should consider abstaining from initiating attacks upon them and only react if they attack one of ours. Many of them want to randomly fight with each other and do not want to be a part of the alliance system at all, ever. Perhaps some of them want to take some time and experience being independent and perhaps join an alliance later. Some may even want to have the option of then leaving an alliance and return to being independent without the certainty that if they do, their nations will be completely wiped out in constant attacks by cowards who hide behind their comrades who are obligated to defend them.

 

Let us try something different and see how it goes, because what we are doing now is obviously not working.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Morgaine

[Ameroca]

I love the bombastic "people who disagree with me are obviously stupid" being thrown out multiple times. Obviously only terribly clever and correct and handsome individuals would do such a thing.

[the rebel]

Immortal Junka, as well as other members of our alliance, conduct raiding in a professional matter, targeting nations that are inactive.
Some never attack their targets, while others wait a few days before actually attacking, since it's a sign they are not active.

Disregarding the mumbo jumbo on why you ignored messages and remained isolated until being attacked.

There is no professional manner in doing raids and you do pretty much what all raiders do, no matter how fancy you try to dress it up as.
You only target inactive nations? Congrats? That's the bread and butter profiteering raid tactic, as they don't tend to fight back as not active.

Now if you're trying to support Junka's raid view of recruitment over personal gain, you would all be raiding the active and not the inactive.

I'm neither here or there regarding rogues and raiders, but don't dress it up as a gallantry process.