Jump to content

Moratorium on tech raiding


Dajobo

Recommended Posts

No valuable assessment can be made by a one-time snapshot of what happens to be going on at a given moment. It is far more useful to look at a trend and figure out what it means. Let's have a look at that graph again:


Translation - "Ignore what's actually happening right now, look at this graph that proves nothing!"

You go ahead and "guess" based upon a one-time look at what non-aligned are doing -- colored by your own self-serving biases of being invested in the status quo continuing unchanged. Or maybe just not caring if Bob dies off someday soon.


I invite everyone to look & judge for themselves. Maybe I am wrong, I did only look at 10 or so nations, but out of those 10 I only saw two or three being attacked, and only 1 attacker was from a real AA. One NPO member at 1.6k NS was taking part in a raid.

Which, really, alliances don't exactly have a ton of control at what happens at 5k and under, because everyone who has any idea what they're doing, or how to follow instructions, quickly builds beyond the 5k range.

You should take your case to all those micro-alliances and other young nations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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. 

 

"Take the time to help them out."

Yes, that's what my protectors did.  Certainly, they did not spend most of their time cleaning up after my drama tornado :P

Like I said, great fun.  And shoutout to oldschool TPF for putting up with my nonsense.  Don't know where they are at now, but great folks back in the day, and were always happy to let me do my insane thing.  Or at least clean up after me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yeah, the game is dying because it is old.  Total lack of new features, a stagnant and bloated political atmosphere that is extremely hostile to newcomers and new player invasions (and I should know because I heralded one of them.  Bringing in 100+ new players in a span of a week was met with derision, lol.)

The mechanics do not allow newcomers to easily catch up in development level without investing years of time, and there is little reward left for such investment.

It's going to end with a whimper.  As people lose wars, from this point on, they're just going to be inclined to pack it up and go home.  There's not much left to fight for.  Nothing worth rebuilding for.

I'll leave with many fond memories, for sure.  But the game is just about over.

What happened to that guy who had the NPO flag tattooed on his arm, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case you have forgotten Walford, yes I have been the target of numerous wars and raids, yet I am still here. It's nonsense to claim that playing a nation simulator like it is a nation simulator is "sociopathy."

 

I have been put to ZI over a dozen times and am still here. Neither of us are typical. Most new people are going to react differently. When I created my first nation in June 2006, I was not immediately attacked. Most non-aligned were left alone. I had time to decide whether I wanted to be in an alliance or try my luck as an independent. Under the current paradigm, we are not leaving any room for the latter to exist. It's either "join my or some other crappy alliance or leave -- and good riddance."

 

In terms of tech production there are two classes.

 

But you didn't qualify it in terms of just tech sellers/buyers. Your statment implied that there are only two types of nations. And indeed, in this world, people like you divide the population into the sheep and the wolves -- and nobody else is welcome.

 

All the other stuff you tack on has been discussed by Vladimir in works like the Meaning of Freedom, where he explicitly notes that these products of civilization you mention like ideology and refined discourse take place when nations are lifted out of the state of nature by a strong alliance sovereign.

 

That's an extremely euphemistic way of denoting people being forced to join a gang, be subservient to a hegemon or be constantly attacked for daring to be independent. For nearly the first year of Bob there were large non-aligned and no attempts at hegemony. Your implication that discourse, rhetoric and diplomacy have improved under Might-Makes-Right, hence it is necessary, is intellectually dishonest and not supported by factual history.

 

Might-Makes-Right has destroyed all of that and cut the diversity of the type of people who remain to a shriveled core of stubborn ones like you and me, and those who have never experienced things any other way -- and thus have been whittled down to only those who would tolerate operating under such a paradigm.

 

As we are continuing to see, that is a shrinking number -- even with the new nations that are being created every day. We are building more coffins than cradles.

 

  Nevertheless myself and my comrades are very proud of this achievement... including the "victims" who might have been initially raided.

 

Most of whom are gone.
 

It is much more likely that the dropoff has to do with the fact that the game is antiquated rather than blaming the raiding bogeyman. You have zero proof that the dropoff is due to raiding, and trying to influence my policy without any proof beforehand will go nowhere.

 

The game did not suddenly become "antiquated" in the Spring of 2007. As Morgaine pointed out, if that were the case, the up-slope and down-slope would have been more gradual. The shape of that graph makes my case more eloquently than any words.

 

You, on the otherhand, have nothing to support your theory that the game just became boring, so people [whom we are well rid of] moved on.

 

I therefore maintain my hypothesis, based upon knowledge and experience, that people who are interested in foreign affairs, diplomacy, RP, rhetoric, etc. are not going to be interested in hanging around if they're going to be attacked out of boredom and attempts to establish hegemony as a matter of routine. Hence, the people who remain are not going to find a pure war-game interesting that consists of text battle reports when there are other ones available that have 3D animated graphics and realistic sound.

 

According to some website stats around 800 unique visitors a day and over 12k visits a day on average. So traffic is still reasonable.

 

Planet Bob still has people taking a look, and even bothering to create nations. The trick is to figure out how to get more of them to stay.

If we are to heed the perspective of the lulz/hegemony crowd, then we need to petition Admin to transform Bob into yet another MMORPG with more blood and guts with loud noises, so the male adolescents who dominate such games will find Bob more attractive.

Or, we can look within ourselves and see whether we can take what we already have and make it into something more interesting -- and welcoming -- to a more diverse group of players.

Edited by Walford
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yeah, the game is dying because it is old.  Total lack of new features, a stagnant and bloated political atmosphere that is extremely hostile to newcomers and new player invasions (and I should know because I heralded one of them.  Bringing in 100+ new players in a span of a week was met with derision, lol.)

 

Again, I suggest you look at that graph. There is no political atmosphere; just "it's the holidays, and I can't get a girlfriend, so I might as well get my group of losers together and pwn somebody."

 

The mechanics do not allow newcomers to easily catch up in development level without investing years of time, and there is little reward left for such investment.

 

There certainly is no "reward for such investment" if new players are flooded with recruitment messages, threats and battle reports. Yes, this game does take time to master. I'm still learning new ways of utilizing the game mechanics. We have to think of ways to make Bob more appealing to newcomers and stop trying to force them to either conform to being bullies or victims.

 

It's going to end with a whimper.  As people lose wars, from this point on, they're just going to be inclined to pack it up and go home.  There's not much left to fight for.  Nothing worth rebuilding for. I'll leave with many fond memories, for sure.  But the game is just about over.

At our present trajectory, Bob certainly does die. So the rest of us should join you in giving up?

 

Maybe instead, people who care and can see the potential Planet Bob has to offer should not listen to the likes of you, hm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In as serious a way as possible, nothing will be decided in this discussion because neither side can be reasoned out of positions they didn't reason themselves into.

 

I'm generally of the opinion that raiding is a non-factor in the number of people playing the game.  For every person who, potentially, quits because they were raided when small, another person keeps playing because raiding is something to do.  I'm also of the opinion that it would not be possible to establish whether raiding is positive, negative, or neutral, especially not with a moratorium, because it would be impossible to establish control conditions.

 

However I'm also of the opinion that [i]even if it were proven[/i] that raiding was a contributory factor in the decline of the playerbase, those who support raiding would not stop doing so, because their position is that of people who enjoy raiding, not people who dispassionately support the growth of the playerbase.  Additionally, [i]even if it were proven[/i] that raiding were neutral, or even that raiding was a retention factor, those who oppose raiding would not stop doing so, because their opposition to raiding is based largely on thinking it is wrong rather than the dispassionate support of the growth of the playerbase.

 

We are not rational actors.  We are game players.  We each play in the way we enjoy, and if we cannot find a way of playing that we enjoy, we stop playing.  I used "play" too much in the last two sentences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Lam how you been?

 

 

I'm generally of the opinion that raiding is a non-factor in the number of people playing the game.  For every person who, potentially, quits because they were raided when small, another person keeps playing because raiding is something to do.  I'm also of the opinion that it would not be possible to establish whether raiding is positive, negative, or neutral, especially not with a moratorium, because it would be impossible to establish control conditions.

 

I can give the second sentence complete agreement, unfortunately. I can't think of a practically possible way to make this experiment flawless which it would need to be to be reliable.

 

As to the first two, however, let me point out that even Walford has said in the past that raiding in certain contexts is fine - between actors of roughly equal power, i.e. none raiding none.

 

It was actually his own words some months back that wound up convincing me to start raiding myself.

 

I've had quite a bit of fun on raids, got to interact with players that would have otherwise been sitting bored, had a few interesting conversations, and ate a few nukes. I never told anyone I would call for help and persecute them if they fought back, which (please, Walford, correct me if I am wrong) based on reading many of his posts over the years would appear to be where the line should be drawn, no?

 

And I do think it's a good line independent of his opinion, because when that line is crossed we run a real risk of actually driving people out of the game.  Furthermore, in many cases, it seems to be the conscious intent.

 

 


However I'm also of the opinion that even if it were proven that raiding was a contributory factor in the decline of the playerbase, those who support raiding would not stop doing so, because their position is that of people who enjoy raiding, not people who dispassionately support the growth of the playerbase.  Additionally, even if it were proven that raiding were neutral, or even that raiding was a retention factor, those who oppose raiding would not stop doing so, because their opposition to raiding is based largely on thinking it is wrong rather than the dispassionate support of the growth of the playerbase.

 

For the most part I am afraid you are right. There are surely other examples but off the top of my head I am the only person I can think of that has changed their mind on this, and obviously what happened with me is more complex than just changing my mind, since I'm still citing Walford ;)

 

Edit: Homophones are confusing.

Edited by Sigrun Vapneir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In as serious a way as possible, nothing will be decided in this discussion because neither side can be reasoned out of positions they didn't reason themselves into.

 

I'm generally of the opinion that raiding is a non-factor in the number of people playing the game.  For every person who, potentially, quits because they were raided when small, another person keeps playing because raiding is something to do.  I'm also of the opinion that it would not be possible to establish whether raiding is positive, negative, or neutral, especially not with a moratorium, because it would be impossible to establish control conditions.

 

 

As I had suggested earlier, it could be possible to enforce it by convening the leaders of the major alliances and getting them to agree on the terms and means of enforcement, internally would be preferable. That way, 100% agreement by every nation ruler in the our World would not be needed.

 

 

However I'm also of the opinion that even if it were proven that raiding was a contributory factor in the decline of the playerbase, those who support raiding would not stop doing so, because their position is that of people who enjoy raiding, not people who dispassionately support the growth of the playerbase. 

 

 

We need to specifically define terms. It is my opinion that the raiding of un-aligned nations by those that are protected by alliances must be stopped. The fact that the raiders are members of alliances, and thus subject to rules, means that the raiding can be curbed significantly. I am not sure of the numbers, but I believe that the majority of alliances already do not permit tech-raiding or other unauthorized wars. I am hoping that enough of the alliances that currently permit their members to attack unaligned nations to refrain for a specified period for mutual benefit.

 

 

We are not rational actors.  We are game players.  We each play in the way we enjoy, and if we cannot find a way of playing that we enjoy, we stop playing.  

 

 

I would offer that only a minority are not rational. Most of us are acting in our self-interest and are capable of doing what is right for the whole, because that also is ultimately in our self-interest. Those who only enjoy destruction and seeing how many people they can drive away should be the ones who leave, not those of us who see the possibility of hope and a future here.

 

 

Additionally, even if it were proven that raiding were neutral, or even that raiding was a retention factor, those who oppose raiding would not stop doing so, because their opposition to raiding is based largely on thinking it is wrong rather than the dispassionate support of the growth of the playerbase.

 

... let me point out that even Walford has said in the past that raiding in certain contexts is fine - between actors of roughly equal power, i.e. none raiding none.

 

 

We should not make assumptions as to the objections to tech-raiding. As I and Walford pointed out, it is the raiding of the un-aligned by nations in alliances that should be stopped. The reasons have been given as to why. The moral objection is based upon practicality; those of us who have the capability of doing so should really think how new players would respond to being forced to choose between independence or subjugation in a game that arguably is not designed for constant warfare and would not be interesting to those who would want that.

 

"To: Victim, From Aggressor

You have been attacked by Aggressor. You have lost x soldiers, x tanks, x infrastructure..."

 

Bloody hell,  what sort of gamer is going to find that exciting?

 

Let us consider the possibility of something more using the present game mechanics. We could have coalitions based upon political ideology or religion and robust discussions along those lines. Then, every now and then, have holy wars or such. We could also have contribution from our eccentric hermits who would have no investment one way or the other, and thus having a non-biased perspective. They might even join a side temporarily and see how that goes. 

 

With fresh blood, we can have fresh ideas as to how to make the most of what the Creator of our World envisioned and build upon that.

 

 

And I do think it's a good line independent of his opinion, because when that line is crossed we run a real risk of actually driving people out of the game.  Furthermore, in many cases, it seems to be the conscious intent

 

 

 

Such people are a tiny minority of our present population and we should recognize that they are a threat to us all. They are the ones who should be marginalized, not those who advocate for a change in our present self-destructive behaviours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morgaine you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how alliance policies work. You are placing the cart before the horse.

If you want to change the way alliances work, it is your job to gather together an analysis proving your point about raiding being responsible for the decline in game population. You can't just say "well you have to stop raiding so we can see the difference."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

As I had suggested earlier, it could be possible to enforce it by convening the leaders of the major alliances and getting them to agree on the terms and means of enforcement, internally would be preferable. That way, 100% agreement by every nation ruler in the our World would not be needed.

 

 

You have a misunderstanding of what I mean by "control conditions".  If you are conducting an experiment to check if a particular factor causes a particular effect then a number of factors need to be in place to make the experiment as reliable as possible.

  • You need to restrict testing to one variable at a time
  • You need to make sure that as far as possible the environment in which the test is being conducted is the same as the environment  would be without that test being conducted.
  • You need to establish ahead of time the metrics you are studying rather than going on a fishing expedition
  • You need to account for recorder bias

In evidence based medicine they refer to this as PICO.  In formulating a question that needs to be answered you need to know:

 

  • People
  • Intervention (or risk factor)
  • Comparator
  • Outcome

You've actually done a decent job of establishing a question, but what you've failed to do is to find a way in which the only factor that changes in your experiment is whether raiding is happening or not.  I'm of the opinion that it would be impossible to establish conditions under which raiding would be reduced enough for the effect to be significant and other changes to the landscape to not be introduced at the same time.  It would be impossible to say whether the effect on population (if there were one) was caused by a reduction in raiding, by changes to the political landscape caused by establishing a society where raiding was temporarily not tolerated, or were an artifact of people with a vested interest trying to skew the results.  They would, in short, be worthless from an evidence point of view.

 

And whatever they said, they'd be ignored anyway except as another stick to hit people with in the raiding debate that had gone on for the nine years I've been playing this game without the arguments changing significantly on either side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The moral objection is based upon practicality; those of us who have the capability of doing so should really think how new players would respond to being forced to choose between independence or subjugation in a game that arguably is not designed for constant warfare and would not be interesting to those who would want that.

 

I don't really need to use my imagination, and in fact I don't even really need to use my memory, as I am living independence and I know full well how much hostility I face even to this day as a result. I think that's a larger problem than just 'raiding' however and to some degree I feel like you really get lost, get stuck on 'raiding' when that is just one facet of a much bigger problem.

 

I also remember the very first days of this nation, back in Feb and March of  '07, trying to do the same thing without the experience and the resources that make it possible. I remember my little nation being under constant assault - and it was actually quite a bit of fun at first, and what eventually made me join an alliance to get away wasn't any single attacker, but exhaustion after many waves of fresh attackers each of whom had no connection to the next.

 

I recall one was wearing a big AA and tried to tell me to FA him my tech and money otherwise his alliance would EZI me. Fortunately I was not a total noob, and I figured out that he was just ghosting and paid that threat no mind at all. However, if I had believed it, or if it had been credible (if he'd been on GONOS instead perhaps) THAT would probably have been the point where I would have started asking if this game was really worth logging into anymore. I'm glad that didnt happen.

 

And so of course that's my personal perspective and not necessarily everyone elses. I listen and I try to take all opinions into account but like everyone else my own experience shapes my opinions most.

 

And I'm not even sure that eliminating raiding entirely would be a positive for the game, but I am sure it's not possible to do. What is more likely to be possible, and more certain to be beneficial, in my opinion, is to focus on eliminating abusive tactics and reducing the general prejudice this world has against independence.

 

I don't want a nerf world where I cant get hurt anymore than I want a world of constant general warfare where nothing can be built. The fun game is to be had by staying in the middle and avoiding both extremes.

Edited by Sigrun Vapneir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morgaine you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how alliance policies work. You are placing the cart before the horse.

If you want to change the way alliances work, it is your job to gather together an analysis proving your point about raiding being responsible for the decline in game population. You can't just say "well you have to stop raiding so we can see the difference."

 

Bah.

 

The graph has been cited, showing the steep incline until the Spring of 2007, then sharply dropping off ever since. Those of us who are familiar with the history know exactly what was going on at that time and what continued starting then: Might-Makes-Right and Hegemony making our World into a game of war and nothing else. The debate and rhetoric all but disappeared in favour of juvenile drivel and chest-thumping.

 

You, on the other-hand have cited no evidence to support your theory that the reason that the population dropped off is because the game just became boring all of the sudden, and that nations belonging to alliances constantly attacking the un-aligned has actually made things better for all of us. It is counter-intuitive to anyone capable of putting one's self in another person's shoes and is not supported by historical evidence.

 

Nay, it is you who do not understand what it is like to be un-aligned for any appreciable amount of time. When Walford created NONE, his intention was not to eliminate tech-raiding; it was to operate with the alliance system as it was and make it costly enough so that those who were not in alliances would have a fighting chance to preserve their independence as they fought alongside each other in purely defensive wars. For our trouble, we were labelled as terrorists, hunted down like dogs and driven away.

 

Was he the failure, or was it those who "won" by making it so our numbers would continue to decline? What kind of world would we be living in if NONE were still operating? Better or worse?

 

Finally, I and the others who advocate having allied nations suspending attacks upon independent ones are not trying to change the alliance system. The survival of that system does not require un-aligned nations being attacked by those protected by alliances. Most alliances already do not permit this, so it is merely  a matter of having the minority that permit raiding un-aligned to give the new nations a respite for a time and see what happens.

 

The parameters are quite simple. Nations belonging to alliances should be either be outright prohibited from attacking the un-aligned by their alliances or they should be denied protection from their alliances while the unauthorized war is in progress. The latter is a common practice amongst alliances when one of their members attacks a nation belonging to another alliance without permission. They are denied protection and are often expelled as well.

 

Let us then consider that un-aligned nations are sovereign as well; that attacks against them should be responded to in a similar fashion as is currently the case when the attacked nation is in an alliance. 

 

This would not be as radical a change as is being assumed and implied. Let us consider what is to be lost and what is to be gained if the un-aligned are not attacked by the aligned.

 

 

 

You have a misunderstanding of what I mean by "control conditions".  If you are conducting an experiment to check if a particular factor causes a particular effect then a number of factors need to be in place to make the experiment as reliable as possible.

  • You need to restrict testing to one variable at a time
  • You need to make sure that as far as possible the environment in which the test is being conducted is the same as the environment  would be without that test being conducted.
  • You need to establish ahead of time the metrics you are studying rather than going on a fishing expedition
  • You need to account for recorder bias

In evidence based medicine they refer to this as PICO.  In formulating a question that needs to be answered you need to know:

 

  • People
  • Intervention (or risk factor)
  • Comparator
  • Outcome

You've actually done a decent job of establishing a question, but what you've failed to do is to find a way in which the only factor that changes in your experiment is whether raiding is happening or not.  I'm of the opinion that it would be impossible to establish conditions under which raiding would be reduced enough for the effect to be significant and other changes to the landscape to not be introduced at the same time.  It would be impossible to say whether the effect on population (if there were one) was caused by a reduction in raiding, by changes to the political landscape caused by establishing a society where raiding was temporarily not tolerated, or were an artifact of people with a vested interest trying to skew the results.  They would, in short, be worthless from an evidence point of view.

 

And whatever they said, they'd be ignored anyway except as another stick to hit people with in the raiding debate that had gone on for the nine years I've been playing this game without the arguments changing significantly on either side.

 

 

We have seen a steady decline in our total population that sharply began at the peak of the aforementioned graph, which was between the First and Second Great Wars in the Spring of 2007. Anyone with any sense of intellectual honesty can discern what changed at that time and what was the response of thousands of players as a direct consequence. If we refrain from attacking the un-aligned for an amount of time that would be sufficient to definitively establish cause-and-effect (I personally think a minimum of 6 months would be needed), there should be no doubt as to the interpretation. 

If there is a "political factor" that could be changed that would increase retention of new players while they are being faced with the choice of being forced into alliances or be subject to constant attacks, I would love to know what that might be.

 

 

 

I don't really need to use my imagination, and in fact I don't even really need to use my memory, as I am living independence and I know full well how much hostility I face even to this day as a result. I think that's a larger problem than just 'raiding' however and to some degree I feel like you really get lost, get stuck on 'raiding' when that is just one facet of a much bigger problem.

 

I also remember the very first days of this nation, back in Feb and March of  '07, trying to do the same thing without the experience and the resources that make it possible. I remember my little nation being under constant assault - and it was actually quite a bit of fun at first, and what eventually made me join an alliance to get away wasn't any single attacker, but exhaustion after many waves of fresh attackers each of whom had no connection to the next.

 

I recall one was wearing a big AA and tried to tell me to FA him my tech and money otherwise his alliance would EZI me. Fortunately I was not a total noob, and I figured out that he was just ghosting and paid that threat no mind at all. However, if I had believed it, or if it had been credible (if he'd been on GONOS instead perhaps) THAT would probably have been the point where I would have started asking if this game was really worth logging into anymore. I'm glad that didnt happen.

 

 

Then you also, are the exception. The vast majority of new nations that had their in-boxes filled with recruitment messages, threats and battle reports left for good. It is that majority we must seek to retain.

 

 

And I'm not even sure that eliminating raiding entirely would be a positive for the game, but I am sure it's not possible to do. What is more likely to be possible, and more certain to be beneficial, in my opinion, is to focus on eliminating abusive tactics and reducing the general prejudice this world has against independence.

 

 

I think that the best way to accomplish that is to establish a separation between nations belonging to alliances and those that do not. As Walford pointed out, they are playing a different game. One should not be forced to choose between independence and subjugation. If un-aligned nations want to fight each other, that is fine. They are on an equal playing field. If a new player happens to attack a nation belonging to an alliance, he should be countered, then cut free having been educated by experience.

 

 

I don't want a nerf world where I cant get hurt anymore than I want a world of constant general warfare where nothing can be built. The fun game is to be had by staying in the middle and avoiding both extremes.

 

 

 

Nobody is suggesting to create such a world. Our World is dying and those of us who care should undertake to save it. That should include allowing for independent players and making a place for those who are primarily interested in politics, diplomacy, economics, debate and even religion as well. There would still be war, but it would be a risk instead of the only thing going here. We are not advocating for less, we want more. We do not want things to be boring here, we want it to be more interesting for a broader spectrum of players. All of this can be accomplished under the present game mechanics.

 

The nay-sayers here have no positive alternative to offer. They are just spouting off the same refrain that all is lost, nothing can be done, so we might as well give up and continue to fight each other for increasingly frivolous reasons until a final series of conflagrations wipes out all but a few.

 

I am sorry, but I do not find that position to be compelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have seen a steady decline in our total population that sharply began at the peak of the aforementioned graph, which was between the First and Second Great Wars in the Spring of 2007. Anyone with any sense of intellectual honesty can discern what changed at that time and what was the response of thousands of players as a direct consequence. 

 

I can think of dozens of things that happened within and around the game in between the first and second great wars.  A short list:

 

  • The game passed its first anniversary
  • We saw the last sizeable invasions from other games/boards (Something Awful, Fark, 4Chan)
  • The "nation game boom" began with various browser based nation games launching, becoming popular, and then starting to fade away.
  • The first largescale alliance coalitions formed.
  • Ivan Moldavi retired as emperor of the NPO.
  • A Cyber Nations alliance came to the attention of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs .

By assuming that the cause of the decline in CN's population is due to the increase in raiding, you are committing a logical fallacy known as "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after, therefore because of).  What you need to do (and what a raiding moratorium wouldn't help you do) is establish a causal link between the game population reducing and the rise of raiding.  I very much doubt you'd be able to.

 

If we refrain from attacking the un-aligned for an amount of time that would be sufficient to definitively establish cause-and-effect (I personally think a minimum of 6 months would be needed), there should be no doubt as to the interpretation.

 

So what you're saying is that we should do exactly what you want and act exactly how you want for half a year?  Yes, I'm sure you do think that long is needed for your spurious "study".  It's laughingly obvious that you couldn't care less about getting evidence for reasons behind the population decline.  You just want raiding to stop and you'll say literally anything to make it happen.

 

For the record, I happen to think there's a much simpler and more compelling reason for the decline in population: this is a text based browser game that has been around for nearly ten years.  The playerbase of games like this typically grows fast to begin with ("the shock of the new"), then declines unless new content is made available.  Look at World Of Warcraft's numbers.  They grew consistently for the first few years as new content was added.  Then the shock of the new started to wear off and they went into a five year decline in numbers, (with occasional quarter-long blips like Warlords of Draenor).  This is what happens with games as they get long in the tooth and white in the beard.  The history of EVE Online is a similar story: spikes for new content followed by declines in popularity.  This is true in games where huge amounts of new content is created.  It's even truer in games like Cyber Nations where the base gameplay is largely identical to how it was when the game started.

 

The null hypothesis is that game populations decrease over time unless new content is created. You haven't suggested a decent way to test an alternative hypothesis that isn't "let me have my own way for half a year".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The null hypothesis is that game populations decrease over time unless new content is created. You haven't suggested a decent way to test an alternative hypothesis that isn't "let me have my own way for half a year".

 

This is and has always been a game where the players create virtually all 'content' ourselves, however.

 

Instead of blaming admin (which is easy, everyone thinks they could 'fix' everything if only they were in his seat when in reality most would probably fail abjectly but nevermind) I think we do need to take a good look at the kind of 'content' that we as a group have created and continue to create, and ask ourselves why a new player would even be interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...