• Announcements

    • Sentinel

      Cyber Nations Forum Rules   07/03/2016

        Cyber Nations Forum Rules  
      In the process of registering on this forum, all players--including you--agreed to accept these terms and conditions and the terms and conditions of Invision Power Board. In doing so you essentially signed an electronic contract pledging to have read the rules and TOS and agreeing to follow the rules and TOS as written. It is your continued responsibility to read, follow, and keep up-to-date with the CN rules.
      The following are basic guidelines for use of the Cyber Nations community forum. Anyone caught disobeying these guidelines will be issued a warning. The forum staff works on a five warn limit policy unless the situation calls for more appropriate action ranging from a verbal warning to a double warn and suspension to an immediate ban, etc.   Just because something is not listed specifically here as illegal does not mean it's allowed. All players are expected to use common sense and are personally responsible for reading the pinned threads found in the Moderation forum. Questions regarding appropriateness or other concerns can be sent via PM to an appropriate moderator.   A permanent ban on the forums results in a game ban, and vice versa. Please note that the in-game warn system works on a "three strikes you're out" policy and that in-game actions (including warnings and deletions) may not be appealed. For more information regarding in-game rules please read the Cyber Nations Game Rules.   1.) First Warning
      2.) Second Warning
      3.) Third Warning (48 hour suspension at the forum)
      4.) Fourth Warning (120 hour suspension at the forum)
      5.) Permanent Ban   Game Bans and Forum Bans
      If you receive a 100% warn level on the forums, you will be subject to removal from the forums AND have your nation deleted and banned from the game at moderator(s) discretion.   If you are banned in the game, then you will be banned from the forums.   Process of Appeals
      Players may not appeal any in-game actions. This includes cheat flags, canceled trades, content removals, warn level increases, nation deletion, and bans from the game.   Players may appeal individual forum warnings. You may only appeal a warning if you can show with evidence that it was unwarranted or unduly harsh. If a reasonable amount of time has passed (no less than one month and preferably longer) in which you have demonstrated reformed behavior than you may request a warning level reduction. Wasting staff time with inappropriately filed reports and/or unfounded appeals will result in a warn level raise. Repeat incidences will result in a ban from the forum.   Bans are permanent. Banned players may appeal to the Senior Staff if they believe grounds exist (very, very rare) in which they state their case with evidence and why explain why they believe they deserve to be allowed back into Cyber Nations. This process is not quick and the investigation into cases may last three minutes or three weeks or more depending on the individual situation.   The only place where discussion of moderator action is acceptable is in the appropriate Moderation forum. Posting commentary on or disagreement with moderator action elsewhere will result in a warn level raise.   Posting
      All posts must be in English. Common phrases in other languages will be allowed so long as they are translated upon request. Foreign languages are permitted in signatures and avatars, however.   Certain areas of the forum require you to have a nation in either standard CN or CN:TE. If you have...   A SE and a TE nation: You get one forum account. Your forum account name must match your SE nation or ruler name. You are allowed to post in either SE or TE areas of the forum. You must have your CN:TE nation name listed in your profile to post in the CN:TE section of the forum.
      Just an SE nation: You get one forum account. Your forum account name must match your SE nation or ruler name. You are not allowed to post in any TE areas of the forum.
      Just a TE nation: You get one forum account. Your forum account name must match your TE nation name or ruler name. Your must have your CN:TE nation name listed correctly in your profile. You are not allowed to post in any of the SE areas. You are allowed to post in the water cooler, question center and the moderation forums. Other than that, all your posts need to stay in the TE area.   Flame/Flamebait/Trolling
      Flaming is expressing anger or lobbing insults at a person/player rather than a character, post, idea, etc. Flamebait are posts that are made with the aim of targeting/harassing/provoking another user into rule-breaking. Trolling is submitting posts with the aim of targeting/harassing/provoking a specific group into rule-breaking. Forum users should not be participating in any of these, and doing so will result in a warning.   Topic Hijacking
      Hijacking is forcing the current thread discussion off of the original topic and usually results in spam or flame from either side. Forum users found hijacking threads will be given a warning.   Repeat Topics
      One topic is enough. Repeat topics will be locked, removed, and the author given a warning. Users found creating repeat topics after others were locked by staff will receive a warn raise.   Joke Topics
      Topics created as a joke are prohibited. Joke topics will be locked and the author warned. This includes topics in which the author is making an announcement “for” another in-game alliance. Humorous threads are permitted; it is up to the discretion of the moderation staff to determine what is merely satire and what is actually a joke topic.   Spam
      Spam is defined as creating posts or topics containing only contentless material of any kind. Users found spamming will receive a warning. Examples include (but are in no way limited to) posts containing nothing but smilies, "+1", "QFT", "this" any other one/few-word contentless combination, joke threads, or posts containing quotes and anything that counts as spam by itself. Adding words to a post with the express intent of avoiding a spam warn will result in a warning. These posts and other similar contributions have no substance and hence are considered spam. Posts of "Ave", "Hail" or any other one word congratulatory type are acceptable as one word posts. Emoticon type posts such as "o/" without accompanying text is still not allowed. Posts containing only images are considered spam, unless the image is being used in the Alliance Politics sub-forum and then the actual text of the image be placed into spoiler tags.   Posting in All Caps
      Posting large amounts of text in capital letters is not permitted. Use discretion when using your caps lock key.   No Discussion Forums
      There are forums that are not for discussion and are used strictly for game and forum staff to address certain issues, bugs, etc. The following forums are not open to discussion: Report Game Abuse, Report Forum Abuse, and Warn/Ban Appeals. Only moderators and the original poster may post in a thread, period, with absolutely no exceptions. Users found disobeying this guideline will receive an automatic warning for each offense.   Moderation Forums
      All Moderation forums also maintain pinned threads clearly marked as required reading before posting. Failure to read and follow required reading and procedure in a Moderation forum will result in a warning. Examples include posting requests in the wrong forum, failure to include all required information in posts, etc. The standard of conduct and enforcement of rules in Moderation forums is strictly enforced and the repercussions for disregarding rules or disrespecting staff are harsh. Read the pinned threads before posting and you will be fine.   Namecalling
      Excessive or unqualified namecalling is not allowed in IC forums; namecalling should also never make up the bulk of a post. Namecalling is prohibited entirely in all OOC forums.   Filtered Words
      Any attempts to evade the word filter will result in a warning. The terms we have filtered are filtered for a reason and no excuse for evasion will be accepted. Filter evasion includes censoring or deliberately misspelling part of a filtered word.   If you link to a website, image, video, etc., containing profanity, please post a disclaimer before the link. The moderation staff may still remove links if the content is deemed too obscene.   Harassment
      Forum users should not be stalking/harassing others on the forums. Anyone found stalking players from topic to topic, etc., will be subject to a warning.   Gravedigging
      Gravedigging is not allowed anywhere on the forums. Gravedigging is "bumping" old topics which haven't been active for quite some time (four to seven days is standard depending on the nature of the thread and how many pages back it had been pushed before bump). Your warn level will be raised if you are caught doing this.   The Suggestion Box and Black Market forums are partial exceptions to this rule. Suggestions/ideas in that forum may be posted in regardless of age PROVIDING that the reviving post contains constructive, on-topic input to the original topic or discussion. Black Market threads may be bumped by the author if there is new information about the offered exchange (i.e open aid slots). In the Player Created Alliances forum it will not be considered gravedigging to bump a topic up to a year old, so long as the alliance in question still exists and it is not a duplicate thread.   Signatures
      Those who fail to read and abide by these rules will have their signatures removed and receive a warning.   You may have only one image per signature which may not exceed the maximum size of 450 pixels wide by 150 pixels tall. You may have no more than 8 lines of text and text size cannot exceed size 4. Each quote-tag, image and empty line count as a line.   Inappropriate Images and Other Disallowed Images
      Images that are sexual in nature or have sexual overtones are prohibited. It is up to the discretion of the moderation staff to determine what constitutes sexual overtones. Depictions of kissing are permissible provided there are no sexual implications. Images depicting female nipples are prohibited outright.   Making “ASCII art” is prohibited regardless of the image depicted.   Using photos or likenesses of another Cyber Nations player is also prohibited.   Drug References
      Images and posts promoting illegal drug use are prohibited. References to drugs are acceptable only if the moderation staff deems that it is not promoting the use thereof.   Obscene Content and/or "Account Suicide"
      Anyone caught posting vulgar material (including but in no way limited to pornography, "gross," "tubgirl," "lemonparty," photos depicting RL illegal acts such as violence towards humans or animals, child pornography, death photos, and any other obscene or offensive material in either text form or picture form) will have their account(s) permanently banned, and their ISP contacted along with any other applicable internet and RL authorities.   OOC Threats / Revealing Personal Information
      An OOC threat of any nature will equate to an automatic ban from the game and forums. Likewise, the publishing of personal information of any other player without their explicit permission is grounds for warning and/or a ban from the game depending on the severity of the offense.   Death Threats / Death Wishes
      A death threat or a death wish of any nature (including but not limited to telling another player to commit suicide) will result in at very least a 40% warn level increase and 2 day suspension from the forums, with harsher punishments, including a complete ban from the forums and game, up to the discretion of the moderation staff.   Quoting Rulebreaking Posts
      Do not quote any post with obscene content or any other content that has to be removed by the moderation staff. Doing so makes it more difficult for the moderation staff to find and remove all such content and will result in a warn level increase. Putting rulebreaking posts of any kind in your signature is prohibited.   Forum Names
      With the exception of moderator accounts, all forum accounts must match up exactly with the ruler name or nation name of your in-game country. Those found not matching up will be warned and banned immediately. Forum account names may not be profane or offensive.   Multiple Forum Accounts
      With the exception of moderators, if you are caught with multiple forum accounts, the multiple account(s) will be banned, warn level raised, and your identity will be announced by a moderator to the CN community so rule-abiding players can take IC action against you. Multiple forum account offenders will receive a varying percentage warn level raise and/or a permanent ban on a case-by-case basis.   Posting For Other Players
      Posting for banned or suspended players is prohibited, as is posting for any person without a nation. This includes making warn and ban appeals on their behalf.   Imitation &. Impersonation
      Imitation in terms of this forum is mimicking the posting, avatar, or signature styles of another user in an attempt to be satirical or generally humorous. Impersonation in terms of this forum is copying the posting, avatar, or signature styles of another user in order to present the illusion that the person is in fact that user. Imitation is fine and can be quite funny. Impersonation is disruptive and is warnable. Please pay attention to the subtle difference between these two concepts.   A player may not impersonate another player by emulating the characteristics of someone else's past or present account in an attempt to harass, stalk, or flamebait. Creating a new forum account in an attempt to impersonate a standing account will result in deletion and banning without notice.   Any attempt at imitation and/or impersonation of moderators and game staff is strictly prohibited and will be met with harsh repercussions.   Avatars
      Size for avatars is limited by the forum mechanics, therefore there is no size issue for a user to worry about. Avatars must be in good taste, and any avatar containing a picture that is too violent, disgusting, sexually explicit, insulting to another player or staff member, etc. will be removed. Avatars that are potentially seizure inducing will not be permitted. Players may not "borrow" the avatars of any moderator past or present without permission.   Swastikas and Nazi Imagery
      The swastika may not be used in signatures or avatars. Pictures of swastika's are acceptable for use in the In Character (IC) sections of the roleplay forums, so long as its context is In Character, and not Out Of Character. Pictures of Hitler, mentioning of the Holocaust, etc... have no place in the roleplay forums, since these people and events existed in real life, and have no bearing or place in the Cyberverse. Other Nazi or SS imagery is forbidden in all forums.   Moderation Staff
      The revealing of the private identities of any Cyber Nations staffers past or present is strictly prohibited, and thus no speculation/accusation of identity is allowed. Doing so is grounds for moderator action against your account appropriate to the offense, including a full forum/game ban.   Claims of moderator bias should be directed to the highest level of authority--the Head Game & Forum Mod/Admin, Keelah. Claims of moderator bias without supporting evidence is grounds for a warning.   Blatant disrespect of the moderator staff is strictly prohibited. This includes but is not limited to spoofing moderator accounts in any way, sig/avatar references, baiting, flaming, rude demands, mocking, attitude, and unsubstantiated claims of bias. They are volunteers hired to enforce the rules. If you have a problem with the way a moderator is enforcing the rules or the rules themselves please contact Keelah.   Attempting to use the moderation staff as a weapon by abusing the report system in an attempt to get another player warned or banned is strictly prohibited.   Do not ask about becoming or campaign to become a moderator. The moderators are drawn from CN membership but moderation positions are by invitation only. Asking to become one will substantially decrease your chances of ever being asked.   Aiding Rule Violators
      Any user found to know of a serious rule violation without reporting it to a game moderator (eg. knowledge of a user with multiple nations) will be given a warning or, in more serious cases, have their nation deleted.   Aiding Banned Players
      Any user found to be harboring, aiding or otherwise knowingly helping a banned user will be deleted. This includes knowing of their existence within the game without reporting it to the game-moderation staff.   Questionable Actions and Content
      The forum rules are not designed to cover every scenario. Any action that is seen to be counter-productive or harmful to the forum community may be met with moderator action against your account. The Cyber Nations Moderation Staff reserves the right to take action against your account without warning for any reason at any time.   Private Transactions
      Nation selling and other private transactions via such auction sites like eBay is against the Cyber Nations terms and conditions. While our moderators cannot control what people do outside of the game you are not allowed to promote such private exchanges on our forums without expressed permission from admin only. Anyone found to be engaging in such activity without permission will be banned from the game.   Advertising
      Advertising other browser games and forums is prohibited. Soliciting donations towards commercial causes is also prohibited. If you wish to ask for donations towards a charitable cause, please contact a moderator before doing so.   Extorting Donations
      Donations are excluded from any kind of IC payment. Anyone found extorting others for OOC payments will be warned in-game and/or banned.   Third Party Software
      Third party software is not allowed to be advertised on these forums by any means (post, signature, PM, etc). These programs can easily be used to put malware on the user's computer, and as such can cause huge security issues. Anybody who is caught spreading links to these will at the very least have their warning level increased.   Other Forum Terms & Rules   Please take a moment to review these rules detailed below. If you agree with them and wish to proceed with the registration, simply click the "Register" button below. To cancel this registration, simply hit the 'back' button on your browser.   Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. USE THE WEB SITE AT YOUR OWN RISK. We will not be liable for any damages for any reason. THIS WEB SITE IS PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS," WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED.   The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.   You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.   You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board.
Dimitri227

The Real Issue facing CN

61 posts in this topic

12 hours ago, Amossio said:

This is more complicated than it needs to be.

 

From an individual sense tech dealing rates are low priority, from an alliance point of view, the actual tech rate is irrelevant. Ensuring there is some kind of tech dealing aka slots being filled, is far more beneficial. This ensures some kind of systematic growth for larger number of peeps. Otherwise you create a situation where 3 to 5 players grow and the rest become stale.

 

Hence maintaining activity aka slots filled, creating wider growth where you have mid/higher tier you can then have a small number of people staying active in some sense to push forward an fa agenda, make "friends" and lead the alliance. 

 

 

Actually I kind of agree with this; far better from an alliance perspective to have most people gaining tech at a moderate rates than a handful gaining quickly.

 

For many of the people posting here: those from Umbrella, IRON and ISX, as well as NPO, tech trading is all sorted out centrally, so finding tech deals as an individual doesn't matter. For a majority of players they are likely to have to do some work to find tech trade partners (even if their alliance gov does provide help), as such what matters the most in terms of tech growth is simply using your slots, which is far better than not using them/delaying because the rate offered is not the preferred one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be hitting 2 years as a tech seller soon. Any time I had a jump, war came, and I got wrecked by smaller nations with nukes. Then it was back to square one, really... the rate should be $9M/100 tech or $6M/100 tech because most buyer nations actively utilizing 5+ slots can easily afford that.

 

If I was a new player, then what on bob would be a reason to stick around in this nincompoop when one little diddle can come along and destroy 3+ months of progress in under 7 days. It's not primarily a matter of infrastructure. Unless you're able to develop wonders and improvements every single month it's very hard to become developed.

 

Personally, I've found that by developing a nation with an alliance will strengthen the retention rate for players. I've seen quite a lot of nations in my position, develop 2-5 wonders even, but go inactive or get bored because they never really felt accomplished. Nine years ago I felt more involved because this game was a challenge, to reach the top 5%, to trade tech, find trade partners, and manage politics. It's become far too simplified, much like these tech deals nowadays. No one likes chores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blackatron said:

 

Actually I kind of agree with this; far better from an alliance perspective to have most people gaining tech at a moderate rates than a handful gaining quickly.

 

For many of the people posting here: those from Umbrella, IRON and ISX, as well as NPO, tech trading is all sorted out centrally, so finding tech deals as an individual doesn't matter. For a majority of players they are likely to have to do some work to find tech trade partners (even if their alliance gov does provide help), as such what matters the most in terms of tech growth is simply using your slots, which is far better than not using them/delaying because the rate offered is not the preferred one.

Or even selling if done correctly, biggest periods of internal growth I've seen from my old alliances have been when there was a systematic internal push to fill slots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone said tech? I like it, please send it to me.

 

Tech > Friends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2017 at 4:11 AM, Drege said:

I'll be hitting 2 years as a tech seller soon. Any time I had a jump, war came, and I got wrecked by smaller nations with nukes. Then it was back to square one, really... the rate should be $9M/100 tech or $6M/100 tech because most buyer nations actively utilizing 5+ slots can easily afford that.

 

If I was a new player, then what on bob would be a reason to stick around in this nincompoop when one little diddle can come along and destroy 3+ months of progress in under 7 days. It's not primarily a matter of infrastructure. Unless you're able to develop wonders and improvements every single month it's very hard to become developed.

 

Personally, I've found that by developing a nation with an alliance will strengthen the retention rate for players. I've seen quite a lot of nations in my position, develop 2-5 wonders even, but go inactive or get bored because they never really felt accomplished. Nine years ago I felt more involved because this game was a challenge, to reach the top 5%, to trade tech, find trade partners, and manage politics. It's become far too simplified, much like these tech deals nowadays. No one likes chores.

 

This is why the number one issue today is rogues who harass new nations and try to force them from this world. It takes a systemic effort to create order in today's barbarian world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real issue is that most of us have been here too long and are starting to realize how much more productive our lives could be without CN in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Real Issue facing CN

 

Peace Mode wasn't removed so nations could amass $20b making war pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buying 100 tech costs maybe 2 mil? So a 9/100 means you net 7 mil per deal. Using that for jumps and all of that fun stuff, you can hit 4k infra in 1 to 2 rounds of selling. From there, you can use the cash flow for wonders and warchest.

 

Tech sellers make enough, buyers get enough. If you want more, you need to change the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the real problem with CN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I always could always use 9mil for 100 deals. 

 

As well as others in TIE 

 

We are open for business 

Edited by Lucius Optimus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2017 at 6:49 PM, Gh0s7 said:

Buying 100 tech costs maybe 2 mil? So a 9/100 means you net 7 mil per deal. Using that for jumps and all of that fun stuff, you can hit 4k infra in 1 to 2 rounds of selling. From there, you can use the cash flow for wonders and warchest.

 

Tech sellers make enough, buyers get enough. If you want more, you need to change the system.

Buyers don't get enough. The issue isn't the money, it's the time delay. If people could pay  12m and get 200 straight away, then it wouldn't be an issue. The rate of tech accumulation goes down significantly at 9m/100. Essentially, these policies have made this a two tier game, alliances like the top 3 that have internal sellers to keep 9m/300 rates internally and alliances that buy at 6m/100 or 9m/100. It's usually similar people who complain about non-competitiveness statistically and such while intentionally gimping themselves.  The tech system is fundamentally broken. The good thing is no one cares anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Monster said:

Buyers don't get enough. The issue isn't the money, it's the time delay. If people could pay  12m and get 200 straight away, then it wouldn't be an issue. The rate of tech accumulation goes down significantly at 9m/100. Essentially, these policies have made this a two tier game, alliances like the top 3 that have internal sellers to keep 9m/300 rates internally and alliances that buy at 6m/100 or 9m/100. It's usually similar people who complain about non-competitiveness statistically and such while intentionally gimping themselves.  The tech system is fundamentally broken. The good thing is no one cares anymore.

That is avioded by having a backeted system where only the richest buy 100 tech for 9mil. And only after a target amount of tech levels has been reached

 

Obviously if it's a war buildup situation exceptions can be made. But in peace 9mil for 100 shouldn't be a problem. And 6mil for 200 shouldn't even be on the table 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A differential rate system requires a greater degree of control and there's no reason why an alliance that wanted its strongest nations to be even stronger wouldn't focus all of their tech gathering abilities on doing so. Unless all the sellers were going to gather together and exclusively sell to nations that only have a low tech level at high rates of their own volition and somehow dispense with all the extant tech feeders, it's not clear to me how setting up that kind of system would even work. The reality is that it's now a division between the alliances that work to gain tech as their ultimate goal and buy at one rate and alliances that see acrueing tech as an insignificant byproduct of their aid programs for smaller nations and "buy" at another.

Edited by Auctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As new nations, we should be DEMANDING the most money for the tech!  We are the ones building up sizeable empires through the labor force of our populations!  How dare those established countries attempt to buy techn at 1.5mil for 100.  This is an outrage!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I do think how much tech and money can be sent in each slot needs increasing, but somehow I think this game will be dead before that happens. I would be in favor of removing the aid caps altogether, so how much aid can be fit in a slot is no longer the major determining factor in how tech prices are set.

Edited by Noctis Lucis Caelum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Lucius Optimus said:

That is avioded by having a backeted system where only the richest buy 100 tech for 9mil. And only after a target amount of tech levels has been reached

 

Obviously if it's a war buildup situation exceptions can be made. But in peace 9mil for 100 shouldn't be a problem. And 6mil for 200 shouldn't even be on the table 

That'll never be how it works and would require centralization  that doesn't exist. Only the richest in tech would make sense for that rather than the richest in money and there'd be no way to enforce it. The issue is there is no actual prevailing rate right now as is; it's just people who try to accrue tech and others like Auctor said treat it as a relatively insignificant byproduct or philanthropy or simply have given up on real tech growth and the latter are the ones buying at 9m/100. For any prevailing rate to make sense, it has to be followed by everyone. The issue is technology dealing isn't officially sanctioned by the creator and is just a thing the people here invented. If there were set rates everyone had to follow, then there wouldn't be as big of a problem.

 

The other issue is everyone is content to do things in a way that ensures there is no competitiveness and people will continually gimp themselves to the extent they will be unable to damage to anyone statistically large. If the idea has been to create a parallel low nation strength world with a bunch of 9m/100 buyers and a perma-seller class, then it's poorly executed anyway and could be done much better and the only one who has even expressed anything coming close is Junka. As of now, it's just a bunch of people feeling good about retarding their tech growth while others quietly boost to levels that will be impossible to even have half of past a certain point.

 

6m/200 should be on the table, because a seller is only a seller for a relatively limited time compared to being a buyer if they're not a perma-seller. It will be more expensive for them to pay the 9m/100 rates long-run  in both cost and lack of tech growth if they do not stay a seller. For an older nation, the money isn't the issue, it's the retardation of tech accumulation.  Having to pay after receiving 100 tech and then having to wait to receive 100 tech again is slower than paying once and receiving twice. It gets worse when others are buying at 9m/300 rates and thus only pay once and receive three times.

 

Like I said, given the rate of people moving on from this world, it doesn't matter. For older nations, their nations are mere keepsakes and the rulers have grown weary. The 9m/100 craze is a symptom of a wider problem, but it's a very bad symptom.

Edited by Monster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Monster said:

That'll never be how it works and would require centralization  that doesn't exist. Only the richest in tech would make sense for that rather than the richest in money and there'd be no way to enforce it. The issue is there is no actual prevailing rate right now as is; it's just people who try to accrue tech and others like Auctor said treat it as a relatively insignificant byproduct or philanthropy or simply have given up on real tech growth and the latter are the ones buying at 9m/100. For any prevailing rate to make sense, it has to be followed by everyone. The issue is technology dealing isn't officially sanctioned by the creator and is just a thing the people here invented. If there were set rates everyone had to follow, then there wouldn't be as big of a problem.

 

The issue is everyone is content to do things in a way that ensures there is no competitiveness and people will continually gimp themselves to the extent they will be unable to damage to anyone statistically large. If the idea has been to create a parallel low nation strength world with a bunch of 9m/100 buyers and a perma-seller class, then it's poorly executed anyway and could be done much better and the only one who has even expressed anything coming close is Junka. As of now, it's just a bunch of people feeling good about retarding their tech growth while others quietly boost to levels that will be impossible to even have half of past a certain point.

 

6m/200 should be on the table, because a seller is only a seller for a relatively limited time compared to being a buyer if they're not a perma-seller. It will be more expensive for them to pay the 9m/100 rates long-run  in both cost and lack of tech growth if they do not stay a seller. For an older nation, the money isn't the issue, it's the retardation of tech accumulation.  Having to pay after receiving 100 tech and then having to wait to receive 100 tech again is slower than paying once and receiving twice. It gets worse when others are buying at 9m/300 rates and thus only pay once and receive three times.

 

Like I said, given the rate of people moving on from this world, it doesn't matter. For older nations, their nations are mere heirlooms and the rulers have grown weary. The 9m/100 craze is a symptom of a wider problem, but it's a very bad symptom.

I think part of the issue is even if an alliance were to try optimizing themselves to increase their tech as quickly as possible, it would still be impossible for them to ever compete with alliances like DBDC who have accumulated massive amounts. Umbrella is one of the few exceptions to this, but for most alliances if they reach a certain NS; they get raided by DBDC and knocked back down again. Making it very pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Noctis Lucis Caelum said:

I think part of the issue is even if an alliance were to try optimizing themselves to increase their tech as quickly as possible, it would still be impossible for them to ever compete with alliances like DBDC who have accumulated massive amounts. Umbrella is one of the few exceptions to this, but for most alliances if they reach a certain NS; they get raided by DBDC and knocked back down again. Making it very pointless.

It would be difficult for most to reach that level purely on tech though given the current trend and many reached top 250 anyway through infra bloat/land and got wrecked, but the reason people like DBDC accumulated so much in comparison is they got it at 0/300 per slot per month or 9/300. when the tech system was changed from 50 to 100 when others chose to buy at 6m/100 instead. The gap would be significantly lesser if everyone had been buying at 9m/300 or 6m/200 and there would have been more competition for alliances with feeders. The problem is no one else really had tech growth as a goal, so the flaws of the system were easily taken advantage of by those that did.

 

The worst part is the anti-growth movement so to speak has been non-intentional and mostly believing they're paying  a fair rate and treating it as just giving extra money. If people simply didn't care about the top 250-500 nations anymore and wanted to ignore them, that would make sense but often times they stay in range anyway due to infra and land bloat. The parallel world outside of a continual dramas like Monsters Inc isn't really that vibrant and it's usually people waiting around to get hit rather than doing anything proactive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 minutes ago, Monster said:

It would be difficult for most to reach that level purely on tech though given the current trend and many reached top 250 anyway through infra bloat/land and got wrecked, but the reason people like DBDC accumulated so much in comparison is they got it at 0/300 per slot per month or 9/300. when the tech system was changed from 50 to 100 when others chose to buy at 6m/100 instead. The gap would be significantly lesser if everyone had been buying at 9m/300 or 6m/200 and there would have been more competition for alliances with feeders. The problem is no one else really had tech growth as a goal, so the flaws of the system were easily taken advantage of by those that did.

 

The worst part is the anti-growth movement so to speak has been non-intentional and mostly believing they're paying  a fair rate and treating it as just giving extra money. If people simply didn't care about the top 250-500 nations anymore and wanted to ignore them, that would make sense but often times they stay in range anyway due to infra and land bloat. The parallel world outside of a continual dramas like Monsters Inc isn't really that vibrant and it's usually people waiting around to get hit rather than doing anything proactive.

 

I think you're right about alliances like DBDC early on trying to amass a lot tech giving them an advantage, alliances like Umbrella and Gremlins were also amassing tech before it was even useful beyond bloating NS.

So we can talk about what alliances should have done in the past if they wanted to be competitive in high NS tiers, but for those who haven't already been putting a lot of effort in amassing tech for many years now; its far to late. The system as we currently have it is broken in regards for it being possible for alliances who aren't already competitive in high NS tier to suddenly be more competitive, so there is no point. I think its better for nations to focus on having an optimal tech/infra ratio, so they don't end up in range of nations who will completely destroy them; without ever standing a chance.

Edited by Noctis Lucis Caelum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Monster said:

Buyers don't get enough. The issue isn't the money, it's the time delay. If people could pay  12m and get 200 straight away, then it wouldn't be an issue. The rate of tech accumulation goes down significantly at 9m/100. Essentially, these policies have made this a two tier game, alliances like the top 3 that have internal sellers to keep 9m/300 rates internally and alliances that buy at 6m/100 or 9m/100. It's usually similar people who complain about non-competitiveness statistically and such while intentionally gimping themselves.  The tech system is fundamentally broken. The good thing is no one cares anymore.

I have not been around for as long as many, so please correct me if something I say is factually inaccurate;

 

In every political grouping historically there has naturally been a mixture of efficiencies within each sphere or grouping of AAs, some would purchase at good* rates and others at not so good rates, all with varying slot efficiencies. There would also be a decent number of alliances that worked towards running at the highest efficiencies, and although many of them might be clustered together, they would overall be distributed throughout the game politically, this ensure that even when the game was heavily tilted (which it almost always was) there was at least some competition between the two opposing side.

 

Of course activity decline over time and you end up with fewer alliances working towards high efficiencies. Then the 3 major alliances with said high efficiencies ally one another and the other side is put into a position where they cannot compete.

 

Now we have it where only 3 major alliances have systems where they work towards high slot efficiency buying at good rates: NPO, IRON and Umbrella. (Umbrella is amazingly below 70% for the first time since I have been checking.)

2 smaller alliances I can think of have implemented their own systems: ISX and SLAP (although ISX is not what you would call a good rate)

A handful of other alliances in the top 40 put in a decent amount of work trying to get tech production going at a decent rate, but with varying amounts of success.

 

That is tech production in 2017 in CN in a nutshell.

 

So I don't think these policies have made it a two tier game, because these policies mostly seem to pre-date the current tiers emerging.

 

I think slot efficiency is of greater concern than rate, quite honestly; if you're in a typical AA where half of the alliances uses none of its slots at any given time, and the other half only uses at average of half of its slots, you are looking at 25% efficiency. Now switching from 6/100 to 6/200 is a 33% increase in tech intake, from 9/200 to 9/300 is a 12.5% increase, that simply isn't going to make enough of a difference to help catch up/keep level with the aforementioned AAs.

 

I also think it is an error on your part to think that Junka is the only one outside of Oculus to consider such things, others simply post less frequently on the OWF about their intentions.

 

*Used "good" to mean more tech per lot of cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

38 minutes ago, Noctis Lucis Caelum said:

So we can talk about what alliances should have done in the past if they wanted to be competitive in high NS tiers, but for those who haven't already been putting a lot of effort in amassing tech for many years now; its far to late.


Not 100% sure my memory is right about this but the only time I can recall Admin talking about when he will end this world he said that basically he wouldn't. If that's true there is a still a possibility of becoming competitive in the upper tier. Cuba could delete, wars could happen.

People have been saying the lights are about to go out for a very, very long time now. I recall about 3-4 years ago a GOON member laughing at me because I said something implying the game would last at least 2 more years.

A side note, I find it kind of funny when people act like things mattered back then but they don't matter now because there are less people. I must be missing something because I don't get how that effects how much things matter.

Edited by Canik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

50 minutes ago, Canik said:


Not 100% sure my memory is right about this but the only time I can recall Admin talking about when he will end this world he said that basically he wouldn't. If that's true there is a still a possibility of becoming competitive in the upper tier. Cuba could delete, wars could happen.

People have been saying the lights are about to go out for a very, very long time now. I recall about 3-4 years ago a GOON member laughing at me because I said something implying the game would last at least 2 more years.

As a side note, I find it kind of funny when people act like things mattered back then but they don't matter now because there are less people. I must be missing something because I don't get how that effects how much things matter.

The gap in strength between the top 10 nations and the nations ranked 240-250 is so big, its better not reach that range unless you're in an alliance which has many others also in that range who can back that nation up (or allies willing to back them up in a fight against some of the top nations). Same when comparing nations ranked 250-260 compared to the nations ranked 490-500, for alliances who don't already have enough nations in the upper tier to defend anybody who gets into those ranges; getting somebody into that range is likely to backfire.

As the number of nations shrinks, the more the declaration ranges will be based on nation rankings rather than nations of similar NS. I think this problem will only get worse as the player base shrinks. So even if the game doesn't shut down until the last nation deletes, its a problem of alliances not being able to defend their upper tiers properly when nations more than 10 times their size can suddenly declare on them when they reach a certain point. If the player base ever shrinks to 250 nations, the top nation would be able to declare on a brand new nation. So I think less people matters and without the game mechanics changed to make things a little more competitive as the player base shrinks, I think less and less people will be motivated to play.

 

I think removing the caps on how much tech and aid can be sent could fix this problem to some extent, since then alliances could stand a chance in building themselves and their alliance members up to the point where at least they would have a fighting chance in the upper tier. Although without that, I think those who dominate the upper tiers will continue to do so and those who try reaching the top rankings will just get knocked back down again unless they join one of the alliances who are already dominating the upper tiers.

Edited by Noctis Lucis Caelum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

55 minutes ago, Blackatron said:

I have not been around for as long as many, so please correct me if something I say is factually inaccurate;

 

In every political grouping historically there has naturally been a mixture of efficiencies within each sphere or grouping of AAs, some would purchase at good* rates and others at not so good rates, all with varying slot efficiencies. There would also be a decent number of alliances that worked towards running at the highest efficiencies, and although many of them might be clustered together, they would overall be distributed throughout the game politically, this ensure that even when the game was heavily tilted (which it almost always was) there was at least some competition between the two opposing side.

 

Of course activity decline over time and you end up with fewer alliances working towards high efficiencies. Then the 3 major alliances with said high efficiencies ally one another and the other side is put into a position where they cannot compete.

 

Now we have it where only 3 major alliances have systems where they work towards high slot efficiency buying at good rates: NPO, IRON and Umbrella. (Umbrella is amazingly below 70% for the first time since I have been checking.)

2 smaller alliances I can think of have implemented their own systems: ISX and SLAP (although ISX is not what you would call a good rate)

A handful of other alliances in the top 40 put in a decent amount of work trying to get tech production going at a decent rate, but with varying amounts of success.

 

Yeah, there are some inaccuracies.

 

None of the other major alliances really tried to get high rates of slot usage for a long time. It's what helped our advantage in that we actually utilized our slots while others didn't try. They were never really evenly distributed.  The more recent tech programs in the top 3 alliances(note GPA buyers buy at 6m/200 or 9m/300 rates. You can treat GPA as inconsequential, but they're in the top 250) didn't really kick into until 2014. There was usually no upper tier competition between sides except maybe Equilibrium since the upper tier advantage would always be on one side. It was always either the side with low upper tier would peace mode or  they'd take the beating. 

 

If there are only 3 alliances that were trying( like I said only a minority cares now and people will put OOC: anything not CN over touching the game), then it means the death knell had already arrived. Eventually, it will only be 2 and then only one as apathy increases and people move on due to otherworldly concerns, so this doesn't pan out as there is no sustainability.  There would have to be more alliances that were working towards for this case for it to actually  be competitive. You can't rely on 3 alliances for all the action especially when two have shared a NAP for a majority of their existence even when not allied. The fact that most alliances did not have the drive to actually fight when those 3 alliances were on opposing sides made it clear that wasn't a workable dynamic.

 

Quote

 

That is tech production in 2017 in CN in a nutshell.

 

So I don't think these policies have made it a two tier game, because these policies mostly seem to pre-date the current tiers emerging.

 

I think slot efficiency is of greater concern than rate, quite honestly; if you're in a typical AA where half of the alliances uses none of its slots at any given time, and the other half only uses at average of half of its slots, you are looking at 25% efficiency. Now switching from 6/100 to 6/200 is a 33% increase in tech intake, from 9/200 to 9/300 is a 12.5% increase, that simply isn't going to make enough of a difference to help catch up/keep level with the aforementioned AAs.

 

I also think it is an error on your part to think that Junka is the only one outside of Oculus to consider such things, others simply post less frequently on the OWF about their intentions.

 

*Used "good" to mean more tech per lot of cash.

These policies made it a two tier game because there has been plenty of time for people to get their stuff in gear even if it was only the 20 most active members in each other alliance. NPO was very low tech for a long time even after Disorder, but they got organized while others messed around with 6m/100 and 9m/100.

 

The reason they don't use the slots is because they're too inactive to do so. Slot efficiency and rate shouldn't conflict. The people who are active enough to buy tech should b getting it at a good rate. If they can't, it's because the market is distorted because people insist on high rates of cash per tech despite it being a bad long-term decision should they convert to buying. The point isn't to catch up now. That was more or less given away a long time, the point is to accumulate tech to an extent where the WRC has enough backing it for your  nation to be able to do statistically relevant damage. More and more big nations will fade away because people grow tired of being nation rulers and allow themselves to pass away. The top 250 nation is lower than it was before.

 

It's not an error because I didn't say no one else thought of it, I meant no one else vocalized it. If anyone else has thought of it, they've done an awful job of organizing it. They could have worked towards setting up a parallel alliance system and treaty web rather than wait around to get rolled.

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, Canik said:


Not 100% sure my memory is right about this but the only time I can recall Admin talking about when he will end this world he said that basically he wouldn't. If that's true there is a still a possibility of becoming competitive in the upper tier. Cuba could delete, wars could happen.

People have been saying the lights are about to go out for a very, very long time now. I recall about 3-4 years ago a GOON member laughing at me because I said something implying the game would last at least 2 more years.

As a side note, I find it kind of funny when people act like things mattered back then but they don't matter now because there are less people. I must be missing something because I don't get how that effects how much things matter.

 

There's a possibility but it's ultra slight and no one will have the attention span for that.

 

The lights might as well have gone off given the apathy. The main reason people stick around is the sunk cost fallacy. More and more are dropping that as a rationale. Bob has lasted in a memorial form more or less because no one cares. It has nothing to do with less people per se. It has to do with less caring. Most alliances can't manage a blitz of any size anymore. No one wants to get on at update. You need lop-sided odds to accomplish modest objectives because for every NS point, only about half will be useful.

 

Things don't matter now because people don't care. A bunch of alliances set up discords, but no one is on, and irc is finished. War topics barely have any posts. There is little emotional investment left and lots of jaded attitudes. People simply are sticking out of habit and if no one cares they won't be able to be effective at anything. It reduces the incentive alliance leaders have to do anything if no one will show up. It's not less people, it's less caring, which is more visible to due to less people. if there were 1000 energized people as opposed to 5000 mostly lethargic, it'd be moe active.

Edited by Monster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Monster said:

 

Yeah, there are some inaccuracies.

 

None of the other major alliances really tried to get high rates of slot usage for a long time. It's what helped our advantage in that we actually utilized our slots while others didn't try. They were never really evenly distributed.  The more recent tech programs in the top 3 alliances(note GPA buyers buy at 6m/200 or 9m/300 rates. You can treat GPA as inconsequential, but they're in the top 250) didn't really kick into until 2014. There was usually no upper tier competition between sides except maybe Equilibrium since the upper tier advantage would always be on one side. It was always either the side with low upper tier would peace mode or  they'd take the beating. 

 

If there are only 3 alliances that were trying( like I said only a minority cares now and people will put OOC: anything not CN over touching the game), then it means the death knell had already arrived. Eventually, it will only be 2 and then only one as apathy increases and people move on due to otherworldly concerns, so this doesn't pan out as there is no sustainability.  There would have to be more alliances that were working towards for this case for it to actually  be competitive. You can't rely on 3 alliances for all the action especially when two have shared a NAP for a majority of their existence even when not allied. The fact that most alliances did not have the drive to actually fight when those 3 alliances were on opposing sides made it clear that wasn't a workable dynamic.

 

These policies made it a two tier game because there has been plenty of time for people to get their stuff in gear even if it was only the 20 most active members in each other alliance. NPO was very low tech for a long time even after Disorder, but they got organized while others messed around with 6m/100 and 9m/100.

 

The reason they don't use the slots is because they're too inactive to do so. Slot efficiency and rate shouldn't conflict. The people who are active enough to buy tech should b getting it at a good rate. If they can't, it's because the market is distorted because people insist on high rates of cash per tech despite it being a bad long-term decision should they convert to buying. The point isn't to catch up now. That was more or less given away a long time, the point is to accumulate tech to an extent where the WRC has enough backing it for your  nation to be able to do statistically relevant damage. More and more big nations will fade away because people grow tired of being nation rulers and allow themselves to pass away. The top 250 nation is lower than it was before.

 

It's not an error because I didn't say no one else thought of it, I meant no one else vocalized it. If anyone else has thought of it, they've done an awful job of organizing it. They could have worked towards setting up a parallel alliance system and treaty web rather than wait around to get rolled.

 

 

 

 

There's a possibility but it's ultra slight and no one will have the attention span for that.

 

The lights might as well have gone off given the apathy. The main reason people stick around is the sunk cost fallacy. More and more are dropping that as a rationale. Bob has lasted in a memorial form more or less because no one cares. It has nothing to do with less people per se. It has to do with less caring. Most alliances can't manage a blitz of any size anymore. No one wants to get on at update. You need lop-sided odds to accomplish modest objectives because for every NS point, only about half will be useful.

 

Things don't matter now because people don't care. A bunch of alliances set up discords, but no one is on, and irc is finished. War topics barely have any posts. There is little emotional investment left and lots of jaded attitudes. People simply are sticking out of habit and if no one cares they won't be able to be effective at anything. It reduces the incentive alliance leaders have to do anything if no one will show up. It's not less people, it's less caring, which is more visible to due to less people. if there were 1000 energized people as opposed to 5000 mostly lethargic, it'd be moe active.

That's why you sell at the 6mil for 100 rate and 9mil/100t,  To help try energize smaller younger nations. The sorry lot that are left in that top 20% can either take responsibility for motivating new players or go home. 

 

I've got a nation that's just 45 days old. He already has the FAC. Just the promise of the 9mil/100tech  sale motivated him to his first wonder. And he is a great sub commander very active. 

 

The Imperial Entente Discord is always open if you want to talk . The world is only as dead as you make it.  And I don't care if the top 40% no longer cares. 

 

TIE Discord : 

https://discord.gg/WydyAKZ

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, Lucius Optimus said:

That's why you sell at the 6mil for 100 rate and 9mil/100t,  To help try energize smaller younger nations. The sorry lot that are left in that top 20% can either take responsibility for motivating new players or go home. 

 

I've got a nation that's just 45 days old. He already has the FAC. Just the promise of the 9mil/100tech  sale motivated him to his first wonder. And he is a great sub commander very active. 

 

The Imperial Entente Discord is always open if you want to talk . The world is only as dead as you make it.  And I don't care if the top 40% no longer cares. 

 

TIE Discord : 

https://discord.gg/WydyAKZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

The alliances that are best at energizing new nations are ironically the ones not selling at 6m/100 because they have better internal communities and give people real purpose beyond just making money.  The actual mechanical aspects will never compete with that.

 

It's really not the top 40%, more like 60-70% and most of these people selling at whatever rates will be gone soon enough as they lose interest in the drudgery.

 

He should want to be a buyer instead and aim for getting there. 

 

I just went on TIE discord. 5 people on and no one from TIE.

 

 

Edited by Monster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now