[JimKongIl]

To join Ordo Paradoxia now would be vote for this kind of TE that knows nothing but perpetual war and realize that TE should be played like a tournament.

To attack us now would be a vote for treaty gridlock and TE peacetime boredom.

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

We invite you to join us.

We are almost at 400 members strong and every man carries a rifle.
We were attacked and we are prepared to defend our sovereignty with the tenaciousness of a landowner trying to repel raiders from his home.

[Enzos]

The only way to fix TE is to install an AA member limit. 80 members would be a nice cap. Problem is that it's impossible.

[Drai]

A member limit isn't the problem. What needs to happen is people enter multiple wars that don't last more than a few days. They can be pre-arranged so long as there are no treaties. If there is an alliance that has 200 members, then agree to fight 2 other alliances of 100 members (or something similar). What we need to get away from is the political crap and just play it as a war game. It's easy to say but hard to do. Ordo Paradoxia has tried to make an example to follow yet returning alliances are too afraid to play a round without treaties.

Sorry if I'm not too coherent right now :S

[Banksy]

What, like, sit around for three weeks because everyone is too scared of the 400 member alliance to act? That sounds like heaps of fun.

Desperation much?

[Drai]

jamesdanaher, on Nov 13 2009, 08:27 PM, said:

What, like, sit around for three weeks because everyone is too scared of the 400 member alliance to act? That sounds like heaps of fun.

Desperation much?

Not at all, if we had been approached by an alliance about an arranged war, I would have been happy to organize something. Obviously there would need to be 4-5 alliances on the opposing side but it's something I would be more than willing to work towards.

If you had been in talks with Jim and myself you would have listened to discussions about duels or alliance wars and trying to get the most casualties in the round.

[thaisport]

Drai, on Nov 13 2009, 08:24 PM, said:

A member limit isn't the problem. What needs to happen is people enter multiple wars that don't last more than a few days. They can be pre-arranged so long as there are no treaties. If there is an alliance that has 200 members, then agree to fight 2 other alliances of 100 members (or something similar). What we need to get away from is the political crap and just play it as a war game. It's easy to say but hard to do. Ordo Paradoxia has tried to make an example to follow yet returning alliances are too afraid to play a round without treaties.

Sorry if I'm not too coherent right now :S

I agree with you... Harmful hasn't has a treaty since round 4. I've been there where OP is now. Problem is there isn't a fix admin can put on the system because the problem isn't the game, it's the people play it. People know it's a game yet people still get attached as if it was real. There is no one right or wrong way to play. Only thing you can do, especially as alliance leaders and senior gov, is to find a balance for your members.

Too large they call you evil.
Too small you get raided till the end of time.
Too passive they blame you for problems and use it as an excuse to hit you.
Too aggressive and they form a bloc against you calling you evil.
Too poor a leadership and you become the butt of all jokes.

Only one thing you can do. Screw worrying about others. Play the way you see fit. Play hard and have fun. If it doesn't work try something new. Just as I've pointed out before and many people after me as well, quit whining and just play.

[Banksy]

Drai, on Nov 14 2009, 05:29 PM, said:

Not at all, if we had been approached by an alliance about an arranged war, I would have been happy to organize something. Obviously there would need to be 4-5 alliances on the opposing side but it's something I would be more than willing to work towards.

If you had been in talks with Jim and myself you would have listened to discussions about duels or alliance wars and trying to get the most casualties in the round.

Actually- I would have loved (before all this 'coalition nonsense') to get some sort of war game set up. Maybe next round

[tallah]

thaisport, on Nov 13 2009, 11:33 PM, said:

Too large they call you evil.
Too small you get raided till the end of time.
Too passive they blame you for problems and use it as an excuse to hit you.
Too aggressive and they form a bloc against you calling you evil.
Too poor a leadership and you become the butt of all jokes.

Screw worrying about others. Play the way you see fit. Play hard and have fun. If it doesn't work try something new. Just as I've pointed out before and many people after me as well, quit whining and just play.

You Sir, are going in the quote book.

[Grags]

Just out of curiosity, whats the difference between making some sort of a massive treaty with other alliances (eg. WOLF) or trying to make an alliance so big that it dominates the game? Either one kills the game and dilutes war.


Understand, I don't condone either. However, it just seems that your talking out of both sides of your mouth Jim (may I call you Jim?). Of course unless you're the type that just wants to win every war with no challenge with overwhelming odds. Is that it Jim?. Please show me where I am mistaken.

This post has been edited by Grags: 13 November 2009 - 10:45 PM

[lonewolfe2015]

Why is there one right way to play the game?

Who says you're doing things right?

Why do I even bother... (rhetorical, don't answer)

[Tiberius12]

lonewolfe2015, on Nov 13 2009, 11:53 PM, said:

Why is there one right way to play the game?

Who says you're doing things right?

Why do I even bother... (rhetorical, don't answer)

You bother because you care .
Seriously though, I agree with the man. "Right" is a matter of interpretation. You may play the game "your" way; others will play it theirs. Let it be what it is.

[JimKongIl]

Grags, on Nov 13 2009, 10:43 PM, said:

Just out of curiosity, whats the difference between making some sort of a massive treaty with other alliances (eg. WOLF) or trying to make an alliance so big that it dominates the game? Either one kills the game and dilutes war.


Understand, I don't condone either. However, it just seems that your talking out of both sides of your mouth Jim (may I call you Jim?). Of course unless you're the type that just wants to win every war with no challenge with overwhelming odds. Is that it Jim?. Please show me where I am mistaken.

You don't condone one alliance growing? Forgive me for letting us get so big. Get get over yourself.

[Strykewolf]

JimKongIl, on Nov 14 2009, 12:56 AM, said:

You don't condone one alliance growing? Forgive me for letting us get so big. Get get over yourself.

Yer just about the right 'size' to fail.

[JimKongIl]

jamesdanaher, on Nov 13 2009, 10:37 PM, said:

Actually- I would have loved (before all this 'coalition nonsense') to get some sort of war game set up. Maybe next round

Maybe right now.

[dogbite]

anyone thats played te a wile knows anything can happen.but to say this is fair or this is not. is up to the player.to say this or that its killing te is dumb.im so sick of hearing that.te is what you make of it.if its not breaking te rules then its up to the player how to play.

[Banksy]

JimKongIl, on Nov 14 2009, 10:07 PM, said:

Maybe right now.

Sure thing- i'll send you some target lists

[JimKongIl]

jamesdanaher, on Nov 14 2009, 05:28 AM, said:

Sure thing- i'll send you some target lists

Maybe that was wrong with your blitz. You are sending target lists to the wrong side.

[JimKongIl]

dogbite, on Nov 14 2009, 03:08 AM, said:

anyone thats played te a wile knows anything can happen.but to say this is fair or this is not. is up to the player.to say this or that its killing te is dumb.im so sick of hearing that.te is what you make of it.if its not breaking te rules then its up to the player how to play.

But in the words of the creator, "Cyber Nations Tournament Edition is a more aggressive version of the popular persistent browser-based nation simulation game Cyber Nations with increased startup money and decreased purchase costs for certain items."

If you are saving your pixels its a fair argument you are playing the game wrong.

[Drai]

Grags, on Nov 13 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

Just out of curiosity, whats the difference between making some sort of a massive treaty with other alliances (eg. WOLF) or trying to make an alliance so big that it dominates the game? Either one kills the game and dilutes war.


Understand, I don't condone either. However, it just seems that your talking out of both sides of your mouth Jim (may I call you Jim?). Of course unless you're the type that just wants to win every war with no challenge with overwhelming odds. Is that it Jim?. Please show me where I am mistaken.

I'm too lazy to reiterate what I want to end up saying, so here's a post from another thread.

Drai, on Nov 14 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

It's sad when the only alliance that's really putting in an effort to make a point by not signing treaties has to stand up against this many alliances.

People complain that we're too big and ruining the game, but maybe we're so big because we're the only alliance that went so far as to refrain from making allies in this game, which attracts a large portion of members.

[Grags]

JimKongIl, on Nov 14 2009, 03:56 AM, said:

You don't condone one alliance growing? Forgive me for letting us get so big. Get get over yourself.

LOL!!!!!!

Jim, I at least gave you credit for having a small grasp of reality sport. As always, I have over estimated you I guess. Forgive me. I didn't mean to talk over your head.

You have, in numerous threads, basically invited the entirity of TE to join OP. So I am guessing that you cannot understand something as simple as if everyone joins OP (or most for that matter), it will limit the fighting in TE. I understand that this is what your ego desires, nay, begs for. However, its just funny that you seem to think that a small group of alliances, in combination of other alliances that you have pissed off, are ruining TE. Not you begging everyone to come play with you.

LE limits its membership. We attack friends and enemies alike depending on what is going on in the round. If you want an ACTUAL improvement to TE as opposed to your self serving purpose to stroke your undersized.......ego, then make a similar policy in your alliance. You'd be amazed at how much more fun you'd have.

As it is, you have people in YOUR alliance that feel like this post stated:

http://forums.cybern...s...t&p=1957423

Makes a perfect example of what OP is. Its a straw man you set up to try and keep from getting your posterior handed to you each round!

BTW, fun war. Thanks for inviting us. And we're LE. If it last all round, thats just AWESOME!! I hate those silly dead periods!


EDIT: Sorry Drai, I didn't see your post until after I posted this one. JUst wanted to say.....you really like to hear yourself talk don't ya? Keep saying the same stuff over and over and over and over. Someone is bound to wear down eventually and agree with you.

This post has been edited by Grags: 14 November 2009 - 01:59 PM