Neo Uruk Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 On 6/19/2016 at 6:34 AM, Caliph said: And there you have it. Whenever any Oculus alliance is involved they all are involved, and whoever dares declare a war on any Oculus alliance in defense of their allies gets rolled by the whole of Oculus. Or as many as it takes. That is, in general, how treaties are supposed to work out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackatron Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 The problem with most alliances not wanting to start things is that 1) a lot of alliances just aren't very aggressive 2) the fear of repercussions stops other alliances from being aggressive when they might otherwise decide to be. The 1st problem is one with the culture of the game, and thus its mechanics. Apart from the top tier raiding exploited by DBDC there is no zero-sum element to CyberNations, there is no reason to start a war other than to be !@#$%^&, and most people don't want to be !@#$%^&. If the trading mechanics were changed to be more in depth than "you, 5 other guys, share resources" then that might pose a reason for antagonism. It would also be interesting if alliances were segregated by tier, so large alliances would fight over the "rights" to tech selling alliances, but there is no real reason for it to work like that. The 2nd problem is made worse by Oculus, not better, the problem of most people not doing much is not somehow made better by having a hegemonic bloc that jumps on anyone as soon as they do anything that can be construed as threatening. 4 minutes ago, white majik said: Good. Motivation to do something That might be a valid response against a lot of the people here, but considering that Smurf is already fighting Oculus I think he is already doing something. Of course his something has no effect, Oculus is so large that the damage he and his allies can do is insignificant. Not only that most of the Oculus grows much faster than the rest of Bob, and you have many more powerful allies. If NPO didn't have C&G, US, and Polar+co so (seemingly) firmly in their pockets then things wouldn't be so terrible, but they do, so there really is nothing that can be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 18 minutes ago, Neo Uruk said: That is, in general, how treaties are supposed to work out When they have every alliance that could possible pose any sort of threat all unified its like a one world order at that point with anyone not in the cool kids club gets beat up for a laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexio15 Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 4 hours ago, Lenny N Karl said: We need to create "The Battle Royale War" Problem #1 - wouldn't be able to get people to even honor it...honor is very lacking in this game as we all know. Problem #2 - the current silly wars... But...... TEAM 1 - NPO TEAM 2 - IRON Each team picks another 19 alliances (out of the top 40 ...or lower) with TEAM 2 getting the first pick. All treaties/blocs on temporary hold during war....(say a 30-60 day war?) 20 alliances versus 20 alliances until everyone on one team surrenders or time frame ends. Not sure how to score this, but I figure there are smarter people out there who can figure out the logistics. can you draft the best? can you draft those that won't bail on you right away? Get to team up with someone who has always been an enemy, perhaps you will find more in common that you ever knew... can you draft an enemy that you can trust to fight with you....oh the interesting dramas we could create. Perhaps reignite old rivalries, spur an influx of new/former players., punch that alliance you always wanted to but couldn't think of the possibilities. the pixels and NS and score mean nothing if apathy and/or an overly dominant force is corroding the game! Just an idea to shake things up for a short period of time. Then you all can go back to nitpicking, spinning and polishing turds Tbh that's really not a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackatron Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 7 minutes ago, Alexio15 said: Tbh that's really not a bad idea. I didn't really take it seriously at first, but honestly it's all right. It would be interesting watching the leadership of both alliances picking allies so as to have the best chance at winning in each tier, gives the chance for new relationships and grudges to be formed, and creates a world war that should be relatively even. Unfortunately as I have said before there is no ingame mechanism to encourage anything along those lines, nor is the in game culture such that people would ever agree to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 Given most alliances lack the ability to wage a real war in this day and age, it would probably just be sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 1 hour ago, Caliph said: When they have every alliance that could possible pose any sort of threat all unified its like a one world order at that point with anyone not in the cool kids club gets beat up for a laugh. It isn't entirely their fault that nobody else wanted to be the cool kids club It's natural progression from "literally nobody playing politics except these few alliances" to "wow these few alliances have now teamed up because there's literally nothing left" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white majik Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 9 hours ago, Caliph said: Reminds me of when Umbrella rolled NG because we voted to do it and then many of us whined when we did it. But there is a difference between making something interesting happen or making something boring happen. It would be interesting if a group of alliances grouped together and started making moves. It is boring when that group of alliances is capable of defeating the rest of CN in military conflict at the same time. There just doesn't exist the NS outside of Oculus to defeat Oculus unless there is an Oculus civil war of alliances betray them, just like how Continiuum was impossible to defeat without several key alliances defecting despite there being considerable strength outside of Q at the time. Agree with you on the first part. On the second I dont. You call it boring, I call it interesting. Matter of perspective and all that. I've got as many wars in the past 6 months as I have in the past 3 years. Seems pretty interesting to me. When's the last shocking treaty to be signed that wasn't an Oc member? The way I see it is that NO ONE else is making moves. There were years for AAs to make moves and change things up but no one did. There were many chances for splits to take place but no one put in the effort to play the game and push the cracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white majik Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 7 hours ago, Neo Uruk said: It isn't entirely their fault that nobody else wanted to be the cool kids club It's natural progression from "literally nobody playing politics except these few alliances" to "wow these few alliances have now teamed up because there's literally nothing left" ding ding ding we have a winner. It got so bad that Umbrella signed with NPO...... You guys let that happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white majik Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Blackatron said: If NPO didn't have C&G, US, and Polar+co so (seemingly) firmly in their pockets then things wouldn't be so terrible, but they do, so there really is nothing that can be done. Polar got rolled not too long ago, but even then they could have been a rallying point for a sphere, but why would they want to do that when no one is willing to do anything. US probably could have been too if people were willing to play the game. C&G is well C&G. wooohooo I went full door nail with a triple post Edited June 21, 2016 by white majik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Whole thing will be circular regardless. Everyone has always felt entitled to be entertained here without having to do anything to make it interesting for themselves. At the end of the day, if you're bored: do something else. Those of you who won't don't actually care anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 45 minutes ago, white majik said: Agree with you on the first part. On the second I dont. You call it boring, I call it interesting. Matter of perspective and all that. I've got as many wars in the past 6 months as I have in the past 3 years. Seems pretty interesting to me. When's the last shocking treaty to be signed that wasn't an Oc member? The way I see it is that NO ONE else is making moves. There were years for AAs to make moves and change things up but no one did. There were many chances for splits to take place but no one put in the effort to play the game and push the cracks. When you have everyone who cares or is active enough to make moves all allied in a supremacy bloc, well that definately prohibits any future moves to be made without the approval of that bloc. It causes stagnation, especially now since the different between now and the last time a mega bloc was created is there just isn't the power outside the bloc to defeat it. You have upper tier supremacy and outnumber everyone else in all tiers. At least before with Q there was significant strength and unity in other blocs outside of Q. That does not exist in present day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 43 minutes ago, white majik said: Polar got rolled not too long ago, but even then they could have been a rallying point for a sphere, but why would they want to do that when no one is willing to do anything. US probably could have been too if people were willing to play the game. C&G is well C&G. wooohooo I went full door nail with a triple post Noone is willing to do anything because the second they try Oculus rolls them. Not even Oculus allies are safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Okay, what's the alternative? We sit around doing nothing while people work against us? We manufacture some conflict between ourselves while there are others that wish to be our enemies in the meantime? Quite honestly, Oculus not being more aggressive about knocking oppositional clusters out has led to even more of a stalemate than if we had much sooner. There's really no sensible reason to turn on our own power structure, and with a few isolated exceptions it's not as if anyone else is embracing that as a strategy either. Time after time in this game, the demand from people is always "someone else be stupid so I can be entertained." All very well and good. Surprisingly, after 10-11 years of this game, there aren't people sitting around hoping to provide content to the users on this site that won't benefit them in some way. Everyone here is to blame for that. Expecting any one, or two, or a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand, or even all of Oculus to change that for the world when 99 out of every 100 players can't be assed is unreasonable. My daddy'd tell you pushing a rope ain't all that easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 "This is your fault for not rolling us even though most of us have been allied for years now!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackatron Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 51 minutes ago, Auctor said: Okay, what's the alternative? We sit around doing nothing while people work against us? We manufacture some conflict between ourselves while there are others that wish to be our enemies in the meantime? Quite honestly, Oculus not being more aggressive about knocking oppositional clusters out has led to even more of a stalemate than if we had much sooner. There's really no sensible reason to turn on our own power structure, and with a few isolated exceptions it's not as if anyone else is embracing that as a strategy either. Time after time in this game, the demand from people is always "someone else be stupid so I can be entertained." All very well and good. Surprisingly, after 10-11 years of this game, there aren't people sitting around hoping to provide content to the users on this site that won't benefit them in some way. Everyone here is to blame for that. Expecting any one, or two, or a dozen, or a hundred, or a thousand, or even all of Oculus to change that for the world when 99 out of every 100 players can't be assed is unreasonable. My daddy'd tell you pushing a rope ain't all that easy. What "clusters"? The only thing that remotely comes to mind when I think about "Oculus oppositional clusters" that's not a freaking micro is the Invicta/Sparta group, which barely has the NS of NPO combined and most of which is being "knocked out" currently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Playing dumb doesn't really make the point go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrews Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 The idea that "we're the only ones who play anyway so if we ally ally up that should motivate those not in the cool kids club to actually do something" is laughable. It would take no less than the entire sum of non direct Oculus nations in order to even begin to challenge that grouping. If we take into account the grocery list of secondary allies tied to Oculus, it is impossible. What was the thinking, that every non Oculus ally of theirs would drop their treaty instantly when they saw they were relegated to lackey tier? That would put them equal to or even less in standing that MI6 is/was. Were they supposed to keep their treaties with Oculus but start to move away? Apparently not, TPF tried to do that and they were instantly rolled into oblivion. Justifying the existence of Oculus other than the literal death of the game is a fruitless task because thats just what it is. There is no politiking that can be made, CN today is not CN in 08 and trying to based arguments off of that premise has no standing whatsoever. The environments are too different. Yet, certain members of Oculus seem content to pat themselves on the back for what was their monumental task of allying all of the political players together. Doing this while criticizing the rest of the population for not challenging them. Good job guys, you did it. Turn off them lights when you're done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white majik Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 8 hours ago, Mogar said: "This is your fault for not rolling us even though most of us have been allied for years now!" Yeah because Umbrella and NG/IRON/NPO/NpO have been buddy buddy for ever. Same could be said about DBDC. There were years before OC came to be where no attempts were made to counterbalance. BUT yep its our fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Here's a pro-tip for anyone who doesn't understand what's happening: when Oculus does start to splinter, don't sign on to a bandwagon. Make the war even out. I bet nobody does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I guess the cute thing is the lack of historical perspective in this, as if there used to be some golden age of balance. The only time I really recall there being a perceived political balance, we all sat around bored silly until that system failed catastrophically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 7 hours ago, white majik said: Yeah because Umbrella and NG/IRON/NPO/NpO have been buddy buddy for ever. Same could be said about DBDC. There were years before OC came to be where no attempts were made to counterbalance. BUT yep its our fault. Plenty of attempts were made to split up the grouping you listed, IRON signed that NAP, and NPO chose their current path to ally Umb and the rest is history, do not attempt to place blame for that happening on anyone but those who signed those treaties though, there was plenty of alliances willing to roll Umb a second time, IRON a first time for being retarded and passing info to NG, and NPO for continued existance, it's idiotic to pretend like rolling Polar would accomplish anything at this point, but acting like Oc is helpful to game health is even moreso. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 It's a symptom of a disease all of us let fester. No one is innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 like why would you expect them to do anything different if other alliances are inactive, they have nobody else to talk to when you're talking to what like 6 alliance leaders max, those relationships just form Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.