Jump to content
  • entries
    9
  • comments
    63
  • views
    2,708

Don't be ****heads


King DrunkWino

237 views

 Share

  

63 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

A bit earlier, Rebel Virgina started up a little discussion in the OWF that basically dealt with the folks who now have political power in the game of CN. It was about the old question of harsh reps. Now, a lot of folks tend to laugh off Rebel Virginia as a dude that just kinda hops around doing whatever he feels like doing with the fact that he does it with a certain style being his only saving grace. Frankly, I don't really care if people agree with that or not. However, it was the fact that it *was* a Rebel Virgina post that got people sidetracked.

With that in mind, I'd like to stroke my ego a second and re-post one of my few serious replies that you'll ever see in CyberNations:

It occurs to me while folks continue to argue RV's specifics, he nailed the general idea.

As purely a player of CN, ask yourself which is more fun: wartime or peacetime. If you answered peace time and are not currently a member of GPA or any of the other neutral alliances, you might just want to reconsider your AA. Now as for the rest of us, the ones that think war time is a much more enjoyable time from a players perspective, I have another question.

If you enjoy war, then why would you impose terms at the end of a war that makes it impossible for the other side to give you another war for a long time?

For me, I tend to not take this stuff very seriously, even when I get as IC as I get. There are, of course, times that certain players or certain alliances get under my skin. Happens to all of us at some point I'd think. Now, after I get to drop some explosives on 'em or make 'em glow for a while, I've noticed that irritation seems to float away. It makes sense when you think about it. Somebody annoys you in a game, you blow them up real good in a game and that annoyance *should* be sated.

Wartime is good for an alliance too and it doesn't matter what side of a fight your on. Alliances see upswings in things like activity level on their boards during a war. Players and friends that got kinda bored with it all swing back by because fun has been delivered. Those little jokes that make an alliance an alliance get reborn and new ones are make.

My point is very simple. War is good for this game. It's good for you as a player. It's good for you as an alliance. It's time to face that fact and begin to enjoy war for enjoyments sake if you haven't already.

With that in mind, don't be a bunch of !@#$@#$ !@#$%^&*8 when !@#$ is done. Don't tell folks to get rid of wonders. Don't try to force an alliance to put in a new leader. Don't try to !@#$@#$ steal every bit of !@#$ you didn't blow up. In short, don't !@#$@#$ wreck the game for some stupid !@#$%^&* vendetta. If you enjoyed blowing somebody up today, you'll enjoy blowing them up tomorrow. Quit !@#$@#$ wrecking it for everyone else by making it so you can't fight a war without being screwed for a year or more.

War is good. Don't $%&@ it up for everyone else.

Please folks, for the love of everything, if you're a leader of an alliance give that some thought. I know the backroom plotting part of the game can be fun. I played that a little bit for a while after all. Think about how unfair it is to the common member of your alliance though. They don't have the opportunity to play in that realm of the game after all. They get their kicks though the wars and whatever fun your alliance develops. Don't screw them over by making it so that your potential adversaries are either to crippled to fight or don't want to risk being crippled so they don't fight.

Seriously, enough with the BS. The time has long past that we, the players, have the sole responsability to make the game fun for all. Crippling alliances and communities takes away from ALL of us, you included. Let's start again and let's do it right this time. I'm even sticking up a public poll so folks can see point blank where their friends stand with this question.

 Share

9 Comments


Recommended Comments

I consider myself very fortunate to have not been on the end of some of those crippling reps, or to have my alliance forcibly disbanded. I even recall asking Xiphosis after WotC why he didn't make us decom military wonders/improvements, because I was under the mistaken impression (consider the era this took place in) that this was normal.

I think this is why CCC and NV got such respect after Karma. They actually put the kind of mercy you outlined here into practice against an opponent they might not have exactly liked that much going in.

In any case, I agree with you 100% about imposing terms on a whole alliance. Well said.

Link to comment

I think it's stupid, but a necessary evil. I was president of ARES during Karma, and we fought IRON/MCXA/Legion etc. IRON really messed us up, and we took alot of damage. We only had about 8 nations over 35k NS who were able to rebuild our lower-middle ranks. Our upper ranks could not rebuild all 150 of our lower guys so we took reps from IRON. It was the equivalent to 2500 tech(not much by standards), but taking tech in my opinion is profiting, not REPERATIONS. We took it in incriments of 3mil dollars.

Upper nations do not need rebuilding, that's what warccests are for! Demilitarazing is not bad, but decomming wonders is horse!@#$. Also anything that infringes soverignity (such as the Echelon not having caffeine in gov) is horrendous. I hope we learn from our mistakes.

Nice read :)

Link to comment

I would almost bet that alliances will seek massive reps again. I think the CnG side of this war will end up winning just cuz of the numbers they've lined up against TOP/IRON and Co. Some alliances prolly owe much of their current strength to reps they've received from the Karma War. Why would they pass up on adding another set of long term reps again?

I agree some reps should be paid, but nothing more than just some get back on track tech for the larger nations and a quick boost in tech/money for the smaller nations to get their back collections started up again.

I recently reread the terms for NPO. Extremely harsh. It will take them the good part of a year or more to pay. That is ridiculous. I arrived to CN June 5, 2009 so I did not experience what the NPO did and don't have a hatred for them at all. I can understand those that may feel hatred but at the same time. From what I read Karma was supposed to change things for the better and it appears that it only implemented the same things they fought against. Yes, the argument will also be made well it was implemented to the NPO. We have yet to see what the former Karma alliances will ask for in reparations after a big war. When this war ends, it will be a good way to find out if things did really change to make CN more livable for all alliances or if Karma alliances have forgotten what they fought for.

Link to comment

When this war ends, it will be a good way to find out if things did really change to make CN more livable for all alliances or if Karma alliances have forgotten what they fought for.

To be completely fair, the alliances that fought under and carried the Karma banner weren't fighting to create a utopia. They were fighting to destroy what they saw as a cruel and despotic world. They succeeded in that goal as the power structure of the pre-Karma game was knocked out.

The trick is, what the game is to become afterward always in the hands of the players. It doesn't matter what alliance you're a part of. You can always raise your voice and tell your friends, leaders, alliancemates what kind of way you want to play the game. People listen believe it or not. Plus, if you're in an alliance that =/= what you believe in, you can always just say "Hey, it's been fun but the fit isn't that great for me and you so I'm moving on. Good luck and all that." You might be surprised at how much respect you'd get from being both honest and civil like that.

But I'm digressing a bit. This is supposed to be an opinion on why piling on big reps ain't a good thing long term. Forgive me, I find myself washing down my muscle relaxers and pain meds with whiskey for a little extra ommph nowadys, so it's easier than ever to get rolling off the track.

Link to comment

Paying large reps benefits the winner tangibly through in-game mechanics. Waving the reps, benefits the winner intangibly through the community and sheer respect.

I've been a victim of the first and proponent of the latter.

Link to comment

After the Karma war, Ordo Verde had 26 nations. Currently, they have 20.

They received (or are receiving, or whatever) 1 billion cash, and 50k tech.

I believe they should have gotten reps - but that much is ridiculous. And they aren't even keeping all their aid slots set aside for those reps.

Link to comment

Harsh reps are a consequence.

I have never been against them, not even when I had to endure some of the worse ones. If we had won, I would never have to comply. We should have done better.

Similarly, TOP and IRON $%&@ed up bigtime and when the time comes they should realize it's in their best interest to accept the extreme terms on the table. There has to be a consequence that reaches beyond the war and cripples them, both for our security and for their own lesson.

In the end, everyone profits. Even the little guys who want war. If there's one thing excessive reps can do, it's sowing hatred for a new generation to fight over.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   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...