The World of Nintenderek

Nintenderek is back? Well, would you look at that.

1. Pokemon is boring

2. That is a very grim picture you sketch of this community.

3. Hello

1. Pokemon is boring2. That is a very grim picture you sketch of this community.3. Hello

Pokemon is amazing

I wouldn't say it's a picture of what this community is now, but what I know it's been in the past and what it could be in the future. Right now, nobody even says enough for it to be anything like that.

And hello

Nintenderek is back? Well, would you look at that.

Yeah, ikr. But indeed I am back.

If people actually played CN like a political simulator it would more fun.

Unfortunately we do have huge groups of people who would rather tell each other to $%&@ off than actually do anything interesting...

If people actually played CN like a political simulator it would more fun. Unfortunately we do have huge groups of people who would rather tell each other to $%&@ off than actually do anything interesting...

What exactly would an alliance do that would "make things interesting." Its a no-win situation at the alliance level. If you pursue relationships with alliances whos interest align with yours, but are not the loudest voice in the group, you are a lap dog. If you pursue and sign new treaties with people who are shifting around to your way of thinking, you are "destroying the game by adding to the treaty web mess!" and the alliance you are signing with are "cowards because they are changing sides." The problem is not, IMO , that we dont play the game as a political simulator, its the there are massive mechanical limitations to the game of the political simulation, and because we are all OOC entities, we all blur the IC-OOC line to suit our own whims. This too detracts from the ability to simulate politics. If Nation A of alliance XYZ is at war with Nation B of alliance 123, and nation A has 25 nukes and nation B has no nukes, not only do we cheer on nation A for nuking (which I am ok with), we reward him for it, and we seek out nations B's to nuke. And we do this at the individual nation level while arguing at the alliance level, which alliance entity is most close to satan for their disgusting war of aggression. Its innately hypocritical, but it is the game we are left with. So. I repeat my question, what can an alliance do to "make things interesting."

This is all I have to say about pokemon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHFYJO9v5Xg

Pokemon teaches kids to dog fight. Think about it.

If people actually played CN like a political simulator it would more fun. Unfortunately we do have huge groups of people who would rather tell each other to $%&@ off than actually do anything interesting...

What exactly would an alliance do that would...So. I repeat my question, what can an alliance do to "make things interesting."

The IC-OOC line that's so blurred needs to be a lot sharper. It's fine that people have made OOC friends in the game, but the blur needs to be removed. It's certainly possible to dislike people IC and like them OOC, or vice versa.

In my opinion (I may be totally wrong) wars really aren't all that interesting after the third cycle or so. Yes, alliances that continuously smack down smaller less-connected alliances (or scaled up, the larger coalition that keeps smacking down the increasingly smaller coalition) are a blight on how fun the game can be, because wars end up being tedious instead of interesting. I think that we're pretty much all in agreement that the big thing that makes this game entertaining is the war aspect, but it's really only a lot of fun when alliances have something more at stake, such as differing political ideologies or a longstanding rivalry, instead of just warring for the hell of it.

If people actually played CN like a political simulator it would more fun. Unfortunately we do have huge groups of people who would rather tell each other to $%&@ off than actually do anything interesting...

What exactly would an alliance do that would "make things interesting." Its a no-win situation at the alliance level. If you pursue relationships with alliances whos interest align with yours, but are not the loudest voice in the group, you are a lap dog. If you pursue and sign new treaties with people who are shifting around to your way of thinking, you are "destroying the game by adding to the treaty web mess!" and the alliance you are signing with are "cowards because they are changing sides." The problem is not, IMO , that we dont play the game as a political simulator, its the there are massive mechanical limitations to the game of the political simulation, and because we are all OOC entities, we all blur the IC-OOC line to suit our own whims. This too detracts from the ability to simulate politics. If Nation A of alliance XYZ is at war with Nation B of alliance 123, and nation A has 25 nukes and nation B has no nukes, not only do we cheer on nation A for nuking (which I am ok with), we reward him for it, and we seek out nations B's to nuke. And we do this at the individual nation level while arguing at the alliance level, which alliance entity is most close to satan for their disgusting war of aggression. Its innately hypocritical, but it is the game we are left with. So. I repeat my question, what can an alliance do to "make things interesting."

How about trying to win the game? A web cannot win. The web is everything except a few leftovers, so no one is winning and everyone is winning at the same time. I mean try to get to the top with as specific/small a group as possible, and even try to be the sole alliance on top someday. Step one: create some clarity in terms of what the groups actually are.

It looks like you're just taking general ideas about life and then slotting them into Pokemon and CN terms.

If people actually played CN like a political simulator it would more fun. Unfortunately we do have huge groups of people who would rather tell each other to $%&@ off than actually do anything interesting...

What exactly would an alliance do that would...So. I repeat my question, what can an alliance do to "make things interesting."

The IC-OOC line that's so blurred needs to be a lot sharper. It's fine that people have made OOC friends in the game, but the blur needs to be removed. It's certainly possible to dislike people IC and like them OOC, or vice versa. In my opinion (I may be totally wrong) wars really aren't all that interesting after the third cycle or so. Yes, alliances that continuously smack down smaller less-connected alliances (or scaled up, the larger coalition that keeps smacking down the increasingly smaller coalition) are a blight on how fun the game can be, because wars end up being tedious instead of interesting. I think that we're pretty much all in agreement that the big thing that makes this game entertaining is the war aspect, but it's really only a lot of fun when alliances have something more at stake, such as differing political ideologies or a longstanding rivalry, instead of just warring for the hell of it.

That answer does not address the point you made of what can be done "to make things more interesting" within the political simulator. All I see is "end wars sooner," which is nothing "NEW" and could be achieved nearly every war if alliances on the losing side would a) stay out of Peace Mode and b) not refuse to use words like "surrender." The onus of that lies with the defeated party.

I have to echo Prodigal Moon's sentiment. If most CN alliances would stop sitting on their thumbs and grow a pair, our political dynamics would be infinitely more exciting.