Big Ego's Blog

Great Leaders are a ticket to most alliances that must endure them having crappy stats. After six-seven years of build up, anyone that has the cojones to do this either has crappy nations or has very nice nations they really can't be assed to throw on the fire.

Even big nations get bored, and can be motivated under the right circumstances, and small nations can still make a significant impact. There is some truth to you words, Auctor, but overall don't you think it's a rather pessimistic view?

We have to be more like Han Solo, don't tell us the odds, we're going into that damn asteroid field. If we don't, the Empire will catch us for sure.

I think the common notion that leaders have gotten progressively worse throughout CN history is an exaggeration. And it can be realized in the context where the bemoaning of the lack of leaders is almost always mentioned - in OWF threads where people are campaigning against their rivals. It's easy to insult enemy leadership when comparing it to a ghost of the past that can't be proved or disproved. And once it's said over and over enough, the idea sticks beyond just rhetoric. I don't believe much of it beyond the obviously logical decline in general CN population, that leads obviously to an absolute decrease in the amount of "potentially excellent" leaders, but not to a relative decrease as a percentage of total nations.

If anything, as one would assume less dedicated players should delete at higher rates than more dedicated players, the leader to nation ratio should be rising. There are other factors at work inhibiting real movement, many of them completely unchangeable to us (game mechanics et al.) or ones we wouldn't want to change (I don't want to spend 40-hour weeks playing CN, do you?).

No the leaders are fine, more likely everyone is too big and everyone knows everyone.

For one to be a great leader, he/she needs to be a great follower as well. The reason why there aren't as many "great" leaders within the borderlines of Planet Bob is because one needs to achieve much to earn that position they desire. And to be honest, Bob has never had any "great" leaders at all. Wanna-bes, yes, but not any great that I have heard of. If there is one person that comes along and achieves to have this Cyberverse kneeling before them, then my opinion at that will change.

For one to be a great leader, he/she needs to be a great follower as well. The reason why there aren't as many "great" leaders within the borderlines of Planet Bob is because one needs to achieve much to earn that position they desire. And to be honest, Bob has never had any "great" leaders at all. Wanna-bes, yes, but not any great that I have heard of. If there is one person that comes along and achieves to have this Cyberverse kneeling before them, then my opinion at that will change.

Blaspheming against Dilber will not be tolerated.

I am a great leader, but lack the time and desire to do any significant leading. thanks for making a post about me though buddy I appreciate it

If anything, as one would assume less dedicated players should delete at higher rates than more dedicated players, the leader to nation ratio should be rising. There are other factors at work inhibiting real movement, many of them completely unchangeable to us (game mechanics et al.) or ones we wouldn't want to change (I don't want to spend 40-hour weeks playing CN, do you?).

HeroofTime tried this, ask him how it went!

i miss slayer99

tl;dr There are still people out there making an effort, quite a few of them in fact, and those people will make an impact in the these later years of Planet Bob, but if you want real recovery, you're going to have to really pitch in.

Sure, there are plenty of those types of people in established alliances and new ones alike. The former have a low amount of leadership changes to new faces and when it happens they wish to keep the status quo. The latter mostly have difficulty of making an impact due to small gains in recruiting with soo much demand over the supply of nations and often stay insignificant or give up and get obsorbed into a larger alliance.

We'll see, shan't we?

For one to be a great leader, he/she needs to be a great follower as well. The reason why there aren't as many "great" leaders within the borderlines of Planet Bob is because one needs to achieve much to earn that position they desire. And to be honest, Bob has never had any "great" leaders at all. Wanna-bes, yes, but not any great that I have heard of. If there is one person that comes along and achieves to have this Cyberverse kneeling before them, then my opinion at that will change.

I would say that Moo fits this description.

Hilow. You have forgotten the greatest leader of all time....me. It is I Ubuntu the Great leader of the Zulu alliance. I have all knowledge and all power. I shall save planet Bob! All must join the Zulu f you wish a magnificent leader.

Hilow. You have forgotten the greatest leader of all time....me. It is I Ubuntu the Great leader of the Zulu alliance. I have all knowledge and all power. I shall save planet Bob! All must join the Zulu f you wish a magnificent leader.

Is it sad I was actually gonna post this?

all hail ubuntu!

rawr

Really, are you forgetting me?

I am creative and ambitiuos.

And intelligent when I want to be.

Look, leadership is about creativity in war, treatys and management. I have been in alliances like Nordreich which micro manage the !@#$ out of you and then alliances like Dark Templar who could care less about you.

Very few alliances have found a balance. The ones who have won the war.

His Eminence Ubuntu is the only so-called "Great Leader" that I, for one, have ever encountered. All should strive to walk the enlightened path of the great Zulu.

People saying that are oft jaded old timers. Sure, we lost people like Moo, ES and co. But the next generation (Archon, Xiph...) was great. And the following one is showing great prospects. The difference is 1. we've tried pretty much everything in this game. It's stale and it's very difficult to find something new to do; 2. there are a lot of subpar wannabes who are attention whoring like there's no tomorrow in hopes of making a name for themselves but, in the end, bring very little (Ubuntu, Tom Marvolo Riddle, Rotavele, d34th, SCY...)

There is little incentive to be a ''great'' leader anymore. The same results can be achieved by formula now. Anyone who is innovative is quickly bought back to the mediocrity that slimes its way across the world. The world is not what it used to be, the member nations are not what they used to be and nothing much is going to change unless people apply themselves to a greater effort.

Innovation is only useful if it improves how things are being done. "Innovation" is not only inventing different methods but different, better methods. If truly better methods were discovered instead of just different methods, it would probably become more widely utilized if the inputs required were sustainable/acceptable.

all hail ubuntu!

rawr

His Eminence Ubuntu is the only so-called "Great Leader" that I, for one, have ever encountered. All should strive to walk the enlightened path of the great Zulu.

Despite my nation's age and size, I've been on Planet Bob for quite some time. Hell, I had a nation when CATO was around (my current nation is my third nation since then). From what I've seen, I believe the biggest problem to innovation on Bob is how volatile the environment is to new alliances and new leaders in alliances. The new guys can't compete with the large alliances, who offer upwards of 9 million for the newbies to join. Most micros can't afford to do this, and we don't get any new leaders in the government. For the large alliances, the newbies don't do much other than come online, collect taxes, pay bill and leave. Some of them want a valuable role, but they don't want to wait over a year to even get a wiff of power. Then the chances of even getting an important role are even less considering alliances tend to just cycle through current governments/old time members.

We end up in this continuous cycle of micros failing, and old alliances complaining on how they can't find reliable members.

For the large alliances, the newbies don't do much other than come online, collect taxes, pay bill and leave. Some of them want a valuable role, but they don't want to wait over a year to even get a wiff of power. Then the chances of even getting an important role are even less considering alliances tend to just cycle through current governments/old time members.

General (inclusive of but not exclusive to CN) statement:

Newer communities hold greater opportunities to the newcomer and the pioneer, but lack stability.

Older communities have stability, but have much higher barriers to entry, which encourages age* elitism and discourages pioneering.

*seniority in community, not actual physical age