Jump to content
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

The measurement of success



Different people play this game with different goals in mind.

I just saw someone criticizing a member of IRON for being happy that his alliance is #2 in score in Cybernations. The implication was that only being first counts, and he shouldn't rest until he'd achieved that.

Now, it's entirely possible that there are members of IRON that have that goal in mind. Certainly they're not that far away.

But why should that be his goal?

Take me for example. I'm quite proud of the fact that my nation, despite being less than two years old, is in the top 10 of all nations in the game with my particular starting resources (gold and furs). All of the gold & furs nations that are bigger than me are also older than me, most significantly older.

Yah I'd probably be a lot bigger now if I'd rerolled that day a while back and got say fish and aluminum instead. But big deal. My achievement is still a significant one, because it's what I wanted to do.

IRON have achieved a number of things that NPO has not. And vice versa, of course. I'd wager a guess that while there are some people in NPO who are happy they are #1, there are probably more who are happy they've successfully implemented the Revenge Doctrine or the Moldavi Doctrine or some other in-game goal.

Just like how I'm proud of what I've been able to do for Purple Team. And similar to how, no doubt, some of the people in IRON are proud of what they've been do for Orange Team.

Just think about what you love about this game. The main reason you continue to play is probably not out of a hope that your alliance will reach #1 in score among all alliances. For most of the players of this game, that is not a realistic hope.

There's probably some other reason. And so far as you succeed or fail in it, that's how you should measure your success. Not according to how someone on the forums says you should measure it.


Recommended Comments

Too true Haf. :)

I'm not sure if you are referencing the thread I am thinking of, but not all goals are "end-game" goals. The reality for most of us is that we have various short term, mid term, and long term goals that we would like to achieve. Not all of those goals bring us to the top of any chart necessarily, but instead are individual breakthroughs. Sometimes, they are not our goals in a strict sense, but are sometimes shared goals with others - particularly alliance goals.

Also, not every accomplishment can be measured by a finite stick, which can then be turned into numbers and distilled into statistics. Some goals reach outside of CN proper, and instead focus on the more social aspects of the community that surrounds this game. It goes without saying that some of the best achievements in life are often immeasurable.

I think I may have simply reiterated your points, which is to say I agree with you. ;)

Link to comment

The issue with IRON is not necessarily that they're not pushing for No. 1, but that they don't seem to be pushing for anything. Not that they are by any means unique in that. Too many people (both individuals within alliances, and alliances within the political world) are happy to follow others and not have objectives or ideas themselves.

Link to comment

I think it is important that alliances have goals. The goals should be self-defined, but there, nonetheless. For instance, TSO is more interested in activity, community and excellence more than overall score, and our goals reflect that.

Link to comment
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...