Jump to content

AlmightyGrub

Members
  • Posts

    2,690
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Blog Comments posted by AlmightyGrub

  1. I think it is difficult to justify the thousands of hours we have all spent on IRC and various forums. I also think it is very difficult for people entering the game now to understand why such importance is placed on the systems of Bob, how can you understand when you don't even know why Crymson hates Grub or why Hell froze over or any of the litany of events that have underpinned the game from the outset (and everyone has a series of events that are important to them that shaped the way they play or who they are IC).

    The game rests comfortably in the hands of its community, unlike most games. The game mechanic has never been the most important function, and usually the community responds to keep anyone who gets too far in front from pulling away in any facet. Until lately you could pretty much see the future in rough terms. It simply isn't for everyone, Candy Crush is more important to millions than CN, but I could never see myself spending thousands of hours playing that.

    The proof is truly in the pudding, CN survives despite the fact it has never been that exciting, despite the fact its graphic representation is almost nil and despite the fact that the entire world and its technology have changed by at least 300% since I started playing.

  2. I read your comments with an open mind Rush. On balance I find that although you wear your bias like a neon sign on your sleeve, your analysis is fairly accurate.

    What you overlook when analyzing alliances like Polaris and TOP however is that we were never going to approach people within your circle of friends to build bridges. Those bridges are never going to be built, we have nothing in common, literally nothing. The reason TOP and Polaris could move forwards is we share a common ground that could always be worked with, there are few alliances that this is true of that are no already allied to us and or TOP. In fact I would suggest there is only one major alliance I would ever be interested in working very closely with and their friends simply don't like us and never will. So unless they change friends, or I guess when their friends decide it is time to roll them again, that relationship is also off the table.

    There are plenty of our notional allies that give me the !@#$% and I am sure likewise, but we are who we are and we are not really looking to change that as far as I can tell. I did laugh when you said your dungheap alliance had earned its rest, I and Polaris are firmly inside that notional 5% of people that have always done more than you, yet we aren't entitled to just watch the grass grow? Double standards FTW.

  3. As human beings, we should be trying to change any environment we're in. Be it the real world, or a virtual one.

    Actually, we should be trying to leave things as completely natural as possible, only directly interfering when absolutely necessary. Ultimately, your concept is without merit and to continue to think you are onto something is only a delusion on your part. If at any time there was any attempt at a revolution, you would be crushed within seconds.

  4. I think you have over-thought it Helbrecht. The glory of the the NPO is simply their history, it is something no other alliance can ever claim regardless of what happens next. BLEU was of its time and the same could be said for SF. The fact that you know who they are and why they are remembered at all is sufficient. Glory is not Rome's now, but it was once, it does not diminish their achievement.

    In a realm that is only words, the words that people choose to remember must give them some value. When all is said and done people remember Ivan, Sponge, Moo et al, they will not remember a single ''non-player'' except in passing.

    When the world ends, no one will remember anything about anything and if they do it will not matter.

  5. Yea, you are being condescending.

    It is hard not to be condescending to someone who wants to role play the village idiot, waving his pitchfork and lantern at the tanks rolling over the hill, extolling the other village idiots to rally around his pitchfork and see an end to the tyranny of organized, committed and respected alliances who work hard to maintain their role within the political sphere of Bob.

    I am sure there are many other people who do not like not being in control of everything that happens, but rather than do something concrete and definitive about it, they choose to mouth off from the fringes or hold their tongue lest they be embarrassed by association with the current village idiot who is taking center stage.

  6. He isn't sure if I called him an idiot and that's why trolling is best practiced by people who aren't idiots. I would suggest that rather than eliciting an emotional response through great genius some people elicit a response because they are genuinely idiots. The beauty of an idiot however is they often believe they are genius class and the subsequent self-justifications provide the best entertainment.

  7. As someone who considers political trolling to be a fine art, I am mystified at the lack of understanding of why accomplished political trolls practice their arts. I think many people confuse idiotic behaviour with trolling, trolling can and should be intelligent and if well done, so well disguised that the person being trolled doesn't realize it. Idiots are not necessarily trolls, it may well be for example that HoT is simply an idiot role playing an idiot and not a genius masterminding a reaction. I of course have a firm opinion on the matter but that is for a separate discussion.

    Jerdge refers to trolling as dirty, which is rather trollish of him for as he later states, it is a matter of perspective.

  8. I don't know that we need anything more than the actual active alliances to keep this working. Sheer numbers of players do not add anything to the dynamic tbh, there is still only X amount of people driving the game. Some of these people are newer and a lot are older but merely adding another thousand players wont significantly change anything unless actual dynamic players arrive.

    We have plenty of passengers, and the numbers as they have dropped off have been mostly passengers. We have certainly lost some good players, more than a few, but we need quality not quantity to make it work. Admin of course has a different slant on this as players = opportunity for support, but the actual functionality of what is a fairly simple mechanic is not the game anyway.

  9. 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.

  10. Anyone who can not acknowledge that Queensland is superior to NSW in the game of Rugby League needs merely to check the current overall standings in State of Origin, check the winner of the last 6 series and recognize that even if you didn't like the last try decision Queensland still would have won... again.

    NSW did make a decent showing this time, I thought their forwards dominated the hit-ups and with all the field position they generated the NSW backs let the side down badly with poor decisions and poor execution. Carney was playing for Queensland most of the night, he needs to get it together for game 2 and it will be almost certainly another high quality affair. The game was a lot closer than the scoreboard at the end.

    Go the Mighty Maroons.

  11. I think TOP may have an obsession with Polaris... not sure though, needs more actual direct action.

    TBB, neither alliance is going away and neither alliance is going to change their relative NS gap with the other. Polaris will grow at a rate reflective of the more recent damages and TOP will continue to hug their stats like a real girlfriend.

    WN, bring it... anytime. We know we lose this round, after all we did win the last one by my records.

  12. It's not that Polar was neutral, it's that they cannot claim to have been on C&G's side or on TOP's side.

    Polar never claimed a side... We were just ''bringing it'' at the invitation of others...who seemed upset that we responded so positively to their invitation... then we honoured a treaty with two alliances, one of whom we cancelled on in the process. Seems fairly neutral to me :o

    Also hello

  13. Yes we demanded heavy reps from NpO. Our whole goal was to destroy Polaris and eliminate them as a threat.

    If your goal is to eliminate TOP as a threat, don't expect us to help you with your goal.

    Whoops, didn't work did it?

    Just as it didnt work for you, this will not work for anyone. TOP will rebuild just as we did... and still be a pain in the $@! to those who regard them that way.

  14. C&G I can understand... but the rest of those alliances are just profiteering from war. No one deserves reps for attacking another alliance. Having paid once for the privilege I can tell you how wrong I believe this to be.

    Demand their tech, but do it intelligently and so you don't look like aid scammers. IF C&G want to share their love that's their call, but for it to be demanded directly like this is a farce. I do note however the people involved and expect about that.

  15. Alliance leadership is a difficult concept to tie down.. serious alliances need serious leaders, others may choose their own pace and be held to their own standards when issues arise. The Emperor of an Order must conduct himself in a certain manner or else he is not IC but others may choose to portray whatever they like within their own shell.

    Xiphosis, I don't like you for a reason, but it is not your leadership that is in question. One day we will bother each other on IRC and sort it out, until then..

    Good read though

×
×
  • Create New...