Moridin
-
Posts
4,592 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Moridin
-
-
[quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1282512388' post='2426884']
Secondly, my personal reasoning as to why this period of stagnation differs from the previous episodes stems from the current condition of the political climate. Currently, there is only one central power at the core of the political realm; that being the Super-Grievences power structure and it's associated groups. Now, the treaty web has firmly secured the S&G position as dominant; all other existing power-clusters are either too small to make serious moves, or directly under the umbrella of S&G influence. Whilst the old-power structure known commonly as "Ex.Hegemony" is no longer a threat in the slightest; most alliances formerly belonging to it find themselves isolated and lacking the political capital to challenge S&G. Ultimately, this only leads to a climate where political intrigues and events are generally uneventful and short. Now everyone likes to argue and flirt with the possibility of an S&G split; which is perfectly fine and dandy to fantasize about, however in the present time that is a notion that isn't conceivable. In the future as time drags on and alliances continue to grow anxious, there is a slight possibility. But by pulling away from each other both C&G & SF risk losing there position of dominance; and being a leader for so long I know it won't happen unless there is a real strong schism in opinion within leadership on both ends; the issue being the only possibility of that is 6 months down the road. Hence, this period of peace we find ourselves in will be substantially longer then those in years past; because unlike in years past the current power-structure has effectively won the game and successfully suppressed any organized opposition. It will be many months, before anyone can even fantasize about breaking the current order apart.[/quote]
This is, once again, the exact same line that I and many others have repeated ad nauseum through the past years. The World Unity Treaty will never have a civil war, One Vision will never split, and the Continuum hegemony is impossible to take down because nobody else has the numbers. There was no conceivable way anyone outside the World Unity Treaty could have won a war against that bloc, and as I'm sure you remember the same cries of "NPO has won the game" and the like were raised during the summer of 2007. The end of a bloc always begins within; the Unjust Path was formed on one side of the Initiative, and on the other side Polar gathered a group of allies for an eventual confrontation. Once again, in the era of Continuum dominance, after the War of the Coalition there was no group of alliances that could stand in opposition to the hegemony. Doing so would have been suicide, both politically and militarily. No one in the Continuum had any ambition; they were comfortable and secure in their bloc. All it took was a single alliance opting to leave (for moral reasons, no less! Those who complain moralism stagnates the game should take note) and the ensuing drama fractured the bloc beyond repair. I am perhaps oversimplifying the cause, as other events such as Vox's spying perhaps helped catalyze the split, but in the end an extraordinarily powerful bloc comprised almost entirely of unambitious alliances collapsed in on itself.
The power structure dominated by Superfriends and C&G is not all that different. Unlike the Continuum, many of them do still possess an irrational paranoia that what they think is a competing group of alliances ("ex Hegemony", I use the term only with the greatest distaste for it) could somehow contest their dominance of the world, so perhaps united by their common enemy, their power structure will have greater longevity than the Continuum, but that doesn't in any way mean that internal fractures are not inevitable. Sooner or later - perhaps later, we hope sooner - those fractures will surface. There's nothing extraordinary about Superfriends or C&G that makes it any different than the blocs that dominated in years past. As for the frequency and duration of today's drama, this is once again an issue of looking at years gone by through rose-tinted glasses. What actual drama occurred between the War of the Coalition and the Karma War? There was the Grämlins' departure from the Continuum in December, and the apparent dispute between Sparta and Valhalla over some small issue of spying in January. Other than that, it was a bleak nine months, colored only by the entertainment provided by This Week in Pacifica and other Vox Populi propaganda. Those few conflicts that did occur were, just as is the case today, a matter of hours or days rather than weeks. The recent drama surrounding the high-profile expulsions from \m/ and the 'attacktorate' was about as interesting as some of the better drama from the antebellum period after the War of the Coalition and prior to the Karma War.
[quote]Thirdly, I never stated the lack of game mechanics around warfare as a chief issue with the stagnation. Albeit, I understand why you'd perceive it as such due to my writings; which was as I stated above only a rant. But rather, the lack of any game mechanics in any field has resulted in a lack of interest into gameplay entirely. Meaning, older nations like yours and mine literally know every single thing there is to know about this game off the top of our heads without having to blink, we've got all the wonders and improvements, and we don't have much left to aspire to buy or wonder about anymore. If there was some new mechanic introduced, it would force us to adapt and learn to it which would add some interest for the players like myself who like to know everything about a particular function. Now, there are an abundance of suggestions that could be implemented to improve warfare, economics, team-color, and frequency of wars beyond the two suggestions you touched bases with in your post. To ignore that is a bit of a stretch to say least. While, you mentioned the decrease in players I'd say that that problem is only an effect of the community and the mechanics of the game but that's not really anything to argue about objectively.[/quote]
That was directed at you only in part; there was more than one reply in this thread citing the perceived lack of changes to gameplay as a major source of political stagnation. For me, it has never been the game itself that is captivating; it runs smoothly, has a war function, doesn't have major bugs, and that's all I really ask for. Changes to game mechanics are briefly interesting, but it takes only days or perhaps weeks at most to figure out everything that needs to be figured out about the changes, and then we find ourselves back at square one, complaining about stagnation again. Sure, there are improvements that can be made to the game, but that doesn't mean that those improvements would in any way alter how interesting this game is in the long-term. Warfare could be made more complex while having only a minimal effect on how interesting the politics of the game are. The two suggestions I cited were the only two I believe could actually fundamentally alter how politics work and how alliances are motivated to create the foreign policy they do; there are other suggestions that could change the game but not in a manner that would make it any more inherently interesting. The politics and community are what first made me involve myself in CN, and changes to how the game functions won't affect whether or not I want to continue involving myself.
[quote]Lastly, in regards to your final paragraph concerning a pattern. It isn't just the political web that must change; but it's the players within it as well. Frankly, there are an abundance of players lacking any real ambitions or drives who aspire to reach positions of importance in an alliance but then fail to do anything once there. It's why there are so many micro alliances in the game, because everyone wants to be a chief; but only a few are willing to do a chiefs work. If you want to change the game or increase your enjoyment; you only have to aspire and do more then those above you presently do. Sure, it's a simple concept; but few actually live by it. Now, my problem is I don't have the time to actually put in the work it takes to make things happen in this game anymore. But somewhere out on Bob's surface is a random man or woman with a wealth of time to devout to this game; the only thing they lack is the guidance to focus there talents onto a singular goal. My only hope is someone comes along with the gumption and tact to make a name for themselves, because the GWII generation that I belong in is steadily moving on toward newer things (RL) and sooner or later someone will have to take up the torch if this game is to continue.[/quote]
I agree entirely; I may have phrased my point such that I was blaming alliances as a group, but since alliances are comprised of individuals and it is individuals that set the direction of their alliances, the fault for political stagnation most certainly does rest with the players. I am personally hesitant to phrase this as a complaint rather than a statement of fact because I am in no way contributing to making this game interesting. I consider myself retired; I played my hand, I lost, and I simply have no desire to ante up again. I am content spend my days making commentary from my ivory tower, and I suspect this is the case for many other people who consider themselves burned out. -
First off, the poll is terrible, and I completely do not understand what its purpose is given that there's no conceivable way it actually represents the different opinions people hold.
Second, we've heard this cry about stagnation before; I should know, I was one of the louder voices making it at one time. Kingzog is essentially correct with his [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=91051&view=findpost&p=2426012"]outline[/url] of how the political cycle works these days; this has been the case for years now, and the "rut" we are currently in is absolutely no different from the one we were in after the War of the Coalition, or after Karma, or for that matter after the Unjust War. Every time a war ends, within a few months there arise these complaints that we are in the worst stagnation the game has ever seen, yet without an explanation as to how this is any worse than the other periods of stagnation in between wars. As a community we have a tendency to attach a strong sense of nostalgia to the game of years past; in our memories, the excitement of the wars is heightened and the length of the intervening stagnation is shortened, simply because we are more inclined to remember those events that interested us most and to forget those that failed to enthrall us.
This isn't to say this cycle of stagnation has always been the case, certainly, in the early months or even the first year of the game there was a boldness, even rashness to how alliances conducted themselves on the world stage, while today caution is the rule in foreign affairs, resulting in less frequent wars than in 2006 and early 2007. I've seen several flawed explanations for this shift.
One of these explanations, in this case offered in the OP, is that the problem (or part of it) is a lack of major changes to the game mechanics. In the past, however, changes to game mechanics have not had any effect on the frequency of wars. Aircraft were introduced at the beginning of an unprecedented period of peace (after Great War I), and the case is similar for spies, which were introduced shortly after the Unjust War, and about ten months before the next major war. Political stagnation is caused by the enormous treaty web, which emerged in anticipation of the Unjust War, and which we all know is not going away anytime soon; it's ridiculous to blame the game for a problem caused by how alliances conduct their foreign affairs.
As I see it, there are only two possible ways game mechanics could be altered to increase the frequency of wars, and neither of them are desirable. The first is fundamentally altering the relationship between strength in numbers and chance of victory; in an era where large numbers of defensive treaties are the rule and aggression the exception, the aggressor in a war is at a numerical disadvantage from the very start, if the aggressor and defender have similar numbers of ties. This is a problem rooted in how alliances conduct their foreign affairs rather than how the game mechanics work, so not only is it bizarre to seek a solution through game mechanics, but the change required would have to give an inherent advantage to the outnumbered side. This would have the bizarre side effect of making sides in a war [i]try[/i] to put themselves at a particular numerical disadvantage; alliances would become hesitant to call in allies and escalate the war, having the opposite effect of what was intended (namely, creating more wars).
The other way the mechanics could be changed is introducing some element of scarcity; something for alliances to fight over. It could be a limited amount of tech to go around, or infra, population, cows, whatever you want. Again, it is absurd to introduce changes to the game because the community can't be bothered to start wars on its own, but an even greater issue is that in contests for limited resources, someone is going to lose out in a major way, and this is going to drive people from the game. Asking Admin to implement a change that will drive people away is something I can characterize only as bizarre.
This leads to the next most common explanation I hear; the game is stagnating because the number of players is decreasing. This is simply incorrect, and can easily be proven as such by the observation that the most militarily active period in the game (the first seven or so months) had the fewest number of players. Furthermore, major wars tend to accelerate the decrease in numbers rather than stem it. The majority of the players in the game are not here for the political intrigue, and seeing their nations destroyed doesn't help keep them around.
The last suggestion I hear for 'saving' the game is a reset. It's entirely possible that a reset would revive the game for a few months; maybe the game would, however briefly, be more like it was in 2006. After a few months however, things would settle back down into the same routine and soon we'd see another thread complaining about the political stagnation. We can't fully return to the naïveté of the first year of this game, where an MDP was a rare and special thing; even if the treaty web were destroyed in a reset, players wouldn't forget how things worked before the reset, and the expansion of the web would most likely be quite a lot faster than it was the first time around. There would also be the side effect of driving away thousands of players who care more about their nations than the political state of the world.
The problem is, and always has been, with how alliances conduct themselves; I've said it about three times so far but it bears repeating. Blaming it on a lack of changes to game mechanics is absurd, and suggesting a reset is a band-aid solution at best. The game stagnates because the alliances that have survived to the current day have done so by faithfully following this pattern. If you want to change this, become the leader of your alliances and cancel all your treaties. It would help if you're in MK or Ragnarok because you guys have like thirty. You'll probably end up getting destroyed, but hey – at least we'd have a war! -
[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1282456567' post='2426414']
Major alliances don't have professional spies. You can't get any valuable information simply from being a spy without a government position. You can't get a government position without putting an absurd amount of effort into helping your enemies so they trust you with secrets. It's not a good way of doing things, especially when there are so many better ways of learning things if you're sufficiently connected.
[/quote]
This is pretty much it. The work it takes to gain a high enough place in a major alliance that allows you access to information worth stealing is in almost every case going to do more good for that alliance than you will do harm in your spying efforts. I don't doubt that a couple alliances have a spy or two, but I strongly doubt it's very prevalent at all and I doubt that the few spies that do exist are in high-level positions in major alliances.
[quote name='Rebounder' timestamp='1282456931' post='2426418']
I disagree that alliances now have a decent enough OPSEC to keep spies uninformed. Plus, in many alliances, obtaining a government position takes maybe two months of work, tops.
[/quote]
If an alliance has bad enough OPSEC that regular members can obtain highly classified information, then it has bad enough OPSEC than non-members can do the same. The only reason OPSEC is as impossible to maintain as it is these days is because people have an inexplicable urge to blab information to anyone they consider a friend, and those friends don't have any reason not to pass it further along. Given that such friendships often exist across different alliances, it's just as easy, if not easier, to learn what are supposedly 'secrets' by knowing the right people rather than by being in the right alliance. As for how long it takes to get a government position, that varies but in major alliances two months of work is an extremely conservative estimate. For example, the fastest I can remember seeing someone reach Minister in Polar (which is when you get access to actually important information; sorry, Deputies!) was probably no less than five or six months. -
[quote name='LJ Scott' timestamp='1282253767' post='2423482']
[font="Comic Sans MS"]Hey guys! Look at me!
Yeah, that's right! Comic Sans!
At first I was gonna use "[font="Impact"]Impact[font="Comic Sans MS"]" for the impact, but then I went with "Comic Sans" for the comic effect.[/font][/font][/font][/quote]
This post fills me with rage. This is even more worthy of an ignore list than yellow text.
[url="http://m.assetbar.com/achewood/uuad4vm7n"]This[/url] is relevant (disclaimer: strong profanity). -
[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1282243832' post='2423323']
I think you're misunderstanding the situation. From what I can tell, this wasn't a roll into the Presidential Palace with 50 armed men and take control of the government at gunpoint kind of coup, this was members of the government seeking to vote a member of the triumvirate out of office, more like [OOC] Nixon being impeached for breaking U.S. Law [OOC]. I don't see why you wouldn't want to have such a measure in place for a democratically elected government at least. Votes of no confidence/impeachment procedures are pretty par for the course
[/quote]
\m/ triumvirs are not democratically elected, they're nominated by the other triumvirs and approved by the membership, then serve for life or until resignation. I've never seen an alliance where the membership approving a nominee is anything but a rubber-stamp process. The entire advantage of a triumvirate is that you have two other triumvirs to overrule or even remove a third if the third has gone off the deep end; allowing the lower government to overthrow the triumvirate defeats the entire purpose.
OOC: If we're going to make US government analogies, this is much closer to allowing the circuit courts to take a vote and throw out a Supreme Court justice. -
[quote name='Timeline' timestamp='1282204704' post='2422933']
Yeah like NpO has not said one thing to someone like I don't know, TOP and IRON then change there mind and tell, shall we say C&G something else.
[/quote]
What in the world does that have to do with the relationship between NpO and STA? -
[quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1282204475' post='2422927']
This is why charters are silly. They are used more by foreigners to play "gotcha!" than be that guiding document some pretend them to be. If no \m/ charter existed, would this situation suddenly become ok?
[/quote]
I disagree. A charter is a perfectly good way of codifying and standardizing internal structure and policy. It is however important to remember that even the best charter cannot provide for every eventuality that an alliance may experience; if it can, it's probably far too long and overbearing anyway. An alliance may need to bypass the charter in a crisis - the coup of Electron Sponge comes to mind - and this is probably why many alliances treat their charters more as a set of guidelines rather than a legally binding document, but nevertheless even just as a set of guidelines, a charter is still a useful document to have.
I should note that I think it is ridiculous to have something written into your charter about how to 'legally' coup the leadership. If a coup is necessary and executed by capable individuals, the support will materialize with or without a legal basis - I will once again cite the coup of Sponge as an example of this. Likewise, if a coup is not necessary but is attempted the leadership should have every right to expel those responsible; the fact that the \m/ charter forbids this is absolutely bizarre. -
[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1281919548' post='2417221']
Not a bad idea, but "altruistic" is not the opposite of malevolent (and is a false concept to begin with but that's beside the point.)
The word you were looking for would be 'benevolent'.
[/quote]
A better x-axis would be idealistic versus pragmatic. Everyone always believes they are right - or at least not wrong - so classifying oneself as 'malevolent' is ridiculous. Most of the people placing themselves on this chart (at least those doing it seriously) put themselves on the altruistic side, whereas with idealism versus pragmatism there might be a more even split.
For what it's worth, I'd place myself at (5, 6). I certainly used to be much further right a few years ago.
[img]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a110/Numenorean5/axes.png[/img] -
[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1282202108' post='2422878']
GATO cancelled on NSO because NSO didn't inform GATO they were about to be attacked within hours of receiving that information.
Now then, GATO and NPO had a PIAT, which generally go to promote the transfer of critical intelligence. GATO knew that NPO's MDP partner was about to be attacked, and failed to tell NPO per their PIAT that their MDP partner was in danger within hours of receiving that information.
Connect the dots
[/quote]
Or, more likely, NPO decided they didn't like being treatied to an alliance that was willing to cancel a MDP on a mutual ally on the opening night of a war. Why everyone needs to come up with convoluted or deeply strategic reasons for this cancellation is beyond me, when it seems like a simple application of Occam's razor yields a reasonable answer. -
[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1282198504' post='2422797']
Right, the action of calling for an impeachment.
Two of them did nothing except that, and the two who DID go to PC can barely be construed as having tried to harm relations or whatever you're trying to dress it up as.[/quote]
Attempting to get a treaty downgraded seems to me like a fairly clear case of trying to harm relations between the two alliances. The appearance (whether perceived or real) of damaged relations between the two alliances was, in fact, the entire purpose of approaching PC, as d3filed states [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90839&view=findpost&p=2421642]here[/url]. I agree that the other two seem innocent enough, or would be in an alliance that held itself to its own charter, but I can't imagine why in an alliance like \m/ - or indeed most any alliance - someone would expect any sort of immunity when trying to overthrow the government.
[quote]In the end, \m/ violates it's own charter [again]. If I were a member I'd up and leave any alliance in which the leaders can't respect the basic core documents.
Also, interestingly, you violated your peace terms with Polaris by violating your charter. You just don't know where to stop, do ya?[/quote]
I merely noted the violation of peace terms because I found it to be an amusing anecdote. The peace terms were quite clearly intended to hold \m/ to raiding only smaller alliances rather than following every clause of every article in the charter, and I would be surprised if the New Polar Order decided to make an issue out of it or even cared. -
[quote name='Remaliat' timestamp='1282190159' post='2422597']
Quite simply, \m/ doesn't honor there own charter. They never have.
[/quote]
These were my thoughts at well. Whatever one's opinions on the last war are, no one can possibly be surprised that \m/ government might dare do something not permitted under their charter. It's terribly sad seeing those expelled feigning outrage over this, and even sadder seeing people buy into it.
edit: As an interesting note, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet - more a technicality than anything - these expulsions in contradiction with the charter actually violate the [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79454"]peace agreement[/url] from the Bipolar War. -
[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1282122550' post='2421399']
We're not going anywhere.
[/quote]
A man can dream, can't he? -
Oh, this is good. It's nice to see Sponge isn't needed for \m/ to self-destruct.
-
[quote name='TigerBaby' timestamp='1282113403' post='2421301']
Personally I think they did the right thing. This melodies one claims to have wanted to get them into a war with STA, a war they would have lost badly. I don't think there can be too many alliances out there who want a member on board who tries to plot their destruction.
[/quote]
Well, my point about changing one's tune was directed towards Merrie Melodies. I disagree with \m/'s tactics in dealing with this problem but overall their actions were fairly reasonable, especially the expulsion of Merrie Melodies who seems to have made it his mission to become as great a liability to his alliance as possible. I'm baffled as to why people in this thread are still singing his praises.
[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1282113998' post='2421312']
I am still curious as to why or where CSM got the info that MM had left. Caliph had something to say about nearly every post I made last night except to answer that question. Just said it was a misunderstanding.
[/quote]
It's my understanding (someone more well-informed can correct me) that Merrie Melodies had made his intent to resign clear and that was interpreted as having made a resignation. Miscommunications happen, even at the government level, and I wouldn't fault anyone for it, but at the same time it means STA can't be blamed for taking CSM's word at face value. -
Let me get this straight.
[list=1][*]Merrie Melodies is attacked by two STA nations.[*]\m/ goes to bat for him, securing what is essentially a white peace.[*]Merrie Melodies is dissatisfied with this and, wanting reps (or to prove a point?) does not accept the peace offers and spies on the STA nations and declares he will continue fighting.[*]\m/ kicks him out.[*]Merrie Melodies decides he wants peace after all.[/list]
Am I missing something or is this the most shameless example of changing your opinion when the numbers are against you in a long while? -
Haha. This is too much. A whole night of posturing and threats and you end up kicking him out anyway.
-
[quote name='Jacob Reiffenstein' timestamp='1282097367' post='2420871']
You obviously fail to understand the special relationship between Polaris and STA, which trumps any such agreement which may or [u]MAY NOT[/u] have been made between your (former) government and Polaris.
[/quote]
If Polar holds that belief, maybe let them say it for themselves? I don't mean any offense, but you can't exactly claim to speak for the New Polar Order in this case either. -
[quote name='rabonnobar' timestamp='1282025660' post='2419015']
[url="http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=%5Cm/&anyallexact=exact"]http://www.cybernati...yallexact=exact[/url]
Sup with that?
[/quote]
Well that's nice to see. I approve. -
[quote name='Boomhower' timestamp='1282019490' post='2418772']
Yeah don't you wish you wouldn't have left us again...
[/quote]
Unfortunately, Siberia is completely lacking in rains to bless. I support you guys all the way in this though. -
Awesome. This brings a smile to my face.
-
[quote name='Uralica' timestamp='1281992062' post='2418222']
I think you will actually get [i]two[/i]. Because I think the formula is X(hundred thousand NS) + 1. Bringer can correct me if he feels like doing so.
[/quote]
Oh, awesome. We're sure to have Kilimanjaro now. -
Africa has 103,547 NS, qualifying us for [s]one[/s] two territories. As such, we shall claim this:
[img]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a110/Numenorean5/africaclaim.png[/img]
Color #00A2E8
Our cartographers tell us this is roughly the area upon which Kilimanjaro rises like Olympus, above the Serengeti.
edit: Give us the one directly above that territory as well, if you would please. -
I'd be interested to see what would happen if this sort of thing became more common. As someone who doesn't tech raid I don't really care one way or the other who is allowed to tech raid a certain AA, but judging by some of the posts here not all tech raiders seem to like this idea.
[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1281986023' post='2418131']
Didn't the seniority get retroactively set to nation age at some point?
And the poor guy...he was probably only a few more months from getting his MP.
[/quote]
OOC: Seniority was introduced in about mid-2007 if I remember right, so seniority was set to nation age then. -
[quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1281941121' post='2417669']The fact is there was no premeditation within Polar during in the last war, only reaction laced with confusion and poor communication.[/quote]
Depends which event you're looking at. Arguably true for the initial exit, but the declaration on TOP was certainly planned.
The Truth Behind the Scenes at \m/.
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
[quote name='Swanfield' timestamp='1282546669' post='2427414']What angers me most is the fact that Caliph and Emperor Marx twisted the scenario to their advantage in an attempt to paint the people behind the impeachment process (who actually wanted the best for their alliance) as traitors and then they went on to paint the whole thing as an coup attempt when in fact it was an outright lie.[/quote]
Newsflash; everyone who performs coups wants the best for their alliance. You must have known that the \m/ triumvirate doesn't agree with your view of what's best for the alliance; they viewed you as a threat, so they gave you the boot. Yeah, so it violated the charter. Big deal, you lost, now either start plotting their end or pick up your things and move on.