Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Everything posted by jerdge

  1. Why did you post this twice? Anyway: people don't want 24 tech shipments because, if they're using their slots at all, they want to do it efficiently, which is done by receiving 100 tech levels at a time. You can probably easily get offers for 6,000,000 for 100 tech levels and receive the money beforehand. Almost nobody will waste a slot for 24 tech levels.
  2. I'm neutral about this, except that I 100% agree. Currently nothing beats JA's posts, though. Schatt is long gone, unfortunately (but fortunately for him: this world - and I'm vague on purpose - doesn't deserve him anymore). See above: you're doing a stellar work IMHO.
  3. Sorry for the late reply, but I have known you literally for ages, TBB, and I am appalled to see you sink to the lowness of insinuating that the GPA may be a "warring alliance", even just a most terrible one. Everyone knows that we couldn't manage to find that "Declare War" button lever actuator effector command thing to save our lives! (Okay I admit that this is just an excuse to say hello to you and to Stewie... 😄)
  4. For once I mostly disagree with you here. In CN old times we had a few talented leaders, sure, but there's no reason for talent not to be present in the new leaders as well. For several years, maybe up to ten years we actually also had a total of probably hundreds of good and excellent players spread across dozens of acceptably competent alliances, each of which had a lively pool of active top and middle level management that ran things internally and externally: there's no good reason to think that the random (stochastic) loss of a talented few explains the death of CN. Why did we decline, then? Honestly I don't know for sure - it's obviously much easier to hint at the (big, anyway) flaws in your explanation, than to develop and to present an alternative one. In general, every society is always at risk of decline, often an irreversible one. It can be that its (power) structures become unable to continue to solve its problems - the internal dynamics explanation - or that its relationship with its own environment degenerates or it simply reaches the point at which it can't be sustained anymore - the external reason explanation. Or both things! The (political) power structure of CN may have become too fossilized, regardless of the individual will of its components, or the dynamics of CN statistics might have reached exhaustion - or both - and the players' enjoyment simply declined, thus players left. In my view, political unipolarity, the game involution towards (only) war dynamics, the tech/money(/land) "inflation", all contributed to frustrate the politically-active players, all those that didn't just want to play "just another war game", nation builders and others, by stifling political and statistical competition. The game wasn't any more the fun it used to, many (most) active players left, alliances died and here we are. Ha ha I 100% agree with all of this. Well said.
  5. How can any kind of security have any value when everything is dead? What do you think you're securing? Don't get me wrong, I am not implying that you should change your play in any way (I have totally no freaking clue about it, and neither about you, by the way) I am just baffled that anyone can still have anything they wish to preserve in CN. (In case anyone is wondering why I am here and why I post, then: I haven't been really playing since 2015 and my nation is still around just as a courtesy towards its trade partners. Some month I'll just completely forget about it and that will be all.)
  6. The GPA used to never meddle in the affairs of others, but it did things. That was a lot of time ago though. We considered disbandment but in the end we voted against it. The alliance's activity was already almost nonexistent and since then it only got smaller. Having disbanded or not does not make any practical difference any more, at least on any matter that I know of. As for the global situation: neutrality and peace - which, if we had bothered, were what we would have been recommending all the time - won. Even if most people (that still care enough to think about CN) wouldn't consider their attitude to be neutral or peaceful, actions (or lack of) count much more than words or thoughts. (#theneutralmenace)
  7. jerdge

    The 'C' word

    You and your family will succeed better and beyond, and you'll realize once again what a lucky man you are. (To solve any concern for attacks just find a nation sitter.)
  8. jerdge

    Sheep inc

    Everything ever made by Luckao looks/ed pretty good, outright awesome at times. That's all I have to say on the subject.
  9. GPA - Peace and prosperity. And endless discussion. Derailed. Always.
  10. So GPA also means "grade point average", huh? I didn't know, thanks for sharing.
  11. CN helps me in keeping fresh my English skills, and it gives me plenty of excuses to play with spreadsheets, images, humour, memes... Above all it anyway taught me all the useful things I now know about trolls.
  12. "I want your land", "I want your tech", "I want to submit the top 300" are all perfectly legitimate reasons to go to war, though not compatible with most RL-esque moral systems. I'd personally prefer that they were openly stated, trying to provide a good narrative for the community, but nobody has any obligation to make it entertaining, of course. For instance, Pacifica used to develop articulated narratives to "justify" their wars, that was entertaining; Mushqaeda was a bit too mocking for my taste, but some effort was still there; the "Creative Annihilation" doctrine was good narrative. On the other hand, things like "Everything. Must. Die." (the DoW) or "we celebrate our birthday with fireworks" look much more lazy and are just plainly dull to me. Sure, it's also subjective, but in some narratives the "it's just a game, let's set it on fire" mentality is a bit too transparent and evident, and the game loses dimension. It's worth repeating that everyone is entitled to play it their way, and nobody is obligated to try entertain the other ones. Likewise, everyone is entitled to call such players' play "bad" or "boring", and to criticize it to death! Discussions over the game are a game in itself, and that too can be entertaining.
  13. This is about many different things. Good job (7/10) in including several relevant issues, Prodigal Moon, but not-so-good job (6/10) on clarity/confusion and absolutely bad job (1/10) for having made a Blog entry instead of an OWF post/thread. This should stay on the OWF (the OOC main forum). I am tempted to reply there, but I'll give you the opportunity to do it first, instead... Why people leave the game There's no reason to think that there's only one specific reason/drive. Games retain players when they offer entertainment/satisfaction in several possible ways, so that many kinds of players will have fun and remain. Early CN offered a variety of options and, what's probably more important, it promised the opportunity to have fun through a variety of playing styles. Then playing solo (unaligned) became basically impossible and some players left. Then remaining independent (as an alliance) became impossible, unless you abandoned warfare (the "neutral" way), and some other players left. Then playing as in-game enemies while entertaining rational and constructive discourse as players became harder, and some other players left. Then leaving stuff unrelated with the game (Moderation issues, RL offences, etc) out of the game became impossible, and some other players left. Then playing a "make believe" game of inter-alliance politics, and not a game of personal relationships with access to backrooms, became counter-productive, and some other players left. Then playing and sharing your personal RL information/coordinates became too dangerous and some other players left. Then playing to reach the top NS became "impossible" (or extremely difficult) and some other players left. Then playing any politics that wasn't basically based on a never-ending cycle of vendettas became harder, and some other players left. Then playing by concentrating your efforts on "politics" became harder, because the tech race started absorbing increasing efforts in a shrinking world, and some other players left. Then playing to slowly but steadily grow your individual/alliance power thanks to your work became harder, because months or years long efforts could be easily destroyed in a short time, and some other players left. Then enjoying a meaningful narrative in CN politics became impossible, because politics was stripped of meaning, and some other players left. Then leaving meta-discussion (e.g. Suggestions) out of the game became impossible as well... Etc. Note that some players didn't really leave - their nations may still be there - but they grew uninterested and they stopped putting any real effort/investment in the game (beyond just doing some click every now and then just to continue have contacts with their "CN friends"). Some of the above "steps" are probably highly debatable, but that's not my point. I guess that my general point is that the game now requires a lot more expertise, specialization, effort and knowledge: it's very difficult and heavily biased in favour of senior players. If you don't play in THE right way and by THE (unwritten) rules, you lose. Creativity is discouraged or anyway "punished". Meaning Until about two years ago CN warfare was costly for everyone involved, and avoiding it for long periods of time was on the other hand costly in terms of apathy and little activity. While the political game was already absolutely corrupted and deteriorated, at least the game mechanics didn't favour polarization, and with multi-polarity there was still some room for political diversity, at least in style. Now war is profitable for the high-end raiders, which means that you'd better join their power cluster otherwise you are "wiped away". This brought us to even more conformism. I personally think that this is basically an effect of an illusion - nations can't be destroyed, after all, and the NS ranges are very wide apart - but 8 years of mental habits can't be forgotten in a short time. In a while we'll see again some multi-polarity emerge. All the other problems, and the tendency to conformism, will remain on the table, anyway. What to do? Enjoy it while it lasts, I guess. I am optimist! (lol part) The quote above translates as: if you want to be "good" join the GPA. I am not being ironic in the slightest.
  14. I found it mildly entertaining. Thanks for sharing.
  15. Melkor is the most powerful of the Ainur/Valar, which you projected as the Mods. In this way you're saying that Cuba is Andromeda. Nation Rulers make more sense as Maiar (like Sauron) or, even better, other lesser characters. For Cuba I'd maybe pick Gothmog (the Balrog one, not the commander at Pelennor). Anyway I am just another LOTR nerd: sorry for the interference and please carry on.
  16. LOTR fan huh? You didn't add much of your own but it's not bad. Although Cuba in the role of Melkor instead of that of Sauron is probably a mistake.
  17. Texting while driving, typical hardcore lulzist.
  18. Assuming that we're talking of IC arguments, ad hominem are a valid and honourable method to "win" discussions. Everything is fair in war, and a tactic that works, well, it works even if it's logically unsound... no problem with that. There are also situations in which accusing others of hypocrisy is logically legitimate and sound. When someone is not arguing about a point, but trying to improve their image/stance, attacking them is the point and going ad hominem is thus the appropriate response.
  19. I agree with most of what that has already been said, but I'd keep your mother's part as is: you don't need to explain everything and a bit of "mystery" is OK as long as it's not the majority of your piece. The "mother" is also a powerful symbol and it's probably going to resonate in the reader's mind/experience: by leaving stuff unexplained you let the reader fill in with their own life, which should help in getting them involved and interested. If you want to go a bit more in depth, maybe try explore the effect of language on thought process. For example try research the link between Buddhism and solipsism, and also check on Popper's polemics against word definitions "from left to right", and "Aristotelian" (deductive) mindsets. In a nutshell: aren't "truth" and "reality" only words? What happens to the complex concepts behind them, when you look at them with the lens of solipsism? I hope that this helps.
  20. I am confused, what's the point of declaring if you don't perform attacks? Or did Meth's IMS blocked both of your CMs? Anyway, have fun you two.
  21. I was talking of what you believe about your freedom, i.e. if you think you have it, you don't, destiny rules etc.
  22. No matter which theory you choose to believe to, either destiny, free will, freedom of choice or freedom of potential or anything else, you choose to believe it. You can only be free: free to do whatever you choose to do. The point is about knowing that you're choosing, i.e. to be rational and aware. My recommendation is to choose what you think will make you happy of your choice. In my case, I choose the freedom to be myself. It's a theory that works even when wrong...
  23. Good post, but I can't help pointing out - on the part I quoted - that one refusing to acknowledge in practice that CN is fiction is not himself pretending: he's living the game like it was RL. There are people that "play the game" on ooc forums: those that would go to any length to further their agenda in this silly browser-based game. Lunatics without pretension, if you will. Not even that rare.
  24. I quite, although not completely disagree with your analysis. For one, the character that I can more easily recall constantly stating that neutrals would be parasites that would have to be eliminated is Grub, which is by far completely different if not outright THE opposite of a lulzer. (Remarkably, AFAIK he never did anything against any neutral, but that's another story.) Moreover, for all of their talk of "we don't care abut pixels, it's just the immediate lulz", those that most derided the IC pretension were generally lead by people that were hardcore "political players", that badly wanted to gain long term political advantages, often being very successful at it. Admittedly, discarding all the IC constraints gives more freedom to operate purely in pursue of political leverage, and with the aging of the community faux ideologies and moralities lose relative weight in comparison to the personal relationships (of sympathy and of aversion) that inevitably develop. To stick to the desire of providing a "good story" (coherent political development in a funny and internally credible simulator), for everyone, requires game maturity and game ethics, which are relatively rare. I agree about some people being "irrational" - although I'd rather say "with no game ethics" - in the Suggestion Box, with no hesitation to cross the IC/OOC line to defend their advantages. This is anyway IMHO not generalized, mostly because the Suggestion Box requires intelligence, which more easily comes with the ability to understand the general needs of the game. Furthermore, at least as far my own experience is concerned, those that (IMO) have been unethical (in the gaming sense) in the SB are again not playing for their short-term in-game success but, again, for the long haul. I am not one that likes to hint to people without naming them, and it's not a mystery, anyway. Cuba, Artigo and SCM have IMO - intentionally or unconsciously, I tend to believe it was both - needlessly dragged to the IC realm genuine OOC concerns about the fairness and "playability" of the game. I don't criticize them for having their opinions on what is best for the game, but I surely criticized them for not limiting their discussion to the actual content of the Suggestions, bringing it instead into the game. (I also candidly say that, while one can have varying opinions about the real quality in Artigo's and SCM's comments and proposals, no one can seriously say that Cuba doesn't also provide first class commentary and contributions to the Suggestions. I hold him in high regard and I don't even claim that I can be sure I am the one being right in any of the game issues we disagree on. I stick to my ideas until convinced that I am wrong, anyway - I am an old style, stubborn engineer... ) Whatever we want to think about them, anyway, I think that we can agree that the DBDC project, while maybe initially conceived as a FPS-like experiment, is now fully political and strategical. Their political activity in the last months has been evidently aimed at using their statistical relevance as a bargaining chip to gain the breathing room they needed to enlarge the scale of their raids. Cuba's actions and words and posts are first class CN politics and to consider him just a mindless hulk, or someone with just a short-term interest for "mods", is a grave mistake for any of his opponents (I don't really know their roster that well, but I suspect that TBRaiders is also to be praised/blamed for their political success, BTW). In other words, those that are stretching the limits (and the design faults) of the game and that "unfairly" defend(ed) their abilities in the Suggestion Box, are not playing short term at all. I also agree that "lulzism" as a cultural trait in players tends to determine a preference for short-term fun and satisfaction: if IC stuff is derided the only thing that remains is OOC dynamics, which either is too "normal" to be an entertaining diversion from reality (it's almost real, after all) or it is doomed to become paradoxical and then nasty and then excessive in short order, after which there's little new abuse to explore and many already managed to get banned or ostracized, anyway. In other words, the lulz gets old pretty fast. This may be in connection with that many saying (literally for years) that the game "got boring".
  • Create New...