Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Posts posted by jerdge

  1. From a strictly OOC point of view Canik is basically mostly correct: senior players that stopped contributing to the game long ago have very little ground to stand on to blame newer players, whatever path these last decided to follow (as long as it was not in direct breach of the game rules, or blatantly unfair).

    I totally understand who decided to stop caring because of rampant unchecked cheating and/or lack of accountability about it, and also because of the excessively conservative play of many/most power clusters (the two things are connected TBH), but "stop caring" means that one, you guessed it, stopped caring. It also isn't justification to blame someone that (AFAIK, at least) had nothing to do with the dynamics that deteriorated the game (either player or admin -driven/allowed).

    AFAIK Canik actually did more than most to keep the game alive in the last few years.


    From an IC point of view I'm strictly neutral about any event, entity or debate featured in this thread. Please carry on.


  2. 36 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

    [...] Hime Themis, but by the time any opportunity would have been present to hit them they'd already been beaten well out of range in their first 3 conflicts because of their legendary lack of preparedness.


    IIRC they sold down and that was part of their plan for such a situation.

    I'm not going to comment about your war record and/or what helped you get to your current rank. I'm only talking of the history surrounding Hime's fall.

  3. I'd like to remind everyone that this is an OOC forum. As such, posting propaganda makes you look silly (posting an honest, albeit opinionated critique of the current state of affairs doesn't count as propaganda, but remember that it's a narrow path and it's easy to slip into dumb mode).

    Also, this is the "actually a dick" part of this board: being a dick here qualifies you as a Genuine CN Dick (as you can imagine, some are even proud of it, but don't you be the trash).

  4. 30 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

    These days no one seems to want to spend months coalition building, or their opsec is terrible. On top of that too many people are friends across spheres, which as you allude to means there is invariably 0 grudges and rivalry. 

    Too many friends everywhere may render coalition opsec virtually impossible.


  5. 1 minute ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

    I see. I hope then that in your quest to find new things that players can do ourselves, but honestly.. if we had these ideas wouldn't someone have tried them by now? Anyway, hopefully this charge for new innovation is successful. We would all like to see this game survive, that is the one thing we have in common, but... I question if this will really generate any new traction, after all if you have ideas as a player there's nothing other than co-operation preventing you from testing them already.

    I don't even know if I will actually start the operations (and finish them) with this "survey" project. The result might convince me (or others) that something interesting could be tried... or not.

    What might be attempted would at least be based on a sample of the actual interests and desires of the entire playerbase, which would be something really new for CN.


    (Should such a survey provide a clear indication of something the playerbase would like to see implemented in the game mechanics, that would be forwarded to the staff as well, for sure. Maybe at least one question about that would be warranted, after all.)

  6. 12 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

    [...] When you're out of ideas, you ask for new ones.. you don't ask [...]

    Well I'm not out of ideas for CyberNations and I'm not looking for new ideas, I would "just" like to know what the other people would like to see.


    16 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

    [...] Moderation and administrators implementing the changes [...]

    As Imperial Emperor noted on page 1, the last change to the game mechanics was 4 new wonders in July 2014: over five years ago. I don't think anyone will implement any changes to the game anymore. Exactly for this reason, my intention is to ask for ideas that the players can implement by themselves.


    16 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

    [...] The other problem is you have to be willing to implement the changes to some degree. You cannot expect people to put in work without a hope for an improvement in the game they are seeking to improve, so some form of feature gain must occur or you will effectively shoot yourself in the foot and seal the nail in the game's coffin by proving that nothing is going to effectively change.

    Nothing is going to effectively change in the game, we already know that - see above.

    If you disagree, try to convince admin/the mods to change something in the game: we have a Suggestion Box forum for that. But be aware that that forum as well has been idle since one year ago, and the last suggestions that had a significant discussion (replies) actually date back to 2016. Because by then the majority of players had already realized that they weren't listened to anymore.

  7. 2 hours ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

    Why give a list of choices? Make it open ended, perhaps add additional questions for specific concepts that may be attempted.  by adding a list of choices it limits input and may prevent the user from expressing what would really draw them back in because the survey creator simply didn't conceive of it.

    On 8/12/2019 at 10:27 PM, jerdge said:

    Do you want it to be a checkbox or an essay answer

    With 2.8k people receiving the link to the survey, we'd probably (hopefully) have hundreds of replies, and aggregating hundreds of essays would be impractical.

    I thus imagine checkboxes, where the last one could be "other, please specify" and the encouragement not to use it if at all possible.

  8. 2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

    A question based around merging alliances, maybe.

    If the alliances ranked 20 and above were to merge to form 1 or 2 alliances that would make a good bit of difference to the politics of the game. There is too many dead husks of alliances with one or 2 people running them. When you add those one or two together you are effectively creating an active alliance with enough hands to run it. 

    This is a brilliant question, thank you.

  9. 2 hours ago, HeroofTime55 said:

    As wrong as you are on matters of this world, you also fail to understand the inherent probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.

    To easily void your objection MV would just have to limit himself to go down to a very small but adequately less microscopic scale. At that point the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics that you mentioned, together with the law of large numbers, would help him to preemptively invalidate "any" objection about his model being inadequate because not formally informationally complete.


    I'll go out on a limb and also say that your objection is void also because quantum mechanics working doesn't in any way demonstrate that it's also "true", i.e. reality doesn't need to be really probabilistic for the theory to be valid (useful). This simply because science isn't about finding "true" models of reality, it's about explaining how stuff happens, as far and deep as we can (and with pride!) but also remembering that we don't know everything - and "probably" it's literally impossible to know everything.

    (I'd accept the objection that it's impossible to prove that my approach to the validity of science is correct, but only because I reject "truth" as a useful concept, thus I don't care if my approach is "true". I instead point out that my approach can't be used against itself, i.e. it's coherent, because I don't need to consider it true to use it to my advantage. I call this the Taoist Approach to Debates on Science and Truth, or TADST - long name I know.)


    Projecting our lack of knowledge as a feature of reality is a mistake. MV is fully justified in believing that it's theoretically possible to deterministically know reality (if this is what he believes, of course), without being labeled as irrational or ignorant or "wrong" or anti-scientific. Because science (and therefore physics) isn't about what reality is. Physics is not metaphysics (here etymology and semantics help and clarify, for once!)

    I for one don't believe that pondering about reality makes sense - I accept that reality is somewhere out there, but science (physics) is inadequate at investigating it and metaphysics is a joke - thus I'll spend my time in something else.


    Back again to normal conversation, MV's previous post instead displays a big contradiction where he says both that "it's not predestination as we clearly make decisions", and that, having enough information, he could predict my next post. The two things aren't compatible IMO.


  10. 3 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:


    Your hint to your theory reminds me of a conversation I had with a math teacher well over thirty years ago. He didn't reconcile well the astronomical knowledge of the time with the natural evolution theory and the role of God as the one that created and that oversees humanity. I convinced him that the whole could be consistent because God could know - actually set - everything down to the position and speed of each subatomic particle, and that from the beginning of time, and calculate everything from that point onward... and thus be omniscient (and omnipotent).

    I was eleven years old or something like that, at the time I was a believer... Now too many years passed and that teacher died a lot of time ago. He was a good, old style man. Oh well.

  11. On 8/13/2019 at 12:19 AM, Maelstrom Vortex said:

    Fact is, the Cybernations's demise already happened.

    Technically everything has probably already happened.. but I digress into temporal mechanics far to deeply for this thread.

    If I get what you're alluding to: according to that body of theories the past and the future wouldn't actually make sense and there would be no time. "Everything would have already happened" would be a bad wording of it, though (although, convenient for you 😉) and it would be better to say that "neither of our posts would have meaning".


    All of that sounds cool, at least for some, however that body of theories would also necessarily imply that all you and me "ever" thought, did etc. wouldn't actually be anything we really thought, did etc. "simply" because neither of us would really exist as a sentient being making any decision. There wouldn't be decisions in the common sense, only events "in the real world" that are in a certain "geometric" relationship with events "in our brain(s)"... And our language (even the language of someone (literally) infinitely (literally infinitely, I'm not joking) better than me at talking about this stuff) would be actually totally inadequate to talk about this matter. Or of anything, from a "true" point of view, for that matter.


    However, physicists are humans too, and they too can go on a collective mass delusion. When they start sounding like drunken Buddhists it's probably just a sign that they ventured outside the boundaries of their field (really far outside them). Even the best physicists can also be totally oblivious of what physics (or science) "is" about.


    If we take "science" (and physics) to be more or less what gets done with what's generally accepted to fall under the expression "scientific method" - and here really lies some (semantic) irony - science is about understanding how stuff works, and theories are validated when experiments match prior predictions. lol...

    OK: we can remove the irony (but on it we lose on aesthetics, IMHO - OK it's frivolous) if we reword it by saying that science is the events "in our brain(s) and documents" that match other events in some specific "geometric" relationships "in the real world", and that explain how some "real world" events curiously match other "real world" events. Which last part, "translated", more or less reads that science is the theories that actually explain real events, and the theories upon which lie the experiments that provide meaningful results (in terms of the other real stuff we observe).

    I could even accept this description of science (but not of "reality"), but only at the condition that we agree and realize that nothing about said description says anything about "being" (meaning: the very being/existing of anything, and what "being/existing" would... be), or "sense/meaning", or "truth/true". Which is the same of saying that all of them - what is "being", what is "meaning", what is "true" (and in fact any expression like "what is...") - are outside the scope of science.

    Science's mission would not be about explaining reality (hence why I don't accept said description of reality) as it would be inherently inadequate to answer to any "what" and "why" -kind of question... but only to the "how" ones!

    Concluding, it may "be" that time is just the name we give to a property of our perceptions (it seems fitting, actually), but we don't know ("scientifically", and we can't - scientifically - know) what gives form to stuff. Saying that the common-sense meaning of time is fundamentally useless in physics (which I agree with), that it can't be reconciled with the physics we know (on this I pass, I have no idea, but I admit it can be like that, and I am very inclined to trust it is), doesn't explain in the slightest why events are the way they are, with the mutual relationship they have, and neither it explains how ever (and if) we could take advantage of the criticism of the laymen concept of time to actually better understand the relationships between events (translated: "travel in time"). This is natural once one accepts that science is not to answer to "why" kind of questions, and it leaves us with the doubt that the relationships between "events" are indeed explained (or rather, they can, maybe, be explained) with laws that - you guessed it - could be aptly named "Time". (And which could imply - why not? - that no, we won't travel in time, ever.)


    Back to your reply and to normal talk, no, the idea that "time is not (real)" doesn't support you in claiming that it still makes sense to aim towards your goals because time hasn't ended yet...


    (nonetheless: thanks for having opened that Pandora's Box, my respect for the reference)


  12. 3 hours ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

    Lol Jerdge, playing the "I don't care" card after such a lengthy spat prolific with your involvement.

    I didn't play any card, I do care if what I read is entertaining or boring though.

    I have no horse in this race, I was just pointing out that chest-thumping and looking and pointing to one's stats with gleaming eyes used to get trolled in creative ways (which was entertaining), while now nobody bothers anymore. At most they roll their eyes and call you names... Which is boring.

    I'm not even talking of tech or land or infra specifically, the chest-thumping about casualties is equally ridiculous in my eyes. I wasn't addressing your posts specifically.

    I'm not even saying that this or that or any other stat is meaningless - all have their reason to exist and one can certainly be proud about their share of any of them - it's the chest-thumping that is - did I say it already? - boring.

    Of course, feel free to be boring to me, everyone. Nobody is obligated or expected to entertain me. I might just comment on this (or other) stuff, I am confident that even the most impressionable of you people can probably withstand my posts.



    2 hours ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

    If I could run a second nation  for warring without running a foul of global treaties (game rules) then I'd be all over it.  Sadly I'm required to reign over only one state by our world's laws.

    AFAIK (I actually asked, once) you can run a second nation, provided that your original one is inactive. You need to reign over only one state at any given moment. This would mean that the original couldn't interact (and it couldn't continue receive tech, in your case) which admittedly could be an issue for some.




    Image result for fake dragon horse


    I find it nice, actually. Good "cosplay".


    1 hour ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

    You remind me of me when I was your size.. "I am fire.. I am death... stop poking me.."
    Now I am fire.. and I am death.. and it pisses me off there is no one big enough to poke me any more. I miss it.

    It's a catch-22, you can't have fights if you aim at the top, because enemies fall out of range, and you can't aim at the top if you have fights, because your stats fall. It seems you have to give up on (at least) one of your objectives, (at least) for now (probably forever, as we don't expect any revolution before the lights go off).


    1 hour ago, Stewie said:



    Go join GPA then.

    Applications are closed and he'd probably be happy somewhere else.



    52 minutes ago, Stewie said:

    So you're going to attack IRON, NATO, Doombirds, Disciples of Duckroll?  Or is another Woodstock massacre being lined up?


    You don't have many options bud.

    Well attacking the GPA would provide war, fun or casualties in extremely little quantity, if at all, and certainly not for MV. We have only two nations in war mode in his range and they'd be guaranteed to turtle in the unlikely case that they even just get active (and they may also go inactive before then... I wouldn't be surprised).



    46 minutes ago, Rebel Virginia said:

    I'd tell you to join GPA, but I suspect that'd be a bit more action than you're accustomed to.

    There's no action in the GPA of today.


  13. 4 hours ago, Stewie said:

    Do you want it to be a checkbox or an essay answer

    With 2.8k people receiving the link to the survey, we'd probably (hopefully) have hundreds of replies, and aggregating hundreds of essays would be impractical.

    I thus imagine checkboxes, where the last one could be "other, please specify" and the encouragement not to use it if at all possible.

  14. 2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

    How would you rate the feeling of being trampled by a Pacifican Jackboot?

    While yours is indeed a question, it's remarkably ill-suited to learn what the players want.



    58 minutes ago, Stewie said:


    1. Creation of secondary servers like AstroEmpires does.

    2. The people you meet

    3. The people you meet, monotony of the game

    4. An App environment

    5. Boredom, single alliance domination 

    Well, I'm here trying to formulate good questions, not to have any answer.


    To reply to my previous suggestions, you could instead make your own proposals about what choices to list. It would help to keep in mind that we're not really interested in the development of game mechanics, or a new interface etc, as we'd then find the information useless, as acting on it would require to involve Admin and we're instead assuming that his interest faded years ago.


    For example:


    2. What do you most like in Cybernations?

    a. The devious characters you can meet.

    b. Plotting behind the scenes.

    c. Warfare.

    d. Role Playing / Fantasizing about my Nation.

    e. The friends I can hang up with.

    (These are maybe bad choices, they're just the first I came up with. The idea is in fact that you people can help me choose good questions with good choices as answers. Thank you.)

  15. Questions we could ask include:


    1. If you could decide one thing to happen in Cybernations, what would you choose? (list of choices)

    2. What do you most like in Cybernations? (list of choices)

    3. What do you most dislike in Cybernations? (list of choices)

    4. What would convince you to invite your friends to Cybernations? (list of choices)

    5. What would cause you to leave the game? (list of choices)


    What do you think of these questions? What choices would you list for each?


  16. 1 hour ago, Rebel Virginia said:

    Jerdge, Non Grata is the future. That invitation is still open.

    Thank you.


    As I said, the company would be awesome, I like many of you, however I'm not interested in your current crusade. I have nothing against the FTW specifically. In fact I can't think of anyone I have any specific grievance or grudge against.

    I can't exclude that I will undertake something new, but it has to be in character with what my persona has been this far. It's not really a moral constraint, it's an aesthetic commitment. Our paths may anyway connect in the future, I'd actually love it.


  17. 4 hours ago, General Kanabis said:


    Similar topics have always surfaced, to no avail.

    Granted, yours is unique in that no one has attempted to contact every single player since @Mogar set up CN Radio, but it will likely have the same result.

    Not to !@#$ on your parade, I love this game, but people don't feel the same anymore. They rather bail unless you convince them to choose between smoldering crater and inactive husk.


    Personally, this is where I belong and nowhere else-



    I don't want to and I'm not interested into fixing the game mechanics. What I want to know is what the players want from the game. The result of such a research may then trigger or not some initiative to improve things, but at any rate no intervention in the game mechanics will be possible, as Admin is not interested.



    I take advantage of this occasion to say @Johnny Apocalypse, @Lord Hitchcock, @The Zigur that, with all due respect, at this stage I'm not interested in your proposals or solutions, I'm interested in what you would ask to the other players about what they want (not their solutions either). @Mogar got it right (thank you).


  18. 2 minutes ago, General Kanabis said:

    No matter how many times this same topic comes up-


    The major powers will just find a way to hush up any activity by force, or by coercion; so that they may continue evacuating this world in preference of another, where their empires have already settled.

    AFAIK this is the first time that this topic comes up.


    I also don't see how anyone could stop me/others from asking questions to everyone in the game (or why they would bother to do it, for that matter).

  • Create New...