Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Monster

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Previous Fields

  • Sanctioned Alliance
  • Nation Name
  • Alliance Name
    Mostly Harmless Alliance/Kashmir
  • Resource 1
  • Resource 2
  • CN:TE Alliance Name

Recent Profile Visitors

5,176 profile views
  1. The game has always had the issue of mechanical competition being limited because it's tedious to be mechanically competitive and requires new players joining and being dependent on a small numbers of mechanically competitive alliances that would carry the load for the rest. The lack of new players and the fact that new players can't do much on their own means it's a death cycle. Many people are just keeping the nations around and as stewie pointed out, there's a massive lack of activity in the bigger alliances, so there is no incentive to fight because it's an organizational nightmare.
  2. Except most of these inflated alliances have super low activity and offensives require people to do stuff proactively rather than just getting hit and nuking back so they have very little proportionally to commit. Unless they are ready to disband and rogue out, which they aren't, it doesn't really make sense. If people were willing to log in to fight regularly and were agitating for war, you'd see either people leaving to rogue more often or ghosting for other alliances and/or pressuring alliance leaders to change things rather than having to be begged to show up with that usually not working. You're giving them way too much credit here. Those alliances simply do not have the activity or interest level to do anything. To speak of VE/DT/GLoF in terms of being serious players is a hugely inaccurate depiction and they could disband tomorrow and nothing would change. MHA couldn't even keep its name and still hasn't taken it back, despite it being vacated over a week ago and has been in terminal decline for years. GPA claimed to be a in process of contemplating disbandment and effectively never did things. KoRT does not use modern communication mediums. With FAN, it has never really been super active since its heyday long long long ago and they freely admit they aren't interested in active playing. NATO alluded to disbandment in a declaration two years ago but for some reason didn't happen and has been dormant for a long long time. With the top 3, they're the most active but even then, they aren't really super active and any war would come down to lower tier fighting once people get knocked out of the top 250. Lower tiers are less than enthusiastic about perma-war and that's all an Oculus fracture will have to offer with one alliance having far more regenerative capacity than the other two based on people willing to give up tech for free. The context of the CoTM war was the wider conflict which revolved around a group of alliances claiming to want to dominate Maroon. Many people were upset with CoTM over their voting choices and due to their overall economic practices and wanted to take action and boot them off black and the remaining vocal members had been agitating for it for months. I knew this wasn't a practical course of action and had no expectations of our allies being enthusiastic about a long-term low tier war to boot an alliance off a color they are not on. So when one of the GATO allies implored me to hit CoTM, it presented the opportunity to sate the bloodlust by knocking them out of range in a short war that was tied to the wider conflicts and I waited for the slightest pretext to do so. A contained war is obviously easier to speed up peace, but it wasn't a random conflict that it would have made sense for them to be neutral towards. I don't really attribute a moral quality to peace or war but you have a point in that presents the path of least effort which most alliances see as good as they are no longer interested in activity, but for most of the alliances not in the top 5 or so, there is little to lose so if they are dissatisfied there's no reason to wait on the big boys unless they just want to keep their retirement communities going forever while complaining. The administrative burden of trying to round up players to actively declare and shake them out of their comfortable inactivity and prospect of long-term low tier warfare precludes the big alliances from having war as something they should want to do unless they don't want prop up those nations anymore and are suicidal. There's always been a group of people actively complaining throughout the game that do think peace is bad so they could organize themselves into a low tier league of sorts, form new alliances, and fight other alliances interested in fighting. COBRA and Kashmir have made their own fun over the past 3-4 years by doing smaller conflicts that the big boys have little interest in.
  3. Monster

    Aliens get out!

    I don't think that's what I said. I said it'd be quite some time at current rates. Also you are talking about a year+ in terms of time. I love the mentality btw. "I can't win here so I'll go somewhere where I can be on top."
  4. Monster

    Aliens get out!

    Ayy lmao. I don't know of any political grudges being brought into cn. I've just seen an alliance that people already had issues with get attacked A lot of people have been saying that, but CN had 42 players sign up yesterday. Most other games will never even reach CN's peak numbers or even half of it and usually have poor retention all on their own. CN has been declining, but alternatives have continuously failed to overtake it. At current rates, it'll be quite some time.
  5. Makes sense. Good luck with your future plans.
  6. I don't really think it's entirely on the mark in terms of the reason for the decline. Most people have limited staying power in general, hence the retention problems and most active players end up having less free time to give to the game after being around for years. No one sets out to be the bad guy for it to be a community service.they might say that's why they're doing it, but it's closer to a justification rather than the reason; people do it because it's what they see as fun. The idea of skype/irc cliques being a contributing cause for the decline is flawed since they existed as far as back as the WUT period. It has always been a geo-friendship simulator to a degree. The internal community of an alliance is ultimately its backbone and what allows an alliance to have a presence on the world stage. The lack of political diversity has been an issue, but that's a symptom of fewer and fewer alliances having engaged players with the time to kill. Another significant problem that is notable is that newer players tend to not try to make names for themselves and it's usually discouraged to be active on the public forums. This type of setting isn't really accessible to anyone newer looking to climb up the ladder. The time investment required here to do anything is rarely seen as worth the returns. The lack of new blood means a relatively burned out population is what remains.
  7. I don't think anyone ever denied LoSS wanted to fight NG. However, I was told the biggest component of the rush to sign and attack was they were worried about a treaty partner on the other side being hit first. Honestly, with some more effort, an actual treaty chain could have been constructed to get them to NG. I wasn't involved much yet with the coalition when it happened, so I don't know why there wasn't more of an effort to get a non-last minute treaty chain through, tbh.
  8. Last minute still isn't an accurate way to describe it and anyone of the allies we are supporting in this conflict could tell you.
  9. edit: interesting analysis. Can't really comment much due to time constraints.
  10. Monster

    You can say NO.

    No, HoT is right. The mentality that motivates OOC action is in-game gain like getting revenge on people for !@#$ from 2008 in the case he refers to. It has to be disincentivized as a tool advance in-game grudges and whatnot if you want it to stop and the only way to do it is by in-game action. If people aren't willing to impose sanctions on alliances that perform such things, then no amount of handwringing will matter. Most people who are tied to them have knowingly enabled it by reinforcing their ability to do it. A culture that is intolerant to abuse will not allow alliances who practice it to remain in powerful positions. Like it or not, but OOC cultural cache has a lot of pull in the politics and so long as it does, people are willing to uphold relationships that don't make sense without it.
  11. Solution: invoke non-chaining clauses, explore your allies are allied to and plan accordingly. For instance, if NPO doesn't want to follow MK around, a treaty with a long-time MK ally makes zero sense as I pointed out when the TLR-NPO upgrade happened. Same thing with the other C&G treaties.
  12. Not 40 different things, more elaborations on core stuff.

  13. How do you find 40 things to talk about in a day?

  • Create New...