Starcraftmazter

This is very true - and I knew this point would come on. Once again, I am not trying to defend \m/, and in fact I agree that an apology is in order. I am however against this announcement and the sort of precedent which is being perpetuated here. If an apology were to happen, it should have been OOC, because the very nature of the offense was OOC, and the communication channel over which it took place was OOC. Instead this has now been brought to IC because of unrelated IC manners which are creating a tangled web of problems between \m/ and NpO. Sometimes it is necessary to step back, untangle the web and carefully consider what is being done. I believe this was already covered to death elsewhere. In short, your interpretation is incorrect. I will not get sidetracked about this, thanks.

Be that as it may, my point stands. Mate to me, this announcement has nothing to do with NpO and this is indeed the first I'm hearing of it. To me it seems this is about some OOC thing that happened in their channel. This announcement however does not mention that, hence I am forced to disregard anything which may have happened in relation - but on that note, I don't believe it to be relevant to the central point I am trying to convey. OOC: To the related OOC matter, it's possible to query someone (say, a government official), and ignore what happens in the channel while you are there. I will not hesitate to agree that it is poor form to let people spam the channel with racist remarks and other such unfavourable statements while a foreign official is attempting to contact the government members - especially so when it comes to important issues, however there are two points to note here. Firstly, I am unaware of which government members if any were on hand to put a quick stop to anything improper which was going on - hence I will reserve further judgment about this. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, it still falls into the OOC arena, and has no place in CN and should never have been brought here. As mentioned above, this is the first I am hearing about this. However as also mentioned above, I don't think this overshadows my point one bit. Furthermore, I'd like to state that I fail to see how my argument implies that you subject yourself to rantings of racist thugs for casual entertainment. I think it can also be questioned whether said thugs bear truthful racist opinions or not - but alas, that is a subject for another matter. My argument is simple, very simple - it is that OOC should not be mixed with IC. Whenever I see that happen on a level as grand as this, I do in fact get upset. We are all entitled to be upset when we see bad things happen, and we all recognize a range of different evils of varying degrees - me and you Grub, and the rest of them, we are not different.

What...the hell? I don't think we are talking about the same thing. As far as I can tell, what \m/ apologized for had nothing to do with politics, diplomacy, sides, wars and in fact nothing to do with CN at all. But please correct me if I am mistaken - because it truly sounds to me as we are talking about two completely different things. And for the record, my life-long ideology has been to keep OOC things separate and unrelated to IC things. I simply fail to see any reason why the two should never be considered side by side. And what is it with the "New Hegemony" crap? I, nor my alliance is part of any side or movement, and quite frankly we are both allied to the same group of alliances - so if you care to insult me based on treaties which my alliance holds, it is no less an insult to your own alliance. I don't support \m/, nor GOONS nor PC in their tech raid, I have never supported alliance-wide tech raids or wars with crappy CBs, which I think are the same thing. I have argued and fought against such things in the past and voiced strong opinions against them. I would even consider that your own ally - the NSO is just as guilty of having done this in the past as has \m/ with the FoA raid. My opinions have supported your side of the current event related to the tech raid on FoA, but what you said here is both stupid and hypocritical - so get your butt of your high horse Grub, and accept that people can have varying opinions, unrelated to any affiliation with a particular side in any given dispute. Hell, I would have thought that you'd understand this better than most.

What disappoints me most, is that OOC matters are taken by some in an IC context and hence need to be discussed in an IC place. The two have no relation with each other.

Good luck with that - perhaps then raiding alliances will be forced into the notion that it's much more efficient to get tech through tech deals than raids

That's interesting. Someone should start an inter-alliance pact, to not tech deal with raiders. I think a lot of small alliances that sell tech, which may well be victims of raids or their members be victims of raids would be up for this.

Welcome to the new government - or more specifically to the new individuals within it

I fail to see what canceling my treaties will achieve.

You make the fundamentally flawed assumption that I made the thread because I want the sort of things I stated as opposed to believing it would be better for the game, when in fact I did so because I see other people do, but beyond that much of my point is not about what people want, but about major alliances taking advantage of others less and using opportunities for excitement more. It is easy to recognize that most people have not even thought about that way, specifically not the average CN player...so I'm certainly not saying it's what people want. But I am presenting it as an idea to consider In regards to the rest of your assessment - as well as the thoughts of some others I haven't bothered replying to; A lot of people seem to have the notion that it is easy to change things, and that anyone can do it, and make the game fun for them. I disagree entirely, and claim things are only fun universally for everyone (which I think is deal for the game), when everyone is in on something exciting and fun. This implies the involvement of the majority in any specific action done to spice things up. Simply put, nobody as hard as they tried could simply conjure up a GW by themselves, and only a GW provides the universal level of fun which is also accessible by (nearly) everyone - which it is my opinion is what the game needs. Of course everyone's opinion differs.

I presume GATO is next on the list

To OP, i don't like your "religion IRL causes war" agenda, and you should not have brought it up to discuss the game.

Say who now? You lost me there mate In my experience it is difficult to convince people to play CN and/or explain why it is a worthy waste of time. It is easier to do it to people who are interested in politics - but even then, they may get bored.

I find this image in particular to be very accurate: On that basis, I'd like to congratulate you on this treaty.

In regards to when the drift downward began, I think it's fair to say it started after UJW - and coincidentally, UJW was the last war where the time between major wars was still below 160 days (not counting the first). http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/5637/screenshot1ar.png Perhaps some short-term unhappiness is necessary for some long term happiness? I agree with your assessment, and point out the fact that a long lasting war will push most nations back down to the range you refer to as more ideal for more frequent wars. As you say, it is impossible to please everyone, but in my opinion that is no prelude to doing nothing

I thought about satisfying such replies in the OP, but I really did not think anyone would be so silly. What I said clearly implies a change in the way leaders think as a whole. It would take more than one leader - even if they lead the most powerful alliance, to change things. That's a lot of fun for you, but not really fun to anyone else The only universal fun, is a universal war

Hello there The number of players in the game is steadily declining as it has for some time - I don't think this is anything new. I do however think that we should have ongoing efforts to try and figure out why this trend is occurring, as well as attempt to fix it. In the past, I like perhaps many thought that the loss of nations could be attributed to the Hegemony and their evil ways of forcing people out of the game and destroying communities. Indeed a lot of people did leave because of that - however that era is well over, and anyone can now play the game regardless of previous transgressions. So the question then is, why isn't the number of nations steadily increasing? With the return of several old alliances and communities, and with the recruitment efforts they are clearly undertaking, one would think that many of those players who quit and new ones altogether would join up and bring the numbers back up to around what they were at the peak. Instead what I see is more and more nations getting bored with the game and quitting. A lot of people I know are displeased with the Admin for not keeping the game "fresh" and continuously adding new features and altering game mechanics to keep it interesting and exciting. This sounds like a plausible theory, but at this point I'd like to bring light to the fact that we should not be considering the super active players who hold government positions, who post on the CN forums, who idle on IRC 24x7 and so forth. We should be considering more "casual" CN players, of which the majority of the game consists. I somehow doubt that most of them care about the fact that CN does not change, probably because the only players whom I have heard complaining about this, are in fact seasoned players. The next question to ask is what has changed in the game to make it less fun for such casual gamers. I have another theory which I'd like to bring to light. This theory is not complex and is perhaps not even new, but I have not seen much or any discussion of what I am going to say, hence I decided to post about it here. The recent TPF War fiasco was pretty disappointing, in fact pretty much everyone I know was very upset that there would be no great big war. I think that's pretty typical of us. More important however, was the reaction of a certain former player whom used to be in my alliance. From seeing that, the reaction of other players within my alliance, and the reasons for why the TPF conflict did not escalate, it became pretty obvious to me what the reason for all the boredom is. And it is not as simple as "we want more war" - no, I'm a lot more concerned about the underlying issues at work here. In my opinion, the Karma War was a turning point in the game, not because a long standing power structure was destroyed - but because the role of politics and PR was far greater than ever before. It was quite necessary many would argue in order to win the war, and I am certainly not unthankful for it. However now we see a new trend. We see the life sucked out of the game - nearly every aspect of it which is fun, is now being sacrificed to make way for more emphasis to be placed on the politics and diplomacy side of the game. PR is now more useful than a thousand nuclear nations. Because of the cluster!@#$ that is the treaty web, it is now more important than ever to gain the "moral high ground" in any conflict, if you are to draw the fence-sitters connected to both sides to fight for you. A lot of leaders are craving more power, and are willing to do whatever it takes to win wars. I don't mean this in a bad way, not like them using dirty tactics, but what I do mean to say is that these days the key alliances use everything at their disposal - their allies, treaties, friendships and all those casual players as pawns, in a grand diplomatic game to try and obtain an outright advantage over the enemy. The very people that make up Cybernations, which do most of the fighting are sidelined - their opinions and needs are ignored. What we have is a grand game of chess - on a scale much grander than we have ever seen prior to the Karma War, enjoyed by the elite few, but completely unsatisfying to the masses which are now bored with the game that does not deliver as much fun and excitement as it used to. It fails to do this, because the leaders of many key alliances care far more about winning wars than fighting wars. They care more about having power than having fun. Many would reply to say that they play to win, and any notion involving a question to just how far they should go to secure victory is ludicrous - however I propose the notion that to win you must first play, and if trends continue, eventually there will be no more Cybernations. Granted - that outcome is somewhat extreme and won't happen in the near future, however I do believe there exists a trend which will cause it to happen, and I certainly foresee many other problems coming from the majority of CN being bored. In my opinion, this originates from the deep desire by many to eliminate the cancer that was the Hegemony and to survive with them dictating the CN way of life, and this is understandable. But there is no longer a need for all this, let us now shed the mindset that our very existence depends on victory, and acquire a new sense of freedom. Let us now pose the question: Why is victory more important than fun? After 4 years of CN, most of us have been through a lot. I would doubt that there exist many veterans who did not both lose and win major wars. Yet you are all still here today, just where you want to be. I ask what you have the lose by losing another major war. Does the prospect of victory at all costs really outweigh the boredom your nations will face until you finally decide that you have a good chance to win a particular conflict? Are you quite content to see your nations, your allied nations quit and go rogue while you dance on the PR floor? In any game, it is necessary to take risks and commit to actions which have unknown consequences. Such risks in themselves are fun and exciting. Personally, I've fought in every major war starting with GW2, and I believe it is far more fun to fight a war when you are outnumbered - and I know for a fact many agree, so again I have to wonder why everyone cares so much about winning, that they would actually willingly avoid a conflict if they aren't 110% sure they would win. I think conflicts where victory is not assured - especially for either side, are the best. Unfortunately I had the displeasure of having to fight the NoCB war with the Coalition, and after doing so I really wondered why the hell anyone would want such odds on their side. It is almost as bad as not fighting at all, because each individual nation cannot feel as though their particular war effort even makes any difference. Although one nation never does in any case, it is when a single nation's targets are so poorly beat down so quickly - that the war loses all purpose. When you have a distinct advantage over your enemies, the entire war and the victory you achieve has no meaning for your side. The only good war, is a war that lasts for months because there is no clear victor. I hope that the next war resembles this as much as possible. So my point is this: I don't meant to ask everyone to throw themselves at any possible war that comes along, but when there exists a good opportunity for a real conflict - and I don't mean some pathetic one on one or a beat-down, I mean a real global conflict involving everyone and lasting weeks if not months, when two sides have been forming and building up for days, when they both have contrasting views on a volatile issue and they believe themselves to be right, especially when it might actually be somewhat even, then the leaders should take the opportunity and provide some fun and relief to everyone, instead of trying to peace out on the first, second and third day as hard as they can for meaningless diplomatic reasons. Very very few will play a game where all you do for 6, 9 and God forbid 12 months on end is save money, and fight for a few days or a week in between. Why? because there is no point. Overtime, there has been a lot of change in the ways alliance leaders perceive the Cyberverse and conduct their alliance affairs. Let us not stagnate progress now, but rather adept to the new times we live in. Thanks for reading.

I'm going to go with NpO & NSO How can friendship trump ideology? I will never know.

It's been a long time coming.

Why not do what the wiki does and call them 2nd, 3rd, etc - ie separate entries.

NPO vs Morality PS. Hope this wasn't mentioned before?

Sad to see a black alliance leave black. Good luck

Congratulations and such to two good black alliances.

Congratulations to our allies and friends in LEO

Boo, I demand every alliance state such reasons in a public and transparent manner.

o/ Fark Most awesome doctrine ever