Jump to content

Hyperbad

Members
  • Posts

    1,841
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hyperbad

  1. Before trying to recruit anyone you should probably type out just what sort of an alliance you'd like to create. Get all the details down on types of policies or general philosophy it should follow and jot down the relative importance of everything there. It will help you find people who are of like mind and thereby somewhat reduce the risk of a split in the future. I still say the odds are high though simply because you and the others will know virtually nothing about each other.
  2. [quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1335635486' post='2960451'] Swings and round-a-bouts, if nukes went back to the top 5% then future wars after that date would increase tenfold in length as amount of damage done a day to combatants would be decreased and not as damaging especially to tech, would take what seems like forever to lower. [/quote] Seldom in wars do they last as long as they have because a faction wishes to inflict a specific amount of damage. Terms are offered near as early nowadays as they used to. The variables which changed is the preparedness everyone has and their willingness to fight a protracted conflict before accepting terms. Removing nuclear weapons from the possession of the majority of nations might have the effect of increasing the duration of conflict because one side does not feel defeated but at the same time it could also have an effect where because one side can't be effectively defeated easily there's less dictation of terms and more in the way of negotiations. We can't properly predict what effect it will have.
  3. CN is only demanding for alliance government and generally only when problems arise and are being dealt with still, I've seen and played games which required far more time and energy for both government and the average player. For government it's probably somewhere around the middle of the range for time consuming of games but that's more because of indifferent players requiring government to baby them. For players, I'd say it's among the least demanding even when at war. There will be a shell of a community but it won't entirely die off. They seldom ever do. My honest opinion; progress here is damn near effortless. There is precious little to progress in. The mechanics provide no reason to fight and actually act to discourage fighting. Conclusion: the game itself is boring and has no draw. CN will continue to live on with or without changes, just with a gradually declining population until it stabilizes and frankly I don't much care either way.
  4. [quote name='Courland' timestamp='1334636021' post='2954673'] No offense, but that is just a really terrible point…[/quote] I take no offense to the opinion others hold. [quote]…which completely ignores both natural and property rights.[/quote] Natural and property rights are of no relevance to the question of if refusing an end to a problem shares fault in said problem not being resolved. [quote]GOONS: I want sex. MONGOLS: Leave my butthole alone. GOONS: I will take sex. MONGOLS: You will bleed. *attempted assault* *punch to face* *butthole remains inviolate* GOONS: I still want sex. MONGOLS: You still need to stay away from my butthole. GOONS: Just the tip? MONGOLS: FFS leave me alone. *attempted assault* *punch to face* *repeat ad nauseam*[/quote] The above scenario suggests the Mongols were directly and deliberately attacked for money as the root cause and the end for this war is the Mongols to pay.
  5. [quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1334334560' post='2952253'] And remember, we must be clear on this, the war is going on because of you. You could end this war right now. Each day you are in war pushes the time it will take you to rebuild back even further. You know what you have to do to end this. We can keep this up forever. Can you? [/quote] [quote name='Sniper Joe' timestamp='1334346641' post='2952378'] The war's continuation really isn't the fault of Kaskus/Mongols, you can say it's because they won't agree to paying reparations but I think we would both know you were full of it if you did that. GOONS has chosen to continue to attempt to extract reparations instead of walking away with their dignity intact. Sardonic is a spoiled child who's used to getting what he wants and throws a hissy fit when he doesn't. [/quote] With the concerned parties at an impasse and neither willing to change this the fault for the wars continuation falls on everyone involved. Options to end the war are no less so because one dislikes them and both sides know what the other views as a fitting end. One side wants money where as the other apparently wants status quo ante bellum. Both are stubborn enough to refuse what the other wants. Both of you are doing a disservice to your sides argument by making a claim to the contrary.
  6. [quote name='Blacky' timestamp='1328494895' post='2915199'] You're wasting my time. I've already addressed everything in your post.[/quote] That's entirely possible as I've only skimmed pages here and there. I saw multiple others make the same point as you that the war was escalated though with some differing points and none arguing the other side. Rather than going through the entire thread picking or pulling all of them out I just went with the last one I saw and decided to make my post covering a few things I saw questionable. I do apologize for not clarifying this earlier. [quote]The use of nuclear weapons is not an escalation. Even arguing that point would be ridiculous, nukes are nothing more than a tool for war, much like all the others. So that part of your contention is gone.[/quote] This part of my post wasn't a contention with you but with another poster who asserted the use of nuclear weapons by Kait after negotiations had commenced was an escalation. [quote]The escalation on Rok's part comes from accepting (or readmitting) a nation at war with the MK. In terms you would understand: Initially the nation we were at war with had only it's own nation as it's resource with which to wage war. After Rok admitted the nation, it now has at it's disposal the resources of an entire alliance (be they war guides, military/financial/moral support, rebuilding aid, etc.) As such, accepting a nation into your alliance that is at war without resolving the conflict has historically been viewed as an escalation. That isn't even a point of contention. [/quote] Escalating a conflict or dispute differs significantly from behaving in a provocative manner. One can do something which is viewed provocative while not actually changing how things will play out and this seems to be the point of confusion here with yourself and others. Views historically held by this community will never change reality either. Claims of escalation by another party in a dispute can be a great sales pitch to third parties or might help one in private affairs by giving the impression that you mean business in a much more threatening tone. Fighting it is something that requires both will and thought which even then isn’t guaranteeing you a victory on the podium so it could all be for nothing given that those who make such a claim are more likely to be in a position of strength over the other. Really what needs to happen is just to take a look at the situation on its own merit instead of looking at what others label it and work from there. I can't speak for how strong a fighter Kait is. She's led a nation for quite a while and was in her alliance immediately before this incident occurred. Her alliance has been in six wars over the past two and a half years and fighting at a national level really isn't all that complicated. She's had ample opportunity to learn the war system and copy any guides she so desires - heck I still have guides of all sorts saved and I no longer actively participate. I don't find admitting a seasoned player who has experience with that aspect to require the help you claim they are receiving. I do concede it is possible but then I wonder how significant an impact it would be having. I also wonder if you're going to look at all of the nations and alliances who post here or on the wiki and claim they're escalating the conflict with all of the information on the war system that they've made publicly available. Everything is already out there if you know how to look and one that is active who hasn't even seen a guide could easily decipher good strategy from the bad just by reading the threads every day. That last portion also goes to your asserting that giving moral support is somehow escalating a conflict. The dynamics don't change because one declares their support and admitting someone during a raid doesn't even imply they have it. That's just a connotation people get out of admittance because people are too afraid to admit people with exceptions to the protection granted. Wasn't there a player in TOOL or TPF in the past that was on a ZI or PZI list which was admitted on the condition that their protection wouldn't extend to those whose list they were on but would to those they were not? In such a case moral support isn't granted in the least bit way to that player. There's no condoning their actions it's indifference; assistance isn't being given either way. Where any moral support might come in is with the negotiations for this particular case but since the Mushroom Kingdom appeared to want an end to this fighting soon after Kait was re-admitted so whether she actually has moral support or the negotiations are for another reason entirely isn't exactly certain. Though I have seen people argue it was a dick move to kick her out I can't say I've seen anyone try to argue she wasn't a valid target in the eyes of a typical raiding alliance. To the point how would moral support reliably cause an escalation and is it a reasonable expectation that it does? The wars being discussed were tech raids. These typically last seven days and with admittance would cease after that period has elapsed. With the nature of tech raids being a short adventure there is only one way rebuilding aid could be considered as helping to escalate a conflict and that's if the warring nation who was promised said aid is short of funds and was holding back to conserve what money they have left. In this case the promise of aid would allow them to breathe much easier with the knowledge that they could now spend all of their money fighting the war. This would incidentally cause the war to intensify for the raiders. There are plenty of nations out there who are short on their war chest and in that position the promise of rebuilding aid would have just that kind of effect. In this case however, if she has a war chest able to withstand the seven days of unrestricted warfare, then there is no escalation with such a promise. Admitting a member makes escalation far more likely as members of an alliance wish to assist one another in good times and bad. In most cases it would lead to an escalation if not by the alliance who accepted them then by the alliance that is at war with the new member as a preemptive measure. It does not however guarantee an escalation will take place. The intensity, scale or scope of conflict is not certain to increase by simply adding someone to your member list therefore it is not an escalation of said conflict unless such a change occurs.
  7. [quote name='Blacky' timestamp='1328405430' post='2914643'] Bob Ilyani and Joe Stupid who sanctioned the attacks never said you were now off limits. By the time Adel was in power due to the coup (OOC: because the forums were taken down and they were demasked), the war had already been escalated to a nuclear war and you had been readmitted into Rok without having had the war cleared up. As I have previously stated in this thread, the failure to resolve the issue has de-facto escalated it to a state of war between two alliances. Of course, MK is still reasonable and has not responded to the escalation as of yet and is continuing negotiations with an inexperienced leader who is making matters more difficult.[/quote] The same nations continuing their fight with the same resources and means does not qualify as an escalation. Where an escalation comes around is if Ragnarok deemed fit to assert protection over this person for these wars specifically. Personally, I wouldn't as the war pre-dates membership. Still I would grant them protection on any actions by others in general or by those who declared these wars when these wars expire. That's quite a reasonable position to take. Let the nations fighting it out do so, or sign peace of their own accord. In the mean time even if negotiations continue, that is not synonymous with an armistice. There are many occasions where negotiations commence or are ongoing with shots still being fired so to assume in this case it would automatically lead to that isn't sensible. Over all, Ragnarok should have confronted the Mushroom Kingdom with what their stance on Kait would be from the start, whether it's to let the wars continue or their desire to see peace. If they approached you with a desire for peace and an armistice was put on the table by them while negotiations commence then they should have confronted her. If however an armistice wasn't ever mentioned by them then well the only thing wrong with her nuking your nations is the assumption you held. There's certainly plenty of other things to cast on Ragnarok's shoulder but escalation; unless I skipped stuff through my only reading sporadically, I just don't see it. It just seems like you're upset at her attacking the aggressors in a conflict when an assumption was made - with nothing affirming it - that there would be a cease-fire during negotiations. I could understand frustration at it but if it's the case then that frustration is better directed at yourselves.
  8. [quote name='ComradeR' timestamp='1319404927' post='2831078'] Haha, how embarrassing it would be to surrender, even more that you would have to pay to surrender. [/quote] It's pretty much been the story for most of the wars which have to date occurred. The only difference here is scale, it's been brought down to individual nations as opposed to alliances as a whole "paying to surrender."
  9. It would be quite a delay. Another thought came to me on it though where by it's counting historical highs as opposed to a cumulative count. This might just be me misreading the purpose of the screen in posting it's a bug. There's already two uses I've posted where it may show a higher wonder total than there are nations and I'm sure I'm missing more. Still, I suppose one should check it out to be safe even if not a game breaker. It just caught my curiosity.
  10. 16,162 Social Security Systems 18,161 Stock Markets 16,354 current active nations. Looks like the wonders aren't adding up right unless people discovered a bug where they could get two Stock Markets. The Social Security Systems I just assume is off as that's just 190 nations below the total nations in-game and the bottom ~400 nations by NS haven't done anything. Secondary thought after it being a bug as I first got the impression it was supposed to be a real-time count was that it's just cumulative, total number of wonders purchased over the course of the game's life but then the numbers would appear to be quite low.
  11. [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1314067068' post='2786540'] Which would make the people they'd "take down with them" think twice about their actions, wouldn't it?[/quote] Not necessarily. I once played a forum based nation sim circa 2002 where there was a simple rule: 50 nukes go off and the game is over, global winter. Granted the cost of a nuclear program was high in that game but it was still a low target. Most players came late enough that an alliance of 5 nations who started when the game did were able to roll the rest of us fairly effectively because of their quantity of forces and tech level. In any event I messaged all of the neutrals at the time to start a nuke program and set some off. If this alliance was attacking me because they didn't know whether I'd intervene in the war against them then surely the same end will arrive at their own doorstep. So all of us who weren't in that alliance started a nuke program. When the game was over (from a hacker having taken the site down and deleting the forums) I was chatting with one of the five, I've known people in that community for years before, and asked him what he thought our strategy was. He simply thought it was to hold out as long as we can. When I mentioned to him it was only to hold out long enough to set off the 50 nukes and we had mobilized even the formerly inactive (they actually found it an enjoyable idea) he laughed as they hadn't even considered we'd do it. Those at top don't always either care, consider it as a viable option for those losing, or think the defender would find it enjoyable to start over themselves in such a manner as this would entail. With that said I don't have an issue with uncapping GRL. People may still collect what little taxes they receive and if enough people end up in bill lock the nuking will stop and GRL drop slowly to a point where no one else will be unable to pay daily bills. This puts a greater emphasis on war chest and may act as a means of eating up some of the cash inflation we're seeing - by requiring people to dip into them sometimes when they're at peace. Or it could have the opposite effect as we see war chest requirements double.
  12. [quote name='DevastationStation' timestamp='1313392630' post='2781216'] And you realize that this theme is probably the most asinine concoction Bob has ever seen? Normally I can just say, 'to each their own', but not this. Hell no. [/quote] What else do you expect from a community which has received a consistent, collective dose of Mushrooms?
  13. [quote]And now, for something completely different...[/quote] The title made me repeatedly yell out "Mine!" then imagine a yell fading in the distance. In any event I'm rather enjoying the this here thread. Please continue. [quote name='Sloane' timestamp='1313214033' post='2779234'] I used to cut the heads off of my ponies and the legs off of my Barbies, so that I could make centaurs. Then I set them on fire. [/quote] :checks profile: wut? You had barbies and ponies? [quote name='deSouza' timestamp='1313367597' post='2780943'] Pretty awesome, but the Goon Order of Oppression Ponies and Sadism is rather hard to topple. Would take something like the Federation of Armed Poneys (FAP) to topple. In fact, why hasnt anyone used the FAP acronym yet. Its useable. [/quote] I imagine it would get old rather quick sort of like Fark's selected replacement for the term elections. It's something to think on though.
  14. [quote name='admin' timestamp='1313022030' post='2777051'] Apologies for the extended downtime today. The host was having issues but all is resolved now. [/quote] Would that be why I was getting a periodic 403 error on these forums or would it be on my end?
  15. The idea can work, it'd just be extremely difficult. They'd all need to be pretty close in views on how affairs should be conducted. [quote name='Locke' timestamp='1312920514' post='2776085'] You make Biff and Hyperbad cry. [/quote] And Schatt still hasn't apologized how mean is that? [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1312929582' post='2776179'] You're right, Hyper and I somehow never cross OWF paths though so I forget he's on here a lot Biff's out there too. [/quote] Only when [s]I'm at work[/s] I have time available. eh, I only really post when I'm feeling loopy or extremely bored. Most of the time when I have thought up replies I don't post them out of a realization it isn't relevant to the post I was responding to, someone else has already argued the point or I found a flaw in what I was going to say. Most of my posts aren't entirely serious anyway.
  16. [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1311882729' post='2766341'] One man does not an alliance make...[b]even when a CoJ mercenary shows up to make him appear to be more than he is.[/b] As for being "defenseless", that explains why he's engaging us in further offensive wars--unless you are implying he's suicidal IC. Stop bawwing for him. He doesn't merit it. [/quote] Good sir I resent that. Mercenaries get paid whereas I did it for free.
  17. [quote name='Havamil' timestamp='1312073181' post='2767925'] True, and he also just booted the one person that did actually call up the alliance to defend, before having knowledge of the events leading up to it. This person also realized what had happened and tried to make things right for acTi, so his part isnt as limited as you are suggesting.[/quote] Sure it is. They as independent leaders could very well have refused to fight at all and as you stated it was someone else that actually made the call to arms. [quote]the number of nations is a fact, trashing is incorrect, try challenging to see who is more willing to take care of his alliance[/quote] [s]So that and not hurt feelings is the reason for war?[/s] Edit to remove as I misread your post; read it out of context. There's something incredibly ironic about a person whose alliance decides to take part in attacking a member of another alliance, whose members understandably rally around their attacked member claiming to be more willing to help said members. [quote]I dont think God really has any interest in this[/quote] That would depend on the role. [quote]or did i miss a treaty somewhere?[/quote] You say that as if a treaty is a necessity.
  18. [quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1312071857' post='2767916'] Sorry meant to say conistonslim. I like the 'reserve' resource idea though. [/quote] *Whew* I thought I was making posts without remembering it again.
  19. [quote name='Havamil' timestamp='1312071188' post='2767911'] Shifting blame? no, your trying to put a twist on a simple informative statement. [/quote] You stated quite plainly he got them into this which in a manner of speaking is true - he set events in motion to get to this point - but also misleading as the two decisions which determined the outcome were made by other individuals. He did not assume control of Olympus and declare on his own nation nor did he assume control of AcTi nations and declare war on Olympus with them. His part is limited. [quote]It was a simple yes or no answer asked of a certain person[/quote] THe number of nations was the yes or no question. After that you began to trash Battalion, which I'm in different to. There's merely a part of your post which depending upon your intentions is either factually incorrect or misleading. [quote]your business in it would be what?[/quote] To clarify or correct the part of your post I quoted and responded to. [quote]that of the the overseer of bobs business?[/quote] No, that job belongs to God and Rebel Virginia had done a far better job with that role than I could ever hope to aspire to. In fact I rather wish he'd revive it.
  20. [quote name='Havamil' timestamp='1312069575' post='2767894'] the culture of Bob? Please do fill me in oh so wise one.[/quote] By saying the culture of Bob I was refering to the general view of alliance sovereignty, friendship, sound causes for war and generally speaking how it would look to allow a member to get attacked for what he said. Now personally, I think it was a stupid reason to attack. You guys came off as trigger happy looking for any excuse to attack a social pariah which is fine if it's how you prefer to lead your nations but it along with the other things mentioned does influence others decision to help or let suffer the target of your wrath. Now, it just so happened that their members started melting away after the conflict so clearly they don't feel very compelled to stand with a fellow member but they were still brought in under the auspices of helping one. There's nothing special about this nor is it diffcult to figure out. When tens of thousands of players endorse particular values, shames or behaviors you're bound to see people consider or actually believe in them. [quote]the rest i really cant respond to as i cant make heads or tails of it.[/quote] It's really quite simple. You're shifting blame for AcTi members being in bill lock and putting it solely on Battalion's shoulder which just isn't true. Battalion might have a small part in it as a cause for your action but you still took that action when it's quite possible or even likely the alliance would mobilize to defend their attacked member. Also to blame for their being in bill lock are those in it themselves for deciding to enter the fray. [quote name='Sibre' timestamp='1312070416' post='2767905'] lolyea. Battalion defines the word success. [/quote] In this sense he is. He managed to get you guys worked up enough to feel taking 0's and 1's from him is a punishment for his being a meanie. You had post a declaration of war against him, mass message his alliance and attack him personally. Sounds like his IRC troll was very successful. He got quite the reaction. 9/10 Battalion. -1 for lack of style
  21. [quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1312068500' post='2767884'] Hyperbad wants a TE style resource change, but if they do that then nearly everyone would just change to the one or two best TCs.[/quote] Wait, what? I said that where? I actually prefer giving people 2 base resources and allowing them to pick a third. They may only pick between two of them every few months but I would only implement that with some other serious changes to the gameplay. The problem is most of my preferences would require a serious over haul or complete reset which just doesn't make it practical.
  22. [quote name='Havamil' timestamp='1312067261' post='2767867'] acTi started out with 42 nations on their AA they are currently down to 18? What does that tell you battalion? [b]Were you willing to help them out of the bill lock you've gotten most of your guys/gals into?[/b] I personally have offered to help out where i can to get your "friends" out of bill lock now that they have ended their wars. Good to see someone is looking out for your alliance eh? [/quote] Seeing as how Olympus are the actors in attacking Battalion; the culture of Bob in how an attack on a member is typically looked at and who is putting AcTi members in bill lock I'd rather say the fault rests half on Olympus and half on the members themselves. The former for going to war against a member of an alliance and the members for choosing to defend their fellow member. Also, reading the logs now, Quite funny. It appears his troll was successful. You people need a thicker skin or just ban him and let that be that.
  23. In most games and real life there's a reason to compete with others, an achievable goal. Some games: have wonders an alliance might build and try to protect where others might try to destroy it so they might build it; have rules encouraging the raiding of players to achieve your own growth; use resources to fight over; possess an end point allowing for players to "win"; have borders to redress so as to be more defensible; or a doomsday program the top 10 players vote to start and when started all others must choose a side, for or against the project where if any of those for it drop out of the top 10 and no one for it is bumped up then the game continues on like normal where as if they keep the top 10 then the game resets. We don't have that sort of "players vote"; we don't have an end point to fight over to "win" nor do we have borders or rules encouraging raiding. All we have to push us into making war or having any tension what so ever is an active desire to see conflict happen over policies. It's a bit forced and after a community does it for years it becomes a bit tired. This is actually quite normal for every type of goal. After a while they all become tired, same ole same ole, etc. You have periods of exhaustions and those of renewed energy. Beyond the politics some of the delay in wars is what appears to me an extended period of exhaustion in the players.
×
×
  • Create New...