Jump to content

Hyperbad

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,841

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Hyperbad

  1. Blacky

    Posted

    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 are a lot of different reasons. The decline of the game has been predicted by probability, at this point im not sure anyone can pinpoint a final date for it, heck in 2009 I said it would be dead September of 2011 and as you can see im dead wrong with that one.

    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. Rush Sykes

    Posted

    Yes, but prior to 2008, CBs came rapidfire, as 50K players with larger alliances were more willing to take risks. You actually had people who would do things that actually created a CB. The problem was, the community decided that one of these need to be present into eternity, because *gasp* Admin Forbid "I dont like you and your alliance" be used as a reason for war.

    CBs still come just as quickly. The only difference now from the past is with what's considered sufficient reason for war has changed to a higher standard.

  7. Fokker Aeroplanbau

    Posted

    This post is kind of like saying 'everyone has two arms and two legs, so you're all the same'. Yes, we all sign the same types of treaties (though the wording is often quite different, so I wonder if you actually read treaties) and have similar clauses in our charters. Why? Because those are the things that alliances need to operate successfully.

    Non-sense. GPA, Grey Council, TDO, WTF and possibly GOP (not sure if they signed anything) all show you don't require treaties to operate successfully. That might be true however when speaking of an involved FA policy but we don't have any real examples beyond a few scattered war entries when no treaty applied. This would ultimately boil down to it not being the norm so at worst you'd need to be able to stomach it slightly better than most alliances until others recognize you they won't just fold and conform because others demand it. Even if challenged the question of how one measures success here is rather gray as one who operates without treaties clearly wouldn't be as concerned about consolidating political power or influence since it's not being codified like everyone else.

  8. Fokker Aeroplanbau

    Posted

    What does 'in depth' mean?

    That probably is the single determining factor for how one responds to this entry. For me it would be a meaningful difference, something which sets an alliance apart and makes it feel like it's a different place and they're doing something unique from that of "x, y, and/or z." In my opinion what the community has chosen to focus most of their attention on has largely been theatrics - RP/PR.

    Yes, treaties and government documents are pretty boilerplate but thats just because its been five years of practice where people have generally figured out what works.

    To me this just illustrates how everyone more or less is a carbon copy of each other. There is no creativity or innovation, no real divergence from the norm and those who do seek it are generally chastized as being "noobs" and recommended to join and already existing alliance so they may learn how to conform to the norms which have existed for five years. The most basic tenets of an alliance's existence are codified, structured and carried out in much the same way regardless of the personalities these entities or those within them have thereby making these personalities rather moot. If you don't act on it but largely according to something else then it just doesn't matter. Part of the reason for this is with how game mechanics have been established and this will always be an issue. Those who don't take the game seriously and aren't structured in most ways then unless you're an elite alliance with veteran membership you just won't be competitive.

    Still an alliance's personality is the depth of the alliance. I could read an alliance's charter and wiki article and still know nothing about what that alliance actually is. I do a bit of FA work and its pretty clear just how different every alliance is. Even in tightly related groups like Pandora's Box and Doomhouse, there are big differences in the personality and mindset of the members in each alliance. Expanding beyond that to Dos Equis, the differences just get larger and more numerous. By the time we get to the other side of the treaty web, alliances have become vastly different than one another. Sure the Orders and Doomhouse might both IA staff, FA staff, some kind of powerful autocratic ruler but beyond these superficial similarities, we have two very, very different groups.

    In the present climate personality adds flavor to the frame work which exists, nothing more.

  9. Fokker Aeroplanbau

    Posted

    If you don't see the stark differences in personality between alliances like like MK and alliances like STA, then I don't know what to say to you. There are a lot of alliances that are similar, but to say that all alliances are more or less the same is pretty absurd.

    A different personality does not automatically equate to a difference between the alliances in depth. You'll find many alliances having the same general structure right down to what's included in government documents and teaties. There's also little variation in what alliances do, when, how and what the ultimate goals are for said actions.

    At best the depth of differences between alliances could probably be counted without even using all of the fingers on ones hand.

  10. Fokker Aeroplanbau

    Posted

    all CN Alliances are the same dull shade of OOC. Sure, there could be some cosmetic differences. Perhaps some weird personal animosity between some members exists, as if CN mattered. Perhaps some have an oddly German overtone, as if beating a dead horse into jelly is somehow an exciting and unique pastime. Yet what I don't see is IC anything.

    Not being funny but I kind of saw this back in '06 more so about policies than any themes. It's rather like the political forums how everyone always beats on the same topics rehashing them time and time again because that's all they ever really see. This issue isn't unique to CN. Just about every alliance in every game is a carbon copy of another. In a world where mechanics are strictly defined for what ones course of action might be it's rather difficult to think outside of the box, let alone getting people to act in such a manner as any thought might lead.

  13. senatorhung

    Posted

    wow, other people try so hard to be a troll, and you make it look so easy !

    Since when is asking a legitimate question is trolling?

    just think a *little* bit harder about how you would have charted the conflict if you were a third-party, TOTALLY disinterested in CN politics, and maybe you'll earn a clue.

    MK hasn't been shy about bringing war to other alliances without a formal declaration in this conflict. Personally, it's something I can understand and not a policy I'm really opposed to. Despite that, one can be disinterested in politics yet still understand the difference between "I'm bringing conflict to you" and "I see you've brought conflict to us."

    Also, hes going by who actually posted a DoW, making it official. Pretty reasonable position to take.

    Since no official DoW was posted the lines can be drawn without an arrow either way and I'd see it as reasonable. If an arrow was pointed from MK to CoJ I'd see that as reasonable but also a bit misleading as the connotation most would get is they issued a formal declaration though, I suppose, it would technically be correct since their nations declared on ours first.

    oh, i *understand* his position. i just don't see the point of bringing it up in a non-political charting forum. either i use DoW, along with recognitions, or i don't even show the 'hidden' conflict. in a political forum, sure, you want the bonus P.R., but here, it's trolling, especially over a month after the inclusion.

    Your chart illustrates things in a definitive manner thus presenting them as fact. I challenged something presented in it as fact (that we issued a DoW). You respond with our recognizing hostilities. I state they are not the same. You respond more or less with "you're trolling" then later "he just wants a PR boost." If you're looking to just ignore the issue raised then instead of making excuses for why you shouldn't consider what I've said you could simply disable comments on your blog.

  16. R3nowned

    Posted

    Non chaining is probably the worst addition to treaties in CN ever. It's one of products of this massive treaty web that's spun up, and I suspect that if they were abolished, more people would be more careful of who they treatied with, rather than treatying anything that moves.

    Before the advent of non-chaining treaties you never saw such caution. Why would things change now?

    Yes, that's why you should control your own war through the use of ODPs and only use MDPs with allies that you know you will die for, regardless of what they did to get into war.

    More value needs to be placed on both ODPs and MDPs

    I'd say the opposite: less value needs to be placed on treaties in order to allow a political scene with greater dynamics. If treaties mean too much then acting in your own best interest without a treaty will see you ostracized. It reduces your options and forces you to play to others benefit.

    All treaties are useless.

    Treaties may not ensure one has power but they certainly are not useless. They create an aura of influence and migh around those who have a large number of them simply by people knowing that these other alliances with all of this NS might have their back in a war or otherwise support them in conflict. Their use is in soft power, for the real muscle you rely on good close relations and having similar philosophies.

    Treaties only matter as far as much as the alliances who hold them matter. However, as I said, ODPs have a bad name to them so I am not sure why anyone would even enter a war based on them if you go with the OP's scenario of changing all treaties to ODPs.

    The bad name ODPs have results from the opportunism they've been used for. If given a real purpose and not used as a "get me into a fight with a specific alliance" tool then the reparations aren't all that likely if it could be consolidating with the larger policies an alliance has.

    PS: ODP's are a joke. We can and will defend whoever we want.

    Sounds like a position in opposition to military treaties in general.

    Tromp

    Posted

    I like the format but it falls apart after the bullet points.

    The question posed by some people now is, which world order do we have now?

    I personally believe we have a multipolar order. The simplest argument I can offer to you to make this clear is by identifying the two sides at war with each other as each one pole, and Duckroll as the third. People may object to that, but I think it is irrefutable.

    It reads as if you got lazy from this point on after the energy put in the first half of this blog entry. You could very well have made an argument for it being a world with multiple different poles but seemed to just throw out the opportunity to argue your case and just said "it's irrefutable" to avoid doing so.

  18. The MVP

    Posted

    Since he seems so intent on using Christ's name, in vain albeit, then he should know this Bible verse:

    "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Matthew 7:3

    It's Sunday so quite fitting, I have Church soon anyways. Have a wonderful rest of the night.

    Should have posted it on Saturday.

    I'm not the kind of person who would try to change another's opinion on a subject like religion, but I do think that a person's beliefs deserve to be respected no matter what they are.

    You can't respect something you look down on as being silly, stupid, ignorant, etc. I think what you mean is put on a front and feign respect in a dishonest manner, that or merely making your statements neutral in this regard.

  22. Tygaland

    Posted

    I also think you misunderstand my aim here. My aim is not to ridicule those in Sardonic's log dump (although I guess I can see how people may see it that way), it was to ridicule the system of social norms in the Cyberverse that push people to do what the people in those logs were doing.

    Oh no, I didn't get that impression at all. I don't even like the present set of social norms I merely understand the fuss over it. The reason it's come about is people holding preference over defense to offense because of the assumption that the defender might be an innocent thus should be protected. A way to challenge the notion of the defender being an innocent thus not worthy of outside aid is to charge that they've wrong another party some how in a manner others can get behind. What wrong others may rally behind will again, depend on social norms.

  23. Tygaland

    Posted

    Methrage

    If anyone joins the war with that as the reason then the one they should be joining to support really is FnKa. The Ninjas are merely backing up their statements with no clear goal other then to respond to what was more or less "do something about it" and your alliance went to war under dubious cicrcumstances no matter your intentions. This leaves FnKa is really the only one to openly state their reason and making demands on the topic of GOONS's raiding practices.

    Do you believe contriving a CB would have made any difference? This is really my point. If you do not believe your real reason for war is reason enough for war then why bother contorting yourselves to generate something fake but more "reasonable"? Everyone who was considering war was in on it plot so how does it change the motivation for war at all?

    Everyone who was considering war for the same reason of what probably boils down to "I don't much like GOONS" was there. That doesn't speak on what those who might join would need to convince them. Personally I think having as many varied reasons as one possibly can have will typically work in persuading multitudes of others to take part in your favor or sit by instead of joining the other side. There isn't anything inherently wrong with trying to secure that extra support even if the reasons for that support might differ from your own goals. The problem was with how things were progressing in the logs, not with the fact that they wanted to keep the firepower on the other side limited. Not everyone thinks or feels the same way which is why when you wish to achieve a political goal it's never a good idea to just think if it's good enough for me it'll be good enough for everyone else.

    Would contriving a CB make a difference? Certainly. What kind of difference or whether by "difference" you mean significant, I have no idea. It depends upon what they would have came up with and how it all played out (log leaks, etc.).

  24. Tygaland

    Posted

    Then they obviously did not believe in what they were doing.

    Going in kamikaze style in this case not only wouldn't have achieved what those planning had hoped but also would have solidified the other sides position by removing themselves as factors in future disputes. Thus it is possible to believe in something and not emphasis the points you believe in while trying to have your side appeal to others. This isn't to say I condone the manner in which they went about it but I think you too readily jumped to that statement.

    Edit: hopped != hoped

×
×
  • Create New...