Hyperbad

[quote name='Choson' timestamp='1296337566' post='2609933'] But on to more serious matters, why is the mass of your alliance in Peace Mode? Why have you neglected the "poor" GOONS that want to attack your nations?[/quote] Simple; we already gave you a war declaration which presumably would get your alliance ecstatic. If we give you too much to be happy about it would be a means towards ending the grudge match our two organizations have going and that just can not be allowed to pass. Thus we elected to disappoint you and give you another reason to feel dislike towards us. Aren't we generous?

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1295755589' post='2592868'] Depends on your definition of "distant past", I suppose. But again, you miss the point I was trying to make.[/quote] No, I didn't miss your point at all. I nitpicked. [quote]My qualm is not so much with the treaty web (it is more a symptom of a greater problem), it is with alliances signing so many treaties that they cannot possible uphold them all. The treaty web is the result of this. The effects of this are that you can no longer rely on your allies to come to your aid during war due to either treaty conflict or due to non-chaining clauses that were another result of the number of treaties alliances were signing.[/quote] Another nitpick: if your issue with treaties is when they can't be upheld because of conflicts then the focus is not on quantity per se but should be with who ever signs the treaties and isn't willing to concede that their partners are incompatible due to mutual antagonism, different partners or philosophies. It's entirely possible to sign only two treaties but with those diametrically opposed.

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1295752133' post='2592806'] My point was not so much the circus but the deterioration in what a treaty between alliances means. In the past you could rely on an ally to step up and assist when needed, these days not so much.[/quote] I think what clouds this slightly is how the treaty web in the distant past initially saw very few connections between the two main "blocs". The fewer treaties most alliances had at start mixed with how few alliances there were made sure that the chances of it were minimal. So I disagree; I think the past really didn't see any greater meaning in treaties than is present now. You'd frequently see alliances delay entry into major wars for cancellation periods to expire prior towards their either joining the other side of a conflict or outright attacking their former ally or just declaring neutrality.

I need a time sink for when I have nothing better to do than waste time while at work.

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1295738169' post='2592514'] Really agree with this post. However one example of how to properly play out a bad situation is do what RIA just did, attack both sides [/quote] That would be so awesome if someone's MADP partner attacked another of their MADP partners and they issued the declaration on both.

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1295669431' post='2590711'] That is my point. What use are treaties that, in themselves, are meaningless and more a small portion of a greater community web of treaties. If my alliance is attacked outright and all my allies cite other treaties as reason not to defend my alliance then what use are those treaties? And before you say anything, I used my alliance as a hypothetical, not as a reference to anything that has happened or is happening. [/quote] In said situation treaties would have use as a deterrent against those who if they were to attack you would not cause treaty conflicts. They also add soft power outside of such a situation where ones allies would see reason to stay neutral or otherwise uninvolved. That they don't help you in all situations doesn't make them entirely useless. [quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1295671516' post='2590854'] on Skype we've mused over different ways of putting an end to the treaty madness since we cant seem to do it voluntarily. hardcode treaties into the game. you're only allowed a small number of them..of course this would create more iFOK-like chains but alas [/quote] It's not that people can't do it voluntarily but that they don't want to for the above stated reason. [quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1295694904' post='2591709'] I don't have an issue with oA or oD clauses being used in war to help an ally, that is what they are there for as far as I'm concerned, Most of the people throwing insults around about it know that as well but think they score some political points by making a fuss about it. What concerns me more is alliances leaving allies to burn citing allies of allies as a reason. Essentially they value a treaty between two other alliances over their treaty with your alliance. It is backward. [/quote] Yes, it is a bit backward. Yet the alliances which give that as a reason will always have treaty partners even if you (general usage) drops yours (general usage). Everyone just operates under the assumption it won't happen to them where their allies back out because of conflicting treaties. [quote name='R3nowned' timestamp='1295697780' post='2591745'] I don't know why people just only sign ODPs, since that's basically what every treaty out there is these days.[/quote] There's significantly less !@#$%*ing and moaning if you say "eh, maybe we'll help you, maybe not, it all depends" as opposed to "we'll defend you always so long as this treaty stands" [quote]Anyway, to me, ODPs are just as important as MDPs, though I feel that viewpoint is shared by but a tiny minority of people playing CN [/quote] ODPs are IMO better than MDPs because you get a better sense of what the expectations are with the other signatorie and so there are no surprises or any hurt feelings if things don't go your way. The lack of mandatory obligations makes necessary greater communication and understanding. [quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1295698616' post='2591753'] ODPs are the default as far as I'm concerned. Any alliance has the right to defend any other alliance, treaty or not. The Cyberverse has been conditioned to see alliances defending others without a piece of paper obliging them to as bad while allainces doing nothing to defend others despite having a piece of paper saying they are obliged to is seen as acceptable. [/quote] Man, going without treaty obligations but intervening in causes one believes one as one sees fit is so much more enjoyable and rewarding.

Ask any number of players what it takes to be a quality leader and I'm sure you'll get a number of different answers. Some of those answers might include what others say or even run contrary to it. I would probably sum it up as ones ability to motivate others so that they [i]want[/i] to grow, achieve, take part, et cetera. There are many different ways to get that motivation into the members of an alliance. To date the only leader of an alliance for a browser based game that I honestly respect was someone I had known from 1999-2001. His alliance hovered between 200 and 300 members in a game where the server population was roughly half what it presently is for CN. He designed and coded his own website and forums for the alliance along with roughly a dozen legal programs for members of his alliance to use. Mean while his account wasn't anything stellar despite the insane spreadsheets he possessed. The reason was simple; time. Between managing the infrastructure for the alliance and giving them tools with which to excel he also had to manage the politics of the game while also keeping the alliance well organized and run that they could go to war on a moments notice. He also had a busy life which cut into what he wanted to do. Still, he commanded respect not by demanding it or even not caring what other entities thought but by doing what he could, making sacrifices even of a monetary sort, for his alliance and spending all of that time and energy to ensure it would prosper. He was clearly capable of growing his account but he was sacrificing it so others in his alliance might be better built up and I've seen other examples of this in other games though not to the same extent. CyberNations however isn't complex to the point it's necessary. In CN anyone is able to find a trade circle with relative ease because it's typically a one time thing with the rarity of having to find replacements. Tech deals are only problematic in finding reliable sellers and besides that you don't actually [i]do[/i] anything for long periods of time. So in truth there isn't a strong reason why anyone should be off a path of ideal growth. There is no need for a dozen programs or excessive amounts of attention necessary to run your nation. With all of that said I still haven't been able to think of a way to quantify whether a leader is good at, well, leading. The flux of an alliance's membership varies as much from real life as from thoughts on the game itself and a leader can't really be blamed if members fall on hard times or are busy with work and school. I suppose a leader is partly to blame if the game has lost its appeal and if the appeal was lost because the leader has a nation whose numbers are not quite what you'd expect then there might be some relevance to what the OP said but it would still fall short because it doesn't take into account other motivating factors. /end ramble

[quote name='SWAT128' timestamp='1294414523' post='2567308'] Actually, I went to CoJ as soon as I saw the war declared by Ty. He was ghosting my AA, and his attack was not sanctioned by me.[/quote] ^ Confirmed, though I was actually hoping to see more of what this thread had to deliver before people started in on those who bought the OP. It had potential.

eh, never really saw a point in the awards myself so I never took part in either the voting or submitions. Still, if others find it a fun thing to do, by all means go for it. [quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1293409441' post='2554758'] but srsly, the big alliances would run away with the polls anyway..unless the smaller AA really deserves it ala Corp as best rookie AA last year. Maybe do a bit of both have an academy of however many people AND OWF polls. the OWF polls count for X amount of vote while the academy the rest. this way we can have the debate of why you deserve this award here on the forums which could inturn help the way one person votes or whatever /me shrugs [/quote] And/or have an equal number of people from different sections of the web with the most level headed reputation form the "academy". It of course would still be highly flawed merely on the basis of who you select and why you view them as level headed.

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1293363397' post='2554308'] On the other hand, it's hilarious to see them squeal about all the new high NS fighters now in NEW. It's quite funny, you wouldn't expect NEW to suddenly catapult upwards in strength . If they really plan on beating down NEW to a certain NS level, [b]and if NEW continues gaining NS[/b], this will continue to be entertaining. [/quote] I haven't checked today but hasn't the chart shown NEW was [i]losing[/i] NS for the past three or four days?

[quote name='Duncan King' timestamp='1292291642' post='2539010'] NPO and ODN were invasion alliances from NS. Fark, /b/, FOK, Ubercon, and GOONS were all invasion alliances from preexisting offsite communities. That's a pretty big chunk of players that wouldn't be here. A lot of people came from NS but didn't join NPO or ODN. But they heard about this place through people who had joined CN from NS. [/quote] The alliances having never formed and the players never coming over are two very different things.

[b]NAAC & NPO fighting the first polar war to a draw[/b] Clift notes version: I think a lot of what helped the NPO grow after those first few months and keep their edge was having soundly defeated other opponents and only seeing modest defeat in Great War 1. Had NPO not won its first war things could have turned out differently. At the time stats wise NAAC was the second strongest alliance (IIRC) but started to slowly slip away after a series of defeats. Its loss in that first war also prevented it from entering the Citrus War. Whether it would have is probably not. The cause for war at that time was more or less reasonable to the leaders on Bob and with a stalemate in that first war the rivalry might not have reached the heights it historically did. On the other hand, a lot of the fear in that first year was from the NPO having won those first few wars so decisively and that in part is why some seemed to rally against the NPO for the threat they seemed to pose. Fighting that war to a stalemate could have slowed or the general impression of the NPO being such a threat from forming in peoples minds thereby preventing any coalition from building against them and ensuring that the Citrus War never occurred. I have no idea who would have gained dominance if the First Polar War was a stalemate and the Citrus War either never happened or turned out with more players or a different result. /me awaits welcomed historical corrections [b]Invasion alliances never form[/b] ???

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1291702518' post='2532683'] So, my question to all is not "should JAMA be allowed to exist", and that is not the point of this thread either. My question to all is to ask your thoughts on the ideas I have mentioned in this thread. Am I too sensitive? Am I off base? I am not letting bygones be bygones? Or does this alliance (or my fictitious Jewish alliance) push the boundaries of this game too far? Or something in between?[/quote] Yes, you are too sensitive as you take these things to heart but then so are many others, including those who would be opposed to what alliance you mentioned. The banning of some things is understandable to me when they're illegal in certain regions (ie. the swastika in Germany). Besides those rare cases it boils down to perspective and not everyone shares the same one on what's offensive. On a personal note I think people being offended is a [i]good[/i] thing as taste, morals or underlying philosophy does tend to get people moving at least ideologically. I'd like to see people acting on what they dislike in game more instead of being forced to come up with some trivial issues to have an argument over.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1291538899' post='2530814'] Your premise is wrong. Diplomatic recognition is meaningless. You cannot project your interpretations on anyone else.[/quote] If diplomatic recognition is meaningless then why is there typically so much debate over what makes an alliance well, an alliance? Why not recognize every group of players an alliance without playing semantics? Should you prefer to speak frankly and in a manner you can not here, feel free to message me your response. [quote]Athens does not allow raiding of alliances. Athens has determined that 20 or a military level treaty(ODP and up) is the criteria to make you an alliance. You can have 19 members in your alliance. All registered on our forums. We might even give them all dilo masks. It does not make them an alliance, and it continues to maintain them as legal raid targets.[/quote] Issuing of diplomatic recognition is indeed meaningless here since I was under the presumption your posts have largely been of your personal views and only about Athen's policy in the cases where one alleges you're aiding a rogue. I never asked if Athens recognizes them as being an alliance but was responding to your personal comments which suggests that they exist as an alliance in every facet imaginable. They merely lack the treaty ties and membership to make the cut and receive what ever immunity or protection (from raiding included) offered by meeting the criteria your alliance sets forth which enables you to respond as you have and aid a party engaged in combat. Personal views can indeed differ from policy or have subtle differences, like those I mentioned. One can clearly see a group as an alliance personally but for practical reasons not afford them the same privileges you would others. I suppose my initial post in this thread wasn't properly worded for the intention and put you on the defensive out the gate without investigating what role you were speaking as and wound up in a debate on semantics myself. If however you've been speaking as a representative of Athens the entire time then my response most certainly is off base and a proper response would have been questioning whether your originally stated view of Sajasabie being wrong for their alleged band wagoning in affairs which are of no concern to them was a position you honestly believed in. The doubt would come from your willingness to influence events yourself in a conflict you also are not a party to thus committing a wrong in your own eyes. Of course it is entirely possible for you to feel there are limits to what wrongs are tolerable as an uninvolved party but then that would be disregarding others own views in this regard and still puts you in a position no better than the ones you are deriding.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1291537187' post='2530788'] Incorrect.[/quote] no u [quote]They can be(as has been proven in raiding event after raiding event) nations banded together for mutual protection, and still not be an alliance by the standards of 2/3 of the planet.[/quote] Okay, with you so far. Nations sign to a treaty stating they will help each other and thus will be allied together in future struggles out of the interest of mutual protection yet not be recognized by most of the world. So if they are all allied together (an alliance) then it's 14 vs. 2. If however they aren't, then it's 2 vs. 2. [quote]I dont recall ever saying they are 14 nations ghosting the same AA. Im pretty sure that in their own minds, they think of themselves as an alliance. I will now ask you the same thing I asked in my last post, to your alliance mate. Have you never read a tech raiding thread? All alliances on this planet have [b]their own criteria for when they recognize another alliance[/b]. Hurray, you have yours, and you play by that rule. We dont have yours, we have ours. Ours is not yours. Ours is different than yours. Simply because you view X as an alliance, does not mean we do. Simply because we do, by the same token, does not mean that you have to. I will say, for at LEAST the 10th time now, this is NOT A NEW CONCEPT.[/quote] The bold is the key phrase here. What you're talking about merely has to do with political and diplomatic recognition; not with whether they are in fact an alliance. That last argument merely came about when arbitrary membership counts as a requirement for extending recognition was questioned. To defend it the argument went to semantics of what is or is not an alliance merely out of necessity as citing a difference in terminology is believed to give weight to those who have said requirements. These kinds of policies don't exist because they [i]aren't[/i] an alliance but because of what diplomatic recognition offers - representation, right to negotiation and for counsel, reduction in raid targets, a possible recruitment pool, degrees of immunity etc.. Where it gets confusing for most here is you can personally or even as a whole recognize a group of nations as being an alliance without extending general diplomatic or political recognition. That's all this really is. If however it makes you feel more comfortable with keeping your policy for fear its basis might sink or slip away then by all means keep up your silly argument. Personally though I see a better foundation for it in the list of what extending diplomatic or political recognition and the relevant "rights" as being a far stronger justification.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1291532915' post='2530723'] RED is not an alliance. CATLAND is not an alliance. Let them have at one another. That is, as it should be.[/quote] Arguing they're not an alliance undermines the argument that it's a 14 vs. 2 war, particularly since there are only two actual wars between the AAs being fought. They're either nations banded together into an organization for mutual protection (ie. an alliance) or they're just independent nations ghosting the same AA. Which is it?

Should have posted it on Saturday. 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.

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1290909723' post='2525006'] I think alliances splitting off is one of the main root causes of CN's memebrship decline, and I think it's pretty often overlooked, but having been in an incompetent failboat alliance at one point (Illuminati) that was going nowhere, I remember it being incredibly discouraging and had I not had other things I wanted to do, I probably would've quit when I saw it was beyond repair. The point of my post was that if you roll the incompetently-run alliances [how is another matter] then you'll encourage a lot more newbies to stick around rather than get disheartened and leave. [/quote] You might instead cause them to become discouraged by the fact they were in an "incompetent failboat" when it might not have been so apparent otherwise. This would be a problem since you're under the impression it's a major reason as to why people are leaving the game. I suppose in part my inability to see things from your perspective is my viewing the larger alliances as merely a byproduct of the invasions conducted by several communities from other parts of the web. They came here together and settled together because of their common bond. How often do these communities take up projects of invasions for a short while as the new fun thing and then drop it after a very short while when the next one comes up? One other reason I question that hypothesis is if that's the cause then why had the trend towards more and smaller alliances continued for so long instead of stopping and eventually reversing itself? There's a lot of things which might be discouraging to players, particularly new ones. How do we really sift through it all and determine which are the biggest problems though? The reason I have difficulty believing the number of alliances is a problem is simply because I've been in games with more and larger alliances (simultaneously and apart) then this game has ever had and they were going strong. That's not to say there aren't differences which could mitigate the loss or compensate for it completely but I think it does set up for the possibility that there's more to it than is being alluded to. I think on a whole browser based games are in decline. The player base has shrunk due to the advance of technology allowing other, more advanced and interactive games to provide a similar experience in player interaction. [quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1290911010' post='2525020'] No, you can't and it's their own choice, of course. However, the fact that the ruling gang are acting like a bunch of simple minded fine gentlemen is on your shoulders. The behaviour that have been displayed in later times is beyond idiotic.[/quote] The behavior before the population decline was even more "idiotic" by some measurements and has since been tamed by staff.

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1290909091' post='2524996'] Root cause; Alliances splitting, and those splitter alliances splitting, until we have ~170 alliances and only so many over even 1m NS [whatever their member count]. Almost all of them want to achieve 'the top' and be big deals/big alliances but next to none of them ever will be, and failing to realize that dream will destroy the morale of everyone in the alliance and get them to quit, ultimately. Solution; Start discouraging splits and start eradicating incompetent and poorly organized alliances as opportunity presents. If crappy alliances disband I think there's a reasonable assumption (based on the aftermath of the old wars - GW2, 3, the ones prior) to be made that the members won't just all quit; that they'll disperse into other alliances. Therefore, eradicate the GGA and GGA-clones of CN and you're left with a much better population inhabiting the landscape. And while I'm obviously biased towards my side, please note that I am well aware a number of them fit that description. I'm not excluding them. [/quote] What are you saying alliances splitting is the root cause of; what would this accomplish and how?

I see a lot of focus on growth in this discussion. One thing you need to be careful with is if it's too easy to climb the ranks then attacking rival alliances to knock them down for your security or to achieve dominance isn't practical. They'll climb easily and have just one more reason to come after you making it all for naught. You want to balance the ability to grow with the ability to beat others down so both are possible under favorable circumstances.

Most games of this nature do have a limited shelf life. The persistent nature causes there to be little defining change to game mechanics for fear of losing players or causing everything to be started all over again. With it understand that few if any real changes on a deep level will occur it’s quite obvious that some players are going to grow bored and move on. What of the others? Well some of it has to do with the reason why they joined the game. Some may not have ever particularly cared to play long or did so only to try and help their own extra-community achieve dominance. When it became evident that this wasn’t possible or the newness wore off they largely left with only those interested in the sort of slow crawling political scene remaining. I think the misleading description plays a role where it plays up the possibilities for diversity and uniqueness but the game doesn’t really offer any of that. Every nation is built in pretty much the exact same way from tech and infrastructure to improvements and wonders with differences in trades only because what you get is random. The game lacks options and where there are options if you wish to prosper then because of the coded benefits for picking specific options there is an ideal set up that virtually everyone aims for. Casting that aside as it might only demoralize most players who care about it you’ll see that the mechanics differ greatly from most other games where land and how you build it up is their chief concern. In most of those games you can just browse the options you have and know right away what the best method for advancement is but there’s no actual information given in this game. You’re just presented with options to buy stuff and on your “view my nation” screen you get some very generic messages which don’t properly instruct you. New players must obtain valuable information by visiting the forums, wiki or getting themselves a mentor of some sort. To some this game might initially seem a bit more complex than it really is simply because you have the largely useless government positions and such a large “view my nation” page. What would greatly help is, should you wish to get more informative create a separate page which breaks down a nation and does the math showing how many people per mile of land and 1.0 infrastructure you get, among other things. This information would tell new players immediately what to buy and what to ignore without having to rely on joining an alliance, being at the mercy of other players’ good grace. What’s perhaps the biggest draw back in the game isn’t with the game’s description or the display being confusing or uninformative to new players but rather how off balance the war mechanics are. The mechanics aren’t like other games which focus on building land. In those games the more land you obtain then the stronger you are. It means you can afford a larger military and have a stronger economy to support it. In this game when war erupts things are largely just destroyed. I would like to see the possibility of gaining infrastructure from ground attacks based upon how much land you get in the attack and what your target’s infra per mile was prior to your attack. So if your target had 100 miles of land and 10,000 infra, you win 1 mile, then you get 100 infra. Maybe you would get 50 of that 100 with the other 50 being “destroyed” from combat. In either case, it now becomes possible to grow from war in a more meaningful way than has been the case for the past nearly five years especially for lower ranked nations. You may grow stronger over time or merely mitigate your losses. The nuclear weapons in game start off with a blast radius 4 times larger than Tsar Bomba where as you have World War 2 aircraft. There’s clearly an imbalance in how destructive war is which is further amplified when it disregards how densely developed your nation is. Reducing the damage done by nuclear weapons would cause people to drop in size less quickly and provide a drain on war chest from being in nuclear anarchy while paying higher bills. There is always the possibility of it dragging war out longer but then it would also make war a less scary prospect potentially making people less afraid of getting into a fight. The cost of a mistake won’t be quite so severe. On the other hand the less you fall then the easier it is to catch up to the top nations. It closes the divide in play style where as you either remain a peaceful state near constantly in order to achieve the top ranks or you can fight frequently and see your growth stunted to an extent that you’ll never hope to climb. This change would allow some sort of middle ground to develop with the only real divide being in technology, something limited by the number of slots you might possess. All that said I find it incredibly silly that infrastructure, land, population, military of all kinds and technology immediately appear after placing your orders. There should be delays to simulate the construction and training periods required for each item. This could have an interesting impact on the way wars are waged with nuke turret nations having to purchase more than an equal number to 1,000 in anticipation of additional attacks dragging them below that infrastructure and preventing the purchase of nuclear weapons. If you charge a player based on what is already built or trained [i]and[/i] what’s being trained or built it will produce some kind of a drain on war chests. Lastly it should be possible for nations near the top to continue to climb in size otherwise it removes all incentive of continuing to climb. Why fight a war even if you won’t be severely hurt if it allows others to catch up to you that much faster? The early stages should be faster, settings up the basics are always an easy feat to accomplish. One idea is to perhaps make infra cheaper to buy if it’s under a certain ratio to your land to simulate the expanding of basic infrastructure to other parts of your nation. The problem with that idea is how expensive land is and this must be dealt with some how. tl;dr the invasion alliances era was probably driven by things beyond player interest in this type of game and the population declined when it was realized their dominance couldn’t be guaranteed. The display is uninformative to new players. War is unreasonable destructive thus discouraging players from any action Oh yeah, some people might also be bored by a lack of real political discourse or new topics arising but the players are the only ones with real control over that /rushed post

Moaning is good.

[quote name='Uralica' timestamp='1289940709' post='2515024'] I think it was said (or at least implied) in the OP that they wouldn't be making any more milestone announcements until they had half a million. [/quote] Yeah, it's implied but still, one can hope since milestones don't always match up with goals and visa versa.

I must say this announcement does sound like something which belongs in an internal newsletter but then I think that of all milestone announcements and most announcements in general. On the other hand I most look forward to your 200k announcement in the hopes it will annoy others as much as it has here. Anyone can attempt mass recruitment and see some success. It seems to be forgotten how not everyone sees that as the preferable method and what might be small achievements in growth for it can actually be significant to less aggressive or more exclusive methods thus warranting these smaller milestone announcements.

I'm pretty sure the "Total Nations" has stabilized around 20,600 for the past few weeks, no?