Jump to content

lamuella

Members
  • Posts

    17,586
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lamuella

  • Birthday 09/19/1978

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.irennie.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Amead
  • Alliance Name
    Umbrella
  • Resource 1
    Cattle
  • Resource 2
    Pigs

Recent Profile Visitors

2,831 profile views

lamuella's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. Everyone loves Hime Themis, the quirky OBR potentate with the affected speech patterns! *5 minutes later* We regret to inform you that Hime Themis is terrible at everything.
  2. This thread is to garbage fires as asteroids are to pebbles.
  3. lamuella

    No lie

    You don't "join" GOONS. You slowly come to the depressing realisation that you're already a member.
  4. I can think of dozens of things that happened within and around the game in between the first and second great wars. A short list: The game passed its first anniversary We saw the last sizeable invasions from other games/boards (Something Awful, Fark, 4Chan) The "nation game boom" began with various browser based nation games launching, becoming popular, and then starting to fade away. The first largescale alliance coalitions formed. Ivan Moldavi retired as emperor of the NPO. A Cyber Nations alliance came to the attention of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs . By assuming that the cause of the decline in CN's population is due to the increase in raiding, you are committing a logical fallacy known as "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (after, therefore because of). What you need to do (and what a raiding moratorium wouldn't help you do) is establish a causal link between the game population reducing and the rise of raiding. I very much doubt you'd be able to. So what you're saying is that we should do exactly what you want and act exactly how you want for half a year? Yes, I'm sure you do think that long is needed for your spurious "study". It's laughingly obvious that you couldn't care less about getting evidence for reasons behind the population decline. You just want raiding to stop and you'll say literally anything to make it happen. For the record, I happen to think there's a much simpler and more compelling reason for the decline in population: this is a text based browser game that has been around for nearly ten years. The playerbase of games like this typically grows fast to begin with ("the shock of the new"), then declines unless new content is made available. Look at World Of Warcraft's numbers. They grew consistently for the first few years as new content was added. Then the shock of the new started to wear off and they went into a five year decline in numbers, (with occasional quarter-long blips like Warlords of Draenor). This is what happens with games as they get long in the tooth and white in the beard. The history of EVE Online is a similar story: spikes for new content followed by declines in popularity. This is true in games where huge amounts of new content is created. It's even truer in games like Cyber Nations where the base gameplay is largely identical to how it was when the game started. The null hypothesis is that game populations decrease over time unless new content is created. You haven't suggested a decent way to test an alternative hypothesis that isn't "let me have my own way for half a year".
  5. You have a misunderstanding of what I mean by "control conditions". If you are conducting an experiment to check if a particular factor causes a particular effect then a number of factors need to be in place to make the experiment as reliable as possible. You need to restrict testing to one variable at a time You need to make sure that as far as possible the environment in which the test is being conducted is the same as the environment would be without that test being conducted. You need to establish ahead of time the metrics you are studying rather than going on a fishing expedition You need to account for recorder bias In evidence based medicine they refer to this as PICO. In formulating a question that needs to be answered you need to know: People Intervention (or risk factor) Comparator Outcome You've actually done a decent job of establishing a question, but what you've failed to do is to find a way in which the only factor that changes in your experiment is whether raiding is happening or not. I'm of the opinion that it would be impossible to establish conditions under which raiding would be reduced enough for the effect to be significant and other changes to the landscape to not be introduced at the same time. It would be impossible to say whether the effect on population (if there were one) was caused by a reduction in raiding, by changes to the political landscape caused by establishing a society where raiding was temporarily not tolerated, or were an artifact of people with a vested interest trying to skew the results. They would, in short, be worthless from an evidence point of view. And whatever they said, they'd be ignored anyway except as another stick to hit people with in the raiding debate that had gone on for the nine years I've been playing this game without the arguments changing significantly on either side.
  6. In as serious a way as possible, nothing will be decided in this discussion because neither side can be reasoned out of positions they didn't reason themselves into. I'm generally of the opinion that raiding is a non-factor in the number of people playing the game. For every person who, potentially, quits because they were raided when small, another person keeps playing because raiding is something to do. I'm also of the opinion that it would not be possible to establish whether raiding is positive, negative, or neutral, especially not with a moratorium, because it would be impossible to establish control conditions. However I'm also of the opinion that [i]even if it were proven[/i] that raiding was a contributory factor in the decline of the playerbase, those who support raiding would not stop doing so, because their position is that of people who enjoy raiding, not people who dispassionately support the growth of the playerbase. Additionally, [i]even if it were proven[/i] that raiding were neutral, or even that raiding was a retention factor, those who oppose raiding would not stop doing so, because their opposition to raiding is based largely on thinking it is wrong rather than the dispassionate support of the growth of the playerbase. We are not rational actors. We are game players. We each play in the way we enjoy, and if we cannot find a way of playing that we enjoy, we stop playing. I used "play" too much in the last two sentences.
  7. Guys I am really angry about numbers.
  8. If only this information were gathered together in some kind of easily accessible freely editable encyclopedia. EDIT: oops, didn't realise I was inadvertently gravedigging. Many apologies.
  9. this is a pretty big picture summary, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
  10. if you're boiling things in a teapot, I don't think you know how to teapot.
  11. During PB-NpO, 13 alliances declared on GOONS (and another 3 "recognised a state of war" with them).
  12. I'm making up a name for a conflict. Lighten up, Francis.
×
×
  • Create New...