Jump to content

IYIyTh

Members
  • Content Count

    4,452
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IYIyTh

  1. I keep checking back twice a year hoping to see some decent prose in declarations of war, but it seems it's about the same as it has been for nearly 5+ years. Still remember reading logs of the goons 1.0, \m/, continuum days, schattenman leaks... and being so utterly disappointed at the lack of bredth in alliance leaders much later. This game was most fun on the individual alliance level, as OOC friendships tainted most of the global politics and was not as nuanced nor easily surmountable as internal politics. Being in alliances with vibrant personalities and semi-democratic government's was an absolute joy -- and the internal dynamics were simply a pleasure to navigate. But i guess it had to end some day. Once folks started colluding to avoid intriguing conflict and conspiriacies the game started on its nose dive. While admin can be criticized in developing appropiate late game scaling and improvements, the real fault of the games end lies with the players. Lacking ambition and with no purpose other than to create insurmountable advantages rather than forcing conflict (and thereby forcing players to interact with the internal and external communities,) the game predictably collapsed. Congrats on being towers over nothing instead of keeping the game interesting. Shout out to all of the ol' former NATOans, MHAers, R&Rers, AI and MI6ians. Friend or foe, whether fun or not, it was always entertaining.
  2. Now you just have to clarify what a multi is, because based on your current policy and its application I'm not finding a clear definition anywhere.
  3. I have no interest in investing thousands of hours of work in a nation simulator to attempt to break up what amounts to OOC circle jerking for the amusement of a handful of people. That card isn't going to work. It's not 2006 and I'm not 18 anymore with too much time on my hands. Folks have repeatedly gone out of their way to kill the game -- advocating for "change," (re: proposing that large nations become even more powerful,) that has lent its current shape -- a diminishing pool where most "new," nations fall into the wonderful "multi," rule. None of these nations have any impact on the game, of course -- because they require ~ 2-3 years of unhindered growth to get at a moderate size, while those above them grow logarithmicly. Meanwhile, the game has reached a protracted stage where less inclined political folks are weeded out (usually,) before they can reach a position to do anything interesting (In Cybernations, people consider self-immolation interesting.). Those that do find themselves talking to a vast good ol' boys network that will log your address of actual residence in addition to whatever plotting you may dare think about. SE needs a reset, or the plug pulled -- claiming that folks espousing this sentiment are part of the problem is rather ridiculous and contrary to any objective statistical analysis. We've reached a point where there are only 2-3 growing communities within the game, and they're all looking at OTHER games to sustain themselves as opposed to continue to waste their time here.
  4. Totally with you. The "leaders," of today -- if you can call them that -- are completely unoriginal.
  5. IYIyTh

    Seriously...

    It all gets ignored by the mods.
  6. IYIyTh

    Seriously...

    I totally and wholeheartedly agree with everything said here -- it's really a problem the admin/mods made for themselves and the onus shouldn't be on folks who are utilizing the rule (unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they're breaking it ** something you'll never convince me of even if you document them logging on immediately after one another,) to prove they're not breaking it, because it was made legal.
  7. IYIyTh

    Seriously...

    Once again, if there is one computer in the household, or even two -- if people are sharing it it's really not that uncommon. I'm really having a hard time justifying any moderation action on that basis or any basis. "HEY I NEED HELP ON MY NATION, HERE LET ME LOG OUT OF MINE REAL QUICK AND WE'LL LOOK AT YOURS." Even if mac/ip/et al are all the same, there is literally no way you can prove even a preponderance of evidence that I think by opening that pandora's box the moderation owes the users they administrate before terminating them for a rule they essentially changed from black and white to gray.
  8. IYIyTh

    Seriously...

    I'm confused, someone was deleted for another person in their household having a nation (something the mods say they allowed? Frankly unless the mods are actually in your house at all times, I don't see how any kind of evidence (including logging in at the same time) could be damning,. Two people decide to play the same game at the same time all of the time in other arenas.
  9. IYIyTh

    New adventure

    You can notice at the end i'm kinda rushing and don't finish big -- i'm back home for a wedding sat and mom comes home -- you can hear the garage door at the end.
  10. IYIyTh

    New adventure

    Yeah, i'm writing a song and playing it on guitar. be prepared
  11. IYIyTh

    Its gettin hot in here

    i heard something on the news about advising folks to stay in, but a lot of folks can't afford to not work a day or two. crazy
  12. IYIyTh

    The dragon is dead!

    who are we to judge, it worked!
  13. Chess tourney to begin shortly. Format will follow participants. Already a wide range of CN folk signing up. To sign up -- post here: http://cn-mi6.com/index.php?showtopic=2516&hl=
  14. I am very good with my money and actually have helped a few friends -- and have actually used this as a way to describe it. It really does help.
  15. There is no justice, just political expediency masquerading as poorly, thinly veiled excuses.
  16. KZ, as someone who hasn't been playing during nearly the entirety of our existence -- unless you've had a fetish for CN's recent history or are relying entirely on second hand accounts -- I don't know what you're basing it on. The idea that our value is vested in how other people attempt to influence others to portray the rest of the world is simply false. In fact -- we've even had some nice intel that despite certain peoples desire to forget the past and claim we're evil incarnate based on a few perpetual CN malcontent's / false brotherhood of irrelevant political pawns like Rush-- dislikes and desperate desire to hit TOP and its allies -- no one actually has wanted to step forward and do anything about coming after us -- even your pals in Non Grata backed off. So unless we are taking value in something so hilariously subjective as "how x alliance views common enemy due to de-facto ties to y," feel free to cut down on the trite !@#$%^&*. This game is too old to be pretending that perception is anything but a lie used as a means to influence rather than an actual barrier. It's like saying y'all ended up curbstomped last war because people didn't like Nordreich. People are more than capable of deducing that if we wanted to abandon our allies we could have maneuvered ourself into quite the safe position. Unfortunately not throwing your allies into the garbage at the first opportunity is a forgotten relic of the past it seems and woe be unto those who rather than ditching them for the convenience of never having to fight a meaningful war stand by them through thick and thin. I must be a real smug prick for writing this though!
  17. i guess if we post blogs mocking a vast majority of alliances we'll be better received right
  18. lol, people like you are the only people calling us smug. as usual, your political analysis is basic and completely lacking anything other than surface knowledge.
  19. allies mk, bandwagons on !@#$%baggery, calls out alliance that actually hasn't done anything of the sort
  20. I'd like a dissertation on the ass pounding your alliance received last war. Maybe we can compare notes.
  21. What about when someone makes a Blog post on the CN forums asking for people to recruit them? Like a giant "Please recruit me," thread. Followed up by ranking the messages this individual receives. Is it rational to expect an alliance leader to drop everything they're doing IC and OOC to stop a problem until then they didn't even know existed? Is it this alliances fault that this user suddenly doesn't want to be messaged and continues to get messages despite no indication (including in his blog where the original soliciation existed,) that he was "done," receiving messages he asked for? Is it ridiculous for that person to create an OWF thread complaining that they received just a couple more messages about being recruited when they specifically asked for them -- and how long should that person hold a grudge for a "problem," (I use this loosely, because I can't conceive of how deleting an in game message or closing a query tab, or even using an ignore function,) they created? All very interesting questions
  22. The logs of planning/execution are in Gopher's app on our boards. cn-mi6.com Was certainly fun! lol.
×
×
  • Create New...