Jump to content

Mordd

Banned
  • Posts

    291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mordd

  1. I have found a grammatical error in the government position in the extended information on a nation, here is the example text from my nation: "Morddonia detains individuals who participate in the slanderous comments about the government." I have underlined the error, saying "in the" is gramatically incorrect in that its not referring to a specific incident of slanderous comments about the government (in which case it would be "participated in the") but to slanderous comments about the government in general. The word "the" should be removed so it reads simply: "Morddonia detains individuals who participate in slanderous comments about the government." Even better would be to also change the worda "comments about" to "activities against" in my opinion but thats a subjective opinion. Thanks for your time, Mordd.
  2. My memory when I was in Grämlins at the time we/they declared on Polar was that we/they were calling it the Karma war, maybe I am mistaken but that is my honest recollection.
  3. Thanks for the clarification LM, it seems history has indeed changed the name, my quote couldn't be truer, and this is a great reflection of that.
  4. "The past is all that has come to pass. History is how we choose to remember it". This is a fascinating history of some of the events leading up to the Karma war, although I thought the Karma war was the one against Polar that occured earlier, but maybe history has changed this in my absence. Oh yes, I believe its "Thoughts" incidentally, not "Thoughs".
  5. It is interesting to see the heights to which TOP have risen in recent times in member size, strength, and culture (from what I hear). TOP is truly one of the great powerhouses of the cyberverse, I only wonder if the tall poppy syndrome will come to haunt TOP as it has so many other great alliances in history, or if they can avoid this fatal trap. Only time will tell, I for one applaud their progress to date. On a more personal note, congratulations to LM, you have obviously progressed far in TOP to have reached such a position, well done.
  6. Some things change, some always stay the same. Whilst I congralute the parties on their renewed friendship, I find it quaint that we still state the obvious in treaties like this. Yes it is true that any time a treaty signatory could make a request of another signatory, and it is also true that a signatory is not obligated to do something unless the treaty specifies that they are. That whole "old" style clause of treaties like this could really be cut down to merely "Signatories are encouraged to grant aid requests where feasible". That would not change that section one bit really. The last part of the sentence "it feels that fulfilling the request would defy the spirit of the treaty" is easily covered under being not feasible, or whatever similar word anyone wants to use. Call me a nit-picker, but I would have maybe thought that renewing such an old treaty as this would present an opportunity to do away with all the old style legal clauses and express it in more true terms that demonstrate the fact that without trust and friendship agreements like this wouldn't exist anyway, so a lot of the actual clauses become somewhat reduntant in that case, the one I highlight being a prime example in my opinion. I would point to the Härmlins agreement signed by Grämlins and MHA last year as an example of two alliances that have been friends for a long time renewing a treaty in a more realistic and imaginative way than just repeating the old tired wording with minimal tweaking. <insert random 2 cents statement here>
  7. You now open up a method for any enemy to attack part of the alliance that the majority of you won't be able to directly defend, instead having to rely on Härmlin and nations in MHA in range of The Hive nations. No-one will run a protectorate better than The Grämlins will, of that I have no doubt, but I do predict that time will show this will ultimately be the undoing of the alliance in the end, whether it be from the outside or from the inside. *grammar fix
  8. The Karma War its accurate to a tee and its a catchy name too, hands down winner imho.
  9. I request the GRL be permanently uncapped from the level of 5 as the maximum effect on the game and allow it to apply the effect no matter how high the GRL goes. Time to make nukes a valuable resource again. edit: lmao beaten to the punch, shoulda read more than the OP before posting, but great minds think alike and all that hehehe
  10. Too awesome for words, MHA are the
  11. Admin announced the winner of CN:TE rounds 2 and also round 3 would be allowed to submit a flag design to be included in both CN and CN:TE, don't suppose they will be allowed to submit a custom drop down mask as well? Although i'm guessing probably not, seeing as you mention its for Sanctioned Alliances only and the masks will be replaced as who is Sanctioned changes, although it would be very cool for Admin to extend the CN:TE prize to include this as well! Will be interesting to see how much ghosting goes on with this also, could really liven the place up more again lol.
  12. Grats to VE!! Can't wait to see the video you use. Looking forward to seeing it Sir Paul.
  13. The answer to both 1 and 2 is that the game is run on the KISS method, and a large portion of us don't give 2 hoots if the realism is a tad off tor the purpose of game play, as long as its logical enough for those without detailed knowledge of every single naval vessel ever made in the history of naval warfare
  14. OOC: The same way the A.C.T. (Australian Capital Territory) has access to the coast despite being surrounded on all sides by New South Wales, the federal government simply annexed part of NSW closest to ACT on the coast ages ago and made that part of the ACT, so the home of federal government has naval access
  15. You have to declare war in order to blockade, thus you can only use naval anything in a war, if you blockaded a nation in peace that would be illogical, then peace mode would be worthless as you could reduce someone's income by up to 100% in peace mode, not to forget the fact that the navy would have to be re-implemented in the code like spies, which are not part of the war system and thus can be used against nations in peace mode. So i, and i imagine most people, would oppose this suggestion because what you are proposing would change the fundamental nature of navy as another part of the war system like aircraft, tanks, etc... and make navy akin to spies instead, which then brings a whole host of other implications along with it which would diminish the overall effect of having the navy in the 1st place imho.
  16. 2 AC's + 3 Destroyers Planes are nice, but so are blockade buster ships
  17. Can someone explain to me the logic or reasoning behind why this change was made? CyberNations has a very diverse international player base, that is one of the things I like about the game, it is not dominated by 75% of players all being from the same country (America or China for example). Therefore although the game must be set to 1 timezone for obvious reasons, i don't understand why you would grant benefits to doing actions at a certain time and not at other times during every 24hr cycle, as most players in the game do not live in america and play at very different times to when american players may be online. Now for myself in Australia, sure this is extremely convenient to me (provided i buy a bit more tech which is easily done), the 6pm to 6am game time window is when i make all my attacks, as this is currently 11am to 11pm for me on the east coast of Australia. I pity ppl in both America and other locations around the world though where this change is going to be very difficult for them, due to the different time zones that many players are from. Due to this, I cannot understand for the life of me why this change was brought in, i can't see any benefit to the game or the player base from it at all. Especially as it leads me to think this will make ppl even more likely to only login around the 6pm - 6am window to attack, and not so much in the other 12rhs, rather than activity being spread around the clock more. Won't this have a negative affect at some times on the game servers by having a higher amount of ppl logged in during a concentrated time period? Now obviously this was introduced for some reason, as its in the game now, and I know im a bit late on spotting it in the game update log, I just fail to understand myself what possible benefit this has to anyone in the game without unfairly advantaging a small percentage of the player base due to the diverse difference in time zones of the player base.
  18. Sigh, Admin please remove this from the Alliance stat screens, as most of our members we're already using the AA since you made the change, so we've got nations who have been in the alliance only for a couple of months showing 400+ days seniority, and others like me who are one of the oldest members left using the AA, look like a newbie in comparison as our nations aren't as old. I know this is all caused by AA join date being set by default to your nation creation date unless you changed AA since the date thing was introduced, but i disagree with implementing this "feature" as the way you were forced to introduce it means it is NOT accurate for more than 60% of the players in the game. I would prefer the "feature" removed again as it is not at all accurate for the majority of nations and thus is very misleading data to be showing. EDIT: If you would give us proper control of the AA in game, such as "invite only", "password protected", etc... options for the AA usage, then we would not need this misleading data of "seniority" to track proper members vs rogues using the AA. I think Seniority should be removed as its a very flawed method of trying to give alliances a better way to track members, just give us proper control over the AA instead please.
×
×
  • Create New...