Ironfist

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1283015036' post='2433923'] Given the premises you're operating from there are no valid answers. You want to remove the war from a war game. I don't feel obligated to elaborate at length why that's a horrible idea. [/quote] ... Okay. Maybe read what I said. But I don't care if you do or don't read it, my point has already been stated and I stopped arguing it ages back.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1282977362' post='2433674'] Bolded for emphasis. It is 100% contained within the game. That's like saying war is outside of the game because you have to sit in your chair and click a few buttons. In game is in game. It is not any sort of RL action. [/quote] Fair point. Also, your opinion. But regardless, this is what I'm trying to say: [quote]Point is, the angle I'm coming from is this: war is meant for fun in a game. People don't treaty CN like a game anymore, they treat it too seriously. THAT is what I believe to be the problem with the game. People can argue with me all they want but this thread is about ideas and thoughts and opinions. There's mine.[/quote]

[quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1282975195' post='2433647'] It hinders the community members that want wars to be profitable, or at least break even. The casualty junkies will still go to war without reps. [/quote] War isn't meant to be profitable. [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1282975341' post='2433651'] Can you name one restriction that is fully IC? I can't. Donation extortion involves RL money. Viceroys are not banned, just made mighty inconvenient because of the heavy use of off-site property, who's extortion is rightfully restricted. RL item extortion also involves... RL item extortion. And I can't think of anything else. [/quote] Reparations aren't exactly completely IG, if you look at it in the right light. Why should I have to give someone money I earn ingame just because my alliance went to war? I earnt the money ingame, but it's like a RL action of having done so. I dunno, just my opinion anyway. -- Point is, the angle I'm coming from is this: war is meant for fun in a game. People don't treaty CN like a game anymore, they treat it too seriously. THAT is what I believe to be the problem with the game. People can argue with me all they want but this thread is about ideas and thoughts and opinions. There's mine.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1282973603' post='2433623'] By... telling it what it can and can't do IC. I mean "restrictions" in the most literal possible meaning of the word. For all the crap I could (and do) throw at Admin, his argument of caution with regard to intervening in this ant farm is pretty darn valid. [/quote] There are plenty of restrictions already in place IC. Tell me how dismissing reparations would hinder community. Give me a valid answer and I'll back off.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1282971076' post='2433573'] Disagree. Wars, made impossible to win in any formal sense, would become pointless and not worth pursuing. We don't need restrictions on the community. We need action from within the community and a few structural adjustments here and there to provide more things to chase after. [/quote] Tell me how getting rid of monetary+tech reparations hinders the community?

[quote name='_GunneR_' timestamp='1282970631' post='2433564'] The problem is not that people think wars are taboo, or that they are afraid of reparations but that the winners have nothing to gain. What am I fighting for? Right now if I declare war (alliance sanctioned) I only gain destruction. Even victorious I'm hindered and those that sat the war out are stronger than I am. Give me something worth fighting for and I'll see you out there. Nothing drastic. Make senators able to choose 5 official team alliances (5 per colour) and one of those gets sanctioned. Whoever is sanctioned gets permanent +5 happiness. Nothing huge but you watch people fight over being an official alliance and a bit of an economy boost. [/quote] Personally I'd add the treaty web as another problem but the fact is, that can't be stopped. As a member of GPA, I enjoy nation building, and not wars. So what? I'm still in the game. And I still enjoy it. If someone enjoys war, I think they should be allowed to enjoy war without fear of destruction. As for what you gain from declaring war. I dunno, enjoyment? Admin already stated that's what brings most people into activity and I agree. [u]Most[/u] people enjoy war. Those who don't, are neutral. Those who are, though, seem to hide due to... well, I've already said it, fear of destruction.

Make reparations against the ToS. It can be seen as a grey area anyway. We, the players, work on our "nation" in [u]real life[/u], then we have to give part of it away because if we don't we're threatened. It'd make wars more frequent and impulsive acts of mindless aggression more for the lulz rather than a taboo area. I agree 100% with the rebuilding rate. New nations (my nation is only 450 days old) don't care about big 250k+ nations. I don't, anyway. Who would? It's their nation, and I know for a fact I'll never get there, but due to constant warfare, I can still make the top 5% and be a player who means something to community, if I so wish, with a little bit of hard work. It's a game, people don't realise that it seems.

[quote name='KingB' timestamp='1282534599' post='2427213'] I am in one but I'm unsure of what they're supposed to do lol [/quote] Have you signed up at their forums? If you haven't your ghosting, which isn't a great practice to get into because people get mad I think there's a lot of us who ghosted when we first created our nations, but the forums are the best way to actually join without getting attacked. If you're not ghosting then apologies, I just remember what it was like when I first started

[quote name='Alex the Great' timestamp='1282274931' post='2423914'] why is it that people are so scared of wars? why else would this game have wars if everyone wants to stay at home and play with dolls? ever wonder why the caps on land and stuff were so low at the beginning? i thought it was because the game designers hoped that there would be a lot of fighting so they never expected anyone to reach that high. just my 2 cents though. do you actually enjoy coming on every day, collecting taxes, paying bills, building up an army, hoping you never get attacked so you can see your citizen count get higher only to realize that you have never done anything exciting, ever with this game? your thoughts? also, im not trying to anger people or anything like that, its just a gameplay discussion. [/quote] You currently have no wars.

The concept of winning isn't tied into Cyber Nations. It's a matter of building and doing whatever you find most entertaining, be it declaring war, growing, leading or following an alliance, etc. There's no way to win because there's never going to be an end (in theory...).

[quote name='lakerzz8' timestamp='1282244822' post='2423345'] We were saying the same thing but 2 posts later you disagreed with me I didn't mean your bills become higher than your collections, I said your bills begin increasing faster than your collections so you're making less profit over time if you continue to go beyond a certain point with your infra level. [/quote] Apologies then, I mustn't have read very well

[quote name='lakerzz8' timestamp='1282159506' post='2421867'] but at a certain point it is no longer profitable to keep buying infra as your bills increase quicker than your collections. [/quote] I don't know if that happens if a nation gets the ball rolling properly. If you've got the right trades (and wonders/improvements) then there's no reason why your bills should increase beyond your income, it just happens to be that you're spending more on infra than you're getting over time.

[quote name='Pomiel' timestamp='1282216055' post='2423030'] What point is that? [/quote] If that was to my post, then I'm going to say I probably worded that wrong. You don't *lose* money. You simply stop gaining it. What I mean to say is that if you spend X amount of dollars on *more* infrastructure, it takes a ridiculous amount of days to make that money back through the profit you receive each day. So in the end, you can sort of start to "lose" money as I put it. That's what I've heard at least. I'm fairly sure it's still the case nowadays.

There's no cap on land, infra or tech. Pretty much go as high as you want but getting infrastructure is kind of pointless after a certain amount because you start to lose money.

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1282073106' post='2420050'] Or we could just say the nation map makes no sense whatsoever and I can just tell myself my ruler's 3 year old son drew it and in reality my country is only 1,374.856 square miles and about the size of Belgium. [/quote] This may well be what you have to do. To implement a change like this would change the gameplay too much. The density rating is tied in with other factors such as happiness and environment. It's a little too late to really go messing with that. Technically, you're right, but in theory, it's not really game changing.

[quote name='McShady511' timestamp='1282018420' post='2418704'] He has 27,464.04 infra. Idk what his bills are. But I bet he got quite the profit from that collection. [/quote] That's total money earned, not just one collection. EDIT: That would be quite the collection if it were so...

[quote name='Whitney' timestamp='1281747846' post='2415144'] Because you don't collect with Capitalism, therefore the environment doesn't have an effect. [/quote] Well some do, it seems: [quote name='cscyankees' timestamp='1281739552' post='2414951'] Capitalism is eventually better for collections than Monarchy. If you have very high happiness and a lot of citizens, and you don't have a perfect (GRL + 1) environment with Monarchy, Capitalism may be a better option (it is for me). [/quote]

[quote name='Lord Razzia' timestamp='1281695646' post='2414185'] Wow I was just about to say that, but then I deleted it and moved on. lol [/quote] You're welcome I think.

[quote name='Whitney' timestamp='1281634571' post='2412881'] There's a difference between being peaceful and being neutral. [/quote] Yes and no. Neutrality leads to peace (in most instances...). A typical "peaceful" alliance probably won't go to war often, if at all. So neutral alliances are peaceful. The same cannot be said in reverse. Not all peaceful alliances are neutral, they might just avoid war.

Well I don't know about people *collecting* in capitalist, because it's not a smart thing to do, but who are we to tell others how to run their nations To address your main issues (or what I perceived to be your main issues): [quote][b]Is that land bonus of Monarchy better for collections than the environment bonus of Democracy?[/b][/quote] That depends entirely on your nation. If you've got a nation with a bad environment, it could be that the environment bonus is better than the land bonus. But if you've got a nation with the best environment possible (GRL+1), then it's quite pointless going for an environment bonus as you've got the best there is, and the land would help. I guess, it depends. [quote][b]why do 17.97% of players use Capitalist when only 5.69% of players use Federal?[/b][/quote] Preference I imagine. I use Capitalist more than I use Federal Government because I don't see that the extra soldier efficiency matters to me. It's true, the extra efficiency is quite beneficial to ward off potential raiders but they essentially do the same thing for you nation in terms of paying bills. There could be an element of role playing too? Perhaps they prefer to see "Capitalist" rather than "Federal".

[quote name='OTTOTTO' timestamp='1281426006' post='2409310'] Just noted a huge drop in my citizens count and at the same time in tax income. Can both be due to the sharply rising level of GRL ? [/quote] The citizen count directly affects your income due to taxes, and GRL reduces your environment, which reduces your citizen count. So yes, both issues are due to the new war. The GRL jumped from about 2.56 to 3.75 in one day which is significantly higher and would result in a much lower citizen count.

Generally speaking, GATO's treaty partners. I believe you guys were that about 10mins ago. ALL of NSO just completely turned on GATO despite attempts at remaining civil.

You've mentioned MHA being a political power and WFT as "it'll be fun to see them sanctioned". Please stop. Neutral alliances have a place in the game, despite most people's opinions. Your list is terrible.

You've already got two other threads on the same topic: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=89382"]http://forums.cybern...showtopic=89382[/url] [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=89381"]http://forums.cybern...showtopic=89381[/url] Assuming you're the same person with two different accounts... which is against the rule. And it's random. It really is.

Well first of all posting it in two different sections probably isn't going to help your cause [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=64843"]Anyway, refer to this link.[/url] Many people who have been as frustrated as you have gotten together and created a thread entirely devoted to finding the "optimum" positioning of your mine. Also keep in mind that you've only got Silicon, Titanium, Radon, or Calcium to choose from in regards to your "random" resource. It is random, keep that in mind, and chances are you'll probably get something different some time. Hope that helps. I do have a limited amount of knowledge on this, because I don't have a moon or mars base yet, but I thought I'd help where I can Hope that answers some questions.