MrMuz

Anything that gives you an extra warslot should have some crippling disadvantages. Like -30% soldier efficiency, tech bonus is halved, nukes have a 35% chance of getting through SDI. If you want to go for quantity, you lose some quality. But a destroyed nuclear rogue will still be able to do a lot of damage with that extra slot.

I would be down for it if it were much lower. Like top 10 get 100 tech, top 50 get 50 tech, top 100 get 50 land, and such. It's enough that most people will join and think they have a shot at winning something, and stick through till the end of the round. But not so high that people will work hard at trying to curbstomp everyone. And maybe a consolation prize of +100 tech to anyone who gets within 95% of the round winner.

Heh, it's rather common. Current Dongs Available: $1,680.18 (Surplus) Total Collection Amount $225,970.08 Money Left After Bill Payment $-1,612,752.97 (and I've got full economic improvements too)

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1308418811' post='2734029'] I would agree that it's not only micros who contribute to political drama; it would be flat out wrong to assume otherwise. I'm simply saying that the micro members are at least making an attempt to do something, whereas the majority of members in large alliances who complain about micros aren't. [/quote] Well, I was mostly addressing some people earlier who says micros start all the wars, I can see how it was confusing quoting you on that bit [quote]I'd also like to see some examples of micros who want to be "sanctioned meatshields with no political goals". Furthermore, I'd like to know why everyone is so much more bothered by an alliance who is small and has no political goals rather than an alliance who is large and has no political goals. One is soaking up a lot more NS in order to do the same thing (see: next to nothing). Seems like priorities are being confused here.[/quote] I'm not going to name them, but you can recognize them. They're the ones who get excited about every 1M NS they get (well, everyone does, but they actually set it as a goal and feel like they're winning). If you ask them what their political ambitions are, they'll tell you that they want to grow huge and treaty the strongest alliances in the game. They care little for their members and are more interested in trying to gain political capital. Their members are mostly semi-actives, the people who those "we protect you from tech raiders" recruitment messages pull in. Their gov consists of a bunch of people who don't even know each other or where the alliance is going, but work together because they want to be 'gov' and want to claim some success for their own. The difference with big and small is that the small ones don't actually accomplish anything. A big meatshield is still a meatshield. Some people call Legion a meatshield, but if an active smaller alliance like Argent wanted to punch through them, they would be able to blunt most of the damage and even cause quite a bit of harm back from the sheer quantity of nukes even if they were inactive. But a small 1M NS meatshield will just get rolled over. The big one contributes to the game. It adds a strategic angle. The small one doesn't do anything, and then disbands when they have to do something.

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1308413290' post='2733973'] Completely called this. It's so easy for everyone to just sit back and blame their lack of fun on the micro alliances. Truth is, they're partially a symptom of the real problem, and partially just an easy scapegoat. Nobody looks to blame the sanctioned meatshields with zero political goals, or the people who all but won the game and now refuse to do anything except kick the Orders in the nuts annually. Everybody has all these solutions, and coincidentally, none of them involve making any effort themselves. If you all spent half the time you do whining about how terrible the game is and how micro alliances are ruining everything for you, and actually made your alliance a little more appealing and did something (even just slightly!) different politically from what you have been for years, maybe the problems would start sorting themselves out. All I know is that within the micros I've spoken to, they seem to be having a hell of a time in their insignificant corners of the world. Yet, all I hear from the larger alliances is complaining about how little fun there is... while they sit around and chastise anyone who does something out of the ordinary. [/quote] I agree with part of this. There are few alliances that make the game more fun. I'm not going to say micros start all the drama; the last war(s) were started between sanctioned alliances (and DH). Micros are more likely to wage a cold war because they just don't have the odds or meatshields to really start a war and hope to come out intact. Cold wars are definitely more fun than those hot nuclear wars where a quarter of the alliance deletes, but on the other hand, it doesn't change things politically and doesn't change other people's fun. Micros still have their place in wars, as long as they do something. There are, of course, a lot of micros who are having fun and wouldn't want it any other way. But hey, a lot of micro alliances are those who [i]wish[/i] that they were sanctioned meatshields with no political goals. Those are the ones who should just find some other similarly minded people and merge to accomplish that.

Ha, some passive aggression there I wouldn't call it luck entirely. [quote]Most Money Earned 1) $299,097,283 Earned - McShamus of Leprechaun - Black Team 2) $207,301,009 Earned - Shinful of Taliesin - Red Team 3) $205,615,474 Earned - FooBar of Zyzzlvaria - Red Team 4) $202,009,550 Earned - Priest of Sanctuary - Blue Team 5) $197,611,245 Earned - The Programmer of Warzone 2200 - Black Team [/quote] [mine is at 150M ] He collected far, far more than the others in the round, and his final position reflects that. He is a very skilled, experienced runner. He did get a hell lot of infra ripped off and was nuked quite badly, p. sure he collected in anarchy. However, he did get a very long period at very high infra on TPC, which I think everyone saw. Nobody took him down early enough Of course some element of luck there, but not a lot. But hey, I loved this round. Everything was so utterly destroyed. I was hit two weeks straight with nukes and stayed in top 5% while roguing, with no NS whoring; only shows how much damage everyone else took. If that's what flag runs are like, we should do it again some other time. Kudos on the fun round.

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1308380943' post='2733766'] I find it kind of weird that both G-6 and PS are leaving in the same round... [/quote] Oh, hell yeah. Time for the rest of us independent micros to flag chase next round. Well, I'll miss you guys. PS seems to have worked pretty hard, and gotten it pretty hard these past few rounds. It does take its strain, so enjoy your break

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1308367386' post='2733566'] lol. a couple alliances merge or are rumored to be merging and suddenly a grand new era has begun. Ideologically compatable alliances merge because they can achieve more together on their own. NG is a perfect example. There are negative aspects to mergers, but those usually show up later. [/quote] I wouldn't call it a couple... TOOL, Sanitarium merged earlier on too, but when the big ones merge, people take notice. It shows that successful alliances that people look up to can do it too. It's the fallout from a massive war though. Post war, everyone is exhausted. Many members of upper gov either step down or delete. Treaties are signed and broken. People start seriously thinking about their alliance's direction. Some split off to form new paths (like Gre), others merge after realizing that they're going the same way. There's always some internal damage during a war, mergers are often the fastest way to patch them. Chances are that there's probably a few others planning to merge. Yeah, I agree there's a negative side too. I've always seen mergers as simply disbanding and encouraging members to join a specific AA. A lot of those former members will just walk off into a different AA instead or delete.

I've always been opposed to viewing an alliance's strength only in that alliance itself. NPO was one of the few super-alliances of last year, yet they lost a total defeat, due to the lack of powerful allies backing them up. SF-C&G were medium sized alliances, yet they held the 'hegemony' title for a while. If someone were to beat up CSN right now, which is a rather medium sized alliances, they'd be beaten far harder than if someone attacked NPO, just because of good positioning. True strength is based on the strength and loyalty of your allies as well. A MADP bloc in itself is collective NS/power for as long as that bloc exists. They will maintain their sovereignty of course, be able to choose allies of their own, able to do stupid things. You need a similar culture and political direction. For example, you'll never see a SF alliance merging with a NPO ally (without force). You won't see a serious alliance merging with a lulz alliance, even on the same political side. The recent mergers have all been alliances that are very strongly politically tied and had similar views. Something like NSO which has a distinct culture would have difficulty trying to merge into anyone well. Some micros actually do have a much higher potential to merge. A triumvirate or democratic government is much easier for a merge. An authoritative one will be harder, unless they merge into a triumvirate gov. If you've got no political direction, all the better to merge somewhere. Personally, I do like people forming in larger power clusters, though. If people won't merge, at least form more blocs, it's easier to classify people as a group.

Unfortunately, PC no longer exists. If you replace PC with NG, you'd have to put a big alliance on the other side to even hold them down.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1308250891' post='2732561'] I'm not gonna lie, I dislike people who buy their way to the top like that. I mean, I donated in the past. I'm responsible for netting admin at least $300, even if much of that was not out of my own pocket. But there is a point where it is just over the top. Hime Themis has crossed that line, and looped around the globe to cross it again. You're right, though; Admin isn't going to do anything that might pose even a slight risk to his income stream. Doesn't mean it wouldn't make the game better. I disagree as to the impact that raising the cap to, oh, say, $6m, or even $10m, might have on the game, but the point does still stand. It is one of the bigger problems with this game, though. And you do have to weigh alienating a handful of people like Hime Themis, versus making the game better and increasing membership by thousands. Doubling or tripling the aid cap would give new nations a fighting chance. [/quote] I think it's great that they're buying their way to the top. I feel a little guilty about not paying $5 (or whatever) for this game, and it's great that we've actually made a community fun enough for someone else to pay for it. For all the times we broke the server on update, for all the 20 page flame wars we've started on the OWF, someone has to pay for server costs. And someone does. And that's only a good thing, considering the person paying some of the most is semi-neutral. It's not like Hime Themis really hurts people with all her tech. I guess some people do buy tech to blow up other nations; it's their choice, and they get nuked by someone else (of similar size), they lose all that precious tech/infra/land/money. They just recover a bit faster.

Well, if you're going to ask in public, might as well detail what you're looking for. Small? Big? Specific themes you like? Center of attention/avoids attention? Strict elite alliance? Lighthearted casual? Obviously, I'd be recommending SOS Brigade if you want a small, but very active, casual alliance. But I (and others) could suggest a few other good alliances if it's not your thing.

*facepalm* I somehow read that as 10 times the current (R17) loot amount. Though it was kinda true.. IMO, too much raiding this round (and I did sock it to whoever's raided me) and so far, out of 6, only one target really fought back with GAs, including the ones who were trying to rogue me down.

I laughed quite a bit on seeing the occasional war conflicts. Especially when two different alliances blitz the same target, or end up blitzing each other.

It seems to either block none or several in a row for me. I rarely ever get 1 or 2 thwarted, it's more like 4-5 thwarted in a row and then it gets a direct hit. I think the issue hasn't really been that it's a bug per se (~52% when it should be 60% is not so bad), but that the patterns are a little funny. Some alliances try to manipulate the patterns by putting a one shot one kill policy and such, which might get slightly more nukes in than you'd statistically get with a poor random generator.

I couldn't really decide on a good dream gov that doesn't offend someone, or wouldn't be better off with other people. And just about every combo of truly competent people will end up killing each other. But basically, Some lazy guy as Supreme Leader, who's only good for writing announcements, other official sounding stuff and has a nice avatar/sig. Has veto power but is too lazy to use it. Bob Janova for second in command, and given veto power. The veto power is core to the stability of this alliance. Rebel Virginia as Minister of War. Xiphosis as Advisor of World Domination. Then, build the rest of gov based around compatibility to them and competence.

Heh, yeah, I've grown attached to all the numbers on the flag. It'll get messy by the end of the year, though

War, nation building, politics in TE and SE are approached very differently. Some of the best TE players are rather poor SE players and vice versa. It's like judging a physicist over his chemistry knowledge... some are good at both, but it doesn't mean anything. If I were to extrapolate from TE experience, I'd say that Umbrella is a horrible alliance of noobs who collect at 0 infra, PC are casualty whores, GOONS are hippies, Basketball Ninjas are an aggressive elite alliance, and TOP/GPA are infra hugging semi-neutrals. And that almost every CN:SE leader is horribly inactive.

MHA's been bleeding members these past few days. I hope they're just stepping up the ghostbusting.

Heh, looking at that other bloc thread, it's rather amusing that MK is always paired under Doomhouse-PB these days. They're still tied (and was a former member) to over half of C&G, yet people never seem to put them together.

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1307871484' post='2729745'] Personally I would like it if the whole terms thing is kept IC since OOC terms tend to open all sorts of awkward issues. For example is checking another player's IP address on IRC to see if they match records on some EZI list or "no government" list a form of cyber-stalking? [/quote] IMO, it's just fine for completely IC purposes. Many alliances these days do it anyway to screen out spies. If you're using that IP for any purposes other than in game, like tracing where they live IRL, checking it against some other OOC channel, then it becomes cyberstalking.

Ha, congrats on the warchest. With that much money, you don't even have to bother hiding it, it's not like you're going to run out Quite short on tech there, though. [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1307898924' post='2729914'] It would be interesting to see how some people would spend their money and what would happen to the CN economy if people with large warchests didn't have aid slot capacity as the main limiter in how much they can buy and with time it takes for aid slots to clear determining the value of deals they do. If someone could pay $1,000,000,000 to another nation for tech, then that nation could use $900,000,000 to buy tech to send the guy who needs tech, then spend $100,000,000 on themselves to make the deal worthwhile, we would be dealing with very different interactions between nations and the type of deals they would be doing. [/quote] I do not want to see a world with 1B/33k tech deals. I'd break my fingers trying to buy that much tech. Heck, just one 1B/33k tech deal would be enough to make a fresh nation nuclear. Then again... scamming a billion dollars would be fun. [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1307910772' post='2730026'] I've donated before, but that's no argument for not updating game mechanics- you take that risk willingly when you donate. [/quote] It's a valid argument for paying for most online games. But the thing about CN and why it's developed in this way is that it's been very persistent. You [i]know[/i] that infra costs/tech/aid slots aren't going to change much any time soon. It becomes worth it to spend some time doing research on getting a better nation build than everyone else or spending money on the game. Heck, look at the massive controversy when admin tweaked environment.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1307727140' post='2728702'] My only problem with GPA neutrality is that is a passive neutrality instead of an armed one, like Sweden in Cold War. The only thing who protect GPA against an attack is the CN community standards who respect neutrality but that can change anytime in future. [/quote] Well, there's still GOP which is armed neutral. I believe GOP has stated that they will stick up for green, neutrality, and conservatism. Anyone hitting GPA to purge neutrals will possibly feel GOP's wrath And I believe other neutrals will be defended by others in a similar way. Alliances trying to roll Pax Corvus for no reason will possibly end up facing the Rosular Kingdom, and be on the receiving end of Dulra's nukes (after diplomacy has failed, of course). FA does play a role in keeping neutrals safe. You can probably get away with hitting the isolationist neutrals much more easily than a neutral with friends.

[quote name='Dexomega' timestamp='1307731739' post='2728731'] A clever ruse to mask the real issue at hand. [u][b]SuperPandoraGrievances![/b][/u] [/quote] I've always thought that SuperComplaintsBox sounded better.

Hmm... it is complicated. There are IC->OOC->IC situations.. rerolls, OOC conversations revealing IC secret info. There was an interesting situation where one guy grabbed CN logs off google cache, but was warned because Google wasn't part of the game, even though that's where he got the info. In those cases, it may be punished IC even though it's stepped past the OOC line. Keve being kicked out of the alliance is a complicated case, because an alliance doesn't just exist within the OWF and in the game. Your IC CN identity is known by your IP/hostmask rather than your CN nation. However, I wouldn't want IC hatred to leak OOC. As much as I don't like a lot of people IC here, I wouldn't say something so horrible as "I hoped the earthquake [in hated person's area] killed him". No punishment should be dealt OOC, and there shouldn't be OOC consequences, even if it's just hard feelings. But I guess "I'll join your team in (other game) but I hope you never play CN again" is a perfectly fine reaction.