MrMuz

[quote name='Baltus' timestamp='1341457029' post='3003741'] TE was meant for war. SE is a political simulator, with war being the result of successful or unsuccessful diplomacy depending on which side you're in. [/quote] Ironic. TE has more potential for politics, because there is a solid goal and rewards that come with it. SE has little potential for politics, because there's no natural goal or conflicts. It's a sandbox, like GTA. You can't really have politics, because there's not enough depth to politicize. Heck, the people who just sit around and do nothing is as odd as the people who play GTA as a Sunday drive game, but apparently, there's a demand for both. The main thing stopping either is the culture that's already dug into both. Like anyone who plays TE for the politics (like myself) get bored of the mindless wars. There are literally thousands who play SE for wars, but you don't see them. You only see them as the ones who never log into forums, but always manage full slots on tech importing.

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1341403120' post='3003338'] The interesting aspect of all of this is really that the "change" you want is in your hands. It is all just a matter of perspective when you think about it, if the politics doesn't interest you than your free to change your AA to none and go hog wild on any nation you want to, hell you can even make a good go at it if your good. If you want the political simulator than you can play that aspect of it, logging into IRC, joining the clicke's and getting into the back rooms, if you just want to watch your nation grow, set yourself into peace mode or join GPA and there you have it. [/quote] So, if I wanted wars to last a week, I'd have to limit wars I declare to a week and complain when someone declares war on me for more than a week? (also minor nitpicking, but peace mode doesn't help nations grow)

[quote name='Ostrogothi' timestamp='1341403473' post='3003339'] Admission of [i]guilt[/i] is different from admission of military defeat. [/quote] Anything that triggers a real war will probably never result in a (sincere) admission of guilt. Admission of military defeat is usually the closest you can get

Lol, I don't even know why you were thinking of just quitting at the start of this thread. Also don't know why Polaris would want to force heavy reps on someone with a multi billion dollar warchest; that's just plain stupid because the only alternative a rogue has is to keep nuking. And frankly, it doesn't even discourage anyone.

Pfft, bring politics back to TE then TE has a lot of potential, but everyone plays it as a sandbox. [quote name='Ogaden' timestamp='1341376855' post='3003174'] This strategic game is fun for and played by about 50 people out of a population of 13,753 or so. [/quote] 50 people are making the moves. Around 5000 are happy to watch and cheer. It's kinda like sports.

[quote name='Ostrogothi' timestamp='1341237031' post='3001764'] I always found it silly to make people "admit defeat"- what is the point of that? I mean almost always in CN the end result of a war is plain for everybody to see. It shouldn't matter to anybody that the defeated party might someday later claim "strategic/spiritual" victory or any other kind of crap. [/quote] Wars are usually fought over something. If a war is fought to destroy/weaken an alliance, there's no need to admit defeat. If a war is fought over disagreements, like someone aiding rogues/bad tech raid/poaching/insults and war was triggered because one side refused to admit they were wrong, the admission of defeat is important.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1341179586' post='3001361'] And the losing side can be hit by wariness and looses potential rebuilding time too. [/quote] War weariness is far heavier when you're losing pixels and expect to lose them again. The winning side loses relatively little but has an alternative - ceasefire and save up to attack another target. The losing side has no alternative - lose a lot or lose a little. They are on Sun Tzu's "Death Ground". They're willing to stick through the peace mode suffering a bit longer to hurt those who wish them harm. Not that I agree with the strategy. Avoiding destruction is poisonous. People will not treaty an ostracized alliance because they're liabilities. They're bound to be attacked again. You can simply 'live on' in that hole with no potential treaty gains, few high potential members joining. Once an alliance has been properly destroyed, neutralized, any stigma is lost. NPO post-Karma was still not properly destroyed, and people just refused to tie themselves to that size because they didn't want to burn for NPO. NPO after the DH-NPO war was well destroyed. People no longer united to destroy them, everyone was free to pursue whatever personal vendettas they had, and NPO itself was free to go out and make friends. NPO still recovered and managed to put themselves into a position of power once again.

not so much bad ass, just common sense

VE actually takes less damage by not putting people in peace mode, due to some of their policies being designed that way. Expected some other larger (> 200 members) alliances to do the same thing, but I'm sure they have their reasons.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1341102226' post='3000852'] Good show, VE. [/quote] Sarcasm? Or did hell freeze over?

Pfft, I've been doing the zero $%&@s thing since I started playing. I don't know how you can play a game and still give a $%&@ about how it turns out. It doesn't mean you have to be an idiot though.

I think Roq means the DH-NPO war, where NPO put many of their nations in peace mode, and eventually were not punished with reps, just the condition of bringing some nations out of peace mode to be beat down. And NPO eventually recovered from that to become one of the major forces on Digiterra again; the peace mode thing certainly helped.

Needs more autotune

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1341146308' post='3001127'] GOONS only had 10% slot usage based on the state 2 or 3 days ago. They arent really that preoccupied. [/quote] Keywords are "compromising situation". VE doesn't simply toss allies onto the fire and force them to lose NS for a situation they don't really want to be involved in. The message sent by VE's suicide move is just to show that VE's willing to stick up for GOD no matter what kind of trouble they get into.

[quote name='Canik' timestamp='1341150401' post='3001141'] Trying to piss off the winning side is always a good idea. [/quote] War exhaustion results in a higher willingness to end the war with less damage done. Or let an uninvolved third party build up while their growth is stunted. Or just make it really annoying and inconvenient to hit the SF sphere, and SF doesn't plan on making friends with the MK side either. There's more of the larger winning side being held in peace mode as well, and that's also doing damage. It does mean that the winning coalition will want the losing one punished further, but the losing side will want to drag it out long enough that the winning coalition will be too tired to push for harsh terms.

Obviously everyone angry with peace mode here is ignoring that the tactic itself is to piss the winning side off and extend the war.

[quote]Stop whining and being lazy and do something. Have a little !@#$@#$ ambition.[/quote] The issue here is that you it's just not possible to do anything. Look at the past underdogs who have been beaten down on, waited years for vengeance. They worked hard at it, they found others in the same boat, they got their revenge in 1-3 years. They were driven by anger, shame, desire for vengeance, etc. Today, it's not quite the same.. apathy exceeds anger. It's not like we haven't done anything, it's just that most moves are met with "Umbrella's undefeatable" or "The game is dead, why bother?" And this kind of apathy becomes infectious. It's like going up to a girl, dating her over the course of a few months, finally getting in bed with her, and every time, there is no emotion on her face. No real joy, and when questioned about it, she just doesn't think the relationship is going anywhere. "But hey, we can do this because I don't have anything else to do." It's depressing to put time into something when the passion is not reciprocrated. Not putting the blame on the winning side here; it's clearly the issue of a lack of passion among the weaker side(s). Would agree that it's a prisoner's dilemma - you lose less by not doing stuff, and the few who chose to do stuff are brought down by those who don't do anything. [quote]Hint - the issue lies in your "micro" statement. In a game of dwindling nations and activity, you need to pool your resources better. Look at TLR and NG, two very successful alliances on the "winning" side. They looked at themselves, accepted that the glory days of their individual alliances were behind them, and merged together to remain active, competent, and relevant. [/quote] Easier said than done. I'm skeptical of TLR and NG's true "success" status; neither of them have been under any real stress test. Mergers harm morale. People coming into mergers are more difficult to train. NS means little, the old MHA syndrome. There's a lot of subtle long term issues that are hidden behind things like good aid usage. The only real benefit is the few active and experienced people you bring in will directly contribute to propel the alliance forward. It's not a universal solution. It's similar to a moderate interest loan. And plus, a lot of micros put their goal as "survival" and the disbandment/merger as directly failing that goal. But seeing how the fresh recruit pool has been drying up, alliances need to realize that mergers are the way forward. [quote]As far as communities go, alliances need to take steps towards keeping their members occupied with things other than this game for when events here grow stale. I know that we (MK) have been endeavoring to this end for a while now, and I know of several alliances, such as Pacifica, that are doing the same. In an ideal world, I would like to see established communities that are capable of playing this game (and indeed, communities which do so) but which can survive independently of it. [/quote] Actually, this is a very good point. There seems to be a strong correlation between alliances that have other non-CN community activities and their in-game morale.

[quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1340994594' post='3000064'] Well then if the first post is true, I hope not to see many Legion jokes anymore xD [/quote] Peace Mode = Tactic. Therefore, Legion = Bad at Tactics.

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1340989817' post='3000033'] 1 week full out war is better for you than 1month cowering [/quote] But 4 months cowering actually does more damage at lower cost.

[quote name='Tiber Septim' timestamp='1340838609' post='2998809'] Perhaps if you're seeking a reason to keep playing you should ask the neutrals. They seem to get along fine with nation building and politiking without war. [/quote] Wars are not fun. In fact, wars are even more boring than peace. Political change is fun. The issue here is that there's just not a lot of room for political change. Before this, just about every global war brought about major political shifts.. that's why people look forward to wars. This war and the previous war only cements the political situation. There is still room for stuff to happen, but it seems unlikely. I'm not talking about the common grunts getting bored with the game. I mean the leaders and movers. They become, well... shell shocked. They're no longer willing to just put as much effort rebuilding things or making a difference in the world. I know plenty who are literally more willing to disband their alliance than actually spend a couple of hours a day to do stuff and become significant. There's a prevalent "What's the point, the game is dead" attitude which is what ultimately causes the stagnation. The problem is that nobody really seems to want to play the game anymore. As many have said, it's more of a social networking site than a game. Pretty much the main reason I joined Paraguas/Bal Masque was that there was someone in there who actually wants to play the game as a game. People are punished for doing anything - NPO, NpO, GOD, MK, NG, TOP. So, nobody does anything. Micros just dwindle down to a level where they're no longer a community (like 1-4 active people) and disband. Losing party doesn't even bother to grow bigger or outmaneuver the enemy, because they'll have to rebuild over the next [i]two years[/i] or so to get anywhere. Winning party doesn't put effort in getting ahead, because the losing party just won't catch up. The same war repeating over and over again is simply a result of the lack of political movement, and this problem goes around full circle. [quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1340821259' post='2998501'] I was half expecting the title to be a clever play on MK's theme and role in the game. [/quote] Heh, it was sort of a MK pun, but doubt anyone will get it. Nothing anti-MK though

Would be nice if you could have it in percentages based on total alliance war slots too

It's become like a show on its 6th season. Everything has become a little predictable. The same things are shown over and over again. Someone grows powerful. Other alliances attach themselves to them. The strong ones abuse their powers (out of boredom even). The betrayed one vows revenge. After a few years, the betrayed builds together a coalition to topple the strong. Bored people at the bottom join this coalition. They topple the strong, they realize that there's nothing to do when they're at the top, they become dicks just so someone would challenge them. So, it seems like the same old thing. Typical save the world plot with different actors. There are no plot twists anymore. There's just vengeance. No growth (outside of neutral alliances). Everyone has become so jaded with the game. Nobody really bothers anymore... people have stopped bothering with CBs, stopped bothering with roleplays, even the propaganda is downhill these days. A lot of smaller alliances have only 1-3 truly active people. I'm starting to wonder if it's worth it anymore. I'd like to look back and think.. "Hey, that was a great game," instead of just forgetting it. I don't want to think that I could have spent this time on something more fun/useful. And the reason I brought this up in a public thread is because I'm not the only one thinking this. It will be post war soon. A lot of people will look at their ZIed nations and ask if they're worth rebuilding to be torn down again later. People will lose friends and allies. Some alliances will be screwed to the point where they're not worth keeping, and some people will not be inclined to play without those people around. But before we get to that point and face another dip in activity, let's set up a safety net. How do you guys deal with post war depression? What keeps you going?

Never realized that the NG war was isolated from the others. Thanks for the updates.

CN follows a much more militant culture compared to the real world. In CN, nuke a non nuclear nation and it is not dishonorable, because the rules of war state that nuclear weapons are the standard weapons of war. Every nation in modern CN is expected to stand its own ground, buy their own nukes. It's not the same as killing a non-combatant - if you were to nuke a neutral, that would be seen as very dishonorable. At one time IRL, air warfare, gunpowder, bows were all considered dishonorable weapons. In CN, nukes are the standard. People do get angry over the things that they feel are dishonorable, and most people do call out their allies if they're committing dishonorable acts. It's just that your notions of honor and class just might not meet that of others. You'd have to make a list of what acts you believe are dishonorable before I can understand what you're getting at.

So if this was a war movie, honor would suddenly not exist because it's a movie? Why shouldn't it exist in a game? Honor doesn't exist in chess on hockey, in those games the term 'sportsmanship' applies. But it definitely exists in any game that tries to mirror politics, whether single player or multiplayer. If you fail to follow up a treaty in Europa Universalis to kill people for your allies, you're automatically considered dishonorable. Why should it be any different in CN? Throughout history, killing people and sacrificing yourself for a just cause has always been an honorable act.