MrMuz

I don't think seniority is the problem. It's a problem for some people. A lot of people like to play the star player - that guy who people sign treaties over, that guy who wins wars, that guy who leaves a dent in the AA if he leaves. Well, you'll have to stand in line for that. In single-player games, you can be the star 5 mins into the game. In multiplayer games, it's just a grind to be the star player... deal with it. CN's grind is very simple - keep buying tech, keep a warchest, stay out of war. The neutrals are leading on that grind for good reason, because the game punishes war so much, though many neutrals get bored of tech buying after a while. It's a problem, sure. But as it is, infra costs rise too much late game and growth is only in tech/warchest. Nerfing senior members will encourage senior players to quit because then they feel they have nothing left to accomplish. But it is very possible to be a contributing member to the game without being a senior nation. Politics prioritize intelligent members more than seniority. Good tech sellers are probably one of the most important roles, but it rewards those who enjoy playing support, which is much rarer.

I'd like to see the purchase 100 infra at a time thing make it into SE too. That one makes much more sense in SE than TE; there's never a reason to actually purchase 4000 infra in a day in TE. Peak infra would do well in SE too, but maybe make it 3-10% bonus to rebuilding instead of 50%. In SE, you actually want the wars to deal long term damage, while in TE, the more wars the better. [quote name='Instr' timestamp='1315553481' post='2797308'] Horrible feature. The simpler the game becomes, the more dead the game becomes. As long as you continuously need ghostbusters, you keep alliance lowbies in work and make sure that your alliance needs relationships to obtain ghost-busting. [/quote] I'm not sure what ghostbusting brings to the game. Ghostbusting is the worst, least rewarding job to have in CN. It's caused from a flaw in the alliance system. It stunts a ghostbuster's growth for as long as there are ghosts... I can't see how it's rewarding to stay months in the 100 NS range when all your friends of the same nation age are now at 4k infra. It punishes loyalty. Lowbies will always have work. About 80% of rogues are down at the 1k infra level. And they are still tech sellers, which is one of the most prized roles in CN as there are too many tech buyers. I see a problem in IA getting downsized. Not sure how other alliances do it without web tools, but there's a lot of boring pointless work in IA trying to track ghosts, just because of this little flaw in alliance management. Unlike ghostbusting, IA holds a rather large part of alliance politics in many alliances as it allows unskilled, but hardworking people to climb up the political ladder. But IA still covers other things, so that's not a problem. Ghosts themselves bring much more to the game than ghostbusting, though more so with TE than SE.

Tsk tsk, backing out already?

[quote name='youwish959' timestamp='1315323806' post='2795853'] You can go ahead and nuke kevin right now, no interference. [/quote] I'll accept that offer.

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1315328890' post='2795877'] Whereas roguery was years ago treated with disgust by target and former alliance alike, now it is understandable. And those who would decry it would do well to look to their own alliances` actions in considering why current affairs are so boring as to drive longtime players to take their own individual initiative in this manner. Will YOUR alliances take action to reduce the strangling deadlock so markedly in existence? I doubt it. [/quote] Quite often a rogue is hated because they threaten the security of the alliance they're in.. most rogues just hit any random target, often one their alliance doesn't like. Plus, it's a massive waste of whatever aid was used to build them up, many of them sit in an alliance for protection to get nukes, just to waste them and threaten the security of their own alliance in the end. When a "rogue" actually benefits the alliance's goals, you'd expect them to be cheered on, as long as that cheering doesn't threaten their own alliance. I find it more honest than when someone cheers on a rogue in private, then goes out in public and cries out on how horrible that rogue is. There's also a big difference between someone who hits a random person because they have nothing to lose personally, and someone who hits an enemy to try to punish that person for their actions. It's not 'classy', but sometimes, people just throw aside class to encourage a certain kind of behavior.

[quote name='Dajobo' timestamp='1315265945' post='2795541'] Truly it's great for most of the people commenting in this discussion, because most of us are involved in government so get to be part of it. What about the 95% of CN who aren't? [/quote] They're not out of it. It's nice to spectate and comment on it. Gov are like the managers of sports teams, the mostly idle general membership are the fans of the teams.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1315218642' post='2795214'] Tromp is being such a good sport about the whole pounding Kzoppi into the ground thing, I'm almost tempted to hit him for funsies. RV could also be a pretty fun opponent. [/quote] You're welcome to join the party and hit me, I'm sure Kzopp would appreciate the backup. And I'm not really under anyone's protection at the moment, so you could treat it like some nuclear tech raid.

Nukes are killing the game too. Really. But I won't tell people to suddenly go non-nuclear to save the game, because that gives way too much advantage to the people who don't give a damn. Similarly, you can't really tell people to minimize treaties or whatever. Nobody's going to gimp their odds in a war to help the game unless their odds were already high enough. If you want a challenge, do it like with any other role playing game. Gimp yourself with artificial restraints. Play the moralist. Play the completely loyal ally.. it doesn't pay off in this game. Join some microalliance; it's a lot harder near the bottom than it is near the top, and more fun on the OOC angle. Or if you want a villain role and need a handicap, roleplay a foolish ideology and follow it strictly - like no nukes, no surrendering, ODP level treaties only, alliance disbandment doctrine, attempt to spread some in-game religion, or pick a target that you hate and stick to it until they disband.

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1315148560' post='2794599'] Vlad should send you some money, it appears you won't last long otherwise. And Muz, when are you usually on IRC? [/quote] I'm in early retirement, I'm on whenever I feel like it, and I'm doing fine enough here that I don't really feel the need to coordinate But yeah, I can get on whenever, I just don't want to be on the whole day. Drop my nation a personal message with whatever time you're good with.

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1315079652' post='2793856'] What's funny about this is you wait until there are a lot of people speaking out against GOD/Xiph to go rogue on him. That takes absolutely no "steely nerves" at all. It only shows you have no balls, because you waited until it was safe to do something about it. How about you go rogue on someone with some actual power or respect? [/quote] Doing this when people are speaking out has a larger chance into snowballing into something bigger, like what happened with GOONS last year. Doing it while nobody cares that much about the target will just fizzle out.

I'd join you and go rogue, but I actually like GOD. Hmm.. that gives me an idea.

A MDoAP is an agreement to defend each other from an attack, no matter what. I don't think chaining clauses are any use these days. In a full war, people are still expected to defend each other from any attack, whether or not it's chained to the stupidity of someone far away. ODoAPs can be treated the same as a MDoAP, just with one side refusing to defend the other from a very specific kind of war. Some alliances treat them like PIATs, some treat them like MADPs. They cover a lot of gray area that can't easily be e-lawyered. In this case, it can still be a MDoAP, with some invisible clause that "we won't defend you if this is because of SF", but officially 'downgraded' for legality.

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1314991228' post='2793082'] In my books, the 30 minutes of boringness are actually the 13:1 wars. The interesting part is all the politicing BEFORE you post a DoW. THAT is the challenge for me. Pressing a bunch of buttons (nukes, CMs, airplanes, GA. Rinse, repeat) is mindnumbing, even if it's 1:1. [/quote] Agreed. Even the 1:1 wars themselves are boring after everyone has made their move. The whole fun of the game is in manipulating the politics to get yourself in a good position for the war, then manipulating politics again to get people on your side or at least prevent them from entering the opponent's side. And then the post-war period where everyone makes use of whatever threats/promises they made during the war and cuts treaties or forces reps. 13:1 wars are boring only in that there's no options for the losing or winning party. You're either martyring yourself and cutting your allies free, !@#$%*ing at your allies for not martyring themselves for you, or begging for mercy. If CN was like chess, wars are the checkmate (although they last a few months). People love wars not because the wars themselves are fun, but because they like seeing their enemies get checkmated after months of work. The spectators love it because two large coalitions hitting each other opens up a power vacuum which they can manipulate. The boring part is when your opponent just sits there on their turn and refuses to move at all.. unlike chess, CN allows people to skip their turn and those who make the killing move are at a tactical disadvantage. Blocs are like when you set your pieces up well enough to counter any attack, but when both sides do it and refuse to move, the game stagnates.

[quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1314811289' post='2791670'] I don't see why you are comparing us with Sparta while we have a totally different WRC / members above 8500 infra ratio. Ours is more comparable with Non Grata. The reason for this good ratio isn't because we have been winning wars. It is because we have a lot of beat down nations. This is because we tend to enter the main fronts of a war early and fight on a long time. For example the last war we fought NpO for like 2 months, and during Karma we fought NPO for 3 months. [/quote] I mean the ratio is actually a poor indicator of FOK's willingness to fight. FOK is just as steadfast in battle as say, NG and GOONS, but haven't had the "opportunity" for it to show statistically. FOK's WRC/infra ratio is probably more of a result from having their upper tier filed down over the past few wars rather than taking a beating. [quote name='grahamkeatley' timestamp='1314815278' post='2791701'] How does it measure Low NS Firepower? GOONS are ranked highest but only have 4 Nations. I think it is interesting to compare, but ultimately its showing 4 members being more than double the rating of other alliances with 40-50 Nations in the same range.GK [/quote] Oh, lol, didn't see that. GOONS are still a very young alliance, mostly consisting of new players, stunted early by that war and constant rogues, so the low number of WRCs makes sense. But still, it indicates many members who have been knocked below that range. And assuming that it means they've been heavily involved in losing wars, that means that there's a lot of other nations with mil wonders other than WRC that have been knocked down below their level. They have 59 MPs, but only 38 members over 4k infra, which means a good number of 19 (32%) MP nations under 4k infra right now. I'd assume the same of their other mil wonders.

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1314621577' post='2790463'] There was at least one. [/quote] Er, I meant to say 'not all of the alliances involved'

Well, it's quite a different SOS Brigade 2 years ago, different 6 months ago, and different just over a month ago. Such a birthday thread seems a little misleading. But the 95% active stat is rather nice, so congrats.

And "ex-Heg" continues to fade away as a power cluster. Good luck in your political direction, to the both of you.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314834103' post='2791829'] ...second because Global Political Order hasn't changed, the same groups who were in power before VE declare war on NpO are the same who are still in power now(See PB/DH). [/quote] In a decisive war, whoever is in power will still remain in power. The difference is really about who's [i]not[/i] in power. Not going to say who, because people take it so personally, but with some power spheres weakened, the rest of the world is free to point their guns onto the second person on their list. PB is no longer in such a dominant position as they held last time, they're still very strong, but not as much as before. Just means that every other power that wasn't involved heavily in the last war, edged a little closer to power.

Actually, blocs are quite good at detangling the treaty web. I like how Gre and BN are rather isolated, as well as PF's clause to prioritize their bloc over all other conflicts. Yes, blocs are much harder to attack. But the thing inhibiting most wars are the massive web of defensive treaties activating when you hit someone. An entangled small bloc like C&G is as hard to attack as a strong, isolated bloc. I don't feel that mergers are a good idea unless things are going bad, since they introduce their own little problems, and those problems are dampened by blocs (hence NG and tlr's great success in not falling to internal conflict after a merger of that size). Blocs should be used to unify people into one political corner. Too many people are using it as some kind of group MDoAP. It makes little sense to have a bloc, when every individual in that bloc has a direct political tie to every alliance on every side of the treaty web. You hit some random bloc, and you end up fighting a coalition against a third of Planet Bob, probably 1-3 of the enemy coalition being your allies. The problem is that everyone wants to protect their friends. In fact, most alliances sign treaties as a friendship, not for power. Most CN players are fairly casual. Most alliances step in between of taking the game lightly and wanting a bit of power on the side, though the friends > power thing takes priority. It makes more sense to have ODPs to protect your non-ally friends when you feel like it, but then some alliances don't recognize ODPs as valid treaties. So they get upgraded to MDPs, and later MDoAPs for no reason than to upgrade a treaty with a close friend. And then those alliances grow older and have multiple MDoAPs, so they decide to make a bloc to decide which MDoAPs to prioritize over the others. After a few years, they join into a second (or more!) bloc to appease another group of friends. It's the natural order of things, and it takes effort not to go that route. Treaties don't really bring safety. They're just to protect allies. After all, the alliances with the least treaties get into the least wars (but hit by more rogues). Blocs don't bring safety either, I'm sure anyone going in and out of a bloc could clearly see how many more enemies they make just by being in a bloc. Everyone sees the logic, but it's just not going to happen. If someone drops all treaties/blocs, they'd end up vulnerable. If someone decides that hey, let's merge lots of alliances into us, become huge and isolated and encourage wars, they end up like NPO last war. Or AcTi (which actually had excellent stats at one point). And seeing how this thread by someone in an alliance who hit NPO while it was politically vulnerable, I think this thread will be counter-productive, and just encourage more people to dig themselves deeper into the treaty web.

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1314680363' post='2790845'] Take all the nations above 8500 infra and what % of them have a WRC. That would do it as well. Edit: using this metric here is what I got as a rough sample. WRC/Members at or above 8500 infra. Due to infra loses most of the war ready alliances have ratio's over 1.0. (3.5 - 14 WRC/4 members over 8500i - GOONS) 3.50 - 14/4 - GOONS 1.51 - 80/53 - NG 1.50 - 57/38 - FOK 1.45 - 77/53 - Umbrella 1.16 - 92/79 - TOP 1.05 - 79/75 - Sparta 1.04 - 86/83 - IRON 1.03 - 63/61 - TLR 0.82 - 89/109 - MHA 0.52 - 61/118 - GPA 0.40 - 22/54 - TDO I think this stat is important, as obscure as it is. GPA/TDO/neutrals I'd expect to be at the bottom. Alliances like the MHA score low and I'm guessing despite their high overall NS, they wouldn't have as many people willing to fight and lose infra as say the GOONS/NG/FOK/etc would be. [/quote] Actually, this is a very nice stat. It's biased against the people who haven't been fighting many losing wars (like Sparta and FOK). But it's a good measure of low NS firepower and how long they're willing to keep fighting, hence GOONS and NG's high rating from the beating they took last war without deleting. On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that nations that score high in it currently have low warchests and weren't able to rebuild to their original level (though you could measure WRC to 6999/7999 infra for that warchest indicator, because that's accepted as a good infra level)

One of the nicer flags in the game so far, congrats!

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1314603542' post='2790422'] When you look at an "alliance" you look at every member. If an "alliance" like MHA has 190 members out of 563 below 5k NS or 247 nations out of 563 below 10k NS then that "alliance" is on average weak despite its high total NS. It doesnt matter that they have 23 nations over 100k NS because we are looking at alliances as a whole not just the best bits minus the crap bits. An alliance is only as strong as its 200 weakest members. [/quote] Strongly disagreed. Everyone else has covered the other points but I'll just add that having lots of inactive members will, at worst, be meatshields, and blunt an opponent's attack by blocking nukes. In a defensive war, the most inactive members will stick around and absorb full damage at least during the first week, even if they don't launch a single cruise missile in defense. These massive alliances will always take much more damage on the charts, but individual nations will come out of a war with less damage, and thus be less likely to surrender or lose a war.

Actually, yeah, I've thought about it for a while, discussed it with some others, and you're absolutely right. I guess it's just that us post-Karma generation witnessed a more cautious political world. I suppose it's just that the world lacks charismatic leaders, and few people have been playing it right. I can name a few good leaders, but most are in microalliances. Maybe the leaders of large alliances have just become bitter from the politics. I suppose I still need to take that long, long break from the game to get back that young nation spirit.

[quote name='SoADarthCyfe6' timestamp='1314505265' post='2789741'] I'd prefer lowering the Declaring ratio from 50 - 200% to 75% -150%. People updeclaring half the size of the nation is just plain stupid. [/quote] Near the end of the game, very few nations are in range of the top nation. I think like a 5k NS nation updeclaring on a 10k NS nation is practically slot filling, but sometimes there's only like 40 nations in range of a 30k NS nation (who have no willingness to fight back so it's not really undefeatable odds). But the 200% ratio should be maintained for special situations. Downdeclaring on nations half the size is much worse. I can't see a good reason to do that, other than just making big nations able to fight back against smaller ones or something. Nobody ever really checks for downdeclares, the worse you could do is whine about it.

Lol, that stuff looks good at first, but you'd get sick of it pretty quick.