Indian Bob

congratulations olympus, glad to see it.

Well, said and the same to all of you Farkers.

Congrats on peace NAC. It's nice having friends that know the meaning of a treaty and follow through on it.

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1324425017' post='2882869'] That's assuming everyone wants to become such a player. A lot of people want to simply participate in the broader international politics without the responsibility of leadership. Games like this are escapist. A richer public aspect to the game allows the more casual people to dip in and participate at their leisure and also makes it easier for the more talented and ambitious to present themselves. In either case the backroom exclusivity is not a benefit. A diaspora to even more, smaller alliances only further fractures the community and with the relative isolation of non-leadership players that sort of regression is not sustainable. [/quote] Non leadership players would not be the one's creating the "more, smaller alliances". The people who don't have ambition can collect taxes just as easily in an alliance of 200 as one of 20. The reason the backroom is exclusive is because there's only a few who have access to it. The way to make something less exclusive is to let more people in and the only people who legitimately have a reason to be there are alliance leaders. There are plenty of people who want to try and do their own thing but every time they try they get shouted down and told to disband or merge because the world doesn't need more alliances. It's not more alliances that are causing the problem it's less. The more alliances there are, the more people who are actively trying to get new members and they'll pull them from wherever they can. And yes, even many elite alliances that are invite only want new members, they just don't mass recruit for them. If somehow the power structure was splintered a bit then a few, know nothing, noob alliance leaders who've lucked into a good theme and amassed a few treaties and a couple million NS between them could be off in their OWN back rooms stirring up trouble and mattering. As it stands now they can never be anything other than pawns in the larger game played by people with no more qualifications than they clicked a link a few years earlier. The logical conclusion of the "no new/noob alliances" ethos is that there will end up with a half a dozen alliances all staring at each other waiting for one to show weakness so the other five can jump on them. I'd certainly rather have some micro drama rather than that.

It's certainly possible to become influential in the many democratic alliances, albeit with a lot of hard work as Londo points out. What I find ironic is that the logical conclusion to this line of reasoning is that there needs to be MORE alliances, not less. The popular wisdom from what I can tell on these forums is that there needs to be fewer alliances. Personally, I think the reality needs to be more alliances, less treaties, but I don't know if that will ever happen.

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1324314584' post='2881912'] Just because they are on the same side/coalition. [/quote] Neb-X is on the other side from NpO. They declared on behalf of Valhalla who is most assuredly not on NpO's side.

As is pointed out in every thread of these that is created, there are on average 100 new nations that sign up to CN every day. With the change to resources, none of those should be just pure resource re-rolls which means we just need to do a better job of bringing those new players in and getting them engaged. It's the nature of this game that it's very hard for new nations to "catch up", but for many people that's the best time to be playing, before everything is cookie cutter and figured out. This game has retained ~3.3% of the the nations created all time. I would hazard to guess that, that is a low percentage, but not too terribly strange for a game of this age. Especially when you consider that a certain percentage of those "lost" nations are multis, and nations that have re-rolled. There are people who study this sort of thing and even games like [url=http://www.artifex.org/~bonnie/WoW_retention_04_24_11.pdf]WoW keep less than 25% of their players after 2 years[/url]. After 5 years, I would assume that percentage is much closer to CN's adjusted number. So, the fact is that games slow down. That doesn't mean it has to die, just that it's normal like every other game and as others have said, we can make of it what we will.

Well, this should be fun.

[quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1323474112' post='2871358'] It's implied. Though if you peace out your wars and decommission nearly your entire standing military to comply with POW terms, you'd have to break terms to re-enter the war anyway so it is a moot point. I'm glad to see terms are finally being given. The cries for peace are getting annoying. And just so everyone knows. Hyperonic is messing with you guys. I started ignoring him a long time ago. I would suggest you do the same. [/quote] It's only implied if there was a requirement to stay on the POW AA. Don't get me wrong, I think it's common sense as well but it was the first thing that jumped out at me. Get peace (assumedly with Mjolnir alliances as well as those outside) rest up, get out of anarchy then ghost GPA for a week or two to build your resources back up and rejoin the war effort. I'd assume someone doing that would get their lunch handed to them at the end of the war, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

Happy birthday Olympus!

No, "no re-entry" clause?

Man, we get left out of all the nonsensical arguments about situations that are not even remotely similar the topic in the OP...and by that I mean, SNAFU was/is also Val's treaty partner through Poseidon. We were fully aware of their position and it was perfectly consistent with both the text and spirit of the treaty. How about we get back to RIA bashing or whatever this thread has become?

At the minimum it would be interesting to see where the tech price point balanced out. But yeah, the game itself would be completely wrecked.

This is a great idea. Please sign me up.

[quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1319065258' post='2828840'] Okay then. Thanks for sharing. [/quote] I suppose a quote would have made this make more sense, but it was only a couple of pages ago... [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1318305228' post='2822680'] False. The coalition leadership stuck everyone over 75k NS in peace mode "for later" and never ordered them out. SNAFU went off the reservation, but that was about it. [/quote]

Not that it's terribly relevant but SNAFU was never at war with GOONS. We just paid them reps as a matter related to the coalition surrender. Our top 9 nations did come out of peace mode earlier than most others with the idea that after the first week of TOP and Umbrella crushing us, there'd be nothing left but somewhat evenly matched MK nations to fight. It worked pretty good and would have been really effective if the rest of the coalition would have followed suit. One week of war with those high end guys and we'd have all been below their lowest declaration level. Then, as we continued to grind on the lower levels we could send a runner up to the upper tiers and bring a target down into the melee. Oh well...

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1318030765' post='2820238'] Now, what's going on today is that treaties are still being "announced" and "discussed" just not openly and in public. So instead of everyone mocking, say, Fark and Polar to their faces, everyone just does it in private rooms. Everyone that is in those private rooms, anyway. [b]Anyone that isn't and is just a casual participant in politics is left with the impression that absolutely $%&@-all is happening.[/b] [/quote] I just had to quote this as being so true it's painful. Perhaps there'd be more people getting interested in politics and sticking around to get involved if they saw more of this.

It's funny, whenever I see posts with titles all in caps I know it's going to be fail...huh, I wonder why that is?

Well it's definitely clear that re-rolling for resources was a popular past time. Now that it's no longer necessary more noobs should stick around.

That should be our war acronym.

[quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1315605637' post='2797585'] Nuke rogues love them or hate them are doing something in the game. If this change helps people to actually do something and create a stir then I'm all for it. Perhaps some serious nuke rogues may give us some decent entertainment between those rare moments when the treaty web untangles enough to start a global war. Roguefest 2012 ... sounds interesting... in fact I would say allowing nuke rogues to get their own Uranium may actually be GOOD for the game as it increases the chance of spontanious random actions particularly for enormously large semi dormant nations that to be honest could do with some in game excitement! [/quote] Says the guy in the NPL. Of course you'd want uranium for all! LOL I do agree though that a rogue or two while not necessarily fun for the person attacked (the first cheap shot kinda sucks) but the rogue busters certainly have some fun.

[quote name='Sloane' timestamp='1315289553' post='2795749'] Good job. A Twitter account for CN is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of. [/quote] You must have just been promoted to nation ruler then because there's been more idiotic things done this week let alone EVER.

[quote name='Dom Zak' timestamp='1313591941' post='2782797'] While I do admire you greatly Hime, and do want you to catch this spy, it is not exactly fair to reply to CS's post with his casualty count as his alliance hasn't been in a war since his nation's creation. With respect, Dom Zak PS - Hime is cool [/quote] Age is no excuse for incivility. Perhaps if he were to show respect he would get more of a "fair" response. Now if you're saying he's not boring just because of his casualty count, the same would apply to the Dame's nation not being dull because of it's success.

who would you have suggested they talk to? should they talk to the guy who's already insulted them and encouraged them to attack or should they bypass the leader in hopes of starting a coup. you guys would then be giving them crap for meddling in the sovereign affairs of another alliance. let's get it straight, olympus has repeatedly said that they have no problem with the "escalation" as it's a logical result of attacking a member of that alliance. that does not mean that they wouldn't have preferred that acti's membership didn't have to suffer for their tool of a leader.

[quote name='kwell' timestamp='1311807398' post='2765606'] Thats not a reason and you know it : P I have looked, not on irc (I am sure I can find them though). I don't care really. It just makes Olympus looks like they don't even believe in their cb when they can't post it. If they don't believe it, then why should the public? I can look for it, but I shouldn't have to. Make available the logs available to everyone, and you won't have me complaining that it is not readily available. By not doing this, Olympus makes itself look unconfident in their evidence. [/quote] they don't lack confidence, they just know that what he said doesn't automatically become less repugnant just because it's being copy/pasted and not live. if you want to be titillated by the bad words, make a little bit of effort, readily available does not mean delivered on a silver platter for your prurient viewing.