Prodigal Moon
-
Posts
1,599 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Prodigal Moon
-
-
Unfortunately, the kind of individuals who actually engage in this internet detective/OOC attack BS don't realize how cowardly and pathetic they are for doing so. We should help make them aware of it however we can.
-
I'll take 1000 players who are OWF active, want to actually some risk and make the game interesting, and aren't griefers/12 year old trolls vs. 50,000 of what most of our community is like now.
-
I'd sympathize a little more with this argument except that a lot of CN's greatest communities have been from offsite. I don't like the idea of telling people "you can't play CN with your friends from elsewhere on the internet", especially when there are members who rarely venture outside their own alliance forums. If you're someone who spends more time on your own alliance's forums than in the general CN community, why keep playing when you can't be in your alliance? I wonder what a forced bloc breakup would be like in today's world, so that instead of individual alliances getting destroyed it's just that they're not allowed to be tied to each other in certain ways, like the forced NPO treaty cancellations after Karma.
I'm honestly not sure how it would play out in practice. My best guess:
Some alliances would take it that way, and would simply fold, and those guys probably deserve to be disbanded. Others might hold on for a VietFan style war of resistance until it seemed safe to resume normal operations. Others might reroll continuously within the AA and eventually get peace once they became so small it wasn't worth it (or feasible) to pursue anymore. Others might do a combination of rerolling into enemy AA's as spies and openly working their way up the ladders of other AA's to eventuallly steer them against the enemy
like CoJ did.All of this would probably come at a pretty big cost to the aggressor, as everyone (including their allies) would see how ruthless they were, and some members might not have the stomach for it. Eventually, there would be competition from within or without. It would at very least be more interesting than, as Schad put it so well, being "just one political reorganization away from being in the winning coalition again." Our modern day coalitions have almost no coherent identity to them, just a happenstance of common treaty chains that leads to one "side" that's stronger than another identifiable "side."
-
I think sometimes that if I were put in charge of a militarily dominant AA like NPO back in the day, I would try disband any alliance that I knew really had it out for us. Yeah, it would suck to end up on the receiving end of that, but it would give the game so much more of an edge if we all faced the risk of consequences like that. We're already immortal as players - we should take a bit more risk. Maybe people adhere to certain limits just because they want to maintain some future competition. In other words, they play to make things remain OOC fun. But in doing so I think they've doomed us to a pretty stale world, we go through the motions of a war of attrition, only to shuffle the players around a bit and then play it out again six months later, with no real long-term changes.
-
. The fact of the matter is... those of you who opposed to end of the war, wanted nothing more to do with continuing to hit Umbrella. You wanted AI and IRON to foot nearly that entire bill. You cannot even sit on the "But we were busy with C&G" mantra. C&G was well handled at nearly 8 to 1 odds(and still performing exceptionally well.) When you are not doing the lifting on the main target (Umbrella... and this references 80% of your coalition)... you do not gain the right to determine when AI's or NPOs objective is accomplished. You were not there to aid NPOs war effort. Nor to aid AI's war effort. You were simply a bandwagoner taking advantage of finally having numbers on your side (there is nothing wrong with this, but at least call a flipping spade a spade.)
And here I thought I lost about a year's worth of tech fighting Umbrella's upper tier. Must've just misplaced it.
-
I'm so glad I don't have to deal with these types of conversations.
-
Nothing to do then but leave it all out on field I guess. With the population dwindling I'd suggest everyone do the same even if they plan on hanging around until the lights go out.
-
Well, that escalated quickly.
-
I guess it could be both. I didn't phrase it very well, but I could see it going both ways (it's actually probably the latter now that I think of it; believe it or not, MK's culture is filled with Good People who try not to stereotype etc)
Well, I think the phrasing and either interpretation are fine, it underscores what I'm trying to get at here: That if we can reasonably wonder exactly who the joke is on, then it's understandable that some people will just see a bunch of racially/politically intense imagery and language, and not get (or care) that there's some kind of clever point to it. And I'm not convinced that there even is.
Like I said though, I'm not offended, I just find MK ironic in-jokes annoying.
-
It's exactly to satirize stereotypes. The fact that some people are too dense to get the joke is funny in and of itself.
Too dense, or just uninterested in sorting through whatever level of meta-irony MKers think they're acting on?
Personally, I'm glad to see some RPing going on and don't really care about the joke. But the giggling that you can practically hear from behind the screen is pretty annoying
MQ is a parody/satire of radical Muslims, not intended to be offensive to all Muslims.
Satire of radical Muslims, or satire of people who think Muslims are this way?
-
I had noticed that Crymson really never tires of banging that drum, but I had no idea how long and how consistently this has been going on. Pretty amazing to see it all laid out like that. Truly an award well deserved.
-
Can generals be killed? Don't mean to get into Suggestion Box territory but that would be interesting. Like, they have to be placed in the field for their benefits to take effect, but this creates a 1% chance of being killed in an attack in their particular domain (Army/AF etc.).
-
Bold assertion there. I mean the idea that people complain about conflicting treaties a lot - it feels like it's mostly just CoJ
I haven't considered the web as a way of ensuring a "draw" over the long run, but it does seem supported by the data. At the very least, there's the perception that being in the web makes one "safe" somehow, compared to the chaotic, tortured existence of those of us who maintain independence. Considering we're all immortals here, ruling over a collection of pixels, I really wish there were a way to instill a bit more risk-taking in the game, for the sake of everyone's enjoyment. I don't know why alliances that reach the size of IRON or NG etc. would be content to be just another cog in the machine when they could easily break off and create their own thing.
Meanwhile, the alliance rankings are dominated by neutrals, and the alliance ANS rankings are swamped with neutrals at the top, despite relatively few of them out there. There hasn't been an existential threat to an established neutral since The War on Peace.
-
tl;dr The funniest part of this war, is that if CnG/VE don't pull their head out of their butt, they may find themselves amongst the ranks of Invicta and Legion, when they were joined at the hip with '09 NPO.
Maybe, but as a result of this war there's already a pretty sharp strength disparity that actually favors C&G rather than DH. I don't expect C&G to lead anyone or anything, let alone DH, but it will be very interesting to mointor that relationship in the post-war period, especially considering the links C&G has to the NPO-DR sphere.
If C&G does get to a point of resenting DH and commits more decisively to NPO-DR, then DH/VE/TOP would be rendered more or less impotent and dependent on NG or some new, unforseeable relationships. There were already rumors of some kind of pre-war arrangement that would see C&G make that move (which I don't necessarily buy into at all).
But at this point it does seem more likely that C&G ends up embittered toward EQ and forms even deeper ties with DH, hopefully ditching vestigial ties to NPO-DR in the process. If that's the case then we'll probably see this war again in 6-12 mo. as many have predicted.
Or hey, maybe this war just goes on forever until everyone is so beaten down that even the winners are just the last ones standing in a wasteland dominated by the neutrals. I think we've seen about enough political shifts and now we can just get down to the endgame.
-
If the last war was a Tiger Driver '91, this one is that chokeslam Undertaker gave to Mankind that put him through the top of the cage in their Hell In A Cell match.
AWESOME
-
Unfortunately, the link between the response to new players and poor player retention has indeed come up a lot in the past, and has mostly gotten a response consistent with what you're seeing now. So bringing it up after just a few months here is probably not going to get a positive response. Same thing with the entire issue of what to do about player retention.
I'm not saying I disagree with what you're bringing up, or trying to discourage you, just more like warning you that this is probably going to end up being counterproductive on the individual level. I think Wes's suggestion is helpful: there's no changing the OWF, but you can be one of the few helpful/welcoming people on there and help new players get acquainted. Maybe join an alliance yourself (can't check that atm) that does protectorates with new alliances and get involved in helping them set up. Or even contact new members to help them avoid getting raided or deal with it when it happens.
-
Awesome job. It's amazing just how few nations are left in those uppermost tiers.
-
This is awesome, thanks for the shout out! Take a look at that navy lost disparity. My seamen are not very proficient.
-
Yes and please start today before my war ends! How exactly do you find the top 10?
-
I agree with Balkan. As much as it hurts, it's a weird sort of privilege to play a role in taking on one of the most dreaded upper tiers in history. The war stats really are such a fun addition to the game.
-
I agree that, to some extent, this sort of temporary MDP coalition represents something that the numerically stronger force is "getting away with." But we've been headed in this direction for a looong time, and anyone who follows the treaty web should realize at this point that individual treaties are basically only degrees of connectivity between a handful of interconnected spheres, and not actually binding ties. I'm not endorsing that trend at all - quite the opposite - but it's time people start getting real about how wars are actually fought and acknowledge that individual treaties are mostly useless and often counter-productive to a dynamic political environment. So maybe this will lead to a more honest approach to treaties, blocs, and coalitions.
-
Os is calmly
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree right off the bat here.
making a logical, rational appeal for civility in our OOC discourse.I'm definitely on board with that, and I think you'd be hard pressed to see me taking shots at anyone OOC. But I read this as as an OOC request to change IC posting, which is part of what's confusing me. I think there's some blurring of that line going on in here, and this blog post would seem unnecessary if all of the comments I/D34th/Ogaden made were viewed as strictly roleplaying.
I don't share Os's rosy view of the players in this game, who in my opinion are largely a rotten group of social misfits and teenage loners who use an online game to resolve power issues in their own life (hmm, this shoe fits nicely).Well there is at least one thing we completely agree on.
-
1) Apparently I matter enough to C&G to get you ranting about my position and draw people out of the woodwork to defend yourselves on OWF. But no, I'm not trying to convince anyone in your bloc. You're really not the audience of my comments. It's the rank and file members, the lower gov, and once in a while the leadership of alliances who might read these threads and think to themselves "He's got a point, let's rethink signing with these guys." They don't "need" my help, but why wouldn't I try to help sway their opinion by manifesting negative PR for you guys?
2) What you're describing isn't hypocritical - CoJ is about as true to what I espouse as you can be. What you're describing is playing favorites or giving people more slack to avoid alienating them. And of course I do that sometimes when I think it will benefit my agenda. That's just politics/managing relationships. But I've leveled these criticisms at just about every corner of the web, and give positive reinforcement for dropping treaties all the time. I criticized INT this time, but I'm pretty sure I can find a post where I say the exact same things about IRON. I noted why C&G deserves extra attention at this moment.
3) Sorry, I'm going to "subject" you and your alliance to whatever posts I feel like. When you're not leading a huge AA, that's like the whole game. I speak out both as a player who wants the game to be more fun and as someone sick of people getting away with treaty spamming with little public accountability (which ties back to the game being less fun). Feel free to hide my posts if you think they're that meaningless and don't want to get worked up over them.
-
I'm annoyed both IC and OOC with any group that signs treaties all over the place - especially when it just blew up in their face earlier in the year. C&G (especially INT) are particularly deserving of criticism for that reason, and for continuing to sign new external treaties. It also seems like almost everyone agrees the game would benefit from fewer treaties (or at least fewer individual, inter-bloc treaties), but 99.9% of the players out there don't bother advocating for that on the boards,
So, my goals are twofold:
1) Help create the public backlash that INT and C&G deserve for failing to honor treaties and then signing new ones that aren't likely to be honored.
2) Help give a voice to the popular sentiment that blanketing the world in treaties that you can't honor is cowardly and sucks for everyone.*
*It won't suck for those with the most treaties unless someone takes care of 1)
Nothing any of you say about the true inner workings of C&G matters for any of this. Actions speak louder than words, and when people do try to explain things it only reinforces my grievances (no pun intended).
How DBDC wants to structure their New World Order
in The Lannister News Network
A blog by The Zigur in General
Posted
Considering our (Polar) upper tier was raided by DBDC in the middle of a global war (with no reps or retribution AFAIK), I'd say the conflict has already started.