Canik
-
Posts
2,732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Canik
-
-
What keeps you going?
Been here forever so habit/know a lot of the community.
If your nation deleted would you be back?
Yes, and it was deleted once in the year just before Admin added the inactivity mode. I never cared that much about growing my nation, I wanted to be a leader in an alliance. In the roughly 9 years I've been here, I've only NOT been in gov a few months. (not including a few stints of inactivity where I wasn't playing)Are you awaiting a global war? And if so, would you prefer a curve stomp or a fair bout?
A fair bout would be nice but I don't want to see allies fighting allies.How are you staying entertained in this game?
Trolling UPN & arguing with moralists
Is the treaty web why we are here? How would you change it?
Yes it is. Before so many treaties, thing were much more interesting. I would limit the number of treaties each alliance could have if I could.
-
Hiya Teddyo. Interesting read, didn't know your history pre-BFF.
Most ex-BFF members are now in Fellowship of The Wolves (FEAR/WP merged).. but to be honest, we're pretty damn inactives these days. The ole BFF faction is on it's death bed, we're all juiced out, been running on fumes for years now. There's just a few of us left, and we're only semi-active at best.
If you want to join FTW, you're welcome to.
-
Congrats on breaking 50% aid slot usage, SNX! Better than most alliances can do these days.
-
Bummer, Walsh amused me.
I find it somewhat unlikely the Staff would ban him simply for having a 2nd nation, it's probably because they were interacting with each other (through trades or tech deals), and that is where you really get in trouble.
(Could be wrong tho, haven't seen any evidence one way or another) -
Who was deleted and why?
-
Replying to OP:
What does big warchests have to do with retention of new players? Seems like that would only affect old player retention, and earlier in your post you claim old players are the problem.
Big nations do actually still worry about their nations, btw. Not many feel untouchable, especially not if you're outside of DBDC. -
Good luck, Dajobo. Even I hope you get better, it's no fun attacking inactive nations.
-
FTW: Random, Insane, and Loyal to a fault.
-
Pretty much what BMTH and Chiumiento said. This game has mad depth. Virtually all other games I get bored with in a matter of weeks, and you generally don't learn much of anything from them. Unless you're already a genius, CN can teach you a lot.
Is there really politics to this game, its more like we're board so we we'll beat this alliance down because we have more NS than them.
Yes, there are really politics. Even in this last war, there is a myriad of reasons it went down like it did. It wasn't just totally random lol we're bored.
Anyway, what about within your alliance? That is where a lot of the politics are. -
great read, hapapants!
-
E: No matter how you slice it, betraying a coalition mid-war is not the kind of act an alliance should do, interesting that you guys would view it as acceptable. I suppose it's besides the point now though.
What if you slice it in the way that the coalition betrayed you first? Because if what Shah said is true, that's basically what happened. Under those circumstances it doesn't seem terribly unreasonable. -
Who's blaming anyone? CN politics are cicular, at some point the losing coalition will become the victorious coalition. The only real way to lose in CN is to not play.
You blame the harsh review on Rush's bias instead of accepting that Polar/Platy made bad decisions that lead to this. Also now you're blaming circular politics.
While it is true things tend to turn around, you're giving it too much credit, and yourself not enough.
-
Might've been a tad biased towards his direct allies but it was pretty honest all things considering.
At some point the losing side might want to examine itself and stop blaming everyone else. -
Yeah tbh was probably MI6 nobody that funny exists on the other side
lol DS made a video just like that one about 6 months ago
-
If the rest of us attack without DoWs, then you can make that claim and not sound like a lunatic.
They are just doing their thing, but they aren't trying to make people follow suit. As an ally of DBDC I can tell you that for a fact. They seem to have no ambition to change this aspect of CN culture, they just don't subscribe to it personally. -
Doomsphere essentially wants to shut this game down and ruin everyones fun to be edgy.
So dramatic. Reminds me of when people claimed NPO had "won" the game and it was all over.. and then when MK had "won" the game and it was all over.. now it's DBDC.
It's true the wars could cause some people to quit, but why? Aren't these people here for the community and the roleplay? Nay, they have stripped the game down to just being about their pixels and numbers. That is why they quit.
-
I didn't actually say that, I said that declaring a war for fun is effectively the equivalent to declaring a war because you feel like it, and that cannot be reasonably understood by others. But more significantly, there is a difference between being able to determine if someone would have fun given some set of circumstances and making a decision just for the sake of fun. One is a judgement, the other is an action; comparing them does not make sense.
Okay, I understand.. but I did not mean simply declaring out of one's own boredom. A war can move us from boring White Room 1 to exciting White Room 2. It can be for the fun of others, for the fun of everyone.
Which, right now you could say DS/DBBC hasn't accomplished that but this war just got started, and who knows what the aftermath will be? The walls will be moving more now than they were before, and it will be harder to predict where the rubber ball will bounce next.
-
Even if their real reason is to settle grudges or to gain power that's still a reason. Just to have fun wouldn't be a reason though since that's effectively the same as declaring war because one feels like it. The reason has to be or involve something external to the person feelings of those making war since making decisions based entirely on one's own feelings is arbitrary.
The creation of entertainment is usually a smaller factor. In and of itself, it is a weak reason for war. I'll compromise with you there, but virtually no one declares simply for fun. There is always some underlying political reason such as a grudge, loyalty to allies, or gaining power.
It's arguable that is physically impossible to declare war without being justified. I think you should focus on whether or not it's ethical to keep the CB a secret.. because trust me, there are reasons for this war. It's not simply DS declaring on Invicta for their own personal fun. (altho that did encourage them I'm sure, the fact that they would have fun in the process)It is absolutely not impossible to define fun for anyone but yourself because of context.
btw I like how you say declaring for fun is arbitrary and based on feelings they no one else can understand.. then you say to White Chocolate that fun can be defined and isn't simply based on feelings.
-
The thing is, the CB for virtually every major war has been manufactured or forced when it wasn't truly necessary. To put it bluntly, a vast majority of them have been !@#$%^&*, and thus we are all sick of seeing them. The real reasons have been and always will be "for fun, for power, to settle grudges"
At the same time, much of the general populace will only accept defensive wars as justified. (And also at the same time, they get bored and want war).
My question: is it ethical for casuals to do nothing but come in when there is a CB and judge it based on OOC ethics & muh feels?
The noCB DoW is a symptom, not the disease. -
Seems like it could be interesting.
-
Oni, I like how you think.. but your own alliance's well-being should definitely mean something to you, and with the treaty web as it is those fights are going to be costly. That's why it's rarely done outright.
-
I can tell you why it seems so weird - what you described isn't poaching. That's someone wanting to leave of their own accord.
Poaching requires recruitment attempts by a foreign alliance. -
I did give some reasoning here:
If we had no rules against any level of poaching, we'd all be mass messaging each others alliance every day. It would be super annoying, and some people join alliances just to avoid all the recruitment messages in the first place. Now these people would have no place of solace!
People don't like spam. Not everyone hates, but most don't care for it at the very least. Too much and it can be disruptive for actual communications the nation or alliance is trying to get done.
We have a right to protect our members from that.
-
If I found out a foreign entity such an alliance was mass-messaging my alliance membership I would not hesitate to advocate war against them, not out of fear of losing members but rather because it is an infringement on my alliance's sovereignty.
Poaching only affects those who are willing to be poached, though: if you lose members by the scores you should probably check out what's wrong with your own alliance.
My thoughts exactly
New Journey To Undertake
in Bilrow's Musings On the Current/Past Affairs
A blog by Bilrow in General
Posted
Well wishes Bilrow, you'll be in our thoughts. o/