Mr Director
-
Posts
1,636 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Mr Director
-
-
Are you buck?
-
So you mean something like the Harmlins except a bit closer?
-
You seriously joined APS? Idiot.
-
Lines being drawn/erased. I look forward to the upcoming Loki-Tywin war.
-
I watched someone get 81 yesterday.
The overall best is like 400 iirc.
Some people have waaaay too much time on their hands.
-
gorbachov of COMECON has requested COMECON join the games.
Thats not worth much. Though I suppose that this just lends evidence to you being a buckaroo re-roll
-
Where does GOONS belong
GOONS is in a category of their own (Whether that's a good thing or not depends on the eye of the beholder).
-
Still curious why you aren't hand anymore.
-
It's actually a pretty good idea as far as recruitment is concerned. However, there are new nations joning every day. Retention is the problem. As to how to fix that, I haven't the slightest.
-
I agree with many of the ideas and thoughts here..the biggest problem is the lack of advertising, the fact there is no phone app of any sort, and there is no facebook app of any kind..
when the game came out facebook was an idea.. smart phones were in star trek.. and there was no real advertising
facebook as 1 billion users, just picking up on a few of those could help.
half the world has smart phones these days so a phone app would be useful or at least a new web 2.0 mobile layout.
a new web 2.0 look for the main site could not hurt either..
and advertising could actually bring in people..
Especially the advertising. It doesn't have to be some big fancy expensive ad to work. I believe that when Fark was founded, it managed to get permission to advertise itself on fark.com, and gained hundreds of members that way.
-
Good Mr. Director
Very easy. If an alliance is attacked and they hold an MDP then if their ally does not defend within 5 days the treaty is broken. IF they hold an MAP and they attack and their ally declares and do not attack within 5 days then the treaty is broken. You can have as many secret pacts as you want or not secret. If you want the bonus you pay the price if it is triggered and not kept. Simple really.
Respectfully
Dame Hime THemis
Well, judging from the current war, an MDP ally isnt expected to declare war on EVERY alliance who dows on their ally. Generally one or two is considered enough. I'm not sure if people would want to be forced to counter on a half dozen alliances. If such a suggestion was implemented, it would certainly shorten an alliances life-span quite a bit, as micros would be forced to choose between hitting alliances several times their size, or suffer severe economic penalites. Under those circumstances, many would simply leave that alliance. This doesn't really account for instances where an alliance requested its allies stay out of a conflict. If this suggestion was implemented, it is likely that some alliances would simply switch to just signing optionals rather than mandatories. It also doesn't account for neutrals, who don't sign treaties, and thus would be cut out of the benefits that would become to be seen as the norm in other alliances. Micros would also be affected, as people left for big alliances with lots of connections, and thus more economic benefits. The five day limit doesn't take into account instances in which alliances are held in reserve during wars. While this is a good idea in theory, execution would either be difficult, or make life difficult for the players.
-
"Gold is only valuable because we attach value to it."
It's also used to make Jewelry, and is used as a conductor in computers and other electronics. In pretty much all of Human history, Gold has never lost its value.
In much of human history, gold has been valuable because we thought it was. You yourself said it: People use it to make jewelry. There are many other materiels that can be used to make jewelry, Gold just happens to be a tradition more than anything. Yes, gold does have practical value, but much of its value comes from people thinking it is valuable.
-
Lol @ people saying gold isn't valuable.
Gold is valuable only because we attach a value to it.
-
There is too much room for abuse and no way of enforcing, because if rules are relaxed then there is nothing stopping even the most honest players from going "just my bro and not a multi"
You tie the treaties in with the game mechanics.
For example making it that if a treaty partner doesn't enter the war to assist then the benefits are nullified or both alliances are penalised, doing so would maybe untangle the treaty web once and for all and only sign treaties with alliances they will defend.
It would be a pain to keep track of all the treaties like that, and, also, it would be easy to abuse.
On a somewhat related note, CN just hit 9,994 nations.
We just started of the year in a very bad way. Last person out, please turn off the lights. -
Good Mr. Director
Not really and optional NAP would have zero value. Any all optional would be a lower value than a mandatory and would be triggered if requested. Empires in Arms has a treaty point system akin to what I have suggested. Any war with that alliance or any alliance that is treatied with that alliance or bloc would be an auto cancellation.
It would become far more of a hinderance than benefit.Respectfully
Dame HIme Themis
But then whats to stop people, from, say, signing treatys and adding secret clauses or simply agreeing nt to act on treatys, but just keep them for the sake of that bonus. There would be no way to plug up such loopholes.
-
Gentle Persons
Treaties should have an actual in game value and cost to break.For example +1 happiness for a month for signing a NAP to the entire alliance BUT -2 happiness for 2 months for a formal break or violation be alliance war.Give the bonus again very 6 months it stays in place.Require a specific request to support when in war already to require an alliance to war or break the treaty. Grade the different treaties up in the same fashion. This would end the moronic practice of signing treaties that are then broken upon the smell of war.The violating alliance suffers double the penalty. Make the community think and benefit from keeping the politics and community active. Give a legitimate reason for people to join alliances and blocs.Give people a reason to do things not a penalty for not doing something. Instead of penalizing those who wish to hang out in peace mode give a benefit for staying in war mode that grows over time. Give an incentive for those who post on owf. Yes even the perpetual self indulgent ones they help build the community.
Dame HIme Themis
We would probably see quiete a bit of E-lawyering here about treaty interpretations etc. I mean, for example, if two alliances sign, say, an optional non-agression pact(I think Kashmir did this once), should they still get a bonus? The treaty itself in this case is basically worthless. In other words, where are the lines to be drawn? The suggestions here are good for politics, but they would be next to impossible to enforce.
-
Ending tech trading would reduce the number of players because it takes away a newer players best chance to grow. Forcing people to war isn't going to help either. War isn't going to interest people, else TE would have more players. Capping the warchest may be a good idea, but one billion seems to be a bit low, as many players have gone well beyohd that.Making the statement that the game is a dying breed... and fads change... and its a niche game, while fundamentally correct, does not address the real problem. The game has no problem attracting new nations, it has a problem retaining them. It cannot be made perfect, but it CAN be made better. Saying things like the "mechanics are not the problem", is a blatant glossover. While the mechanics may not be THE problem, it is one of THE problems. If you fail to keep up with and fix what you can fix, then the deleting nations will always outnumber the creating nations. Things that CAN be done to help (and yes it would be a painful short term overhaul)... include, but are not limited to.... 1) end tech trading2) end tech stealing from GAs 1 and 2 serve to put an end to the disparity between nations that it is painfully obvious that this game never was intended to support. 3) Implement a war weariness system that punishes nations for engaging in "beatdowns" over the long term. This will FORCE wars to be shorter. Further, increase the accruement of War Weariness for nations who dogpile on(I.E. no penalty if you are a nations 1st defensive war, small penalty if you are 2nd, larger penalty if you are 3rd.) As well as considering opening up defensive and offensive slots to 5 (doing this and growing discontent among your citizens for being the 4th and 5th defensive wars will make people make more strategic decisions in the early days of conflicts.) 4) Implement an Apathy penalty for nations who do not engage in FULL rounds of wars (or base it on needing to engage in X number of attacks and defenses to cleanse)... have the apathy penalty grow on a small daily basis (after say 60 days of peace). This will force alliances to a) be more aggressive in FA and b) be more aggressive in pursuing their goals. 5) Put an end to the "declaration range" being based on NS. Tech is, and always will be the driving factor. Change the declaration range to be solely based on tech. This will give smaller alliances and chance to do better against overwhelming odds. 6) CAP THE FREAKING WARCHESTS. Of all things that NEED to happen, this is the one. Set the cap at $1 billion. You may exceed that $1 billion , but for every day you are over $1 billion, you suffer a .5 happiness penalty. Your citizens should demand that you spend money on improving their lives rather than hoarding it. This will force HIGH tech nations to spend exorbitant amounts of money on smaller tech purchases. It will also make 15-20K infra nations actually take MEANINGFUL damage in wars. 7) Allow UNLIMITED attacks in a day (except for nukes). You have a couple of options to achieve this, both of which would work fine. First would be just to make it turn based. You can do 2 GAs, for instance, and no more in that day, UNLESS the other guy attacks back. Or you can just leave it unlimited, and simply put a SEVERE happiness and war weariness penalty for multiple winning GAs and Airstrikes against a defenseless target. This would actually ENCOURAGE people in wars to be active more often in the day, and actually make wars more fun, IMO. Just some food for thought. I fully expect to be trolled, so let it begin.
Please, not the revolution thing again...It's a load of garbage because I don't think anyone believes that CN's decline has little to do with game mechanics, or "browser sims being a dying breed". No matter how many times admin has put in new features, CN continues to decline. As boring as the actual game is, I don't think that is the main thing driving people away. The main thing driving people away? It is pretty simple: A power structure and political system that only benefits a few. -
Yea, this is a load of garbage.
Coming from you, that isn't worth much. My guess is that the membership will eventually stabilize once all of those inactives are gone. As to whether there will be enough people left to actually keep the game going is an entirely different story.
-
I'm not the type of person to fake logs, and Rotavele is the type of person to think this would be a good idea. He probably even thought it was a genius one when he was typing it out.
While I know the logs are hard to believe, I assure you I have not faked them nor do I find any of the actions besides the revealing of his stupidity hilarious.
I posted this with the intention of bringing light to the (no other word is appropriate) extreme measures Rotavele was planning on going to to get what he wants.
It's in agreement that Rotavele is a horrible part of this community and I hoped this revealing would create some sort of movement to have him removed from the game. Surely going to non cybernations related forums and personally attacking them to get them to personally attack other people is disgusting and shouldn't be tolerated.
Well, you have got to admit, this is pretty extreme, evene for Rota. It's not impossible, but I just find it hard to believe.
-
Probably fake, but still made me laugh.
-
I never said anyone was forced into micro-alliances. Did you even read the blog?
I think Darkstorm's point is that if people want respect they could always join a large alliance instead of an ireelevant one. As for reading the blog, its just a bunch of gibberish anyways, and the most anyone can manage is a quick skim through it.
-
This reminds me of something
-
Read the actual blog, I think I've stated the goal of the revolution several times.
In case you didn't notice, I was talking to Tywin, who I had thought was proposing another revolution. It turns out that he was speaking hypothetically.
-
Can you seriously not read?
I saw a bunch of stuff about new hedgemonies etc., but nowhere did I see the specific goals of this revolution. If anyone cannot read, it is you. You haven't exactly been flooded with support here you know.
It would become far more of a hinderance than benefit.
Russian Alliance Address with Knights111(Q and A)
in Remnants Broadcasting Channel
A blog by Knights111 in General
Posted
Buck is god.
Question 2. Why will you not admit that you are really buck?