Jump to content

The Zigur

Banned
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,514

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by The Zigur

  1. Tevron

    Posted · Edited by The Zigur

    Actually the real problem is that the game lacks an evolving (economic/military) meta... and has for years. Stagnant meta inevitably consolidates power into the same handful of people who permanently lock it down (in CN's case the "IA people" as you call it). When the meta is not shaken up, there is no incentive (or opportunity) for aggressively ambitious people to exploit any game changes.

     

    I'd write my own essay on it, but it would doubtless be mocked by idiots, and in any case I doubt whether that many people still in the game are worth the effort. Anyone who competes in PvP MMO type games though will agree that CN's issue is a game mechanics issue.

  6. The Zigur

    Posted

    7 hours ago, AtlasXero said:

    So based on this and my understanding. The reason we hate rogues so much is because they attack people to stop growth?

     

    That is essentially the reason, yes. Rogues reduce the local situation to the state of nature, where barbarism and chaos prevails. This is why most wars and fighting are down in the lower NS tiers.

  10. The Zigur

    Posted · Edited by Immortan Junka

    Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. For it to have meaning it needs a moral people. For a moral people to survive, it needs an army to defend it. The Imperium was once 200 nations, formed from the merger of ancient alliances like MCXA and LoSS. Internal weakness gnawed away at us, while hordes of barbarians laid siege to our nations. We are a fraction of that size today but more united than ever before.

     

    Moral decay sprung from the downfall of order. As social cohesion weakened, a downwards spiral took place with wars looking increasingly meaningless to the average nation. It's not a new thing. Over the course of history we have seen cycles of building and destruction, of decay and rejuvenation.

     

    If war was a symbol of power, then rogues would rule the world. Instead we find that even the most aggressive alliances will usually try to justify their wars somehow. This is because the will of the people leans toward peace and prosperity, and only fighting wars when it can't be avoided.

     

    Moralists, barbarians and rogues all expend their influence and power when they fight unnecessarily. In the case of the moralists, there tended to be unnecessary self-limitations and arbitrary rules that weakened them in the face of competitors. Regardless of good intent, they sometimes had a bad outcome. Oftentimes moralists made themselves weak with predictability, chief among these being the way they signed treaties.

     

    The game of the aggressor was to target a smaller mdoap ally in order to trigger a war that didn't include the targeted AA's allies. For example, when Supernova X was hit by Doom to trigger Polar during the Doom War in 2014. A reverse scenario happened in 2016, when Polar hit SNX (protected by Doom Kingdom), but we didn't call in DK and instead received the diplomatic assistance of another ally.

     

    So the game of the future is unpredictability... to be a moving target and hard for an aggressor to pin down. A moving tank is alot harder to hit than a fixed bunker.

  12. The Zigur

    Posted · Edited by Immortan Junka

    I've never denied adhering to Vladimir's original tenets. However Francoism as a whole is an ideology tailored to the history and material situation of Pacifica, the Imperium needs it's own analysis. Producerism firmly re-establishes the idea of the alliance producer being the primary unit of value, not raw Nation Strength, because in CN the producer also represents the means of production (they are not separate as in RL). We consider casualties and nation-strength to be more or less irrelevant. We prefer a disciplined, ideologically unified alliance over a larger one. This is why we consider ourselves to be more powerful today than when the alliance founded with 10,000,000 NS.

  13. The Zigur

    Posted · Edited by Immortan Junka

    43 minutes ago, Tevron said:

    Then you don't understand the alliance. It was micromanaged by Chim a lot. The Ms acted as the absolute authorities, but Chim had the greatest say over most anything that happened.

     


    You cannot separate control of growth from growth. The opposite of growth would be stagnation, it isn't whatever you decide is the opposite thereof. If Producerism is the opposite of "Growth for the sake of growth" than it would be "nongrowth for the sake of nongrowth" -- which is far from your point. The control of production and control of growth is something that almost every alliance prioritizes. The difference here appears to be through the high tech rate then?

     


    I am certain that ideas about societal structures are not purely OOC, as they are largely the very structures that are used in the design of each fundamental alliance. If you would like me to explain feudalism, socialism, and capitalism in rough terms, I can, but I really don't think I should have to when you have a perfectly functioning brain of your own. 

     


    I do not mean what you are asserting I mean. I am saying that tech is the fundamental unit of true growth for nation, and that the system by which tech is generated is built upon a barter system entirely. This is something that is not overcome when considering the material as ideology, because by doing so you would notice that the system itself has an ideology to it. The barter system that your alliance uses still supports the same type of bartering that other alliances do, it's just that yours functions on different rates.

     


    It may be designed for this purpose, but it never has been tested. I am of the belief that isx would fail if it were grinded multiple times a la MI6 or even Polaris. In this case, neither of us will see the answer to the question unless you do go to war repeatedly in curbstomps, which I presume is unlikely.

     

    *That just means there were inherent contradictions within MI6 govt. The charter stating one thing, and Chim doing another is not a stable arrangement. It creates inevitable power struggles. This is aside from Chim's personal qualities which I am well aware of having served under him in the IAA.

     

    That's a much different situation than an autocratic democracy in which the sovereign explicitly has absolute ruling power assuming he represents the collective will of the masses.

     

    *"Growth for the sake of growth" represents the situation in many alliances where members mindlessly push upward in NS buying infrastructure without a clear objective. On the other hand, we have tech producers in the Imperium with multi-billion dollar warchests. Sure, they could grow, but that's not part of our doctrine.

     

    The opposite of cancerous growth is not stagnation, it's a strong, healthy organism. A lean, mean fighting machine.

     

    *I accepted the Marxist definition of feudalism, capitalism, and socialism, and such stages do not exist in CN. I suppose I could describe parallel stages of development in CN, but being that Producerism is possibly the most scientifically advanced and evolved system, describing inferior systems doesn't seem a priority except so far as to identify their weaknesses as potential adversaries.

     

    *Tech bartering is a primitive form of economy and one which the Imperium has long since advanced beyond. Our system is centralized and operates according to the motto "from each according to his ability, to each according to his deed." Imperators are expected to contribute to the alliance, not just during wartime, but during peacetime as well, because war and peace are the same thing.

     

    *Anyone who thinks the Imperium hasn't been tested is a fool. Now, being that we are a soft-neutral, we try to avoid macro wars when possible as there is usually nothing to gain from them. So there is no reason for any rational alliance to put their membership through hell trying to destroy us.

  14. The Zigur

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Tevron said:

    Your statement about material analysis fails to include the example of mi6, who successfully produced and grew at a rate far greater than any other alliance, and yet still was struck down repeatedly and later disbanded by the exact forces that you tie to progression. Focusing on material as ideological fails to account for the actual system by which growth is produced, within a capitalistic barter system of tech dealing as well as the system of power within the individual alliances, which is generally a feudalistic system. Feudalism continually prevailed over democratic and socialistic systems within the history of bob, and that is largely due to the regressive system of growth employed by all alliances, and the use of war purely as a way to leverage an economy over another in order to prevent future growth. In totality, I feel like you are not examining your own ideology critically. The ideology of Producerism only persists by virtue of tolerance, whereas an actual Producerist that transcended yours (Mi6) was swiftly destroyed. If you ever reach the same heights, I am certain that Snax and the LPCN will be struck down swiftly.

     

    Thanks for the reply. I'll break my response down into several parts since you're covering alot of ground here.

     

    *MI6 was a deeply flawed alliance according to Vladimir's own analysis. The single driving force going for it was high activity, but it lacked an absolute sovereign or any kind of dicipline for that matter. The fact that it attracted many of the more toxic former members of Supernova X is noteworthy. I remember making a troll thread in their embassy suggesting a revolution, ironically if they actually had done it they might still exist today.

     

    *I don't think you support the assertions you make in your second point. You use terms like feudalism, socialism and capitalism without explaining them, and somewhat ignorant of the fact that OOC societal systems don't apply to CN because the material conditions are much different. I've never claimed to be socialist, capitaist, or feudalist in CN, that's why I invented (IC) Producerism as an ideology specifically developed for Cybernations.

     

    *I don't see the advantages of a "capitalistic system of tech barter." If you mean a lassez-faire tech situation where individual alliance members sell tech across Planet Bob, that's not an efficient situation because the tech is not strengthening the position of your own alliance. Tech is a military asset, not simply an item of consumption. 

     

    *Producerism is not about growth. "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" (one of our key mottos). Producerism is almost the opposite of what MI6 stood for. It is ultimately about control of growth, control of production, and control of all indigenous military and industrial assets. We pay high rates for tech because we see new nations not as tech slaves, but as a military-industrial investment. 

     

    Producerism is actually designed to survive the opposite of tolerance, it is bred from the savagery of the more than half a dozen wars waged against the Imperium since we founded in 2014. We've incorporated many lessons from rogue entities like Monsters Inc into our own doctrine. We are ultimately capable of surviving even if our entire upper tier is hammered down into the 10k NS range. 

  19. Lord Hitchcock

    Posted · Edited by Immortan Junka

    It's not raiding that drives new nations from the game, it is when people get out of hand with it and punish people for fighting back. Raiding can be good for game activity if conducted responsibly.

     

    When I raid, I don't immediately launch attacks... I send a PM asking for a reply to prove the new nation is active. If the reply comes, I don't attack. I do start a conversation, but peace out at some point, whether they accept my recruitment offer or not.

     

    This is much different than a situation in which a raider nukes the !@#$ out of a noob for no reason.

     

    Ultimately the fault lies with game mechanics that are inherently unfriendly to new players, simply because you have nations like Methrage "spawn camping" with 30 wonders and 100 improvements. How do you address the fact that nations like his push new nations to quit the game through "official" alliances wars?

     

    I do think the real fix must be a mechanics based one... for example, weighing wonders and improvements stacks as being worth more NS than they currently are. If a nation like Methrage's is always at a minimum of 20,000 NS (for example) you won't see him acting the same way when he is in range of a larger pool of nations with nukes and higher activity.

  20. Malik Shabazz

    Posted

    I think I was depressed when I got out of the army and had a hard time finding work, got evicted from my apartment and had to move in with friends. Plus family moving to mainland didn't help. For me staying busy is/was a big help whether working or doing CN war stuff... juat gotta stay busy, stack paper, follow beliefs and not think too much about depressing stuff bro. Best wishes and God bless.

×
×
  • Create New...