Jump to content

Syzygy

Banned
  • Content Count

    2,183
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Syzygy

  • Rank
    No matching nation
  • Birthday 12/22/1977

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.cn-gremlins.com
  • ICQ
    61706514

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Germany

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    New Syzygia
  • Alliance Name
    True Grämlins
  • Resource 1
    Coal
  • Resource 2
    Oil
  1. Hey Syz whatsupp my friend?

  2. Happy Birthday!

  3. Just noticed its your bday on the board. So, Merry birthday!

    trying to be original :P

  4. Happuh (2 day early) Birthday Syzygy! =D

  5. Hello and Goodbye! Unfortunately my ISP has currently massive problems after they "repaired" some of their server facilities. So, everytime I get a connection and access a website, I get disconnected and then for 5-10 minutes "locked out". Browsing is almost impossible and the only way to be around is during lunchbreak from work. So, I hope to get these problems fixed asap, but can't tell how long it might take. Please, someone win me a new internetz and send it to me via mail /Syzygy
  6. Syzygy

    Tournament Reset

    If you win, insert a complete "White Flag". And everyone who sends a peace offer automatically wears it
  7. ... yeah, and I am questioning the logic of this rule. Of course I know what the current rules are. But you could say: Why 200? Why not 150? Or 250? Or 300? Or 500? Thats the whole case: Its artificial, god-given, indoctrinated. It makes the system flawed and weak for attempts to trick and abuse it, is distorts strength reflection and serves no real purpose. If this rule shall "enforce" that only the "largest" alliances are sanctioned - then go and make the 12 "largest" alliances sanctioned or value membercount in the score formula just higher to ensure that large alliances always have a way higher score. An artificial number to pass just hurts, and does no good at all.
  8. thats the problem I talk about. I could argue that an alliance of 2,000 nations with a total NS of 340,000 (= 0.170k avg NS) would be totally invincible because no one could attack them in all their weakness. Should they get a sanction even while being totally helpless? They had a score of 24.2, enough to get it. Thats exactly the point: membership is ALREADY part of the score formula, and a BIG one as you can see. Why is an additional border needed?
  9. Or I just think a bit wider. After 1 week of war you have totally devastated the maybe 10 nations in your range, you could triple them all and kick them with 3 guys each stronger than himself. But, during that 1 week, your nations lose some strength as well, moving more people in their range (although *by far* not as much as the tripled ones). Also the guys of the other alliance who were only a few NS outside of your range grow as well. Fact is, the 199 could constantly cut down the top ranks of any alliance. Pinning down everyone who grows in their range, and funding billions over billions every 10days to known enemies of their opponent - you have more ways to 'fight' than direct engagement. They could take over every Team Senate they want, by just moving to that team and completely block the Top100 there and go wild with 15 sanctions every few days, even two complete teams at once, because there are always a few guys with disabled senate voting. Besides this, your view of the scenario is simply wrong, their lowest member (#199) would have +82.37k NS. That means, his declaration range goes down to: 61.79k NS. The in comparison strongest other alliances in the game would be: Grämlins: 47 nations in range NPO: 51 nations in range IRON: 61 nations in range TOP: 62 nations in range Fact is, they would clearly dominate - why denying them a sanction while an alliance 5x weaker with just 1 more member would get one?
  10. I if makes "sense", please explain "how" it makes any sense to weight membership heavily in the score system itself and then use it *again* as artificial barrier? Just as example: The Top199 nations in the game have together: 19,395,764.30 NS - 97,466.15 avg NS - Score: 66.95 These 199 nations would obliterate *any* existing alliance in the game with ease. Now, you need only 24.20 score IF you have more than 200 nations. 6,569,000 NS - 32,845 avg NS - Score: 24.20 -> enough. Now explain please what makes sense in a scenario where Group A, that could obliterate *anyone* would get no sanction, but Group B which could be defeated by at least 15-20 alliances do get one? I see none.
  11. You seem to be an interesting individual. Hello.

  12. Good day dear audience, today is a special day. Why special? Because it is sad, funny, enlightening and maybe even constructive. "Why?" you may ask. Because today something happened what I predicted some time ago and what should finally make clear that the fix which had been put in back then has only delayed the problem. What I talk about? Alliance Sanctioning and the artificial Member Requirement of 200 nations. Vox Populi has started a campaign to infiltrate the AA of TOP (The Order of the Paradox). They have brought around 20 nations of very small size and/or in peacemode to this AA, without being legit members there, just to push TOP over the 200 nations mark for a sanction. TOP itself has currently, as far as I am aware, 174 legit members. Since all these nations are either in peacemode or just new/ZId they don't really care for any military "threats". There is simply nothing anyone can do, if they just insist on staying on that AA, and I don't doubt that they will find the remaining dozen members to finally get over 200. All TOP can do is to remove own members from the AA, either to allied AA's, CTC (Citadels Protectorate) or the TOP Applicant AA to lower the nationcount. But does THAT make sense? Allowing a group of scoundrels to force one of the strongest alliances in the game to dissolve their membership structure just to prevent a success for their offenders? So, what can be done? Remove the reason for such attempts once and for all. Get rid of any artificial borders. Sanction the Top12 alliances, no matter how you "count" that. By NS, by Score, if membership size is sooo damn important, please, even the Top12 alliances by membership count. No matter how much and often the system is tweaked, people will ALWAYS find ways to exploit and abuse it. That is part of the human nature. Just get rid of that, its just saving future trouble. Another interesting system would be to determine sanctioning the following way, but maybe it is a too drastic change, however, just food for thought: The first 4 Alliances are chosen by Total NS. The second 4 Alliances are chosen by Total Score. (if threre are some already among the first 4, the next in score gets the place) The third 4 Alliances are chosen by Total MemberCount. (if there are some already among the first 8, the next in membership count gets the place). This way you have 12 sanctions, but 3 different ways to get there, which allows more flexibility when building alliances. However, just an idea. Fact is, the current system is still flawed and Vox Populi gains another stage for gathering attention. And as long as there are any artificial borders, such stuff will repeat, one way or another. /Syzygy
  13. Hello dear readers, this one will be a quick one - but with a request, a serious request. Over the last weeks and months I have noticed more and more people contacting me (via IRC, PM or even ingame) and sending me suggestions, concepts and idas. And then they asked me if I could not go suggesting them for them, because they felt that I somehow have magical influence on the admin, or that stuff just "looks better" just because I post it. That is not the case. Please stop doing it. At first: The admin does *not* particulary "like" me more than other players. In all our conversations our contact was strictly neutral and to expect anything else does good for no one. Second: No suggestion has *ever* been implemented without strict review from the administration. It does absolutely not matter if the suggestion is from me, from you or from anyone else. If it is not good, it will fail. Even IF it is good, you still have to convince the admin. Third: The game needs input from *many* players, not just a few. That is neither good for the game because it makes the trend of changes lopsided, it also is not good for the atmosphere in the suggestionbox. If you have a good suggestion, just go suggest it. That does of course not mean that I won't help to find flaws or give hints when asked. However, what I will NOT do is: - posting suggestions in your name - taking your idea and create a complete concept for you (do your homework alone ) - doing the math work for you - talking to the admin to "advertise" for your suggestion: do that yourself Last but not least: I. check out the last few pages of the suggestionbox if what you want is *already* discussed (or something very similar) - in that case participate there instead of making your own discussion II. check out the fixed links for help HOW to make good suggestions III. keep RL politics / beliefs or CN alliance politics OUT of suggestions. That will not lead to *any* results. Good luck with your suggestions, /Syzygy
  14. Yes, its just a rough idea which had to be developed a lot before it could be implemented. Changing resources should probably require time to adapt the economy, so your trade partners would get an automated message like: "New Syzygia has begun to stop their production and exports of Oil, they will instead focus on producing Fish in the future." - 10 days later the trade is changed from Oil to Fish. The trade partner can either keep the agreement, or cancel and look for another trade partner.
×
×
  • Create New...