Enamel32

I guess, but I think admins fail to realize sometimes how delicate their games actually are. For PC/Console, what you get is what you get. There won't be any updates outside of the minor patch. So whether you like the game or not is very cut and dry. Online game admins, are however, constantly trying to please their player base. When an admin is asking players for suggestions, they should be most concerned with how those suggestions will promote game play and work into the ongoing theme. Realism should honestly be the last consideration in their mind. I remember playing PT, it was a game similar to CN. In that game you generated a quantitative amount of resources, but after a certain period of time, people slowed down building things because they ran out of money, and they amassed enormous amounts of resources while they were doing nothing. The game was structured so that you could sell resources; however, once everyone in the game had practically infinite resources, no one wanted to purchase any resources. Someone suggested: Make a warehouse improvement, because in real life you have to store goods in warehouses. If you dont have a warehouse, the resources go to waste. Obviously, PT and RL are the same thing, right? Well, it turned out warehouses greatly oversimplified the problem; didn't accurately reflect RL as originally thought; created a huge pain in the ass for the playerbase; not to mention didn't fix the resource problem. PT quickly went downhill as a result. CN is in many ways the same way. Even the slightest change to certain aspects of the game would throw it into a nasty spiral. I really caution people who suggest things based on RL. Suggest things based on what would be fun, lol

lmao

Never said halo was 'real'. I don't like the game for other reasons.

Congrats to joe, anthony, and dillybar! may the NSO live long and prosper. somebodies a catholic >_>

This has bugged me for the longest time. I just saw a promo for the new XBox one, and it reminded me how much this concept bugged me, hence the blog post. The promo (found here) says, "With Xbox One, games are so lifelike, you’ll swear they’re real. Immerse yourself in cinematic worlds with characters that are more human than ever." Realism has never, ever been a deciding factor for me in games that I've enjoyed playing. In fact, I think the more realistic games have become, the less interested I've been in gaming at all. (Although that could be because I'm older now and simply have more RL !@#$ to do, but I digress) Let me examine a few games I have played over the years: -Medal of honor games were always pretty good way back when, but I think I liked them mostly for their historical realism, rather than their graphic realism and gameplay. -I was always a huge huge fan of bond games for N64.-There was little realism in those games at all. They had more comedic value and fun gameplay than anything. -I was never a huge fan of HALO (I always thought the flood ruined that storyline); however, I commend bungie for an interesting storyline and impressive gameplay. -Warcraft III/RedAlert/Starcraft/etc Even though I suck massive $@ at RTS, these are some of the best games ever. FPS fanboy's can blow me. There's not really anything real about W3,RA, or SC, and they're all amazing games. -Mario, if you don't like mario, GTFO my blog. Classic. Amazing. Not realistic in any way. I'd play Supermario64 or Super Mario World this instant if I had it. -Ghost Recon Advanced war fighter. That game was very "real" and I thought it sucked ass because of it. You walked around......super slow. 1 or 2 shot kill by a sniper. Have to start the mission from the begging. Really? If I wanted to do something as annoying as spend hours looking around for 4 or 5 high-res snipers, I'd rather go update my tax information. I got so sick of it, I never actually finished the game. -Rainbow Six vegas, meh. The graphics were good. It was interesting, but nothing to write home about: Terrorists stealing WMD launch codes. Same tom clancy horse!@#$, different day I just don't understand. Why does everyone want games to be more real? In no way does realism mean a game is worth playing. If so, GRAW would be top rated game of all time, and it's insulting to even suggest that. I witnessed this in a few online games similar to CN that were still in development. Admins would ask for suggestions, and they would get responses like this: "make _____ addition, it will make the game more realistic". It's a freaking browser game. Let me repeat that: a browser, game. It's not 3D. There's no sweet graphics, and most importantly, it's a !@#$@#$ game. If I wanted to do something that perfectly modeled my real life, why wouldn't I just do real life? I don't want the game to perfectly reflect my real life. My real life consists of pain, misery, and annoyances. I play games to escape those things! Don't make my games suck too. Here's a perfect example: if admin removed Navy from CN, how many $%&@s would be given that day? I think most of us would be overjoyed. On the other hand, I'm sure all you vets know that all the nubs would come around en masse all, "@admin: implement a navy differently, it'd add more realism to the game". NO. !@#$@#$ NO. THAT WONT ENHANCE ANYTHING! Sometimes, I don't understand people. Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. Why is the gaming industry so awestruck over realism?

905?! I love that bruh! Unfortunately beer is calling. :( I'm sorry 905, I still love you! Congratz on your erections mha!

LMAO This is great. I lol'd so hard Ardus, I still have your 'world according to ardus' treaty web drawing. That was a really good map >_>, and honestly, the web hasn't deviated a whole lot from it today. Heck, I still use it when I need to see who's allied to who. Just kidding, but it was well done and I commend you for it.

I always thought it was just to pile more nations on and FAN revenge for VietFAN, but there could be more to the story.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA This is comedic gold. You must have logs to make a statement like this. Do tell. All I know is that CnG was allied to both XX and SF until fairly recently. By yevgeni's own admission, (see sig) he and allies, including CnG, are the one that's been plotting on XX/SF, so you might want to come up with a different argument for hating XX/SF. Here's a few suggestions for alternate reasons to hate: -You want us to stop existing (courtesy rush sykes) -Path of least resistance (courtesy CN lolatics) Take your pick. Let me know which one you choose. (EDIT: And btw, did you really say XX/SF does nothing AND plots on CnG at the same time? Come on brah, those two things are mutually exclusive. Don't be obtuse)

Are you suggesting you want XX/SF sphere to stop existing? That's some '08 NPO shit right there.

Oh no, it's not a new demonstration. I feel like sometimes people don't realize (spin, etc) what's happening around them. I'm making the point: people always seem to complain about how they don't like the political status quo of the last few years. By your own admission, you're largely responsible for it. I'm glad you're openly taking credit for it, because I don't believe anyone should forget that. You can try and push the blame on NpO and BPW, but in honesty, NpO hasn't had anywhere near the political influence they had in those days and prior. I find it funny that so much planning, effort, and hate has gone into (and continues to go into) actions and alliances that ultimately impacted few and will continue to impact few for the foreseeable future.

I was under the impression many people wanted more. Peace came and I was all, "Dawwww".

Ok, glad we're not hiding that. I mean, if people want to know who is responsible for why things happen the way they do, this post is the end all be all. Are you just typing to type? Thank you for stating the obvious. I don't understand why these sentences were even necessary to the message you're trying to send. You can talk about how you took into account everyone's desires, but at the end of the day, every log I read pointed back to top/tlr/mk controlling coalition discussions and manipulating the web in their best interest. Yeah, other alliances appeared to be involved, or at least in the chan during coalition discussions: IRON, NG, Umb, etc, but it's undeniable it was all about you three and you three only as you just ~admitted. Clearly, you didn't take everyone's opinion into account if IRON was infact so upset about it.

But you didn't plan the war though. I mean, that would make it sound like you manufactured it to fit your interest at the expense of everyone else.

Hmmm, interesting. Good luck to IRON and NPO.

lmao gopher @bowwow, yes, WTC 7 falling down was a little strange, but idk. Buildings fall down all the time from earthquakes. On top of that, buildings, especially large ones, are not always in good repair even if they look fine on the outside. (Or so I've been told from multiple professional testimonials) Couple disrepair with a large tremor and you have yourself a receipt for collapse.

lmao, trollololing's so much fun

I've been bored recently. Decided to pick a fight with some youtube nubs. I found a delicious target on the WTC's. What I've learned from truthers: Apparently, the fuel shouldn't have exploded, because the combustion temperature of jet fuel is 140F. It is not possible that temperature could have been reached, obviously. Because fuel reaches a pressure of 60psi during combustion, it couldn't have wrecked steel with a shear strength of 36,000psi. Apparently a year is too long (or too short?) a time to clean up half a million tons of debris. Clearly, a coverup is at hand. Airplanes don't need velocity to fly. Tower 7, contained nothing of value, which is why it was a perfect clandestine place for a detonation center Tower 7, contained a wealth of valuable items, most of which incriminated the government and banking industry of financial crimes. I'm having a field day here. :troll: My favorite is when they try and present me with engineering evidence. They're like a much cuter version of amateur physicists. BUT EINSTEIN SAID THE SPACE TIME CONTINUUM WILL COLLAPSE UPON ITSELF WHILE EMITTING TRANSFLUX DINGLEHOPPERS IN THE AXIAL DIRECTION OF RADIAL ELECTROMAGNETIC FLOW. Clearly ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves an anomaly.

For blocs that are apathetic and irrelevant, Yevgeni and Rush sure base a significant amount of their political agendas on them. I really don't understand what your guys obsession is with them. I don't think anyone on that side gives two shits about either of you or your alliances.

I don't recall saying I'd like to see CnG rolled multiple times, but I am drunk. So maybe I did. Admittedly, CnG is low on my list of most liked alliances/blocs, due to how much they've fucked us, but that's my very personal opinion. As far as I'm concerned, I saw you, personally, lose 6K tech, and really that's all I cared about.....and I'd say that drunk or sober. Heck, you can ask me tomorrow. Naw, you're missing the point. Haters gonna hate no matter what. I had DA proofread my initial post to make sure I wasn't mindlessly rage/posting. He said it the post was ok, but iterated that rush sykes might come out of hibernation and post a foamy WoT. By Golly he was right! 22:28:20: <DeathAdder> You might annoy CnG, and I expect Rush to reply with a TL;DR wall-of-text to discredit you, but yeah. But that's exactly my point that you are distorting. I don't care about sparta's rep, because haters will predictably hate, as you sir have just proven. We do what we do (this is a game after all) and that is pretty much the long and the short of that story, whether anybody else, aligned or unaligned, likes it or not. OOC: And yep, still thinking about quitting. The lolatics of this game have really become to much for me to bear. Man, you really want me to quit. This is the second time you've mentioned it. I must really grind your gears :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome: :awesome:

If you're directing this comment at me, I urge you to re-read my post. I explicitly advocated my own rolling, with the caveat that it be done with some level of strategy. People are bawwing about the failure of politics, and then citing 'path of least resistance' as logical means of rolling people. WTF BRUH. WTF.

right, but the path of least resistance doesnt change the fact, that there will be a future threat to fight for top dog. Beating on XX/SF when you know you have a more important future target just seems like a waste of your own resources. You should know that best of all after the last war. I've talked to you about this specifically. XX/SF got rolled twice, while DR/NPOsphere sphere sat back and laughed "lol path of least resistance". We were too fricking small to do anything about DH when the time came, and then everyone pissed and moaned about how no one could hit their upper tier. Run your politics the way you want, but I'm a major advocate of long term decisions. XX/SF ain't going no where. They can be rolled later heh

MCRABT, I thank you for posting a legit thread I don't want to punch myself in the face for reading. I agree with you MCRABT, as do most people it appears, the web is aligning against XX/SF, and then after that, it will once again be a NPO/DR vs DH. If everyone knows, and there's significant agreement that's what's going to happen, wouldn't it be smarter to make history altering longterm decisions? I see it from this perspective: XX is not and never will be a bloc that will attempt world domination. None of those alliances have come close in 6 years, and I significantly doubt they would given another 6 years.-It's just not their nature, intent, or goal. Anymore, this game looks like to me like alliances say this to each other: "hey, do you see that weakness in the treaty web?" "Yes. Yes I do. Let's crush it" There's not really any rhyme or reason to wars I can see. DH had stacked up a wealth of reasons with a wealth of alliances to get rolled, and they took a mild beating, and that's it? "But let's roll XX/SF repeatedly even though they pose little present or future threat to the majority of alliances." Ok I guess. I really don't see how that can make sense to anyone. MCRABT, later in your post you are spot on once again. Let me provide my incite: I was not involved with XX formation discussions, but I did see many of the discussions. Someone can correct me as required, but XX by my recollection was not formed to dominate the world. XX largely existed defacto before XX formed. XX simply centralized communications between some treaty partners. I think the XX founders legit intention was that we'd have have our own marked sphere to ourselves, where we could just do.....what we do..........which is be friends and not bother anyone. I think the founders also believed that if we left everyone else alone, we too would be left to ourselves. We're not instigators, we've never been instigators. Signatories expected each other to remain non-instigators for the foreseeable future. What XX founders I don't think realized is that having our own sphere to ourselves, where we didn't bother anyone, and nobody bothered us, essentially isolated ourselves. Which, years ago, might have been fine, but being as politics from my perspective seem to have boiled down to rolling the weaklink sphere, undermines the nature and intent of the sphere. I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with wanting to be tied to friends. How the game is played is completely defined by the players. I agree, from the perspective: DH was continually being belligerent, and CnG was lock-step "you go gurl. You can do no wrong". Ultimately, CnG was the linchpin that brought the war against DH to a close, in my opinion, prematurely. At some point, you would think even a friend would realize "hey, my brofriend is being a real asshole for no good reason", but nope, that realization never happened afaik. I don't find that level of blind politics particularly honorable. However, at the same time, we can also remember a similar, but long since past NPO-IRON/Invicta/legion relationship. They sustained multiple rollings out of friendship, and those friendship were never "ruining politics" by my recollection. Well, I guess I should say those relationships were in fact ruining politics, which is why it took a massive coalition to change history. But the politics were interesting at the time, because people had a cause worth fighting for, beyond a weak link in the web. I guess my point is friendships can be both good and bad. Eh............I can't speak for other alliances, but I know Sparta was hoping the CnG front closed before the entire war ended. We wanted to move onto other fronts. You get what you get I guess.

For such seasoned members of CN in the government lineup, I stand unconvinced that the charter was well thought through. Which is unfortunate, because the charter is the basis of your alliance after all. Anyway, I wish you the best of luck.

Congrats guys!