Jump to content

deth2munkies

Members
  • Content Count

    2,607
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About deth2munkies

  • Rank
    Slayer of "most" things simian
  • Birthday 09/15/1988

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Texas

Previous Fields

  • Sanctioned Alliance
    New Polar Order
  • Nation Name
    Rogertopia
  • Alliance Name
    New Polar Order
  • Resource 1
    Gold
  • Resource 2
    Lumber
  1. While the promise of war drew me back, I've found I've become rather apathetic about specific goings-on since I've been out of the big alliance game for a while after joining a string of smaller alliances (TJO, COJ, etc.). I think I need to just join a bigger alliance and see if that rekindles my interest in alliance politics. I'd prefer a change of scenery, so nowhere I've actually been before, and my nation is tiny as $%&@ because I just made it so it's not like I'm going to be swinging the tide in anyone's favor as far as the war is concerned...mostly I'll just absorb beatings from people who've been knocked down to my NS range with a billion more wartime improvements. That said, any suggestions for an active community where I'd fit? I've been around the game for a while so I'd prefer a more established place. I dunno how many people actually remember me and hold grudges/like me because it' been so long since I really did anything on the forums. As a result, I'm at an absolute loss for where to even apply. So...who's good this time of year?
  2. 1) Read the rest of my post 2) Since when are breaking the CN rules alone a CB? People get reported for slot filling, multis, etc. every day, haven't seen a war over some alliance harboring a multi ring yet (except in the case of EZI, but that was long ago).
  3. The sounds of war have drawn me back to Planet Bob and I find myself for the first time in several years appeased by the course of events. It's not so much that this has a decent chance of altering the current power structure in much the same way Karma did; I've been away so long I have no idea how this will shake out. The thing that has me really happy is the CB in this case, and I'd like to examine it a bit further: Attempting to be as unbiased as possible. 1) Mo9P rogued AI shortly after leaving Umbrella and ghosting Kronos. 2) His defensive slots were immediately taken by Umbrellans as "punishment for is roguery", but also in such a manner that prevented an AI stagger and eventually let him get into Peace mode. 3) Defending a rogue from their alliance against those who he's hurting = act of war. I love it, because it reminds me of my other favorite CB, in the ironically titled "No CB war" (I believe some still call it "War of the Coalition", but the nomenclature is unimportant). That involved the extent to which PZI (the form of which involved was later named "EZI" or "Eternal" ZI as it lasts through rerolls) applies to people through rerolls and whether or not knowledge of the person's status is in any way important. In both cases, the CB revolves around not random ass spying or morons saying something dumb, but people trying to gain an edge over one another by exploiting the way aspects of the game (War slots/rerolling) affect the political climate of the game. Those are by far the best CBs out there because they open up debate on multiple levels, from the "is this ethical?" all the way down to the "is this even allowed under the game rules?" The more ways there are to debate something, the more interesting and varied the discussions can be about them. While the mods seem to have taken their side in this issue (the wars were deleted for "War slot filling" which doesn't seem to be sharply defined in any of the rules posts I can find, but I can hazard a guess as to its meaning), assuming the practice didn't involve war slot filling, but still involved pulling punches, is it a viable tactic? Is it an ethical tactic to apply? When would be an appropriate time to apply it? Is it ethical for an alliance to punish its own rogues instead of the alliance actually taking the damage EVEN IF they give it their all? All good questions, all worth discussing. Once I look more into the issue and talk to enough people to get an actual feel for what's going on, I'm sure I'll have strong opinions on all of them. Until then, happy warring people, this looks to be a great one.
  4. I'm sorry but, have you ever been a part of a political system or even kept up with politics on anything other than a face-value level? Politics is all about using every bit of information to benefit yourself and your agenda. This game revolves around politics. Do you think that everything that I, and pretty much anyone else that actively posts (or posted in my case) on the OWF is concerned with 100% representing the entire truth of everything? No! This game thrives on conflict and political manipulation. If you really want to go OOC here, I'd argue that you are in this game for vastly different reasons than almost everyone else. If you're here to witness compromise and reason win the day, get the hell out now because you'll be disappointed at every turn. Essentially, this is what the world would look like if world leaders had no accountability for their actions, if they knew that even if they $%&@ed up, all that would happen is some numbers would go down and maybe up to a couple hundred people on the internet wouldn't like them as much anymore. That means people can play a lot more fast and loose with diplomacy and make their own rules, and I !@#$@#$ love it. What it also means is that the level headed peacenicks aren't the ones that are ever going to be policymakers. It's the brazen, outspoken, charismatic leaders that will rule the day, and I'd argue that Schattenman's IC persona definitely captures that sort of individual perfectly. It's a role he plays. Everything I say in the OWF, from denouncing random !@#$%^&* to making logical arguments for why people are hypocrites may sound good, but I really couldn't give 2 !@#$% about it because I'm PLAYING A ROLE in a ROLE-PLAYING GAME. If you think that roleplaying or the entirety of IC politics here is inane and worthless, then you're in for a really boring stat management game. It's the personalities that people put on when they play that make this game great, whether they be the level headed peacenicks (jerdge), the radical elder statesman (Archon), or the outspoken critic (Schatt), they all play a role that makes the game more interesting. I understand that you may not like the particular role he takes, but deconstructing the role and saying "I don't like this" does nothing to advance anything IC and shouldn't have any effect on how he plays. I may not like how you roleplay your dumbass dual wielding barbarian in our DnD game, but I'm not going to walk away from the table or interrupt the game to harass you about it.
  5. There goes the neighborhood... Welcome back
  6. Never in history have so many been attempting to start a war with one alliance as has the large group of antagonistic alliances tried to provoke Polar into war this past fall. First it was the NG strike on UPN seeking not only exorbitant reps, but also seeking to activate UPN's treaty with NpO to lure them out into an unwinnable war. Because UPN didn't call them in, they survived. Then the provocation of the Legion and attempts by many to set up a treaty chaining situation from which Polar would have no escape. This failed when it turned into a cold war. Finally, TOP and IRON just came out and did it, they declared on the NpO for past grudges. I don't think there's a statute of limitations on grudges and that both were well within their right to do so, however, it was an inelegant and sloppy conclusion to a long series of antagonistic moves preceding it. So now the world gets its Polar stomp, and while the war may grow in size and involve many major alliances, there is no competing philosophy, no huge controversy, and no reason for those outside the conflict to particularly care or take sides. This makes it one of the largest pointless wars in CN history, and I'm somewhat saddened as to how little a giant war can actually mean in the grand scheme of things. I am currently in no alliance, and as I have said, I have leanings towards Polar just based on past feelings in comparison to IRON and TOP. Even so, I can't bring myself to become invested in the conflict one way or another. Nobody is taking a strong stand for anything, it's just a grudge match that everyone is playing up and trying to join in due to sheer boredom. I really hope we get another decent war before the year is out to complete our normal cycle and provide the community with a refreshing influx of thought provoking discussion so we can forget this mess and move on.
  7. well well well. Look who checks back in

  8. I deny it. My (current) nation is eighteen months old and I have fourteen Wonders.If new players are unable to grow quickly and start buying Wonders a couple of months after signing up, they're in the wrong alliance. Why would they sit there for several months when they can download a free MMO and be max level in that time? Or even a browser based game like BSG online? You can become more competitive more quickly in nearly every other game in existence than this one. I think the curve needs to be changed so that smaller nations grow faster than they do right now. Either that, or raise the aid cap from the age-old 3mil/50tech which as become obscenely outdated. The one thing I don't agree on is that seniority is a prerequisite for alliance leadership. While some alliances have fixed rulers for indefinite amounts of time, most alliances have a fluid enough electoral process that if you do lots of work, you can get noticed and elected quite quickly. I know I was when I first started, I ended up in a senate seat before I broke 1k NS.
  9. Hahahaha...one of the things mentioned above was in the public archives: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=46314&st=0
  10. lol, I found my old signature, some random funny IRC comments, and a bunch of old logs from LoSS on my desktop a few days ago. I love finding old gems
  11. I'm utterly delirious, extremely tired, and can't sleep. So I decided to write a blog post that will hopefully solve all the problems people have and address some common arguments that are floating around of varying degrees of merit. All of which will take the form of a stream of consciousness "don't call it a rant" rant. Without further ado, let's get to it! 1) The tangled treaty web: Yeah, there's been a thread about it on the front page of the OWF since I started playing 4 years ago. You want to know what the real problem is? How people value friendship in the game. People who run alliances have to be sociable, they are, after all, politicians. Since they are good at talking to people, they are good at cultivating friends and relationships that can be beneficial to them. If hanging out together, protecting your reputation, and talking to another ruler over the span of a month or 2 is worthy of a treaty, there's something wrong with your alliance's FA policy and you're part of the problem. Treaties should symbolize a symbiotic relationship between the two alliances. Whether they help each other with aid programs, or a large alliance protecting a small alliance to suck tech out of them while boosting their feeble infra, THAT'S where a treaty should come in. You're preserving resources that actually benefit your alliance, not some intangible friendship that can easily decay over time or change at the drop of a hat if some unfortunate event comes up. Treaties based on friendship are more likely to be cancelled than treaties that both parties are benefiting from. Then again, it's hard to argue that both sides don't benefit from a treaty that protects them from each other or links them to a powerful bloc, because then they're "safe" and can go about their business in a more aggressive manner while using their connections to avoid war, or at least being on the wrong side of one. While this is useful backdoor diplomacy, the fact that this line of thought is utterly rampant and blatant is what's wrong with the state of FA in the game. So here lies the root of the problem, it's up to each individual alliance to help solve it. If you follow my plan, all treaties will actually mean something and there will be far less of them. 2) "OMG THE GAME IS DYING!" Well Shan brought up some interesting info here indicating that there's a decline in people joining and still a good amount of people leaving. While there are a bunch of outliers, the sheer number is probably enough to suggest the trend is significant enough without doing a bunch of math (which I hate, especially statistics). If this is the case, why is this happening? A few reasons: A) Competition - the F2P gaming market has utterly exploded in the last few years. Before 2008, we saw a few pretenders to the CN throne and games like Evony and Runescape in browsers, but not a lot. Then the Facebook gaming scene exploded with Farmville and the like, Turbine put their MMOs as F2P which started a craze among defunct MMOs and new creators alike to adopt the model, and League of Legends became another F2P sensation. Now that you don't have to pay to get AAA style games, why would you join a menu driven browser game? The answer: Community. This is where we all have to step up. Admin doesn't have the cash to throw around advertising as much as these big studios do, word of mouth and a community that overcomes its xenophobia about new players and begins to embrace them as the lifeblood of the game they are. Instead of telling the group of 5 friends that wanted to start playing and make their own alliance to effectively "$%&@ off and join a real alliance", someone make them a damn protectorate and show them the ropes. Instead of tech raiding random small guys into oblivion, send 'em recruit messages or messages about trade alliances to help them get their nation in order. If you actually care about the game dying, ask yourself, "What can I do to make this more accessible today." and do it. B) Barrier to entry: I covered the social barrier to entry up there, but let's not forget how long it takes to build a relevant nation. Currently, it's sitting at 1-2 months before a nation can begin buying instead of selling tech and even start thinking about nukes or joining the military. That's unacceptable. In modern times, the game just can't take that long to get going. Answer: The game needs a better way of accelerating the process. The 3 million/50 Tech aid cap hasn't been changed in over half a decade. It needs to be looked at, at least for smaller nations. The donation system doesn't help much either as it's a minor boost to new nations and only really valuable to huge nations. The very way the game works needs to be changed here, and I suck too much at math to make a comprehensive suggestion for it. If you are good at math, head over to the Sugg box and make the thread. C) Political stagnation: I covered the dangerous kind up there, but as for long downtimes between wars, they are a necessary evil. Would it seem as epic if you had them every 3 weeks? Hell no! Sure, the average rank and file doesn't get much to do in the time between wars while the politicians weave their intricate plans for setting up the next ones, but that's what the community is for. I really view this as a non-issue apart from the treaty web that I covered above, so I don't even need to answer it. 3) I don't have any more stuff to talk about except that I'm feeling somewhat nostalgic so some random crap that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside: Remember when me and Az kidnapped a Hippo? <-- Official member of the "duped by Vader club" (he actually complimented me afterwards though...huh) #NorthPacific I don't think anyone still exists that remembers that channel. holyone is a Werewolf, LYNCH HIM! (In other news, the channel is all but dead now ) I think that's enough for now. I'll do more of these when I'm feeling insane again.
  12. Da ba dee da ba die Indeed.

×
×
  • Create New...