Ditocoaf
-
Posts
126 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Ditocoaf
-
-
Printed it out for my bedtime reading.
-
So apparently there's a real "groundswell" of support calling for an end to tech raiding (where these people were when I was suggesting anti-tech raiding improvements is beyond me, <a href="http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...howtopic=71919)" target="_blank">http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/...howtopic=71919)</a>
Anyway, while this coalition organizes its moral fervor into something concrete like an active Bobternational police force, let's remember that so long as there is an economic incentive to tech raid, there will always be tech raiders. So while stamping one's feet at tech raiders may make us feel better, wouldn't a better course of action be to inform independent nations how to best avoid attacks?
So, here's just a few options independents have available to them:
1) Have some nukes handy - I, personally, am willing to take the slight economic hit if it means disincentivizing (that's probably not a word) potential tech raiders. Obviously, this option is only open to the lucky 5% of the CN population that's in the top tier, so, we have the next option
2) Protectorate agreements - small alliances can negotiate with the biggies for protection. Offer to change color spheres and, the best bargaining chip of all, offer to vote for their senate candidates. Are there any alliance leaders that aren't senate vote whores?
Of course, few really small alliances (less than 20 members) are going to be worth protecting, so we have another option3) Bloc building - organize a defensive bloc among other like-minded independent nations or small alliances. The downsides to this are strained lines of communication and free-riders, but if one chooses to put enough time into it, it could work.
4) Get rid of ur techz urself - get rid of the raiders' incentive to raid you. This is a drastic option, but if you are unwilling to put the time in to do any of the above, then you have to weigh the benefits of tech against the ever-present threat of raiding. And hey, you could make a few bucks in the process.
The economic costs (including time and effort) of these options increase the lower you get in the list, but as far as I'm concerned, this is just part of the cost of remaining independent on Bob. If the anti-raid crusaders are so committed to this cause, then maybe they should put in just as much time making independents unappetizing to attack as they do preaching to the raiders. Big alliances have big recruiting departments. Why not set aside a few personnel to send out PMs to independents with these tips so we can take a proactive step towards ending tech raiding (and just as important, OWF tech raid pleas for help). If anyone has any other tips to avoid attack, besides the obvious of joining an alliance, please post here.
edit: Found another tip in the Injustice! thread:
5) Peace mode - seems pretty obvious. The economic hit gets pretty bad, but hopefully it buys you enough time to pursue some of the above options
Seems to me, that besides peace mode and nukes, your solutions can be summed up thusly: "If you're unaligned and want to avoid tech raids, don't be unaligned"
It seems to me that a large motivation to be unaligned would be if you just want to play the actual nation-building game, without being forced to participate in the alliance politics community.
-
Listen... the truth, and this is something you'll have to put up with: You aren't considered a real nation unless you're in an alliance. As you have no power, you have no bargaining grounds, and even if someone were to commit the most unspeakable war crime against you, it doesn't really matter. What are you going to do? Either join an alliance, or get used to playing the losing side of this game.So if it is in the power of a nation to attack someone they should do it? How would you like it if I declared your nation as a target open for harvest by the nations of the New Polar Order?umm...no. just no.
Alliances dominate this game....and i think many of us alliance-ers forget that there are those that play this game that truly just want to build thier nations.
Who are we to say they cant do that?
So? His argument was that it doesn't matter if unaligned nations get attacked because they are to weak to defend themselves. So under the same logic if an alliance is weaker than another one it also doesn't matter if they are attacked.Just because a nation can't defend itself properly against an attack, doesn't mean you should attack them. I don't see why a distinction is made if they are in an alliance, it still comes down to the same thing. Attacking a weaker sovereign entity just because you can.
Sorry, I guess I my sarcasm wasn't very apparent. I did not mean at all that I believed what I described is right. I definitely think this would be a much better game if people could just nation-build in peace, without joining an alliance. Unfortunately, and the point of my post was, there's no conceivable way to protect unaligned nations in that way. The unfortunate truth is, our society has formed the convention that unaligned aren't entitled to any rights. The unaligned can't fight back against this, because as individuals, they have no way of standing up to alliances. (one exception to this rule: Electron Sponge says unaligned are now off-limits. that might shake things up a bit, in any case)
-
Listen... the truth, and this is something you'll have to put up with: You aren't considered a real nation unless you're in an alliance. As you have no power, you have no bargaining grounds, and even if someone were to commit the most unspeakable war crime against you, it doesn't really matter. What are you going to do? Either join an alliance, or get used to playing the losing side of this game.
-
Indeed you gaining in all areas, but when you've got less nations then NO TEAM what does it matter!
Of little importance. You Pinkies yourselves are but one nation higher than 'no team.' And yet something confuses me... somehow you manage to be all the weaker for your advantage in nations. Could it be...? Of course! You have no souls!!! Once again undeniable proof that Pink is a scourge upon this earth, out to suck our souls and turn us all into pink zombies. Brown will continue it's lifelong goal to save the planet from this menace.
As long as no Blue attack happens this week Pink will beat Brown into nothingness.Oh we've sent GATO some presents for there party
.I'm sure you have
We'll see how well brown is doing tommorow shall we.yes... indeed we shall...
-
I choose to deliberately misunderstand this as an offer to merge into my alliance. Please drop by our forums or IRC to discuss details.
-
Yes... everything is working out after all. /me chuckles smugly. Brown is preparing to obliterate the pink scourge upon this earth, for good! Already we are one of the few teams to gain in all areas, while pink falters with it's FOUR NATION LOSS! They think that they can come here and ruin everything, all that brown is working for! Well, they'll see that it's best to not pick a fight, when you're in the wrong...
am I's doin it rite?
-
Great idea. Sure, you can find the stats in-game, but a sanction-race style chart would an interesting thing to follow, and I know I'll enjoy the Pink v Brown commentary.
Definitely score for ranking (b/c it reflects more variables than NS), and # of nations b/c it's important. And No Team isn't really necessary, since the two things that make up the entire purpose of teams-- the trading bonuses and senators w/ sanction power-- are nonexistent for Grey/No Team.
My ideal format would be
#. Color:: Score (Nations) > Score (Nations)
as in your example w/ score and NS, but it's your thread. You might choose to ignore what I think, seeing as I'm the enemy.
-
To me Brown is a mass of pure evil that is floating in the internet destroying everything it touchs, I think they are evil. I however I am evil in their view.
I don't think you're evil... In fact I get a lot of lulz from your epic quest to start a Pink-Brown war. I'm even considering adopting that meme myself, just because it's anti-climactic to see you everywhere, constantly insulting a group that lacks the unity and pride to reply. In fact... yes, I do think you're evil! The vile Pink Scum will be overrun by brown some day, if I have any say in it.
-
I always thought of \m/ as the alliance I'd go to if OFS failed... I was devastated when I found you had disbanded.
-
Just no.
I'm sorry that this is offending so many order members... That statement was meant to make it clear that a NPO-NpO war is almost impossible. It would require a total lack of any enemies, lets say, NpO and NPO both top the chart, there are no other alliances with more than a quarter of their strength, and no major blocks that stand a chance of fighting either. In that situation, and only that sort of situation, the orders might have a falling out. As you can see, it's ridiculous. I was only speculating as to what sort of circumstances might bring it about (based on my thesis that the root reason for any CN war is boredom).
-
I've always thought that ZI is a very interesting punishment, raising some interesting concepts... If taken literally (i.e, no reprieve ever), it's basically an OOC concequence-- you're telling the offender that they aren't allowed to play the game anymore. Of course, since for a lot of people, the alliance politics part of a game are much more important, and you can do that with a perma-ZI'd nations, this isn't exactly true. But to those whose main concentration is in-game, this is a very unique situation where a game kicks the player out... Imagine that, playing any other game where a "Game Over" means, literally, you aren't playing anymore.
-
A sensible third party would remain neutral and watch the other two beat each other out of power.
Definitely. But for the purposes of the "three party war" concept, we're assuming that there's a third party getting involved in the war... but one thing we can always agree on is that there will never be a third party attempting to fight both other sides at once.
-
Yeah i think last war was as close as we will get to a complete 2 sided war for a while. 3 or more is the way of the future
In all seriousness, though, I don't believe a 3-sided war would be very feasible. A third party would always side with one of the other sides, at least temporarily.
-
I applaud how this turned out. I beleive the only reason that so many jumped to conclusions is the tendency of some NPO to answer questions with threats, rather than reasoned explanations. After being threatened a few times on these forums, (I admittedly wasn't being too serious; I apologize for my behaviour), I had a nice discussion with HordeOfDoom on IRC, and was sufficiently convinced that it wasn't part of an evil GGNPpO plot. I understand that order members have better things to do than get into deep discussions with every troll harboring a grudge, but it might help prevent some of the most annoying, paranoid posts on this forum if you'd step back a little more frequently and make a post that clearly, calmly explains your reasoning to the world at large.
-
Well, personally, when notice someone IRL condoning genocide, I try to whupp their a** in a game.
-
OOC: This person met the other through said game and the only means of contact all relate to the game, so punishing him in game is the only way to go about it
Actually, I beleive all of these forums, and the IRC channels, are out of the game... (However a treaty reflects promises of in-game action.) So kicking one out of an alliance, banning him from IRC channels, etc. are all out of game repercussions, and if you ever meet them on the street, feel free to give them a dirty look (or punch them out), but it seems kind of silly to destroy this hypothetical immoral person in a game.
-
Alright, this OOC attacks thing has gotten a bit ridiculous, frankly.
If you don't want to be attacked OOC on the internet, its fairly easy to simply not reveal any information about yourself (if your computer was hacked and the information was stolen, it is different, but given freely you must realize their is a chance that it could leak out). However, I can understand why one would be angry when the revealed information is used to tease, embarrass, and harm you in a way that is frankly disgusting. I am not condeming Bilrow, the GGA, or the NPO for reacting harshly against these actions.
What I do see fault in, though, is this IC response to an OOC attack. Since the entire reason for the complaint in the first place is that the person is mixing IC and OOC, I hardly see how responding in kind proves any sort of point. If one is really serious about seperating the two, the punishment for OOC attacks should not be carried out by alliances against alliances, but reported to mods who then decide whether the attack warrants a suspension or ban. In the most extreme situations (hacking of personal information) the incident should be reported to RL law enforcement as well.
I have always agreed with the notion that the actions of one member of an alliance reflect on the entire alliance, and the entire group is partly responsible. But IC responses to OOC attacks can only insight more OOC attacks, as the practice becomes a way to cause an IG effect that would otherwise be impossible. I think the afflicted parties should continue to take take their case up with the mods and the person's who caused who commited the offenses. But in my opinion, and IC action is the wrong way to go about it.
My two cents.
This guy won the debate.
If someone does something morally reprehensible, in RL, the correct response is not to try to beat him and his friends in a game...
-
Let me preclude the following statement by clarifying that from my point of view, the IC/OOC lines in this game are pretty blurred as it is. I see alliance forums and IRC channels as being just as much OOC as IC, however all in-game actions like war are completely IC.
What I don't understand is how an OOC attack could lead to in-game war... I can understand it leading to banning someone from an alliance, since alliances are halfway in the OOC side of this game; but if you do something morally reprehensible in RL, I can't understand that causing me to send my chess pieces after yours...
I do understand that a war hasn't happened, and it's looking less likely; but it was getting pretty close to that point for a bit there; and withdrawing from an in-game, IC treaty falls along the same idea.
-
You realise that even at the moment when there was the highest tension between the Orders, we still came together and told UJP where to go? Your ideal conflict will never happen, please try again.
tl;dr lol
I did not mean this in the sense that I want a war between the orders to happen, or that it is remotely likely. I only meant to speculate as to what sort of circumstances could possibly bring such a thing about, in order to point out a broader idea about politics in CN.
-
True, but explain how that has anything to do with anything.
True... that doesn't really affect this topic. I'll take that one out.
-
The full logs
http://bilrowster.googlepages.com/gpa.txt
What happens after what was posted in the OP is far more disgusting
yes, but this was AFTER the GGA has already reacted.
-
MDP's are preemptive bandwagoning.
In CN, the real reason for any war is boredom. That's why we play this game in the first place.
-
"All alliances are created neutral. But some alliances are created more neutral than others" - Lately I think that whole more neutral than others doesn't quite cover GPA.
Because... one government member failed to moderate a trolling user, and then the alliance hasn't officially responded to your protest within the hour?
@ dilber... sorry, done now.
Forgot presenting differing opinions could upset our overlords... 
Of course, few really small alliances (less than 20 members) are going to be worth protecting, so we have another option
We'll see how well brown is doing tommorow shall we.
Forgot presenting differing opinions could upset our overlords... 
Attention: all sanctioned alliances
in Open World Forum
Posted
Maybe he's waiting until the next audit?