Glen MoP

The reps are lame and disappointing, but I expect a lot more that is lame and disappointing from this war before it is over.

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1297807334' post='2634698'] Nation Created: 10/22/2010 4:34:59 AM (116 days old) You may feel differently once you have lived through some history yourself. Especially if you have the misfortune to experience the kind of atrocities that many of us have. [/quote] This one made me laugh. You may feel differently if you are attacked out of the blue for no reason and kept in war for months. Oh, wait....

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1297384799' post='2628530'] If they think that we are going to let them get peace with all these people in peace mode they are sorely mistaken.[/quote] 2008 called. They want their Hegemony rhetoric back. After Doomhouse "saves" us from NPO, who will save us from Doomhouse?

My opinion of alliances may not change much, but this war and, worse, the posts in threads like this one, make me despair for the maturity of the people with nations around here. A great many are like revenge-crazed fourteen-year-olds, with the same level of emotional maturity and perspective.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1296773734' post='2618299'] Maybe not by the conventional definition. What we're doing, while it may seem distasteful, is for the good of us all. If NPO (and their thane alliances)were left unscathed by the VE/NpO conflict, the consequences might be dire. Maybe you forget what the world was like under their thumb, but we don't. They have shown no remorse for their actions in public or private, they have not shown any indication of changing. All alliances deserve second chances, this is a core tenant of my moral philosophy, but NPO has not even shown an inking of wanting to take that chance. They could have apologized to MK and others for their actions in the past, and truly argued that they have changed, but they did not. The risks of an empowered NPO are not worth suffering. We have the power to prevent it, so we are using it. [/quote] I can't tell if you're being funny or if you actually believe this. I'm hoping you're being funny. You should stick with the "We wanted to kick NPO while they were down and this was a golden opportunity, so we took it. This is the sort of thing we do. Deal with it." That at least has the benefit of not being ridiculous. Have fun with your war and blow each other to smithereens, but, seriously, no one with half a brain is going to think you guys are doing this because you're heroes.

And here I thought the idea of the ridiculous reps NPO paid after Karma was to "wipe the slate clean." NPO has certainly held up their end of the bargain since then; they haven't done anything even remotely offensive in the last two years. It's really clear now that all we've done is put in place a new "we will curbstomp people whenever we feel like it" collective. Good luck, NPO.

People need to start adding a "unless we think you deserve it or we like the alliance attacking you better" clause to Article 4. Your treaty fails due to being unrealistic in today's environment.

Whether this is a frame-up job by VE or a dumb move by Polaris (and unless Polaris admits to a dumb move or VE admits to a frame-up we'll never know which with any certainty, despite what the "True Believers" shout out as Gospel) I applaud everyone for going to war and giving me something to watch. Thank you. Fight long. Fight Hard. When the fight is over, don't give ridiculous reps to the defeated. Act like adults, not sulking children.

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1295222879' post='2577866']Or maybe he'll just wait for the revenue from the ads and donations to drop below the server and software maintenance costs before yanking the plug.[/quote] Bingo. It seems obvious to me that the owner has moved on from this game and is just letting it gradually coast into oblivion. I don't foresee him opening it to other developers either. A lot of people who create these types of projects have a very strong sense of ownership and don't want to let go. This can be further complicated when they've continued to develop as programmers and are somewhat embarrassed by the crudity of their earlier efforts; which is also quite common. Edit: People have commented that "well, no duh a browser game is dying in 2011" and "How would YOU fix it, genius?" on this and other threads. My answer comes down to a few basic observations. First, Facebook games are ridiculously popular and often no more complex than CN. Second, Android and iPhone games are ridiculously popular and sometimes no more complex than CN. Some even have very marginal graphics. Second, a major problem with CN for new players is the barrier to entry. The gap between top and bottom is too big. This can be solved in one of two ways: localizing the pool in which people compare themselves or by closing the absolute gap between biggest and smallest. Either could be implemented pretty easily on CN, as could a third option of a maximum cap on infra and tech. This last sounds apocalyptic, but a cap at 20k tech would effect... 10 nations. One at 15k tech would effect 46 nations. One at 10k would effect 332 nations. Third, accessibility comes in many new ways. Writing a facebook frontend and/or an Android/iPhone front end would bring in new players. If features were written into these front ends to integrate some rudimentary alliance community communication and tools, the social aspect that draws people into CN could be enhanced. All of these things, however, require a developer who is still interested in doing development on the game.

It would be nice to see CB be the bigger man and say, "Well, we reduced him to ZT and ZI. Good enough." and then move on.

Behind closed doors: boring. OWF Post: Drama! Thank you, Penkala, for choosing to entertain me.

Good luck on your MALE.

I think this is a great solution for the whole "the treaty web stifles conflict" problem. People should alliance hop in war; governments should offer Ghost Brigades to allies they can't or won't declare in favor of. This will allow the bigger, more uncertain conflicts everyone claims to want (and which I want) in a realistic way. "Untangling the treaty web" is not going to happen, no matter how much people complain about it. People moving to another AA and having an influence in the war? Happened. Governments discussing asking/telling their members to ghost another alliance to reinforce an alliance they were not going to declare for? Happened. Governments actually doing so? Might have happened. That made this whole war a lot more interesting, even if it did not turn the tide. Why is making this place more interesting bad? My compliments to those who ghosted and please do not hesitate to do so in the future. Thank you for making things more interesting.

Far be it from me to discourage mindless NPO trolling, but with Christmas in 4 days it's not unreasonable for people leaving for vacation to drop into peace mode with a war ramping up.

[quote name='SpoiL' timestamp='1292882600' post='2547057'] Let them get beat down, [i]but only by so many alliances[/i]. img: Brilliant! [/quote] This is actually logically consistent with their stance. They read their treaty as requiring them to defend NEW in a defensive war and giving them the option to join in an aggressive war, regardless of fronts. As it stands, NEW is engaged on an aggressive front with DF in an aggressive war and on a defensive front in an aggressive war with FARK-TPE-TI. Assuming DF has no other defensive treaties, there is no one else who could attack NEW as part of the war NEW started. If, say, NpO attacked NEW, the NpO would not be acting as a defensive ally of DF (no defensive treaty) but rather as an aggressor against NEW, opening an aggressive front in a new aggressive war. At that point NEW's defensive partners would be treaty-bound to intervene. PC-iFOK are only being inconsistent if there is another defensive treaty partner of DF who attacks NEW and then is attacked in turn by PC-iFOK. From the "war, not front" perspective of treaties, there isn't a way for anyone else to legitimately join in unless they have an aggressive pact with NEW or a defensive pact with DF. Anyone else joining in would be starting a whole new war that could activate a whole new set of treaties.