Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'cybernations'.
Found 14 results
-
The Aegis has been formed and is accepting members. As a new comer to Cyber Nations and the community, think of The Aegis first. No application necessary, no exams of any kind. Free to all
-
So this is 2015, GTA 5 came out a year and a half ago, one of the greatest games to date. Yet here we are, yapping about that alliance sucks, that alliance should die, that alliance should be rolled. What is the point? We are ruling fictional nations and trying to be powerful. LOL. So I have been thinking about it, why is it we care so much? I have a few ideas, including my reason. Please post your reason or thoughts on it. -Low Self Esteem. This game is an escape from the Real World. This is a reason I play. I hate the real world, it sucks big you-know-who. So I come here to have some fun, escape the horrors of everyday life. Actually CN may take up my time, I am really improving and I think CN helps me mature IRL. I can take out my immaturity here instead, it really helps thanks for putting up with me, guys.Typcially trolls and active members of the community. -Power Thirst. The good old looking for power and you really cant be in a postion of power in GTA yelling at 12 year olds.They will own you. Anyway, these guys are usually have dick bosses IRL and come here to get power. Typically seen in Alliance Leaders and some Goverment. I think those are the two main reasons, why do you play? What other reasons are there?
-
So, want to see CN when it was still young? I have found the site for you! http://web.archive.org/web/20031201000000*/http://www.cybernations.net/ This lets you see how CN was as far back as the 19th of July, 2003. You can see slow changes to it, etc. The site (Web Archive) also shows many other site's history (as long as there isn't robot.txt files that are blocked ) such as fark.com, somethingawful.com, wikipedia.org and more.
-
It was a small nation of the yellow sphere, with a few wonders, and a crummy collect of infastructure. The only person that it held any importance to is Albert_Bent_101010, and that just so happened because he is the one who lives in it. He had moved his formally great top-three-hundred nation after fighting with NPO in the Dave War, to Umbrella, after being hideously ZIed in the preformentioned Dave War. Then the Equalibrium War started and he was promptly again IZed, he then joined Anarchy Inc. He started paying his bills and collecting taxes. Infastructure, troops, improvement. Out the corner of his eye he saw a message. He opened it. Realizing it was from the triumivirate of Anarchy Inc. His mind searched for something to connect with. Purple. He read the message. 10 seconds later, he was in peace mode.
-
On the uncharted backwaters of the internet, in a game known as "Cybernations", existed an alliance so amazing primitive that they still thought trade circles were "a pretty neat idea". Now this alliance had a problem. Most people in it were unhappy for pretty much most of the time. Solutions were tried, mostly involving little yellow circle with three black triangles, but this usually served to make things worst, and it wasn't the multi-colored shapes that were the ones who were upset in the first place. So roughly 5 months after some people went to war over who gets to go to war with who, a young player sitting alone in IRC finally had a revelation. She had figured out how to make every be nice to each other and then no one would have to go to war with anyone. But before she could go tell someone, a disaster struck, a disaster so horrible that no one would ever know about her revelation. This is not her story. This is the story of a guide. A guide more famous then Supah_dudez 23 more things to do in bill lock and more controversial then Trollerfan3324 series How 2 Tr0ll, h0w 2 fl@m3, and h0w 2 g3t b@nn3I). Now on to the story. So yeah, not so good for an opening sequence, but its a parody so what do you expect? Anyway, I'll be posting one of these each week and perhaps two, depending on the reception, so I hope you all enjoyed, and that a rap!
-
Hello, So your probably wondering what this is. This is a parody. Of The Hitchhiker Guide to the Galaxy. Since there's no major war to make a highly controversial blog entry about, I figure I might as well entertain the masses with this. I will make a blog entry each week on each different chapter of The Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy (you know what? Screw, the a mouth-full to say, so I'm just going to abbreviate it to HHGG from here on out) starting with the prologue, and each will be cyberfied. PS, any idiotic statements, spelling mistakes, or inaccurate statements are illogical to complain about, because this is a parody, and inaccurate and idiotic statements are suppose to be there.
-
Well, that was stupid. What I did, I mean. This was probably the most blundering, idiotically stupid thin even humanly possible to do in cybernation’s and I did it. You see, I had saved up a bunch of money to make a huge infrastructure jump, but then a stupid thought occurred to me. “Hmm, maybe if I sell my entire infrastructure so the price will go down, THEN make the jump, I’ll save money.” Clearly this did not work out, and in the process of trying to get my infrastructure back I lost 100K and 75 infrastructures. I know there’s going to be some big nations who think these losses are, frankly, peanuts, but my nation is only at 1000-1500 strength (though I’ve been on-off cybernation’s for 3 years now) and this has pretty much destroyed my nation, and unless I find a tech deal, will take months to rebuild.
-
Hello, I would like to apologize for any confusion in my last blog entry, I was not trying to offend anybody in Competence, I was merely giving reasons why I thought it was logical for Competence to surrender (I.g. Equilibrium had more, nations/nukes/NS) I would also like to apologize to anyone who thought I was trolling. I was in no way trying to provoke an emotional response to my entry, and I hope no one was too offended by it. Thank you for your time.
-
Hello, cyber verse, I would like to announce my recent entry into the cyber-forums. The reason for this is that I would like to use this blog as a method of spreading my and others ideals and thoughts on the current events happening in cybernations. But before I do that I would like to answer a question. The reason my nation's name is Pangea, is because it is a slightly different spelling of the word Pangaea, which in case you didn't know was a supercontinent that existed (please avoid religious argument here) a very long time ago. My nations name is meant to represent my attempts to become as one (in a metaphorical sense of course) with other nations. Well, that sums it up, I hope to post more blog posts later on.
-
Well, another day, another hastle it seems. These days the game of Cybernations has grown (if that is the term you prefer to use) so far from what it was like when I made my first nation back in 2007. Many alliances have come and gone and we have so many people who have been a part of what this game is today that are no longer with us. Personally I have been in few alliances compared to some players of my age in this game, mostly because I like the idea of staying with one family and making it work until it no longer can. I've branched out and tried to create my own alliance in this game and learned some very important things about how alliances work, I owe that to a great many players who helped me learn those lessons. Recently however, I have noticed a trend that doesn't seem to make sense to me. These days in Cybernations, it seems like people who are a part of established alliances look down on new and small alliances. I really don't understand why, surely they must remember what was like to be the low man on the totem pole. Power in this game is not something that is given in any way, it is something that is earned. Granted, there are many ways to earn power, some of them being frowned upon, but you never just have power handed to you. I think we can all agree that no alliance in their right mind would give power to a nation of only 300 nation strength, but you don't treat them like nothing either. So if you wouldn't treat a new member of your alliance with harsh critisism and flaming at every post, why would you do so for a new alliance on the block? Some alliances deserve it (the name Winner12345 comes to mind when writing this) but the majority of new alliances are just friends grouping together for the common good. They don't have to be big to be powerful, all it takes it one person to set off an explosion. My current alliance, the Global Protection Force, gets a lot of negative posts on anything our Secretary General, Triumvirate of Foreign Affairs, or any other government member posts. I know members may have a problem with some of our members, but surely that doesn't mean the whole alliance is bad. I would be willing to bet that if the Global Protection Force was a top ten sanctioned alliance, most of the people who flame on our posts and harass us on a regular basis would not do such a thing no matter how big a problem they have with us. From my point of veiw, in the past the alliances of Cybernations were much more accepting of the new kid on the block and taught them how to succeed rather than shot them down. I understand that it's all about connections and politics, but friends are hard to come by these days and I kind of think that should change. Yes this post is a rant about my opinion, and if you don't like it then you don't have to read anything I post ever again. Like I said on my blog, this is a place for me to vent my frustrations about things I see around me. You don't have to like it, and I don't have to care if you like it. Thanks for reading anyway, I know I can't write, but if one person reads this and changes, it's worth it.
-
First before I begin let me lay things out on the table. I was a member, and leader with NATO for almost a year with ties to NPO before the face of Bob changed so much. I also was a "target" of NPO's eyes for sharing information from tC that was shared within NATO leadership with another alliance that they had ties to, causing me to have to step down from my leadership position. I also strongly disliked the power plays of NPO in regards to sole ownership of the red team. I liked the protection of red team members, I think that was pretty honorable, and hope that someday maybe collectively purple can do the same to protect our trade partners and color unity. I think anyone that pays attention in game knew the programs and it became part of the game. I have had a few personal dealings with NPO in the past and have been treated with respect, dignity and honor, minus the "secret" sharing (which honestly wasn't anything major and just confirming of suspicions). I also want to say that my alliance disagreed with the actions of NPO and since have learned that many of the allies of NPO advised against the action that caused this whole mess in the first place. That being said...the terms presented to NPO in my personal opinion, may have been too harsh through its designation of who would be paying what. I agree with the move that those in peace mode should have to have a limited war. That is a tactic used in the past, but designation of WHO sends aid from the alliance in terms of reps honestly is stepping into alliance sovereignty. Honestly, we all know NPO can move an obscene amount of money and tech. Hell our small alliance of about 40 nations has moved over 200 mill in a month without too much difficulty...I think the amount of the terms was fair, and NPO according to statements has even offered to pay more with the no restrictions on who does the aiding. So moving forward, what terms would be fair? I think the monetary reps were acceptable for NPO. They could have worked it with their internal management. I think nations that were in peace mode, should have either a limited war (7 days for the smaller nations is acceptable). Those failing to exit to peace mode should be zi'd with the understanding that it is exam time, and summer so a fair amount of time to comply (week to two weeks). Limited military helps alliances recover financially, I would rather see a limitation on ability to declare war...suspended treaties, and approval from an assigned "oversight" of the opponents. Not a viceroy, but approval on any FA actions until reps are paid. Allow them to defend themselves against hostile actions, but not against whole alliances.
-
White peace vs reps vs honor and integrity
Buffalo Niagara posted a blog entry in Buffalo Niagara's Blog
Something that has really impressed me as of late is the treatment and response of alliances that are surrendering on the "Hegemony side" by the "Karma side". I have to say overall at least with the purple alliances that we have regular contact with, our allies have gotten a lot of props, and gained respect for our honor and integrity during this conflict. Seeing the overwhelming odds we faced on entering even just Olympus vs Kronos was an uphill battle from the very beginning. Alliances that fight and act with honor gain respect in the long term. In the case of Olympus for example, it was us that activated the D in our MDoAP with Valhalla. Valhalla put it out that they would not be requesting assistance from allies. However, in the spirit of the document, we felt honor bound to ride with them even if it was for just a short time. When white peace was offered to Olympus, we approached our purple friends, and explained our terms and were encouraged to take them. Encouraged to step away from a conflict with a special goal in mind. To help our friends and allies rebuild when the time came. Some say that those stepping away are without honor. I disagree. We faced some pretty tough odds going in, and stood proudly by our partners. We fought with honor, as did many of the alliances out there on the "Hegemony side". That being said, we begin to watch the treatment of friends and allies and overall we are very pleased. My hats are off to many of purples opponents, most of the complaints were that the wars didn't go long enough for others to dance with purple and share the experience. That is truly a far cry from treatment of others in the past. Now...to see if in fact that precedent can continue....Will the same be offered for those staying in longer, putting up an even more honorable fight against even more insurmountable odds. What point should reps be considered? At what point is white peace no longer on the table? Karma has the ability to change the precedent here...I hope they remember the times at the bottom as they make these decisions. This boils down to NPO and OV in my opinion. Those two are the ones that should be getting and paying reps if anyone. The root cause of the war. The battles won and lost day to day...those entering and leaving now, have little effect. The war is won and lost on one front. Who is the victorious alliance? I only hope that when and if terms are offered and peace is finally initiated, the terms are fair. Paying for damages is one thing, paying for disagreements on philosophy is another. Thanks for reading and see you next time... -
You look back over the history of cybernations and very few "doctrines" were based on honor, respect and cooperation of multiple alliances. Sure you had the collective blocs in the world, but overall what was the purpose besides self preservation? Olympus was founded on the following principles: These are the things all alliances share in one way or another, but with Olympus we took it a step further. We extend that respect, cooperation and honesty to other alliances. That has made us respected, trusted and honorable even with those we have faced in the current conflict. It's one thing to say, its another to do. I love how those that have made mistakes in the past try to own up to them, admit they did wrong and get drug through the mud as they try to improve themselves as people/players/leaders. That being said, sometimes an apology isn't enough. But it is always a good start. So how much weight should be put on the past, when looking to the future. Is there promise, is there room for improvement? Is there movement in the direction of improvement? If so, isn't it wise to take the chance? You could gain a worthy ally and a friend for life by picking up those at the lowest point and helping them rebuild. That is how long respect and dedication is built. The kind of dedication that surpasses the boundaries of treaties, and are personal. Isn't that the true spirit behind treaties? Looking at the treaty web how often does leadership of allied alliances speak with each other? I'm not talking during a war lead up when your trying to get your ducks in a row. I'm speaking of during peace. Without communications, without friendship, are you really honoring the spirits of the treaties you have signed? I don't think so, but thats just my opinion...but its ok because its also my blog
-
Well the last few weeks have shown an interesting chain of events. The most powerful and influential alliance on Bob has fallen. They have lost many treaty partners and while trying to put up a fight are up against a rock and hard place. Sounds familiar for some, yet for others it's been a way of life for the last few years. The writing has been on the wall since GOONS fell. The number one, will always be a target...but this war was in fact preventable. Many private discussions surrounding the events leading up to this war show fault on both sides. Hegemony of course fell apart due in large part to a huge communication break down, lack of popular support and problems from the very beginning of the conflict. NPO's moves were less than ally friendly during this time, instead taking the treaties for granted and moving on an issue that didn't even have popular support among allies. Karma for having the chance to end this before escalation and viewing continued preparations in conjunction with discussions as a stalling tactic. Would NPO leadership not be held accountable if they stopped the preparations for war merely because of struggling peace talks? Now in NPO's defense...they have balls. They moved on a war that everyone has clamored for for months. However, where they did mess up was not including the allies that swore to protect them. Hence one by one, slowly but surely, allies left their side. This wasn't a case of allies shirking their duties, honor or commitments. This was a direct reaction of NPO failing at the thing that made them great. Isolation of an opponent to make the odds insurmountable to defeat them. That is where this war against OV failed. Lack of popular support has killed more than one alliance in the past. Unfortunately its something I think that will continue to happen as long as this game exists. So what are the lessons learned? Well much like the completion of the UJW, I think we will continue to see cancellations of treaties due to the changing face of Bob. I think alliances will be more apt to discuss things with all their allies, and have that open line of communication. If alliances haven't learned that lesson yet they may be next.... So what to do with NPO... This is an interesting question. Giving them harsh terms would really hurt the coalition of Karma and the work that they have done to drum up the popular support. I really think fair terms after them loosing sanction status would be the way to go. Tech deals at cost, limited military to include nukes and navies, and reduction of military wonders I personally think would be fair. Those members that remained in peace mode for the entire time of the war, should have something done to them as well. Perhaps limited declarations of 7 days...one full round of wars, undefended. I also think all treaties above MDP should be null and void. Let them keep the treaties with Polar to help protect themselves and rebuild. The changing face of Bob.... The question for Many is what do small and medium sized alliances have to do to survive in this changing world. Well, know like and trust your treaty partners. Ask questions when they are doing something you don't like. If they don't listen to your concerns are they really a treaty partner? Include non-chaining clauses and notification clauses on aggression in your treaties. That gives you a loophole if your so called allies get a case of the epeen waving that you disagree with, while still being able to maintain the treaty. Some will comment on OpSec regarding this. Well...if you don't trust your allies with the information, why are you treatied to them?
