The Problem With Planet Bob

[Earogema]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1303665695' post='2698551']
Thought I would show off my awesome graphic design skills.
[/quote]
I laughed.

Then I felt bad. ;_;

[The Corrupt Teacher]

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1303666522' post='2698561']
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Disbanding alliances is the key to restoring CN. Since disbandment, viceroys, government bans and other terms that "infringe on an alliance's sovereignty" are not allowed by the community at large wars must be focused at damaging nations, not alliances. Damaging nations makes the game uninteresting for players - no one wants to spent six months rebuilding and sending out tech. Damaging alliances shuffles people around - into other alliances, in and out of power, etc. without necessarily doing excessive harm on the national level.
[/quote]

You know thats a pretty good point. Honestly this world could due with a few less alliances. I've been around to a bunch of different alliances recently and while I've like some more than others, most alliances were pretty similar imo. Also I think a vast majority of the problem is that there aren't enough alliances that want power. Back in the day people used to fight over control of color spheres and senate control and for sanctions and now the people in power (MK, GOONS, Umbrella, most of PB) don't care about that. If they craved those things and those things were made to have more significance that could be a good cause for more in game wars and rivalries.

[Mirreille]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1303618808' post='2698230']
the environment is entirely different, everyone takes politics and morality way too seriously now more than ever before, and it has since Great War II
edit: I bought my first nuke at 5500NS
[/quote]

Odd. The impression I have always gotten was that players took the game more seriously back then, not less. I wasn't there though, so maybe I wasn't interpreting their posts correctly.

Your point about the nukes reminds me that the MP is one of those things that has helped kill the game, just a little bit. People used to have to jockey for position all the time in order to get nukes; now everybody can have them, with just a couple months work in a really good economic alliance.

[Sarmatian Empire]

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1303686295' post='2698784']
Your point about the nukes reminds me that the MP is one of those things that has helped kill the game, just a little bit. People used to have to jockey for position all the time in order to get nukes; now everybody can have them, with just a couple months work in a really good economic alliance.
[/quote]

Not to mention the MP killed the war mechanic of the game. Anarchy used to be devastating and could tell who was winning a war and who was losing. While anarchy is still a big deal, it's less so because everyone over a certain NS ends up in it after the first day, from a nuke.

[Mogar]

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1303686295' post='2698784']
Odd. The impression I have always gotten was that players took the game more seriously back then, not less. I wasn't there though, so maybe I wasn't interpreting their posts correctly.

Your point about the nukes reminds me that the MP is one of those things that has helped kill the game, just a little bit. People used to have to jockey for position all the time in order to get nukes; now everybody can have them, with just a couple months work in a really good economic alliance.
[/quote]
the politics on the forums were taken less seriously, like before GW2 everyone already knew the sides(with the exception of orrple obviously) and more than likely what alliance had the long standing grudge with whoever else, NAAC vs Polar, Pacifica vs LUE, GOONS vs CDS/LoSS/ACID, the fact we only had probably 15 alliances and only a dozen of those had actual treaties, i actually agree with most people on the number of alliances have inflated so much is adding to the problem, the MP is reflective of the ns inflation issue as well, it was a good solution at the time but now half the game has nukes.

[BamaBuc]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1303688143' post='2698801']
the politics on the forums were taken less seriously, like before GW2 everyone already knew the sides(with the exception of orrple obviously) and more than likely what alliance had the long standing grudge with whoever else, NAAC vs Polar, Pacifica vs LUE, GOONS vs CDS/LoSS/ACID, the fact we only had probably 15 alliances and only a dozen of those had actual treaties, i actually agree with most people on the number of alliances have inflated so much is adding to the problem, the MP is reflective of the ns inflation issue as well, it was a good solution at the time but now half the game has nukes.
[/quote]
I can't speak for the Great War era, but I was here for the Unjust War, and people on both sides (yes, even the "lulz" side) took that war very seriously. The OWF exchanges were for the most part extremely hate-filled. All in all I think people in general take things less seriously now. Forum discussions tend to be much less serious these days. Though I think alliance leadership still take it just as seriously, and that's what determines the action.

-Bama

[Cobalt]

[quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1303688610' post='2698806']
I can't speak for the Great War era, but I was here for the Unjust War, and people on both sides (yes, even the "lulz" side) took that war very seriously. The OWF exchanges were for the most part extremely hate-filled. All in all I think people in general take things less seriously now. Forum discussions tend to be much less serious these days. Though I think alliance leadership still take it just as seriously, and that's what determines the action.

-Bama
[/quote]

Its not that the game wasn't taken seriously, its more that it was taken seriously in a different way. Things were more emotional and personal back then, where as now things are much more Politics/PR/Media.

[Rambo]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1303688143' post='2698801']
the politics on the forums were taken less seriously, like before GW2 everyone already knew the sides(with the exception of orrple obviously) and more than likely what alliance had the long standing grudge with whoever else, NAAC vs Polar, Pacifica vs LUE, GOONS vs CDS/LoSS/ACID, the fact we only had probably 15 alliances and only a dozen of those had actual treaties, i actually agree with most people on the number of alliances have inflated so much is adding to the problem, the MP is reflective of the ns inflation issue as well, it was a good solution at the time but now half the game has nukes.
[/quote]

I totally agree with there being too many alliances these days, however I don't think it's a matter of whether people take things to seriously or not. I remember those CDS-GOONs talk being hate-filled and aggravated, or the GWI peace talks discussing crushing reps the equivalent of what you see today. I suppose the sides back then were too even for things like that to happen, I know GWI cost our side a crap ton too.

People taking this game serious is a good thing, it always makes things more interesting when people get emotional

It's just the state of the politics and mindsets of a lot of people today I guess. Lots of micro-alliances, way too many treaties that don't seem to mean anything, it just creates a boring and confusing game sometimes

[Mogar]

[quote name='Cobalt' timestamp='1303690972' post='2698826']
Its not that the game wasn't taken seriously, its more that it was taken seriously in a different way. Things were more emotional and personal back then, where as now things are much more Politics/PR/Media.
[/quote]
media works in any environment to control opinion, I'm not saying the hatreds back then weren't even more serious than they are now, it's just there's too many people you have to be careful of now as opposed to then, so giving emotional replies tend to occur less frequently.
[quote name='Rambo' timestamp='1303691071' post='2698829']
I totally agree with there being too many alliances these days, however I don't think it's a matter of whether people take things to seriously or not. I remember those CDS-GOONs talk being hate-filled and aggravated, or the GWI peace talks discussing crushing reps the equivalent of what you see today. I suppose the sides back then were too even for things like that to happen, I know GWI cost our side a crap ton too.

People taking this game serious is a good thing, it always makes things more interesting when people get emotional

It's just the state of the politics and mindsets of a lot of people today I guess. Lots of micro-alliances, way too many treaties that don't seem to mean anything, it just creates a boring and confusing game sometimes
[/quote]
having even sides would be ideal but it'll never happen because nobody wants to possibly lose a war, you have to trust too many people, bipolar is a good example of that.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Mogar

[Sarmatian Empire]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1303692277' post='2698836']
media works in any environment to control opinion, I'm not saying the hatreds back then weren't even more serious than they are now, it's just there's too many people you have to be careful of now as opposed to then, so giving emotional replies tend to occur less frequently.
[/quote]

^this. I know hatred's still exists strongly, but like upi said earlier Mogar, back then the sides were known so you had no "on the fence" alliances that you needed/wanted to sway onto your side.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1303666522' post='2698561']
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Disbanding alliances is the key to restoring CN. Since disbandment, viceroys, government bans and other terms that "infringe on an alliance's sovereignty" are not allowed by the community at large wars must be focused at damaging nations, not alliances. Damaging nations makes the game uninteresting for players - no one wants to spent six months rebuilding and sending out tech. Damaging alliances shuffles people around - into other alliances, in and out of power, etc. without necessarily doing excessive harm on the national level.[/quote]

I would agree with you were it not for the fact that too many people see alliance destruction as community destruction and with the death of their community a significant percentage of people simply quit the game or go rogue and then quit.

A healthier attitude would be to de-couple the sense of community that people feel with the existence of an AA in game. Ultimately "community" is after all a collection of friends and if they were truly your friends, then whether you are all on one AA or dozens should be irrelevant.

[Daimos]

Moralism is a obstacle to the activity of the one’s who seeks to abuse their power.

I personally am enjoying the game right now. More so than the pre-Karma days.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Daimos

[mattski133]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1303746621' post='2699243']
I would agree with you were it not for the fact that too many people see alliance destruction as community destruction and with the death of their community a significant percentage of people simply quit the game or go rogue and then quit.

A healthier attitude would be to de-couple the sense of community that people feel with the existence of an AA in game. Ultimately "community" is after all a collection of friends and if they were truly your friends, then whether you are all on one AA or dozens should be irrelevant.
[/quote]

I wonder how much activity would increase, along with retaining a sense of "community" (i think loyalty might work better) if the many alliances that have splintered off from the old ones instead stayed there and attempted to compete in a political system rather than taking off to form their own alliance with their loyal constituents?

I think that activity reaches it's greatest heights in conflict be it political or wartime.

Just spitballing, what would occur if there were only three alliances allowed per color sphere? If there was a controlled amount of real estate?

You'd have to actively fight for what you want politically, all the time. instead of just having a dozen alliances sort of shifting around the Senate seats, you'd instead have many factions in one alliance fighting for that single seat. You'd have a more dynamic turnover of leaders and an even more likely chance of coup or civil war (that wouldn't escalate into a global conflict). Discussion topics on boards would increase dramatically, an example of this is the MK delegation RP stuff, only, it would actually carry consequence and meaning.

Right now, you just find an alliance that works for you and sit there. Maybe you work your way up into the government, then you sit there until one group of leaders gets so bored it has to make up a reason to fight someone else. When a civil conflict breaks out today, it ends with one party breaking off and grabbing a protectorate. Like TSO. Or TPE. DAWN? Or any of a dozen or more alliances. If that option was removed people would actually have to solve their problems in an active way rather than rage quitting.

The reason to do so would come externally. An alliance divided might make an easy target for an alliance that has it's stuff together. Especially if that alliance was savvy enough to infuence factions of another alliance.

I think it would make a much more interesting and realistic system than what we've got right now.

Your "Thrillers" go away. Your tech raids suddenly become very serious. Your MDP webs stop overlapping. And if you want to start a themed alliance that doesn't already exist you're going to have to work for it rather than grab some free forum and a protectorate.

//two cents.

[8 Mile]

Old News, Sir.

[Prodigal Moon]

Agree with the idea of putting AA's in jeopardy. I'd like to see wars become a real fight for survival. But there's nothing good abjout destroying an actual online community. People just get so wrapped up in their AA. Most agree that the current number of AA's is unwieldy and dilutes the political game. And most AAs just sit there. But how many mergers do we see, compared to the number of splinter groups? So few seem willing to take a risk and follow some of the very good suggestions in here.

[Grendel]

It is simple "survival of the fittest" can breed more life into Bob [ooc]the game[/ooc] but the treaty web and all the e-lawyering stifle the aggressive side of the game. If alliances had to fear being put to the test more there would be less micro alliances, more mergers and make it harder to be a "splinter alliance. Instead we have all the bemoaning about the thugs stirring things up [e.g. Ninjas, Thriller...etc.]by being mean and attacking those who do not protect themselves. If you want to create an alliance there are things that must be done and the most important is to provide protection for your members be that by military might, alliance numbers or political acumen [smart treaties] the source of that protection or power is irrelevant. If you do not take those steps to be a valid alliance then watch out there might be someone or someones who come knocking.

The choice is yours whether you want an interesting Bob. So the next time someone or someones goes out there to stir things up, if it does not directly effect you or your alliance let them be and see what the outcome is.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1303751245' post='2699287']
I wonder how much activity would increase, along with retaining a sense of "community" (i think loyalty might work better) if the many alliances that have splintered off from the old ones instead stayed there and attempted to compete in a political system rather than taking off to form their own alliance with their loyal constituents?

I think that activity reaches it's greatest heights in conflict be it political or wartime.

Just spitballing, what would occur if there were only three alliances allowed per color sphere? If there was a controlled amount of real estate?[/quote]

I don't know that jamming everyone into mega alliances actually solves anything. Indeed, there's a fair number of people who prefer running their own small alliance and not having to hassle with big alliance politics. People who simply prefer being a big fish in a small pond, so to speak. Remember, 40% of Planet Bob isn't even in a top 100 alliance.

The Thrillers of the world are flashes in the pan, exceptions to the rule. You won't stop them from roguing on a world where everyone is in a large alliance, they'll just ghost someone they don't like and hit whomever they want anyway.

[Geoffron X]

I love it that CnG or ex-CnG members are posting all these anti-moralist diatribes all of a sudden. 2009 would be utterly [i]shocked[/i] to see this.

[Aeternos Astramora]

Try it again against someone who doesn't have treaty partners and see what happens. AcTi had treaty partners, and so they had potential help. That's not moralism. That's following treaties.

[Yggdrazil]

Last I checked pre-Karma the nation count was bigger,the ns was larger,tech ratios were better across the board; then Karma started and at its end the largest punitve reps were demanded. Cause and effect: Karma sowed the wind and now lament the passing of a more vibrant game.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Yggdrazil

[Mogar]

[quote name='Yggdrazil' timestamp='1303769356' post='2699436']
Last I checked pre-Karma the nation count was bigger,the ns was larger,tech ratios were better across the board; then Karma started and at its end the largest punitve reps were demanded. Cause and effect: Karma sowed the wind and now lament the passing of a more vibrant game.
[/quote]
Last I checked pre-GW3 the nation count was bigger,the ns was larger,tech ratios were better across the board; then GW3 started and at its end the largest punitve reps were demanded. Cause and effect: GW3 sowed the wind and now lament the passing of a more vibrant game.

[Yggdrazil]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1303772279' post='26994 or inaccu74']
Last I checked pre-GW3 the nation count was bigger,the ns was larger,tech ratios were better across the board; then GW3 started and at its end the largest punitve reps were demanded. Cause and effect: GW3 sowed the wind and now lament the passing of a more vibrant game.
[/quote]
This assessment might be accurate,yet I do not lament the condition of the game. And what you disclosed in essence is these things hurt the game so rather than learn from game killing Karma just repeated past actions with a more efficent and larger impact.

[Craven]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303520470' post='2697248']
I like you AirMe, even if you don't think much of me. But can't you agree that the game needs action? You've been here since about day 1, and you're still here. Wasn't it better for you in the old days? Don't you want to see it get better again?
[/quote]


I disagree on the moralist front. There are far less moralists than in the past. Now there are a lot of unhappy people and plenty of hostility these days.. people do enjoy giving other people a hard time.. especially infamous figures such as yourself. That certainly does not make them moralists. I personally believe that what made the old days better was quality politics. Sure, we had a bad CB now and then back in the day, but bad CBs and no CBs have became so frequent these days.. no one thinks anything different of them. There was a time when declaring without a CB was like a deadly sin. Nevertheless, right now we have lots of people fighting just to fight.. just because they want action. There are no moral movements or sides to choose. I've seen so many people switch "sides" lately.. we ought as well just start attacking one another until we're all at 0 NS again (sounds kind of fun actually). People are bored.. let's be a little bit more creative in how we deal with that boredom. Say what you want about the NPO of the past, but they produced some decent drama on occasion.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1303751245' post='2699287']
I wonder how much activity would increase, along with retaining a sense of "community" (i think loyalty might work better) if the many alliances that have splintered off from the old ones instead stayed there and attempted to compete in a political system rather than taking off to form their own alliance with their loyal constituents?

I think that activity reaches it's greatest heights in conflict be it political or wartime.

Just spitballing, what would occur if there were only three alliances allowed per color sphere? If there was a controlled amount of real estate?

You'd have to actively fight for what you want politically, all the time. instead of just having a dozen alliances sort of shifting around the Senate seats, you'd instead have many factions in one alliance fighting for that single seat. You'd have a more dynamic turnover of leaders and an even more likely chance of coup or civil war (that wouldn't escalate into a global conflict). Discussion topics on boards would increase dramatically, an example of this is the MK delegation RP stuff, only, it would actually carry consequence and meaning.
[/quote]
This reminds me eerily of pre-Karma NPO. One of the large contributing factors to the fall of NPO was the quite large number of internal factions that lost in their power struggles and left to plot revenge in other alliances.

[Sarmatian Empire]

[quote name='Grendel' timestamp='1303761310' post='2699369']
The choice is yours whether you want an interesting Bob. So the next time someone or someones goes out there to stir things up, if it does not directly effect you or your alliance let them be and see what the outcome is.
[/quote]

The issue with this is that someone jumping in could make something more interesting then no one jumping in. What was Thrillers outcome? A few days of war, it wasnt exciting or groundbreaking, it didnt change anything but an alliance that is disassociated with the politics of the game.

What if an alliance had jumped in? Could it of been more exciting? Who knows? I dont