The Problem With Planet Bob

[Grendel]

[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1303821582' post='2699745']
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
[/quote]

Oh, I agree it would have been more interesting and I was sadden to see the collapse of Thriller so early. From what I gather they did not realize there was the treaty chain that came to light. Sabers were rattled and Thriller did a threat analysis of sorts [I assume the threat verse benefit analysis dictated to fold this hand and see what happens in the future] and they decided the jig was up. I really was not purview to Thriller's decisions, I honestly did not know any thing about it until it was happening [RL was busy since the latest war for us]. I think Argent did the right thing and Thriller had to make a decision on how to handle this unanticipated situation and they did. I won't say whether I agree or disagree with their decision because that would be second guessing without adequate information. Who knows we may see a return of Thriller some time in the future.

The point I was trying to make is if the "moral outrage" of these occurrences did not overtly place pressure on these situations we might see a little more chaos in the game and to me that is where the fun is. Never being completely sure you are safe makes you vigilant Hell I love Rogues they give us a little excitement in between the bigger wars.

How many Treaties does one alliance need? In my eyes "less is more" with treaties. Does every new alliance deserve a protector-ship? No if you the protector are not mentoring and shepherding them to shed that protectorate status quickly you are doing yourself, the protectorate itself and Bob [ooc]the game[/ooc] a disservice. For not will just allow the lazy to wallow around precipitating the lack of activity on Bob.

[potato]

[quote name='Yggdrazil' timestamp='1303774751' post='2699487']
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.
[/quote]

This argument is dumb and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Schattenmann]

While "moralists" may have stepped in and rained on your rogue party, the simple fact of the matter is that the only stagnation right now is under the rule of GOONS, Umbrella, Mushroom Kingdom, Impero's VE (which has shed all pretensions of moralism in a break with Isaac/Ardus' VE), the rest of Pandora's Box, and C&G. Find me a moralist alliance in there.

Azaghul, delusional as he is, has been running around for the past 3 months screaming the gospel of Doomhouse's war: they're saving the game!!! They're saving all of us form boredom!! Well? Are you saved yet? I told him 3 months ago and I'll tell you now, we can save ourselves, thank you very much.

There are differences in the way we play from CN's heyday, no doubt, but the difference in [i]playership[/i] now is advertising. Almost all English-speaking online communities of any size have already come (and gone) from CN. There are no gaming sites interviewing Kevin (the developer) about his new game. Changing how we play might increase or decrease retention, but it won't increase enrollment; no one is talking about CN outside of CN, so no matter what we do inside CN, no one hears and comes to play.

Most people label me a moralist. I disagree, but whatever, say I'm a moralist. I am not opposed to war at all, I don't wholesale write off techraiding, I've signed lulzy treaties (my two members were [i]very[/i] disheartened at how silly our first treaty was written), I spy and doesn't afraid of anything, and I've pulled a dozen alliances into one room to start a war--moralism is a fluid insult more than a defined stance so I'll stop at those benchmarks. I didn't whine about your roguery, I only step into raid situations that are out of control, we aided Methrage, we didn't sanction him. How exactly is This moralist bogeyman ruining the game?
This is a geopolitical simulator, and I play it like one. I expect a certain degree of seriousness because politics is serious, I expect a certain degree of respect to other people because we're all people.
On a monthly basis I, the moralist, do more in CN than half of PB, SF, C&G, and PB combined and for that, my alliance of 17 nations has been forced to pay $400,000,000 in reparations and apologize for sending in-game spam. Moral outrage is a response to the excesses of your fiends. And even now, it's not moralists that are holding up the whole world in a war that's been [b]over[/b] for over 2 months, but the petty, self-styled "evil," and immature prats which you, Londo Mollari, have both propped up and depended upon for 2 years. Not moralists. And once they get around to peace, your friends have a sizeable chunk of the game tied up paying $3 trillion in reparations for up to 4 months.

If you want things to change, open up [i]your[/i] rolodex. I'm busy.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1303762738' post='2699387']
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.
[/quote]
Mega-alliances suck. Less than 50 (fifty, not 50%) of ODN's 340 members voted in their SecGen election and 11 of those abstained.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Max Power]

Schatt, the end of that post looked pretty IC to me.

I agree on there being too many micros. That said, as someone whose AA comes from offsite, I don't see forced disbandment as an answer. Forced disbandment of a splinter AA formed in-game is a lot easier to justify than forced disbandment of an AA formed from offsite friends who wouldn't play the game in any other AA, but what do you do? Ask them about it before trying to disband them?

As far as the Thriller/AcTi episode, I keep hearing this "making them play the game the way you play it" drivel. What beating up on poorly-planned AAs is like is if you're playing Scrabble against someone who only makes three-letter words. Unsurprisingly, you win every game, and during/after each one you say something like "you know, you'd probably win more if you made words of other lengths too". Sure, you're pressuring the person to play your way, and inflicting losses upon that person in the process, but is it really unjustifiable? Like it or not, there are right and wrong ways to play this game.

[mattski133]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1303827166' post='2699767']
Mega-alliances suck. Less than 50 (fifty, not 50%) of ODN's 340 members voted in their SecGen election and 11 of those abstained.
[/quote]

I think that is more a result of capable parties abandoning alliances once disagreements come to a head. Why vote when-

a) you're voting for the same people time in and time out?
b) you're not voting for the same people, but these new people act and feel the same as the old?

Having personally witnessed a couple of debacles in intra-alliance disputes resulting in about half the government and active membership taking off to do their own thing I fully and honestly believe the disintergration of mega-alliances into four or five smaller alliances and a some remnant of the old has done a great deal to set this game back. The worst thing in nature is a lack of competition; instead of competing, the roughly 150 or so offspring of alliances like ODN, MCXA, what have you took a different road and bailed out, and what we've got is a political system where everyone is content in their little enclaves with nothing to argue about.

It just took five or six years to finally get to this point.

I think the slow collapse of this game hinges on two things-

1) as OsRavan said, the mechanics of this game make it unappealing to anyone who is new. GOONS is dropping far and fast from the 400 nation mark we hit a month ago. Who wants to put in a year in this game and still lack the tools needed to compete (read: wonders, nukes, etc)?

2) This is my theory, and it's a little long-winded. This settling out of all parties has left boring alliances that can't keep members any more than the game can. Places that should be hotbeds of activity right now are going through "inactivity", reportedly. You can't even start a war without it escalating into a global conflict because all of these little boring alliances have 5 treaties to protect themselves (lord knows they can't do it on their own). And that's IF someone in the ruling party says it's a good time for war. This second point stems from the fact that rather than tolerate each other's presence and work out problems the second a disagreement occurs we're free to pack up and leave.

I've done it myself and am now trying to get away from that mistake by going back to what I did best and contribute to a worthwhile alliance. I joined the ODN in '06 that had members in my military company that today lead alliances. The people leading that alliance had crazy drive and personality. There was something like 12 deputies just for the secretary of defense and they were all interested in the jobs. A rogue-busting group of over 100 marines that could swing into action in 24 hours. There was a newspaper, and a team of people who could provide in-depth analysis of the game's politics. And entire graphic department.

Because we can leave, and because the death rate is outstripping the birth rate due to point 1, these people can't be replaced.

You join an alliance today and it's three guys sitting in a shack selling tech and trying to brainstorm ways to increase activity. Maybe you've got a guy who can make stuff in paint. Everything about this situation is boring. Just a disaster of forced acronyms and ODPs. And it's because this game sucks and we can't stand each other.

I don't know. Feels that way though.

[the rebel]

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1303839711' post='2699823']
1) as OsRavan said, [b]the mechanics of this game make it unappealing to anyone who is new.[/b] GOONS is dropping far and fast from the 400 nation mark we hit a month ago. Who wants to put in a year in this game and still lack the tools needed to compete (read: wonders, nukes, etc)? [/quote]

Thats the pro's and cons of games that do not reset and have been around years, the biggest killer is advertising, where is it? i found this place by complete fluke over 3yrs ago... Plus the fact its dated

All that really remain are the hardcore and the ones who dont want to give up the time spent here and the friends made...

[Sarmatian Empire]

While I agree it takes too long to get up and running as an average nation...its not really that big of a flaw. I know a few nations that hit 90-100k in their first year. Thats well above average for most. These nations werent doing donations either. So these people that cant get up to par are simply average people. If they put some sort of effort into it they could have the bigger nations, but as we see with most internal dealings, effort is hard to come by.

[Instr]

100k in a year?

600 * 12 (3m/100 * 12 months) = 7200,

36,000 tech

9000 infra * 3.3 = 29700

29700 infra

I don't quite see it.

[Prodigal Moon]

Is there anyone actually doing anything about all of this? Obviously we can't change the game mechanics, but these threads always just lead to complaining but no action.

Who would be interested in establishing something like Londo's global organization, but dedicating it to OOC collaboration to make the game more interesting?

Edited April 26, 2011 by Prodigal Moon

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Instr' timestamp='1303848829' post='2699880']
100k in a year?
[/quote]

100k is far from an "average" nation.

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1303857778' post='2699983']
Is there anyone actually doing anything about all of this? Obviously we can't change the game mechanics, but these threads always just lead to complaining but no action.

Who would interested in establishing something like Londo's global organization, but dedicating it to OOC collaboration to make the game more interesting? [/quote]

This is actually not a bad idea, in abstract it sounds like something I would be very much up for helping with, it could definitely have a positive impact.

On the other hand, every time one of these threads come up I see clearly that many of the posters are whining bitterly about *things I like* so I would guess an organisation like that might fall apart pretty quickly due to differences of opinion if they couldnt work out a way to narrow the focus to just stuff everyone involved could get behind.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1303858751' post='2700001']
100k is far from an "average" nation.
[/quote]
Below average.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' timestamp='1303865161' post='2700062']
Below average.


[/quote]

Ahem.

21,342 is the current Average Nation Strength

Edited April 27, 2011 by Sigrun Vapneir

[the rebel]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1303866145' post='2700067']
Ahem.

21,342 is the current Average Nation Strength
[/quote]

Average wonders per nation would be 11
Average improvements per nation would be 28

Going off them stats it would take over a year of play if started today to be "average"

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1303867127' post='2700078']
Average wonders per nation would be 11
Average improvements per nation would be 28

Going off them stats it would take over a year of play if started today to be "average"
[/quote]

That's a mean, which is quite weighted due to a relatively few number of nations with maximum improvements and lots of wonders, and the average of 21,335 that I quoted from the demographics page also appears to be a mean.

The current [i]median[/i] nation by NS is just over 6.5k, has 17 improvements and no wonders. It is only 93 days old.

The nation currently closest to the mean NS is ranked just below 30%, and it has 5 wonders and 47 improvements. That nation is actually 1000 days old, but it has a decent casualty score as well. The next nation up has a slightly higher score with just over half the time, and a moment of examination clearly shows it's not in the hands of a competent nation builder. There are much younger nations with higher rank.

Average only really has two reasonable interpretations here, and that is the range they cover. The median-average NS is easily achievable in months, not years. The mean-average, the higher NS interpretation, is still easily achievable in less than two years.

So the contention that it takes "years" to build an "average nation" is still quite wrong either way.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1303869091' post='2700099']
So the contention that it takes "years" to build an "average nation" is still quite wrong either way.
[/quote]

I did say over a year and not "years"

[bigwoody]

"The Problem with Plant Bob" is that every time I drop in here (now roughly a once in a month thing), there is another thread on what's wrong with the game.

At this point I'm tired of guessing, and tired of trying to offer up solutions. Can't be bothered to try, no one is listening. Whoever is left, just enjoy the game however you like to enjoy it.

[Bob Janova]

The OP is a straw man. Moralism is not pacifism, and in fact the only thing vaguely close to the limitations on what you can do to people that Londo asks for is the moral framework of the game community, nebulous and not self-consistent as that might be. All of the 'injustices' that go against that – huge reps and otherwise harsh peace terms – have been done by amoral alliances.

You also use the old tech raiders' lie that 'it's all about fun', completely disregarding the other side (that getting rolled for no reason is [i]much less fun even than doing nothing[/i]). If being on the losing side of an arbitrary war was fun you wouldn't have backed down before Thriller got rolled.

What makes the game interesting is the politics, which requires some action but it needs to be meaningful action, not just a world where people can be attacked for nothing because someone else is bored. That requires moralists and amoral characters, and perhaps even some evil ones.

[Faust Betreur]

The problem with CN is that there are far, far too many alliances.

[img]http://blog.ascentis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The_More_You_Know.jpg[/img]

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Faust Betreur' timestamp='1303909306' post='2700315']
The problem with CN is that there are far, far too many alliances.

[img]http://blog.ascentis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The_More_You_Know.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
Does this mean you're willing to disband yours? (not that I don't like SLCB.)

[Faust Betreur]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1303910119' post='2700322']
Does this mean you're willing to disband yours? (not that I don't like SLCB.)
[/quote]
No, but I take your point. It's a prisoner's dilemma.

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1303764958' post='2699402']
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.
[/quote]

You know, the thing is, I never really had a problem with NPO's aggression, I had a problem with your resolution. You didn't just go in and kick ass and take names (with some kind of reason), you stomped on your enemies faces until they died in agony or you couldn't stomp no more. You were like a guy who ends a barfight by shooting your adversary in the head and then tying him to your pickup truck and dragging him down the interstate until he disintegrates. Actually, you guys did a lot of horribly rotten stuff and don't imagine for a minute that you didn't fully earn Karma. I am willing to let bygones be bygones, but let's not pretend like 2006-2009 never happened, shall we? >_> And if you think anyone in CnG in 2009 was ever moralist you might want to think again. Precusor alliances of CnG gave WAPA a kicking for mouthing off shortly before we were rolled by NPO - but that was like a week of war. We were all raiders back then, every one of us. Opposing the kind of game-killing behaviors that NPO indulged in prior to Karma was not moralism, it was just common sense, and moreover it was self-defense. Believe it or not there is a balance between inhuman brutality and simpering moralism, and that balance involves aggression set with a reasonably healthy tone.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Londo Mollari

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303911432' post='2700330']
You know, the thing is, I never really had a problem with NPO's aggression, I had a problem with your resolution. You didn't just go in and kick ass and take names (with some kind of reason), you stomped on your enemies faces until they died in agony or you couldn't stomp no more. You were like a guy who ends a barfight by shooting your adversary in the head and then tying him to your pickup truck and dragging him down the interstate until he disintegrates. Actually, you guys did a lot of horribly rotten stuff and don't imagine for a minute that you didn't fully earn Karma. I am willing to let bygones be bygones, but let's not pretend like 2006-2009 never happened, shall we? >_> And if you think anyone in CnG in 2009 was ever moralist you might want to think again. Precusor alliances of CnG gave WAPA a kicking for mouthing off shortly before we were rolled by NPO - but that was like a week of war. We were all raiders back then, every one of us. Opposing the kind of game-killing behaviors that NPO indulged in prior to Karma was not moralism, it was just common sense, and moreover it was self-defense. Believe it or not there is a balance between inhuman brutality and simpering moralism, and that balance involves aggression set with a reasonably healthy tone.
[/quote]
You might not have been moralists, but you certainly used all the arguments to present yourselves as such.

I also find it funny that you use the term 'game-killing behaviours' in relation to NPO when you and yours have been engaging in the very same since Karma.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

Person #1 "No you're the problem with planet bob because x"
Person #2 "No, you're the problem because y"
Person #3 "No you're the problem because z"


^^^
This is the problem. This inability to discuss ways of improving gameplay like rational people is down to the fact that none of you can look past things that happen IC. As a result everytime one of these threads are thrown up it turns into another pointless blame game with everyone being all to quick to point the finger at someone else but never at themselves.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1303912513' post='2700334']
You might not have been moralists, but you certainly used all the arguments to present yourselves as such.

I also find it funny that you use the term 'game-killing behaviours' in relation to NPO when you and yours have been engaging in the very same since Karma.
[/quote]

Sorry, but the only offensive wars I've ever started lasted a week or less, and were never planned to last more than 2 weeks with white peace. Defensive wars, especially defensive wars when you are fighting against people who want to exterminate your alliance, tend to inspire a little bit of a different attitude, and the nature of coalition warfare is such that no one person really gets to decide to what ends a particular defensive war is prosecuted. I'm thinking of Karma and Bipolar in particular here.

There is a critical difference in my mind between imposing crushing reps after an offensive war that you win, and imposing crushing reps after a defensive war that you win. To say nothing of denying terms to alliances in the first place and deliberately disbanding them.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Londo Mollari