The Problem With Planet Bob

[Lenny N Karl]

Seems like we had a lot more nations in early 2009 than now so something isn't running right. These global wars run for way too long, and there are more thugs than politicians left on Bob now. End the war, and start preparing for the next one. that is what most of you want anyhow. But if you overly subdue your opposition, the time between these wars will be so long that many will lose interest all together. (sounds familiar to me).

another thing that should happen (but never be agreed too) is reducing the "colors" on Bob. With the reduction of nations, trade management is another reason so many throw up their hands and leave. consolidate and it will improve the underlying goal of Bob...nation building. the problem being, what color(s) to dump?

in short: yay for big global wars, boo for staying at the party too long. get over your egos, malice and misery of the past and start angling for the NEXT big thing. that is where the fun is.

wake up people.

[Timeline]

Everyone can agree this world is due for a melt down and to be reborn, The times when an alliance can attack another for wrong doing has long been dead, now it is a cause of might is right, and we all thought we had it bad when NPO was in control.

[Haflinger]

[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.
[/quote]
You know, in WotC, they fought you guys for two weeks.

You'd have a point if you talked solely about GATO and FAN, both of which were subjected to extended wars.

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303911432' post='2700330']
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]
Every single global war since WotC (Karma, Bipolar, this one) has been fought for longer than NPO fought GATO.

Pre-Karma C&G did engage in short wars, but that's all been forgotten now.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Timeline' timestamp='1303924605' post='2700426']
Everyone can agree this world is due for a melt down and to be reborn, The times when an alliance can attack another for wrong doing has long been dead, now it is a cause of might is right, and we all thought we had it bad when NPO was in control.
[/quote]

Might makes right has always been around. There is no one group, political or military action that can cause the game to die. The OOC arguments are completely asinine regarding this game, keep it IC. People need to stop worrying about "losing", blaming others and start playing the game again. If you dislike the current group in power, play politics. Stop complaining about it and do something about it, that's how you make the game interesting. Sitting around with your thumb up your bum won't accomplish anything.

[Epiphanus]

[quote name='Draztikus' timestamp='1303514671' post='2697153']
tl;dr

is this bawwing that so-called moralists are evil for defending unwitting victims from random curbstomps and/or techraiding?
[/quote]
The fact that NPO is now posting this kind of thing is rich, so rich.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1303914079' post='2700347']
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.
[/quote]
Well, the two wars I can think of that you started with Athens were only so short due to external circumstances.

And I agree, wars of extermination do engender different attitudes, but that's really dependent on how the people fighting perceive the war. I seem to remember that C&G saw WotC as a death ride, even though the war against them lasted only a couple of weeks. And I'm sure that others have seen a war as one of extermination when that was not the case at all. I also recognize the problems of coalition warfare, however it is possible to disassociate yourself from terms that you don't agree with, by signing a separate peace if needed, or simply not taking reps, or whatever the case may be.

And yes, there is a difference between reps in offensive and defensive wars, but thats changing the argument a bit. As far as I've noticed, the argument against reps usually isn't the actual monetary cost, but the time it will take to pay due to slot limitations, and the fact that it takes people out of the game for so long, and so lengthens the war/peace cycle. And in that sense, taking reps whether from an offensive or defensive war, is functionally exactly the same. You can argue that they deserved to pay reps because they attacked you, fair enough. But the people who took reps after winning an offensive war can also argue that their enemies deserved it. Who deserves what is quite subjective.

[Allan a Dale]

This is not the suggestion box, please stay on topic and avoid discussing game mechanics changes or moderation policy, or this thread will be closed.

[jerdge]

[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 be interested in establishing something like Londo's global organization, but dedicating it to OOC collaboration to make the game more interesting?[/quote]
I'd be interested and I actually thought about it several times, but I just don't have the time for it.


[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1303906565' post='2700300']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.[/quote]
This is spot on.
Moralism isn't stopping anybody: the might that makes right (and especially the worry of unwillingly experimenting someone else's might) is the blocking factor.

If THRILLER people couldn't be convinced to bring it, it's simply lame wishful thinking to expect newbies and battered communities to continue to "have fun" at the hands of people that don't even care to make up an acceptable narration about the prolonged curbstomps they "liberally" inflict to others. To be clear: this is valid for today's hegemony and it was valid for the past ones as well.
[i]A lot[/i] of more fairness would do wonders to increase the retention of players.

Griefers probably don't care, but people that wish to continue to play a meaningful game should really try to find ways to govern this prisoners dilemma we're stuck into.

[Feuersturm]

[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]

Wait, I swear I remember hearing that the surge in new alliances post-karma was good for Planet Bob, as it would ensure more conflict. You know, about how NPO was suppressing the world from creating new alliances and such somehow through its mystical powers.




[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1303926244' post='2700437']
You know, in WotC, they fought you guys for two weeks.

You'd have a point if you talked solely about GATO and FAN, both of which were subjected to extended wars.


Every single global war since WotC (Karma, Bipolar, this one) has been fought for longer than NPO fought GATO.

Pre-Karma C&G did engage in short wars, but that's all been forgotten now.
[/quote]

Yeah, try not to remind them about that. They get self-conscious.

[Hime Themis]

Gentle Persons

I rarely engage in these threads because for the most part it is people whining that others are not playing the way they want them to. However I think it is time to review a couple of things.

First a moralist is someone who does a morally correct thing regardless of the cost. A moralizer is someone who speaks about morals yet may or may not actually carry through with actions. I am tired of hearing the two equated. They are not the same. Most of you are whining about moralizers not moralists. I try as much as possible to be a moralist. This means such tactically idiotic moves like informing our adversary in a war of our declaration BEFORE we make it public and before we declare any attacks. Like declaring in our DOWs that we will neither request not accept any reparations should we be so blessed as to win our conflict. Not as some grand gesture of magnanimity AFTER winning a war but before any conflict begins.
This type of moral ism prevents absolutely no one from doing anything. WE do not approve of tech raiding and do not allow our people to do it. We do not tell our friends what they may or may not do. We try to choose as friends those who subscribe to similar beliefs. This odes not prevent us from respecting those who choose to go a different way.

Second those who rail against any form of play are Moralizing. Yes those who rail against the moralizers are moralizing themselves. The irony is too ridiculous to ignore.

Third I am truly tired of hearing there are too many alliances. If you truly feel that way I am sure there are other alliances who would be happy to have your alliance merge with them. This is the height of hubris. Your alliance is great but all those others are a problem. How when you all want conflict and political intrigue do you think that less will provide more. It is these small alliances who war regularly BUT you never read about it because you are too busy flipping the bird to them when they post on the alliances announcement threads. Hers a novel idea instead of telling them they have no right to post and that they are too small.actually contact them and help them learn. Oh my goodness can you imagine instead of a sarcastic and cute troll you actually help some one learn.Then maybe you could help them in a war and get them involved and engaged in Digiterra instead of been pushed to the periphery by the oh so clever elders of CN.

Fourth when did Digiteera become the place for 14 year olds to be able to be mighty warriors with no effort? People should be able to be top tier in 5 easy minutes? Great lets all work hard on making CN into WOW where we all can be 85th level in a couple of days. You want that then frankly I think you need to reconsider what you are looking for. Frankly it was more fun when I was in the lower to middle levels of the pack Do I regret my position No. for it gives me an opportunity to play in my sad moralistic way. If I were interested in a shooter game I would stay low level and fight to my little hearts content but oddly none of those who complain about the lack of warfare seem content to do that. I actually give credit to people like Methrage who live their words. They want to fight against the man so he does that. Is is my style nope but he rarely comes on to whine that other are not playing his way. Yacks about allot of other stuff but not that.

Fifth I am not and our alliance is not neutral but I fail to see how those who are neutral are of any concern to the rest of Digiterra. If they are not true neutrals then fight away but if they are who cares. Means more trades and tech trading for the rest of us so please give that nonsensical line about bad neutrals a retirement.

Sixth it is not fun to be rogued, raided , or steamrolled. It is fun to do those things. I am sick to death of hearing this utter drivel. Do people learn from having it done to them.Absolutely they learn that they cannot live in peace unless they play like others want them too. So congrats kids you have taught them all that valuable lesson that its better to be the bully than the bullied. This is where we get the "how do you know. some really like it." Newsflash for you I do know. I am in a unique position as the largest nation I get daily 5-7 aid requests normally from people who have been raided or rolled. Yes daily. Guess how may say "geez may I have some money cuase I am really enjoying being pummeled in this war"? You guessed ZERO. Not one single message to that effect saying I would like money so I can have fun fighting in three years on Digiterra.

Lastly here is a unique thought for you all. I do not believe in whining without offering a meaningful suggestion. So here goes. Want to change Digiterra , keep more nations, involve others?

Answer your PMs. Do not post in your bios Do NOT ask for aid.Do not ignore the trade requests you recieve.

I receive on average about 4-5 trade offers daily, I get 5-7 aid requests daily, I get 2-3 information and advice requests a day and 1 or 2 idiots saying things like "I will get you grrrr."

Know how many I fail to respond to. NONE. I diligently answer every single PM sent to me. Even the morons.

Those who ask for aid I walk through their situation and in many many cases they have never heard of tech selling. Do I recruit them for our alliance nope. I direct them to the Black Market and explain how tech trading is done. I average two a day that are set on the path of tech selling to help their nations and the rest of us.

The trades I am offered are almost always newbies who have no clue about how and what trades to offer and do not understand that someone with full slots or that already has their resource will gain nothing form the trade. So I explain who it works to them and what to look for and where to look to see what trades others have.

Those who ask for advice are often in small alliances but not all. I am terrible disappointed when I get someone from a large established alliance who is getting zero support in building their nation from a mentor in their own alliance. I give my advice to each and point out my bias. I also tell them to talk to their alliance mentors and it saddens me how many have none.

The idiot messages give me a little opportunity to engage in creative sparring sadly most are 13 year old mentality.

Now the truly depressing part , well over half of these people are just grateful that anyone bothered to actually read and answer them. Digiterra is a big scary place for most new people they just want to feel that they matter. You may wish to remember this when you delete that message without reading it, or flame the post of a new alliance.
How much time di you spend posting a whine on OWF ? Think what you could have done with that time helping a new alliance or even just a new nation. It takes no brains or skills to break things and !@#$%*. It takes a great deal of mental acuity to help someone else.

So form this moralist. Want to see the problem with Digiterra stare hard at that reflection in the screen you are gazing at.

Respectfully
Dame Hime Themis

[Aeternos Astramora]

Did the "moralism" of NpO not lead to one of the biggest wars in CN history in starting the BPW?

[Systemfailure]

The Problem with Planet Bob:

#1 Grey Council
#2 AcTi
#3 Me

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303520382' post='2697247']
There are a couple of things that could/should be done:
1) In-game: Money on hand should be capped to something like a billion dollars. Wonder count should be capped, at something like 15 wonders. Tech should be capped at 5000. Decrease the average size of nations and how long it takes to get to the "maximum size", and the "build time" will decrease and we may see more action. Also reducing the disparity between mid-sized and huge nations will help even out the impact of wars.
2) Using peace mode over large NS ranges to avoid major wars entirely should be restricted and unacceptable.
3) Reps should be limited or ended. Hopefully #1 would help with this.
4) People need to focus less on CBs.
[/quote]

I don't think that'll do much to be honest. The horse has already bolted but simply removing the Manhattan Project and removing the ability to send tech as aid will gradually close the gap in strength and also make wars less "nuke heavy" meaning rebuilding will be faster and the cost far less. This may or may not encourage people to take more risks. Removing the MP means that once nations drop out of the top 5% they can no longer replenish nukes. The tech aid ban means tech dealing ends and larger nations will need to pay retail for tech if they wish to increase their tech levels which will eat away at their warchests also.

As I said, the horse has bolted as so many nations have masses of tech that will take years of war to wear down and "level the playing field". But I think this would be a step in the right direction.


With regards to the OP, the irony is that the people moaning the most about "moralism" don't do anything daring either. They only attack when they know they will win and will apply their own moral code to justify to themselves and the community their actions or lack thereof. Thriller is a prime example. They only attacked because they knew AcTi was unprepared and had few friends. When it looked like other alliances were going to come to AcTi's aid, Thriller bailed out as quickly as they could. Why? Afterall, Llondo is bemoaning the lack of action. So, wouldn't other alliances attacking Thriller provide more "action"? Yes, but not the kind of action Thriller was after. Beating up defenseless people is more their idea of action and "fun". The further irony is that Thriller then blames the alliances that were rumoured to be considering entering the war for ruining their fun and killing off their "action". They label them moralists. Hilarious.

As others have said, the complaint in the OP has bugger all to do with moralism or lack of action, it is just someone who is upset their beatdown on an unprepared alliance was interrupted. Thriller had ample opportunity to continue the action but didn't want to when they saw the cards not falling their way anymore. Spare me.

[Anu Drake]

Londo, you are dead on. It always comes back to the old 'who would want to be the bad guy' question.

[Systemfailure]

Being the bad guy is awesome..too bad its frowned upon, anyone else miss mass tech raids and Shark week with GOONS? i guess the game changes all you can do is keep playing anything else is out of your control.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Hime Themis' timestamp='1303966287' post='2700894']
Gentle Persons
[/quote]

I snipped the entire remainder of the post because it's ALL on the target.

Best post of the thread, by far. Thank you.

[Hereno]

[quote name='Systemfailure' timestamp='1303992876' post='2701064']
Being the bad guy is awesome..too bad its frowned upon, anyone else miss mass tech raids and Shark week with GOONS? i guess the game changes all you can do is keep playing anything else is out of your control.
[/quote]

If they weren't frowned upon, I don't think we could realistically call them the bad guys anymore. That said, I agree. Being the bad guy is pretty fun. The more the better!
---

Also, it's funny watching everyone here crusade against micros. There are plenty of <1m NS alliances who are objectively better than alliances in the top 20/30/etc. Micros aren't a problem; at best, they're a symptom of a problem.

[Sephiroth]

The problem with planet bob is that every major bloc have a tendency to all join the same side in any major war by finding some treaty or treaty chain they can use, so all of them can be on the winning side. This tends to happen regardless of the reasons for the war starting or if the major blocs disagree on the CB, as they find the security in being on the winning team and their desire to avoid getting curb stomped more important than making any major power plays against each other that could back fire against them if they lose in the end. By helping the side with an advantage win with even more of advantage, they feel it keeps relations good with those that they think will be the winning team and lets them enjoy a war without the risk of losing. This safety net of wanting to not risk losing a war, but also to be involved when a major war comes around causes most wars to be one sided, regardless of whether most agree with the reasons for war. As alliances can always use the convenient excuse of just fighting for their allies when they disagree with the initial CB, when often times they choose to ally certain alliances for the very reason of using those treaties to make sure they can join the winning side in any situation.

The two views on how to do politics tends to be either,

1. Winning is what matters and an alliance should manipulate their treaties to make sure they are always on the winning side rather than ideological reasons. (Realpolitik View)
2. Alliances should go with what they think is right and its better to fight a losing war than support actions you don't agree with. (Moralistic View)

Those with the second view tend to get labeled as moralists, as they fight for what they believe is right. Those who hold the first view tend to believe morals in CN is pointless, so an alliance should just focus on winning and not ending up on the losing side regardless of any personal feelings or beliefs.

The most strongly positioned alliances tend to be the ones who just place value on being on the winning side regardless of who they might need to support in doing so, as those who would rather up stick up for their ideals even if it places them on the losing side, usually end up on the losing side fighting for what they believe is right.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Methrage

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1304008079' post='2701192']
1. Winning is what matters and an alliance should manipulate their treaties to make sure they are always on the winning side rather than ideological reasons. (Realpolitik View)
2. Alliances should go with what they think is right and its better to fight a losing war than support actions you don't agree with. (Moralistic View)

Those with the second view tend to get labeled as moralists, as they fight for what they believe is right. Those who hold the first view tend to believe morals in CN is pointless, so an alliance should just focus on winning and not ending up on the losing side regardless of any personal feelings or beliefs. [/quote]

Yes, and then the very people that maneuver to be on the winning side, right or wrong, complain about the 'stagnation' that results from all the big alliances playing that way, and blame the 'moralists' rather than take any responsibility for it themselves.

[Max Power]

[quote name='Hime Themis' timestamp='1303966287' post='2700894']
I am in a unique position as the largest nation I get daily 5-7 aid requests normally from people who have been raided or rolled. Yes daily.

Answer your PMs. Do not post in your bios Do NOT ask for aid.Do not ignore the trade requests you recieve.
[/quote]
Here's your problem. You've told us all to answer PMs we don't get because we're not 300K NS.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1304018472' post='2701272']
Here's your problem. You've told us all to answer PMs we don't get because we're not 300K NS.
[/quote]
Did Hime's post clip any hair as it flew over your head?

Edited April 28, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1303974483' post='2700981']
I don't think that'll do much to be honest. The horse has already bolted but simply removing the Manhattan Project and removing the ability to send tech as aid will gradually close the gap in strength and also make wars less "nuke heavy" meaning rebuilding will be faster and the cost far less. This may or may not encourage people to take more risks. Removing the MP means that once nations drop out of the top 5% they can no longer replenish nukes. The tech aid ban means tech dealing ends and larger nations will need to pay retail for tech if they wish to increase their tech levels which will eat away at their warchests also.

As I said, the horse has bolted as so many nations have masses of tech that will take years of war to wear down and "level the playing field". But I think this would be a step in the right direction.
[/quote]
Meanwhile, I've been in bill lock for over a month and now I'm paying a "bill avoidance penalty." I guess it's a punishable offence to lose a curbstomp, now. That'll level the playing field.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1304018472' post='2701272']
Here's your problem. You've told us all to answer PMs we don't get because we're not 300K NS.
[/quote]

I get a shocking number of requests from Orange trade circles asking me to change teams.

[shahenshah]

Basically measures to reduce post-war reconstruction, where it can take major alliances around 8-12 months to bounce back.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1304027034' post='2701395']
I get a shocking number of requests from Orange trade circles asking me to change teams.
[/quote]

I get those too. I nominate them as the Problem.