The Story Thus Far

[TehChron]

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1324581237' post='2884160']
You could say a lot of things about Grub, but boring?
[/quote]I agree with the rest of what you said, but the reason why I left that unspecified in the OP was due to it being [i]yet another tangent[/i].

Grub is indeed a boring antagonist. Because he's boring to watch. The only people he ever got to care about his moves were his direct allies and those he directly moved to piss off. Mind you, this was at the height of his influence, during the period where Frostbite existed. If I were to underpin the [i]root cause for why Grub is a failed antagonist, it would have to be that his style of antagonism was almost purely reactionary[/i]. Which is why I say his style is forced, since it lacked a real initiative.

Take, for example, the tension that was brought about due to the placing of MK into an awkward position. What exactly were those situations, again? We have, on the one hand, almost exclusively the NSO acting like the bunch of incendiary jackasses that we were (Recruiting from GPA, the whole provoking SF thing on a semi-regular basis). On the other hand, we have Grub's massive outcry over Londo and his raid on the Knights of Ni! Those were his big things in the role of antagonist.

The culmination of all that, his epic backstab during BiPolar, wasn't even real antagonism. It was just a betrayal. Of almost literally everyone that the New Polar Order was tied to, except MK, and it destroyed the Polars credibility.

Again, that wasn't real antagonism. It was just self-destructive. And even that was reactive, since it was based on Grub's own grudge towards stuff TOP did years ago as revenge against Sponge [i]that no one really gave a !@#$ about anymore[/i]. Sure there was some outraged flash at the random twist, but it wasn't anything particularly groundbreaking except in how absurd the scale of the act was, and even that soon passed from mind, save as an excuse to randomly roll Polar again (which is still boring to watch).

To make things worse, all Grub has done since then is brag about how awesome he was for shooting his alliance's long term potential in the foot, squandering all the hard work that had gone into making them a political superpower in the first place. In the end, Grub gained nothing, accomplished nothing, and wasn't even original in doing so. And he and Polaris in general have done nothing since but annoy the rest of us with a single tune of a single grudge between them and TOP.

Yeah, Grub is a boring antagonist. He could have done much, much more with what he had. But he didn't. And he hasn't. You're naturally free to disagree, but I don't think I'm wrong here.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1324581994' post='2884166']
tl;dr except the bolded text

Look, within months of this world getting started up, there were over 40k nations. Truth be told there was something like 15k people actually running those 40k nations, there was no naval units, no space-based wonders, no one but an idiot wanted more than 14,999.99 infra (if you could even afford to buy that much), nukes were for the elites and regular people were out of luck, and everyone made sure they put "not inactive!" in their nation bio for fear that a "grave robber" would come by and loot their nation thinking it was abandoned. Yet, everyone likes to romanticize that era. Why? Because good and evil were so clearly defined? No, they weren't, except in propaganda. Because there were more charismatic personalities? Bovine scatology.

Yes, there was a time when there were more nation rulers than there are now. The number isn't 1/10 of what it was, 1/4 of what it was as some would make you think in these b.s. threads, the actual number is actually about 1/2 the number. [b]That's still a lot of people capable of doing all sorts of amazingly stupid/brilliant/entertaining things IF YOU ONLY ALLOW YOURSELVES TO DO SO.[/b] Could the mechanics use a tune up? Of course. But the way people friggen WHINE like you took away their dying goldfish and replaced it with a similar, more lively one when changes are made, do you honestly expect more than for Admin to make a minor tweak to the code now and again and close his eyes and pray when he hits the 'Enter' button to execute it?

[i]OOC: Threads like this one should be terminated with extreme prejudice. Not just closed, but deleted. They waste bandwidth and Admin made it pretty clear he's not interested in seeing them. Sorry for the rant, but enough is enough.[/i]
[/quote]
What in the name of Admin does that have to do with the bolded text in the OP?

No, in all seriousness. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? Because aside from the rant about complaining about game mechanics, the bolded is the only thing there that is even tangentially related to what I'm talking about.

And you're totally agreeing with it. So what gives, exactly?

Edited December 22, 2011 by TehChron

[Ryan Greenberg]

I thought post-Karma was interesting at first. The new Moldavi Doctrine, Frostbite, the rise of Moralism/anti-tech raiding, NSO, the rise of Super Grievences, and other events were fun to watch. WWE was boring as hell, but at least Bipolar wasn't lame. In the long run however, it only delayed the game a year and a half until TOP could attack Polar again. Boring. The Bipolar era will end after this war in my opinion. These grudges need to end.

[IYIyTh]

Less talk, more do.

[TehChron]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1324588732' post='2884225']
Less talk, more do.
[/quote]
I agree completely.

Go get started already.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1324588932' post='2884228']
I agree completely.

Go get started already.
[/quote]

I'm literally years ahead of you.

[TehChron]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1324589147' post='2884232']
I'm literally years ahead of you.
[/quote]
That's great.

You know the phrase, "Those who can't do, teach", right? Totally applies to me.

If I were capable of making the narrative any good, I'd be doing it myself, rather than throwing it out into the open in the hopes that the actually capable would take note and act upon it.

I truly hope that you become capable of doing something other than playing the role of your own personal ChairmanHal, though. It'd be more interesting that way.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1324589506' post='2884237']
That's great.

You know the phrase, "Those who can't do, teach", right? Totally applies to me.

If I were capable of making the narrative any good, I'd be doing it myself, rather than throwing it out into the open in the hopes that the actually capable would take note and act upon it.
[/quote]

Not sure that teaching people they should worship people who make terribly long and poorly structured posts in an OOC section of the forum will do to engage the members you claim to want to reach. Especially when they can be summed up in about a sentence or less. Those members are on other alliance's boards, in the embassy forums. Not on the OOC section of the CN forum, where everyone knows everyone and the discussion is about as engaging as talking to a wall.

This war and its origins are proof positive.

Oh, and I think I'm supposed to fire one of these back somewhere: Teaching implies you were ever good at it to begin with.

Engage them, or...claim to have influenced a greater movement that happened due to cyclical changes in military alliances rather than personal involvement.

I know which one I will be doing and continue to do

Edited December 22, 2011 by IYIyTh

[TehChron]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1324589967' post='2884240']
[b]Not sure that teaching people they should worship people who make terribly long and poorly structured posts in an OOC section of the forum will do to engage the members you claim to want to reach.[/b] Especially when they can be summed up in about a sentence or less. Those members are on other alliance's boards, in the embassy forums. Not on the OOC section of the CN forum, where everyone knows everyone and the discussion is about as engaging as talking to a wall.

This war and its origins are proof positive.

Oh, and I think I'm supposed to fire one of these back somewhere: Teaching implies you were ever good at it to begin with.

Engage them, or...claim to have influenced a greater movement that happened due to cyclical changes in military alliances rather than personal involvement.

I know which one I will be doing and continue to do
[/quote]I'm not entirely certain that you actually read the OP, actually.

I even included a tl;dr and bolded the especially important parts of it for easy perusing. So I suppose I'll have to fire back one as well: Those who can not read, should not talk.

When you have something prepared other than a stock response, I will be happy to continue this discussion with you.

[Kzoppistan]

Excellent post, Chron.

Narrative is the choice word.

Frankly, I think the lack of defining ideology has something to do with it. One by one, the various positions an alliance could take, such as color sphere domination, political theme, anti-raiding, ect., has been stripped down into the nuts and bolts of same old Machiavellian maneuvering. Of course, that Machiavellian aspect has always been there, but above that more interesting elements could take shape. Now... not much going on.

Nature abhors a vacuum, though, so it is only a matter of time.

[IYIyTh]

I don't think you understand, reading it allowed me to comment appropriately on how poorly constructed it was.

[TehChron]

When did I tell people to worship people that adhered to my style of wall of text throwing, then?

You can see why I would be doubtful of you having read it, in that case. Unless you did read it, and what I said went over your head.

In which case, I apologize for being so callous to you.

[IYIyTh]

Your entire point circles around the idea that someone else should be providing your entertainment for you, preferably in line with the group of has-beens who have recently stated they wish to see a return to a time where grandiose ideas are slaughtered by false-prophets and propoganda churning with walls of text that will blot out the sun as a means to reinvigorate the community.

You claim politics are boring, yet, when challenged to actually contribute to the only proven direct method of doing so, refuse and claim that you only wish to inspire others by complaining about your boredom.

I'm still trying to find the part where I'm supposed to take any of your ill-constructed wall-of-text seriously.

Edited December 23, 2011 by IYIyTh

[TehChron]

Then don't?

If you can't comprehend my point by reading on your own, then what I'm saying isn't for you.

Now to actually clarify why I'm saying this:

What I'm trying to do is [i]not to complain about why I'm bored[/i]. Far from it. Stuff like this is how I entertain myself, and once this ceases to be so, Ill go off and take another hiatus.

No, what this is about, which is what I said at the very beginning of the OP, is an attempt to clarify what so many people love to dance around hypothesizing about, which is "why the game seems so much less interesting than it used to be". I think I did a decent enough job of describing that, even setting aside the poor structure of that wall of text (lol at having to nitpick on that point as if it even matters).

Now then, [i]this guy[/i] says I merely claim that politics has been boring. Far from it. I, in fact, went so far as to define [i]why[/i] politics is boring. I already take that fact for granted, a viewpoint which, while your mileage may vary, is the majority one.

So what if I'm challenged to try and take the stage? I freely admit I would do a terrible job of it. And unlike people like Crymson or Grub, I'm self-aware enough to know my limits and to not try to steal the spotlight from those better suited for it.

If the concept of treating the game as a stage and acting in the manner best suited to make it entertaining is foreign to you, then I'm afraid that what I'm getting at may be a little over your head, IYIyTh. So while I appreciate that you finally took the time to read the OP, I guess you still failed to really grasp it. Oh well.

I make my own entertainment. Your provocations do little more than further serve that end for me, as well.

Edited December 23, 2011 by TehChron

[Schmoo]

I give this assignment an A. You have put put enough thought into your post to actually spark debate.

Looking at Planet Bob from a purely scientific stance, I find this period of evolution fascinating. Yes, I agree politics are a bit stale right now, but the raw science of Bob is still very interesting.

Planet Bob may never again be a giant, but I am confident we will survive and continue to evolve. Especially if leaders like you continue to do whatever you can to make Bob interesting for YOU.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Schmoo' timestamp='1324609556' post='2884465']
I give this assignment an A. You have put put enough thought into your post to actually spark debate.

Looking at Planet Bob from a purely scientific stance, I find this period of evolution fascinating. Yes, I agree politics are a bit stale right now, but the raw science of Bob is still very interesting.

Planet Bob may never again be a giant, but I am confident we will survive and continue to evolve. Especially if leaders like you continue to do whatever you can to make Bob interesting for YOU.
[/quote]
Thank you, I'll put this grade with the other Gold Stars I have on my wall. I really appreciate it.

[Omniscient1]

I'm not reading the entire thread to see if anyone else has said this, but what about Grub and Xiph? They fit antagonist fairly well. What exactly did the others do differently that Xiph and Grub didn't? Just so we know if the future whensomeone wants to play antagonist.

[Omniscient1]

Ok skimmed through the thread and only saw one mention of Grub. None of Xiph, so my question still stands. I agree with you that people should take more risks, but risk taking is frowned upon in CN. Upset the status quo and you become the next target (Xiph and Grub as prime examples).

It's true MK by pre-empting NPO took a very interesting move, but if no one rises to stand up against them then it doesn't make things interesting at all. I'm going to go out on a limb and call some people out really quickly. Take VE for instance, last war it became blatantly obvious before the war was over SF had pissed off too many people. If VE wanted to do something interesting they could have very easily pretended to be disgusted by MK's pre-empt and saved themselves the trouble they have faced this war.

We all know VE and MK don't like each other, but on the OWF we see this whole "Let's not discuss this in public. Let's settle our differences behind closed doors." Going even farther, anyone remember when MK and TOP signed their treaty. Everyone was like "roll Poland!", we all knew what it meant. When MK was publicly asked in that thread about it though they said "we never said anything about Polar". Why can't we air our hates out publicly. Wouldn't that make things interesting?


(sorry long rant.)

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1324584786' post='2884184']
I thought post-Karma was interesting at first. The new Moldavi Doctrine, Frostbite, the rise of Moralism/anti-tech raiding, NSO, the rise of Super Grievences, and other events were fun to watch. WWE was boring as hell, but at least Bipolar wasn't lame. In the long run however, it only delayed the game a year and a half until TOP could attack Polar again. Boring. The Bipolar era will end after this war in my opinion. These grudges need to end.
[/quote]

There was no rise of moralism. Moralism saw its peak before and during Karma. Afterwards, when NPO had been cast down, everyone somewhat stood around wondering what to do. Rather than recognising that the boredom was due to the end of an era, there was a great backlash against moralism, which was supposedly 'killing the game' because it prevented people from 'doing interesting stuff'. This was of course a myth because by this point everyone had turned on moralism. Vladimir would say that the usefulness of moralism had run its course and thus it was abandoned. I am less cynical. I simply believe that SF and C&G weren't very good bad guys which is why moralism became outdated. That didn't stop NPO from playing the victim of course, except that because of their history most people saw through the !@#$%^&*. It was only newer players who hadn't been around to experience their rule who got sucked into it.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1324611712' post='2884490']
Ok skimmed through the thread and only saw one mention of Grub. None of Xiph, so my question still stands. I agree with you that people should take more risks, but risk taking is frowned upon in CN. Upset the status quo and you become the next target (Xiph and Grub as prime examples).

It's true MK by pre-empting NPO took a very interesting move, but if no one rises to stand up against them then it doesn't make things interesting at all. I'm going to go out on a limb and call some people out really quickly. Take VE for instance, last war it became blatantly obvious before the war was over SF had pissed off too many people. If VE wanted to do something interesting they could have very easily pretended to be disgusted by MK's pre-empt and saved themselves the trouble they have faced this war.

We all know VE and MK don't like each other, but on the OWF we see this whole "Let's not discuss this in public. Let's settle our differences behind closed doors." Going even farther, anyone remember when MK and TOP signed their treaty. Everyone was like "roll Poland!", we all knew what it meant. When MK was publicly asked in that thread about it though they said "we never said anything about Polar". Why can't we air our hates out publicly. Wouldn't that make things interesting?


(sorry long rant.)
[/quote]
I've covered Grub already, anyway, I believe I already mentioned this, but the issue at hand isn't one of people taking risks or being original. It's a simple manner of people with personas that are interesting to watch, and are capable of leveraging the political narrative in a direction that sucks the rest of it in.

The anti-villainy of CnG-MK-SF-DH has just not been as interesting as the out and out evil hegemony that the NPO represented during their reign. That's a concrete fact, not just some random inference. The problem is as simple as allowing capable people to have the tools to do what they want. This isn't done exclusively by means of them possessing an overwhelming military advantage, but, it can also be accomplished by having the backing of friends that would have their back no matter what the circumstances. Like Londo had with the Knights of Ni! raid.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1324612732' post='2884505']
I've covered Grub already, anyway, I believe I already mentioned this, but the issue at hand isn't one of people taking risks or being original. It's a simple manner of people with personas that are interesting to watch, and are capable of leveraging the political narrative in a direction that sucks the rest of it in.

The anti-villainy of CnG-MK-SF-DH has just not been as interesting as the out and out evil hegemony that the NPO represented during their reign. That's a concrete fact, not just some random inference. The problem is as simple as allowing capable people to have the tools to do what they want. This isn't done exclusively by means of them possessing an overwhelming military advantage, but, it can also be accomplished by having the backing of friends that would have their back no matter what the circumstances. Like Londo had with the Knights of Ni! raid.
[/quote]

Except I don't think that was that interesting. It would have been if Grub would have actually done something, but once again nothing happened.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1324612847' post='2884514']
Except I don't think that was that interesting. It would have been if Grub would have actually done something, but once again nothing happened.
[/quote]
Yes, that's why Grub is a terrible example of antagonist.

[i]But[/i], it was that kind of action that was so interesting. From Londo it was out of left field, perfectly in characer, hilariously audacious, and potentially catastrophic. Even if it was arguably dumb as hell, it was still interesting to watch unfold [i]as everything played out in reaction to Londo's actions[/i]. The closest comparison Grub has is BiPolar, and he epically bungled that opportunity.

See what Im getting at, here? It's about being able to drive the narrative by their own actions, and the rest of us being caught up in it.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1324613260' post='2884520']
Yes, that's why Grub is a terrible example of antagonist.

[i]But[/i], it was that kind of action that was so interesting. From Londo it was out of left field, perfectly in characer, hilariously audacious, and potentially catastrophic. Even if it was arguably dumb as hell, it was still interesting to watch unfold [i]as everything played out in reaction to Londo's actions[/i]. The closest comparison Grub has is BiPolar, and he epically bungled that opportunity.

See what Im getting at, here? It's about being able to drive the narrative by their own actions, and the rest of us being caught up in it.
[/quote]

Then what about Xiph?

[TehChron]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1324613398' post='2884525']
Then what about Xiph?
[/quote]
Iunno, I wasn't around for his heyday, and while we were screwing around with him over at the NSO he never struck us as particularly impressive. Maybe it was because he associated himself with people like StarcraftMazter or something? Who knows.

In any case, considering our Beer Review, it's hard to take the guy seriously after we pulled something like that over him. So maybe that's more personal bias than anything?

*shrug*

[Micheal Malone]

I can't believe I read this entire thread, and not one mention of NG... we need to go to war even more frequently?

[TehChron]

[quote name='Micheal Malone' timestamp='1324615607' post='2884568']
I can't believe I read this entire thread, and not one mention of NG... we need to go to war even more frequently?
[/quote]
I only wish it were that simple.