The Story Thus Far

[OsRavan]

should a nation show up on equal footing? no of course not. But they should have the realistic ability to be able to catch up and be on an equal footing with a reasonable amount of time and effort (6 months? a year). You won't convince me that in-ability is in no way connected to the low retention rate.

As to the rest of your hate rant.... yeah. Not worth going in circles with you about ::amused::.

[Doitzel]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1324877028' post='2886475']
I started a war.
[/quote]
A very boring one for someone of your talents. Random wars of unprovoked aggression are [i]so[/i] 2008.

But in all seriousness the TOP-Polar thing is going on 4 years and rivaling the NPO-LUE/MK antagonism in how cliché it's become. The game needs a coal and steel community for the pair of you.

[Rexy]

Went looking for games similar to CN that were fairly new about half an hour ago. After a bit of Googling, I could not find anything decent. At the same time, the number of nations has only declined at a slow pace. Sure, if you haven't been around for at least 4 and a half years you haven't got a shot going anywhere but that isn't too different to real politics... and it's a whole lot cheaper too.

[Sephiroth]

If a new nation back collects 20 days of taxes and receives 2 aid cycles full of aid during that time, a new nation can reach 5k infra in about a month. Once at 5k infra they can start buying a wonder every month, I wouldn't call that impossible for new players to get into the game. Many older nations have rebuilt from ZI to 5k infra many times over the course of their nation and wouldn't mind doing it several times over again. Also for a new nation to get into leadership positions its just a matter of showing off your capabilities and finding allies within your alliance who would like to see the alliance go in a similiar direction as the one you support.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Methrage

[OsRavan]

5k infra isnt the goal though. WRC and being able to contend with the 100 plus ns nations is.

Im not saying people should just be handed that. But after say 6 months a year of playing the game (any game) actively, imo a player should be able to go toe to toe with anyone else in the game. Maybe some advantages stay, but you should be able to make up the big gaps.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1325017970' post='2887422']
5k infra isnt the goal though. WRC and being able to contend with the 100 plus ns nations is.

Im not saying people should just be handed that. But after say 6 months a year of playing the game (any game) actively, imo a player should be able to go toe to toe with anyone else in the game. Maybe some advantages stay, but you should be able to make up the big gaps.
[/quote]
5k infra they make enough money so they can start buying wonders every month, after about a year of playing they can go toe to toe and even be ahead of many players who have been hear much longer doing things less efficiently. I see no reason someone shouldn't have WRC within a year of playing if they optimize their nation growth and put effort into catching up. I started playing around the time of the Unjust War, I had MP in time for the noCB War, then I was able to rebuild to 8.5k infra in time to get WRC for the Karma War, as well as the rest of the wonders you don't need 10k+ infra to buy.

Also worth noting is I started playing September of 2007, the noCB War started August 11, 2008. I actually bought my first 20 nukes before MP was added to the game by making it into the top 5% before the next major war started (Mar 6 2008, 02:55 AM I made a post about it), but I bought MP+SDI before the war started so getting knocked out of the top 5% wouldn't effect my nuke buying. So for a good portion of the population having a year ahead of me to build up, being able to get in the top 5% didn't take very long in the scheme of things. In the noCB War I got knocked down to around 5k infra, but rebuilt to 8.5k infra again fast enough to get WRC when that was added before the Karma War.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Methrage

[Sabcat]

My nation's 510 days old, 2.6k infra, no wonders. Doesn't put me off the game in the slightest. I enjoy war and I don't see it being any more enjoyable fighting larger nations - it'd be the same.

If I'd have spend 300 of those days in a neutral alliance to get big selling tech and back collecting I'd have left the game by day 100 if I made it that far. Clearly there are players who do like the nation building side of the game, good luck to them. If they're happy in a neutral then I'm happy for them. It's not for me though.

Get into an alliance, talk to people, argue with people. That's what the game's about. The mechanics are incidental to me.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324994362' post='2887244']
should a nation show up on equal footing? no of course not. But they should have the realistic ability to be able to catch up and be on an equal footing with a reasonable amount of time and effort (6 months? a year). You won't convince me that in-ability is in no way connected to the low retention rate.[/quote][quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1325017970' post='2887422']
5k infra isnt the goal though. WRC and being able to contend with the 100 plus ns nations is.

Im not saying people should just be handed that. But after say 6 months a year of playing the game (any game) actively, imo a player should be able to go toe to toe with anyone else in the game. Maybe some advantages stay, but you should be able to make up the big gaps.
[/quote]
There are 720 out of 15701 nations over 100k NS. Are you seriously standing here saying that retention is low because nations can't make it into the top 4% of the game within 6 months? You don't have a leg to stand on, that is preposterous. Sabcat hit the nail on the head in the post above this one, and he's not me, so you can reply to his post without claiming that he's just rebutting you because he's a meany.

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1324994362' post='2887244']As to the rest of your hate rant.... yeah. Not worth going in circles with you about ::amused::.
[/quote]
Hey, everyone, I'm an internet hate machine. I expect you all to start claiming that I hate you instead of claiming that I'm irrelevant when you need a trash reply to my posts.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Schattenmann

[TehChron]

Hold it.

Hold it hold it hold it.

This discussion is [i]not[/i] about game mechanics. There are dozens of other discussions elsewhere for that. This is about the stuff I brought up with in the OP [i]which is, at most, parallel to the issues of game mechanics you guys are bringing up[/i].

The two discussions are not parallel. It's a tangent. I want to make that clear.

[Bob Janova]

There is some valid comment in the OP, though the 'oh isn't Ivan great' gets rather tiresome. (If he was that great, his second coming wouldn't still be stuck in an irrelevant annoyance of an alliance.)

The NPO-led Initiative/Continuum period left a lot of people and alliances on 'the other side' with a huge distaste for that style of play, and after that side comprehensively won in Karma, none of them want to be led by a 'new NPO' and therefore none is allowed to appear. There are far too many 'leader' alliances, wanting to control their own destiny and run their own power sphere, and not enough 'follower' alliances, to allow a single megabloc to emerge which could control a plurality of the political strength, never mind a majority (which is what you need to be an aggressive hegemon). For all the IC jokes about MK running everything, they are but one among many alliances which each control sections of the political web. And that means that no single one of those sections can do anything that would lose the support of the others, otherwise they would get crushed.

The sole exception to that is DH attacking NPO, which they could only do because all of the other post-Karmic power clusters were already busy in the NpO war.

Don't expect any change until most of the main Karma and post-Karma actors fade from the political scene, or until they decide that their aims are similar enough to work together into a unified hegemony. At the moment there's at least MK, TOP and VE and so each one of those must consider what the others' reaction would be (undoubtedly negative) to any overt hegemonic coalition building. Although there are treaty networks between them, none would be happy in a hegemony run under the style of the other two, and therefore they won't come together into an AoA-style partnership at the core of a hegemony. (Doomhouse appears to be trying to do that, but they lack the support of several important alliances and therefore can't run one.)

There have been some moves in that direction. OV folded long ago, Athens has merged away and stepped back from the front of the stage, Citadel imploded, and now SF is being dismantled. Archon has essentially retired from active duty and that may pull MK away from the front line, although Ardus seems to be playing a similar role. But it is a slow process and I don't see it going far enough to allow a hegemony for some time yet.

I'm not actually sure I agree with your conclusion that we want bipolarity, anyway. Your perspective on how fun that was is greatly skewed by being in the hegemony (and the core of it, at that) the whole time, and likewise your perspective on post-Karma is biased by being in an alliance with little political freedom and which is often picked on. The measure you use (OWF thread size) is more reflective of a cultural change towards back channels and secrecy than of a lack of interest, in my opinion (though that trend in itself is damaging to inclusivity and fun for all players) – those Karma or earlier threads were full of posters trying to change opinion through public posting, and that is much less common now.

[Schattenmann]

A good Bob Janova post is like a Sun Station on Venus.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1325080243' post='2887938']
There is some valid comment in the OP, though the 'oh isn't Ivan great' gets rather tiresome. [b](If he was that great, his second coming wouldn't still be stuck in an irrelevant annoyance of an alliance.)[/b]

The NPO-led Initiative/Continuum period left a lot of people and alliances on 'the other side' with a huge distaste for that style of play, and after that side comprehensively won in Karma, none of them want to be led by a 'new NPO' and therefore none is allowed to appear. There are far too many 'leader' alliances, wanting to control their own destiny and run their own power sphere, and not enough 'follower' alliances, to allow a single megabloc to emerge which could control a plurality of the political strength, never mind a majority (which is what you need to be an aggressive hegemon). For all the IC jokes about MK running everything, they are but one among many alliances which each control sections of the political web. And that means that no single one of those sections can do anything that would lose the support of the others, otherwise they would get crushed.

The sole exception to that is DH attacking NPO, which they could only do because all of the other post-Karmic power clusters were already busy in the NpO war.

Don't expect any change until most of the main Karma and post-Karma actors fade from the political scene, or until they decide that their aims are similar enough to work together into a unified hegemony. At the moment there's at least MK, TOP and VE and so each one of those must consider what the others' reaction would be (undoubtedly negative) to any overt hegemonic coalition building. Although there are treaty networks between them, none would be happy in a hegemony run under the style of the other two, and therefore they won't come together into an AoA-style partnership at the core of a hegemony. (Doomhouse appears to be trying to do that, but they lack the support of several important alliances and therefore can't run one.)

There have been some moves in that direction. OV folded long ago, Athens has merged away and stepped back from the front of the stage, Citadel imploded, and now SF is being dismantled. Archon has essentially retired from active duty and that may pull MK away from the front line, although Ardus seems to be playing a similar role. But it is a slow process and I don't see it going far enough to allow a hegemony for some time yet.

I'm not actually sure I agree with your conclusion that we want bipolarity, anyway. Your perspective on how fun that was is greatly skewed by being in the hegemony (and the core of it, at that) the whole time, and likewise your perspective on post-Karma is biased by being in an alliance with little political freedom and which is often picked on. [b]The measure you use (OWF thread size) is more reflective of a cultural change towards back channels and secrecy than of a lack of interest, in my opinion (though that trend in itself is damaging to inclusivity and fun for all players) – those Karma or earlier threads were full of posters trying to change opinion through public posting, and that is much less common now.[/b]
[/quote]...

I know you're probably as biased against me as WarriorConcept is, but did you actually read the OP, or did you just use selective speedreading?

First bold, I mentioned Ivan once or twice. And to be frank, Ivan has always been more interesting to watch work than you and yours. It hardly constitutes worship to state a bald fact.

Additionally [i]most of your random speech has nothing to do with what I was discussing, which was a lack of interesting personalities in positions of power and the effect that has upon the community[/i]. I don't see how you can not get that. It's right there.

For the second bold...Yes. That is a point I made. And that was a result of bipolarity. Multipolarity just hasn't been as interesting to follow. Like it or not, the OWF is the one stage everyone sees, and the fact that the stage is rather dull reflects on the narrative being rather dull, which affects motivation, and therefore, retention. Links of causation.

You're arguing that my perspective is flawed when I explained already that it's not. If anything, it's you who possesses access to the full picture that just doesn't appreciate how average individuals don't find the narrative interesting. You possess a flawed perspective, Bob.

You're just mistaken.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1325102587' post='2888126']
...

I know you're probably as biased against me as WarriorConcept is, but did you actually read the OP, or did you just use selective speedreading?

First bold, I mentioned Ivan once or twice. And to be frank, Ivan has always been more interesting to watch work than you and yours. It hardly constitutes worship to state a bald fact.

Additionally [i]most of your random speech has nothing to do with what I was discussing, which was a lack of interesting personalities in positions of power and the effect that has upon the community[/i]. I don't see how you can not get that. It's right there.

For the second bold...Yes. That is a point I made. And that was a result of bipolarity. Multipolarity just hasn't been as interesting to follow. Like it or not, the OWF is the one stage everyone sees, and the fact that the stage is rather dull reflects on the narrative being rather dull, which affects motivation, and therefore, retention. Links of causation.

You're arguing that my perspective is flawed when I explained already that it's not. If anything, it's you who possesses access to the full picture that just doesn't appreciate how average individuals don't find the narrative interesting. You possess a flawed perspective, Bob.

You're just mistaken.
[/quote]
I have to take issue with the statement that there has been multi-polarity post-Karma. It is a false conclusion that a bloc is necessarily a pole; in fact, it is this clever disguise that has allowed many of the Pacificesque actions of the past 2 years to pass without alarm. Just because there are 5 blocs doesn't mean there are 5 poles; that was true during the Pax Pacifica, and it's true today. Citadel's stats were massive, but they were not separate from Continuum; One Vision had a mind of its own, but it was entirely dependent upon Continuum, same with BLEU and AZTEC. SuperFriends and C&G might have had differences of opinion during the SuperGrievances period, and they did not always act in unison, but they were united in policy and deed, and dependent upon each other to have their back; two blocs, one pole. The formation of Pandora's Box was not the creation of a new pole, it was one more head of the hydra. Mjolnir was in existence for like 2 days before member AAs started treatying Doom House. PF is right there [s]despite[/s] in spite of how intelligent its constituents are. Even now while they're at war, they're all allied to each other.
Is it different in practice than the Pax Pacifica? Yes, the decision-making is more diffused and would-be madmen like Ardus have to do more work to round everyone up (and do sometimes fail). But are the results different? No. Look at the war web, and look at the treaty web. Having 50+ alliances all tied together is the same whether its through one huge bloc (Continuum) or through 5 big blocs. People that buy into that are kidding themselves (eyriq) or selling something (Ardus) or buying something.

[Bob Janova]

There actually was multipolarity from Karma until at least Bipolar: Citadel, VE/SF, NpO and hangers-on and C&G were independent actors, not to mention the NPO and friends who were still politically relevant. At what point that condensed into one or two poles is up for debate (not one I really want to get into because it's hard to discuss OOC) but it was certainly true for those months.

I don't see how back channels and secrecy are linked to bipolarity (or rather a lack of it). The lack of OWF posting is a result of a top level secrecy and a culture of opsec, but that doesn't appear to have anything directly to do with the wider situation. Can you explain where you see that link?

Apparently you didn't really read my post, since the 'random speech' is addressing exactly your point. It isn't that there aren't interesting individuals (Archon? Ardus? Impero? LM? Grub?) but that the culture of the alliances that won Karma will not allow any of those individuals to do the kind of 'interesting' stuff that you appear to be reminiscing about.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1325119536' post='2888269']
There actually was multipolarity from Karma until at least Bipolar: Citadel, VE/SF, NpO and hangers-on and C&G were independent actors, not to mention the NPO and friends who were still politically relevant. At what point that condensed into one or two poles is up for debate (not one I really want to get into because it's hard to discuss OOC) but it was certainly true for those months.

I don't see how back channels and secrecy are linked to bipolarity (or rather a lack of it). The lack of OWF posting is a result of a top level secrecy and a culture of opsec, but that doesn't appear to have anything directly to do with the wider situation. Can you explain where you see that link?

Apparently you didn't really read my post, since the 'random speech' is addressing exactly your point. It isn't that there aren't interesting individuals (Archon? Ardus? Impero? LM? Grub?) but that the culture of the alliances that won Karma will not allow any of those individuals to do the kind of 'interesting' stuff that you appear to be reminiscing about.
[/quote]

Very good post, I think.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1325119536' post='2888269']
Archon? Ardus? Impero? LM? Grub?
[/quote]
Archon is retired and barely active. I just recently stepped down from power because I'm too busy in real life. LiquidMercury is a cool fellow but not particularly interesting from the now backwatered Gremlins, nor have I ever known him to be particularly boat rocking. Nobody takes Grub seriously because there's no power behind his posturing.

[Cortath]

Part of the problem with these online games, as perhaps Chron hints at, is a sort of character fatigue. Few players are able to continue playing their characters for years and years, and many, like real leaders, are loathe to give up the power to do so. It is a difficult job for a new leader to spend political capital wiping clean the slate of upper management who may have been excellent in 2006 or 2007, but less able and less active to perform in 2011.

What someone like the leaders Chron mentions, and I'll simply name Moldavi for simplicity sakes, comes into a new planet, a new world, with ready-made cadres of talented people, he doesn't have to waste political capital or time forming coalition or solidifying power. He can simply go out and do whatever foreign policy he wishes to do. Such is a tabula rosa. But in an established world like ours, no leader can come to power in such a way. There is clawing uphill, and compromises, and shifting alliances, and once there, debts to be paid. You can't simply go out and do whatever you want, because you're part of a large alliance power structure that is difficult to change, refocus, and shape. You must work within the structure that brought you to power, and it is not easy to purge or cleanse an alliance leadership to put in place your own people. Such is not possible is a more developed political environment, only in one such as that in which we were all born to in 2006.

[Monster]

Wow, that is spot on.

[Cortath]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325133251' post='2888341']
Wow, that is spot on.
[/quote]

Thank you. It's why I got paid the big bucks once.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Cortath' timestamp='1325133832' post='2888348']
Thank you. It's why I got paid the big bucks once.
[/quote]

Glad to see you're still around.

[AlmightyGrub]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1325119536' post='2888269']
Apparently you didn't really read my post, since the 'random speech' is addressing exactly your point. It isn't that there aren't interesting individuals (Archon? Ardus? Impero? LM? Grub?) but that the culture of the alliances that won Karma will not allow any of those individuals to do the kind of 'interesting' stuff that you appear to be reminiscing about.
[/quote]

I concur. The reality is quite simple, doing something interesting is only 'amusing' if it fits with what the current majority want. I have always hated certain trends within the community, but there is a limit to what you can achieve given the nature of many of the people currently in the driver's seat.

There can never be another Ivan type persona, such a stance can not be supported in this highly 'ordered' world. Ivan worked largely in a vacuum and seized power because basically no one had claimed it. That is no longer possible, a structure exists and you have to work around those who are stakeholders within the structure. Such stakeholders worked hard to shore up their positions, I admire their determination, but really they have created something even more boring that the hegemony that existed.

I had a reasonable run of doing my share to making life interesting, but ultimately it is not sustainable unless you have the support of the super majority, who are not at all similar in their outlook to me. I devised a plan, some options to it and ran with it, creating the largest cluster!@#$ in Bob's history, but it was deemed not amusing enough by the peanut gallery, even though it benefitted everyone involved to some extent or another.

On a related note, Crymson v Grub is not remotely interesting because both entities are incapable of action outside the framework that exists. TOP v Polaris is similarly boring because neither alliance matters in the current structure. Previously both alliances held a balance of power but I don't believe either holds any such position now. This war is one of the most boring things I have ever been involved in. The conclusion to it virtually assures that nothing will change in the near future stagnating the whole mess even further.

I can not honestly be interesting any more, if I ever was, because there is not a support for being intersting and I lack the power that I once held. You can not have a plan that exists outside the bubble of the people in control and we know that any plan that creates interest will have an adverse effect on another parties plans. The current hegemony have slowly but surely repeated the same pattern as the old hegemony, the only difference is the previous one didn't have the same sense of humor.

In the end what does it matter, no one will do anything without the approval of 999 other stakeholders lest they become the pariah/next target. Boring? You bet. Fixable? I doubt it.

[Cortath]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1325137904' post='2888374']
Glad to see you're still around.
[/quote]

Likewise to you. I'm glad to be around around again.

[WorldConqueror]

Hi Cortath. Join NSO :>

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Cortath' timestamp='1325132786' post='2888336']
Part of the problem with these online games, as perhaps Chron hints at, is a sort of character fatigue. Few players are able to continue playing their characters for years and years, and many, like real leaders, are loathe to give up the power to do so. It is a difficult job for a new leader to spend political capital wiping clean the slate of upper management who may have been excellent in 2006 or 2007, but less able and less active to perform in 2011.
[/quote]
I agree that this plays a large part in stagnation, its hard for someone to stay motivated for many years in a row to keep things interesting in a game atmosphere where starting to many wars will turn your allies against you and without war its hard for leaders to stay motivated to continue leading in slow periods, while also keeping the alliance active/satisfied. Then once a leader steps down and leaves government, it can seem like to much of a hassle to get back into it. Ivan will likely never hold the same type of power he had at his peak, as he's already given it up to others who won't just hand it over when he decides to be active again. Same goes for many other former alliance leaders who were once interesting, but no longer hold the kind of power to shake the world up.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Methrage

[White Chocolate]

Overall, well written. Hope you get a decent grade.

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1324535098' post='2883907'][b]With one exception, the antagonistic personality's in the CN political game have been incredibly uninteresting. Undynamic. Unappealing. And worst of all: Reactionary.[/b][/quote]

I disagree. There are a number of people who show promise. However, to be a good antagonist you also need power, preferably of the direct kind - and a LOT of it. Gaining that takes time. What I think it would take is some of the current larger alliances merging into one big one, and then signing at least mutual defense agreements with some other large ones. Basically a group large enough and with enough treaties that the group CAN start being antagonistic without starting a war where everyone else jumps on them. Then watch what happens.

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1324535098' post='2883907'][b]The pre-Karma CN political narrative, hereby referred to as "Ivan's era" for the sake of convenience, was largely a story of a bipolar political structure. Everything was either about being "With Pacifica" or "Against Pacifica", and that is how players defined their actions within the confines of the larger metagame. Post-Karma, the narrative shifted from one larger story, to a series of smaller vignettes which took shape as a series of smaller grudges and minor backbiting, with larger conflicts only truly arising as the result of political convenience. In short, smaller stories meant fewer people cared, since they weren't impacted by them. And there was no one true "larger story" for the individual lurker or alliance member to identify themselves with, thus leading to a general disinterest.[/b][/quote]

Interesting, but you're assuming that what made people want to either be "With Pacifica" or "Against Pacifica" was tied to something OTHER than "a series of smaller vignettes" which you are critical of in the Post-Karma era.

I became a member of this community about half a year before Karma. I didn't know much about NPO. I became aware of the grumblings and when I asked people what the problem was, the answers I got were ALL "a series of smaller vignettes." One alliance didn't like the fact that they got pushed off red team, another had freinds who were placed on PZI or EZI lists, another was in an alliance curb stomped by NPO. Point is - they were ALL from personal experience or those experiences of friends. It wasn't a disagreement of political philosophy or a general dislike of NPO, it was a whole lot of people having their own personal grudges against the same large alliance. The only reason more people cared on an international level was because NPO had gotten so powerful that it could do things which caused MANY people to hate them on a large scale, and seemingly without consequence.

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1324535098' post='2883907']In older times, the OWF was the story, because people cared enough to make their grievances and trolls and leaks and other such things as public as possible for maximum effect. The Pacificans and co would haunt the OWF in order to stomp out political dissent and demonstrate their rhetorical superiority. There was passion, because they were interested, and cared about supporting whichever side they were on.[/quote]

When an alliance becomes so powerful that it can "haunt the OWF in order to stomp out political dissent" then having the ability to dissent becomes MUCH more important. People take "rights" for granted until they are lost. People cared because Pacifica cared enough to try and tell people they couldn't. Thus, when someone (or a group) said "oh, yes I can and I don't care what you do about it" then all of a sudden everyone else is decided that the debate was worth paying attention to and worth supporting one side or the other.

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1324535098' post='2883907']Setting aside [i]that totally necessary tangent[/i] once again, I'm gonna close by hoping that whatever happens next, it proves to be better written than whatever immediately preceded it. It shouldn't be too difficult. We just need someone who can actively generate controversy instead of react to it. Someone willing to piss people off in the interest of having fun, rather than just trying to stir up !@#$. And actually do so while being a competent alliance leader as well, who people can trust to act how he says he will. Even if he's a complete !@#$%^&, at least you know which way the wind will be blowing when he says hes going to come after you.[/quote]

Remember the person who announced a while back a takeover of the black color sphere? Everyone had a blast making fun of that and no one took it serious. Was that because the person lacked passion or an ability to speak?

Suppose the same thing, except lets say Tolwyn (i know, just imagine it anyway) was the head of a black team alliance with 750 members at various nation strengths, had treaties with the majority of black team alliances and THEY backed him. Would he have been treated the same? no.

Assuming what is needed is controversy, then what is really needed is not someone willing to piss people off (we have an abundance of people who are willing), or people we can trust to act as he or she says he or she will, what we need is a person like that with enough power to back it up.

[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]

LOL - okay, you're one of the groups that show promise. Feel better

Anyway, it takes time and their are enough people out there who do not want an NPO style overlord - so the person/alliance will have to work harder because the rest of us are looking for it this time around.

So, we get a bunch of little wars for awhile. There is really nothing, other than individual opinion, that says that is worse or better than one huge war where almost every alliance takes part. In fact, other than this war (which is VERY MUCH a personal grudge on my part), the most fun I personally had in a long time was keeping up on the war between The Legion and Tetris and Co. and that stayed relatively small.

Edited December 29, 2011 by White Chocolate