Ironfist Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 I sort of agree about treaties. I've always seen "optional" defence/aggression as the most pointless thing to ever write into a treaty. Ever. Everything is optional. You can attack and defend whoever you want, such is the way of a [b]game[/b]. I think a few people have missed the OP's point about treaties. He's not suggesting the removal of treaties, nor the implementation of "hardcoded" treaties. He's suggesting we stop having so many ridiculous types of treaties and just stick to "we are treatied" and "we are not treatied". Unfortunately, people like to wrap themselves in words so they look smarter than what they've just written. "I, for one, couldn't [i]possibly[/i] defend that alliance unless I had an optional treaty with them!" - Cyber Nations Logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 Reset the game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proest Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 I'd like to point out that quite a few alliances are already with the new idea of not keeping war chests and scrapping/avoiding treaties. I can think of a good lot of terrible alliances that fit that bill. I'd also like to point out that spying, while thought to be fun and 'exploration' is nothing more than ... ah nevermind. If you want things to change, hit up the big guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) [b]I. Scrap the entire treaty system[/b] Is not going to happen. Treaties are simply a way of formalising relationships, and whether you write them down or not, the relationships are still the same, and you will have to let people know about them because this community does not accept secret treaties. (And even if it did, you want to project an image of a strong, connected group of alliances, and although some ambiguity about friendships can help you in that regard, completely 'hidden' friends just increase the chance of someone attacking you because you appear weaker.) What I think should happen, though, is that people stop thinking they need a treaty in order to do anything. This view is gaining some ground, but you still see coalition planners trying to find a chain of oA clauses, getting ghost declarations and all those stupid things. I'd like to see an end to the idea that you can't enter a war without a treaty saying you can. You have the option to do whatever you want that you haven't signed away, and in the case of entering a war that means you can always hit anyone you don't have a NAP with. [quote]In my mind, we should either be fully allied or not at all allied. If you stand by someone, it's unconditional.[/quote] Are your RL friendships so binary? Would you stand by your bowling friends if they went on a shooting rampage? I don't think that you should force people into a 'friend or no friend' dichotomy like that. [b]II. A return to spying[/b] will only happen if there is an incentive to do it, because there is a strong IC political disincentive (it is an instant CB). Particularly with the progression towards coalition warfare, the enemy is probably so leaky already that you don't need to actively spy and risk the recrimination. Sites such as FreeCN or CNtel show that spying is still an active part of the game for some people, though. [b]III. Stop assessing reparations to losers of wars[/b]: this has already happened, with TOP getting landed with the last huge reps. As Brehon's IC thread over in WA points out, this doesn't actually stop losers from complaining about terms. The current situation is already as good as it can reasonably be. [b]IV. Stop amassing huge warchests[/b] won't happen for several reasons, which combine to make it advantageous to do so. You need game mechanics changes to stop people doing this. Here's a few of those reasons: [list] [*]At the top end, there is nothing to waste money on. The ROI for infra becomes very long and even negative at high infra. Tech above 3000 does not give a significant enough bonus to justify buying it, and nor does land – and both of these also have a diminishing ROI, though not one that goes negative. [*]Money is much harder to destroy than infra or land. The maximum loss per day if you turtle is $30m, I think ($10m for a DA and another $20m in spy ops), meaning it takes 100 days to knock down a $3 billion warchest; $3bn's worth of infra (about 12k if I remember right) can be taken down in 10 days. [*]The penalty for running out of money is huge. If I fight a brutal war and get ZI'd, but I still have $3bn left, I can rebuild instantly back to a useful level. If I get knocked down only a bit, say to 5k infra, but I have no money, it will take me months to rebuild to 10k. [/list] There's a variety of changes that could be made to switch the balance: increase the caps on money loot and Destroy Money spy ops; make a proportion of infra 'damaged' instead of destroyed, which is far easier to rebuild after war; make tech cheaper and easier to destroy, so it is worth large nations buying tech and doing so after war, make money 'decay' (you could call it inflation) to discourage sitting on it. But until the game changes there is absolutely no logical reason not to hold a big warchest. [b]V. Stop ordering your members into peace mode at the outset of a war[/b]: I agree with this one, it is surely very boring for the players in such alliances. Again, this is because it's at least thought to be the most advantageous thing to do (though I disagree with that in most war scenarios, going down fighting and rebuilding afterwards is often better in the big picture). I think we need to make PM more of a 'vacation mode' than something you can hop in and out of with limited penalty, but again that's a game design change. There also needs to be more of an IC political backlash against alliances which do this, so that it isn't the best thing for them to do (whether through peace terms from their enemies or through a lack of interest in allying with them from potential friends). [b]VI. Increase artful and thought-out propaganda[/b]. I would say that the problem here is actually a related but slightly different point. Back in the time of the old NPO crew, this forum was the centrepiece of alliance politics, and the debates carried out here helped to form opinions everywhere. That's why people bothered to make a propaganda effort. Many of the 'lulz' alliances who won Karma never valued serious discussion among memberships, preferring them to have 'fun' and 'a good time' and let the leaderships handle politics, and that naturally extends to a disregard of this forum for inter-alliance politics. MK are, on and off, an exception to this, but mostly only when Archon is active. This one requires the casual players (the ones who don't have and don't aspire to have a government position) and those in 'middle management' (in government roles but not given top tier access) to rebel against the machine and to demand more openness in politics, and if necessary set up their own, more open, alliances. Opsec does have some value but when the entire political process happens behind closed doors between a small cabal of senior players, it's not good for the fun of the game for everyone else. And if you're in senior government, you should consider making your alliance more open. But like all revolutions, it must mostly come from the demands of the ordinary players. Unfortunately, they're probably discouraged from posting or even reading here by the culture of most alliances, which encourages members to get their political information through their leadership instead of finding it by themselves. [b]VII. Have fun and stop taking this game so seriously[/b] [quote]This is a GAME. Let's enjoy it and allow others to enjoy it, too. You CAN have IC animosity with someone and have a cordial OOC relationship. [/quote] Absolutely agreed – but I don't think that's as much as a problem as you appear to think. Edit: removed paragraph from the OP that never got deleted earlier Edited January 14, 2012 by Bob Janova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='SeasonsOfLove' timestamp='1326493899' post='2899059'] [b]I. Scrap the entire treaty system[/b][/quote] LOL, no. [quote][b]II. A return to spying[/b][/quote] Truth is, the costs of spying outweigh the benefits in most cases. [quote][b]III. Stop assessing reparations to losers of wars[/b][/quote] Reps have gone down significantly lately and yet things aren't any more interesting. [quote][b]IV. Stop amassing huge warchests[/b][/quote] Or just have Admin put a hard cap on how much money somebody can have. Like, say, 1 billion currency. [quote][b]VI. Increase artful and thought-out propaganda[/b][/quote] There are only so many ways to make propaganda. [quote][b]VII. Have fun and stop taking this game so seriously[/b][/quote] Oh wow, you're really a grade A philosopher. If only somebody had come along and given us this wisdom before! The game is saved! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1326497140' post='2899089'] Also wrt point 2, spying isn't just frowned upon, it's been pretty much universally recognized as not something that helps your alliance be successful. So little valuable information is available to new members that any gain is pretty negligible. [/quote] Oh, I dunno, it depends what you're trying to be successful at. [quote name='SeasonsOfLove' timestamp='1326498664' post='2899110'] I guess I'm just not content to hear "We've always done it that way" and say that means it works and there isn't a better way. [/quote] Francoism will save us! You'll find little enthusiasm for challenging the paradigms of '06-'07. These days it takes a lot of staying power to alter the zeitgeist and keep things moving where you like long enough for them to become norms. Do you have that kind of dedication? I know I don't! [quote name='Roxas' timestamp='1326503501' post='2899147'] Treaties are the "friend confirmed" of CN politics. How could we confirm friendship without these [/quote] FAN and Fark have it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bros Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 Reps should be made commonplace, rather than the current trend of them being seen as taboo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='A person' timestamp='1326550713' post='2899393'] [b] [/b] Let's face it, we're running out of good stuff. We come up with the first thing and just latch onto it. We use things that have been used about people's non-CN life against them. We can do better. Instead of the usual "ZOMG X ALLIANCE SUCKS" we can actually come up with fun things. As much as many of us all hated the old NPO propaganda team (Z'ha'dum, Josef Thorne, etc.), they at least were having more intelligent propaganda wars than we have now. Better than the style of propaganda we've got going these days, where everything devolves into ad hominem attacks, stereotypes of alliances from years ago that aren't true anymore, or veiled OOC attacks on people. I don't know about you, but I miss the days when there were at least semi-intelligent propaganda wars on the OWF and on IRC. [/quote] Holy !@#$, Batman, someone gets it. Edited January 15, 2012 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) That wasn't actually my post that you quoted there, it was the OP. edit: I failed to remove that when I quoted the OP, heh. Edited January 14, 2012 by Bob Janova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 Wellp. fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326583308' post='2899722'] Holy !@#$, Batman, someone gets it. [/quote] This is what I've been trying to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 I. Treaty System: When people need numerous charts to figure out who is allied to who, there is a problem. However, I don't think the solution is to just have mandatory treaties. If you're going to stick with a particular treaty partner unconditionally, perhaps its time to at least discuss a merger. Yes, I think that for large alliances too. I'm not a fan of every war becoming global. I'd much prefer a bunch of smaller ones happening more often. In that case, a global war would be a much bigger deal. I think the solution is more optional treaties and far less mandatory ones. Optional allow for the most flexibility. Besides, these days even in "mandatory" treaties, alliances are often agreeing between themselves (and I think this is fine) to have one not enter anyway. So a number of those described as "mandatory" are in practice optional. So just move to optional - then e-lawyers will have less merit. II. Spying No comment. III. Reparations - here is how I look at it: Reparations should be used for avoiding wars only. It's your alliance (or a member of your alliance) did X to our alliance (or a member of our alliance) and as a result our alliance has been harmed so you owe us - pay up. Once an alliance chooses to move to a military solution, that's it. Any "reps" paid AFTER that fact are actually just booty. The one exception I can think of might be if the alliance attacking agrees that the issue is resolved after the rep payment. by that I mean, no more using your original CB a second time and we're back to even as far as the relationship between alliances go. Other than that, if some alliance is powerful enough to demand and receive "booty" to end a war - so be it, but call it what it is. IV. War Chest There is a HUGE disadvantage to the nations who decide to maintain a war chest that most people are missing. You're choosing to slow your nation's growth significantly! If a nation decides to do that, so be it. The way to stop huge war chests is to make something (or a number of somethings) worth buying for the larger nations that costs a huge amount of cash. I'll let other people figure out what that would be. I do agree that wars should be shorter. 6 months is crazy. However I don't think putting a cap on money that one can save is the way to deal with long wars. In fact, even IF there was a cap, I don't think long wars would necessarily stop. That has to be a player/alliance leader decision. V. Peace mode Get rid of it entirely. Agreed. I think that would be a huge game changer for the better. Peace mode is basically an "SDI" with 100% accuracy with some drawbacks (the big one being you can't fight in my opinion) and there is nothing in real life even arguably like it. However, as long as peace mode exists, people are going to use it. Who wouldn't use an SDI that works 100% of the time? VI. Increase artful and thought-out propaganda Agreed. People who argue that good propaganda has no value are wrong. Bad propaganda, however, can have negative affects mostly in people laughing at you - so get people who know what they are doing. VII. Have fun and stop taking this game so seriously I don't know of anyone who stays over 3 months when there isn't something worth keeping them here. The comment "stop taking this game so seriously" really means "you should play this game like I do" and the answer to that is I should play the game in a way that is fun for me, regardless of what is fun for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 Agree with every single item there. Although I'm responsible for having a huge warchest I would just as soon blow it on frequent wars (I may just do this). Solid post, but nobody wants to be the first and some simply don't agree so it'll never really work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 Re: Treaties. You could work treaties and alliance wars into the actual mechanics of the game and have alliances that hold MDPs with each other be automatically placed "at war" upon their ally being attacked (or having war declared) - of course you'd have to have some basic in-game alliance mechanics and basic in-game Declaration of War functionality for that to work, but that doesn't really sound like too tall an order. Also warchests were a predictable problem years ago and never should have been allowed to get to where they are. It would be almost trivial to change the mechanics to penalize large idle cash reserves. I suppose if there is actually a growing community awareness and consensus to fix this then it might lead to this sort of change finally being implemented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1326648677' post='2900095'] IV. War Chest There is a HUGE disadvantage to the nations who decide to maintain a war chest that most people are missing. You're choosing to slow your nation's growth significantly! If a nation decides to do that, so be it. The way to stop huge war chests is to make something (or a number of somethings) worth buying for the larger nations that costs a huge amount of cash. I'll let other people figure out what that would be. [/quote] A huge warchest doesn't slow growth. At a certain point, you have nothing left to buy, so saving it is the only option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiar Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1326648677' post='2900095'] IV. War Chest There is a HUGE disadvantage to the nations who decide to maintain a war chest that most people are missing. You're choosing to slow your nation's growth significantly! If a nation decides to do that, so be it. The way to stop huge war chests is to make something (or a number of somethings) worth buying for the larger nations that costs a huge amount of cash. I'll let other people figure out what that would be. I do agree that wars should be shorter. 6 months is crazy. However I don't think putting a cap on money that one can save is the way to deal with long wars. In fact, even IF there was a cap, I don't think long wars would necessarily stop. That has to be a player/alliance leader decision. V. Peace mode Get rid of it entirely. Agreed. I think that would be a huge game changer for the better. Peace mode is basically an "SDI" with 100% accuracy with some drawbacks (the big one being you can't fight in my opinion) and there is nothing in real life even arguably like it. However, as long as peace mode exists, people are going to use it. Who wouldn't use an SDI that works 100% of the time? [/quote] You know what is worth buying for larger nations that costs a huge amount of cash? Infrastructure from 0-9,999 costs about 1.1 billion to purchase. So having huge war chests allows nations to rebuild to where they were in infra pre-war. I think getting rid of peace mode would definitely be a huge game changer and make wars shorter as many alliances will peace out when their large nations take a beating and want to quit asap. Scrapping peace mode would be the biggest change to the game perhaps since its beginning. Edited January 16, 2012 by Jaiar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Wally Posted January 16, 2012 Report Share Posted January 16, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326547397' post='2899374'] Reset the game [/quote] I think this is the winner. Kill the pixels, the warchests and the treaty web and just start again. o/ the CN Apocalypse!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage3 Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 [quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1326675740' post='2900494'] You know what is worth buying for larger nations that costs a huge amount of cash? Infrastructure from 0-9,999 costs about 1.1 billion to purchase. So having huge war chests allows nations to rebuild to where they were in infra pre-war. I think getting rid of peace mode would definitely be a huge game changer and make wars shorter as many alliances will peace out when their large nations take a beating and want to quit asap. Scrapping peace mode would be the biggest change to the game perhaps since its beginning. [/quote] This sounds good on its face until someone well-connected decides that someone else should not exist. With no PM that weaker AA could be bill-locked into oblivion or extorted for enough in 'booty' to get peace that they are essentially destroyed. At least PM gives the weaker AA a chance, especially if the stronger AA is sloppy. I think that something expensive to buy for larger nations and perhaps tech-slotting in war would help. If these big guys with multi-billion-dollar WCs and thousands of units of Tech were limited to fighting each other instead of falling (even selling Infra at times) to murder younger nations with fewer wonders some of this would be fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiar Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Rampage3' timestamp='1327160311' post='2904188'] This sounds good on its face until someone well-connected decides that someone else should not exist. With no PM that weaker AA could be bill-locked into oblivion or extorted for enough in 'booty' to get peace that they are essentially destroyed. At least PM gives the weaker AA a chance, especially if the stronger AA is sloppy. I think that something expensive to buy for larger nations and perhaps tech-slotting in war would help. If these big guys with multi-billion-dollar WCs and thousands of units of Tech were limited to fighting each other instead of falling (even selling Infra at times) to murder younger nations with fewer wonders some of this would be fixed. [/quote] Your idea of going by tech levels is flawed because high tech nations on AAs that are on the obvious losing side of a war would go to peace mode instead of fight. So, for example who would an alliance like Umbrella ever fight; their potential adversaries would be in peace mode. High tech nations in peace mode and high tech nations in war mode...neither ever matching up against each other. Eliminated peace mode is the way to go. Force nations to fight. There would be no more piling up on GOONS like in the war last year. Instead, alliances would have to pile up on the big nations. Fear is what causes all this. To defeat an opponent or at least cause them heavy damage you must go straight at them. In this current war, NpO and all of its allies should have gone straight at TOP or IRON and they would have been able to cause more damage than countering smaller alliances. Count all of NpO and their allies' top tier and it would have been enough or close enough to tear down TOP. It would have been very costly but they would be closer to peace now than all of NpO/Allies fighting different fronts. Biting the hands and feet and arms and legs does nothing...go at the heart of the enemy and peace would come much sooner. This current "war" is no war at all; it's a peace mode fest. Edited January 21, 2012 by Jaiar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='janax' timestamp='1326673464' post='2900448'] A huge warchest doesn't slow growth. At a certain point, you have nothing left to buy, so saving it is the only option. [/quote] A nation can buy a Scientific Development Center at 14,000 infrastructure and 3,000 technology as long as the nation also has a Great University and National Research Lab. That's the highest requirements in infra and tech as far as wonders go. The #1 nation has 22,536 infrastructure and 43,183.97 technology. Far above what is required for a Scientific Development Center. I agree that it would be cool to have more for larger nations to buy that have requirements above 14,000 infra and 3,000 tech - but that doesn't stop people from buying more infra and tech. I wonder what would be required in tech and infra to be number 1 if those nations above 14,000 infrastructure actually spent the majority of their war chests or couldn't save above a certain amount. Edited January 21, 2012 by White Chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted January 21, 2012 Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 The game is a cup, the players are a kind of pasty jelly stuff. It's taken years to settle into the shape of the cup. If you want to change the shape of the jelly, you will have to change the shape of the cup and wait. Or maybe I am just hungry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiar Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1327185271' post='2904361'] A nation can buy a Scientific Development Center at 14,000 infrastructure and 3,000 technology as long as the nation also has a Great University and National Research Lab. That's the highest requirements in infra and tech as far as wonders go. The #1 nation has 22,536 infrastructure and 43,183.97 technology. Far above what is required for a Scientific Development Center. I agree that it would be cool to have more for larger nations to buy that have requirements above 14,000 infra and 3,000 tech - but that doesn't stop people from buying more infra and tech. I wonder what would be required in tech and infra to be number 1 if those nations above 14,000 infrastructure actually spent the majority of their war chests or couldn't save above a certain amount. [/quote] I think the flaw was when this game was first created in that may be back then it seemed like no one would ever nations the size we have today. Infrastructure is flawed because it somewhat becomes useless since it is destroyed so easily. Part of its purpose was or should have been to always be able to field large armies. The major flaw in the game was allowing the foreign aid transfer of technology. If technology had to be purchased by the nation, war chests would be much lower and there would be much more emphasis on purchasing infrastructure. Nukes would tear down that #1 nation's infrastructure within a week or two depending how many nations it would take on in war. Correcting this would be difficult now because if you raise the level of infra and tech required for an MP or SDI or to be able to purchase nukes then instead of a war every year it would be a war every two years. Plus if the foreign aiding tech is done away with how would that 43,183.97 technology be corrected? It would not be fair at all for a new player to come in and never be able to achieve that. Also, we are approaching the 14k nation level. Perhaps in a month or so we'll be well into that barrier. Player retention and players coming back would greatly help the game, but 2.5 years to get all the wonders and only if your nation never suffers a war? That drives players away fast. Recruit a guy into your alliance and get him on IRC and he asks "how long did it take you to get all those wonders?" and you say "it's been about 4 years because it takes one per month and they cost alot and had wars going on" and then the guy is like "oh" and after a while you see him less and less and you check his nation and he's 25 days inactive; gone from the game because years is too much and he can go play another game that he can jump into and be on par within a few short weeks or months with established players. Edited January 22, 2012 by Jaiar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kill Joy Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Every week we seem to see another thread about how to fix the game from someone's POV, and thats not a bad thing IMO. Whats interesting is most people seem to be saying the same thing more or less. Sure we get the usual people here saying "lol u so stupid" but there is no denying that there is a large/growing amount of unrest and desire for change. For those of us that crunch code and numbers and have an understanding of how the game world spins down to a few key equations we know there isn't much room for some changes without game mechanics changes. However anything non-mechanic related should be looked at more in depth as to what we could do as a community. However a majority of those potential non-mechanic changes cant usually be hammered out in a thread like this and require a natural course action or evolution. Maybe it requires those people posting these threads to make an alliance together and try and take a stab at pushing these changes out through their influence rather than threads. However those that typically post these threads, SoL excluded, typically arent inspired enough beyond getting some attention to move their keester. I think the only thing people can realistically try and do is revolt against the current system as individuals. Best example of late is Vlad with the "Talk *#@&@ Get Hit" campaign. Want to teach people they cant hide behind a treaty web? Go guerrilla on them. Take that concept up a notch and imagine 100 Vlads for example that hate reps that would individually rogue AAs that imposed reps? I know there are enough people opposed to it, the question is are there enough people who have actions beyond their words to try and bring about change? Eventually alliances would reconsider reps if there was such a financial backlash against it that it cost considerably more $$/time than it was worth. IMO this is about the only way to accelerate evolution of non-mechanic based change. Beyond that there isn't much we can do beyond playing it out and see where the political system evolves too, even if its just a rotation of changing of the guard, a change is a change. Eventually someone will get upset with side X imposing reps one too many times or something of the sort and they'll get rolled and then a new side(or new mutation of an old side) will take the helm for 2 years. However im not sure i see this game lasting another rotation of the guard. Yes I wish Peace Mode would be removed, yes i wish the TE mechanics of rebuying infra at 1/2 cost would be included in SE to reduce warchests. I wish i wish i wish. Its a waste of time to wish for things, discuss those wishes here and then collectively argue about these wishes to no end with the peanut gallery, yes you. All the signal flares for game mechanics changes have been fired, no ones coming to save us in that regard. We've got to have fun while we can with the tools we have now as limiting and routine as they may be. Or start going guerrilla on a large scale to inflict community changes at the end of a blade rather than waiting for evolution to run its course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeline Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Have goons disband a second time, and have sirwilliam admit to his lies and pointlessness within this world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 I and IV are just silly. I: would come back no matter what, its impossible to get rid of it. IV: nothing should done and nothing can be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.