Jump to content

Proposals for the Improvement of the CN Community


Krzyzewskiville

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1327219582' post='2904622']
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. [/quote]

Being able to exchange aid is, from my experience, what really drives at least the beginning social interaction between players and perhaps a great deal of the politics on many levels too.

Everything I got and all the friends I made as a small nation when first logging on started with tech sales and to a large extent I'm still hanging with many of those people. The relationship is now based on far more, but I wouldn't have met any of them but for the fact that they were looking to buy tech and I was looking for a way to earn more money to grow.

I see the reasoning, but I think those people who are suggesting an end to tech exchanges are forgetting how much of the social interactions of this world center on the tech business. I also think that not allowing tech sales (or at least SOME exchange of valuables for money) would harm small nations far more than any benefit of slowing down the growth of the larger ones in that way.

Call me a pessimist if you will, but stopping tech sales would only decrease the value of small nations to even less than they are valued by the general community now, which isn't high. I'm not saying I agree with that view, but it is how it is.

If people want to limit the amount of large nations war chests, then give them something worth building up and spending that money to get. Maybe something ultra cool that ONLY the top 5% can get. I remember being told by a much much older nation that back in the day, only the top 5% could get nukes. Well - there is motivation to spend whatever it takes to make sure your nation is in that category. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327817127' post='2909241']
8. Start banning people for OOC attacks regardless of whether they were on-site or not.
[/quote]

You're suggesting the moderation team be held accountable for moderating the entire internet. Well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327817127' post='2909241']
8. Start banning people for OOC attacks regardless of whether they were on-site or not.
[/quote]
You will have nothing left to do if you can't feign moral outrage to try and stay in the middle everything. :(

Also this is a stupid way to 'fix' anything. OOC has been dictating this world since it's inception, to say otherwise is an outright lie to yourself and anyone who still listens to your dribble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327817127' post='2909241']
8. Start banning people for OOC attacks regardless of whether they were on-site or not.
[/quote]
Stop and think about this for about 30 seconds instead of just posting in a fit of faux moral outrage and you'll understand why this is such a retarded idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1327823606' post='2909296']
You're suggesting the moderation team be held accountable for moderating the entire internet. Well done.
[/quote][quote name='potato' timestamp='1327849119' post='2909423']
You mean the mod staff don't already use off site posts to ban/warn/punish peoople?
[/quote][quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1327850203' post='2909431']
Stop and think about this for about 30 seconds instead of just posting in a fit of faux moral outrage and you'll understand why this is such a retarded idea.
[/quote]
http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Modgate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1327864401' post='2909631']
I, personnally, already knew that the mods used off site stuff to ban/punish/warn users. But thanks for reminding the rest of us!
[/quote]
[quote name='Manwe' timestamp='1327703188' post='2908448']
What is our business is when that is expressed through trolling on this forum. You are all perfectly capable of finding relevant information and expressing your opinion on it through a medium other than this forum. There is no room in the rules for mocking someone for an out-of-character situation. If you feel the need to do so, find some other venue. This forum is not the place.
[/quote]
8. Start banning people for OOC attacks regardless of whether they were on-site or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327865734' post='2909658']
8. Start banning people for OOC attacks regardless of whether they were on-site or not.
[/quote]

I must be tired but I don't get your point anymore. You're repeating ad nauseam that they should "ban people for OOC attacks on and off-site". I'm saying the mods already do punish people for off-site posts even if they say they don't.

Feel free to correct me and/or be more precise as it has been a long week and I am exhausted.

Edited by potato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='SeasonsOfLove' timestamp='1326494917' post='2899071']
The mechanics of the game haven't changed, but the community and the politics have changed plenty. If we blame the mechanics of the game for the community's problems, that's just ridiculous.
[/quote]

What's ridiculous is blaming the fact that a game isn't fun on the players.


These play styles that you loathe have come about as a result of the fact that they've proven (over several years) to be the best way to get ahead in CN and stay ahead. If players find a strategy that is optimal for success they will stick to it, and no amount of whining or !@#$%*ing from other players is going to get them to stop. Blaming players for playing CN wrong is just a lazy, half-assed excuse for poor game design/mechanics. Styles of play are dictated by game mechanics not the reverse. The game itself needs to change on a very fundamental level for things to change the way you want them too.

You [i]could[/i] always try to enforce your play style onto everyone else via in-game means, but most people won't take too kindly to that. Just ask Polar how it went for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='SeasonsOfLove' timestamp='1326493899' post='2899059']
[b]I. Scrap the entire treaty system[/b][/quote]
mmmmmmmmmno

[quote][b]II. A return to spying[/b][/quote]
mmmmmmmmno comment

[quote][b]III. Stop assessing reparations to losers of wars[/b][/quote]
mmmmmmmmno

[quote][b]IV. Stop amassing huge warchests[/b][/quote]
mmmmmmmmmm :blink::((:facepalm::P

:gun:
[quote]
[b]V. Stop ordering your members into peace mode at the outset of a war[/b][/quote]
mmmmmmmmmmYES

[quote][b]VI. [s]Increase[/s] decrease artful and thought-out propaganda[/b][/quote]
mmmmmmmmmmYES

[quote][b]VII. Have fun and stop taking this game so seriously[/b][/quote]
mmmmmmmmmmokay

In seriousness about warchests:

I've argued before that admin could introduce some form of "inflation" measure, whereby collections would decline depending on the size of one's warchest and NS. There are nations out there with 200 days' collections of warchests, and I'd agree that does make warfare rather pointless.

But if you're asking me to voluntarily reduce my warchest or encourage my AA to do so, I'll refer you to the emoticons above.

Edited by NewPoseidon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' timestamp='1327930452' post='2910561']
You [i]could[/i] always try to enforce your play style onto everyone else via in-game means, but most people won't take too kindly to that. Just ask Polar how it went for them.
[/quote]

You are enforcing your play style on me, I don't take too kindly to it, but there is SFA I can do about it right now. I think it went very well for the record, we are still who we are and those who wanted to pretend are now firmly allied to the ADHD side of the world railing in the name of the things they apparently wanted to fight for. Gutless much?. Have fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[b]II.[/b] is an interesting point. I think spying in itself is stupid. It's far too costly, too risky. You put your trust in someone who is a confirmed traitor, and unlike IRL where spying means torture and death, the worst that can happen to him is (E)ZI. The best you can get is a little info, which means nothing. So, you know I have a $10M warchest and my DoD has a $3B warchest. You know I'm going to sign/cut a treaty with tLR within a few weeks. What are you going to do about it? Opsec is usually paranoid enough that you won't get no info until it's too late.

The worst that can happen is that your entire alliance is crushed and you lose real life years of effort. Spying is just really stupid. You can get all your info legally anyway, through embassies, through reading the OWF fights, through IRC lurking, stalking, rumors.


Espionage on the other hand... espionage can do far more damage than any war. You can sneak into an alliance, start rumors within, start power struggles, start a civil war. You can work from within, cut ties to other alliances, isolate the alliance you're infiltrating. You can support an incompetent extremist to the throne.

You can support stupid decisions that kill your alliance, yet give good reasoning for them. Tie up your alliance in a bureaucratic nightmare. Convince them to conquer another color sphere. Send out spies to infiltrate every sanctioned alliance. Set up a color protection decree. Declare pre-emptive wars.

Active players can be incredibly influential, and a good infiltrator can split an alliance in half within a year, or at least make an alliance too paranoid to function properly.

Of course, the biggest problem with this is that it involves earning people's friendship and trust, then betraying them. And there's no real OOC-IC split anymore. And to gain people's trust, you have to give OOC information eventually. Once it's all done, there's a chance someone from CN might come to your house with a jackhammer, threatening to ZI you IRL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way getting rid of peace mode makes any sense would be if the gameplay gave any chance at all to the underdogs. Especially coupled with limiting warchests: you'd only see more lopsided wars, even more dogpiles, and still fewer players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for everyone's reference, the lack of generalized huge warchests didn't stop VietFAN 2 from happening. Sure some can argue that FAN had a chance to discuss a second surrender - I don't remember what was actually happening - but that doesn't mean that the community can't tolerate "infinite wars", where isolated alliances are kept under the boot "forever" That [i]already[/i] happened.

Removing Peace Mode and big warchests would just make wars even more one-sided, and let's face it: we had a grand total of (at most) one not completely one-sided and predictable global conflict in the last 5 years (which would be Karma). One sided wars are the main factor that push for political conformism and "slow" politics (except for those that don't ultimately give a crap, which are a minority).

Peace Mode is the only factor that allows for today's losers to not completely lose their upper tier. Remove it without touching the tech divide problem, and defeated parties will be forced into military upper-layer irrelevance for a couple of years, at best. Which again would promote stagnation.

Big warchests are what allows for today's losers to not completely lose their ability to rebuild after a war. Remove it and defeated parties will be forced into [i]general[/i] irrelevance for even a longer time.


No PM and no warchests (w/o other "fixes") ==> political conformism and stagnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:/ How can you say Karma wasn't predictable, Jerdge. I made a post every other day telling our alliance it was happening. Then again, Stonewall p much just made another post every day about how evil Pacifica was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1327872430' post='2909752']
I must be tired but I don't get your point anymore. You're repeating ad nauseam that they should "ban people for OOC attacks on and off-site". I'm saying the mods already do punish people for off-site posts even if they say they don't.

Feel free to correct me and/or be more precise as it has been a long week and I am exhausted.
[/quote]

Ah, the thinly veiled references designed to give the finger to the mods in such a way that your friends can understand and yet won't be so obvious that it gets you in trouble. Did you ever find out who narked on you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1328726728' post='2916782']:/ How can you say Karma wasn't predictable, Jerdge. I made a post every other day telling our alliance it was happening. Then again, Stonewall p much just made another post every day about how evil Pacifica was.[/quote]
That we had one or zero not completely predictable conflicts in five years doesn't change the fact that not completely predictable conflicts are rare, which was my point.
Every now and then there's someone arguing that VE went in thinking that they were taking a risk: I wrote "one at most" because it would have been pointless to discuss whether Karma was or not completely predictable, as one or zero... You got the point.

Edited by jerdge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hymenbreach' timestamp='1327186656' post='2904367']
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]
I love your analogy.



A suggestion I might bring up in the future: Set a ceiling for when one can go into peace mode. That way, the smaller nations don't go down burning while the larger nations take hits as they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' timestamp='1328058864' post='2911978']
You are enforcing your play style on me, I don't take too kindly to it, but there is SFA I can do about it right now.
[/quote]

My point is, no one person or alliance can say "Let's pretend peace mode doesn't exist because it'll be more fun that way." It's just not going to fly. If something is doable in-game and provides an in-game benefit for your alliance, they're going to do it and no one can really stop them short of pressing the Declare War button (and try doing that with PM). And even with attempted enforcement, house rules like "raiding is bad" or "no nuclear first-strikes" don't last because enforcing them is nigh impossible unless almost everyone agrees.

The game's mechanics need to change in order for there to be a serious change in how we do things. Peace mode tactics have to stop being viable in order for people to stop using them.


[quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1328712953' post='2916715']
The only way getting rid of peace mode makes any sense would be if the gameplay gave any chance at all to the underdogs. Especially coupled with limiting warchests: you'd only see more lopsided wars, even more dogpiles, and still fewer players.
[/quote]

Fair point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...