Facing a Shell Shocked World

[Canik]

I had no issues keeping myself motivated. Keeping all those members who don't really understand how to play the game past the game mechanics is the real challenge. Especially newer ones, they are just so overwhelmed. If you haven't been here for at least 3-4 years, chances are you are intimated as $%&@.

[jerdge]

[quote name='mompson' timestamp='1340847733' post='2998920'][quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1340837931' post='2998802']This is an important question that hasn't been answered. Why try to break the game? If you don't like it, why don't you just change game?

Possible explanations:
• to grief the other players
• to annoy Admin
• to get "revenge for Mod bias"
• ... (what else?)[/quote]
They actually don't want to and them saying it just goes with their in game character? [/quote]
They don't express that desire/intention in IC contexts only.

[DocOctane]

I'm just waiting for everyone to quit so I can be the most powerful nation in CN.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1340822357' post='2998520']
Hopefully you're right. Maybe we'll even do better.
[/quote]
Pretend to not take things serious so people think you're cool.

It isn't cool to spend this much time trying to ruin something.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Starfox101

[smurthwaite]

[quote name='Canik' timestamp='1340858447' post='2999092']
I had no issues keeping myself motivated. Keeping all those members who don't really understand how to play the game past the game mechanics is the real challenge. Especially newer ones, they are just so overwhelmed. If you haven't been here for at least 3-4 years, chances are you are intimated as $%&@.
[/quote]

This place really is a culture and history unto itself.

I have been here for that long and still have to go the wikis fairly often to clarify details for myself and I have always been interested enough in the politics of this world to at least try to keep up to date on current events.

I would have to agree with your assessment.

Modification: Original text was beyond OOC. This one has the same sentiment and doesn't cross that line. Plus, even my modification had typos.

Edited June 28, 2012 by smurthwaite

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1340821073' post='2998497']
It will be post war soon.
[/quote]

Hahahahaha, totally didn't expect to hear jokes in this thread.

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1340837931' post='2998802']
Possible explanations:
• to grief the other players
• to get "revenge for Mod bias"
• ... (what else?)
[/quote]

oh god it's getting even better

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1340903662' post='2999429']
Pretend to not take things serious so people think you're cool.

It isn't cool to spend this much time trying to ruin something.
[/quote]

>thinking there's such a thing a "cool" in an online text based geopolitical nation simulator

[Ayatollah Bromeini]

I think the problem is obvious. There's no real motivator to keep people interested in the political aspect.

pre-karma was fun because there was a legitimately 'evil' empire that did legitimately $%&@ed up things. This motivated several different alliances to try and take on the role of the revolutionary, and for a good cause. It kept things interesting.

Now the worst things that happen are random pre-empts and lulzwars that force people to try and feign moral outrage over the most petty of things and it's silly.




Bring back the evil empire, I say. That might give people a reason to push on.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Ayatollah Bromeini

[keeology]

[quote name='Scorponok' timestamp='1340841532' post='2998842']
Hopefully people will realise this is just a game, and should be played as such.
[/quote]


this.

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Tiber Septim' timestamp='1340838609' post='2998809']
Perhaps if you're seeking a reason to keep playing you should ask the neutrals. They seem to get along fine with nation building and politiking without war.
[/quote]

Wars are not fun. In fact, wars are even more boring than peace.

Political change is fun. The issue here is that there's just not a lot of room for political change. Before this, just about every global war brought about major political shifts.. that's why people look forward to wars.

This war and the previous war only cements the political situation. There is still room for stuff to happen, but it seems unlikely.


I'm not talking about the common grunts getting bored with the game. I mean the leaders and movers. They become, well... shell shocked. They're no longer willing to just put as much effort rebuilding things or making a difference in the world. I know plenty who are literally more willing to disband their alliance than actually spend a couple of hours a day to do stuff and become significant. There's a prevalent "What's the point, the game is dead" attitude which is what ultimately causes the stagnation.

The problem is that nobody really seems to want to play the game anymore. As many have said, it's more of a social networking site than a game. Pretty much the main reason I joined Paraguas/Bal Masque was that there was someone in there who actually wants to play the game as a game.

People are punished for doing anything - NPO, NpO, GOD, MK, NG, TOP. So, nobody does anything. Micros just dwindle down to a level where they're no longer a community (like 1-4 active people) and disband. Losing party doesn't even bother to grow bigger or outmaneuver the enemy, because they'll have to rebuild over the next [i]two years[/i] or so to get anywhere. Winning party doesn't put effort in getting ahead, because the losing party just won't catch up.

The same war repeating over and over again is simply a result of the lack of political movement, and this problem goes around full circle.


[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1340821259' post='2998501']
I was half expecting the title to be a clever play on MK's theme and role in the game.
[/quote]

Heh, it was sort of a MK pun, but doubt anyone will get it. Nothing anti-MK though

[Artigo]

We are approaching endgame, there is no doubt about that.

I predict the next year will see the most radical change to the CN landscape ever witnessed and set the stage for the final act of CN.

Following that, there won't be enough nations left to continue. Those that do try carry on will not be playing the same game.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1340912999' post='2999528']
Wars are not fun. In fact, wars are even more boring than peace.

Political change is fun. The issue here is that there's just not a lot of room for political change. Before this, just about every global war brought about major political shifts.. that's why people look forward to wars.

This war and the previous war only cements the political situation. There is still room for stuff to happen, but it seems unlikely.[/quote]

Stop whining and being lazy and do something. Have a little !@#$@#$ ambition.


[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1340912999' post='2999528']I'm not talking about the common grunts getting bored with the game. I mean the leaders and movers. They become, well... shell shocked. They're no longer willing to just put as much effort rebuilding things or making a difference in the world. I know plenty who are literally more willing to disband their alliance than actually spend a couple of hours a day to do stuff and become significant. There's a prevalent "What's the point, the game is dead" attitude which is what ultimately causes the stagnation.[/quote]

Again, stop deflecting boredom onto the powers-that-be.

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1340912999' post='2999528']The problem is that nobody really seems to want to play the game anymore. As many have said, it's more of a social networking site than a game. Pretty much the main reason I joined Paraguas/Bal Masque was that there was someone in there who actually wants to play the game as a game.[/quote]

I can agree with this to an extent. A large reason of why the game has gotten boring to play is everyone knows how to do it now, and it's very simple and repetitive to do. This is much more related to the lack of game development, though. And there are still quite a lot of people who play this game as a game, despite popular belief. If you think this was just a war for !@#$% and giggles, I suggest you read Brehon's opening statement regarding the war a little more closely.

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1340912999' post='2999528']People are punished for doing anything - NPO, NpO, GOD, MK, NG, TOP. So, nobody does anything. Micros just dwindle down to a level where they're no longer a community (like 1-4 active people) and disband. Losing party doesn't even bother to grow bigger or outmaneuver the enemy, because they'll have to rebuild over the next [i]two years[/i] or so to get anywhere. Winning party doesn't put effort in getting ahead, because the losing party just won't catch up.[/quote]

Hint - the issue lies in your "micro" statement. In a game of dwindling nations and activity, you need to pool your resources better. Look at TLR and NG, two very successful alliances on the "winning" side. They looked at themselves, accepted that the glory days of their individual alliances were behind them, and merged together to remain active, competent, and relevant.

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1340912999' post='2999528']The same war repeating over and over again is simply a result of the lack of political movement, and this problem goes around full circle.
[/quote]

Polar got beat down in VE-NpO and then again in the grudge war. NPO got beat down in Karma and then again in DH-NPO, and they sat out the only war in-between that (BiPolar). MK and their assortment of allies got beat down in UjW and then again in noCB. And so on. Get over yourself if you think this is some sudden new trend. The real problem that is full circle is yourselves. Like I've been saying, you can't !@#$@#$ complain about not having the will to play this game and then in the same breath !@#$%* about how politics aren't changing.

[Diogenes]

[quote name='Ayatollah Bromeini' timestamp='1340908678' post='2999495']
I think the problem is obvious. There's no real motivator to keep people interested in the political aspect.

pre-karma was fun because there was a legitimately 'evil' empire that did legitimately $%&@ed up things. This motivated several different alliances to try and take on the role of the revolutionary, and for a good cause. It kept things interesting.

Now the worst things that happen are random pre-empts and lulzwars that force people to try and feign moral outrage over the most petty of things and it's silly.




Bring back the evil empire, I say. That might give people a reason to push on.
[/quote]

I disagree.

I have been playing this game for a rather long time, and for the majority of that, this game has been shedding players. It was shedding players when the "evil empire" you mentioned was in power, it was shedding players when that empire was usurped, it was shedding players when the void of the empire left politics in a state of flux, and it has been shedding players since the Kingdom came to be the most influential, if not necessarily the most powerful, alliance in the game. The obvious conclusion one can draw from this is that the game itself is in a death spiral, and consequently I think effort should be directed more towards stemming that tide rather than reversing it.

To prevent more people from leaving this game, I think two factors in particular are important: unpredictable and fluid politics, and durable communities. Essentially, during the reign of the New Pacific Order and during the subsequent reign of the Mushroom Kingdom, politics have stagnated. This is because, as numerous individuals including Roquentin have pointed out, most alliances lack the will to power or, at the very least, the courage to make risky or unprecedented decisions. Instead, the community as a whole clings to old grudges and the standards of the past, immediately rejecting anything that would conflict with them. If this game is to be made interesting, no alliance should be allowed to sit in power year after year -- whether it be Pacifica, the Kingdom, or anyone else.

As far as communities go, alliances need to take steps towards keeping their members occupied with things other than this game for when events here grow stale. I know that we (MK) have been endeavoring to this end for a while now, and I know of several alliances, such as Pacifica, that are doing the same. In an ideal world, I would like to see established communities that are capable of playing this game (and indeed, communities which do so) but which can survive independently of it.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Quiziotle

[jerdge]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1340906682' post='2999476']oh god it's getting even better[/quote]
Your next post was better.

I've been thinking the same about TLR and NG, I was surprised that (AFAIK) no one else was openly saying that. This also means that we have something in common...

[Comrade Goby]

Bring back the /b/ alliance.

Also if less CN people were metrosexual liberal hipsters maybe things could change

[Londo Mollari]

Be careful what you wish for.

[D34th]

I still have fun with this game otherwise I wouldn't lost my precious free time to play Diablo 3 coming here to argue with people.

[Monster]

[quote name='Quiziotle' timestamp='1340915633' post='2999556']
I disagree.

I have been playing this game for a rather long time, and for the majority of that, this game has been shedding players. It was shedding players when the "evil empire" you mentioned was in power, it was shedding players when that empire was usurped, it was shedding players when the void of the empire left politics in a state of flux, and it has been shedding players since the Kingdom came to be the most influential, if not necessarily the most powerful, alliance in the game. The obvious conclusion one can draw from this is that the game itself is in a death spiral, and consequently I think effort should be directed more towards stemming that tide rather than reversing it.

To prevent more people from leaving this game, I think two factors in particular are important: unpredictable and fluid politics, and durable communities. Essentially, during the reign of the New Pacific Order and during the subsequent reign of the Mushroom Kingdom, politics have stagnated. This is because, as numerous individuals including Roquentin have pointed out, most alliances lack the will to power or, at the very least, the courage to make risky or unprecedented decisions. Instead, the community as a whole clings to old grudges and the standards of the past, immediately rejecting anything that would conflict with them. If this game is to be made interesting, no alliance should be allowed to sit in power year after year -- whether it be Pacifica, the Kingdom, or anyone else.

As far as communities go, alliances need to take steps towards keeping their members occupied with things other than this game for when events here grow stale. I know that we (MK) have been endeavoring to this end for a while now, and I know of several alliances, such as Pacifica, that are doing the same. In an ideal world, I would like to see established communities that are capable of playing this game (and indeed, communities which do so) but which can survive independently of it.
[/quote]

Exactly.

The issue is as Muz pointed out this is a social networking site. In a blog exchange with Schattenmann, a certain individual was able to personify a lot of what's wrong with the politics in this game. He said he was doing things because he liked the people in an alliance he's allied to and enjoys fighting alongside them. That individual is a leader of a sanctioned alliance. I would say sanctioned alliances should aim to become dominant and not tagalongs. There's too much "I can't do this, it'll piss off my "friends." At a certain point, "friendships" have superceded political ends. There's also a lot of "I really don't like this alliance, but they're tied to my friends." If that's the case, you should reevaluate who your friends are.

It causes stagnation otherwise because real interesting rivalries are suppressed to go after more agreeable less exciting targets. Politics are not fluid because of "friendship."

[jerdge]

Not to mean that you two (Quiz and Roq) are wrong, but we're also in a prisoner's dilemma situation.
Those seeking to "make things interesting" by taking risks generate events that make things interesting for everyone, but they're the only ones paying the cost of it.

After years, I also guess that a lot of large alliances are full of inactives or semi-inactives which are just content of maintaining the status quo and adverse change, or they simply hamper it by virtue of the dead weight they represent.

Edited June 29, 2012 by jerdge

[Ostrogothi]

In my opinion, one of the biggest hurdles to political change is that it take so long to recover from a losing war ( and reps only worsen the situation). I can only think of two alliances that lost a war(I mean actually lost, not surrendered after 3 days) and later grew back to their pre-war strengths- Polar after WotC and IRON* after BiPolar, and in both cases it was only possible because they sat out of a global conflict in the middle. If one month of war takes [i]years[/i] to recover from, people will obviously lose interest.

EDIT:* I just remembered that the same is true for the rest of Duckroll.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Ostrogothi

[xoindotnler]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1340955549' post='2999913']
Be careful what you wish for.
[/quote]
Well then I wish for a world filled with chaining MADP's.

[Hereno]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1340962453' post='2999925']
Exactly.

The issue is as Muz pointed out this is a social networking site. In a blog exchange with Schattenmann, a certain individual was able to personify a lot of what's wrong with the politics in this game. He said he was doing things because he liked the people in an alliance he's allied to and enjoys fighting alongside them. That individual is a leader of a sanctioned alliance. I would say sanctioned alliances should aim to become dominant and not tagalongs. There's too much "I can't do this, it'll piss off my "friends." At a certain point, "friendships" have superceded political ends. There's also a lot of "I really don't like this alliance, but they're tied to my friends." If that's the case, you should reevaluate who your friends are.

It causes stagnation otherwise because real interesting rivalries are suppressed to go after more agreeable less exciting targets. Politics are not fluid because of "friendship."
[/quote]

I completely disagree. If anything, friendship is the only decent thing we have in politics. For an example of what I'm talking about, look at what I did to spark off the Legion war. I don't think anybody would argue that what I did wasn't a CB - but in any alliance where I didn't have strong IRL relationships with the others in that gov, I would not have been defended. I would've been kicked out of the alliance and promptly ZI'd, just like what happens to everybody else who does something against the CN rulebook.

The fact of the matter is that people want a good government in their alliance. What makes a good alliance leader? Someone who grows the alliance, someone who keeps good PR and doesn't do anything too risky, someone who keeps that alliance on the winning side and away from the losing side. Well, that's exactly what we've gotten. A game full of alliances with booming internal communities who play enough politics to keep as much NS on the winning side and as little on the "other" side(s) as possible.

Of course, the way the community acts is directly a result of the mechanics of the game itself, so I certainly don't blame people for not wanting to purposefully gimp themselves politically, economically and militarily in the name of having fun. But, doing things that lead to the opposite of fun leads to people being bored and quitting, especially when it can go a year without any major wars happening to get people excited. I can say that for myself, if the people I know and am friends with left this game, I wouldn't have any reason to stay. To crucify OOC friendships as the death of politics and the reason for stagnation is ridiculous, because there wouldn't be anybody left to play the game if those things didn't exist.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Hereno

[Diogenes]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1340963363' post='2999928']
Not to mean that you two (Quiz and Roq) are wrong, but we're also in a prisoner's dilemma situation.
Those seeking to "make things interesting" by taking risks generate events that make things interesting for everyone, but they're the only ones paying the cost of it.
[/quote]

This is true to an extent. Actions which fly in the face of community standards and beliefs have historically been frowned upon and the alliances that perpetrate them heavily penalized, such as MK standardizing the use of first-strike nukes in NoCB and TOP pioneering the use of the preemptive strike in BiPolar. While I would argue that the community needs to become more accepting of these sorts of behaviors, though, it should also be recognized that no alliance to have "broken the mold" has been destroyed because of it.

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1340977339' post='2999972']
I completely disagree. If anything, friendship is the only decent thing we have in politics. For an example of what I'm talking about, look at what I did to spark off the Legion war. I don't think anybody would argue that what I did wasn't a CB - but in any alliance where I didn't have strong IRL relationships with the others in that gov, I would not have been defended. I would've been kicked out of the alliance and promptly ZI'd, just like what happens to everybody else who does something against the CN rulebook.

The fact of the matter is that people want a good government in their alliance. What makes a good alliance leader? Someone who grows the alliance, someone who keeps good PR and doesn't do anything too risky, someone who keeps that alliance on the winning side and away from the losing side. Well, that's exactly what we've gotten. A game full of alliances with booming internal communities who play enough politics to keep as much NS on the winning side and as little on the "other" side(s) as possible.

Of course, the way the community acts is directly a result of the mechanics of the game itself, so I certainly don't blame people for not wanting to purposefully gimp themselves politically, economically and militarily in the name of having fun. But, doing things that lead to the opposite of fun leads to people being bored and quitting, especially when it can go a year without any major wars happening to get people excited. I can say that for myself, if the people I know and am friends with left this game, I wouldn't have any reason to stay. To crucify OOC friendships as the death of politics and the reason for stagnation is ridiculous, because there wouldn't be anybody left to play the game if those things didn't exist.
[/quote]

His argument is less that you shouldn't have friends and more that alliances shouldn't base their foreign policy around where their friends are located.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Quiziotle

[MrMuz]

[quote]Stop whining and being lazy and do something. Have a little !@#$@#$ ambition.[/quote]

The issue here is that you it's just not possible to do anything.

Look at the past underdogs who have been beaten down on, waited years for vengeance. They worked hard at it, they found others in the same boat, they got their revenge in 1-3 years.

They were driven by anger, shame, desire for vengeance, etc. Today, it's not quite the same.. apathy exceeds anger. It's not like we haven't done anything, it's just that most moves are met with "Umbrella's undefeatable" or "The game is dead, why bother?"

And this kind of apathy becomes infectious. It's like going up to a girl, dating her over the course of a few months, finally getting in bed with her, and every time, there is no emotion on her face. No real joy, and when questioned about it, she just doesn't think the relationship is going anywhere. "But hey, we can do this because I don't have anything else to do." It's depressing to put time into something when the passion is not reciprocrated.

Not putting the blame on the winning side here; it's clearly the issue of a lack of passion among the weaker side(s).

Would agree that it's a prisoner's dilemma - you lose less by not doing stuff, and the few who chose to do stuff are brought down by those who don't do anything.


[quote]Hint - the issue lies in your "micro" statement. In a game of dwindling nations and activity, you need to pool your resources better. Look at TLR and NG, two very successful alliances on the "winning" side. They looked at themselves, accepted that the glory days of their individual alliances were behind them, and merged together to remain active, competent, and relevant. [/quote]

Easier said than done. I'm skeptical of TLR and NG's true "success" status; neither of them have been under any real stress test.

Mergers harm morale. People coming into mergers are more difficult to train. NS means little, the old MHA syndrome. There's a lot of subtle long term issues that are hidden behind things like good aid usage. The only real benefit is the few active and experienced people you bring in will directly contribute to propel the alliance forward.

It's not a universal solution. It's similar to a moderate interest loan.

And plus, a lot of micros put their goal as "survival" and the disbandment/merger as directly failing that goal. But seeing how the fresh recruit pool has been drying up, alliances need to realize that mergers are the way forward.

[quote]As far as communities go, alliances need to take steps towards keeping their members occupied with things other than this game for when events here grow stale. I know that we (MK) have been endeavoring to this end for a while now, and I know of several alliances, such as Pacifica, that are doing the same. In an ideal world, I would like to see established communities that are capable of playing this game (and indeed, communities which do so) but which can survive independently of it. [/quote]

Actually, this is a very good point. There seems to be a strong correlation between alliances that have other non-CN community activities and their in-game morale.

[im317]

[quote]Not putting the blame on the winning side here; it's clearly the issue of a lack of passion among the weaker side(s). [/quote]

you dont think some of the people on the winning side have a lack of passion? some of them make it clear they dont like how this war went down, but yet they dont do anything about it. granted there are numerous reasons why they dont do anything but apathy is part of it. the winning side cant change if all the players stay on the same sides.

[Starfox101]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1340906682' post='2999476']
>thinking there's such a thing a "cool" in an online text based geopolitical nation simulator
[/quote]
What's the point of the ">"?

Does that make you cool to use improper grammar and random symbols, as well?

[quote name='Comrade Goby' timestamp='1340949362' post='2999883']
Bring back the /b/ alliance.

Also if less CN people were metrosexual liberal hipsters maybe things could change
[/quote]
Nice, haha.