TDO are you going to shoot back or what?

[Scorponok]

At least someone is doing something to combat the masses of neutrals. Enjoy guys.

[Steve Buscemi]

Well we're really going off topic here, but I wonder if the Manhattan Project isn't one of the main reasons for the game mechanics being a bit spoiled. If only the top 5% could have nukes warfare would probably be much more interesting. But I am an "hippy", what do I know, anyway? :P

You know a lot Jerdge.  :)

 

Also, MHP were great when they first came out, but now they are ruining the already easy-to-expolit war system.  Like Artigo said, we need to bring back the 5% rule....for something.

 

Edit:  Also, it actually is worse to grow your nation past 8500 infra (or 14K, but not rebuying past 8-10K).  Fark has done an amazing job of showing what mid-tier nations, all wondered up can do.  The key for any alliance is just to dominate of 1 of 3 main tiers (upper, mid, lower). 

Edited September 20, 2013 by Steve Buscemi

[Azaghul]

To be fair to TDO, the 4 I am fighting are on average better than the average TOOL or Legion nations I fought in past wars.

[potato]

That seems to be a pretty important qualifier ;)

 

Wait... people still think this is a ploy?

[Neo Uruk]

Wait... people still think this is a ploy?

The ever-evil MK... NATO's got you figured out.

[enderland]

Edit:  Also, it actually is worse to grow your nation past 8500 infra (or 14K, but not rebuying past 8-10K).  Fark has done an amazing job of showing what mid-tier nations, all wondered up can do.  The key for any alliance is just to dominate of 1 of 3 main tiers (upper, mid, lower). 

 

Yeah. It all gets back to being able to easily defend your alliance. If you have 100 nations all clustered around the same NS level (whether 200k or 50k) it becomes much more difficult for a single alliance to effectively attack you, because you can very easily outnumber them in that range.

 

The 5% rule isn't the problem, here either, it's the fact that fundamentally the game mechanics prohibit someone who is new (or newer, even) from ever catching some of the 200k NS giants. Period. Doesn't matter if all the 200k person does is log in every other day and the newbie is online 5 hours a day. 

[Gibsonator21]

If MQ don't have the stones to fight a real war then leave them to their fight with TDO

 

Yes attacking neutrals is a low and slimey thing to do, but this is an offshoot of MK, that is even less organised, without allies to think of, what do you expect

So what's the harm in hitting them then?

[Omniscient1]

 
Wait... people still think this is a ploy?

  

The ever-evil MK... NATO's got you figured out.

I think he was more shooting for the fact that several people have claimed to be deleting then don't.

[Max Power]

To be fair to TDO, the 4 I am fighting are on average better than the average TOOL or Legion nations I fought in past wars.

To be fair to TOOL, by the time you were fighting them they were an inactive, about to disband shell that was doing a solid for their buddies in TPF. That they showed up at all was nice to see. (Presuming you're referring to DH-NPO, can't recall you fighting them before then but I may be wrong.)

[ChairmanHal]

Well we're really going off topic here, but I wonder if the Manhattan Project isn't one of the main reasons for the game mechanics being a bit spoiled. If only the top 5% could have nukes warfare would probably be much more interesting. But I am an "hippy", what do I know, anyway? :P

 

It would also limit the damage the nuke rogues could do, in that they couldn't continue to buy nukes once they fall out of the top 5%.  The genie however has not only been let out of the bottle, it's moved to a fallout shelter in the suburbs.

 

That seems to be a pretty important qualifier ;)

 

Indeed, if for no other reason but that it's their own words not stuff I made up or was floating through the rumor mill.  Naturally if they want to take the explosive vest off and come back to humanity, that would be preferred from a player retention perspective. 

[the rebel]

One thing I never really understood was why didn't all the neutrals join forces into a MDP bloc which would still be neutral from the treaty web, but would consolidate their power to defend their ideology from parts of the world which wants to take it from them.

Edited September 21, 2013 by the rebel

[JoshuaR]

In that case, they might as well have allied nice people who weren't neutral that they liked, respected, and shared similar ideals.

 

Because then they would be responsible for the fuck ups of their allied neutral brethren, and they wouldn't be neutral anymore.

[Joe Kremlin]

One thing I never really understood was why didn't all the neutrals join forces into a MDP bloc which would still be neutral from the treaty web, but would consolidate their power to defend their ideology from parts of the world which wants to take it from them.

Because then they wouldn't be neutral. Also that's basically what GUARD was iirc.

[the rebel]

Because then they wouldn't be neutral. Also that's basically what GUARD was iirc.

 

If they're only allied with each other through the bloc and zero external treaties, then they would still be neutral from the normal chaining web of war which the non neutral do every year.

[Mogar]

If they're only allied with each other through the bloc and zero external treaties, then they would still be neutral from the normal chaining web of war which the non neutral do every year.

the problem is allying with another alliance automatically makes you non neutral, even if the other alliance is also neutral, you're putting yourself with them instead of you being by yourself.

[Sildavo]

I wonder how they are so many players stating that "neutrals didn't care for others, therefore now they are getting what they earned".

 

They don't realize how many neutral nations have been, like mine, FOR YEARS LONG, helping other nations OUTSIDE their neutral alliances, with CN 'real money' monthly donations in exchange of trade or tech, to start with. There are many ways to help other countries at war, without being at war, like USA did from 1939 up to december 1941, helping Britain AND RUSSIA with the cash-and-carry, lend-and-lease, destroyers-for-bases, etc... Read Churchill's memoirs: Britain wouldn't have survived if it wouldn't have got American help BEFORE USA entered the war openly -because it was forced to enter by a Japanese sneak attack and a declaration of war by Germany and Italy.

 

They don't realize that these childish, destructive and warmongering teenagers who have now called a 'holy war' against neutral, having been inflated in techs and land through their robberies, will at the next school or college vacation period call another 'holy war' against other alliances, no matter what they declare or say, and they will destroy you all one by one, until this game would be just a place for wargames, not for nation building.

Years ago I realized that wars increase exponentially in CN during school and college vacations, which says all about those who grow through war and live for war. They are just improductive, non-living-a-real-life kids, with no interest into creating political and economic networks. This is NOT what CyberNations was supposed to be. Converting the Standard Edition progresively into the Tournament Edition will be ruinous for the game owners, who, don't forget it, are not working for our pleasure and amusement, but for REAL CASH. Kids have no real cash, if they have they waste it in beer.

[CubaQuerida]

I wonder how they are so many players stating that "neutrals didn't care for others, therefore now they are getting what they earned".

I wonder how many different groups of people you can inflame in one gigantic (and seemingly entirely ooc) rant. Great you have money. It will be helpful, but my nation has money, and that's what you will use to actually build your nation. But that's your decision to spend RL cash on it, and if you think people will somehow think twice because of that, well consider yourself checked.

You sound extremely condescending here, but I'm not shocked. I've seen all ends of the emotional spectrum from TDO. Mostly ones that reinforce the decision to declare war.

[Sildavo]

 

 

I wonder how many different groups of people you can inflame in one gigantic (and seemingly entirely ooc) rant. Great you have money. It will be helpful, but my nation has money, and that's what you will use to actually build your nation. But that's your decision to spend RL cash on it, and if you think people will somehow think twice because of that, well consider yourself checked.

You sound extremely condescending here, but I'm not shocked. I've seen all ends of the emotional spectrum from TDO. Mostly ones that reinforce the decision to declare war.

 

But it's not me or others -like you- who care for money, but Planet Realm Gaining company, mi estimado Cubanito. Do you think they have established CyberNations for your fun? They earn money, mi estimado Cubanito, and they earn a LOT of money from the monthly real money donations. Did you think it was a social assistance team who is behind the game and its whereabouts? Well, then I spell it for you: they are not. It's a commercial firm, whose goal is earning REAL money. When this REAL money will start to drop because the game is in the hands of teenagers, things will change. The game will be down, or they will create a paid version from the start. Such is life.

[tayloj7]

Well perhaps then if they start losing people who pay them money they'll put more effort into reforming the game so that its longevity in terms of actual fun gameplay and strategic nation building will be improved, and heck maybe they could find a way to increase the incentives for 'donations' along with changes.  As it is right now I would never pay say $25 for such modest gains, maybe at low levels but even then a small amount of activity easily counteracts the need for donations to grow and play the game.

[Sildavo]

Well perhaps then if they start losing people who pay them money they'll put more effort into reforming the game so that its longevity in terms of actual fun gameplay and strategic nation building will be improved, and heck maybe they could find a way to increase the incentives for 'donations' along with changes.  As it is right now I would never pay say $25 for such modest gains, maybe at low levels but even then a small amount of activity easily counteracts the need for donations to grow and play the game.

You forget that CyberNations is a Nation simulation game.

 

Well perhaps then if they start losing people who pay them money they'll put more effort into reforming the game so that its longevity in terms of actual fun gameplay and strategic nation building will be improved, and heck maybe they could find a way to increase the incentives for 'donations' along with changes.  As it is right now I would never pay say $25 for such modest gains, maybe at low levels but even then a small amount of activity easily counteracts the need for donations to grow and play the game.

You are free of not wishing to pay money for CN like it WAS (I don't think I am wishing it now, not with the warlike turning they did last summer), but a lot of people did. The proof is that it has continue to exist, and the game has been financially maintained and continued thanks to the people who paid monthly donations. Just remeber, there is no publicity, like in facebook, where gratuity is paid by advertisements.
Actually, I see these monthly donations as perfect parts of the real functioning world. Some countries which have higher financial means give loans to other who don't, in exchange for commercial, political or military facilities. It is "tech deal" on the highest possible rank.
The question is that, if they start to loose paying players, they will have to look for the interests of these paying players. The huge majority of these paying players are people over teen or college years, with real busy lives and jobs, expecting to build up a nation through economic, diplomatic and financial means, and go on with them through a long history, without an intense and continuos dealing of wars, tech raids and other nonsense. A huge majority of them are not raiders or rogues, like a huge majority of nations in the real world are not raiders or rogues. Of course, we don't have the figures, but Planet Realm must have them, because any firm managed by elementary clever people know their customers and how they react. If the present situation go on, I assure you that it will come a huge change. Market laws will impose it on Planet Realm and on the rogue teenage-like players. Of course, the alternative would be the end of CyberNations. It can't be sustained.

Oh, and by the way, since several months ago, the donations may be sent up to 30 USD -not just 25, as before-, of course obtaining higher benefits for the player... and for the game firm. A lot of people have been therefore paying 30 USD a month, you see? Tell Planet Realm they are going to loose most of them.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Sildavo

[enderland]

You forget that CyberNations is a Nation simulation game.

 

You know it wasn't until very recently in the world where nation stätes realistically had a choice of remaining neutral with respect to the rest of the world.

 

In this sense, an alliance in CN which doesn't arm itself or take precautions against attack should not be surprised when other nation stätes/alliances prey upon it.

 

Regarding your "no one who raids donates" - my first nation was deleted with the #1 casualty count, around 7M at that time nearly 4 years ago. I had probably close to $300 worth of donations I bought in-game for my nation at that point and trust me, I raided anything and everything that moved.

Edited September 22, 2013 by enderland

[rsoxbronco1]

I would like to point out a couple things:

 

1. Your sweeping generalizations of MK/MQ membership demographics are tragically flawed.  You clearly don't know your enemy. 

 

I'm sure your work is very important and that the 12 Screen Regal Cinema would grind to a screeching halt without you, but let's not pretend that CN nation building is some arduous task that requires hours of free time every week to accomplish.

 

You're unwilling/unable to commit the time necessary to influence this world through politics.  This is the reason you are neutral.

 

2. Despite the jokes about Hime's Red Phone with a direct line to admin, it is laughable to suggest that you are somehow more important than a nation that does not donate.  From an objective standpoint, nations like yourself have value because they support the game.

 

That said you're boring as hell, contribute nothing else, and are generally a waste of space.  Deal with it.

 

Admin, in his infinite wisdom, foresaw such blights as yourself and actually designed the game to support you.

 

It's too bad you didn't use it.

[IYIyTh]

I for one intend to find out the answer to the question beg'd in this topic title, "Or What?"

[Custodian]

I for one intend to find out the answer to the question beg'd in this topic title, "Or What?"

 

Hopefully we can agree that TDO has collectively chosen the "shooting back" option.

 

Doombird/MQ offered peace to TDO nations that joined them - their offer has been entirely ignored and TDO has the same numbers as before the war.

[potato]

Hopefully we can agree that TDO has collectively chosen the "shooting back" option.

 

I know you're not to used to wars but that's hardly "shooting back".

Edited September 23, 2013 by potato