Jump to content
Dimitri227

The Real Issue facing CN

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Amossio said:

This is more complicated than it needs to be.

 

From an individual sense tech dealing rates are low priority, from an alliance point of view, the actual tech rate is irrelevant. Ensuring there is some kind of tech dealing aka slots being filled, is far more beneficial. This ensures some kind of systematic growth for larger number of peeps. Otherwise you create a situation where 3 to 5 players grow and the rest become stale.

 

Hence maintaining activity aka slots filled, creating wider growth where you have mid/higher tier you can then have a small number of people staying active in some sense to push forward an fa agenda, make "friends" and lead the alliance. 

 

 

Actually I kind of agree with this; far better from an alliance perspective to have most people gaining tech at a moderate rates than a handful gaining quickly.

 

For many of the people posting here: those from Umbrella, IRON and ISX, as well as NPO, tech trading is all sorted out centrally, so finding tech deals as an individual doesn't matter. For a majority of players they are likely to have to do some work to find tech trade partners (even if their alliance gov does provide help), as such what matters the most in terms of tech growth is simply using your slots, which is far better than not using them/delaying because the rate offered is not the preferred one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be hitting 2 years as a tech seller soon. Any time I had a jump, war came, and I got wrecked by smaller nations with nukes. Then it was back to square one, really... the rate should be $9M/100 tech or $6M/100 tech because most buyer nations actively utilizing 5+ slots can easily afford that.

 

If I was a new player, then what on bob would be a reason to stick around in this nincompoop when one little diddle can come along and destroy 3+ months of progress in under 7 days. It's not primarily a matter of infrastructure. Unless you're able to develop wonders and improvements every single month it's very hard to become developed.

 

Personally, I've found that by developing a nation with an alliance will strengthen the retention rate for players. I've seen quite a lot of nations in my position, develop 2-5 wonders even, but go inactive or get bored because they never really felt accomplished. Nine years ago I felt more involved because this game was a challenge, to reach the top 5%, to trade tech, find trade partners, and manage politics. It's become far too simplified, much like these tech deals nowadays. No one likes chores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blackatron said:

 

Actually I kind of agree with this; far better from an alliance perspective to have most people gaining tech at a moderate rates than a handful gaining quickly.

 

For many of the people posting here: those from Umbrella, IRON and ISX, as well as NPO, tech trading is all sorted out centrally, so finding tech deals as an individual doesn't matter. For a majority of players they are likely to have to do some work to find tech trade partners (even if their alliance gov does provide help), as such what matters the most in terms of tech growth is simply using your slots, which is far better than not using them/delaying because the rate offered is not the preferred one.

Or even selling if done correctly, biggest periods of internal growth I've seen from my old alliances have been when there was a systematic internal push to fill slots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone said tech? I like it, please send it to me.

 

Tech > Friends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2017 at 4:11 AM, Drege said:

I'll be hitting 2 years as a tech seller soon. Any time I had a jump, war came, and I got wrecked by smaller nations with nukes. Then it was back to square one, really... the rate should be $9M/100 tech or $6M/100 tech because most buyer nations actively utilizing 5+ slots can easily afford that.

 

If I was a new player, then what on bob would be a reason to stick around in this nincompoop when one little diddle can come along and destroy 3+ months of progress in under 7 days. It's not primarily a matter of infrastructure. Unless you're able to develop wonders and improvements every single month it's very hard to become developed.

 

Personally, I've found that by developing a nation with an alliance will strengthen the retention rate for players. I've seen quite a lot of nations in my position, develop 2-5 wonders even, but go inactive or get bored because they never really felt accomplished. Nine years ago I felt more involved because this game was a challenge, to reach the top 5%, to trade tech, find trade partners, and manage politics. It's become far too simplified, much like these tech deals nowadays. No one likes chores.

 

This is why the number one issue today is rogues who harass new nations and try to force them from this world. It takes a systemic effort to create order in today's barbarian world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real issue is that most of us have been here too long and are starting to realize how much more productive our lives could be without CN in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buying 100 tech costs maybe 2 mil? So a 9/100 means you net 7 mil per deal. Using that for jumps and all of that fun stuff, you can hit 4k infra in 1 to 2 rounds of selling. From there, you can use the cash flow for wonders and warchest.

 

Tech sellers make enough, buyers get enough. If you want more, you need to change the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always could always use 9mil for 100 deals. 

 

As well as others in TIE 

 

We are open for business 

Edited by Lucius Optimus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2017 at 6:49 PM, Gh0s7 said:

Buying 100 tech costs maybe 2 mil? So a 9/100 means you net 7 mil per deal. Using that for jumps and all of that fun stuff, you can hit 4k infra in 1 to 2 rounds of selling. From there, you can use the cash flow for wonders and warchest.

 

Tech sellers make enough, buyers get enough. If you want more, you need to change the system.

Buyers don't get enough. The issue isn't the money, it's the time delay. If people could pay  12m and get 200 straight away, then it wouldn't be an issue. The rate of tech accumulation goes down significantly at 9m/100. Essentially, these policies have made this a two tier game, alliances like the top 3 that have internal sellers to keep 9m/300 rates internally and alliances that buy at 6m/100 or 9m/100. It's usually similar people who complain about non-competitiveness statistically and such while intentionally gimping themselves.  The tech system is fundamentally broken. The good thing is no one cares anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Monster said:

Buyers don't get enough. The issue isn't the money, it's the time delay. If people could pay  12m and get 200 straight away, then it wouldn't be an issue. The rate of tech accumulation goes down significantly at 9m/100. Essentially, these policies have made this a two tier game, alliances like the top 3 that have internal sellers to keep 9m/300 rates internally and alliances that buy at 6m/100 or 9m/100. It's usually similar people who complain about non-competitiveness statistically and such while intentionally gimping themselves.  The tech system is fundamentally broken. The good thing is no one cares anymore.

That is avioded by having a backeted system where only the richest buy 100 tech for 9mil. And only after a target amount of tech levels has been reached

 

Obviously if it's a war buildup situation exceptions can be made. But in peace 9mil for 100 shouldn't be a problem. And 6mil for 200 shouldn't even be on the table 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A differential rate system requires a greater degree of control and there's no reason why an alliance that wanted its strongest nations to be even stronger wouldn't focus all of their tech gathering abilities on doing so. Unless all the sellers were going to gather together and exclusively sell to nations that only have a low tech level at high rates of their own volition and somehow dispense with all the extant tech feeders, it's not clear to me how setting up that kind of system would even work. The reality is that it's now a division between the alliances that work to gain tech as their ultimate goal and buy at one rate and alliances that see acrueing tech as an insignificant byproduct of their aid programs for smaller nations and "buy" at another.

Edited by Auctor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As new nations, we should be DEMANDING the most money for the tech!  We are the ones building up sizeable empires through the labor force of our populations!  How dare those established countries attempt to buy techn at 1.5mil for 100.  This is an outrage!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think how much tech and money can be sent in each slot needs increasing, but somehow I think this game will be dead before that happens. I would be in favor of removing the aid caps altogether, so how much aid can be fit in a slot is no longer the major determining factor in how tech prices are set.

Edited by Noctis Lucis Caelum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lucius Optimus said:

That is avioded by having a backeted system where only the richest buy 100 tech for 9mil. And only after a target amount of tech levels has been reached

 

Obviously if it's a war buildup situation exceptions can be made. But in peace 9mil for 100 shouldn't be a problem. And 6mil for 200 shouldn't even be on the table 

That'll never be how it works and would require centralization  that doesn't exist. Only the richest in tech would make sense for that rather than the richest in money and there'd be no way to enforce it. The issue is there is no actual prevailing rate right now as is; it's just people who try to accrue tech and others like Auctor said treat it as a relatively insignificant byproduct or philanthropy or simply have given up on real tech growth and the latter are the ones buying at 9m/100. For any prevailing rate to make sense, it has to be followed by everyone. The issue is technology dealing isn't officially sanctioned by the creator and is just a thing the people here invented. If there were set rates everyone had to follow, then there wouldn't be as big of a problem.

 

The other issue is everyone is content to do things in a way that ensures there is no competitiveness and people will continually gimp themselves to the extent they will be unable to damage to anyone statistically large. If the idea has been to create a parallel low nation strength world with a bunch of 9m/100 buyers and a perma-seller class, then it's poorly executed anyway and could be done much better and the only one who has even expressed anything coming close is Junka. As of now, it's just a bunch of people feeling good about retarding their tech growth while others quietly boost to levels that will be impossible to even have half of past a certain point.

 

6m/200 should be on the table, because a seller is only a seller for a relatively limited time compared to being a buyer if they're not a perma-seller. It will be more expensive for them to pay the 9m/100 rates long-run  in both cost and lack of tech growth if they do not stay a seller. For an older nation, the money isn't the issue, it's the retardation of tech accumulation.  Having to pay after receiving 100 tech and then having to wait to receive 100 tech again is slower than paying once and receiving twice. It gets worse when others are buying at 9m/300 rates and thus only pay once and receive three times.

 

Like I said, given the rate of people moving on from this world, it doesn't matter. For older nations, their nations are mere keepsakes and the rulers have grown weary. The 9m/100 craze is a symptom of a wider problem, but it's a very bad symptom.

Edited by Monster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Monster said:

That'll never be how it works and would require centralization  that doesn't exist. Only the richest in tech would make sense for that rather than the richest in money and there'd be no way to enforce it. The issue is there is no actual prevailing rate right now as is; it's just people who try to accrue tech and others like Auctor said treat it as a relatively insignificant byproduct or philanthropy or simply have given up on real tech growth and the latter are the ones buying at 9m/100. For any prevailing rate to make sense, it has to be followed by everyone. The issue is technology dealing isn't officially sanctioned by the creator and is just a thing the people here invented. If there were set rates everyone had to follow, then there wouldn't be as big of a problem.

 

The issue is everyone is content to do things in a way that ensures there is no competitiveness and people will continually gimp themselves to the extent they will be unable to damage to anyone statistically large. If the idea has been to create a parallel low nation strength world with a bunch of 9m/100 buyers and a perma-seller class, then it's poorly executed anyway and could be done much better and the only one who has even expressed anything coming close is Junka. As of now, it's just a bunch of people feeling good about retarding their tech growth while others quietly boost to levels that will be impossible to even have half of past a certain point.

 

6m/200 should be on the table, because a seller is only a seller for a relatively limited time compared to being a buyer if they're not a perma-seller. It will be more expensive for them to pay the 9m/100 rates long-run  in both cost and lack of tech growth if they do not stay a seller. For an older nation, the money isn't the issue, it's the retardation of tech accumulation.  Having to pay after receiving 100 tech and then having to wait to receive 100 tech again is slower than paying once and receiving twice. It gets worse when others are buying at 9m/300 rates and thus only pay once and receive three times.

 

Like I said, given the rate of people moving on from this world, it doesn't matter. For older nations, their nations are mere heirlooms and the rulers have grown weary. The 9m/100 craze is a symptom of a wider problem, but it's a very bad symptom.

I think part of the issue is even if an alliance were to try optimizing themselves to increase their tech as quickly as possible, it would still be impossible for them to ever compete with alliances like DBDC who have accumulated massive amounts. Umbrella is one of the few exceptions to this, but for most alliances if they reach a certain NS; they get raided by DBDC and knocked back down again. Making it very pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Noctis Lucis Caelum said:

I think part of the issue is even if an alliance were to try optimizing themselves to increase their tech as quickly as possible, it would still be impossible for them to ever compete with alliances like DBDC who have accumulated massive amounts. Umbrella is one of the few exceptions to this, but for most alliances if they reach a certain NS; they get raided by DBDC and knocked back down again. Making it very pointless.

It would be difficult for most to reach that level purely on tech though given the current trend and many reached top 250 anyway through infra bloat/land and got wrecked, but the reason people like DBDC accumulated so much in comparison is they got it at 0/300 per slot per month or 9/300. when the tech system was changed from 50 to 100 when others chose to buy at 6m/100 instead. The gap would be significantly lesser if everyone had been buying at 9m/300 or 6m/200 and there would have been more competition for alliances with feeders. The problem is no one else really had tech growth as a goal, so the flaws of the system were easily taken advantage of by those that did.

 

The worst part is the anti-growth movement so to speak has been non-intentional and mostly believing they're paying  a fair rate and treating it as just giving extra money. If people simply didn't care about the top 250-500 nations anymore and wanted to ignore them, that would make sense but often times they stay in range anyway due to infra and land bloat. The parallel world outside of a continual dramas like Monsters Inc isn't really that vibrant and it's usually people waiting around to get hit rather than doing anything proactive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Monster said:

It would be difficult for most to reach that level purely on tech though given the current trend and many reached top 250 anyway through infra bloat/land and got wrecked, but the reason people like DBDC accumulated so much in comparison is they got it at 0/300 per slot per month or 9/300. when the tech system was changed from 50 to 100 when others chose to buy at 6m/100 instead. The gap would be significantly lesser if everyone had been buying at 9m/300 or 6m/200 and there would have been more competition for alliances with feeders. The problem is no one else really had tech growth as a goal, so the flaws of the system were easily taken advantage of by those that did.

 

The worst part is the anti-growth movement so to speak has been non-intentional and mostly believing they're paying  a fair rate and treating it as just giving extra money. If people simply didn't care about the top 250-500 nations anymore and wanted to ignore them, that would make sense but often times they stay in range anyway due to infra and land bloat. The parallel world outside of a continual dramas like Monsters Inc isn't really that vibrant and it's usually people waiting around to get hit rather than doing anything proactive.

 

I think you're right about alliances like DBDC early on trying to amass a lot tech giving them an advantage, alliances like Umbrella and Gremlins were also amassing tech before it was even useful beyond bloating NS.

So we can talk about what alliances should have done in the past if they wanted to be competitive in high NS tiers, but for those who haven't already been putting a lot of effort in amassing tech for many years now; its far to late. The system as we currently have it is broken in regards for it being possible for alliances who aren't already competitive in high NS tier to suddenly be more competitive, so there is no point. I think its better for nations to focus on having an optimal tech/infra ratio, so they don't end up in range of nations who will completely destroy them; without ever standing a chance.

Edited by Noctis Lucis Caelum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Monster said:

Buyers don't get enough. The issue isn't the money, it's the time delay. If people could pay  12m and get 200 straight away, then it wouldn't be an issue. The rate of tech accumulation goes down significantly at 9m/100. Essentially, these policies have made this a two tier game, alliances like the top 3 that have internal sellers to keep 9m/300 rates internally and alliances that buy at 6m/100 or 9m/100. It's usually similar people who complain about non-competitiveness statistically and such while intentionally gimping themselves.  The tech system is fundamentally broken. The good thing is no one cares anymore.

I have not been around for as long as many, so please correct me if something I say is factually inaccurate;

 

In every political grouping historically there has naturally been a mixture of efficiencies within each sphere or grouping of AAs, some would purchase at good* rates and others at not so good rates, all with varying slot efficiencies. There would also be a decent number of alliances that worked towards running at the highest efficiencies, and although many of them might be clustered together, they would overall be distributed throughout the game politically, this ensure that even when the game was heavily tilted (which it almost always was) there was at least some competition between the two opposing side.

 

Of course activity decline over time and you end up with fewer alliances working towards high efficiencies. Then the 3 major alliances with said high efficiencies ally one another and the other side is put into a position where they cannot compete.

 

Now we have it where only 3 major alliances have systems where they work towards high slot efficiency buying at good rates: NPO, IRON and Umbrella. (Umbrella is amazingly below 70% for the first time since I have been checking.)

2 smaller alliances I can think of have implemented their own systems: ISX and SLAP (although ISX is not what you would call a good rate)

A handful of other alliances in the top 40 put in a decent amount of work trying to get tech production going at a decent rate, but with varying amounts of success.

 

That is tech production in 2017 in CN in a nutshell.

 

So I don't think these policies have made it a two tier game, because these policies mostly seem to pre-date the current tiers emerging.

 

I think slot efficiency is of greater concern than rate, quite honestly; if you're in a typical AA where half of the alliances uses none of its slots at any given time, and the other half only uses at average of half of its slots, you are looking at 25% efficiency. Now switching from 6/100 to 6/200 is a 33% increase in tech intake, from 9/200 to 9/300 is a 12.5% increase, that simply isn't going to make enough of a difference to help catch up/keep level with the aforementioned AAs.

 

I also think it is an error on your part to think that Junka is the only one outside of Oculus to consider such things, others simply post less frequently on the OWF about their intentions.

 

*Used "good" to mean more tech per lot of cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Noctis Lucis Caelum said:

So we can talk about what alliances should have done in the past if they wanted to be competitive in high NS tiers, but for those who haven't already been putting a lot of effort in amassing tech for many years now; its far to late.


Not 100% sure my memory is right about this but the only time I can recall Admin talking about when he will end this world he said that basically he wouldn't. If that's true there is a still a possibility of becoming competitive in the upper tier. Cuba could delete, wars could happen.

People have been saying the lights are about to go out for a very, very long time now. I recall about 3-4 years ago a GOON member laughing at me because I said something implying the game would last at least 2 more years.

A side note, I find it kind of funny when people act like things mattered back then but they don't matter now because there are less people. I must be missing something because I don't get how that effects how much things matter.

Edited by Canik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Canik said:


Not 100% sure my memory is right about this but the only time I can recall Admin talking about when he will end this world he said that basically he wouldn't. If that's true there is a still a possibility of becoming competitive in the upper tier. Cuba could delete, wars could happen.

People have been saying the lights are about to go out for a very, very long time now. I recall about 3-4 years ago a GOON member laughing at me because I said something implying the game would last at least 2 more years.

As a side note, I find it kind of funny when people act like things mattered back then but they don't matter now because there are less people. I must be missing something because I don't get how that effects how much things matter.

The gap in strength between the top 10 nations and the nations ranked 240-250 is so big, its better not reach that range unless you're in an alliance which has many others also in that range who can back that nation up (or allies willing to back them up in a fight against some of the top nations). Same when comparing nations ranked 250-260 compared to the nations ranked 490-500, for alliances who don't already have enough nations in the upper tier to defend anybody who gets into those ranges; getting somebody into that range is likely to backfire.

As the number of nations shrinks, the more the declaration ranges will be based on nation rankings rather than nations of similar NS. I think this problem will only get worse as the player base shrinks. So even if the game doesn't shut down until the last nation deletes, its a problem of alliances not being able to defend their upper tiers properly when nations more than 10 times their size can suddenly declare on them when they reach a certain point. If the player base ever shrinks to 250 nations, the top nation would be able to declare on a brand new nation. So I think less people matters and without the game mechanics changed to make things a little more competitive as the player base shrinks, I think less and less people will be motivated to play.

 

I think removing the caps on how much tech and aid can be sent could fix this problem to some extent, since then alliances could stand a chance in building themselves and their alliance members up to the point where at least they would have a fighting chance in the upper tier. Although without that, I think those who dominate the upper tiers will continue to do so and those who try reaching the top rankings will just get knocked back down again unless they join one of the alliances who are already dominating the upper tiers.

Edited by Noctis Lucis Caelum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Blackatron said:

I have not been around for as long as many, so please correct me if something I say is factually inaccurate;

 

In every political grouping historically there has naturally been a mixture of efficiencies within each sphere or grouping of AAs, some would purchase at good* rates and others at not so good rates, all with varying slot efficiencies. There would also be a decent number of alliances that worked towards running at the highest efficiencies, and although many of them might be clustered together, they would overall be distributed throughout the game politically, this ensure that even when the game was heavily tilted (which it almost always was) there was at least some competition between the two opposing side.

 

Of course activity decline over time and you end up with fewer alliances working towards high efficiencies. Then the 3 major alliances with said high efficiencies ally one another and the other side is put into a position where they cannot compete.

 

Now we have it where only 3 major alliances have systems where they work towards high slot efficiency buying at good rates: NPO, IRON and Umbrella. (Umbrella is amazingly below 70% for the first time since I have been checking.)

2 smaller alliances I can think of have implemented their own systems: ISX and SLAP (although ISX is not what you would call a good rate)

A handful of other alliances in the top 40 put in a decent amount of work trying to get tech production going at a decent rate, but with varying amounts of success.

 

Yeah, there are some inaccuracies.

 

None of the other major alliances really tried to get high rates of slot usage for a long time. It's what helped our advantage in that we actually utilized our slots while others didn't try. They were never really evenly distributed.  The more recent tech programs in the top 3 alliances(note GPA buyers buy at 6m/200 or 9m/300 rates. You can treat GPA as inconsequential, but they're in the top 250) didn't really kick into until 2014. There was usually no upper tier competition between sides except maybe Equilibrium since the upper tier advantage would always be on one side. It was always either the side with low upper tier would peace mode or  they'd take the beating. 

 

If there are only 3 alliances that were trying( like I said only a minority cares now and people will put OOC: anything not CN over touching the game), then it means the death knell had already arrived. Eventually, it will only be 2 and then only one as apathy increases and people move on due to otherworldly concerns, so this doesn't pan out as there is no sustainability.  There would have to be more alliances that were working towards for this case for it to actually  be competitive. You can't rely on 3 alliances for all the action especially when two have shared a NAP for a majority of their existence even when not allied. The fact that most alliances did not have the drive to actually fight when those 3 alliances were on opposing sides made it clear that wasn't a workable dynamic.

 

Quote

 

That is tech production in 2017 in CN in a nutshell.

 

So I don't think these policies have made it a two tier game, because these policies mostly seem to pre-date the current tiers emerging.

 

I think slot efficiency is of greater concern than rate, quite honestly; if you're in a typical AA where half of the alliances uses none of its slots at any given time, and the other half only uses at average of half of its slots, you are looking at 25% efficiency. Now switching from 6/100 to 6/200 is a 33% increase in tech intake, from 9/200 to 9/300 is a 12.5% increase, that simply isn't going to make enough of a difference to help catch up/keep level with the aforementioned AAs.

 

I also think it is an error on your part to think that Junka is the only one outside of Oculus to consider such things, others simply post less frequently on the OWF about their intentions.

 

*Used "good" to mean more tech per lot of cash.

These policies made it a two tier game because there has been plenty of time for people to get their stuff in gear even if it was only the 20 most active members in each other alliance. NPO was very low tech for a long time even after Disorder, but they got organized while others messed around with 6m/100 and 9m/100.

 

The reason they don't use the slots is because they're too inactive to do so. Slot efficiency and rate shouldn't conflict. The people who are active enough to buy tech should b getting it at a good rate. If they can't, it's because the market is distorted because people insist on high rates of cash per tech despite it being a bad long-term decision should they convert to buying. The point isn't to catch up now. That was more or less given away a long time, the point is to accumulate tech to an extent where the WRC has enough backing it for your  nation to be able to do statistically relevant damage. More and more big nations will fade away because people grow tired of being nation rulers and allow themselves to pass away. The top 250 nation is lower than it was before.

 

It's not an error because I didn't say no one else thought of it, I meant no one else vocalized it. If anyone else has thought of it, they've done an awful job of organizing it. They could have worked towards setting up a parallel alliance system and treaty web rather than wait around to get rolled.

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, Canik said:


Not 100% sure my memory is right about this but the only time I can recall Admin talking about when he will end this world he said that basically he wouldn't. If that's true there is a still a possibility of becoming competitive in the upper tier. Cuba could delete, wars could happen.

People have been saying the lights are about to go out for a very, very long time now. I recall about 3-4 years ago a GOON member laughing at me because I said something implying the game would last at least 2 more years.

As a side note, I find it kind of funny when people act like things mattered back then but they don't matter now because there are less people. I must be missing something because I don't get how that effects how much things matter.

 

There's a possibility but it's ultra slight and no one will have the attention span for that.

 

The lights might as well have gone off given the apathy. The main reason people stick around is the sunk cost fallacy. More and more are dropping that as a rationale. Bob has lasted in a memorial form more or less because no one cares. It has nothing to do with less people per se. It has to do with less caring. Most alliances can't manage a blitz of any size anymore. No one wants to get on at update. You need lop-sided odds to accomplish modest objectives because for every NS point, only about half will be useful.

 

Things don't matter now because people don't care. A bunch of alliances set up discords, but no one is on, and irc is finished. War topics barely have any posts. There is little emotional investment left and lots of jaded attitudes. People simply are sticking out of habit and if no one cares they won't be able to be effective at anything. It reduces the incentive alliance leaders have to do anything if no one will show up. It's not less people, it's less caring, which is more visible to due to less people. if there were 1000 energized people as opposed to 5000 mostly lethargic, it'd be moe active.

Edited by Monster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Monster said:

 

Yeah, there are some inaccuracies.

 

None of the other major alliances really tried to get high rates of slot usage for a long time. It's what helped our advantage in that we actually utilized our slots while others didn't try. They were never really evenly distributed.  The more recent tech programs in the top 3 alliances(note GPA buyers buy at 6m/200 or 9m/300 rates. You can treat GPA as inconsequential, but they're in the top 250) didn't really kick into until 2014. There was usually no upper tier competition between sides except maybe Equilibrium since the upper tier advantage would always be on one side. It was always either the side with low upper tier would peace mode or  they'd take the beating. 

 

If there are only 3 alliances that were trying( like I said only a minority cares now and people will put OOC: anything not CN over touching the game), then it means the death knell had already arrived. Eventually, it will only be 2 and then only one as apathy increases and people move on due to otherworldly concerns, so this doesn't pan out as there is no sustainability.  There would have to be more alliances that were working towards for this case for it to actually  be competitive. You can't rely on 3 alliances for all the action especially when two have shared a NAP for a majority of their existence even when not allied. The fact that most alliances did not have the drive to actually fight when those 3 alliances were on opposing sides made it clear that wasn't a workable dynamic.

 

These policies made it a two tier game because there has been plenty of time for people to get their stuff in gear even if it was only the 20 most active members in each other alliance. NPO was very low tech for a long time even after Disorder, but they got organized while others messed around with 6m/100 and 9m/100.

 

The reason they don't use the slots is because they're too inactive to do so. Slot efficiency and rate shouldn't conflict. The people who are active enough to buy tech should b getting it at a good rate. If they can't, it's because the market is distorted because people insist on high rates of cash per tech despite it being a bad long-term decision should they convert to buying. The point isn't to catch up now. That was more or less given away a long time, the point is to accumulate tech to an extent where the WRC has enough backing it for your  nation to be able to do statistically relevant damage. More and more big nations will fade away because people grow tired of being nation rulers and allow themselves to pass away. The top 250 nation is lower than it was before.

 

It's not an error because I didn't say no one else thought of it, I meant no one else vocalized it. If anyone else has thought of it, they've done an awful job of organizing it. They could have worked towards setting up a parallel alliance system and treaty web rather than wait around to get rolled.

 

 

 

 

There's a possibility but it's ultra slight and no one will have the attention span for that.

 

The lights might as well have gone off given the apathy. The main reason people stick around is the sunk cost fallacy. More and more are dropping that as a rationale. Bob has lasted in a memorial form more or less because no one cares. It has nothing to do with less people per se. It has to do with less caring. Most alliances can't manage a blitz of any size anymore. No one wants to get on at update. You need lop-sided odds to accomplish modest objectives because for every NS point, only about half will be useful.

 

Things don't matter now because people don't care. A bunch of alliances set up discords, but no one is on, and irc is finished. War topics barely have any posts. There is little emotional investment left and lots of jaded attitudes. People simply are sticking out of habit and if no one cares they won't be able to be effective at anything. It reduces the incentive alliance leaders have to do anything if no one will show up. It's not less people, it's less caring, which is more visible to due to less people. if there were 1000 energized people as opposed to 5000 mostly lethargic, it'd be moe active.

That's why you sell at the 6mil for 100 rate and 9mil/100t,  To help try energize smaller younger nations. The sorry lot that are left in that top 20% can either take responsibility for motivating new players or go home. 

 

I've got a nation that's just 45 days old. He already has the FAC. Just the promise of the 9mil/100tech  sale motivated him to his first wonder. And he is a great sub commander very active. 

 

The Imperial Entente Discord is always open if you want to talk . The world is only as dead as you make it.  And I don't care if the top 40% no longer cares. 

 

TIE Discord : 

https://discord.gg/WydyAKZ

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lucius Optimus said:

That's why you sell at the 6mil for 100 rate and 9mil/100t,  To help try energize smaller younger nations. The sorry lot that are left in that top 20% can either take responsibility for motivating new players or go home. 

 

I've got a nation that's just 45 days old. He already has the FAC. Just the promise of the 9mil/100tech  sale motivated him to his first wonder. And he is a great sub commander very active. 

 

The Imperial Entente Discord is always open if you want to talk . The world is only as dead as you make it.  And I don't care if the top 40% no longer cares. 

 

TIE Discord : 

https://discord.gg/WydyAKZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

The alliances that are best at energizing new nations are ironically the ones not selling at 6m/100 because they have better internal communities and give people real purpose beyond just making money.  The actual mechanical aspects will never compete with that.

 

It's really not the top 40%, more like 60-70% and most of these people selling at whatever rates will be gone soon enough as they lose interest in the drudgery.

 

He should want to be a buyer instead and aim for getting there. 

 

I just went on TIE discord. 5 people on and no one from TIE.

 

 

Edited by Monster

Share this post


Link to post
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...