Jump to content

Change


Starbuck

Recommended Posts

Friend; two years. Two years.

That's how long the status quo has remained unchanged.

A few adjustments to the game mechanics, a few much-needed additions in the form of navies and wonders, and frequent curbstomps.

Aside from these, nothing much about this game has changed; this current that you speak of must be the slowest possible drift in the world.

I applaud anyone who decides to ignore the status quo and do things their own way. o/

I would disagree with you greatly, this game has changed greatly in the last 2 years, and as much as I hate saying this the only thing that hasn't changed is the New Pacific Order dominance over the game, the Order it's self has change greatly and so have the "main" players on the world stage, but I agree with you anyone who has a backbone to do their own thing has my respect. Sadly I must again agree with most of those in the NSO, we will not get the change we want unless we do something about it, and sadly most of those complaining for change are the ones who are so tied to the current power structure that they wouldn't last a day with out the stagnated hegemony that has take the game.

Edited by Dodger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am not so sure if the NSO will bring about any significant "change" to the current world order but I would certainly welcome it.

As was stated earlier, when I first started playing cybernations the idea that one alliance or even one group of alliances could have the power to control or steer the politics of the game was unthinkable. Cybernations was once one great anarchy of competing interests that despite being hectic and complicated, was still stable and certainly not lawless. It was even fun to participate in because even small alliances could participate in the politics of planet bob as even the support of a small alliance could have significant impact on a war or dispute. Smaller alliances were treated with greater respect and elitism (though it still existed) was generally discouraged as it could lose a lot of critical support.

The cybernations that exists today is relatively simple by comparison. Their is no significant competition of interests. Today there is only one interest. And those who do not agree with it will surely be eliminated. The only path to survival is a competition to pander to the interests of the powers that be.

tl;dr: old cybernations was complicated but fun

new cybernations is simple and much less fun

Edited by Tomcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, all of you seek "change." Well, if you want change you have to stand up. It seems you've all been pushed to a point where you're finally willing to risk all your infrastructure to do it. Where it's not longer about growing your nations rather than changing Bob and how it's played. Good, I applaude you all if that is your position.

But as I look across the field, as I look behind my defenses, I see two of the same people. You two are no different from one another. Both have an agenda they want to fulfill and both want to either keep things the same or change things. But one thing remains the same, you both fought on the same side when the WoTC broke out. When alliances were unfairly executed and a powerful bloc was literally made to disband via proxy you sided with the victors just to taste victory and fight another day. Where were you then? THEN was your time to fight.

Exchange petty, pretty, and extravegant words all you like. You two don't differ in my opinion, just because you say you want to change Planet Bob doesn't mean you too are not the criminals for the current state of it. I've picked my friends and they've stood by my alliance so I will die with them. My vision is not clouded enough nor does it believe the ilke of the other side for "change." Your chance to stand up for justice has gone and went, now as you did I will stand on the side that best suits my alliance.

Sincerely,

From the words of a cruel and heartless player of Planet Bob.

And hi Dodger. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, all of you seek "change." Well, if you want change you have to stand up. It seems you've all been pushed to a point where you're finally willing to risk all your infrastructure to do it. Where it's not longer about growing your nations rather than changing Bob and how it's played.

^ this right here, if you want change you better be willing to risk it all, the reward is so much sweeter this way. :jihad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, all of you seek "change." Well, if you want change you have to stand up. It seems you've all been pushed to a point where you're finally willing to risk all your infrastructure to do it. Where it's not longer about growing your nations rather than changing Bob and how it's played. Good, I applaude you all if that is your position.

Absolutely. If you desire change, then work for it. If you need change, fight for it. Change will not happen by itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gandhi said that one must "be the change you want to see in the world". NSO is not obligated to change anything for you, for me, or for anyone else unless they desire such. If change is your goal, whatever that change may be, you cannot just sit around and debate on who is going to become the catalyst for that change for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you not owe your allies change?

It is not our place to dictate how our allies run their internal govt, nor is it our place to bring about unnecessary attention towards them. We will strive to be the allies possible to those whom we deem will do the same back to us. With that in mind we will continue to grow in our new system of government, which in itself is a change from how the majority of alliances have been made. If you truly want change, I can only say that the alliance you're in then will most likely not bring about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people going out and joining the independants, the new alliances without the old ties and history/obligations are doing all they need to do in order to change. People within the current hegemony can't really comment too much on it, or advise the other people on what they should do without a certain amount of hypocricy. Unless they've the history of significance to back up their commentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only constant is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be.

— Isaac Asimov

If you don't change, you're out of sync...the successful alliances you are seeing are the ones that have adopted to the changes in most successful ways, thats why they are still there ahead and serving their self-interests.

So the people who are demanding change might be the ones unhappy with the changes that are occurring due to forces not in their control....they want to change to ensure that change meets their desires, which is what everybody wants for themselves and their alliances and want to bring 'change' which suits their best interests. Its happening all the time, the ones who could not adopt to the changes, good or bad are the ones that may not be in most comfortable state of existence. The ones who are bringing the change or adopting to it in better way are the ones who are doing great and leading.

So implying that only NSO stands for change is at best a half-truth. It will be more correct to say the change that NSO desires suits best to its beliefs, the beliefs of its members and its allies, and its ideologies and its interests. It's change is not necessary most suitable for lets say some other alliance. This is not just true for NSO, its true for every other alliance. You seek the change that serves your interests under the prevailing environment. Saying otherwise is saying you are not seeking the best interests of an alliance you belong too and sounds treasonous in nature.

So, every alliance in existence is acting and adopting to change, change is not confined to one single alliance as might be implied.

Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, all of you seek "change." Well, if you want change you have to stand up. It seems you've all been pushed to a point where you're finally willing to risk all your infrastructure to do it. Where it's not longer about growing your nations rather than changing Bob and how it's played. Good, I applaude you all if that is your position.

But as I look across the field, as I look behind my defenses, I see two of the same people. You two are no different from one another. Both have an agenda they want to fulfill and both want to either keep things the same or change things. But one thing remains the same, you both fought on the same side when the WoTC broke out. When alliances were unfairly executed and a powerful bloc was literally made to disband via proxy you sided with the victors just to taste victory and fight another day. Where were you then? THEN was your time to fight.

Exchange petty, pretty, and extravegant words all you like. You two don't differ in my opinion, just because you say you want to change Planet Bob doesn't mean you too are not the criminals for the current state of it. I've picked my friends and they've stood by my alliance so I will die with them. My vision is not clouded enough nor does it believe the ilke of the other side for "change." Your chance to stand up for justice has gone and went, now as you did I will stand on the side that best suits my alliance.

Sincerely,

From the words of a cruel and heartless player of Planet Bob.

And hi Dodger. :)

I fought in Great War 2 and Great War 3 on the opposition side.

The WoTC came long after the planet bob pecking order had been established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not their responsibility to change anything - and right now they don't even have the ability to imo. With the general mindset of CN there's a big chance they never will, sadly enough, because i see plenty of people running away from any sort of change and seeing NSO as a potential source of it.

@shahenshah: lol. As long as any potential change can endanger their safety people will choose the later every time, disregarding any other belief, ideology etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that link. I went ahead and did it myself. Ivan: Change You Can Believe In!

IvanHope.png

Reminds me of an old gem:

Moldavi-button.gif

Delta1212 made that... It was a thread about which CN ruler would make the best RL President.

-Bama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the world to change, something must be shifted within the older parts of a structure, adding to it still keeps the bottom floor the same. Yes certain levels are cleared out only to be replaced stuff similar to what was there. Nothing has truly shaken the building since the dynamite that destroyed its two neighbors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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...