Sign up for the "Go Out With A Bang" organisation

[shahman]

I want vox back.

[shakes]

I knew you were jealous of the great Smurf adventure of 2007. Glad to see you have come to your senses and stopped hating the Smurfs but instead are doing a Smurf like action!

Although the Smurfs were far more superior!

Jihad.

[Electron Sponge]

I love the talk about honor, evil, pixel huggers or whatelse. This game is far to slow to make it super dynamic, it cost to much TIME to build up a proper nation and you can loose it to fast.

See, this attitude is part of the problem.

What's the point of building up that proper nation? To make it a monument to you being able to log in a few times a week and be in an alliance that's managed to duck out of any major wars without taking one straight to the mug?

What a horrible bore. Build that nation up and fight it. There's no other point to this game when it comes down to it. You can have your community whether your nation is a 1000000 NS or 100.

[Drostan]

See, this attitude is part of the problem.

What's the point of building up that proper nation? To make it a monument to you being able to log in a few times a week and be in an alliance that's managed to duck out of any major wars without taking one straight to the mug?

What a horrible bore. Build that nation up and fight it. There's no other point to this game when it comes down to it. You can have your community whether your nation is a 1000000 NS or 100.

We just need to give large nations the correct incentives to fight (i.e. - super powerful weapons that only the elites can use). More stuff that will draw peaceful nation builders out of their coccoons and into the battlefields. Although I guess we need to offer some larger reward for big nations fighting that can't be gained through hording. I don't know what that could be though.

I also feel like many large nations can rebuild pretty quickly given the size of their warchests. Maybe not to full strength but once you've reached a certain size, unless you're held in nasty wars for a long time, you can probably rebuild to a medium-sized nation almost as soon as you are out of war again.

[enderland]

I also feel like many large nations can rebuild pretty quickly given the size of their warchests. Maybe not to full strength but once you've reached a certain size, unless you're held in nasty wars for a long time, you can probably rebuild to a medium-sized nation almost as soon as you are out of war again.

There is little incentive to go to war when a week of war can destroy a year worth of nation development.

[Haflinger]

What's the point of building up that proper nation? To make it a monument to you being able to log in a few times a week and be in an alliance that's managed to duck out of any major wars without taking one straight to the mug?

If you like.

The point is that there's no set victory conditions. You can pretty much do what you want in this game; it doesn't have an ending, and there's no inherent point to it. Just different things that you can do.

[jer]

The deterrence is why it takes guts.  That's the entire point of his post.  It has nothing to do with "pettiness" over pixels.

Firstly, you call the current response to nuclear rogues a deterrent? Clearly it isn't working and should be ditched then, since we have always seen nuclear rogues and continue to do so. All that happens is that rogues wait until they quit the game and that these punishments delay the inevitable rather than preventing rogues. Maybe if we as a community got less fixated with PUNISHING people and instead just ENJOYED the chance of a short-term 1v1 war, those looking to cause angst-by-roguery would stop seeing it as a worthwhile exercise? Excessive punishment does not stop rogues, this has been proven over time. So let's try something new.

If you complain about rogues waiting until they leave before carrying out their deeds, then you need to stop endorsing ludicrous punishments for them. At the moment a rogue has a choice: do I go attack some guy for a bit of satisfaction and have the nation which I could use to help my alliance destroyed, or do I continue helping my alliance and wait until I want to leave before attacking who I want to? It has nothing to do with being afraid of a bit of hurt, a rogue probably couldn't care less over a couple of weeks of war, but when the punishment gets ridiculous and destroys all of the time and effort you put into being able to have an impact on the battlefield or as a banking nation you start to see rougues understandably being put off because rebuilding for months and months isn't for everyone, shock horror. Rogues are not scared of losing a few thousand infra, but whilst they will always be on the end of 3v1 smackdowns until they're completely wasted they will continue to wait until they leave the game and you'll just have to deal with it.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Aimee Mann

[Dr. Dan]

Firstly, you call the current response to nuclear rogues a deterrent? Clearly it isn't working and should be ditched then, since we have always seen nuclear rogues and continue to do so. All that happens is that rogues wait until they quit the game and that these punishments delay the inevitable rather than preventing rogues. Maybe if we as a community got less fixated with PUNISHING people and instead just ENJOYED the chance of a short-term 1v1 war, those looking to cause angst-by-roguery would stop seeing it as a worthwhile exercise? Excessive punishment does not stop rogues, this has been proven over time. So let's try something new.

Yes, the current response is a deterrent.  It is, as Blue and yourself said, the reason people wait until they have nothing to lose.  I'm also willing to bet that should there be a smaller deterrent than ZI, the amount of rogues would increase dramatically.  If you want a 1v1, I suggest asking for a duel rather than going rogue.  Some people might be up for it.

If you complain about rogues waiting until they leave before carrying out their deeds, then you need to stop endorsing ludicrous punishments for them.

Again, the entire premise was that they are cowards because they are afraid of the punishment.

At the moment a rogue has a choice: do I go attack some guy for a bit of satisfaction and have the nation which I could use to help my alliance destroyed, or do I continue helping my alliance and wait until I want to leave before attacking who I want to? It has nothing to do with being afraid of a bit of hurt, a rogue probably couldn't care less over a couple of weeks of war, but when the punishment gets ridiculous and destroys all of the time and effort you put into being able to have an impact on the battlefield or as a banking nation you start to see rougues understandably being put off because rebuilding for months and months isn't for everyone, shock horror. Rogues are not scared of losing a few thousand infra, but whilst they will always be on the end of 3v1 smackdowns until they're completely wasted they will continue to wait until they leave the game and you'll just have to deal with it.

I know WHY people wait until they have nothing to lose.  The point was that when they have nothing to lose and attack, they are cowards.  I see that you're saying that perhaps the desire to help their alliance is what drives them to "not go rogue".  Perhaps that is a more admirable quality than standing up for what you believe in.  Perhaps their decision isn't based in that.  Who knows?   I really could care less either way, I was just clarifying for you what he meant.

Good day.

[Blue Lightning]

People wait until they've got nothing to lose because they know that in 99% of cases their nations will be bombed to oblivion if they dare to attack anyone off their own back.

That's what I was saying. It takes a lot of guts to go rogue when you don't intend to quit afterwards because the consequences can be so severe. Hating someone enough to attack them, but not attacking them until you are about to quit the game removes the potential for severe consequences (or any consequences at all) and therefore requires no bravery.

Whether or not there should be severe consequences is another matter entirely.

[Qaianna]

I'd have to agree with whoever spoke of a duel. I haven't seen too many alliances that will outright forbid such a thing. Plus, if your target ends up sitting in peace mode for nine months after you state you want a duel, then you get to jeer at them instead of being dismissed as another rogue.

Honestly, I think the days of people dictating what's fun and the right way to play the game are coming to a clear middle. Remember, a lot of people are in war mode primarily because of the financial benefit, not that they really want to get attacked.

I remember one person who decided to delete, and sent out the aid packets. (Thanks, by the way.) And I know a few who just idled out of the game. (No thanks, by the way. I lose more trades that way than by folks saying 'New circle, hit the bricks you leadpeddler'.) That I think is a bit classier.

Of course, one problem with the whole duelling thing is if you're nursing a grudge against someone who's out of your declaring range. Still, can't you at least look for someone who wants a good scrap? We all know boredom is a way to drive folks out of the world; another is to log in and see smouldering ruins of your nation while everyone around you jeers that you're the lame one for not liking to be bombed flat.

Summary: If you want a nice even war, ask for one. Ephraim Grey for a while outright had in his sig that he told his alliance that he'd just take whatever befalls him. And if you've got a grudge against someone, arrange some sort of real challenge. Lots of folks like the pomp and circumstance or whatever, why not roll with that?

[Drostan]

There is little incentive to go to war when a week of war can destroy a year worth of nation development.

I guess it depends on your goals in the game. But it reminds me a bit of other games in which I ceased actually playing the game about a year before I actually quit. I just spent a year mindlessly hording elite items for characters I never ended up building. I don't do donations so I have no aspirations of seeing my name in the top10. As such, the appeal of becoming impractically HUGE eludes me.

I would like to see admin put something in that encourages larger nations to fight. There has to be some significant drawback to not fighting or some very significant potential gain to fighting at that size. As usual, I want more wonders.

I think the idea of large nation dueling is really great and has some serious e-drama potential. Problem is that it would probably be rare to find two nations whose alliances/friends wouldn't just end up jumping in.

[JayOvfEnnay]

I'd have to agree with whoever spoke of a duel. I haven't seen too many alliances that will outright forbid such a thing. Plus, if your target ends up sitting in peace mode for nine months after you state you want a duel, then you get to jeer at them instead of being dismissed as another rogue.

Honestly, I think the days of people dictating what's fun and the right way to play the game are coming to a clear middle. Remember, a lot of people are in war mode primarily because of the financial benefit, not that they really want to get attacked.

I remember one person who decided to delete, and sent out the aid packets. (Thanks, by the way.) And I know a few who just idled out of the game. (No thanks, by the way. I lose more trades that way than by folks saying 'New circle, hit the bricks you leadpeddler'.) That I think is a bit classier.

Of course, one problem with the whole duelling thing is if you're nursing a grudge against someone who's out of your declaring range. Still, can't you at least look for someone who wants a good scrap? We all know boredom is a way to drive folks out of the world; another is to log in and see smouldering ruins of your nation while everyone around you jeers that you're the lame one for not liking to be bombed flat.

Summary: If you want a nice even war, ask for one. Ephraim Grey for a while outright had in his sig that he told his alliance that he'd just take whatever befalls him. And if you've got a grudge against someone, arrange some sort of real challenge. Lots of folks like the pomp and circumstance or whatever, why not roll with that?

Because challenges and duels generally involve restrictions.

I went rogue on NPO with full intention of causing them as much trouble as possible, and there's more to it than just "Attack one guy for seven days" it's "Attack 3 people for as many months as it takes for them to realize that you're not going to go away, along with stealing as much aid as possible from them, tricking their lower ranks to attack each other due to "spying", helping put the enemies of their alliance into more power or into a senate seat, and all in all out of the box methods of warfare AND conventional styles". Besides that I find it hard to get people who I dislike or who dislike me to duel. If there's someone in this game in my range who I really dislike, chances are he's too petty to do such a thing or "too important for me", and that contributes to why I dislike him or her. If someone is willing to duel me and play fair, I will ultimately gain more respect for them win or lose because they were able to put those things aside.

Not sure if I'm making much sense hurr. :-p

[duke81]

I don't plan on bringing down an alliance. Thats not really realistic. I do plan on brining a bit of excitement/chaos on the community. I won't attack just 1 alliance, at least 2.. And not 2 close alliances, but something that brings more.... tension/fun

10 good men can bring down a reasonable sized alliance B)

[duke81]

I knew you were jealous of the great Smurf adventure of 2007. Glad to see you have come to your senses and stopped hating the Smurfs but instead are doing a Smurf like action!

Although the Smurfs were far more superior!

Jihad.

[Qaianna]

Because challenges and duels generally involve restrictions.

I went rogue on NPO with full intention of causing them as much trouble as possible, and there's more to it than just "Attack one guy for seven days" it's "Attack 3 people for as many months as it takes for them to realize that you're not going to go away, along with stealing as much aid as possible from them, tricking their lower ranks to attack each other due to "spying", helping put the enemies of their alliance into more power or into a senate seat, and all in all out of the box methods of warfare AND conventional styles". Besides that I find it hard to get people who I dislike or who dislike me to duel. If there's someone in this game in my range who I really dislike, chances are he's too petty to do such a thing or "too important for me", and that contributes to why I dislike him or her. If someone is willing to duel me and play fair, I will ultimately gain more respect for them win or lose because they were able to put those things aside.

Not sure if I'm making much sense hurr. :-p

I get the feeling you're annoyed with a certain alliance. Give me a moment, it's on the tip of my tongue ...

I guess what we get to here is 'what's a healthy grudge' and 'what's a grudge that you really need to get over, come on and just live with it'.

And there's always restrictions. People who rogue out are imposing a restriction themselves--'I won't exist after this is over so you just have to deal with it'. And then there's the hue and cry over finding the guy who bombed you flat as a reroll ('They always come back!') and wanting to get that revenge.

How often do you offer those duels, out of curiosity?

But yeah, the main issue with a duel system is if the target of your animosity is outside your declare range, so all you can do is mug his/her friends ceaselessly, to the point where they get angry at you and your pals (whereas they may have agreed with you before the nukes started flying). And then we get the ever beloved non-1v1 fight. Any suggestions on how those can be settled between the actual two with issues without having it flare out into something worse?

[TheThirdMark]

Did anyone else wonder if Denniswerf was the leader of BnT's legendary gang of anti-ODN rogues?

No. I dont think anyone else is wondering this. Denniswerf has always been one of the players I uphold the most. For his knowledge, game skills and the ways he can give advise. You mentioning this is the first.

I called no one a bad person. I'm only saying that those who destroy the efforts of others for "fun" shouldn't be bragging about it.

I personally honor the work someone but into their nation/alliance, regardless of the fact its all pixels.

Being victorious in War gives you the right to brag. At least, some think. And btw, you said Honor.

/me shivers really really really hard.

Why play a game that involves war and destruction of nations then

Its only because QFT gave me a warning once that Im putting some text here. Welcome in a game that endorses violence and massacres. (how else can you explain a NUKE on ones nation).

LOL. How about no? Believe me, I enjoy war. But when I go rogue (for the umpteenth time) I prefer, as I always have, to do my own thing, my own way and pick my own targets. Roguery is a special zone of this game. It's another way to play. I don't plan on leaving any time soon, but who knows when I'll go rogue. Probably before that.

My point is, when I do it, it's a pin point, coordinated move that's been planned for quite a while. It's not random stirring. Roguery without a cause is lame, and roguery when you're just lead into it by someone else who you barely know is weak.

I have to agree with you 100%.

Thats why I think that, even considering the fact that I do not like it, GOWAB can have some serious success. Planned rogue with many nations.

I think, and am rather sure, that I will never go Rogue. Im not that known on CN but the players that do know me will always link my name to FOK. Since that is the only Alliance I have ever been in and I tend to keep it that way. My nation will only keep to exist to aid my fellow players that still love this game. Though only nations that have proved the loyalty it needs to defend an Alliance in need or an Alliance member in need.

See, this attitude is part of the problem.

What's the point of building up that proper nation? To make it a monument to you being able to log in a few times a week and be in an alliance that's managed to duck out of any major wars without taking one straight to the mug?

What a horrible bore. Build that nation up and fight it. There's no other point to this game when it comes down to it. You can have your community whether your nation is a 1000000 NS or 100.

WOOT!!!!!!!!! You are very correct. A nation is completed when the owner thinks it is. Might be when you reach 15K infra, all Wonders (for me actually the only goal in the game, after that my life ends Im afraid), gaining rank 1 or by having a lot of fun (my true reason to play) with fellow Dutch men.

Electron Sponge, I just added 1 Kudo to your total.

There is little incentive to go to war when a week of war can destroy a year worth of nation development.

Welcome to Cyber Nations. You know, there is a game to players that dont like their stuff destroyed. Its called ''The Sims''.

If you like.

The point is that there's no set victory conditions. You can pretty much do what you want in this game; it doesn't have an ending, and there's no inherent point to it. Just different things that you can do.

My reaction here is the exact reaction to the post by Electron Sponge. Without the Kudo though. I keep that for the damage done by your WRC

Yes, the current response is a deterrent. It is, as Blue and yourself said, the reason people wait until they have nothing to lose. I'm also willing to bet that should there be a smaller deterrent than ZI, the amount of rogues would increase dramatically. If you want a 1v1, I suggest asking for a duel rather than going rogue. Some people might be up for it.

Good day.

The only real reason I have you in my post is my unfolded love for TOP.

Hugs!

Hmn, to prevent misinterpretation let me explain some. As you said some players might be up to it. But I think there will be 50 rogues on each player wanted to pick up the handkerchief .

And btw for Duke: The Smurfs were nothing but Amateurs B)

[jer]

Yes, the current response is a deterrent.  It is, as Blue and yourself said, the reason people wait until they have nothing to lose.  I'm also willing to bet that should there be a smaller deterrent than ZI, the amount of rogues would increase dramatically.  If you want a 1v1, I suggest asking for a duel rather than going rogue.  Some people might be up for it.

Again, the entire premise was that they are cowards because they are afraid of the punishment.

If you know that attacking someone is going to result in you losing all military and banking capability then you are forced to make a choice between losing the usefulness of your nation or satisfying your lust for blood. People enjoy their roles in their alliances and do not want to give those up for the sake of acting on what is often a fleeting moment of annoyance with another player, and so they mostly refrain from attacking. This is simple priorities, not cowardice. As you acknowledge, if the punishments were not so draconian we would probably see an increase in 1v1 attacks which clearly does not paint a picture of cowardly rulers afraid of consequences. They just don't enjoy dumb consequences not appropriate for a game environment. I feel like I'm repeating myself here but it's only because you apparently don't get it.

Do you really think not wanting to throw years of gaming down the drain over small personal grudges is cowardly? I imagine most people would like to continue reaping the benefits of what they've grown over the previous years and won't bin all of that by going to ZI for some guy they happen to dislike for whatever reason. It is a shame that we have to make that choice in the first place though, because grudges are FUN and we should embrace them instead of crushing all possibility of them fostering with excessive 'deterrents' because we're afraid of a bit of war.

I'd have to agree with whoever spoke of a duel. I haven't seen too many alliances that will outright forbid such a thing. Plus, if your target ends up sitting in peace mode for nine months after you state you want a duel, then you get to jeer at them instead of being dismissed as another rogue.

[...]

Summary: If you want a nice even war, ask for one. Ephraim Grey for a while outright had in his sig that he told his alliance that he'd just take whatever befalls him. And if you've got a grudge against someone, arrange some sort of real challenge. Lots of folks like the pomp and circumstance or whatever, why not roll with that?

Why would they sit in peace mode? If they refuse the duel and are attacked, they know they have the backing of their alliance and thus, they have nothing to be afraid of.

Also I don't think asking kindly captures the spirit of going rogue. It would have to be an aggressively presented challenge with gritty reasons for it to be worth anything imo. The idea has potential though, although I am sceptical of how many rulers would play along without getting their alliance involved.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Aimee Mann

[Denniswerf]

There is little incentive to go to war when a week of war can destroy a year worth of nation development.

Hate the game, not the players.

Also, can someone please tell me what a 'rogue' is? Whats the difference between a player attacking someone while quitting or an alliance going to war because of principles? I don't get it why people start insulting others, starting to discuss about rogue's, etc. Anyone can sign up for this organisation, every wishes will be granted. We will have a goal, we will have something to fight for. You guys call it rogue's, just because I said its an organisation and not an alliance?

What if I were to call it an alliance with the goal to fight and go down in the fight? Will you guys stop talking about rogue's and all other negative things? Will you just concider this an alliance which you have to behave polite against?

[rabidman]

Looks good Dennis. A new twist to the game, you are doing what any warring alliance is doing, except you are speeding up the process.

[Style #386]

Did anyone else wonder if Denniswerf was the leader of BnT's legendary gang of anti-ODN rogues?

I dunno Haf, they could be.

Looks like I'm on the target list.

[Machiabelly]

You would be better served if you do get enough response to form an army if you don't change your AA. Just attack from wherever you are, you may get some inter alliance wars going in retaliation before people sort things out.

[Lord Philip]

I think the idea of large nation dueling is really great and has some serious e-drama potential. Problem is that it would probably be rare to find two nations whose alliances/friends wouldn't just end up jumping in.

Could save a lot of drama if alliances with a disagreement could just both name an alliance champion and have a fight between them to settle said argument. You could limit the fighting as seen fit, set a time or amount of damge etc, promote it publically and it would make a decent sport to watch too. Bring a touch of glamour and honour to it all.

[Style #386]

Could save a lot of drama if alliances with a disagreement could just both name an alliance champion and have a fight between them to settle said argument. You could limit the fighting as seen fit, set a time or amount of damge etc, promote it publically and it would make a decent sport to watch too. Bring a touch of glamour and honour to it all.

I'm pretty sure this is tried on occasion, with varying degrees of success.

[Haflinger]

No. I dont think anyone else is wondering this. Denniswerf has always been one of the players I uphold the most. For his knowledge, game skills and the ways he can give advise. You mentioning this is the first.

This is what it sounds like when a FOKker fails to get a joke.

(The tipoff should have been my referring to BnT's rogue gang as "legendary." Legendary things usually don't actually exist.)

[Gamemaster1]

I hope I get attacked. Lol.