Jump to content

If you want to play the TE the way it was meant to be played


JimKongIl
 Share

Recommended Posts

To join Ordo Paradoxia now would be vote for this kind of TE that knows nothing but perpetual war and realize that TE should be played like a tournament.

To attack us now would be a vote for treaty gridlock and TE peacetime boredom.

----------------------

We invite you to join us.

We are almost at 400 members strong and every man carries a rifle.

We were attacked and we are prepared to defend our sovereignty with the tenaciousness of a landowner trying to repel raiders from his home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A member limit isn't the problem. What needs to happen is people enter multiple wars that don't last more than a few days. They can be pre-arranged so long as there are no treaties. If there is an alliance that has 200 members, then agree to fight 2 other alliances of 100 members (or something similar). What we need to get away from is the political crap and just play it as a war game. It's easy to say but hard to do. Ordo Paradoxia has tried to make an example to follow yet returning alliances are too afraid to play a round without treaties.

Sorry if I'm not too coherent right now :S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, like, sit around for three weeks because everyone is too scared of the 400 member alliance to act? That sounds like heaps of fun.

Desperation much?

Not at all, if we had been approached by an alliance about an arranged war, I would have been happy to organize something. Obviously there would need to be 4-5 alliances on the opposing side but it's something I would be more than willing to work towards.

If you had been in talks with Jim and myself you would have listened to discussions about duels or alliance wars and trying to get the most casualties in the round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A member limit isn't the problem. What needs to happen is people enter multiple wars that don't last more than a few days. They can be pre-arranged so long as there are no treaties. If there is an alliance that has 200 members, then agree to fight 2 other alliances of 100 members (or something similar). What we need to get away from is the political crap and just play it as a war game. It's easy to say but hard to do. Ordo Paradoxia has tried to make an example to follow yet returning alliances are too afraid to play a round without treaties.

Sorry if I'm not too coherent right now :S

I agree with you... Harmful hasn't has a treaty since round 4. I've been there where OP is now. Problem is there isn't a fix admin can put on the system because the problem isn't the game, it's the people play it. People know it's a game yet people still get attached as if it was real. There is no one right or wrong way to play. Only thing you can do, especially as alliance leaders and senior gov, is to find a balance for your members.

Too large they call you evil.

Too small you get raided till the end of time.

Too passive they blame you for problems and use it as an excuse to hit you.

Too aggressive and they form a bloc against you calling you evil.

Too poor a leadership and you become the butt of all jokes.

Only one thing you can do. Screw worrying about others. Play the way you see fit. Play hard and have fun. If it doesn't work try something new. Just as I've pointed out before and many people after me as well, quit whining and just play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all, if we had been approached by an alliance about an arranged war, I would have been happy to organize something. Obviously there would need to be 4-5 alliances on the opposing side but it's something I would be more than willing to work towards.

If you had been in talks with Jim and myself you would have listened to discussions about duels or alliance wars and trying to get the most casualties in the round.

Actually- I would have loved (before all this 'coalition nonsense') to get some sort of war game set up. Maybe next round ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too large they call you evil.

Too small you get raided till the end of time.

Too passive they blame you for problems and use it as an excuse to hit you.

Too aggressive and they form a bloc against you calling you evil.

Too poor a leadership and you become the butt of all jokes.

Screw worrying about others. Play the way you see fit. Play hard and have fun. If it doesn't work try something new. Just as I've pointed out before and many people after me as well, quit whining and just play.

You Sir, are going in the quote book. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, whats the difference between making some sort of a massive treaty with other alliances (eg. WOLF) or trying to make an alliance so big that it dominates the game? Either one kills the game and dilutes war.

Understand, I don't condone either. However, it just seems that your talking out of both sides of your mouth Jim (may I call you Jim?). Of course unless you're the type that just wants to win every war with no challenge with overwhelming odds. Is that it Jim?. Please show me where I am mistaken.

Edited by Grags
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is there one right way to play the game?

Who says you're doing things right?

Why do I even bother... (rhetorical, don't answer)

You bother because you care :awesome: .

Seriously though, I agree with the man. "Right" is a matter of interpretation. You may play the game "your" way; others will play it theirs. Let it be what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, whats the difference between making some sort of a massive treaty with other alliances (eg. WOLF) or trying to make an alliance so big that it dominates the game? Either one kills the game and dilutes war.

Understand, I don't condone either. However, it just seems that your talking out of both sides of your mouth Jim (may I call you Jim?). Of course unless you're the type that just wants to win every war with no challenge with overwhelming odds. Is that it Jim?. Please show me where I am mistaken.

You don't condone one alliance growing? Forgive me for letting us get so big. :lol1: Get get over yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone thats played te a wile knows anything can happen.but to say this is fair or this is not. is up to the player.to say this or that its killing te is dumb.im so sick of hearing that.te is what you make of it.if its not breaking te rules then its up to the player how to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone thats played te a wile knows anything can happen.but to say this is fair or this is not. is up to the player.to say this or that its killing te is dumb.im so sick of hearing that.te is what you make of it.if its not breaking te rules then its up to the player how to play.

But in the words of the creator, "Cyber Nations Tournament Edition is a more aggressive version of the popular persistent browser-based nation simulation game Cyber Nations with increased startup money and decreased purchase costs for certain items."

If you are saving your pixels its a fair argument you are playing the game wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, whats the difference between making some sort of a massive treaty with other alliances (eg. WOLF) or trying to make an alliance so big that it dominates the game? Either one kills the game and dilutes war.

Understand, I don't condone either. However, it just seems that your talking out of both sides of your mouth Jim (may I call you Jim?). Of course unless you're the type that just wants to win every war with no challenge with overwhelming odds. Is that it Jim?. Please show me where I am mistaken.

I'm too lazy to reiterate what I want to end up saying, so here's a post from another thread.

It's sad when the only alliance that's really putting in an effort to make a point by not signing treaties has to stand up against this many alliances.

People complain that we're too big and ruining the game, but maybe we're so big because we're the only alliance that went so far as to refrain from making allies in this game, which attracts a large portion of members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't condone one alliance growing? Forgive me for letting us get so big. :lol1: Get get over yourself.

LOL!!!!!!

Jim, I at least gave you credit for having a small grasp of reality sport. As always, I have over estimated you I guess. Forgive me. I didn't mean to talk over your head.

You have, in numerous threads, basically invited the entirity of TE to join OP. So I am guessing that you cannot understand something as simple as if everyone joins OP (or most for that matter), it will limit the fighting in TE. I understand that this is what your ego desires, nay, begs for. However, its just funny that you seem to think that a small group of alliances, in combination of other alliances that you have pissed off, are ruining TE. Not you begging everyone to come play with you.

LE limits its membership. We attack friends and enemies alike depending on what is going on in the round. If you want an ACTUAL improvement to TE as opposed to your self serving purpose to stroke your undersized.......ego, then make a similar policy in your alliance. You'd be amazed at how much more fun you'd have.

As it is, you have people in YOUR alliance that feel like this post stated:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1957423

Makes a perfect example of what OP is. Its a straw man you set up to try and keep from getting your posterior handed to you each round!

BTW, fun war. Thanks for inviting us. And we're LE. If it last all round, thats just AWESOME!! I hate those silly dead periods!

EDIT: Sorry Drai, I didn't see your post until after I posted this one. JUst wanted to say.....you really like to hear yourself talk don't ya? Keep saying the same stuff over and over and over and over. Someone is bound to wear down eventually and agree with you.

Edited by Grags
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: Sorry Drai, I didn't see your post until after I posted this one. JUst wanted to say.....you really like to hear yourself talk don't ya? Keep saying the same stuff over and over and over and over. Someone is bound to wear down eventually and agree with you.

When the same arguments arise against us, do you expect a different response? If somebody could provide an logical argument against what I'm saying I would listen, and possibly even agree. If people are going to mock me or continue repeating the same thing I don't have much else to say.

And I'm not the type to sit back and watch somebody post something I really don't agree with, and not do anything about it. If that means I like to hear myself talk then I guess I agree with you... Just not how I would put it.

Edited by Drai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad when the only alliance that's really putting in an effort to make a point by not signing treaties has to stand up against this many alliances.

Wanna know why I stopped taking people serious on the OWF? It wasn't the kids acting like kids, it was when people are so self-absorbed they seem to forget that other people are doing things too.

MHA has had the longest history of no trades in TE I'd be willing to bet since most alliances don't even last as long as we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanna know why I stopped taking people serious on the OWF? It wasn't the kids acting like kids, it was when people are so self-absorbed they seem to forget that other people are doing things too.

MHA has had the longest history of no trades in TE I'd be willing to bet since most alliances don't even last as long as we have.

Sorry to hear about your lack of trades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanna know why I stopped taking people serious on the OWF? It wasn't the kids acting like kids, it was when people are so self-absorbed they seem to forget that other people are doing things too.

MHA has had the longest history of no trades in TE I'd be willing to bet since most alliances don't even last as long as we have.

No trades, or no treaties?

Regardless treaties wasn't actually the word/concept I should have used there. "allies" or "close friends" would have made more sense because if you have friends you will still help that alliance out in a war (or there is a likely possibly that you will) even if you don't have a treaty. MHA has in their history gone to help out a "friend" or gotten help from a friend which is ultimately the same result as calling upon a treaty.

That was a horrible way of wording what I was trying to say but I can't construct anything decent right now.

Edited by Drai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanna know why I stopped taking people serious on the OWF? It wasn't the kids acting like kids, it was when people are so self-absorbed they seem to forget that other people are doing things too.

MHA has had the longest history of no trades in TE I'd be willing to bet since most alliances don't even last as long as we have.

Coincidentally, MHA would also have the longest history of bandwagoning! Congrats on your two fine accomplishments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...