Starfox101 Posted November 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 But I thought you were going to bring some friends along! I'll see if anyone's interested in going toe to toe with you, but I'd be more interested in an alliance-wide thing. I'd at least be able to get my hands dirty that way. Honestly, I don't think I have friends at 4k NS, unless some Vox members forgot how to grow after the war ended. Really, if you're throwing out challenges, it's good to have more than 4k NS. If I brought friends it would be an unfair slaughter. Your alliance has 60k NS. You aren't exactly intimidating in the slightest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Actually, morals are always conflicting and will generate attriction. There lies the possibility of war. I frankly would have more fun at this game by fighting and seeing people fight over principles, as opposed to this hypocracy of "i was butthurt, and now that I am not anymore, I have the freedom to make as many people butthurt as possible". Cybernations has a community that big, compared to other nation simulation games exactly because of this feature, the combination of in game mechanics and political doctrines influencing them. At the second you dismiss the political doctrines entirely, you have a !@#$ game like lunar wars, and the community dies shortly after the hegemonic alliance literally wins the game. I believe planet bob in general has a similar point of view, and that the second you create an organization and allow people to join it, you lose control of it. Specially vox. All you need to make you fight is a little hot blood and the knowledge that it's more dangerous to lose than to win. If you think the game is boring, cancel your treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 I can understand some morals in the game. They have to be there, or people will start to lose interest, however I have noticed lately a trend in people taking morals to an extreme that they aren't meant to be taken to, and that has been making the game a bit less interesting as well. Finding a perfect balance is key. This. Also, I think the faux-moral thing that I mentioned in the other thread really is one of the roots of the problem. People acting in a manner that can be seen as moral just because that's how they act will not bring stagnation, as it still allows for interesting happenings due to the fact that people have different definitions of what is right, wrong, moral, immoral, etc. On the other hand, people pretending to be morally outraged is a type of public manipulation, and the only thing which could possibly come from that type of manipulation in the current climate is stagnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Oh noes, no warzez! Maybe to elaborate. Actually, I think that a lot of players are somewhat concerned or even disappointed, not at a lack of wars, but at the current political climate in general. Its not the lack of wars they really miss, but the lack of "political grandstandings" on this board and open tensions that occur but are kept well hidden from the boards and kept among selective group of players. There is no open political rivalry in an extend that certain amount of players would like to see here. And not because there is no rivalry here, but because not expressing it greatly until that "perfect" moment is the game plan. While a legit political game plan, it has its lack of fun attached to it. But people are to play as they like, so whatyagonnado. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 But I thought you were going to bring some friends along! I'll see if anyone's interested in going toe to toe with you, but I'd be more interested in an alliance-wide thing. I'd at least be able to get my hands dirty that way. Vilien my good friend, I will destroy you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Honestly, I don't think I have friends at 4k NS, unless some Vox members forgot how to grow after the war ended. Really, if you're throwing out challenges, it's good to have more than 4k NS.If I brought friends it would be an unfair slaughter. Your alliance has 60k NS. You aren't exactly intimidating in the slightest. I apologize for the size of my nation, I've been at war on and off (typically by the week) since June. If you brought friends, we'd bring friends, and it'd be a real party. Maybe we'd even get to start that war you're looking for. And, as always, you miss the point. I haven't yet deluded myself into thinking that we're intimidating. I'm offering you a chance to get that war that we've supposedly been stopping you from having. Are you going to put up or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Duce Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Starfox, you had very little to do with any of it. It was created as a pro NPO alliance, and it wasn't until much later when Rebel Virginia and Doitzel steered it off course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) Vox is not to blame for the current state of the world. You did not make the current ruling alliances, notably those in Superfriends and Citadel, the spineless survivalists that they are. They were spineless survivalists to begin with, and always have been. It just became clear that in order for these worthless alliances to survive, they had to go against Pacifica, thus they did. Believe me, you're wasting your breath preaching to these cowards to learn how to stand for something. If they stood for something during any part of existence they might not be here today. That's what got alliances rolled by the NPO. Having principles. But if an alliance was led by enough weakling follower types to play nice with whoever is in charge, NPO let them live. So there you have it. That's why we're where we're at. Starfox, you had very little to do with any of it. It was created as a pro NPO alliance, and it wasn't until much later when Rebel Virginia and Doitzel steered it off course. Are you talking about Vox? Because I really didn't have much to do with them following the end of the noCB War and went into a semi-retirement until I was taken off PZI and joined MK. Also, Vox was never ever pro-NPO. Did you take a look at the line up of Vox from the start of it? It was a who's who of people who hated the NPO. Edited November 28, 2009 by Rebel Virginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 I feel that many people take a good thing too far, as Nintenderek said. I suppose I fit into the moralist camp sometimes, but I don't particularly care for them. My personal moralism is on one line: Genuine actions. I can't stand the fainting warriors who can't stand by or behind their own actions, and it makes me jump all over them. I feel these weak people are created by the weakness of alliances, the same weakness I hated and railed against in Vox. Big, slow, stupid, generic alliances with no guiding philosophies, no unifying theme, nothing unique or notable. I donno. I manipulated events and people to contain war once, I swore it off afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Duce Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 and it wasn't until much later when Rebel Virginia and Doitzel steered it off course. Haha, right on time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustakrakish II Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 I would have to disagree with the there is no wrong or right part. That isn't a moral issue. Everyone knows the basics of what is wrong or right (unless you were brought up by some very crooked people). Its the ones who twist it for their own good that claim otherwise. And the only reason I liked Vox is because they hated NPO. You weren't the first. You were only the ones with the balls to stand up and do it in public on a large scale, and for that I commend you. However, you did not start people to hate NPO due to their attacking of small AAs and questionable reasons for doing so. People saw noted it was wrong and disapproved. You didn't plant it in their minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffey Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 moralism is not pacifism. moralism is fighting for justice. With a just CB, a moral alliance will support it. If there is not a just CB, they will not support it, and possibly fight against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted November 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 hI apologize for the size of my nation, I've been at war on and off (typically by the week) since June. If you brought friends, we'd bring friends, and it'd be a real party. Maybe we'd even get to start that war you're looking for. And, as always, you miss the point. I haven't yet deluded myself into thinking that we're intimidating. I'm offering you a chance to get that war that we've supposedly been stopping you from having. Are you going to put up or what? You are seriously delusional. You're alliance fighting me wouldn't start anything at all. You would end up beaten and that would be a period on that story. Also, don't tell me to put up. You challenged me. Don't be one of those guys that start a fight then yell "hit me!" Just go ahead and hit me I said I'm down to fight any nation of yours. Starfox, you had very little to do with any of it. It was created as a pro NPO alliance, and it wasn't until much later when Rebel Virginia and Doitzel steered it off course. What the hell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 You are seriously delusional. You're alliance fighting me wouldn't start anything at all. You would end up beaten and that would be a period on that story. Also, don't tell me to put up. You challenged me. Don't be one of those guys that start a fight then yell "hit me!" Just go ahead and hit me I said I'm down to fight any nation of yours. I offered to let you bring friends. Don't you see how fun a friend against friend brawl could be? Oh well. Again, I'll see if someone's interested. See you around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Duce Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 What the hell? Face it, you're just a fanboy, flag-waver, and rabble rouser. Lot of talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 (edited) Haha, right on time Is that supposed to mean something? Is there a reason you are quoting yourself like you have achieved some sort of victory over me through my correcting of your fallacious point? I am afraid I simply do not understand. Face it, you're just a fanboy, flag-waver, and rabble rouser. Lot of talk. You really don't know Starfox do you? Edited November 28, 2009 by Rebel Virginia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 What the hell? That's what I said. Meanwhile, Hal has been down there typing for like 15 minutes so I look forward to this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerald Meanĕ Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 I offered to let you bring friends. Don't you see how fun a friend against friend brawl could be? Oh well. Again, I'll see if someone's interested. See you around. How about a three way war? No one has ever done one of those before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted November 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Face it, you're just a fanboy, flag-waver, and rabble rouser. Lot of talk. Well, Rouse is my last name irl. I guess it comes with the bloodline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Face it, you're just a fanboy, flag-waver, and rabble rouser. Lot of talk. How can you contend that Vox Populi was "created as a pro-NPO alliance" and wasn't anti-NPO until later "when RV and Doitzel steered it off course?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Starfox, do you think your thoughts on the issue might also be just as influenced by post-Vox Syndrome as actual game climate? We've got me stewing in the slow-growing CoJ, Sponge deleted, Doitzel all but dead, you the same, RV chilling in NSO with Cheyenne, Mega in the TJO backwater. Basically a bunch of guys that don't have a lot to do now that we're done. Do you feel like the color's gone out of your game since April? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Duce Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 How can you contend that Vox Populi was "created as a pro-NPO alliance" and wasn't anti-NPO until later "when RV and Doitzel steered it off course?" Because that's the truth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derantol Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 It seems to me that people are missing the point, a little bit. I don't think that Starfox was trying to say that Vox started the hate on any of these actions; I think he's saying that Vox made it gradually more and more okay to hate on those actions, and more and more okay to make a big deal about it, turning those actions from a quarter or half of a CB to a full legit CB, or close to it, in today's world. NPO certainly did earn all of the hate it accrued, or at least most of it, so Vox isn't really responsible for getting them rolled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 moralism is not pacifism. moralism is fighting for justice. With a just CB, a moral alliance will support it. If there is not a just CB, they will not support it, and possibly fight against it. The CB comes after people have decided they want to attack someone and all the major CBs suck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Maybe to elaborate. Actually, I think that a lot of players are somewhat concerned or even disappointed, not at a lack of wars, but at the current political climate in general. Its not the lack of wars they really miss, but the lack of "political grandstandings" on this board and open tensions that occur but are kept well hidden from the boards and kept among selective group of players. There is no open political rivalry in an extend that certain amount of players would like to see here. And not because there is no rivalry here, but because not expressing it greatly until that "perfect" moment is the game plan. While a legit political game plan, it has its lack of fun attached to it. But people are to play as they like, so whatyagonnado. I actually agree with you there. It has a lot more to do with IRC than Vox or even Karma though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.