Space Between Wars

[Rebounder]

As I viewed Ameris' "[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90601"]What is your favorite memory?[/url]" topic, a clear (and, to most of us, obvious) common factor in most players' favorite memories stood out: wars. This, of course, is unsurprising, since the entire game is centered around wars; we build our nations, sign treaties, and gossip ceaselessly, all in preparation for the next conflict. Therefore, to most players (obviously discounting neutrals ), the occasional (or rare) pandemonium and destruction is the most worthwhile reason to continue playing. However, as time wears on, major wars have become more and more rare, making this world as a whole more boring. Here is a list I compiled of all the major wars that involved at least one sanctioned alliance on both sides. I used the Wiki for information of wars before my time, and for wars prior to sanctioning I estimated whether or not at least one alliance on both sides [i]would have been[/i] sanctioned.

GATO-INC War (January, 2006)
First Polar War (February 5, 2006)
Citrus War (February 17, 2006)
ICSN Debacle (April 26, 2006)
Second Polar War (May 22, 2006)
Great War I (July 15, 2006)
Great War II (January 9, 2007)
Green Civil War (May 24, 2007)
FAN-WUT War (June 18, 2007)
Dove War (August 6, 2007)
Unjust War (September 9, 2007)
[color="#008000"]BLEU-NADC War (January 26, 2008)
Continuum-GPA War (February 12, 2008)
GATO-1V War (April 26, 2008) [/color]
War of the Coalition (August 11, 2008)
Karma War (April 20, 2009)
BiPolar war (January 20, 2010)

Just glancing at the numbers, we can see the uneven spacing of CN's wars. For starters, there were 6 in 2006, 5 in 2007, 4 in 2008, 1 in 2009, and 1 in early 2010. Upon closer examination, one notices that 2008 even saw a sharper decline than the list implies, since 3 out of 4 of the year's wars were decidedly "curbstomps," more than any prior listed wars. Recently, the blame for this phenomenon has fallen upon "Hegemonies," or large, ruling blocs. However, the World Unity Treaty could certainly have been seen as a "Hegemony," yet more wars occurred in its time than during Continuum and Karma combined. Rather than based on the treaty web, I believe the difference in spacing between wars is ideological. Quite frankly, alliances today seem more content than ever to be a part of the ruling "Hegemony," and do not attempt to climb any further than to be tied to the top alliances at a given time. For example, though LUE, \m/, FAN, GOONS, and Polaris were all at different points allied to Pacifica, mostly through "Hegemony" blocs, each of them ended up causing global wars that were, for the most part, caused by tensions within the "Hegemony." However, today, these tension are never nearly as sharp. Clearly, there are too many Indians in today's society, and not enough Chiefs. While two years ago war between large ruling entities such as CnG and SF would seem inevitable by now, the two blocs are simply happily coexisting and appear to be perfectly content with the limited power each of their alliance enjoys. What has overtaken Cybernations since around the founding of Continuum is a sickness; it is a syndrome I have named "Too much ODN, not enough electron sponge."

However, I am not saying that the cowardice of the Hegemony's "periphery" alliances (as [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=blog&module=display&section=blog&blogid=104&showentry=2007"]defined[/url] by Vladimir.) is the only thing to blame for the stagnation (though I'm sure not one of CnG's or Superfriends' rulers, excluding MK, would compare his [i]cojones[/i] to those of electron sponge or mpol777.) Rather, game mechanics over time may have also contributed to the general stagnation of the game. For example, a "large" nation is now 100,000 nation strength. When I first came into the Cyberverse, such a strength was unimaginable, so the fact that some nations today have breached 200,000 ns is simply mind-boggling. WIth so many nations in this ungodly echelon, it's no wonder alliances are afraid to lose a war and lose years of work. Along the same lines, since the game is no longer gaining members, and since a nation takes so long to grow, it has become nearly impossible for even formidable leaders to successfully found a new alliance. As opposed to 2006 and 2007, a new alliance today, even if founded by excellent CN players, would take at least a year to become a player on the world stage, and will likely never gain sanction. Sadly, the era is gone when a new alliance can appear from the depths of the Internet and stir the pot of CN (ex: Fark), and no longer can an alliance lose a war and be a contender within the following six months.

Thus, we seem forever trapped in an era of stagnation. Is there any hope for the war-lovers of Cybernations?

[Geoffron X]

If GATO-1V was a major war, than the current conflict should be considered a major one too, imo.

[rabonnobar]

A cap on infra / warchest. Many games have a max level, why not CN? And/or: a system to gain money faster. Now, it will take a set amount of days, given your resources trades and how you spend your money... but even so. There is only so much you can grow within a certain amount of time. I think there should be some way to grow faster. Such as, have minigames that are related to the idea of governing a nation. And you gain points that can be turned in for money, or just straight-up money. These minigames' monetary compensation can suffer from diminishing returns to stop nations from growing insanely quickly, while also rewarding those that are far more active than average to grow faster. Something like that... I've thought of this idea off and on for awhile and have been meaning to make a thread in suggestions about it but I'm too lazy to organize my thoughts coherently enough I guess.

[The Interstat]

Shouldn't you include Great War III in that?

[Ameris]

I agree. We have way to much peace on our hands. Anyone up for a good game of one on one?

[rrkilledme]

All I know is, the next big one's gonna last a long, freakin time. I say 6 months at least. That would do quite a bit to prolong the period inbetween the following I'll bet.

Edited August 16, 2010 by rrkilledme

[Rebounder]

[quote name='The Interstat' timestamp='1281928659' post='2417407']
Shouldn't you include Great War III in that?
[/quote]

Yes. Yes I should

[Rebounder]

[quote name='rabonnobar' timestamp='1281928640' post='2417405']
A cap on infra / warchest. Many games have a max level, why not CN? And/or: a system to gain money faster. Now, it will take a set amount of days, given your resources trades and how you spend your money... but even so. There is only so much you can grow within a certain amount of time. I think there should be some way to grow faster. Such as, have minigames that are related to the idea of governing a nation. And you gain points that can be turned in for money, or just straight-up money. These minigames' monetary compensation can suffer from diminishing returns to stop nations from growing insanely quickly, while also rewarding those that are far more active than average to grow faster. Something like that... I've thought of this idea off and on for awhile and have been meaning to make a thread in suggestions about it but I'm too lazy to organize my thoughts coherently enough I guess.
[/quote]

As far as changing game mechanics, perhaps the best solution is to cap strength at either 100k or 80k.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Rebounder' timestamp='1281928132' post='2417388']

Thus, we seem forever trapped in an era of stagnation. Is there any hope for the war-lovers of Cybernations?
[/quote]

There is; it's called Cyber Nations: Tournament Edition.

[Sabertooth]

Yes, CN is slowly dying unfortunately. Without war the CN is dreadfully boring. Here is a list of the reasons I think CN is dying.

1. [b][u]God Awful and Harsh Terms[/u][/b]
(Example: 10 months of terms on the NPO)
-- Harsh terms scare alliances away from war, because they risk losing a lot if they lose.

2. [b][u]CNTE[/u][/b]
-- CNTE gives a reason not to war in regular CN.

3. [b][u]Nations growing so big that they're not willing to sacrifice their pixels.[/u][/b]
-- I've noticed the bigger your nation is the more expensive it is to rebuild your nation. What took you years to build could be lost in days of war.

4. [b][u]Waiting for a Valid CB[/u][/b]
-- Meh! Waiting for an alliance to make a mistake to declare war on them is silly. Why not declare war on them because they're on the Pink Team or something?

5. [b][u]Too Many Alliances[/u][/b]
-- There is simply too many. We should declare war on them and make them disband.

6. [b][u]Lack of Evil Alliances and Mega Rogues[/u][/b]
-- We need more evil nations and alliance - period! Then there will be a reason to declare war on them

CN has turned into an economic/political world of stagnation. I really don't know how to fix it other than addressing the problems listed above.

I've noticed quite a few people leaving CN, because it's boring. If things continue like this - CN will slowly die.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Sabertooth

[Lord Razzia]

[quote name='Rebounder' timestamp='1281928132' post='2417388']
Upon closer examination, one notices that 2008 even saw a sharper decline than the list implies, since [b]all 4[/b] of the year's wars were decidedly "curbstomps," more than any prior listed wars.
[/quote]

Fixed for you.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Rebounder' timestamp='1281928132' post='2417388']


Green Civil War (May 24, 2007)
FAN-WUT War (June 18, 2007)
Dove War (August 6, 2007)

[/quote]

Those three also really fall under the definition or curbstomp. But anyways, yeah I pretty much agree with the points put forward

[Augustus Autumn]

[quote name='Sabertooth' timestamp='1281931090' post='2417463']
1. [b][u]God Awful and Harsh Terms[/u][/b]
(Example: 10 months of terms on the NPO)
-- Harsh terms scare alliances away from war, because they risk losing a lot if they lose.
[/quote]

I'd hazard this is one of the bigger problems out there. With the cost of waging wars increasing massively, the victors now need to exact more and more spoils from the vanquished in order to even begin to attempt to make good their losses. Because of the limitations on how much aid can be sent at any one time by a particular nation higher demands take longer to fulfill. This, in turn, removes major player-alliances from the political spectrum due to concerns over getting rolled or otherwise not being able to participate fully. While I don't endorse the idea of white peace being the only peace, a little more reasonability in the understanding that war is not, in fact, profitable, might be the order of the day.

[quote name='Sabertooth' timestamp='1281931090' post='2417463']
4. [b][u]Waiting for a Valid CB[/u][/b]
-- Meh! Waiting for an alliance to make a mistake to declare war on them is silly. Why not declare war on them because they're on the Pink Team or something?
[/quote]

I think the bigger problem here is that no one is willing to take the risks to provide what could be construed as a valid CB. Everyone on the OWF is either under the gun not to get in trouble with their bosses or the old "I don't represent my alliance line" gets trotted out. All the risk-taking alliances have been beaten into the ground at this point and nobody wants to end up like FAN, the NPO or any of the old big names. Hell, look at the top alliance and ask yourself when the last time they took a leading stand on anything of major important was.

[quote name='Sabertooth' timestamp='1281931090' post='2417463']
5. [b][u]Too Many Alliances[/u][/b]
-- There is simply too many. We should declare war on them and make them disband.
[/quote]

Eh, not really a major issue either way except that it allows for the incompetant to end up in charge of alliances. Of course, in certain instances, this is damned entertaining.

[quote name='Sabertooth' timestamp='1281931090' post='2417463']
6. [b][u]Lack of Evil Alliances and Mega Rogues[/u][/b]
-- We need more evil nations and alliance - period! Then there will be a reason to declare war on them
[/quote]

Nobody has the fortitude to do this and pull it off well.

[Moridin]

The OP lists all wars as if all wars were somehow equally interesting or equally game-changing; [i]global[/i] wars come at the rate of one or two a year, and over the course of the past three years, there's been consistently a eight to eleven month gap between 'real' wars. If we look at the the dates when global wars are started, we see there was:

Great War I (July 2006)
[i]Six months pass[/i]
Great War II (January 2007)
[i]Two months pass[/i]
Great War III (March 2007)
[i]Six months pass[/i]
The Unjust War (September 2007)
[i]Eleven months pass[/i]
The War of the Coalition (August 2008)
[i]Eight months pass[/i]
Karma War (April 2009)
[i]Nine months pass[/i]
The Bipolar War (January 2010)

The period between the Unjust War and the War of the Coalition is arguably the most stagnant period in CN history; the illusion of a dynamic world was created by the constant curbstomps that define the era. It has been nearly seven months since the started of the Bipolar War, and only four and a half since its end. The notion that we are somehow in a [i]more[/i] stagnant period of history than ever before is not true, at least yet; it is exactly the kind of stagnancy we all should have come to expect for an antebellum period, and until we approach a full year since the last major war then it's really nothing special about it.

[Opethian]

The space between wars is where the borings live.

[Alterego]

If supercomplaints persist in demanding year long reps for every war there will be 18 month+ gaps between big wars.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Alterego

[Banksy]

The problem with CN is people like the OP always complaining that the mythical past was better. You've added wars to you list like the GPA and NADC beatdowns. If you're calling them 'exciting' then we're having one of those right now. You are failing to see that perfectly interesting !@#$ goes down all the time right now but you're so fixated with the past that you completely overlook it.

If we had more mpols and electron sponges you would be complaining about them. Look at what people say/said about Londo when he did far smaller things. Most people hated Sponge and Mpol at the time. Whenever someone shows the least amount of initiative they are criticised, and when they don't you complain that it used to be better when people did.

If you don't like it, do something about it. There is nothing holding you back.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1281954183' post='2417783']
If you don't like it, do something about it. There is nothing holding you back.
[/quote]
LOL pathetic. Why did it take ODN years to stop running away and do something about it. What held ODN back all those years. You certainly have grown a set since you joined the bigger side.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1281954746' post='2417787']
LOL pathetic. Why did it take ODN years to stop running away and do something about it. What held ODN back all those years. You certainly have grown a set since you joined the bigger side.
[/quote]
Hello. This post makes even less sense than your offerings normally do. Firstly, of course, this is a OOC forum, my alliance affiliation is rather irrelevant. Otherwise I would just turn around and make some general remark like 'how BAPS has done aside from !@#$%* and moan since its founding'. Secondly it is rather difficult to see what the ODN "running away" has to do with, well, anything that you quoted. Your point may be valid had there been an ODN policy of making the game more interesting, which never came to fruition because, hell, no one could be bothered. However, no such policy has existed.

[Tequila Mockingbird]

We're sorry guys.

:'(

[Keve69]

[quote]it is a syndrome I have named "Too much ODN, not enough electron sponge."
[/quote]
I for one, found this utterly hilarious.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1281955288' post='2417790']
Hello. This post makes even less sense than your offerings normally do. Firstly, of course, this is a OOC forum, my alliance affiliation is rather irrelevant. Otherwise I would just turn around and make some general remark like 'how BAPS has done aside from !@#$%* and moan since its founding'. Secondly it is rather difficult to see what the ODN "running away" has to do with, well, anything that you quoted. Your point may be valid had there been an ODN policy of making the game more interesting, which never came to fruition because, hell, no one could be bothered. However, no such policy has existed.
[/quote]
You of all people challenging anyone to "do something about it" is comical because you did nothing about it when the roles were reversed. Worse, when the fight came to your door you ran. You seem to have adopted this attitude after becoming the new hegemony.

[Goldie]

People simply understand the catastrophic nature of war today. In 2006 and 2007 you didn't have nukes that could hit for more than 1000 infra. Some people build their nations in the game to prepare for war. Most build their nations in the game to build their nations in the game, and wish to preserve that by avoiding a war that conceivably could have them taken from 12000 infra to 4000 infra in one week (as the person I fought this week had happen to them). Those who do not wish to see their stats crumble either preserve themselves by being neutral (easiest option), or by picking a side (harder option).

If you pick an alliance that is in power, you can protect your stats just by not having to worry about attacks, and not have to worry about war (see: Continuum hangers-on, and I'm sure there are some on the SG sphere that can be classified the same). That has its problems in that you never know when your apathy toward war will get exploited by people who actually care about it. I don't really have to go into what happens if you pick an alliance not in power with how hard it is to avoid war, but that is just the nature of the game. When you don't have influence or control, it is hard to predict when these things will happen so clearly it is the worst option for totally avoiding war.

Some people just enjoy war, but understand that if they happened all the time they would lose their meaning and excitement, and just become part of the routine. I think it is important for the game to see war once in a while, but have time for buildup in between. I think the best variable option is that you can see the alliances who don't get affected by a major war move up to the big part of the table with a lot of the veterans, as their stats get to increase while others' decrease. Look at TOP and MHA during and after Karma. They rode their limited engagement all the way to the top spots. Look at NPO now, their non-involvement in BiPolar enabled them to move back up the charts. Those fluctuations are what makes the game interesting, if the same people had the same NS each time a war came, things wouldn't be fun. Variety is the spice of life, and it is especially evident in a game like this.

Also your comment about never gaining sanction is incorrect. Look at GOONS. A year old, and within a few months you will see them with a sanction mask. You just need to do it right. Think of how many relevant alliances have popped up in the last year and a half. I'd say its NSO and GOONS, and I wouldn't try too hard to find a third for fear of straining myself.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1281959605' post='2417818']
You of all people challenging anyone to "do something about it" is comical because you did nothing about it when the roles were reversed. Worse, when the fight came to your door you ran. You seem to have adopted this attitude after becoming the new hegemony.
[/quote]
Seems odd that I personally ran. As you can see from my join date, I have been a part of this 'new hegemony' throughout my time playing CN. Unless, of course, you are still going on about alliances.

[Jens of the desert]

[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1281928355' post='2417397']
If GATO-1V was a major war, than the current conflict should be considered a major one too, imo.
[/quote]
Were alliances back then as numerous or large as they are now?