daerduo wrote:
well, my point is several things. Firstly, I don't think many people think pure communism works even in principle only, given a basic consideration of human nature. Secondly, I don't think many countries run under that style of government even today. I could get on, and I'm bored, so let's.
Firstly, the analogy of communists/capitalists would sort of work if you flipped it around, using examples of China's transition from communist->socialist and vietnam and all that stuff, because it's clear that countries' histories have shown that countries leaning towards capitalist rather than communist are less likely to fail. But that's beside the point. The point is that the 'anti-sub activists' argument is being completely missed. It's not that subs aren't "legit", or aren't "a proper strategy", it's just that many people have been justified by previous eras where sub empires have totally wrecked eras in terms of competition, and most of all entertainment, which is the reason why people play this game. Sub empires ruin the game in terms of entertainment because when you put 8 alliances in top 12, if nobody gangs up on it early game and the empire is well run, you're guaranteed a win. People don't play this game to win (they may think they do, but they don't). They play this game to have a good time. I know a lot of people would agree with me when I say I'd rather go out in a blaze fighting rather than sit and build an entire era and win, or constantly fighting something that you can't win. Competition is what drives the game. Slapping 50 people in the game that work together for a 50 person victory kills the game because if worked well, you can't beat it. It makes the game boring. The argument of "Oh, why can't you do it either" is nullified by 1. the fact that there aren't enough people in a single server for 2 serious sub empires, 2. sub empires generally avoid each other, 3. If we did it, you probably wouldn't be able to because there's not enough people, and we don't want to sit around and build for a whole era, even if we do win. This game is a giant waste of time, and the entertainment is what we get out of it. With sub abusers, this game just turns into a giant waste of time. As for the rut comment, I think in many worlds we are already being dominated by sub alliances. We are already in a rut in sub abuse, and the chaotic FFA is just far more fun. As for your previous post about why we should do the sub alliance...Yes, you could probably dominate a server. No, it wouldn't be fun, take a look at eras who've suffered from the plague of sub abuse. No, alliances will still get peeped at you because too many servers are already being run by sub empires. It wouldn't be anything new, it would just be an extension of a plague that's been killing the spirit of BD. No, it wouldn't build community, look at the lack of communication between mo--ALL of the sub empires so far. I really doubt you can fix that. There wouldn't be truly epic wars because you'd just build for first 500 ticks and nobody likes taking out sub empires that early because it puts your own alliance far, far behind. Furthermore, building community can be done far more efficiently through one or two sub alliances in major alliances. A decreased amount of people in a community means more time to get to know everyone and thus a tighter community, so we would build a tighter community without being internationally hated. Extending on that point, for people to progress in the game they'd have to participate in a 'winning' alliance. You would be having a group of 12 people winning all of the eras and preventing the people in the subs from moving up the social ladder of BD. And that's all I can think of in 30 minutes, I'll add more tomorrow. *yawn*
//endrant and notes that the 'return' key isn't being used enough.
//Soz
//Oh and advance congratulations for 100 posts. XD
First, your comments don't really have any bearing on my comparisons. I simply stated that... and I will clarify
Communism and Socialistic derived governments still exist despite the western worlds large outcry against such.
SubEmpires still exist despite the forum's large and continuing outcry against them
Therein lies the comparison. I'm not really concerned with how well Communism works, or how communist the communists really are.
Secondly, Maybe that's true but I think my comparison worked just fine.
Continuing, How is this a guaranteed win? If there are 1500 players and ninety six of them work together that's definitely a sub empire but they all have to be really good to get into the top 12 alliances. It's hardly a guarantee.
Furthermore, if we remove those 96 players, there will be another different group up to replace every one of them in the rankings. There are 1500 players to draw from in the average server. The lowest amount of players on a server I've seen is like 750. Still more than enough
Next up, Why would we just be building exactly? You make it sound totally boring to play this game AND IT CAN BE IF YOU LET IT. It all depends on how you play. I don't plan on sitting around building all day. It's not like we would be dedicated to peace. Ain't gonna win nothin that way. We'd be dedicated to each other.
Ummm... Really? I can't deny that winning isn't everything but I think you mistake just HOW important it really is to everyone's motivation.
Anyway, If this is a plague killing the spirit of BD then it's a really pathetic plague because it's been going on since BD was founded and it still hasn't managed to kill anything.
If we combine the two above reasons it sounds like you are contradicting yourself. 1 alliance versus versus an empire sounds pretty epic to me. Why does that ruin the fun if you're not trying to win? I think your desire to win... or at least your desire to have the illusion that you might be able to win... drives your interest in this game more than you think.
Almost doneThe way to fix gaps in communication is by communicating. and if people don't communicate then out they go. So yes, it would build community. Fellowship of that kind always does.
Next to last Man up Daerduo! Everyone always hates a winner. It's part of the price you pay. Don't be afraid to win.
That last sentence doesn't make much sense to me. It looses a little cohesion and I'm not sure what you meant by it. People aren't limited to one server at a time so I don't see how we impede anyone's ability to climb social ladders in the game. And again, you are contradicting yourself. If winning doesn't figure into a player's motivation and such then why are you bringing it up again?
And thanks for the congrats on 100
Gotta run. Peace bro
