Auctor Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 I guess if the categories considered are most likely to fracture when hit and smallest war chests, Riot Society could be a real threat to the world order someone like NpO is a part of, but in real terms it's laughable to compare the two in any way that favors RS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 I'd disagree with 4 of those 6. Which 4? Looking at the past events of the last two years, and at players that look long term politically, it's tough to find any others. Though I forgot about TOP, who have to be included as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third King Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Pretty much this. How many times have we seen a "kill each other already!!" post during peacetime by now? I would be OK with more "kill the neutrals!!" posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 still trying to start a global war i see Yeah he attempted to draw his alliance and his allies into a pretty large conflict recently and was laughed off. I'm sure this is more or less a continuation of that frustration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 The problem with this would be that anyone who isn't already on The List would get their ideas shot down fairly quickly. It is not very often at all that I agree with Rey, but he is right. There are egos at the top of those 5 alliances (there are not even 5, I am only going with 5 for the sake of argument) that do not want the rest of the alliances to have any drive, they want them to be submissive soldiers who fight the wars of the Big 5, rather than try to accomplish the goals of the smaller guys. Every war, more and more alliances learn this lesson, making it more difficult to position pieces in the future. Look at who is trying to snuggle up to who right now. It tells you everything you need to know. Gone are the days where anyone tried to build a long term powerbase. The goal now is to just win the next war, Every FA Move shows that. In this regard, NPO and MK won this game hands down. Nobody ever will have that level of stroke again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 You're looking at things through rose colored glasses if you think things weren't exactly the same when MK and NPO held sway. Long term power bases that didn't depend on short term political connections to triumph were never a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 (edited) You're looking at things through rose colored glasses if you think things weren't exactly the same when MK and NPO held sway. Long term power bases that didn't depend on short term political connections to triumph were never a thing.Actually, you'll find that almost everyone has been in agreement for quite some time that the politics of this place are stale and have been in decline. Edited July 26, 2014 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Actually, you'll find that almost everyone has been in agreement for quite some time that the politics of this place are stale and have been in decline.I don't disagree that everyone says that, when I started everyone said UjW had ruined politics here forever. Then they all said WotC had ruined the politics here forever. Then they said Karma had ruined the politics here forever. Somehow, we've managed to keep having The War That Puts A Nail In the Coffin of CN Politics for the last seven years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 What a bunch of whiners Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxplayer Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 NPO, NG, Polar, NSO, DBDC, maybe FAN every now and then. Although right now there's not much to speak of, so that essentially makes these historical examples more than anything. There just aren't many around who stir the pot enough anymore. I would say that this year, Riot Society has stirred the pot more than 2 of those alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Gone are the days where anyone tried to build a long term powerbase. The goal now is to just win the next war, Every FA Move shows that. Admittedly, it's tough to build a power base that lasts more than one war when that second war may be a year and a half away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walshington Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Admittedly, it's tough to build a power base that lasts more than one war when that second war may be a year and a half away. So much time and effort is spent preparing for the big showdown with the next rival amongst the Big 5 that I sense they try to keep a lid on all the smaller, more interesting conflicts that might arise. I got the sense that this was the case with the Guinness-RIOT Conflict earlier this year -- that would have been an awesome medium sized war that NO ONE saw coming. Felt like the proverbial BIG 5 shut it down because they weren't ready for it, and it might impact preparations for "the one that matters". Smaller or less entangled alliances will just go ahead and war without regard for the larger consequences. See FAN, SPATR, RIOT, Kaskus, etc. For those who have been there -- is it fun being on top of Bob? It must be its own reward somehow, but it also seems ... like a job, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 I would say that this year, Riot Society has stirred the pot more than 2 of those alliances. Which ones? I guess you have a point, but that's still micro drama. And I really didn't notice too much going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxplayer Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Which ones? I guess you have a point, but that's still micro drama. And I really didn't notice too much going on. NSO and NG. The fact that RS showed signs of connections with Kaskus and FAN was pretty notable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Showing signs of connections with someone is notable now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxplayer Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Showing signs of connections with someone is notable now? I don't really want to go too deep into this discussion, it just needs to die. If your interested in learning more about it, I suggest looking on the wiki or on the forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Influential alliances shutting down conflicts actually erodes their power base significantly. The reason why MK managed to stay on top so long is they actively enabled and coalition built on behalf of their less well connected allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Which ones? I guess you have a point, but that's still micro drama. And I really didn't notice too much going on.Yeah, there's a difference between stirring the pot and kicking up a storm in a teacup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted July 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Showing signs of connections with someone is notable now? I reckon he is trying to say that it had the potential to go global. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted July 26, 2014 Report Share Posted July 26, 2014 Everything has the potential to global. None of those alliances can single handedly do anything without an overt effort of a group of others. Therefore they are neutered in their capacity to make anything go global, because on the off chance something does go global -- it will be based on the much more important players goals and ambitions -- not at all because of the small fry's desperate attempts to justify their existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) The main problem is kids are too short sighted these days and it was a precedent and problem that was actually created a few years ago, we are just still seeing the detrimental effects of it now. People need to learn to play the long game and take the risks necessary to achieve their goals along the way. Edited July 28, 2014 by Il Impero Romano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted July 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 The main problem is kids are too short sighted these days and it was a precedent and problem that was actually created a few years ago, we are just still seeing the detrimental effects of it now. People need to learn to play the long game and take the risks necessary to achieve their goals along the way. Agreed. To expand on this, there seems to be many players that believe influencing their allies FA paths is inherently wrong. I would have to vehemently disagree with that, you need to work with allies and even non-allies in order to maintain an actual powerbase (or sphere). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Brandon Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) It's not really that wars are more damaging, it's that they're so darned inconclusive. The difference between winning and losing doesn't exist like it used to. We live in an age where everyone insists that white peace is theirs by right, and by and large, the community accepts that. The best that you can do is actual war damage and that's mitigated by nations on the losing side quickly falling down into the winning side's less well armed, less experienced nations. The grudges don't exist like they used to because they happened so long ago under such different political and statistical circumstances that they're pointless to work out anymore. After Equilibrium, everyone accepted the alliance build they had when it ended. Very few are trying to improve on it in a meaningful way, because they realize that where they ended up was where they are strongest. The people they don't care for are in another tier and they're in their own tier and any attempts to work it out only see nations that are stranded getting hit while the bulk of the alliances just stare at each other. That's boring as hell. That gap only increases because the rulers most willing to create drama are the ones that put the least effort into addressing the tier disparity themselves - and this goes for the extreme upper end of the NS ladder as well as the extreme lower end. If we were all trying to grow our nations to take each other on, we'd have something. It's not the wars that were fun for a lot of us, it was the process of growing our alliances to be prepared to win those wars rather than figuring out the best we could do to keep from being swamped in this or that tier. So many alliances aren't even building to do maximum damage to others anymore, they're building to outlast damage being done to them. That's your problem. Find a way to end wars that makes being victorious achievable and have an objective value and you'll have something. 1. Wars are not inconclusive, and the tier disparity is a direct result to counter that concept. The fact that a lot of alliances are completely restricted from building an upper tier due to the destruction they will receive in war is a win. the opposite is not so much, as you can rush your smaller nations into the upper tier, while the others simply try their hardest to strengthen what they believe to be "their advantage." This is in addition that a lot of alliances with upper tiers don't recruit at all anyways. 2. None of those are reasons why wars don't happen, it's that there are a dwindling amount of players actually capable of leading a war. I'm sure at this point all of them are in a somewhat tentative agreement that they're pretty sick of the task. The thing about keeping a long term sphere is that you have to keep the rabble happy, and sometimes you just get fed up with their stupidity. So until new players decide it's time to start making ties based solely becuase we're friends and we want to SURVIVE, and not that we're friends with similiar objectives things wont change. Edited July 28, 2014 by King Brandon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 The tier disparity is not really a result of war. Especially in this day and age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted July 28, 2014 Report Share Posted July 28, 2014 I would be OK with more "kill the neutrals!!" posts. Kill the neutrals! :D Warmongers unite! You know you want to. 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.