Jump to content

Wars Ought To Have Meaning


supercoolyellow

Recommended Posts

So, let's say you got hit immediately after the last war ended, no CB, simply because TOP wanted you to get rolled, you'd be perfectly content with that?

If that's what they wanted to do, and they put themselves in a position where they felt a good advantage of preempting us right after this war, then kudos to them. Would I care? No not really, they are free to make the choices they want to, just as anyone else. Now if that involved breaking peace agreements that were made after the conclusion of this war, then they'd have to live with the consequences of that, but that's a ways off.

You act as if most of the CB's are anything more then the interest in rolling another alliance. That's all the cbs ever are, so anyone pulling such a move would not be anything of surprise nor a reason to get pissed, it's all it ever has been. Edited by Rhizoctonia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You're almost four years late on the "The is the end of the CB". I'll direct you to Doomhouse's "Everything. Must. Die." DoW.

 

Indeed.

 

Maybe it's a shame, maybe its not. One thing is for sure, the precedent was firmly set long ago and it's not coming back.

 

However, that doesn't mean wars cant have meaning again. Meaningful wars don't always necessitate a firm CB. Real meaning, not petty thirteen year old emotional girl meaning like "so and so from alliance X said mean stuff on the owf 8 months ago and our entire alliance will never forgive them for it" or ridiculous path of least resistance wars because "lolwhy not". Things can have thought, reasoning, and true pragmatic rationale behind them again, very easily. Someone just has to do it.

Edited by Il Impero Romano
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is part of the reason why DBDC is far more popular than I would of imagined given that we do, indeed, attack people in alliances is that we are powerful enough to act in ways that no other alliance is able to do at this point.  We are outside a system that the majority of people don't really like for one reason or another.  If you want to get people to agree - explain WHY it's better one way as opposed to another that makes sense to them and if that doesn't work then reconsider the possibility that there may actually be a better way.  Change is often beneficial.

 

That all makes sense from a completely OOC perspective on playing a game. I just wish more people who either take that approach or support those who do would embrace the IC implications of that reasoning. Like I've said IC, the whole unchecked use of instrumental violence thing basically makes DBDC a group of sociopaths, which is kinda cool to have as a part of the game. But the vast majority of alliances supporting your sphere don't exactly roll like that, which pretty much destroys any semblance of an RP meaning to the treaty web.

 

It wouldn't take much, maybe just a "We hate Polar so much we're willing to make a deal with the devil to get our revenge!" and then boom, we'd have a narrative to play along with. Instead we get crap like "Oh but have you talked to them, they're actually a really great bunch of guys." Yeah, *OOC* maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like all the snarky remarks about me being in govt because I pissed people off in Disorder. For all the talk about how I doomed SNX, it is notable that our nuke rogue TBM was hiding in peace mode until the day I was ejected, and that SNX nor aftermath was attacked while I was in govt. So keep looking like hypocrites after successfully pressuring the rest of SNX govt into removing me... And then attacking them anyway.

In anycase, when you are fighting against aggression there is plenty of meaning to be drawn from it. I know some people try to be cool and/or are trying not to invoke a temper tantrum from "l0c0," but there has been a consistent argument even from several civilized alliances that there is no higher goal besides moving around pixels. Of course, that's convenient considering that they are the oppressors collaborating with a parasite class enemy.

White Chocolate has much disdain for the casus belli, treaty web, and mutual recognition of alliance sovereignty, but she and her ilk only get away with it and indeed attract a following because of broken game physics in the upper tier. It is natural that the most unscrupulous and cunning individuals should lead the charge of Chaos, but let us consider the import of civilization.

Recall even the Mushroom Kingdom could not long absolve itself of all treaties without returning to it. The silent majority naturally seeks Order, and civilized institutions break down the political process into parcels of information everyone can objectively understand (treaties, casus belli, etc). It allows people to select their alliances based on shared values and their political position.

It is not surprising that the elite desires to strip away the power of knowledge from the masses nd render unto themselves God mode powers in game and politically. In other words, to understand the political process you must be one of them, whether you have a god tier nation or are one of their "friends." Thus the reason for undisclosed treaties and casus belli less war is to inteoduce chaos into the political system, making the rest of us better able to serve them with resources while depressing the top tier so they can attack more and more nations.

Order may have to retreat to the lower and middle tier (as is NpO), and those alliances who continue to place their upper tier as one of greater value will begin to see a conflict of interests internally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RP and the treaty web weren't really connected concepts long before DBDC. It's weird to say they're destroying it when it's been dead and buried for years now. The fact of the matter is the reason things like raider/antiraiding divide never really took root was because they in themselves weren't self sustaining enough to generate two full sides. A large enough pool of participants just did not care enough or find it interesting enough to perpetuate. Antiraiding alliances were always willing to sign treaties with alliances that did raid. Alliances that were against harsh terms were always willing to support alliances that imposed them.

 

I don't know if that's a failure to RP so much as a failure of RP. As a community, we've always chosen political expediency over grandiose principle. Alliances that make that choice win wars and get to decide how to continue imposing their will over others. Natural selection has taken over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No claimed CB doesn't mean there isn't one. Every war happens for a reason, they can be over very little insignificant things when people are just bored(in which case boredom is the actual reason for the war) or something big such as a strategic consideration(most likely this war). No reason is more valid than the other and using questionable stated motivations to launch them is as old as this game itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Indeed.

 

Maybe it's a shame, maybe its not. One thing is for sure, the precedent was firmly set long ago and it's not coming back.

 

However, that doesn't mean wars cant have meaning again.

 

You are equating what we in this game call a C.B., with meaning of a war. Mistake made in OP as well.

 

All wars here have a meaning. For majority of them C.B. is a trigger not meaning. A point of start.

 

As already said, this is all matter of taste. Some like elaborate empty propaganda to sell war-- what CBs actually are. But I have played for too long now for it to have any meaning for me anymore. And also, wars do not need to be sold like that any longer.

 

Besides differences in taste, OP shows also lack of understanding. Point in case, the NPO shout out. OP seem not be able to understand that war can have full meaning, motivation, satisfaction and flare based on things besides grudges. For NPO war is a means to an end-- securing a better future for the alliance which purpose and meaning is to always strive to be the top. War doesn't need be based on a grudge when that pails in comparison to the mission of the alliance. Grudges can only be something that sometimes sweetens the pot, but are a luxury and beside the point for alliances as NPO.

 

So we do not need or have a grudge against SNX, or Polar, or whoever the fuck. You are simply in the way currently. And while we war, we do not need to be a bitch to each other. We can have a friendly banter and competition. Only score NPO cares about and wants to settle, is the one where it and it's allies with which it tied its destiny to, grow, prosper-- be the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've rendered treaties useless on two, almost competing levels.  On the one hand, we treat treaties like Facebook friends, where every casual acquaintance in CN merits a MDP. On the other hand, we manipulate treaties to the point where between ghost declarations and 3 and 4 step chains, any alliance can essentially come i against any other alliance.

 

A good point. I'd just add that this standard has changed over time, and will continue to change as long as people keep playing.

 

So, let's say you got hit immediately after the last war ended, no CB, simply because TOP wanted you to get rolled, you'd be perfectly content with that?

 

Yes. In fact, it was pretty much expected. And if after this war IRON immediately hit TOP for the same reason, then I'd have no issue. The desire to inflict harm on somebody is the core of all CBs anyway. IRON-TOP requires next to zero dressing up though, so it may not be a good context to look at CBs.

 

You're almost four years late on the "The is the end of the CB". I'll direct you to Doomhouse's "Everything. Must. Die." DoW.

 

Perhaps the OP should see the precedent as an opportunity for a new way of doing things. Especially if the old ways have not worked for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like all the snarky remarks about me being in govt because I pissed people off in Disorder. For all the talk about how I doomed SNX, it is notable that our nuke rogue TBM was hiding in peace mode until the day I was ejected, and that SNX nor aftermath was attacked while I was in govt. So keep looking like hypocrites after successfully pressuring the rest of SNX govt into removing me... And then attacking them anyway.


I don't really care about the rest of your post because I just don't have the patience to read it. Although this bit I did and I liked this bit, because let's be honest no one really preassured snx to boot you from the alliance. You yourself pretty much made that call for them because you stumbled from screw up to screw up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No claimed CB doesn't mean there isn't one. Every war happens for a reason




Pretty much this, just because there isn't a stated cb doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Top tier raids, this war, all have their reasons and there has been just as much build up and context to them as any other war. While I will agree that the tradition of slapping you in the face with the reason may take away some of the enjoyment from your average CNer, maybe you have to consider not doing so was also something calculated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBs are virtually useless. Wars in CN are always over politics and domination, and CBs boil down to one side trying to make it look as if they have the moral high ground.

QFT.

 

Really nothing else need be said or read after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because NPO is not fighting out of malice, does not mean that we are fighting for no reason.

It is a very narrow minded concept that people must only fight wars to "settle scores" or "get revenge". It makes wars boring and repetitive.

The NPO is simply fighting because it benefits us and our political grouping. Who is on the other side of the battlefield is irrelevant. We will fight anybody, anywhere, anytime with the same level of industriousness, and we will be equally happy to shake hands with them afterwards and walk away, whether we win or lose. I do not believe in revenge or grudges, and if I ever resort to extraordinary harmful actions, it will be because it is intended to create a better future, not to "get even" for the past. If we keep screwing each other over because we were screwed over before, this game will devolve into something ugly and everyone loses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm not one to plug, I feel like it might be worth it to bring something up that I wrote that is relevant to this discussion.  A little while back, I wrote a piece on my blog about the ethics of CBs, specifically whether it's ethically wrong to have no CB at all.  I had a lot of fun writing it, but really the discussion that was had after was particularly enjoyable for me, and if you're at all interested in this topic, I would very much encourage you to read the article and ensuing discussion (or even just peruse it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, CCC had/has a CB against DBDC. If we tried to act on that CB we'd be creamed, like we are right now, before it even started due to the treaty web. I could be wrong though.

Noted.  Though in all seriousness you would probably be attacked by us well before it got to that point.

 

I completely agree with the points on the OOC/IC divide. The title of this should probably be "CN Should Have Meaning," since you can't really have a meaningful war if you don't invest CN with any meaning in the first place. It's so weird how people are willing to devote hours a day to this nerdiest of nerd games, over the course of years and years, but still want to act like they're too cool to RP a bit. Hardly anyone bothers to be the bad guy or the good guy, or any particular type of character beyond a snarky adolescent internet dude. So when an alliance like DBDC comes along that basically does whatever the hell they want and spits in the face of every community norm that normally tempers our aggression, even the fairly inoffensive alliances like NATO and ODN are still willing to join forces with them*. Hell, GATO is allied to NG. Even in our barely IC world, if there are two alliances that I would pick as opposites, it's GATO and NG. So I would love to ask every alliance: which AA's are you like, and which are you clearly not like, and how so? I don't most of us can really answer those basic questions. [/rant]

 

 

*DS and DBDC are interchangeable

Keep saying shit like your last line and we all can cease wondering why we'll never be on the same side of a war.  You can proclaim IC is separate from OOC, but fact is it's still human beings operating both entities.   No one likes being disrespected and especially publicly, where everything is trackable and visible.  You can take IC attacks like the ones from your 'Mouthpiece of War, Champion of Lulzism' as IC attacks, but at the end of the day whatever alliance he's in is going to get rolled, and a CB will be adjusted to accommodate that end.

 

RP and the treaty web weren't really connected concepts long before DBDC. It's weird to say they're destroying it when it's been dead and buried for years now. The fact of the matter is the reason things like raider/antiraiding divide never really took root was because they in themselves weren't self sustaining enough to generate two full sides. A large enough pool of participants just did not care enough or find it interesting enough to perpetuate. Antiraiding alliances were always willing to sign treaties with alliances that did raid. Alliances that were against harsh terms were always willing to support alliances that imposed them.

 

I don't know if that's a failure to RP so much as a failure of RP. As a community, we've always chosen political expediency over grandiose principle. Alliances that make that choice win wars and get to decide how to continue imposing their will over others. Natural selection has taken over.

Agreed.  RP will only get you so far and the days of hard-playing your IC stance are pretty quickly fading, especially in backroom channels.  DBDC formed primarily from a willingness to break from standard practices whereby developing in-game & out-of-game friendships were put aside in the name of alliance warfare.  We bucked that system and now live by our own standards, which we shape based on our friends and allies, but moreso how we want our alliance goals to be achieved.  It's like Saxasm said about how alliances will forward their own agenda, which includes not killing themselves.

 

No claimed CB doesn't mean there isn't one. Every war happens for a reason, they can be over very little insignificant things when people are just bored(in which case boredom is the actual reason for the war) or something big such as a strategic consideration(most likely this war). No reason is more valid than the other and using questionable stated motivations to launch them is as old as this game itself.

Agreed.  CB's are definitely a thing of the past, and you're kidding yourself if you think any war was ever actually started because one person did one thing to someone.  The only difference now is that the treaty web is so convoluted, a TRUE CB is very hard to find because there is so much diplomacy in between you and your target.  This is why the buildup of every war is so drawn out, and the CB is defeated within hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never be on the same side as Cubaquerida, I can gaurantee that.

You can take IC attacks like the ones from your 'Mouthpiece of War, Champion of Lulzism' as IC attacks, but at the end of the day whatever alliance he's in is going to get rolled, and a CB will be adjusted to accommodate that end.

Let us see if one among the tyrant's horde can deliver what we old IAAers would call a "beautiful EZI." Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep saying !@#$ like your last line and we all can cease wondering why we'll never be on the same side of a war. 

 

Not wondering about that at all haha!

 

But seriously, your corner of the web has used AA hopping for years now for what has to be tactical reasons, and now you've added dual memberships, and you get offended by this?

Edited by Prodigal Moon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful, saying you have a legitimate grievance against someone and might attack them at a later date is also a CB!


I will roll Auctor first chance I get. Unless of course I can't roll Auctor. And then it was just a joke.

This view does not represent my alliance.
Because I said so, even though I am government.

This post does not represent myself.
Even if I said so, because you can't use something I posted as a reason for not liking me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind you, they're cool for flash and substance. However, I feel bad for anyone who takes them seriously. People like war, no one needs a reason to go to war. Wars in CN pretty much boil down to "we don't like you".

Fixed, reference added.

--

 

I don't really care about the rest of your post because I just don't have the patience to read it. Although this bit I did and I liked this bit, because let's be honest no one really preassured snx to boot you from the alliance. You yourself pretty much made that call for them because you stumbled from screw up to screw up.

 

The best part was, he then applied to NG. 

Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with trying to get everyone to "need a legit CB" for a war is the opportunity for that ship sailed years ago. When more people actively cared about the political environment - and not just having fun - you might have been able to sail that ship. In fact it sailed several times right into torpedoes resulting in a quick sinking. There were days however when people legitimately did care about such things.

 

But now? This is going to fall on the deaf ears of a disinterested and bored population that is lacking any level of caring about such things.

 

Pretty much sums up how I feel about it, SCY.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...