• Announcements

    • Sentinel

      Cyber Nations Forum Rules   07/03/2016

        Cyber Nations Forum Rules  
      In the process of registering on this forum, all players--including you--agreed to accept these terms and conditions and the terms and conditions of Invision Power Board. In doing so you essentially signed an electronic contract pledging to have read the rules and TOS and agreeing to follow the rules and TOS as written. It is your continued responsibility to read, follow, and keep up-to-date with the CN rules.
      The following are basic guidelines for use of the Cyber Nations community forum. Anyone caught disobeying these guidelines will be issued a warning. The forum staff works on a five warn limit policy unless the situation calls for more appropriate action ranging from a verbal warning to a double warn and suspension to an immediate ban, etc.   Just because something is not listed specifically here as illegal does not mean it's allowed. All players are expected to use common sense and are personally responsible for reading the pinned threads found in the Moderation forum. Questions regarding appropriateness or other concerns can be sent via PM to an appropriate moderator.   A permanent ban on the forums results in a game ban, and vice versa. Please note that the in-game warn system works on a "three strikes you're out" policy and that in-game actions (including warnings and deletions) may not be appealed. For more information regarding in-game rules please read the Cyber Nations Game Rules.   1.) First Warning
      2.) Second Warning
      3.) Third Warning (48 hour suspension at the forum)
      4.) Fourth Warning (120 hour suspension at the forum)
      5.) Permanent Ban   Game Bans and Forum Bans
      If you receive a 100% warn level on the forums, you will be subject to removal from the forums AND have your nation deleted and banned from the game at moderator(s) discretion.   If you are banned in the game, then you will be banned from the forums.   Process of Appeals
      Players may not appeal any in-game actions. This includes cheat flags, canceled trades, content removals, warn level increases, nation deletion, and bans from the game.   Players may appeal individual forum warnings. You may only appeal a warning if you can show with evidence that it was unwarranted or unduly harsh. If a reasonable amount of time has passed (no less than one month and preferably longer) in which you have demonstrated reformed behavior than you may request a warning level reduction. Wasting staff time with inappropriately filed reports and/or unfounded appeals will result in a warn level raise. Repeat incidences will result in a ban from the forum.   Bans are permanent. Banned players may appeal to the Senior Staff if they believe grounds exist (very, very rare) in which they state their case with evidence and why explain why they believe they deserve to be allowed back into Cyber Nations. This process is not quick and the investigation into cases may last three minutes or three weeks or more depending on the individual situation.   The only place where discussion of moderator action is acceptable is in the appropriate Moderation forum. Posting commentary on or disagreement with moderator action elsewhere will result in a warn level raise.   Posting
      All posts must be in English. Common phrases in other languages will be allowed so long as they are translated upon request. Foreign languages are permitted in signatures and avatars, however.   Certain areas of the forum require you to have a nation in either standard CN or CN:TE. If you have...   A SE and a TE nation: You get one forum account. Your forum account name must match your SE nation or ruler name. You are allowed to post in either SE or TE areas of the forum. You must have your CN:TE nation name listed in your profile to post in the CN:TE section of the forum.
      Just an SE nation: You get one forum account. Your forum account name must match your SE nation or ruler name. You are not allowed to post in any TE areas of the forum.
      Just a TE nation: You get one forum account. Your forum account name must match your TE nation name or ruler name. Your must have your CN:TE nation name listed correctly in your profile. You are not allowed to post in any of the SE areas. You are allowed to post in the water cooler, question center and the moderation forums. Other than that, all your posts need to stay in the TE area.   Flame/Flamebait/Trolling
      Flaming is expressing anger or lobbing insults at a person/player rather than a character, post, idea, etc. Flamebait are posts that are made with the aim of targeting/harassing/provoking another user into rule-breaking. Trolling is submitting posts with the aim of targeting/harassing/provoking a specific group into rule-breaking. Forum users should not be participating in any of these, and doing so will result in a warning.   Topic Hijacking
      Hijacking is forcing the current thread discussion off of the original topic and usually results in spam or flame from either side. Forum users found hijacking threads will be given a warning.   Repeat Topics
      One topic is enough. Repeat topics will be locked, removed, and the author given a warning. Users found creating repeat topics after others were locked by staff will receive a warn raise.   Joke Topics
      Topics created as a joke are prohibited. Joke topics will be locked and the author warned. This includes topics in which the author is making an announcement “for” another in-game alliance. Humorous threads are permitted; it is up to the discretion of the moderation staff to determine what is merely satire and what is actually a joke topic.   Spam
      Spam is defined as creating posts or topics containing only contentless material of any kind. Users found spamming will receive a warning. Examples include (but are in no way limited to) posts containing nothing but smilies, "+1", "QFT", "this" any other one/few-word contentless combination, joke threads, or posts containing quotes and anything that counts as spam by itself. Adding words to a post with the express intent of avoiding a spam warn will result in a warning. These posts and other similar contributions have no substance and hence are considered spam. Posts of "Ave", "Hail" or any other one word congratulatory type are acceptable as one word posts. Emoticon type posts such as "o/" without accompanying text is still not allowed. Posts containing only images are considered spam, unless the image is being used in the Alliance Politics sub-forum and then the actual text of the image be placed into spoiler tags.   Posting in All Caps
      Posting large amounts of text in capital letters is not permitted. Use discretion when using your caps lock key.   No Discussion Forums
      There are forums that are not for discussion and are used strictly for game and forum staff to address certain issues, bugs, etc. The following forums are not open to discussion: Report Game Abuse, Report Forum Abuse, and Warn/Ban Appeals. Only moderators and the original poster may post in a thread, period, with absolutely no exceptions. Users found disobeying this guideline will receive an automatic warning for each offense.   Moderation Forums
      All Moderation forums also maintain pinned threads clearly marked as required reading before posting. Failure to read and follow required reading and procedure in a Moderation forum will result in a warning. Examples include posting requests in the wrong forum, failure to include all required information in posts, etc. The standard of conduct and enforcement of rules in Moderation forums is strictly enforced and the repercussions for disregarding rules or disrespecting staff are harsh. Read the pinned threads before posting and you will be fine.   Namecalling
      Excessive or unqualified namecalling is not allowed in IC forums; namecalling should also never make up the bulk of a post. Namecalling is prohibited entirely in all OOC forums.   Filtered Words
      Any attempts to evade the word filter will result in a warning. The terms we have filtered are filtered for a reason and no excuse for evasion will be accepted. Filter evasion includes censoring or deliberately misspelling part of a filtered word.   If you link to a website, image, video, etc., containing profanity, please post a disclaimer before the link. The moderation staff may still remove links if the content is deemed too obscene.   Harassment
      Forum users should not be stalking/harassing others on the forums. Anyone found stalking players from topic to topic, etc., will be subject to a warning.   Gravedigging
      Gravedigging is not allowed anywhere on the forums. Gravedigging is "bumping" old topics which haven't been active for quite some time (four to seven days is standard depending on the nature of the thread and how many pages back it had been pushed before bump). Your warn level will be raised if you are caught doing this.   The Suggestion Box and Black Market forums are partial exceptions to this rule. Suggestions/ideas in that forum may be posted in regardless of age PROVIDING that the reviving post contains constructive, on-topic input to the original topic or discussion. Black Market threads may be bumped by the author if there is new information about the offered exchange (i.e open aid slots). In the Player Created Alliances forum it will not be considered gravedigging to bump a topic up to a year old, so long as the alliance in question still exists and it is not a duplicate thread.   Signatures
      Those who fail to read and abide by these rules will have their signatures removed and receive a warning.   You may have only one image per signature which may not exceed the maximum size of 450 pixels wide by 150 pixels tall. You may have no more than 8 lines of text and text size cannot exceed size 4. Each quote-tag, image and empty line count as a line.   Inappropriate Images and Other Disallowed Images
      Images that are sexual in nature or have sexual overtones are prohibited. It is up to the discretion of the moderation staff to determine what constitutes sexual overtones. Depictions of kissing are permissible provided there are no sexual implications. Images depicting female nipples are prohibited outright.   Making “ASCII art” is prohibited regardless of the image depicted.   Using photos or likenesses of another Cyber Nations player is also prohibited.   Drug References
      Images and posts promoting illegal drug use are prohibited. References to drugs are acceptable only if the moderation staff deems that it is not promoting the use thereof.   Obscene Content and/or "Account Suicide"
      Anyone caught posting vulgar material (including but in no way limited to pornography, "gross," "tubgirl," "lemonparty," photos depicting RL illegal acts such as violence towards humans or animals, child pornography, death photos, and any other obscene or offensive material in either text form or picture form) will have their account(s) permanently banned, and their ISP contacted along with any other applicable internet and RL authorities.   OOC Threats / Revealing Personal Information
      An OOC threat of any nature will equate to an automatic ban from the game and forums. Likewise, the publishing of personal information of any other player without their explicit permission is grounds for warning and/or a ban from the game depending on the severity of the offense.   Death Threats / Death Wishes
      A death threat or a death wish of any nature (including but not limited to telling another player to commit suicide) will result in at very least a 40% warn level increase and 2 day suspension from the forums, with harsher punishments, including a complete ban from the forums and game, up to the discretion of the moderation staff.   Quoting Rulebreaking Posts
      Do not quote any post with obscene content or any other content that has to be removed by the moderation staff. Doing so makes it more difficult for the moderation staff to find and remove all such content and will result in a warn level increase. Putting rulebreaking posts of any kind in your signature is prohibited.   Forum Names
      With the exception of moderator accounts, all forum accounts must match up exactly with the ruler name or nation name of your in-game country. Those found not matching up will be warned and banned immediately. Forum account names may not be profane or offensive.   Multiple Forum Accounts
      With the exception of moderators, if you are caught with multiple forum accounts, the multiple account(s) will be banned, warn level raised, and your identity will be announced by a moderator to the CN community so rule-abiding players can take IC action against you. Multiple forum account offenders will receive a varying percentage warn level raise and/or a permanent ban on a case-by-case basis.   Posting For Other Players
      Posting for banned or suspended players is prohibited, as is posting for any person without a nation. This includes making warn and ban appeals on their behalf.   Imitation &. Impersonation
      Imitation in terms of this forum is mimicking the posting, avatar, or signature styles of another user in an attempt to be satirical or generally humorous. Impersonation in terms of this forum is copying the posting, avatar, or signature styles of another user in order to present the illusion that the person is in fact that user. Imitation is fine and can be quite funny. Impersonation is disruptive and is warnable. Please pay attention to the subtle difference between these two concepts.   A player may not impersonate another player by emulating the characteristics of someone else's past or present account in an attempt to harass, stalk, or flamebait. Creating a new forum account in an attempt to impersonate a standing account will result in deletion and banning without notice.   Any attempt at imitation and/or impersonation of moderators and game staff is strictly prohibited and will be met with harsh repercussions.   Avatars
      Size for avatars is limited by the forum mechanics, therefore there is no size issue for a user to worry about. Avatars must be in good taste, and any avatar containing a picture that is too violent, disgusting, sexually explicit, insulting to another player or staff member, etc. will be removed. Avatars that are potentially seizure inducing will not be permitted. Players may not "borrow" the avatars of any moderator past or present without permission.   Swastikas and Nazi Imagery
      The swastika may not be used in signatures or avatars. Pictures of swastika's are acceptable for use in the In Character (IC) sections of the roleplay forums, so long as its context is In Character, and not Out Of Character. Pictures of Hitler, mentioning of the Holocaust, etc... have no place in the roleplay forums, since these people and events existed in real life, and have no bearing or place in the Cyberverse. Other Nazi or SS imagery is forbidden in all forums.   Moderation Staff
      The revealing of the private identities of any Cyber Nations staffers past or present is strictly prohibited, and thus no speculation/accusation of identity is allowed. Doing so is grounds for moderator action against your account appropriate to the offense, including a full forum/game ban.   Claims of moderator bias should be directed to the highest level of authority--the Head Game & Forum Mod/Admin, Keelah. Claims of moderator bias without supporting evidence is grounds for a warning.   Blatant disrespect of the moderator staff is strictly prohibited. This includes but is not limited to spoofing moderator accounts in any way, sig/avatar references, baiting, flaming, rude demands, mocking, attitude, and unsubstantiated claims of bias. They are volunteers hired to enforce the rules. If you have a problem with the way a moderator is enforcing the rules or the rules themselves please contact Keelah.   Attempting to use the moderation staff as a weapon by abusing the report system in an attempt to get another player warned or banned is strictly prohibited.   Do not ask about becoming or campaign to become a moderator. The moderators are drawn from CN membership but moderation positions are by invitation only. Asking to become one will substantially decrease your chances of ever being asked.   Aiding Rule Violators
      Any user found to know of a serious rule violation without reporting it to a game moderator (eg. knowledge of a user with multiple nations) will be given a warning or, in more serious cases, have their nation deleted.   Aiding Banned Players
      Any user found to be harboring, aiding or otherwise knowingly helping a banned user will be deleted. This includes knowing of their existence within the game without reporting it to the game-moderation staff.   Questionable Actions and Content
      The forum rules are not designed to cover every scenario. Any action that is seen to be counter-productive or harmful to the forum community may be met with moderator action against your account. The Cyber Nations Moderation Staff reserves the right to take action against your account without warning for any reason at any time.   Private Transactions
      Nation selling and other private transactions via such auction sites like eBay is against the Cyber Nations terms and conditions. While our moderators cannot control what people do outside of the game you are not allowed to promote such private exchanges on our forums without expressed permission from admin only. Anyone found to be engaging in such activity without permission will be banned from the game.   Advertising
      Advertising other browser games and forums is prohibited. Soliciting donations towards commercial causes is also prohibited. If you wish to ask for donations towards a charitable cause, please contact a moderator before doing so.   Extorting Donations
      Donations are excluded from any kind of IC payment. Anyone found extorting others for OOC payments will be warned in-game and/or banned.   Third Party Software
      Third party software is not allowed to be advertised on these forums by any means (post, signature, PM, etc). These programs can easily be used to put malware on the user's computer, and as such can cause huge security issues. Anybody who is caught spreading links to these will at the very least have their warning level increased.   Other Forum Terms & Rules   Please take a moment to review these rules detailed below. If you agree with them and wish to proceed with the registration, simply click the "Register" button below. To cancel this registration, simply hit the 'back' button on your browser.   Please remember that we are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. USE THE WEB SITE AT YOUR OWN RISK. We will not be liable for any damages for any reason. THIS WEB SITE IS PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS," WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED.   The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this bulletin board. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.   You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.   You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
YOLO SWAG

Are Alliances Obsolete?

44 posts in this topic

In most parts of Bob, it is taken for granted that whenever a nation gets raided, a third party (normally a well-to-do minister of recruitment of an alliance) will step in and offer their services as a mediator in the hopes of gaining a new member. In some alliances where ZI/PZI/EZI punishment has not yet been abolished, a small but significant number of nations are sentenced to zero infrastructure for what are considered especially grave crimes. Many people are familiar with the campaign to abolish PZI/EZI. In fact, it has already been abolished in most alliances. Even the staunchest advocates of PZI/EZI acknowledge the fact that the ZI penalty faces serious challenges. Few people find life without the zero infrastructure penalty difficult to imagine.

 

On the other hand, the alliance is considered an inevitable and permanent feature of our cyber lives. Most people are quite surprised to hear that the alliance abolition movement also has a long history-one that dates back to the historical appearance of the alliance as the main form of protection from raiders. In fact, the most natural reaction is to assume that alliance activists-even those who consciously refer to themselves as "anti-alliance activists"-are simply trying to ameliorate activity conditions or perhaps to reform the alliance in more fundamental ways. In most circles alliance abolition is simply unthinkable and implausible. Alliance abolitionists are dismissed as utopians and idealists whose ideas are at best unrealistic and impracticable, and, at worst, mystifying and foolish. This is a measure of how difficult it is to envision a social order that does not rely on the threat of sequestering people in dreadful places designed to separate them from their communities, color spheres, and trade partners. The alliance is considered so "natural" that it is extremely hard to imagine life without it.

 

It is my hope that this post will encourage readers to question their own assumptions about alliances. Many people have already reached the conclusion that the zero infrastructure penalty is an outmoded form of punishment that violates basic principles of sportsmanship and fun. It is time, I believe, to encourage similar conversations about alliances. During my own career as an anti-paper activist I have seen the number of !@#$%^&* treaties increase with such rapidity that many nations that are just being created now have a far greater chance of going to a lifeless alliance where nothing will happen than of getting a decent Planet Bob experience. When many young people decide to join alliances like Monster's University in order to avoid the inevitability of boredom and deletion, it should cause us to wonder whether we should not try to introduce better alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As someone who was EZI'd following the GATO-1V war in 2008, here's my opinion:

 

PZI/EZI is obsolete these days because the nature of warfare today is much different. Back then, infrastructure was the most important national statistic because of the lack of military wonders and improvements. The strongest alliances were the largest alliances because there was always a relative parity of power between nations within a nation-strength zone. Therefore the side that could muster the higher number of fighters was almost certainly the victorious side.

 

This made it easier to remove nation-rulers from the game for the Hegemony, which was able to use superior numbers very effectively to enforce commonplace policies across the world. This included politically blacklisting pariah players, and eventually executing PZI/EZI sentences.

 

The situation is far different today because of the prevalence of military wonders and improvements (i.e. Weapons Research Complex, guerrilla camps and so forth). This means that a top tier nation that is suppressed into the lower NS ranges begins to have a major military advantage against other nations in it's range. This has had a double-edged effect of course: it is more difficult to purge older players, but newer players are more vulnerable regardless of numerical advantage. Thus we have seen alliances like Monsters Inc use this mechanic to tear through the vulnerable lower-tiers of alliances consisting of new nations, not out of necessity, but for "fun."

 

Really the only limiting factor today is warchest and financing, a drop-down nation with billions or upper-tier financial backing can be a problem for a very long time regardless of being repeatedly ZI'd. To defeat such nations takes a certain approach to warfare that is very time intensive and requires alot of money; it's simply not worth pursuing the resources and effort to pursue such approaches unless absolutely necessary (i.e. an alliance defending against a rogue).

 

It is easier to purge new nations from the game via the ZI mechanic, due to a lack of capital assets aside from infrastructure. However, bills are very cheap for nations without wonders and improvements, and with the high demand for tech dealers in this game it is fairly easier for any new nation to find a buyer. Also, it's very easy to restart in CN with an un-linkable identity because internet-equipped smartphones exist today along with a high availability of wifi and other internet access resources. Compare this to a decade ago, when the vast majority of IP addresses were linked to either public library/school computers or home computers.

 

TLDR: PZI/EZI was not so much ended by any sort of movement or campaign as it has been affected by game changes as well as RL technological developments.

 

 

Edited by Immortan Junka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

ZI is not bad. It what it takes for ZI to be preformed that's bad- and that's the complete isolation of the nation/alliance and thats something this world can't afford any more of. 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a new guy in this game compared to most of you people. Yes to give a short answer Alliances are fast getting obsolete. Now its more like a club, with nations belonging to different alliances being bonded by circumstances etc. These nations can intervene for each other even if the rest of the alliances remain silent.

Alliances are still a bonding factor but its not the only bonding factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alliances are very useful and have many benefits. But being alone has its advantages too so, it all depends on what best suits you at the time I think.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The importance and power of individual nations has increased and will continue to due to the shrinking population of nations. Every time we lose a nation, your opinion on things becomes slightly more important.

However this does not make alliances obsolete. There is still strength in numbers and call me close-minded but I don't think that is going to change.  Seems very unrealistic.

And a lot of young nations still join big alliances like IRON & NPO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 hours ago, Immortan Junka said:

TLDR: PZI/EZI was not so much ended by any sort of movement or campaign as it has been affected by game changes as well as RL technological developments.

 

OP is not about PZI/EZI.

 

5 hours ago, Canik said:

There is still strength in numbers and call me close-minded but I don't think that is going to change.  Seems very unrealistic.

 

Of course, I am not arguing against organization. I'm merely questioning the relevance of what is currently referred to as the alliance.

 

7 hours ago, Roal36 said:

I am a new guy in this game compared to most of you people. Yes to give a short answer Alliances are fast getting obsolete. Now its more like a club, with nations belonging to different alliances being bonded by circumstances etc. These nations can intervene for each other even if the rest of the alliances remain silent.

Alliances are still a bonding factor but its not the only bonding factor.

 

So if the real movers and shakers are members of these "clubs" don't traditional alliances and maybe even alliances themselves are out dated?

 

Edited by YOLO SWAG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, YOLO SWAG said:

 

OP is not about PZI/EZI.

 

You were using a fictional "abolish PZI" movement as a basis for an "abolish alliances" movement, I was pointing out what was incorrect about that foundation of your analysis.

Edited by Immortan Junka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

You were using a fictional "abolish PZI" movement as a basis for an "abolish alliances" movement, I was pointing out what was incorrect about that foundation of your analysis.

 

There is absolutely historical evidence of an anti-PZI movement. It wasn't organized and didn't unite under a certain terminology, but there was absolutely backlash against alliances that practiced PZI/EZI policies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the pool of nations shrink, alliances will consolidate their assets or disappear. Nothing will change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

28 minutes ago, YOLO SWAG said:

 

There is absolutely historical evidence of an anti-PZI movement. It wasn't organized and didn't unite under a certain terminology, but there was absolutely backlash against alliances that practiced PZI/EZI policies. 

 

Sure there were people who complained about it. But I got off of EZI because I talked to NPO after a few months in Vox Populi and they let me join NATO/NSO, not because of a "movement" which was really just a handful of annoying OWF posters.

 

The "backlash" had no effect on Hegemonic power, the only reason Karma/Armaggedon War even happened because Moo and his cohorts angered their allies.

 

 

Edited by Immortan Junka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

Sure there were people who complained about it. But I got off of EZI because I talked to NPO after a few months in Vox Populi and they let me join NATO/NSO, not because of a "movement" which was really just a handful of annoying OWF posters.

 

The "backlash" had no effect on Hegemonic power, the only reason Karma/Armaggedon War even happened because Moo and his cohorts angered their allies.

 

 

 

This thread is not about EZI or PZI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2017 at 8:07 PM, YOLO SWAG said:

During my own career as an anti-paper activist I have seen the number of !@#$%^&* treaties increase with such rapidity that many nations that are just being created now have a far greater chance of going to a lifeless alliance where nothing will happen than of getting a decent Planet Bob experience. When many young people decide to join alliances like Monster's University in order to avoid the inevitability of boredom and deletion, it should cause us to wonder whether we should not try to introduce better alternatives.

 

An alliance should be an active internal community, if they are not then they should not call themselves an alliance but rather a retirement home. I am an advocate of treaties with lively alliances with good communication, if they are not then the paper should be set on fire. Monsters and other small but close knit alliances will be the future of this game if we do it right. Much like the Vietcong forces we fight every day, an elephant can kill thousands of ants but enough of them can take down an elephant when coordinated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Perhaps there hasn't been a cohesive anti-EZI/PZI 'movement', but objectively speaking there's no denying that a very strong anti-EZI/PZI sentiment once existed on Planet Bob. Look no further than the very heated (albeit generally misguided) attacks on GOONS EoG status. Nowadays, if anyone even cared enough to sentence someone (and few do), no one would bat an eye. Course the fact that 90% of alliances are dead has something to do with that.

 

Course, as pointed out, that's tangential to the actual point of the OP.

 

The traditional alliances of years past - those with with forums and IRC, activity, motivation, and goals - are fairly obsolete these days in the sense that they've been largely replaced by AAs that only exist, and barely at that. These husks are devoid of communication internally and/or with the outside world and equally devoid of tech-dealing, politics, and war (or any other quantifiable measure of activity).

 

The general concept of an alliance, however, will remain unfazed as long as communities are really all that this game has going for it.

Edited by SirWilliam
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alliances as a concept are not dead, because they are still the single driving factor in politics. 

 

If we all woke up tomorrow allianceless we would all lose our political ambitions. Without the alliance affiliations there is only individual strength, to continue to push any agenda. Even if we continue to use irc, skype, discord, what have you we still have coordination. Those "groups" will be the ones that will do better. As well as super nations within the top 250, or really any nation can attack without impunity.

 

In theory, you'd have group of nations (organized via forums, or skype) attacking the same nation, and continue to target nations as if they were in the same strength range there would need to be a communal effort from the aforementioned nations to band together to protect their nations, or friends nations from being attack, which in terms is still an alliance. 

 

The abolition of alliances would make the game far less interesting, in theory, as there would be no reason to continue to play with any restraint. Which would lead to groups of nations forming defensive pacts, which is still loosely an alliance. 

 

The abolition of the alliance affiliations would change nothing, as there would still be communal protection of members from those who don't like raiding. It would just be NS based defence, rather than all NS range based defence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 minutes ago, Alonso Quixano said:

The abolition of alliances would make the game far less interesting, in theory, as there would be no reason to continue to play with any restraint.

 

Restraint is the very thing killing the planet. If planet bob has any more 'restraint', we may as well just turn the lights out.

 

Let's look at the micro world for a second, the active ones.

 

AM links slap and VG, VG links to Cobra and posse, Cobra links to mages guild and Kashmir, VG and posse tie to umbrella, snx is tied to animalz and has Hershey's backing. Somewhere in this is AW who ties up to Sparta.

 

In reality (and being on the receiving end a few times) the only restraint a micro alliance practices is either 1) in the micro world it's whoever their protector is hitting or 2) everyone bands together out of boredom.

 

This very same concept applies to the macro world in this day and age. Oculus just steam rolls alliances and/or NPO is back channeling world wars and alliances, for example atlas follow suit.

 

I've actually talked to lord Hershey about this a little before I left the first time. The world, at least at a micro level, would be much more fun with two of somewhat equal 'sides'.

 

I stay away from treaties in the micro world because it's just a bunch of desperate micros signing tons of treaties that locks them all together.

 

To your point on alliances, it's not the alliance itself that's bad, it's the fear of getting rolled or losing a few pixels and preventing alliances from making bold moves that have gutted this world. 

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why shouldn't new nations have a chance to grow and develop? You're basically saying that the desires of the majority of new nations should be sacrificed so that a handful of warmongers can have more "fun."

 

You think that war is the only worthwhile activity, but if most people saw it that way there would be more wars.

Edited by Immortan Junka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Immortan Junka said:

Why shouldn't new nations have a chance to grow and develop? You're basically saying that the desires of the majority of new nations should be sacrificed so that a handful of warmongers can have more "fun."

 

 

I'm not saying that at all. Of equal sides there would be equal opportunity for nations to 'grow and develop'. That's simply not the case and in all honesty, if m inc never existed the majority of the micros alliances would not have faught in years, they'd be as relaveant as the current knights of kni, PPO would've have had any jolt of activity.

 

and there's nothing wrong with just growing, that's what nuetral alliances prefer as their play style. And while they may get attacked, it's like once every few years. Which in today's standards applies to just about everyone (unless m inc does something or oculus makes another decree to roll an unconnected alliance).

 

I see where this world is headed. The other day I had a great conversation with an active ruler who does gov work for his alliance, a much bigger alliance, and they are well connected; I'm sure his story is like many others, he enjoys the activity on bob and his alliance (of very well built nations) have zero goals except to sit and help friends if they ever magically find themselves at war. (They have a better chance winning the lottery)

 

It's not the alliances that need to go. It's alliance like NSO (no issue fighting m inc, easy acticity boost there) but when polar rolls Kashmir NSO tucks their tails and runs and joe stupid pulls the 'we weren't really treatied' card. It's when alliances like FTW have friends on both the oculus side and the NEW side and pledge to remain nuetral in the conflict only to bandwagon with oculus (who I'm sure would have been fine). 

 

And these wars don't end well, it's usually 'it' for these alliances, like STA. They've grown tired, lost hope, they've been isolated. In the most sense, they've died out because of the very thing that was support to protect them, treaties, restraint. For the majority of alliances out there, and I see yolo's point, those nations would have as much as an experience playing as an unaligned nation rather than sitting.

 

Nations who spend their entire careers building, waiting for that 'big war' or waiting for the IRON/Umbrella/NPO to split up, have lost sight of what makes this world fun and are ultimately disappointed with their time here.

 

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

Restraint is the very thing killing the planet. If planet bob has any more 'restraint', we may as well just turn the lights out.

 

Let's look at the micro world for a second, the active ones.

 

AM links slap and VG, VG links to Cobra and posse, Cobra links to mages guild and Kashmir, VG and posse tie to umbrella, snx is tied to animalz and has Hershey's backing. Somewhere in this is AW who ties up to Sparta.

 

In reality (and being on the receiving end a few times) the only restraint a micro alliance practices is either 1) in the micro world it's whoever their protector is hitting or 2) everyone bands together out of boredom.

I kinda agree with you. Treaty web is ridiculous. I am blaming the various kinds of treaties in existence for this thing.

 

 

Edited by Roal36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

 

I'm not saying that at all. Of equal sides there would be equal opportunity for nations to 'grow and develop'. That's simply not the case and in all honesty, if m inc never existed the majority of the micros alliances would not have faught in years, they'd be as relaveant as the current knights of kni, PPO would've have had any jolt of activity.

 

and there's nothing wrong with just growing, that's what nuetral alliances prefer as their play style. And while they may get attacked, it's like once every few years. Which in today's standards applies to just about everyone (unless m inc does something or oculus makes another decree to roll an unconnected alliance).

 

I see where this world is headed. The other day I had a great conversation with an active ruler who does gov work for his alliance, a much bigger alliance, and they are well connected; I'm sure his story is like many others, he enjoys the activity on bob and his alliance (of very well built nations) have zero goals except to sit and help friends if they ever magically find themselves at war. (They have a better chance winning the lottery)

 

It's not the alliances that need to go. It's alliance like NSO (no issue fighting m inc, easy acticity boost there) but when polar rolls Kashmir NSO tucks their tails and runs and joe stupid pulls the 'we weren't really treatied' card. It's when alliances like FTW have friends on both the oculus side and the NEW side and pledge to remain nuetral in the conflict only to bandwagon with oculus (who I'm sure would have been fine). 

 

And these wars don't end well, it's usually 'it' for these alliances, like STA. They've grown tired, lost hope, they've been isolated. In the most sense, they've died out because of the very thing that was support to protect them, treaties, restraint. For the majority of alliances out there, and I see yolo's point, those nations would have as much as an experience playing as an unaligned nation rather than sitting.

 

Nations who spend their entire careers building, waiting for that 'big war' or waiting for the IRON/Umbrella/NPO to split up, have lost sight of what makes this world fun and are ultimately disappointed with their time here.

 

 

 

Not all of us are completely passive leaders. I did replace Methrage as LPCN leader remember.

 

However the idea of fighting wars simply to alleviate boredom is alot of nonsense, depleting warchests, tech stockpiles, and other forms of alliance capital. While CN has significant military features, it is first and foremost a political realm... regardless of how good one may be at fighting, one cannot defeat the entire world alone. Wars properly executed will advance and defend political goals.

 

If you look at the Imperium's November Third Operation, it was a very short-term conflict which achieved multiple political goals. It strengthened the Imperium, increased our membership, without excessively depleting our assets, all while acting within the confines of a proper Casus Belli. And it barely registered as a blip on anyone's radar.

 

That, to me, was our most perfect war thus far.

 

"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 minutes ago, Immortan Junka said:

 

Not all of us are completely passive leaders. I did replace Methrage as LPCN leader remember.

 

However the idea of fighting wars simply to alleviate boredom is alot of nonsense, depleting warchests, tech stockpiles, and other forms of alliance capital. While CN has significant military features, it is first and foremost a political realm... regardless of how good one may be at fighting, one cannot defeat the entire world alone. Wars properly executed will advance and defend political goals.

 

If you look at the Imperium's November Third Operation, it was a very short-term conflict which achieved multiple political goals. It strengthened the Imperium, increased our membership, without excessively depleting our assets, all while acting within the confines of a proper Casus Belli. And it barely registered as a blip on anyone's radar.

 

That, to me, was our most perfect war thus far.

 

"In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

 

 

 

 

If if you want to talk about successful wars or political moves.... I've got plenty of those.

 

while the stats may have been bumped when you absorbed GG, I can't imagine it was with quality nations. As they literally surrendered and then conformed.

 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither."

 

Edited by Lord Hitchcock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 minutes ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

 

If if you want to talk about successful wars or political moves.... I've got plenty of those.

 

while the stats may have been bumped when you absorb GG, I can't imagine it was with quality nations. As they literally surrendered and confirmed.

 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither"

 

Some of the members who were rescued are actually officers today and have distinguished themselves in multiple wars.

 

If there is any real problem, it is that there are active nations languishing in alliances with inactive governments propped up by treaties and protectorates. After all, Supernova X languished until NpO dropped our MDoAP and forced our membership to stand on their own feet. Consolidating active nations from weak and inactive alliances is the way to go, and is what has made the Imperium one of the more populous alliances today despite our near-isolation from the central treaty web.

 

Of course that's a much different type of pursuit than the tedious months-long grinds of past global wars like Disorder and Doom, which mostly involved upper-tier jockying at the expense of younger nations.

Edited by Immortan Junka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, YOLO SWAG said:

Of course, I am not arguing against organization. I'm merely questioning the relevance of what is currently referred to as the alliance.


What's the difference? Alliances are just nations joining together, organizing, for mutual defense and advancement of mutual goals.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

Restraint is the very thing killing the planet. If planet bob has any more 'restraint', we may as well just turn the lights out.

 

 

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. National restraint is only held back by alliances, correct, but then alliance restraint is not really held back. If you're talking alliance attacking other alliances, there is more restraint. Though if an alliance happily targets a few nations on none, or from a rogue entity, there is no restraint. 

 

The treaty web does have a key to play, but this discussion is about alliance abolition, not treaty abolition. Even if we talked about a treaty reset magically happening, nothing would change, as their would still be alliances friendly with one another. Which leads us back to national restraint, and alliance restraint. 

 

National restraint is only held back alliances, and their rules of engagement/decorum. An alliance with less strict rules will have more national freedom, and less nation restraint. The idea of releasing the whole world from an institutionalized restraint is intriguing. As alliances that are low tier nuke nations alliances have less national restraint because of the NS needed to stop them from doing what their national desire is, no alliance on it's own can really stop it. 

 

Thus if we transfer that thinking to a purely national level with no alliance. There is no way a nation can stop that one nuke nation verse one non nuke nation, and even if three low tier nuke nations somehow manage to find each other in-game to attack together. There's nothing for that lowly nation but to roll over, and submit. They lose their national freedom. What is a nation to do, if they can't have defence from a nuke nation? Some how find someone that used to be in their alliance, and ask for aid? Sadly that nation able to give out monetary aid will only end up funding the nuke nation, as they can't help fight for the nation being attacked. They would just quit the game in droves. Then you have the super tier nations attacking anyone on the lower end that the could for more land, which forces larger nations down into the middle ranges, they fight nations to regain land, and tech because it's easier for them, medium nations attack lower nations, lower nations attack new nations. Or people just quit because they were in GPA or some other alliance that hasn't fought, and they were just stat collecting. the abolition of alliances lead to high national freedom, but to a high exodus of players. There needs to be more alliance engagement to lower restraint, which might happen with a crack in the treaty web, but that's a different post for a different thread. 

 

The idea of restraint for alliances is not only political, but singular restraint for those who wish to do harm to a single nation. You can join an alliance for that defence that offers you no national freedom, or you can join an alliance that offers you national freedom with defence, but those are generally micro's. The idea of a fascist leader set up in this game and it's success has killed national freedom, and has lead new alliances to build their alliance around that ideal. Limit national freedoms, streamline in house tech deals, control trade circles, control guides to grow nations, require tests for said nation. All of this restraint of national freedom comes from the alliance. Their is no longer a learning curve for the world. The idea of restraint has been built into the world by alliances, because the world has not introduced something for us to adapt to. 

 

Alliance restraint is lost when a nation with high national freedom comes along, and challenges the alliance freedom. The alliance which has a spread of NS tiers, is able to continually attack said nation until it drops to the lowest strength range that they have wonder/improvement advantage in. That nation with high national freedom then losses it's national freedom because the alliance has deemed it proper to remove their nation freedom away from them by labeling them. A label other alliances then see as something they don't want to associate themselves with. 

 

Alliance restraint trumps national freedom for an outsiders using their national freedom anywhere near, or on the alliance. So the idea of the alliance keeps national freedom restrained internally and externally. 

Edited by Alonso Quixano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

 

Nations who spend their entire careers building, waiting for that 'big war' or waiting for the IRON/Umbrella/NPO to split up, have lost sight of what makes this world fun and are ultimately disappointed with their time here.

 

 

 

This is truth 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0