Jump to content

Are Alliances Obsolete?


YOLO SWAG

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
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."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
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.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
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 

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...