Jump to content
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

Useless Thoughts on CN (Part 2)

Seipher Caim



Following the part 1 on the importance of having an AA, the normal path would be to talk about raid and such behaviours. So here we are !

PART 2 : "They see me raidin' and rollin'"

1. Newbie raids ?

CAVEAT : in 2 years, I've never raided a single nation…and I had plenty of opportunities (being in a rainding alliance, Valhalla).

I completely understand the point of raiding :

- You gain land and tech (and sometimes casualties)

- You may teach your low rank the war mechanisms

- You have fun !

I won't deny them…

But I still don't raid cause I strongly believe in the right for everyone to have the right to experience a peaceful game and being a target just because you didn't pick an AA in the first few days of your nations is just silly.

Older nations that are fully aware of the raid threat but nonetheless wears the "none" AA could be considered as valid target… cause there is nothing easier than to seek protection from a friendly alliance, advertise it in your bio and ask for raiders to refer to the MoFA of said alliances…

But please, do not hunt for newbies… each time you raid one, admin kills a kitty !

Policy recommendations: Charters should allow raid on nations older than, say, 2 months. In order to avoid that newbies quit the game.

2. Is raiding moral ?

There were a lot of discussions on the morale issue of raiding, of defending the raiders' target against the raiders… There is no such thing as "moral standards" in CN…

Raiding entire alliances is war. We have no international CN law to handle such a situation (clarifying if this is to be considered a war or not and what actions are collectively to be taken). We have customs and practices instead. And sometimes, those customs creates enforceable laws. Is that possible in CN ? Some have tried to stand against extortion but in the end, political manoeuvres spoiled the whole argument (Polar, you see what I do here ?).

Initiative like "Freedom of the Seas" (o/ Avalon) should be encouraged because they harm no one and offer a new way to deal with this sort of problems, since some look at raiding as a problem.

The only issue I see here is the respect some may lack to accept ideas coming from "little alliances". Everyone took it for granted that the red sphere wasn't to be raided. Because there were big guns surrounding this quarter of bob. I don'like the argument "moral is strength" but it works pretty well here…

Last problem, are alliances allowing raiding credible when asking for their sphere not to be raided ?

Policy recommendations: Maximize the number of non-raiding alliances, work on the feasibility of sphere protection.

3. The "lulz" problem

"yeah lulzy", "do something about it", "we're just too cool to listen", "raid is just pure fun"… we all have heard such sentences used to justify raids (on single nations, micro alliances or even middle-sized alliances".

And on this point, I must say that I'm pretty disappointed and with no answers. I don't see how to change this type of behaviour except with strength (which shows how much a limited thinker I am). I know, people are bored… but I really think this is not a sufficient reason. At least, have some class and style please…

But this is part of a larger issue in CN on which I may come back later in another blog entry.

4. From raids to wars ?

It happens all the time. One of your member inadvertedly raids a member of another big alliances (and there could be several reasons for that). Generally, it ends with the raiding alliances paying reps to the target. And it's over. Sometimes, you may even have a nice chat with guys you never talked to in order to close the case (I had one of this nice chat with IAA regarding one of our raiding member).

And you never go to war because we all know the risks associated with raids and the price to pay when it gets dirty.

Why does, when an alliance raids a smaller one, this can go to war ? Because the raiding alliance thinks even such a war is not a big price to pay. The potential price to pay is even lower when you have allies to back you up (and when the target have non at its disposal).

Some treaties have an "asshatery" clause and, imho, these kinds of situation are pretty much the ideal case where one alliance would be entitled to cancel its treaty (if they didn't manage to make their ally act reasonably). It does not show a fear of a dogpile (since there is no real power in front of you) and it shows you have principles and alliance principles should always be above treaty (if your treaty partner are real friends, they will never do things that could lead to a conflict between your principles and your treaties… if not, you or your allies may have done something wrong).

Policy recommendations: Prevent your allies from being asshats, stick to your principles and don't be afraid to cancel treaties for good reasons (pretty obvious eh ?)

(edit for structuring)



Recommended Comments

I really like your ideas, though the biggest issues is that it would demand that some who couldn't care less about anything but their own entertainment, no matter the cost for others, start caring even somewhat...

Link to comment

Shilo has a point - raiders only care about entertainment for themselves and their alliance-mates, even if they end up spoiling someone else's in the process. So trying to change that could indeed prove difficult.

Trust me, I've tried to get TOOL to outright abolish the practice, and our already stringent tech-raiding policies have caused members to leave. (Which begs the question, since they're required to read and agree to our policies beforehand, why'd they bother joining? :P) Most recently, we had a member leave after I threatened to kick him out for raiding an applicant and a protectorate, not to mention violating pretty much every other part of our policy. <_<

That said, I do admire your principles, Seipher Caim. :) I've always been of the belief that war should never be for personal gain, as I find acting thus to be both selfish and hurtful. I enjoyed the read.


Link to comment

Oh that's a very tough problem I agree...

My question is "can we design efficient deterrence mechanism to avoid such behaviors" ?

And sometimes, raid can be fun and launch good discussions... but generally, imho, it fails at achieving "fun for all"...

Link to comment

"fun for all" wouldn't be acheived by abolishing raiding, either. There are already methods intact that people can choose to follow to avoid being raided. Hell, you can even avoid going to war at all if you wanted to. We raid because that's part of the enjoyment we get out of this game. It is possible due to the way the game was created...not because we're exploiting a flaw in the code. Admin has been kind enough to make it possible for people who want nothing to do with the war aspects of this game to be able to choose a route that would keep them safe from attacks. Whether these people choose this route or not is fully dependent upon themselves. We've all been at that entry point into this game before...we all started somewhere. How did we all survive? What choices did we make that kept us in the higher echelon of newbies, to keep ourselves safe from danger? Starting out, it's common to get attacked within the first week.....and it's almost always another new player trying to get some enjoyment out of what is otherwise a rather boring game. Yes, people get upset with the game mechanics, people get upset that they can't just sit and build up their nations without being hit...but seriously, the only reason people want to grow their nations in the first place is so they'll be able to kick $@! on someone else later.

Link to comment
Add a comment...

×   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...