The Age of Super-Alliances

[Alterego]

Nothing would result in the total stagnation of the game quicker than a world with only a handful of huge alliances. Being in an alliance with a thousand members would be terrible for the individual but great for the small hand full that hold power. Diversity is good for the game. Only the power hungry cant see that. Speaking as someone in a relatively small alliance I would hate to be in an alliance with a thousand members. Maybe I too could be a junior member in the banking sector or source tech for people too lazy to do it themselves or a sergeant in the military.

Mega alliances would suffocate us all bring in unimaginable bureaucracy and bore us all to death.[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1308354441' post='2733347']
As the leader of a (relatively) newly merged alliance, I agree that more alliances need to merge. It doesn't mean you failed, it means you realized you'd be better together, and that most importantly, CN needs less alliances.
[/quote]
People say this all the time but never get as far as because...

How would things be better and please provide proof that less alliances is good and more alliances is bad.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Alterego

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1308361573' post='2733444']
how many of them were actually members though is a very important question...
[/quote]
Legion was over 1,200 actual forum members IIRC.

How many of those members were [i]active[/i] is another question entirely; history would tend to suggest not that many

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1308543535' post='2735484']
Yes, this is true, and one reason I grew to absolutely hate and loathe skype. When "politics" and relationships between alliances consist of late-night phone calls and assgrabbing OOC !@#$%^&* then suddenly everyone is afraid to do anything in-game because it might upset a friend.

Who cares? It's a game.
[/quote]
Oh man, preach it brother.

The problem with CN can be summed up like this: When I play Germany in Axis & Allies, and I attack my friend who is playing Russia, he does his best to defeat me and then after the game we are still friends.

In CN if I do the same thing to my friend, then after the little battle he pouts and refuses to talk to me anymore. [i]It's so dumb.[/i]

[Daimos]

GPA is the only true super alliance left. In the end, they will win this game. Mark my words.

[Vladisvok Destino]

[quote name='Lord Velox' timestamp='1308813086' post='2739230']
So what you're saying is Umbrella doing what an Alliance should do is ruining the game?
[/quote]

I'm saying that if he wants to blame alliances being alliances, then why shouldn't I blame Umbrella being Umbrella?

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1308827027' post='2739282']
The problem with CN can be summed up like this: When I play Germany in Axis & Allies, and I attack my friend who is playing Russia, he does his best to defeat me and then after the game we are still friends.

In CN if I do the same thing to my friend, then after the little battle he pouts and refuses to talk to me anymore. [i]It's so dumb.[/i]
[/quote]
The difference is that in CN, after that war the game doesn't end and you start over tomorrow when you call your buddy and set up another round. Instead, you're stuck paying the other guy for another 2 months and taking !@#$ from his idiot friends for the next 4 years. I've never Skyped much to begin with bc I don't like my voice and it'c certainly not the voice of my avatar or player, and I don't care to get all OOC lovefest with CN players, but I've also never Skyped much because frankly I have no interest in being friends with people that act the way they do in CN. If I want to be friends with a bunch of 14-yr-old asshammers I'll start going to movies with my students and kids in my troop.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Schattenmann

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1308926790' post='2740413']
The difference is that in CN, after that war the game doesn't end and you start over tomorrow when you call your buddy and set up another round. Instead, you're stuck paying the other guy for another 2 months and taking !@#$ from his idiot friends for the next 4 years. I've never Skyped much to begin with bc I don't like my voice and it'c certainly not the voice of my avatar or player, and I don't care to get all OOC lovefest with CN players, but I've also never Skyped much because frankly I have no interest in being friends with people that act the way they do in CN. If I want to be friends with a bunch of 14-yr-old asshammers I'll start going to movies with my students and kids in my troop.
[/quote]
I wonder if my teachers ever thought of me as an asshammer

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1308931436' post='2740464']
I wonder if my teachers ever thought of me as an asshammer
[/quote]
Did you ever whisper "let's throw his ass down the stairs" 5 feet behind one of them as if they were deaf? If yes, then probably.

[PMoses]

Well I don't think CN will change just cause of super alliances.. we need new weapons or something that will change the game. I remember when people in CN wouldn't fire nukes just cause it hurt our global radiation. One great war happened and everyone threw nukes, and its like a gigantic cruise missile now. No one cares. I think as players we need to come up with a suggestion that is easily workable for the devs to make the game more costly on some decisions. Then maybe it will add some more fun back into it. Also, you got 1 alliance in multiple power blocs, and multiple power blocs tied together no one can really fight. I think we should make the unwritten planet bob rule that blocs should be 5 or 6 alliances, and not be tied to another bloc to be honest. This is the weird thing that makes me say this, take DuckRoll for instance. At any moment Duckroll could be defending NPO (god forbid) or MK (not sure how i feel here) in any war.. That means my alliance could be fighting for either of the supposed super powers just cause of outside treaties. NPO -> Olympus -> Valhalla (Duckroll and Mjolnir) - > TORN.. now for the side of MK its pretty easy too, MK -> TOP -> IRON (Duckroll) - > TORN.. To make it even funnier with an ODP situation we could be fighting for NpO.. NpO -> IAA -> Exodus (ODP) -> TORN, so its not only the relative matter of no one cares about the punishments for dumb wars anymore, but the treaty web really makes it no easy way to fight..

NPO sucked at leading the game.. but the rules kinda made the game fun. MK makes somethings funner like the no CB attitudes.. but there not doing enough to keep things interesting either.. everyone is just signing every where, and you go NPO and MK being friends on the treaty web somewhere I am sure. I didn't research it enough to find the link.. but I am sure its there.

[Vol Navy]

The only things I disagree with about your post is the claim that NPO is still any kind of world power and that they "sucked" at leading. If you took away their name and just looked at their nations and their treaties you'd see they are far from it. They are still isolated politically due to in large part to the very successful pre-Karma propaganda machine that was rolling along here on the OWF.

As far as MK and NPO being friends, dunno about that. But treaty wise they currently have an ODAP for the next 6 months.

As for Duckroll, I believe the last war showed you guys won't be defending NPO for a long long time, so you shouldn't worry about that. Even ML from Duckroll was left to fight on their own when they chose to defend TPF.

In the leading department they were actually pretty great. They were the unquestioned top alliance on the planet while the planet was at it's height. If the history of Bob is were to be written they are basically the most important alliance that has existed. That's how much the entire planet has revolved around them for years now.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Vol Navy

[D34th]

[quote name='PMoses' timestamp='1308983795' post='2741025']
Well I don't think CN will change just cause of super alliances.. we need new weapons or something that will change the game. I remember when people in CN wouldn't fire nukes just cause it hurt our global radiation. One great war happened and everyone threw nukes, and its like a gigantic cruise missile now. No one cares. I think as players we need to come up with a suggestion that is easily workable for the devs to make the game more costly on some decisions. Then maybe it will add some more fun back into it. Also, you got 1 alliance in multiple power blocs, and multiple power blocs tied together no one can really fight. I think we should make the unwritten planet bob rule that blocs should be 5 or 6 alliances, and not be tied to another bloc to be honest. This is the weird thing that makes me say this, take DuckRoll for instance. At any moment Duckroll [b]could be defending NP[/b]O (god forbid) or MK (not sure how i feel here) in any war.. That means my alliance could be fighting for either of the supposed super powers just cause of outside treaties. NPO -> Olympus -> Valhalla (Duckroll and Mjolnir) - > TORN.. now for the side of MK its pretty easy too, MK -> TOP -> IRON (Duckroll) - > TORN.. To make it even funnier with an ODP situation we could be fighting for NpO.. NpO -> IAA -> Exodus (ODP) -> TORN, so its not only the relative matter of no one cares about the punishments for dumb wars anymore, but the treaty web really makes it no easy way to fight..

NPO sucked at leading the game.. but the rules kinda made the game fun. MK makes somethings funner like the no CB attitudes.. but there not doing enough to keep things interesting either.. everyone is just signing every where, and you go NPO and MK being friends on the treaty web somewhere I am sure. I didn't research it enough to find the link.. but I am sure its there.
[/quote]

Not happening since your allies could have done that after NPO was attacked for no reason and you just watched their burn, so if your allies didn't defended NPO when the other side didn't had a CB against them, imagine when they find one.

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1308931436' post='2740464']
I wonder if my teachers ever thought of me as an asshammer
[/quote]

You don't know many teachers? The answer is definitely yes.

[PMoses]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1308988020' post='2741050']
The only things I disagree with about your post is the claim that NPO is still any kind of world power and that they "sucked" at leading. If you took away their name and just looked at their nations and their treaties you'd see they are far from it. They are still isolated politically due to in large part to the very successful pre-Karma propaganda machine that was rolling along here on the OWF.

As far as MK and NPO being friends, dunno about that. But treaty wise they currently have an ODAP for the next 6 months.

As for Duckroll, I believe the last war showed you guys won't be defending NPO for a long long time, so you shouldn't worry about that. Even ML from Duckroll was left to fight on their own when they chose to defend TPF.

In the leading department they were actually pretty great. They were the unquestioned top alliance on the planet while the planet was at it's height. If the history of Bob is were to be written they are basically the most important alliance that has existed. That's how much the entire planet has revolved around them for years now.
[/quote]

I am not saying that its a definite we would defend them, I am saying that's just how messed up the treaty web is. I mean it was a long time ago. But I remember times when like 2 or 3 alliances went at it with another 2 or 3 alliances, and that was a normal every 2 month thing. Now, a simple 20 man alliance going at it with another 20 man alliance brings in the top 10 and every other alliance that can find a bandwagon way in. Those times are when the game was fun. When you didn't have to tread so lightly over ODP's and the such. I didn't mean that Duckrolls treaties are a fact of how stuff would roll. I just know our treaty web a bit better than anyone elses, so i used ours as an example.. but i am sure you could use any of the big blocks and find those ties. That's what I mean.. Super Alliances are no good if we are all treaty-ed anyways.

[Clash]

There are a lot of reasons why the numbers of total nations continue to drop, but what's not a reason is the number of small alliances. Thats got to be the stupidest reasoning imaginable. If CN were a sport, I'd say you have poor sportsmanship, so we'll go with poor gamesmanship in this instance. Some small group of people join CN, enjoy it and decide they want to be independent and have their own little alliance all to their own. Well, that's their idea of fun. So damn them, right? Clearly they should be stomped and/or driven out of the game as soon as possible for not acting the way you demand they do. Yeah, that makes CN so much better, way to "win CN." Pathetic bunch of jerks, the lot of you.

One thing that would the game better almost immediately is if most of you just stfu and let everyone else have their own fun without you and your pathetic fat keyboard/mouth crapping on their heads.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1308926790' post='2740413']
The difference is that in CN, after that war the game doesn't end and you start over tomorrow when you call your buddy and set up another round. Instead, you're stuck paying the other guy for another 2 months and taking !@#$ from his idiot friends for the next 4 years. I've never Skyped much to begin with bc I don't like my voice and it'c certainly not the voice of my avatar or player, and I don't care to get all OOC lovefest with CN players, but I've also never Skyped much because frankly I have no interest in being friends with people that act the way they do in CN. If I want to be friends with a bunch of 14-yr-old asshammers I'll start going to movies with my students and kids in my troop.
[/quote]
You might actually be surprised; a lot of CN players are decent people in general. They just don't understand wargaming and think that how people act on CN reflects how they act in real life, a mistake you seem to be making here as well.

[i]It doesn't.[/i] CN is pretty damn boring when nobody is, well, acting like a jerk in it; we start wars and get involved in all kinds of Machiavellian schemes, because it's fun and because it's a game so it doesn't matter. If people acted in real life that way, they'd be considered insane - but here you can use your imagination! It doesn't matter. That's the fun part of playing a game.

[PMoses]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1308997073' post='2741084']
You might actually be surprised; a lot of CN players are decent people in general. They just don't understand wargaming and think that how people act on CN reflects how they act in real life, a mistake you seem to be making here as well.

[i]It doesn't.[/i] CN is pretty damn boring when nobody is, well, acting like a jerk in it; we start wars and get involved in all kinds of Machiavellian schemes, because it's fun and because it's a game so it doesn't matter. If people acted in real life that way, they'd be considered insane - but here you can use your imagination! It doesn't matter. That's the fun part of playing a game.
[/quote]

I have to agree with Haflinger here. I am a fool on the game, cause that is what makes it a bit more fun to me. This is no way in any sort a reflection of me outside CN. Those that know me on skype and the such know that I am way different. So this tends to also probably chase people off when they start getting OOC tagged and attacked as a measure to secure some kind of upper hand in the game. There is a lot of reasoning's for decline in the game. Nothing will change with us all sitting here on the forums deciphering it, and not actually trying to change it.

Here's a good question.. How many actual nations here know why we fight the wars we fight, or why if your on MK's side should you fight and hate NPO's side, and vice versa? How many nations can actually truthfully remember why this side hates that one? Probably not a lot of the nations. They just do it cause there told to do it. That is something that should change too.

But like I said, all of us sitting here arguing over it, isn't gonna change it. We actually need to act on the things we claim hurt the game, not just talk.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='PMoses' timestamp='1309001778' post='2741103']
I have to agree with Haflinger here. I am a fool on the game, cause that is what makes it a bit more fun to me. This is no way in any sort a reflection of me outside CN. Those that know me on skype and the such know that I am way different. So this tends to also probably chase people off when they start getting OOC tagged and attacked as a measure to secure some kind of upper hand in the game. There is a lot of reasoning's for decline in the game. Nothing will change with us all sitting here on the forums deciphering it, and not actually trying to change it.

Here's a good question.. How many actual nations here know why we fight the wars we fight, or why if your on MK's side should you fight and hate NPO's side, and vice versa? How many nations can actually truthfully remember why this side hates that one? Probably not a lot of the nations. They just do it cause there told to do it. That is something that should change too.

But like I said, all of us sitting here arguing over it, isn't gonna change it. We actually need to act on the things we claim hurt the game, not just talk.
[/quote]
We hate them because they are dicks. They hate us because we are dicks. It's just one giant sausage fest up in here.

[IYIyTh]

It's all about penis envy.

[morrison]

It is all turning into Fahrenheit 451

[Kzoppistan]

[size="1"]*ahem*[/size]
[font="Arial Narrow"]
[center][size="4"]Proclaim me your [i][font="Book Antiqua"]God-Emperor[/font][/i] over all of Bob. Lend me your arms and I will crush the micros and consume them whole. We will feast upon their tech, swallow thousands of miles of land, and squeeze every bloody cent until they repent their perversion of separation. With our fervor of truth we will Obliterate the weak, Forge the resistant into our flock, and Extinguish their hope for independence as easily as you can smother a baby in the crib.

There can be only one. Bow before my righteous might and I will make all your dreams of unification come true.

[b][size="5"]I have spoken![/size][/b][/size][/center][/font]


[size="1"]That is all.[/size]

Edited July 11, 2011 by Kzoppistan

[MaGneT]

The answer to this question, like many questions, is that you need a happy medium. The game is more fun when you have more people involved in politics. The truly problem micro-alliances are those who have 10-20 members, 4-8 of whom are active on their private forums and they do no outside interactions except with their protector. Those are alliances that should merge into their protectors, so those active players can contribute to a larger base and have a say in the larger world.
The same can be said for mega-alliances, who have loads of active members but, like Alterego said, many get trapped in a huge bureaucracy and don't ever rise to make a difference. A financial officer who helps line up trade circles and tech deals in a huge alliance might not be shaking things up out here.

[Prime minister Johns]

In a large alliance you are just a voiceless face in the crowd and a drop in the ocean of their stats. Nothing you do makes any difference and if you left tomorrow nobody would even notice much less care.

In a smaller alliance you can take part in the decision making process of the alliance and your stats make up a signifigant portion of the alliance's stats so they tend to take much better care of you and you might actually make a couple of friends.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Prime minister Johns

[Keelah]

Zombie threads should remain dead.