Aurion Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 A CN UN's about the last thing that the world needs, tbqh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 If you pay me 500 tech I help you naow OK thankyou goodbye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 [quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1312441045' post='2771625'] A CN UN's about the last thing that the world needs, tbqh. [/quote] Seriously. We've got enough people writing letters of passive disapproval as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShouAS Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 A UN force would become the target of not just blocs like PB but raiding alliances like NEW as well. While some alliances might not allow tech raids, a large amount of them do, even if members not not active raiders, you will find an uproar if you try and take that right away from them. If you want protection, join an alliance, GPA is good if you want to stay out of wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracule Mihawk Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 A UNesque group that actually tried to enforce anti-raiding policies would spark a response that'd make what happened to NPO during Karma look like a fond love tap. -Drac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AphexTwin Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 I hope you guys enjoy being none and get more people to be none. Why? It makes my game more interesting in giving me raid targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted August 4, 2011 Report Share Posted August 4, 2011 (edited) To the OP, you have a lot to learn. In CN, it doesn't matter if something was unjustified. It only matters if you can backup your actions with allies and stats. The raiders will keep hammering you because they know nobody is going to rolfstomp their alliance for their actions. Of course, alliances still have to be careful. If they become too wild, they tend to anger the wrong ones and end up getting stomped themselves. [quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1311878025' post='2766298'] Do you not at least require them to actually trade with you? [/quote] If you want serious drama or war, go ahead and test it. I'll be sitting on the sidelines with my popcorn and microwave on standby. Edited August 4, 2011 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted August 5, 2011 Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1312501637' post='2772170'] To the OP, you have a lot to learn. In CN, it doesn't matter if something was unjustified. It only matters if you can backup your actions with allies and stats. The raiders will keep hammering you because they know nobody is going to rolfstomp their alliance for their actions. Of course, alliances still have to be careful. If they become too wild, they tend to anger the wrong ones and end up getting stomped themselves. [/quote] Yes, this is because opinions and fashions change, a couple of years ago the opinions of the NPO were terribly fashionable , at the height of their power they seemed like an unstoppable juggernaut, but they fell when the public opinions changed, No alliance however mighty they may seem is immune to public opinion, and public opinion is a fickle thing which is subject to change, and a wise leader knows this and changes the policies of their alliance to keep with the public opinion of the times. It is not a weakness or flip-flopping but it is simply good policy, an alliance's policies should be a reflection of the opinions of their members and the public at large, for an alliance leader draws their mandate from the consent of the members of alliance they lead, and the members of the alliance's opinions are shaped by general public opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracule Mihawk Posted August 5, 2011 Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 [quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1312503497' post='2772193'] Yes, this is because opinions and fashions change, a couple of years ago the opinions of the NPO were terribly fashionable , at the height of their power they seemed like an unstoppable juggernaut, but they fell when the public opinions changed, No alliance however mighty they may seem is immune to public opinion, and public opinion is a fickle thing which is subject to change, and a wise leader knows this and changes the policies of their alliance to keep with the public opinion of the times. It is not a weakness or flip-flopping but it is simply good policy, an alliance's policies should be a reflection of the opinions of their members and the public at large, for an alliance leader draws their mandate from the consent of the members of alliance they lead, and the members of the alliance's opinions are shaped by general public opinion. [/quote] I'm still trying to figure out what the point of that was, really. If you're implying that public opinion could swing away from raiding, then I'd have to point out that inter-alliance politics and something most people on Planet Bob consider a right (to clarify, the right to raid unaligneds) are very different things. The first has shifted innumerable times, but the second has never changed. But if you really believe raiding might end, that's cool. I've actually got a very nice bridge I'm looking to sell that you might be interested in too... -Drac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 [quote name='silverion' timestamp='1311957415' post='2767020']As someone said: "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten."[/quote] Countless people tried to stop raiding by words alone, and they all failed. Do what has always been done and you'll get what has always been gotten. In this case: failure. You can stay alone and in War Mode and you can be free from raids, just you can't meet the three conditions at the same time. As you see you're actually plenty of choices, but you can't just do whatever you want at your first days in the game. Which is a fascinating challenge, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 [quote name='MIKE1587' timestamp='1312037482' post='2767642'] The unfortunate fact is that in this game it is almost impossible to advance whilst standing alone. On the bright side there are alliances of every description imaginable . You should be able to find at least one that supports your ideals . Good Luck . [/quote] Your Alliance is to blame for this and all other wars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Dracule Mihawk' timestamp='1312561609' post='2772673'] I'm still trying to figure out what the point of that was, really. If you're implying that public opinion could swing away from raiding, then I'd have to point out that inter-alliance politics and something most people on Planet Bob consider a right (to clarify, the right to raid unaligneds) are very different things. The first has shifted innumerable times, but the second has never changed. But if you really believe raiding might end, that's cool. I've actually got a very nice bridge I'm looking to sell that you might be interested in too... -Drac [/quote] Over time the definition of a raid has changed as much as alliance politics has. Originally a raid was only against a nation a few days away from deletion by inactivity and the attacks were restricted to two ground attacks only and there was always the declaration reason of "Tech raid, PM for peace" or something to that effect. and when the raid target PMed the raiders they always got peace and perhaps reparations for the damage of the raid. And raiding was viewed as something akin to a salvage operation to recover tech from a person who in all likelihood was never going to return. Compare that to definition of a modern raid and you will see there has been changes. I have nothing against salvaging tech from abandoned nations, but raids against an active player who is most of the time also a new player seems a little counterproductive to me, would it not be better for the raiding alliances to recruit such players and grow their stats even faster, since the NS growth of a new nation can be quite dramatic and their contribution to overall alliance growth and performance would make alliance wars more frequent and interesting. But some measures need to be taken to prevent the loss of these new players. I am concerned that many new players get a raider rather than a recruiter as their first contact with the wider CN world and get entirely the wrong impression about CN and leave. Edited August 6, 2011 by Prime minister Johns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 [quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1312611831' post='2773385'] Over time the definition of a raid has changed as much as alliance politics has. Originally a raid was only against a nation a few days away from deletion by inactivity and the attacks were restricted to two ground attacks only and there was always the declaration reason of "Tech raid, PM for peace" or something to that effect. and when the raid target PMed the raiders they always got peace and perhaps reparations for the damage of the raid. And raiding was viewed as something akin to a salvage operation to recover tech from a person who in all likelihood was never going to return. Compare that to definition of a modern raid and you will see there has been changes. I have nothing against salvaging tech from abandoned nations, but raids against an active player who is most of the time also a new player seems a little counterproductive to me, would it not be better for the raiding alliances to recruit such players and grow their stats even faster, since the NS growth of a new nation can be quite dramatic and their contribution to overall alliance growth and performance would make alliance wars more frequent and interesting. But some measures need to be taken to prevent the loss of these new players. I am concerned that many new players get a raider rather than a recruiter as their first contact with the wider CN world and get entirely the wrong impression about CN and leave. [/quote] I fully agree with this. It was counterproductive to place a 13 day of inactivity 'profit barrier' on warring. Honestly, I can't understand why this was done. New [i]active[/i] players are the only possible raid targets, as opposed to inactive ones. Raiders are less likely to stick around when the targets run dry, and peaceful-types are less likely to stick around if their nations are being raided. Removal of the 13 day barrier is the best possible solution...this opens up growth for both spectrums, as raiders will be able to grow through acquirement of stolen goods, and non-raiders will be less prone to being smashed for just being around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 [quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1312611831' post='2773385']But some measures need to be taken to prevent the loss of these new players. I am concerned that many new players get a raider rather than a recruiter as their first contact with the wider CN world and get entirely the wrong impression about CN and leave.[/quote] Every single new nation gets messaged multiple times in its first hours of existence. (It doesn't invalidate your whole reasoning, of course, but I just wanted to point it out.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted August 6, 2011 Report Share Posted August 6, 2011 [quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1312652539' post='2773579'] Every single new nation gets messaged multiple times in its first hours of existence. (It doesn't invalidate your whole reasoning, of course, but I just wanted to point it out.) [/quote] They also have a few days during which they can't be attacked (3 IIRC) and a longer period of free peace mode (7 IIRC) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyt2k Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 I suggest making up your own AA, like "Dave's AA" or something like that, it will dramatically reduce the number of raiders and recruitment PM's your get, as most people search for "NONE" it wont stop everyone but it will cut down on the issues you have Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeBeard Posted August 7, 2011 Report Share Posted August 7, 2011 Poll question is confusing, learn grammar To answer your question: I remember from my old nations and this one - indy nations without alliances don't do well. Deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted August 8, 2011 Report Share Posted August 8, 2011 This aggression isn't unjustified at all, there are years of international legal precedent going into the raider's right to attack you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Carnoly Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 dude, join an alliance, whats the big deal? if they look good try em out. what is the point for being unaligned? it doesnt get you tech deals, doesnt get you trade circles, all it gets u is people raiding you. you are not going to change the mind of planet bob on tech raiding by telling a sob story to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.