Jump to content

Do you see the cyberverse dividing into two distinct sides?


Sephiroth
 Share

Recommended Posts

For very long periods of times in CN, there are no distinct sides and only occasional curb stomps. There are usually those with the majority of the treaty web on their side, then the fringe alliances who get curb stomped for not being part of it.

Although there are times when two distinct sides begin to form, when I first started my nation the distinct sides were the Unjust Path (along with their core allies) and NPO (along with their core allies). After that war ended NPO dominated for a while.

With the Karma War, there were two sides which formed once again. There was NPO and the remainders of their allies and those who opposed them.

After the Karma War, for a while we had a multipolar world. SF, Frostbite, CnG, The Citadel, the remains of NPO's former allies who didn't integrate with the other blocs.

Eventually we had SF, CnG and others ally into a power structure including almost all alliances and dominated for a while, although now that power structure has fractured.

What we have now is the remains of the Unjust Path with some of them reformed alliances (now Doom House) and CnG (established by a former Unjust Path alliance) forming one side, along with all there puppets who have dominated for a long time. Is there another distinct side and what do people perceive them as? I hear some from CnG now trying to group NPO, Duckroll, SF and others as being the other side who wants to oppose them. Although are they really a different side or what do people imagine the sides will be in upcoming wars?

Do people think we are reaching a point where the cyberverse is dividing into two powerful coalitions destined to war each other eventually for an epic war or do you guys think another Great War is still a long ways away? If war broke out, who would you want to fight for and what do you think the sides would be? Who would you support and what would you like to see the sides become?

Edited by Methrage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a few paths but we are still stuck on a two course system.

It has to change, but in the end we don't want it to. We all seem to have a want and need to pick a or b. Very very very few are willing to be their own and forge forward as their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many factions in the present system and though they may coagulate in whatever calamity next befalls the world, they will be no more than a side of temporary convenience. Matters would slide back to factions again with unnatural haste.

Edited by Ardus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Havalden' timestamp='1349240844' post='3036940']
If I may ask, who were in the unjust path? Who remains?
[/quote]
The Unjust Path consisted of MK, GOONS, Genmay and TPF. GOONS reformed after disbanding, Genmay reformed into Umbrella, TPF wanted to distance themselves from the Unjust Path after the former GOONS started using OOC information against their enemies. MK was the only one who survived without disbanding and didn't change their ways. The end of the Unjust Path occurred when several leaders of GOONS were no longer part of the game and they alienated their allies by doing some stupid stuff. TPF has distanced themselves ever since and don't seem to want anything to do with the others these days..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good and right side is comprised by:[list]
[*]Me
[*]Moralists (only if they are not listed bellow)
[*]Everyone who agree with me (only if they are not listed bellow)
[*]STA's allies (only if they are not listed bellow)
[/list]
The bad and wrong side is comprised by:[list]
[*]Everyone who disagree with me
[*]Raiders (Except STA)
[*]Bullies
[*]MK
[*]MK's allies
[*]Alliances who aren't allied with MK but enable them
[/list]

OBS: NpO was the leader of opposition against Unjust Path, not NPO.

Edited by D34th
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Havalden' timestamp='1349241674' post='3036946']
I have heard of GOONS before, in EVE Online. I assume they are the same crowd? Thanks for answering btw.
[/quote]
GOONS are legend. However, I hear tales of a dissent among the GOONs. There are rumors of overthrowing their cruel dictator, the great enabler, Sardonic.

Will this truly happen? For the sake of CN, I can only hope so. I'm afraid only time will tell though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1349241173' post='3036943']TPF wanted to distance themselves from the Unjust Path after the former GOONS started using OOC information against their enemies.
[/quote]
Which is hilarious, looking back on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this most recent war was 3 sided, next war will be 2 sided.

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1349243335' post='3036954']
Which is hilarious, looking back on it.
[/quote]
slight difference with people being white nationalists, and carrying a fatal disease.

Edited by Mogar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, the world has been effectively multi polar for a better part of 2 years or so now.

The dynamic is that 3-4 of the groups have a common interest and disperse until something else comes along, or we enter the natural rise and fall of hegemony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1349254928' post='3036969']
Nah, the world has been effectively multi polar for a better part of 2 years or so now.
[/quote]
How would the fall of the hegemony ever happen unless two distinct sides form? I'm not talking about a permanent coalition who lasts beyond the fall of the current hegemony, but for the current hegemony to ever fall another side would need to form to oppose them. Once the war is done I'm sure those who come to together to accomplish a common goal would disperse eventually once that is accomplished and they no longer share a common goal, but I'm not talking about a permanent bipolar world forming. Just two sides concrete enough for a two way war to happen between two distinct sides who are separate long enough for common goals to be realized in defeating the other side before their differences beyond sharing that common goal drive them apart.

SF & CnG were one side long enough to accomplish what they wanted to do, but after accomplishing that the eventual division happened. I'm sure similiar divisions among sides will happen again overtime, but for a while Super Greivences was part of one side even if it wasn't permanent. After they no longer shared a common goal that alliance fell apart, but it didn't change they were part of the same side for a long time until CnG decided to get rid of SF when they didn't have other enemies to go after.

Edited by Methrage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the world is divided into three at the moment. There is group A, Group B, and Group C. Group A and B oppose each other. Group C is the number of alliances that are trying to get their treaties lined up so they can choose the winning side. They fail to realise however that collectively it is group C that will win the next war for either A or B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1349257713' post='3036973']
How would the fall of the hegemony ever happen unless two distinct sides form? I'm not talking about a permanent coalition who lasts beyond the fall of the current hegemony, but for the current hegemony to ever fall another side would need to form to oppose them. Once the war is done I'm sure those who come to together to accomplish a common goal would disperse eventually once that is accomplished and they no longer share a common goal, but I'm not talking about a permanent bipolar world forming. Just two sides concrete enough for a two way war to happen between two distinct sides who are separate long enough for common goals to be realized in defeating the other side before their differences beyond sharing that common goal drive them apart.

SF & CnG were one side long enough to accomplish what they wanted to do, but after accomplishing that the eventual division happened. I'm sure similiar divisions among sides will happen again overtime, but for a while Super Greivences was part of one side even if it wasn't permanent. After they no longer shared a common goal that alliance fell apart, but it didn't change they were part of the same side for a long time until CnG decided to get rid of SF when they didn't have other enemies to go after.
[/quote]

It depends what you would call hegemony. The last two wars were wars of significantly large coalitions with varied interests. While there were certain players who did their utmost to see it through they certainly didn't do it alone.

I think you have the right idea but an overly simplistic view of how many different interests / poles there actually are. It's like when people attempt to claim the only thing going on in "the grudge war," was TOP-Polar. There was a whole hell of a lot more going on.

To answer you -- No, I don't really see people lining up as they have in the past so quickly at the prospect of winning a war. There are enough quiet treaties with larger implications that are coming/will be coming but nothing of the past show where days before you had a string of epic cancellations and signings. Due to the ease of chaining in people through nearly anything these days the hub-ub is much more hushed and redundant FA attachments no longer linger so much as change purpose.

Edited by IYIyTh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1349258035' post='3036975']
I think the world is divided into three at the moment. There is group A, Group B, and Group C. Group A and B oppose each other. Group C is the number of alliances that are trying to get their treaties lined up so they can choose the winning side. They fail to realise however that collectively it is group C that will win the next war for either A or B.
[/quote]
Group A and B oppose each other as you say, the one who will win is whichever is able to get enough of the uncommitted (Group C) onto their side is more how I view it. Group C isn't even a side though, they are just the undecided alliances on which side they want to be on. Since Group C has no unity, they decide nothing other than possibly bandwagoning onto whichever side is the predetermined winner. It depends on the ability of Group A or B to get as many of the uncommitted alliances (Group C as you call it) in order to win. Alliances categorized as Group C aren't a united group, they are just the undecided alliances who will be split among Group A and B when the time comes.

Imagine two countries are at war, then there are the mercenaries who will join whatever side who can convince them to join. The mercenaries can join onto the already winning side if they want, but if they are just joining the already winning side whatever they do has no effect on who actually wins. However if Group A or Group B is more effective in bringing more mercenaries on their side than the other group, then that can give them an edge to win.

Edited by Methrage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two sides. There is the DH and co side and a new side who dont want to be rolled like the others over tha last 3 years. This is a group of alliances getting closer together out of necessity. If they stand alone they will fall under random acts of aggression by DH.

DH still have the majority at the moment and want to roll this new defensive minority before they can fully fend off and reverse the result of a DH war of aggression. Hopefully those alliances who dont like DH or their random wars of aggression will now see there is a real option for them outside the DH hegemony and they can get away from the ultra aggressive DH without being isolated and rolled.


A sanctuary exists

Edited by Alterego
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1349259751' post='3036983']
Group A and B oppose each other as you say, the one who will win is whichever is able to get enough of the uncommitted (Group C) onto their side is more how I view it. Group C isn't even a side though, they are just the undecided alliances on which side they want to be on. Since Group C has no unity, they decide nothing other than possibly bandwagoning onto whichever side is the predetermined winner. It depends on the ability of Group A or B to get as many of the uncommitted alliances (Group C as you call it) in order to win. Alliances categorized as Group C aren't a united group, they are just the undecided alliances who will be split among Group A and B when the time comes.

Imagine two countries are at war, then there are the mercenaries who will join whatever side who can convince them to join. The mercenaries can join onto the already winning side if they want, but if they are just joining the already winning side whatever they do has no effect on who actually wins. However if Group A or Group B is more effective in bringing more mercenaries on their side than the other group, then that can give them an edge to win.
[/quote]I would say that whilst C is not unified, there are unified groups within it, and some of its actions are as though they are unified. We can look at a largish number of them as a group that is seeking to join the winners, even if beyond that there is no formal group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1349258035' post='3036975']
I think the world is divided into three at the moment. There is group A, Group B, and Group C. Group A and B oppose each other. Group C is the number of alliances that are trying to get their treaties lined up so they can choose the winning side. They fail to realise however that collectively it is group C that will win the next war for either A or B.
[/quote]
I don't think groups A and B are as far apart in the web as you're implying or that either of them is willing enough to cut a deal with group C to take down the other one. This dynamic has definitely occurred before, I just don't see it happening right now.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1349258467' post='3036979']
It depends what you would call hegemony. The last two wars were wars of significantly large coalitions with varied interests. While there were certain players who did their utmost to see it through they certainly didn't do it alone.

I think you have the right idea but an overly simplistic view of how many different interests / poles there actually are. It's like when people attempt to claim the only thing going on in "the grudge war," was TOP-Polar. There was a whole hell of a lot more going on.

To answer you -- No, I don't really see people lining up as they have in the past so quickly at the prospect of winning a war. There are enough quiet treaties with larger implications that are coming/will be coming but nothing of the past show where days before you had a string of epic cancellations and signings. Due to the ease of chaining in people through nearly anything these days the hub-ub is much more hushed and redundant FA attachments no longer linger so much as change purpose.
[/quote]
As "people" (nice to see I'm plural - of course we all know BN is a bunch of multis...), I wasn't saying that at all. I was saying it was the trigger event, as well as almost certainly the biggest single agenda anyone had going into that war. Not the only one by any means. Valhalla/BN vs. GOD, Legacy/DT vs. CSN, FAN vs. NPO (ha), NPO and friends vs. XX, etc. Where you place various alliances into that narrative is up to you, pretty much. Enough of this though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1349258035' post='3036975']
I think the world is divided into three at the moment. There is group A, Group B, and Group C. Group A and B oppose each other. Group C is the number of alliances that are trying to get their treaties lined up so they can choose the winning side. They fail to realise however that collectively it is group C that will win the next war for either A or B.
[/quote]
This is literally every war in history. Everyone worth their salt knows this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now, unless there is a direct conflict among the alliances within the vast coallition that formed the winning side the last war nothing will change.

There are 2 treaties that prevented any form of a multipolar world or at least 2 sides with even numbers: TOP and MK and NPO and TLR.

There is no way to defeat NG-DH-PF-CnG-NPO&co it is just not mathematically possible.

Edited by King Louis the II
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1349259970' post='3036984']
There are two sides. There is the DH and co side and a new side who dont want to be rolled like the others over tha last 3 years. This is a group of alliances getting closer together out of necessity. If they stand alone they will fall under random acts of aggression by DH.

DH still have the majority at the moment and want to roll this new defensive minority before they can fully fend off and reverse the result of a DH war of aggression. Hopefully those alliances who dont like DH or their random wars of aggression will now see there is a real option for them outside the DH hegemony and they can get away from the ultra aggressive DH without being isolated and rolled.


A sanctuary exists
[/quote]

Random acts of aggression? My dear Ego, I call my shots long in advance and they were hardly random, though I understand a bank can seem the product of providence to those who do not actually play geopolitical billiards.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...