Jump to content

NATO Protectorate Agreements


Recommended Posts

On one hand I’m glad legacy AA’s are being protected for their storied history on Planet Bob.

 

On the other hand, dead AA’s are dead and should not be protected. A vast majority of the Display All Alliances page are dead AA’s of bygone eras with nations sitting on them for no reason but to exist. They should go to PM and be done. 
 

That said, o/ NATO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this announcement doesn't show is the community integration we're enjoying and implementing with these AAs.

 

It's more than a protectorate agreement; it's an opportunity for these legacy AAs to become involved in a larger community without compromising a deep loyalty to their original homes.  It's been a real treat for me to see this take place. 

 

Welcome old and new friends in RnR and NAAC.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our goal since we came back to life has been building the best community and the more people we can include in that the more things we have to offer.  We've enjoyed reaching out to our old allies in RnR and fully respect their desire to preserve their well renown AA.  The same goes for NAAC and we have enjoyed working with @LordChozo on some of our blue sphere economics plans including trade circle integration.

 

We are excited to work with them going forward and potentially other AA's that wish to maintain their AA sovereignty but integrate into a larger community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Komplex said:

Some of these small alliances need stop living in the past and group together. 

 

This is their opportunity to do so with our community - a new chapter!  :)

You're right that most people need community in order to be contributors to greater Planet Bob.  AAs with 10 or more members represent approximately 1,790 nations.  There are some micros running around that are active communities trying to make it in Bob and grow, probably another 100-200 nations or so.  So, let's round to 2000 nations that are either part of a self-sufficient AA or actively trying to become one themselves.  That leaves a solid chunk of nations either unaligned (~400) or sitting on tiny AAs just because (~200).

 

Those 200 nations are in the category we're talking about that are aligned in completely stagnant (or disbanded) AAs.  That's 10% of the true 2000 nation player base!

For those 200 nations, we've always had this stalemate between the narratives of "I care about my AA's legacy" and "just move on and actually play with whoever is left."  I'd prefer to see these groups have their cake and eat it too (keep the nostalgia but actually grow and engage in politics), but in practice it never happens.  Making suggestions to move on completely ignores their primary reason for still playing.  Right or wrong, that's the priority.  I won't pretend to understand it, either.  I'm just saying that's their stance and I want to try to work with it/respect it because I think these groups are worth fighting for to keep engaged.

 

Our hope is to stand in that gap: allowing the reason for existing to still remain while filling another need (for community and engagement) that just can't be filled otherwise.

For any stagnant or disbanded AA that doesn't have any desire to engage with community, I agree with you @Komplex.  It's time to give up on them.  But NAAC and RnR aren't in that category, and I'm excited to see how this journey goes!  :)

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...