Jump to content

The Free Steve Accords


Recommended Posts

I've sort of quit playing TE very much, as release from terms in Standard Edition allowed me to focus once again on the alliance I lead on Planet Bob. I'm not sure who started the treaty spamming fest that seems to have choked up this game, but I think it was Murder Inc. I made sure that Crimson Empire was not outdone, and many other alliance leaders did the same. We quickly wove a rather dense and intertwined MDP web... which has still endured to this day. I don't believe anyone bothers to cancel treaties in TE. >.>

Fortunately, I have seen what I believe is a way out of this quagmire in the next round. We need to work together to ensure that treaties do not blot out the sun next round. The only practical way I see to do this is to create a treaty based on preventing such a web from forming. Simply put, The Free Steve Accords or TFSA proposes to wholly and utterly ban any other treaties from forming. It is neither a mutual defense or nonaggression pact, or any conventional treaty of any kind, but merely a mutual aggression pact which will be used ONLY against alliances which sign treaties of any kind with one another. It is my goal to convince all or most of the major alliances to sign TFSA, such that it constitutes a hegemonic and unbreakable framework of law for the Cyberverse. Joining will be completely open to any alliance which wishes to join.

TFSA will reduce the number of alliances in the Cyberverse next round, increase the number of players, and breed competition. It will represent a paradigm shift to the status quo of politics in both TE, and perhaps if it works well, in Standard as well. It will actually encourage politics, particularly internal politics, within alliances.

Any alliance leaders who wish to sign this document may do so by posting in this thread.

:ph34r:

/s/ Chaotic Evil, Blood Emperor Emeritus, Crimson Empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MI can not and will not support something like this. I think your goal is noble enough, but the route you take to get their is...lacking.

See while MI can be pointed as the first major alliance to actively sign treaties (i won't deny this for a second) at a faster pace than most, we're hardly responsible for proliferating that. We had our treaties set and we kept them, opting our of creating further treaties.

We knew who our allies were, and so did everyone else. We had set up the game to polarize itself and, to my dismay, that only worked half way.

To the credit of CE you guys did good job of starting the counter bloc that would eventually topple MI. Whether this was your intention or not, i don't know, but at some point people started to cross the treaty web and make things more complicated. Once the opposition was largely pacified (MI and allies) the treaty web just became a ridiculous mess that had no defined shape.

It always has been, and wil continue to be, my goal to have a polarized tournament edition. One with opposing ideologies and large even wars. Judgement V MI was the closest we've come so far to this end. Hopefully round 3 will afford us an opportunity to re-polarize the world and really show off the fun that TE can bring to the table.

The only question is, will people be keeping treaties at re-set? if so, i fear that the world won't polarize again :(

for the record MI will be keeping a select few treaties, but will do its part to ensure that the treaty web isn't convoluted next round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A game without treaties is about as boring as a game with too many. All it takes is someone to form something organized, and someone to form something opposed with equal organization or better. Then you've got a game worth paying attention too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about having some sort of limit? You can only choose 5 of your closest allies and have treaties with them. For others, its a verbal kinda thing, not written down as a treaty.

I don't think it would be fun limiting the potential for player's to do anything. This would just cause further stagnation down the road. The way to fix thing's is simple, don't become complacent with just being peaceful. Try to get to the top, and do what you need too get there. Sure some won't like being stepped on, but this is TE and it's a game. It's just a mindset, people have that needs to break if we want entertainment.

Imagine if everyone had the balls to go for the gold instead of settling for the bronze. Now that's a game that would be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mutual defense agreement is not a requirement for an alliance to go to war. And I imagine that without open treaties, there would still be secret treaties. Of course, not honoring a secret treaty doesn't make an alliance look bad, so there would be a whole different set of rules that would go with them. And of course, some of the secret treaties would be discovered and the offenders both curbstomped for a week. T'would be delightful.

Don't imagine that there will not be large wars without treaties. There will in fact be more wars. The smaller alliances will of course be the first to be brutally curbstomped into oblivion, so alliances with large member counts will predominate. I imagine that a world without treaties would force a lot of mergers. :D

A world without treaties is by definition a world where every alliance strives to be number 1.

But of course an MDP web does add a few interesting things. What if, say, treaties were forbidden until a month into the round? To allow time for smaller alliances to be curbstomped, so that a simpler web would be created, and give people time to think about who they wanted to side with rather than being forced to spam treaties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, TE would be a better place if everyone just had the balls to try to win it all, individually and as alliances. No complacency, but outright gunning for the lead, or the lead gunning to take down second place. muahahaha

Edit: Tons of treaties don't help. None ain't gonna work neither. To me, IDIOT played it pretty nicely. No treaties whatsoever until one became necessary. Then only one. Then a very nice matchup, actually with IDIOT and Co at a disadvantage, but a superior strategy and will to last (assuming it's not a loss to merge into Murder Inc. when AirMe has twins...).

Edited by JoshuaR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, TE would be a better place if everyone just had the balls to try to win it all, individually and as alliances. No complacency, but outright gunning for the lead, or the lead gunning to take down second place. muahahaha

Edit: Tons of treaties don't help. None ain't gonna work neither. To me, IDIOT played it pretty nicely. No treaties whatsoever until one became necessary. Then only one. Then a very nice matchup, actually with IDIOT and Co at a disadvantage, but a superior strategy and will to last (assuming it's not a loss to merge into Murder Inc. when AirMe has twins...).

the IDIOT/Murder Inc MADP was probably the greatest thing to happen to this game, we kicked the world's $@!.

good times, good times....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal stance is that restrictive treaties would be a bad thing. In this round, MHA signed many treaties very early on because of lack of treaties in round 2. When I took over, I personally signed a few more though most are NAPs. Hence we have 13 signed of which 2 are NAPs. CNte is a testing ground for theories and ideas. The current war in CNte is the closest thing we have to a polarized war of ideals, but Josh said it best "Tons of treaties don't help. None ain't gonna work neither."

We can only play with the cards we are dealt. This round had complex treaty webs, who knows what the next round holds.

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...