NPO: Better With or Without?

[Darvel]

Bob is not better off with the loss of any alliance

So the ideal CN has the greatest number of alliances possible?

[Unko Kalaikz]

This game would be terribly boring without NPO.

[Näktergal]

So the ideal CN has the greatest number of alliances possible?

Personally, I think the idea would be if CN had 2437 alliances, and only defensive pacts. Then again, I'm one of those sick people who thinks CN would be better off more as a political/economic simulator then as a war game where people have to fight over who has the biggest ePeen every few months.

[njndirish]

When CK, LUE, and NAAC left it was much more boring, the same would go for the Order's disappearance. You won't miss em till they are gone. The need for two sides is what drove CN between GWI and GWIII and as soon as it disappeared, CN became boring.

[baseballer790]

It sure would be an interesting change.

[Mister Roboto]

Voted yes, simply because they are too consistent. CN is way funner without a consistent alliance on top.

[Remaliat]

No, the New Pacific Order remain a community of nations that this game needs. Good or bad, it doesn't matter what matters is that those anti-NPO forces have someone to blame besides each other.

[Trinite]

Without NPO on top absolutely. Without NPO, no way.

I think those who want to wipe NPO out should think long and hard about pushing for it because there will be more than a little resistance to such a goal. I'm pretty confident that if alliances push for the total destruction of anyone in the hegemony, there will be a split in Karma, and those looking for destruction could find karma to be a two way street.

[Blacky]

Better without them on top.

[Zoli]

yes

[Anarcho Jesse]

Neither, and I say it for this reason-- as an organization, it has the right to exist. For that, it shouldn't be abolished. However, their behavior is certainly something that cannot be let go by, so the only solution I can think for that is simply reducing them to zero infrastructure.

In the future, instances like today could be best avoided if when alliances made broad sweeps for power (like the Moldavi and Revenge Doctrines), each other alliance should step up and say "That won't stand". Liberty, should always come first.

[Salaman]

Maybe my opinion doesn't count for much as a more recent player, but when I started playing I was kind of disgusted that the state of the game was such that one alliance held so much sway and could basically dismantle other alliances at their whim and only face a few muffled squeaks of outrage (if that). The whole idea of playing a game doing little more than living in the shadow of an "evil empire" wasn't totally appealing and it felt like a waste of time on more occasion since it seemed like I was playing a game that someone had already won. I'm glad to have stuck with it long enough to maybe see that all come to an end though.

Anyways, seeing so many people put them up on the mantle as the heart and soul of this game or other such nonsense just tells me that they do need to go (or be knocked down about a dozen pegs). I'm of the opinion that it's the individual personalities of the players that give life to a community and having some behemoth organization that can quash any opposition just stifles the development of other personalities that aren't aligned with their own and ultimately makes the game and its community a dull place.

So yeah, maybe I've only seen them at their worst or maybe the older players are wearing their nostalgia glasses but that's my perspective on it.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Salaman

[Swimmer]

It would be interesting to see the NPO climb back to the top after this. The dynamics of that rise would yield so many possibilities: maneuvering, revenge, containment, etcetera. I wonder how much of a setback this war will be for them.

[Ebony Wings]

It would be interesting to see the NPO climb back to the top after this. The dynamics of that rise would yield so many possibilities: maneuvering, revenge, containment, etcetera. I wonder how much of a setback this war will be for them.

NPO was allowed to rebuild without much oversight the first time, and the results of that leniency were not good. I imagine that Pacifica's growth and prosperity will be monitored quite strictly this time around.

[gorgon]

778 votes so far, lets keep it going

[Thierra]

I vaguely remember similar polls about GOONS and \m/... and more generally, polls about a world without UJP.

You know what happened when the left the scene? The world got a lot less interesting.

Alliance death is a sad fate, and it should be avoided at all costs. No matter how much you hate an alliance's leaders and history, wishing its removal from the Cyberverse is cruel, stupid, and short-sighted.

[James Davis]

Voted no. Planet Bob lives and dies on drama, action, and conflict. Why do you think the nation totals have fallen ~25% since TI won GWIII? We'd see a similar effect if NPO ceased to exist, or rather, ceased to be relevant. They are such an outstanding bad guy, Planet Bob needs them to be present and relevant. Now, if the question was "is it high time they got taken down a peg" then my answer would be a bit different.

[Vasili Markov]

Imagine if you will gentle person, a CN world where the NPO never existed.

There are 5000 players on the game.

New players are regularly tech raided and kept at low stats because there is no safe haven from the raiders, these players usually become discouraged and quit the game and give CN a poor reputation amongst the wider gaming community who stay away from it.

A few players with established nations have small alliances for mutual protection against huge well organised tech raiding alliances of up to 50 nations (considered huge by the standards of the game)

Consider the positive influence that the NPO has had on the game over the game, by opposing tech raiding alliances and providing a safe haven in the red sphere the game has become more newbie friendly and its player base has grown substantially as positive word of mouth from players has attracted their friends to the game and with the improved player base donations have risen allowing Admin to take the time to add in new and exciting features to the game.

CN has benefited considerably from the influence of the NPO and the CN world will be poorer place if they ever left.

[Incitatus]

Love 'em or hate 'em, NPO is good for the game. I'm glad that in this war they will (hopefully) be on the losing side. But we need an alliance to play the bad guy and NPO has done that well for many years.

I would disappointed if NPO ever disbanded.

[NEWBert]

For the amount of alliances that still tech raid small, new nations, it's amazing how many people still don't stand against it. The red sphere has been a safe haven for quite some time. The red sphere may belong to the NPO, but it's always a safe haven for new or homeless nations.

Anyways, despite the random people that decide they'll hate NPO this month, there's been a lot of good that's came out of the Pacifica camp. And just because NPO is willing to take a stand or fight for what they believe is right, does not make them into some war mongrel alliance that fights purely to kill.

[Sir BigDaddy]

So how long till it's ok to tech raid unaligned reds? Since I doubt NPO can save them from raids....well right now anyways

Not that I even tech raid

Edited April 26, 2009 by Sir BigDaddy

[Bob Ilyani]

yes, it would.

[Gears of War]

Yes, Planet Bob would be better off without the NPO.

[Duke of Cool]

I think that it would be interesting to see NPO get knocked down quite a few notches, but climb back on top. Fun to watch.

[Enzos]

with or without them? Will there really any change for the individual If NPO loses it's #1 spot? On red, Sure. but for other spheres no.