890765 Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 I noticed something interesting when I was reading 890765's post. A lot of folk have been decrying the OP's intent as being opressive of the freedom of people to start their own alliances if they so wish.Freedom goes both ways, though. If he wants to attack, then he has every bit of a right to do so as a micro-alliance has to its DoE. ... You hit the nail on the head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikMark Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) Obviously, I think this is a bad idea. However, this is just my personal opinion. Every alliance has the possibility to attack another alliance. If your alliance feels that it should attack 'mini-alliances' (whatever the definition of that may be), go ahead. I do think an important question here is; how would the TS, and all in favor of 'attacking mini-alliances', define the term 'mini-alliance' or 'micro alliance'? Edited August 3, 2009 by ikMark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
890765 Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 This thread made me, lol.A lot of people need to go read "A Modest Proposal" then take another swing at reading this thread. It is quite a good read, however my writings are not satirical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahman Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Obviously, I think this is a bad idea. However, this is just my personal opinion. Every alliance has the possibility to attack another alliance. If your alliance feels that it should attack 'mini-alliances' (whatever the definition of that may be), go ahead. I do think an important question here is; how would the TS, and all in favor of 'attacking mini-alliances', define the term 'mini-alliance'? Under a certain threshold. I'm thinking, less than 25 members, less than 100k strength, over 2 weeks old. SEE I'M GIVING ALLIANCES A CHANCE! they get two weeks to get over 25 members, or a few large members. UED did it (props to KDII), so can you. oh, and an ANS that's in an attack-able range! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fupresti Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 All alliances start somewhere. I am sorry you have decided to post your ill advised and retarded ideas on the OWF to embarrass your alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teh Chad Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 It would be interesting if there was a limit on how many alliance affiliations that can exist in the game, though. Imagine.. alliances would have to fight to exist. TOTALLY not realistic, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahman Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) Oh, another necessity for the checklist of "attackable"! Relative unknown person creating an alliance. What about those Elephant dudes that attacked IRON. If they'd been DoWed by a tech raider, that lulzfest would have never happened! Plus, this strikes the two "small" alliances of tLC and early-NSO. Edited August 3, 2009 by shahman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaarlaamp Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 I agree with the TS. Let's kill all the mini-alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanadrin Failing Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Out of curiosity, what would you hope to gain from attacking all of the mini-alliances out there? You sure as hell wouldn't gain the members for your own alliance... They'd be driven to your enemies or away from the game entirely. If you're annoyed about the number of DoE's, then you'd need to try to keep an alliance from forming in the first place. that'd be difficult, if not impossible to accomplish. Given the lack of tangible benefits, I'd assume that it's just 'for teh lulz' as has been mentioned. "War's over, who's next?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Oh, another necessity for the checklist of "attackable"!Relative unknown person creating an alliance. What about those Elephant dudes that attacked IRON. If they'd been DoWed by a tech raider, that lulzfest would have never happened! Plus, this strikes the two "small" alliances of tLC and early-NSO. You really should stop posting. The whole is deep enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Wally Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Typically, genocides make other small alliances run in fear that they will be next. Stick to your idea that people will come to help you without a treaty. Its unfortunate, but they won't. ... dont worry about that I'd have all the treay's signed and posted personally myself, i would have a few dozzen in my head already I could get to you tomorrow if you needed them... I think you forget that the majority of highly motivated CN gamers are not the ones who make up the numbers at superalliances but the ones who get their hands dirty and go out and make their own... trust me it aint bludging inactives that form all these micro alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpdogg Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) Obviously, I think this is a bad idea. However, this is just my personal opinion. Every alliance has the possibility to attack another alliance. If your alliance feels that it should attack 'mini-alliances' (whatever the definition of that may be), go ahead. IC: His alliance has nothing to do with this...and we certainly won't be attacking anyone. Edited August 4, 2009 by Grumpdogg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamino Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 We've had many new (an unnecessary) alliances popping up during the summer. What to do with them? Well,I've had this idea bouncing around my head for a short while. I have now decided I want to show my idea to the general CN community.DoW these mini alliances, and cause disbandment. EDIT: this is an OOC forum, this does not reflect on what I want Polaris to do in any way or form! I thought we just got done with this issue! I thought this was one of the reasons NPO just got bent over for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpdogg Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Foremost it is important to note that Open World RP's main forum is OOC while the two subforums are both IC. I again encourage you to read the guidelines as those have been redefined for these forums. 'Nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Where's the profit in attacking an alliance that is almost certain to disband in less than a week? Instead, force their members to stay in their alliance and make them your paying vassals. If they don't like that then you can destroy them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 I noticed something interesting when I was reading 890765's post. A lot of folk have been decrying the OP's intent as being opressive of the freedom of people to start their own alliances if they so wish.Freedom goes both ways, though. If he wants to attack, then he has every bit of a right to do so as a micro-alliance has to its DoE. You hit the nail on the head. This is the mindset that put us under the heel of the NPO for nearly 3 years. The real question is whether the world is yet ready to -- if it ever will be -- make the right choices by stepping up to defend those unjustly attacked. On the whole, I think "not". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikMark Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) IC: His alliance has nothing to do with this...and we certainly won't be attacking anyone. Well I was not saying the alliance had anything to do with this. I was simply saying that IF his alliance feels the same way, go ahead. If not, why is he bringing it up in the first place? To let other alliances attack 'mini-alliances'? Let them do the dirty work? If you can't even convince the people in your own alliance of your 'wonderful idea', why would someone else be convinced and execute it for you? Edited August 4, 2009 by ikMark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Im sorry, its the other way around. All these large and established alliances are causing stagnation, how about all us smaller newer alliances form a coalition with the goal of forcing these alliances to split into many mini alliances. WE CAN DO IT!!!</sarcasm> I'm working on Sparta ... brick by brick... that's how the wall comes down! Anyway, new alliances often end up being sort of like farm teams for the bigger ones. After a few months of toil on the part of alliance leaders, they often get absorbed into another big alliance and the cream of the crop probably end up getting a government post or something. New alliances are a great way to get more back-end experience with running an alliance and so I think constitute a necessary part of the circle of life here on Planet Bob. I like new alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Under a certain threshold. I'm thinking, less than 25 members, less than 100k strength, over 2 weeks old. SEE I'M GIVING ALLIANCES A CHANCE! they get two weeks to get over 25 members, or a few large members. UED did it (props to KDII), so can you. oh, and an ANS that's in an attack-able range! While I am all for free speech as much as the next guy, at this point its almost as if you are enjoying the !@#$storm you are causing. No one likes your idea and alot of folks are going to try and use what you are saying against your alliance even if doing so is wrong. Be responsible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Xander the Only Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 While I am all for free speech as much as the next guy, at this point its almost as if you are enjoying the !@#$storm you are causing. No one likes your idea and alot of folks are going to try and use what you are saying against your alliance even if doing so is wrong. Be responsible. Why shouldn't he enjoy it? He's having fun, and that's what matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
890765 Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) Out of curiosity, what would you hope to gain from attacking all of the mini-alliances out there?You sure as hell wouldn't gain the members for your own alliance... They'd be driven to your enemies or away from the game entirely. If you're annoyed about the number of DoE's, then you'd need to try to keep an alliance from forming in the first place. that'd be difficult, if not impossible to accomplish. Given the lack of tangible benefits, I'd assume that it's just 'for teh lulz' as has been mentioned. "War's over, who's next?" Tangible benefits: small amounts of land/tech, and more members who are joining your alliance instead of starting their own. Intangible benefits: a reputation for being ruthless, power, and most importantly, fun/lulz. Where's the profit in attacking an alliance that is almost certain to disband in less than a week? Instead, force their members to stay in their alliance and make them your paying vassals. If they don't like that then you can destroy them. Sort of the philosophy I believe in, but first strike attacks are necessary, otherwise the smaller alliance would jump into peace mode, and you would have no way to enforce your lordship. This is the mindset that put us under the heel of the NPO for nearly 3 years. The real question is whether the world is yet ready to -- if it ever will be -- make the right choices by stepping up to defend those unjustly attacked. On the whole, I think "not". History is written by the victors. Had Karma lost the war, they would have been portrayed as evil rebel scum. Now that NPO has lost, everyone feels free to call their actions unjust. This is the wrong thread to discuss that whole story though. Following this philosophy, I give you this argument: As a lord of a small tech farm, I would be saving the small nations from being pulled under the influence of an evil or inefficient alliance, while offering protection. All I ask in return is that they give me technology as payment. A small price to pay in exchange for their livelihood. Why shouldn't he enjoy it? He's having fun, and that's what matters. Need I say more? Edited August 4, 2009 by 890765 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 As a lord of a small tech farm, I would be saving the small nations from being pulled under the influence of an evil or inefficient alliance, while offering protection. All I ask in return is that they give me technology as payment. A small price to pay in exchange for their livelihood. I don't even need to explain why that is complete and utter hogwash. You're helping the poor little fellow? Now that might work on you and yours, I mean, even you got to justify your actions to yourself, but I ain't buying it. Evil? Inefficient? They can find out on their own, and leave if they wish. What you'd be doing is simply just extortion. As plain as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
890765 Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 I don't even need to explain why that is complete and utter hogwash. You're helping the poor little fellow? Now that might work on you and yours, I mean, even you got to justify your actions to yourself, but I ain't buying it. Evil? Inefficient? They can find out on their own, and leave if they wish. What you'd be doing is simply just extortion. As plain as that. There is no leaving my lordship. One you are put to work on my tech farms, you can't leave until you buy your freedom, (1500 tech sent out through 3m/150 deals) or I let you off early. I have no need to justify anything. If you wish to let small nations run around as they please, go ahead. I believe that educating them and protecting them is the way to go. Even if it means a little hands on teaching, I cannot let them fall into the trap of joining or starting a new alliance. It isn't extortion, it is education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 There is no leaving my lordship. One you are put to work on my tech farms, you can't leave until you buy your freedom, (1500 tech sent out through 3m/150 deals) or I let you off early. I have no need to justify anything. If you wish to let small nations run around as they please, go ahead. I believe that educating them and protecting them is the way to go. Even if it means a little hands on teaching, I cannot let them fall into the trap of joining or starting a new alliance. It isn't extortion, it is education. Your compassionate nature astounds me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
890765 Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 Your compassionate nature astounds me. I do my best to look out for my fellow nations on planet bob. 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.