T Paine Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 Over the past few months, I have personally seen multiple alliances cancel treaties or sever ties with another alliance at the first sign of danger. My question is, is this really true friendship? Supposedly, among all these treaties are a bunch of friends just showing that they are truly friends, say !@#$ like "we r in da luv", and then a month later, they break apart. Is this friendship, or just political BS? Personally, I believe strongly that friends do not need treaties to defend each other, and that friends do not bail after their "friends" were attacked, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omgitshim Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 I agree, alliances seem to only care for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealingPandas Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 I agree, you do not need a treaty to help a friend. Though you do usually get flamed for doing so, and I think that scares some people. I think treaties are usually political, and ones based on friendships only are bad ideas. Most treaties get broken, and breaking a treaty based on friendship can damage or destroy that relationship. If they really are your friend, don't sign a treaty. you can still help them out, or choose not to without the harming effect of canceling/not abiding by a treaty. I was thinking about making a similar topic about personal friendships, and if anyone actually considers people that they have met here as friends. I thought about this after a recent event between to people that I consider friends, one quit the game and made an action that offended the other. The one who quit said something along the lines of "who cares, its just a game. We're not really friends, you're just some guy on the internet." I consider most of the people that I'm closer to in the game to be friends. I don't care if I've met them in real life or not, if I feel that I know someone well enough then I can consider them to be a friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theArrowheadian Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 (edited) There is no incentive for alliances to care about other alliances. If they did then they would be in the same alliance. A friendship found on business is a beautiful thing, but a business founded on friendship is foolish thing. Edited December 19, 2009 by theArrowheadian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 There is no incentive for alliances to care about other alliances. If they did then they would be in the same alliance.A friendship found on business is a beautiful thing, but a business founded on friendship is foolish thing. It's called "your word". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theArrowheadian Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 It's called "your word". What are you talking about? I never said treaties were dumb I just said that they're mutual security measures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 There is no incentive for alliances to care about other alliances. If they did then they would be in the same alliance.A friendship found on business is a beautiful thing, but a business founded on friendship is foolish thing. It's not surprising you think that way given your history. I'm of the belief if you truly like a friend enough, no matter what, it's not even a question you stick with them to the end. Friends aren't there when things are going fine, they're there when things are going bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 What are you talking about? I never said treaties were dumb I just said that they're mutual security measures. Your response to the OP was that there is no incentive for alliances to stick with each other when things get difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealingPandas Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 A treaty built on friendship can be a very fragile thing though. If you remember FIRE, we had several treaties, but all were based on friendship. Not alliance-wide friendships, just Carter's friendships with leaders. When the coup happened and he was banned, all of those treaties got canceled because they were hanging by the thread of his personal relationships the whole time. Also, when the time comes for the defense part of some treaties to come into play the treaty gets so stressed that there is just as much of a chance of it being canceled rather than activated. Its all about politics, and unfortunately being friends is not the way to succeed. Not that it isn't nice to have friends, because they can still help you out whether you have a treaty or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 I would just like to get in before all the ODN jokes and all the TOP jokes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 You should have been around when you were expected to drop your treaties at the first sign of danger. Only the spineless remnants of that era are what you see being despicable now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 Where've you been for the last 3 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khalai Protoss Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 I think that some alliances just aren't careful enough about who the ally themselves with. Really, if you aren't great friends and wouldn't take a bullet for the other, don't sign a serious treaty with them. That's what NAPs and PIATs are for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 I think that some alliances just aren't careful enough about who the ally themselves with. Really, if you aren't great friends and wouldn't take a bullet for the other, don't sign a serious treaty with them. That's what NAPs and PIATs are for. Didn't you hear? MDP is the new NAP. MDoAP if you happen to communicate with more than just the leader, perhaps the MoFA and a couple members too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khalai Protoss Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 Didn't you hear? MDP is the new NAP. MDoAP if you happen to communicate with more than just the leader, perhaps the MoFA and a couple members too. It's a shame, but you're correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anenu Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 if your not ready to fight for each other and will cancel at the threat of danger then you where not friends. If you are willing to fight for each other then it doesn't matter if you have an ODP or a MDAP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 (edited) Agreed, treaties are too trivial anymore. Alliances sign them like they they're signing up for a free raffle. edit: didn't like my wording, replaced alliances with treaties. Edited December 19, 2009 by supercoolyellow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 My question is, is this really true friendship? Of course not. I think you know that from the wording of your question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 (edited) There is no incentive for alliances to care about other alliances. If they did then they would be in the same alliance.A friendship found on business is a beautiful thing, but a business founded on friendship is foolish thing. So what you're saying is people would honour treaties and get themselves destroyed based on business but not for friendship? That makes no sense at all. Edited December 19, 2009 by Kindom of Goon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 (edited) Everyone complains about the web entanglement and the stagnation, however, you all are apart of it. You all contribute to the new era of signing treaties like Tiger Woods plays naked freeze tag with his mistresses. Friendship is not written on paper, nor shall it ever. Real friendship is brotherhood; through thick and thin. My alliance will NEVER have more than 1-2 treaties because I refuse to participate in our political problem [note: Most likely, it'll be one]. I do not wish to be seen as an alliance with too many treaties who are unable to truly help their allies. When my friends make a mistake or someone is about to pulverize them, we would fail as an alliance if my friends need to worry and wonder whether my dozens of other treaties will keep us from assisting them. I want my allies to say "That is Ej and the Ninjas, they are down with us no matter what." As a friend and ally, I wish to dedicate everything I have, rather than the moronic, "Well, we will help mediate your situation." Friendship is not written in stone, but rather the true spirit exists at all times. And if we become close close friends somehow to an alliance with no treaty, we will be there to assist them. Spirit is more important than stone, because stone will interfere with your spirit. So what you're saying is people would honour treaties and get themselves destroyed based on business but not for friendship? That makes no sense at all. It does make sense. Some people sign treaties more so for business or strategical planning rather than true friendship. Whether a treaty is signed for friendship or business, some will still follow a treaty because a treaty bounds your word. It is your honor. Apparently it's a big deal these days. In some cases, yes, people will be destroyed because of this reasoning. In many cases however, some will betray you, try to form a moralistic reasoning as to why, present it to Bob, and save their own @#$%. It depends on how well they can manipulate the situation and who their puppets are. Edited December 19, 2009 by Ejayrazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 It does make sense. Some people sign treaties more so for business or strategical planning rather than true friendship. Whether a treaty is signed for friendship or business, some will still follow a treaty because a treaty bounds your word. It is your honor. Apparently it's a big deal these days. Yeah I get that part. What I'm trying to say is if an alliance is going to break a treaty because they don't think friendship is a good enough reason for going into a war as he suggested, then why would it be any different for a treaty based on business? If anything treatying someone for tactical reasons means its far less likely they'll stick by you through the hard times, as then you turn into a liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 Yeah I get that part. What I'm trying to say is if an alliance is going to break a treaty because they don't think friendship is a good enough reason for going into a war as he suggested, then why would it be any different for a treaty based on business? If anything treatying someone for tactical reasons means its far less likely they'll stick by you through the hard times, as then you turn into a liability. You have a valid reason, which has explanation. Some alliances sign with everyone in near sight. It use to be a taboo, now it's a norm. Well, it never was actually considered a taboo until a new wave of annoyed ranters hit the forums -- which I find myself doing these days pertaining to the treaty entanglement. I agree, they are less likely to follow their word as I stated, but usually these kind of people take only themselves into consideration. One could argue if these selfish alliances even possess true friends, as they truly only seek their own destination and aren't willing to lose their precious stats. I will have an ally or two the most, because when !@#$ hits the fan -- even if it is their fault, I will be these fighting with EVERY ounce of blood. Depending on what occurs, the timing to 'review who are true friends' comes AFTER, not BEFORE a war, or during one. People need to recognize this and stop !@#$%*ing about the political system when they are actively contributing to their own headaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facade Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 I agree, alliances seem to only care for themselves. Alliances will only care for themselves. It is illogical for them to do anything else. You do not form an alliance for the sole intention of protecting someone else's interests. Whether this is good or bad is up to you to decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 Alliances will only care for themselves. It is illogical for them to do anything else. You do not form an alliance for the sole intention of protecting someone else's interests. Whether this is good or bad is up to you to decide. Then we defy your logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxNation Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 Over the past few months, I have personally seen multiple alliances cancel treaties or sever ties with another alliance at the first sign of danger. My question is, is this really true friendship? Supposedly, among all these treaties are a bunch of friends just showing that they are truly friends, say !@#$ like "we r in da luv", and then a month later, they break apart.Is this friendship, or just political BS? Personally, I believe strongly that friends do not need treaties to defend each other, and that friends do not bail after their "friends" were attacked, etc. far too often people sign treaties because the two .gov's are friends, guess what gov's change, or your ambassdor rocks so yeah lets sign a treaty, yet the rest of the alliance you are linking to sucks... or they are just for politics. No matter the reason everyone comes here cheering it and being like omg BFF4lyfe! It's crap most of the time. The only people you should sign a treaty with, are those you would defend even if you didn't have a treaty and were sure to be crushed. 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.