no topic needede

[Fantastico]

without alliance / communities established this game wouldn't be fun for most. I think I speak for at least half and the half that has been playing this game longer when I say I would quit if there was no alliance play. No one is a. forcing anyone to be in an alliance b. forcing you to fight a war c. forcing you to do much of anything.

Alliances have just formed to make it easier on one another and create an environment in which it is fun to play the game. If your in an alliance in which you don't like then simply switch. You can be a successful individual nation in whatever realm (See: LiquidMercy, Ivan Moldavi, etc.) it just becomes much easier when nations work together.

Pretty sure I agree with all of that. Hope I did not scare our friend away will my poor sense of humour.

[Jens of the desert]

I thought you were leaving, oh well.

It's not called cyberalliances because you are in control of one nation, not an alliance (in its entirety).

The alliances that both recruit you, and are allowed to raid (GASP) are not doing anything hypocritical, it's like protection money, but instead of money, you join us.

[Poyplemonkeys]

so your saying that fighting for an alliance that you just joined, whom you know no one in and they use you as a tech farm is more honorable then fighting for your nation that you yourself built?

what im saying is, where is the "nations" in "cybeernations"?

You're in the wrong alliance if that is the case

[Edit: Suppose it makes sense to elaborate on that further]

There are tons of alliances out there, some more strict with a member's right to individuality than others. At the end of the day it's all about finding an alliance that fits what you want from this game, and not judging other people that have found their place elsewhere because they're looking for different things. There are alliances out there who focus mainly on the community they've developed with their members that make issues like fighting for people you don't know irrelevant.

There's alliances out there for everyone, no need to be disillusioned because there are alliances of people that want something different to you from this game.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Poyplemonkeys

[BamaBuc]

Expanding on what Mathias said a bit... Imagine that CN was just nations and no alliances. Now say some guy starts attacking me, but I can't beat him. Then I get an idea: I'll call some friends and we'll join up to beat this guy! And if anyone attacks any of us in the future, we'll help each other out. Maybe we could even help each other with trading, tech dealing, and economic growth. We could assign someone to recruit other nations to join, and someone else to deal with foreign nations. But wait... The guy who was attacking me is doing the same thing! Crap, we'd better get more friends. Look, there's some other people who are doing what we're doing. Let's get them to help us out. We'll promise to defend them too. Dangit... Our enemies have friends too. But hold on... Our friends say they know some other people who can help. Maybe if all our groups fight together, we can win.

What I'm getting at here is that factionalism is natural, especially in an environment where there's no government to look after you (such as in games like CN). As long as it is advantageous for humans to form factions, we will do so. And in CN, it's very advantageous. Alliances, treaties, and blocs are here to stay.

-Bama

[Lord Boris]

all this being said, why isnt "cybernations"-"cyberalliances"?

For the same reason it's apparently 'omgitshim' and not 'makerofdumbtopics'

[BraveNewWorld]

If you read the OP carefully, it is not opposition to alliances per se, but opposition to alliances in which a nation really has no meaning.

edit: I see the OP responded on a tangent from the OP, so I'll assume responsibility for the argument in my post then

If you are in an alliance in which a nation really has no meaning you are in the wrong alliance.

[kpcurley]

Best post in ages! The typical alliance mentality is boring, thats one of the reason we started BACoN a few weeks ago. After doing the alliance ring for a few years, we decided to make a group with more lulz, less logic, and less drama.

[PrideAssassin]

Heya kpcurley!

Also, groups like NATO and the United Nations exist irl, why not Alliances?

[kpcurley]

Hey PrideAssasin,

Bacon and Iron exist in real life as well. I also prefer my bacon to be fried in a Iron skillet.

[kevin32891]

If you don't want to fight a war for an alliance, join GPA.

Also I thought you were leaving.

Edited December 31, 2009 by kevin32891

[Joe Kremlin]

You give up control of your nation so you can be part of something much bigger. Greater than the sum of its parts, etc. Nobody is forcing you to join an alliance.

[omgitshim]

If you don't want to fight a war for an alliance, join GPA.

Also I thought you were leaving.

nope, im waiting for a better time....

[omgitshim]

For the same reason it's apparently 'omgitshim' and not 'makerofdumbtopics'

i was hoping you would approve, after all only your opinion matters above anything else

[ModusOperandi]

The dark side is the only solution.

[omgitshim]

The dark side is the only solution.

dont mention those words in my presence agian

[Cobalt]

Hello planed bob,

i have some simple questions for you, which i'm sure will receive many witty remarks and a $%&@ton of flaming but i will persist

Hello. I'll do my best to answer them.

Why is it that every day here on bob that an alliances word is taken over a single nations word?

Its all about accountability. An alliance is held accountable for its entire membership, regardless of their involvement. An individual only has themselves to be concerned about.

And why is it that it is not as honourable to fight for your own nation on your own then to fight an alliance with hundreds of other members who dont understand why their fighting another alliance?

Several things:

1) Individual nations fight all the time, people duel and what not, its not that its not honorable... its that there's no point to it. If you have a good reason to be fighting for your nation's honor, heck go for it, but those times will probably be few and far between. Given the political nature of Plant Bob, its for more likely that you'll be fighting with purpose for your alliance than for yourself.

2) You're assuming that members of an alliance "don't understand why they're fighting" - this is usually not the case, if members are not active enough to know whats going on day to day or even week to week... generally a short reading of the information provided to them by their alliance will give enough information.

3) War is fun, especially when it comes to large-scale inter-alliance warfare. Think about it, in terms of having a good time and quality of experience, would you rather participate in a boxing match or a epic clash of armies. I know where my vote lies.

why is one single nation not expected to succeed, unless of course said nation is a member of an alliance he did not help build?

The game started 4 years ago, and some of the large nations have been around since then. Without the influx of capitol from other nations, it would take you months or even years to even build up to a noticeable size, especially compared to other nations who elect to join an alliance and have access to their alliance's economic programs.

Why do alliances send out mass messages to non-AA's promising them protection from raiders, but they raid themselves?

Most raiding alliances have regulations on who they can raid. If you join an alliance of any size (5-10+ members in an alliance = no raid is a pretty standard rule across the board, and has been for years) you are not going to be subject to raiding in most cases, and if you are you have your alliance to support/defend you. Its just recruitment, and independent of whether that alliance raids or not.

you may say that alliances are friends that help and protect each other, but then the same person may say it is foolish to sign treaties signifying friendship, isnt that the same thing? isnt an alliance just one big treaty between its members?

...What? I don't get your point here. It relies on an individual's belief that inter-alliance treaties are "foolish" - Look at it from this perspective. When it all started, there were individual nations, who them banded together into factions for protection. But as the number of alliances grew, just being in alliance became not enough, because another alliance of equal or greater size could attack your group the same way a nation of equal or greater size could just attack your individual nation. So alliances banded together, for protection. Nations stopped being the base unit a while ago.

So yes, an alliance actually is just one big treaty between its members. When you join an alliance, you agree to follow its rules and regulations, respect its power structure and to defend your fellow members who in turn are also defending you.

all this being said, why isnt "cybernations"-"cyberalliances"?

You still have your individual nation, and if you choose to do so you can go the independent route. This game is in constant beta, and if you read the history you can see that the game as we know it today is not how it was when it was originally created. Alliances are a product of the players, and the players are the nation.

you may commence flaming, and trying to pick apart my logic with your cruel and witty remarks.....

The truth is, you've come here into a world that started 4 years ago and is fairly self-directed. We are pretty set in our ways, and as a community are content with the alliance system as we know it. A couple newcomers showing up and telling us they don't like where the last 4 years of game history has brought us is going to be met with some stiff resistance. If you don't like the way we play the game, all I can say is "tough" - this game is here for everyone's enjoyment, not just yours. We're happy playing our way, and we will continue to do so regardless of your displeasure.

I hope I answered your questions/issues.

[Liltrekkie]

Hello. I'll do my best to answer them.

Its all about accountability. An alliance is held accountable for its entire membership, regardless of their involvement. An individual only has themselves to be concerned about.

Several things:

1) Individual nations fight all the time, people duel and what not, its not that its not honorable... its that there's no point to it. If you have a good reason to be fighting for your nation's honor, heck go for it, but those times will probably be few and far between. Given the political nature of Plant Bob, its for more likely that you'll be fighting with purpose for your alliance than for yourself.

2) You're assuming that members of an alliance "don't understand why they're fighting" - this is usually not the case, if members are not active enough to know whats going on day to day or even week to week... generally a short reading of the information provided to them by their alliance will give enough information.

3) War is fun, especially when it comes to large-scale inter-alliance warfare. Think about it, in terms of having a good time and quality of experience, would you rather participate in a boxing match or a epic clash of armies. I know where my vote lies.

The game started 4 years ago, and some of the large nations have been around since then. Without the influx of capitol from other nations, it would take you months or even years to even build up to a noticeable size, especially compared to other nations who elect to join an alliance and have access to their alliance's economic programs.

Most raiding alliances have regulations on who they can raid. If you join an alliance of any size (5-10+ members in an alliance = no raid is a pretty standard rule across the board, and has been for years) you are not going to be subject to raiding in most cases, and if you are you have your alliance to support/defend you. Its just recruitment, and independent of whether that alliance raids or not.

...What? I don't get your point here. It relies on an individual's belief that inter-alliance treaties are "foolish" - Look at it from this perspective. When it all started, there were individual nations, who them banded together into factions for protection. But as the number of alliances grew, just being in alliance became not enough, because another alliance of equal or greater size could attack your group the same way a nation of equal or greater size could just attack your individual nation. So alliances banded together, for protection. Nations stopped being the base unit a while ago.

So yes, an alliance actually is just one big treaty between its members. When you join an alliance, you agree to follow its rules and regulations, respect its power structure and to defend your fellow members who in turn are also defending you.

You still have your individual nation, and if you choose to do so you can go the independent route. This game is in constant beta, and if you read the history you can see that the game as we know it today is not how it was when it was originally created. Alliances are a product of the players, and the players are the nation.

The truth is, you've come here into a world that started 4 years ago and is fairly self-directed. We are pretty set in our ways, and as a community are content with the alliance system as we know it. A couple newcomers showing up and telling us they don't like where the last 4 years of game history has brought us is going to be met with some stiff resistance. If you don't like the way we play the game, all I can say is "tough" - this game is here for everyone's enjoyment, not just yours. We're happy playing our way, and we will continue to do so regardless of your displeasure.

I hope I answered your questions/issues.

It's sad to say that he is right. But I have been in a great deal of alliances. LoSS, GATO, MO, and OO. Each has there strong points and weak points. But each allinace is similer because they try to tell you how to run your nation, like buy this and buy that, get rid of this and get rid of that. I used to be a high Nation strenght nation until people decided to throw BS at me

GATO did the same thing only in a different style. So did MO and OO.

So in a sense you only login, collect and pay bills and other people tell you what to do.

For example, when I was fighting in the karma war LoSS chose our targets. First off i did not want to be in a war, second off I should be able to fight who i want to fight in that alliance.

We are like meat puppets in this game. The big people tell us what to do and we do it. If we don't then we get kicked out they tell other alliance that we have been a " bad person " and then it is like heck.

It's like politics where there are bigger nations, there is corruption, but they will say other wise of course.

[Kryptonite]

Hopefully you feel different about the alliance you are currently in. *cough*

[civiclove]

Hello planed bob,

Why do alliances send out mass messages to non-AA's promising them protection from raiders, but they raid themselves?

Sorry dude, NEW never send mass messages to non-AA..

we are just do raid..it..

[Liltrekkie]

Sorry dude, NEW never send mass messages to non-AA..

we are just do raid..it..

Again, that greed. It's just like the Karma 2.0 war thats going on now . People will fight and then want huges reps.

But eh. I just like playing the game, have fun, get in a lulz alliance or something like that

[Opethian]

I don't know what you're talking about. I've always found that my nation's word is exactly equivalent to my alliance's word.

[Prime minister Johns]

Why is it that every day here on bob that an alliances word is taken over a single nations word?

The word of people that are followed by hundreds of other people is inherently more valuable.

Since they have been given a mandate by their members to speak on their behalf.

And why is it that it is not as honourable to fight for your own nation on your own then to fight an alliance with hundreds of other members who dont understand why their fighting another alliance?

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori as they say in ancient rome.

And I will happily cheer a independent who sees off a tech raider and defends their own nation just as much as I am pleased when my alliance beats off a rogue or a ghosting nation.

why is one single nation not expected to succeed, unless of course said nation is a member of an alliance he did not help build?

single nations get raided by the many raider alliances that have sprung up since the karma war. and there is no safe haven.

Why do alliances send out mass messages to non-AA's promising them protection from raiders, but they raid themselves?

First, not all alliances raid. The NpO and several others are dead against it.

And the raider alliances that try to recruit their target are looking to recruit through fear.

you may say that alliances are friends that help and protect each other, but then the same person may say it is foolish to sign treaties signifying friendship, isnt that the same thing? isnt an alliance just one big treaty between its members?

An individual that joins an alliance effectively signs a merger treaty with that alliance.

And there are known cases of alliances merging as well.

all this being said, why isnt "cybernations"-"cyberalliances"?

1: Nations are the building blocks of alliances and can change their affiliation as they wish. And thus the individual nations decide the fate of alliances.

2: The individual player only controls a nation, not an alliance. alliances are something that is entirely player organized.

[Valtamdraugr]

I would have to agree with several assumptions to give a proper answer to much of the OP.

But I will say I agree with the assessment that an alliance charter is a treaty between nations.

[Baltus]

Hello. I'll do my best to answer them.

Its all about accountability. An alliance is held accountable for its entire membership, regardless of their involvement. An individual only has themselves to be concerned about.

Several things:

1) Individual nations fight all the time, people duel and what not, its not that its not honorable... its that there's no point to it. If you have a good reason to be fighting for your nation's honor, heck go for it, but those times will probably be few and far between. Given the political nature of Plant Bob, its for more likely that you'll be fighting with purpose for your alliance than for yourself.

2) You're assuming that members of an alliance "don't understand why they're fighting" - this is usually not the case, if members are not active enough to know whats going on day to day or even week to week... generally a short reading of the information provided to them by their alliance will give enough information.

3) War is fun, especially when it comes to large-scale inter-alliance warfare. Think about it, in terms of having a good time and quality of experience, would you rather participate in a boxing match or a epic clash of armies. I know where my vote lies.

The game started 4 years ago, and some of the large nations have been around since then. Without the influx of capitol from other nations, it would take you months or even years to even build up to a noticeable size, especially compared to other nations who elect to join an alliance and have access to their alliance's economic programs.

Most raiding alliances have regulations on who they can raid. If you join an alliance of any size (5-10+ members in an alliance = no raid is a pretty standard rule across the board, and has been for years) you are not going to be subject to raiding in most cases, and if you are you have your alliance to support/defend you. Its just recruitment, and independent of whether that alliance raids or not.

...What? I don't get your point here. It relies on an individual's belief that inter-alliance treaties are "foolish" - Look at it from this perspective. When it all started, there were individual nations, who them banded together into factions for protection. But as the number of alliances grew, just being in alliance became not enough, because another alliance of equal or greater size could attack your group the same way a nation of equal or greater size could just attack your individual nation. So alliances banded together, for protection. Nations stopped being the base unit a while ago.

So yes, an alliance actually is just one big treaty between its members. When you join an alliance, you agree to follow its rules and regulations, respect its power structure and to defend your fellow members who in turn are also defending you.

You still have your individual nation, and if you choose to do so you can go the independent route. This game is in constant beta, and if you read the history you can see that the game as we know it today is not how it was when it was originally created. Alliances are a product of the players, and the players are the nation.

The truth is, you've come here into a world that started 4 years ago and is fairly self-directed. We are pretty set in our ways, and as a community are content with the alliance system as we know it. A couple newcomers showing up and telling us they don't like where the last 4 years of game history has brought us is going to be met with some stiff resistance. If you don't like the way we play the game, all I can say is "tough" - this game is here for everyone's enjoyment, not just yours. We're happy playing our way, and we will continue to do so regardless of your displeasure.

I hope I answered your questions/issues.

This is pretty much dead on. Alliances are integrated into the game, for 4 years now. You won't be able to remove it. You can try, but you won't succed. I don't mean to be mean, or whatever, but that is the truth. When you join an alliances you willingly give up some of you soveriegnity for protection. And as to raiding, most large alliances: WF, NpO, VE, MHA, etc. are against raiding. Raiding is typically only found in micros or in those that have always raided. And your alliances never forces you to do anything, ever, and on top of that you can leave at any time. One final thing: Some people have put in lots of work into their alliances. Writing and editing charters, having a domain name forums, keeping their alliance nice and organized. For some reason, some newer nations assume that running an alliance is easy. Well, I can honestly say it is the complete opposite. You, yourself are a new nation, no offense but it seems you have almost no idea what you are talking about. Everything done in CN is because of the players. We made the alliances, we signed the treaties, we wrote our charters. And if you don't like it, then I don't know what to say. And, one final thing, you say you are fighting for complete strangers. Most alliances have forums, where you can talk to other members, and discuss things. On those forums, you will find out soon, that they are not strangers instead they are people just like you.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Baltus

[Asriel Belacqua]

i'm glad im not the only one of my kind, HEY lets form an alliance!!! /sarcasm

You'll find many people share your opinion. Even those currently in alliances. That is why a lot of people don't simply stay in the first alliance they find, or the first one to send them a message. It's also the reason I started a micro-alliance, got a few friends of mine to join, and we basically "chill" in there all the time.

and another emotion i might as well get out, why is it so hard to be accepted among this community?

im actually suprised i havent got a threat from someone yet

It's not that hard to be accepted in this community. With over 25,000 people, sure, there will be those who don't like you or what you have to say, but there will also be those who will agree 100% with you. Never underestimate how many people play this game and how much their views are different, and the same.