There are too many alliances and some of you should disband.

[Seth Muscarella]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1280425181' post='2394100']
I disagree. I think if you take all the displaced players from the disbanded alliances and inject them into the ones that remain you'll have more personality clashes that will lead to more drama and conflict. I also think more clearly defined "sides" leads to more war.
[/quote]
And clearly more alliance splits due to said personality clashes. This may not be the ideal political state for the most drama (drama =/= fun imo), but trying to massively rearrange the political aspect of the game will never be effective in the long run, and the current equilibrium will eventually be reattained.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='CRex of Gulo Gulo' timestamp='1280423148' post='2394062']
Longer wars and harsher terms are a possibly solution to this problem. The alliances that add the most to game have the force of will to change the game and a strong internal culture. If your alliance rolls over and disbands or surrenders in the first week of war, you don't add much to the game. Such alliances should be crushed with a jackboot.

White peace, early outs for the hangers on, those kinds of things need to fall by the wayside. If you're going to sit at the big boys table and play world politics, it should carry big boy consequences.

Edit: Yes, this is the cruel solution. But given the fact the community has no interest in pruning the treaty web on their own or enforcing some kind of large scale cap on alliance size, this is the next option on the list. If you want to get truly ugly, return to the days of truly trumped up casus bellis and tech raids. Like the Continuum tech raid on the GPA.
[/quote]

Not really, longer wars mean it takes longer for another side to rebuild and start another war. But because of the way the war system works, wars do actually need to last so much longer in order for them to have any lasting effect. Nowadays wars are won on how big your warchest is rather than the actual mechanics of the game.

Basically alliances need to be fewer in numbers and the war system needs adjusting so that it has a much more devastating effect on nations with higher infrastructure and technology levels.

[Kevanovia]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1280369032' post='2393313']
ODN and the rest of CnG is riding MK. What has ODN done exactly? They and the rest of CnG follow MK.
[/quote]
CnG hasn't always been around. ODN has other history.

ODN is where all the hippies that like war go to. Plus they're some of the nicest people you'll ever meet.

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1280374650' post='2393475']
I've hard of a plan to get the alliances together to ensure that there are only 50 alliances at one time. When someone else creates the 51st alliance, they must come to the council, which consists of the sanctioned alliances, to propose their plea on why they should be able to create an alliance. If anyone creates an alliance without the council's approval, they get rolled.

Also to ensure worthless alliances are destroyed, if you don't honor a treaty: you get rolled.


I think this would help make the game interesting.

Also ODN stays.
[/quote]


[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1280375124' post='2393485']
A nice idea, unhappily all councils ideas doesn't work since people don't know how to respect others opinions around here.
[/quote]

You're right, but if somehow they would stay silent....then could it work?

[CRexx]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1280426031' post='2394119']
Not really, longer wars mean it takes longer for another side to rebuild and start another war. But because of the way the war system works, wars do actually need to last so much longer in order for them to have any lasting effect. Nowadays wars are won on how big your warchest is rather than the actual mechanics of the game.

Basically alliances need to be fewer in numbers and the war system needs adjusting so that it has a much more devastating effect on nations with higher infrastructure and technology levels.
[/quote]

Agreed on some levels. in GWIII / The Holy Farkistan War I could grind off 60 infra a day with my dorky little 2 month old nation. Later on that nation's life cycle I had 4x the infra but was doing only about 2.5x the damage, unless I started throwing nukes. On the flip side, LiquidMercury grinds off 1k of infra per nuke yet his victims can rebuild from ZI to 8k infra in a matter days assuming they kept a warchest. Or if you have friends who can pump 45 million into your nation, you can sled up to 4999 in 20 days. Technology takes more time because you have limited slots. I think the real problem though is wars don't destroy cash. you need to lose cash as a function of losing infrastructure. Banks, treasuries, etc being hit with nukes means your cash/gold reserves/etc go away. The game needs to reflect that. Or make the defeat alerts hurt a lot more.

On the flip side, if wars are ultra vicious, then there is an incentive to sit on the sidelines, watch parties A and B hack each other into shreds and then declare yourself king.

I think what really made the early GWs work was the shorter rebuilding period. i have old target lists where sanctioned alliances were averaging around 4k NS. You used to be able to rebuild back up to fight in the space of 2-4 months. Now you need to sit on your rear for 6 months to get a warchest, plus of course rebuild time. Maybe admin needs to reduce the costs of everything beneath say 3999 and 500 tech. Let nations rapidly accelerate out of that stage. Plus it might mean fewer newbies would give up in disgust and leave the game.

[Cracken]

isn't this going about it $@! backwards. What if you just disband all the alliances that the list says should stay, that would create the necessary air of confusion, panic, procrastination, stupidity, backstabbing and what not, for loads of now unalligned nations to go totally ape!@#$ on everyone and everything.
That would certainly be a boost to some good, clean, wholesome fun.

[Alistair Thorrington]

[quote name='Cracken' timestamp='1280426842' post='2394137']
isn't this going about it $@! backwards. What if you just disband all the alliances that the list says should stay, that would create the necessary air of confusion, panic, procrastination, stupidity, backstabbing and what not, for loads of now unalligned nations to go totally ape!@#$ on everyone and everything.
That would certainly be a boost to some good, clean, wholesome fun.
[/quote]

I strongly and doggedly disagree, for reasons too complex to be fully stated here.

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1280366942' post='2393251']
NNK can stay, you guys seem pretty cool.
[/quote]

Yay! Now we won't have to disband! Whew!

Edited July 29, 2010 by Alistair Thorrington

[Lennox]

[quote name='Enzos' timestamp='1280394293' post='2393752']
"The world won't change with pretty words alone"
-Dilbers sig

Why don't you start doing something about the political climate instead of complaining about it with pretty words.

oh wait.. You can't! Therefor, this thread, disband.
[/quote]

You know you're speaking to one of the most evil $%^&@#s in CN right?

[Lennox]

ITT: Sparta

[img]http://images.whereilive.com.au/images/uploads/2009/02/17/IBOLT_GG083579_4014951_resized.jpg[/img]

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1280426031' post='2394119']
Basically alliances need to be fewer in numbers and the war system needs adjusting so that it has a much more devastating effect on nations with higher infrastructure and technology levels.
[/quote]

Reducing the number of alliances requires one of two things (or both together in smaller parts): increasing number of members per alliance or departure of players from the game.

The first is counter-intuitive in regards to today's mentality. You can thank Citadel and their "Quality over Quantity" policies for the model that was later adopted by several alliances from all quarters of CN. Still, there are those mass alliances such as MHA or Sparta who will add any members they can, but according to Corinan's model they're supposed to disband, so I am not sure who would be left to take all the nations that don't fit the requirements of most "quality" alliances. Unless they all joined the NSO of course. Beyond that point comes what is logistically doable. Large, massive alliances tend to become white elephants with little capacity to move around (check MHA). Sure their brute power will increase, but their capacity to express any rate of it will drop dramatically. Well, after all, the trend of "Quality over Quantity" came about for some reason. This doesn't figure as a good option and doubtfully will make the game more interesting - other than add a crapload of deadweight to some alliances who will become largely inefective due to that.

The second would have severe consequences in several aspects: loss of player variety and severe reduction of the pool of resources available for instance. Not a good option anyway.

This whole proposal, while I am sure would solve treaty web problems at several levels short term, is completely dumb since it's shortsighted enough to fail to account for the consequences of the disapearing of the said alliances, be them due to member migration or simple abandoning of the game.

There's always option c, some nations could go unaligned - but that's not likely, because they joined an alliance in the first place.

[M6 Redneck]

\m/ should disband and thus the nations they holds can be missionaries spreading the light to other half baked AAs.

\M/6

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1280424900' post='2394091']
Just because something can grow does not mean it makes a positive contribution. Cancer can grow inside a living organism, but it certainly does not contribute to the organisms good health in any way. Quite the opposite, left unchecked and untreated it can kill it. Alliances that do nothing more than grow and bloat and suck up otherwise good potential players are a cancer in that sense.[/quote]

Here is where I disagree. Cancer was not prevalent in the stone age (so long as we're comparing real world things to CN) and only became prevalent when we as a society advanced and created intelligent communes.

Therefore my conclusion would be that your problem with the game is that the mechanics and ability for players/alliances alike to manipulate it to serve their needs has not grown in proportion to their cunning and desire.

Whereupon in the old days of CN mass wars were rampant, the game mechanics were still new and people were still learning how to war. Today the average nation can play TE to learn, and can be given a step by step guide to unleashing total destruction upon their enemy given enough support along the way.

If anything is the cancer, it is the lack of change in the game to coincide with the change in politics. Because even a cancer, as you so put it, can be used to advance society, without such diseases we'd never need to research new cures or means of healing the body and accidentally stumble upon other beneficial things.

[quote]
I suppose it's possible that I could be wrong, but I doubt it. I've been playing this game for a long time. I can see where it's been and where it is now and what the difference is that made it get from A to B. Alliances breaking off into micro alliances, backroom lawyering, treaty whoring, and a general lack of boldness have gotten us to where we're at now.
[/quote]

If you've learned anything in all the time you've played, you would know that the length of time you've played does not equate to a proportional amount of knowledge at both the politics AND mechanics of the game. Also, if you're surrounded by such sights, why don't you get rid of them? Some alliances are not as you so claim, the micros, they grow to become your large alliances and without giving them adequate time they will never succeed, your plan would destroy change and enable large alliances to be larger, causing them to be much more susceptible to disbandment and internal strife, leading to those who have been in the game longer being on top, and those who are just starting out to be squandered and useless.

The game would no longer grow, it would in fact regress at a further rate than you intended, and we would have a game full of old veterans refusing to let go surrounded by young, naive nations unable to reach the levels of their forefathers because they are being thrown into fire every two months by leaders who have no idea what they are doing and think they are almighty and know all. (Ring a bell?)

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1280428795' post='2394183']
The first is counter-intuitive in regards to today's mentality. You can thank Citadel and their "Quality over Quantity" policies for the model that was later adopted by several alliances from all quarters of CN. Still, there are those mass alliances such as MHA or Sparta who will add any members they can, but according to Corinan's model they're supposed to disband, so I am not sure who would be left to take all the nations that don't fit the requirements of most "quality" alliances. Unless they all joined the NSO of course. Beyond that point comes what is logistically doable. Large, massive alliances tend to become white elephants with little capacity to move around (check MHA). Sure their brute power will increase, but their capacity to express any rate of it will drop dramatically. Well, after all, the trend of "Quality over Quantity" came about for some reason. This doesn't figure as a good option and doubtfully will make the game more interesting - other than add a crapload of deadweight to some alliances who will become largely inefective due to that.
[/quote]

I disagree with your view that quality over quantity is a bad decision, because you're over simplifying a very important aspect of the design. Anyone can become a quality member, the idea is that you don't go out and let just anyone join you, you make sure it is someone who fits into your community, so long as they fit, and are active enough to be taught they become a very important part of Cybernations.

Without checking them for the 'quality' gene if you would thrill me with that, then all you get is a bunch of dead weight which hurts the overall group of young nations you strive to train. By slimming the herd down to just players who don't intend on merely logging in and collecting taxes then logging out, you produce an environment which is stronger at the base and core, and able to branch out openly without collapsing. We create players which tend to stay in the game longer, learn about the game better and become more active than those cattle.

E: Read Mixoux's post, sorry if I mis-interpreted you.

Edited July 29, 2010 by lonewolfe2015

[Mixoux]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1280430063' post='2394214']
I disagree with your view that quality over quantity is a bad decision, because you're over simplifying a very important aspect of the design. Anyone can become a quality member, the idea is that you don't go out and let just anyone join you, you make sure it is someone who fits into your community, so long as they fit, and are active enough to be taught they become a very important part of Cybernations.

Without checking them for the 'quality' gene if you would thrill me with that, then all you get is a bunch of dead weight which hurts the overall group of young nations you strive to train. By slimming the herd down to just players who don't intend on merely logging in and collecting taxes then logging out, you produce an environment which is stronger at the base and core, and able to branch out openly without collapsing. We create players which tend to stay in the game longer, learn about the game better and become more active than those cattle.
[/quote]

You're completely missing his point, in that he isn't arguing against 'quality over quantity' but rather that it's the reason why we don't have plenty of huge membership alliances anymore. And if that's what you're looking for, the general trend that alliances are taking will never let that happen.

[kulomascovia]

[quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1280419700' post='2394001']
Sure. If a players main interest in the game is growing their nation and serving an alliance then it shouldn't matter what alliance they grow and serve in. Move to an alliance that's actually interesting. An alliance that's actually a mover, a shaker. Your gaming experience will be enriched.
[/quote]

Hmm, this doesn't really address what I said. From what I can see, most nations are not interested in moving or shaking, thus moving to an alliance that is politically active will not enrich their gaming experience. My point is that since most people do not care about drama and wars, the assumption that alliances that are politically active are better than those that are not is wrong. Thus your list is invalid.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Mixoux' timestamp='1280430690' post='2394225']
You're completely missing his point, in that he isn't arguing against 'quality over quantity' but rather that it's the reason why we don't have plenty of huge membership alliances anymore. And if that's what you're looking for, the general trend that alliances are taking will never let that happen.
[/quote]

This is it^

[the damned]

Im sorry, the NSO has brought nothing new to this game and the stuff that it does has all been done better before. You guys fail 4realz.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='kulomascovia' timestamp='1280432764' post='2394262']
Hmm, this doesn't really address what I said. From what I can see, most nations are not interested in moving or shaking, thus moving to an alliance that is politically active will not enrich their gaming experience. My point is that since most people do not care about drama and wars, the assumption that alliances that are politically active are better than those that are not is wrong. Thus your list is invalid.
[/quote]

It's not an assumption, it's an opinion. As much as I would love to debate with you about what each of the 24k members of Cybernations find fun, I don't think it's logically appropriate.

The point of the matter is that we hold the believe that the game itself isn't very fun without war, drama, intrigue or story. If people want to be bloated hippies and sit around and build their nations, fine. Just know that you don't really contribute much to our community.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='the damned' timestamp='1280435139' post='2394304']
Im sorry, the NSO has brought nothing new to this game and the stuff that it does has all been done better before. You guys fail 4realz.
[/quote]

I don't seem to understand why Sparta has the most vocal butthurtedness out of all the alliances represented in this thread.

[Lord of the Port]

I agree with the list, except for IAA, but that's personal, I guess.

Also, for all Spartans here, except for your king; I went to Delphi, and asked the Pythia for advice in this matter. These are her words:
[quote name='Pythia']
Γιοί του Λακεδαιμόνα, ακούστε τα λόγια μου!

Ο Βασιλιάς σας, σας εξαπατά, καθώς δεν είναι ο γιός του Δία, Πατέρα των Θεών και των ανθρώπων, αλλά είναι ο γιός του Τυφώνα και της Έρης, ένας απατεώνας!
Ο βασιλιάς σας δεν είναι βασιλιάς της τιμής, αλλά βασιλιάς της προδοσίας, και κοιμάται στο πλάι των Περσών, νοικιάζοντας τον εαυτό του στα αντροκόριτσα της Αθήνας!
Εγκαταλείψτε τα σπίτια σας, γιατί ο Δίας θα σφάξει το βασιλιά σας, και θα σφάξει και όλους εσάς, αν μείνετε στην καταραμένη πόλη σας!
Τρέξτε εκεί που πετάει το μαυροπούλι, και συνταχθείτε με την θεική του δύναμη!
[/quote]
I'm sorry for the fact that it's modern Greek, and not ancient. Even the Pythia doesn't speak it anymore
[edit]In order to comply with the rules, a translation can be found [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=89840&st=320&gopid=2394327&#entry2394327]here[/url].

Edited July 29, 2010 by Lord of the Port

[Unholy]

You do understand that that isn't a response to Corinan saying we should disband, but rather his claims about the NSO, right? As large an effect Corinan's beliefs have on us as an alliance, I think we're just fine.

[Bilrow]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1280435293' post='2394306']
I don't seem to understand why Sparta has the most vocal butthurtedness out of all the alliances represented in this thread.
[/quote]

Because the truth hurts, obviously.

[Seth Muscarella]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1280435293' post='2394306']
I don't seem to understand why Sparta has the most vocal butthurtedness out of all the alliances represented in this thread.
[/quote]
I don't seem to understand how someone sharing his opinion of NSO is somehow automatically butthurt. I agree with the damned in this situation; NSO should be in the "cool idea, but failed to deliver as hoped. Disband" category.

[Lord of the Port]

[quote name='Lord of the Port' timestamp='1280435337' post='2394308']
Γιοί του Λακεδαιμόνα, ακούστε τα λόγια μου!

Ο Βασιλιάς σας, σας εξαπατά, καθώς δεν είναι ο γιός του Δία, Πατέρα των Θεών και των ανθρώπων, αλλά είναι ο γιός του Τυφώνα και της Έρης, ένας απατεώνας!
Ο βασιλιάς σας δεν είναι βασιλιάς της τιμής, αλλά βασιλιάς της προδοσίας, και κοιμάται στο πλάι των Περσών, νοικιάζοντας τον εαυτό του στα αντροκόριτσα της Αθήνας!
Εγκαταλείψτε τα σπίτια σας, γιατί ο Δίας θα σφάξει το βασιλιά σας, και θα σφάξει και όλους εσάς, αν μείνετε στην καταραμένη πόλη σας!
Τρέξτε εκεί που πετάει το μαυροπούλι, και συνταχθείτε με την θεική του δύναμη!
[/quote]
To comply with the rules, this is what it means:
[quote]Sons of Lacedaemon, hear my words!
Your King deceives you, for he is not a son of Zeus, Father of Gods and men, but he is a son of Typhon, and of Eris, a deceiver!
Your king is not a king of honor, but a king of betrayal, and sleeps with the Persians, and rents himself to those man-girls from Athens!
Flee your homes, for Zeus will slay your king, and slay you all, if you stay in your doomed city! Run to where the blackbird flies, and follow his divine rule![/quote]

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

The problem isn't the treaty web (even if it's an obstacle, for obvious reasons) or the number of alliances. The problem is the lack of ambition displayed by virtually all of the "big" (top 75?) alliances. I'd say that, in fact, you are more likely to find an ounce of ambition in the smaller alliances, if only because their leaders usually want their alliance to grow and themselves to be recognized.

In major and well established alliances, the number of leaders who are content to simply sit by and [i]avoid problems[/i] is incredibly high. They're more than happy to simply sit by and let others do the leading, take decisions for them and just be on friendly terms with whatever people they call their allies.

From the time of the Pax Pacifica, a few alliances in the WUT and then Q-1V sphere competed for power: FAN, GOONS, TOP and NpO are examples of that. We wanted to do our own things, our own way and we had other ambitions, even if most of the sphere(s) (depending on the time) was content to sit back and let NPO lead.

Nowadays, I don't really see any competing ambition in the SG super-structure or really outside. A vast lot of alliances are simply names with members, with leaders trying to play this game as if it's a popularity contest.

Boredom will end up spawning another war in the next months no matter what, though, so all is well I guess.

I agree with most of the list nevertheless.

[Republic of Roma]

How about this. We need MORE alliances! Not less. Got to love variety!