Fernando12 Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 (edited) [quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1286422844' post='2477722'] How so? Also, please take into consideration that everyone knows about treaties, and even if every alliance agreed to cancel each and everyone of its treaties those friendships would remain. Someone would save the WEB just to keep track of old friendships and how those old ties might affect an alliance's stance on a upcoming conflict. Do you really think that by clearing the WEB entirely, somehow, NPO would defend MK or something to that extent? On the other hand, NPO wouldn't attack MK either because they know that with or without treaties they still have many enemies; and those enemies wouldn't attack NPO, not with their paperless allies hanging around. [/quote] CnG alone or SF alone do not carry that much power without many of the alliances that individually tie themselves to them. If (and it won't happen) all treaties were canceled one day, alliances that would enter conflicts simply because of the web perhaps wouldn't enter a war anymore. Wars would possibly have to be fought by the alliances that offended each other without the involvement of several alliances that would not careless if some alliances 3 or more steps away on the treaty web got themselves in trouble. That is my theory or hypothetical view of what could happen. I do understand that a friendship web could be there to where even with a treatyless bob the same sides could develop as if there were still treaties around. Another thing that could happen is also fewer new alliances like mine forming because if there are no treaties it would make for a very risky bob to live in. I think a treatyless bob could pave the way towards bringing back larger alliances and a move away from lots of small alliances. But, this is highly unlikely to happen. Edited October 9, 2010 by Fernando12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='SynthFG' timestamp='1286561147' post='2478970'] That's just dull It means that before taking any action everybody rushes off to the wiki works out likely sides and only moves if they think they have an overwhelming advantage having large paperless alliances adds an element of randomness to the politics of the game, and makes diplomacy more important [/quote] This has been happening since 2006, and having large paperless alliances just makes it a bit harder to work out the sides (and also ensures that if those alliances enter and lose they'll stay down for longer, probably). But that wasn't actually what I meant – I meant that by having publically known treaties you can make a better case for being the defensive side and get more support to your side, making you more likely to win. For example look at GW2; Fark were clearly the primary defender but because LUE hadn't announced their treaty, they lost the legal argument about defence and half the League abandoned them. Aloha: in such a case, MK would be defended if and only if their friends (former allies) were completely sure that they'd win the resulting war. For example if NPO attacked and they were sure they could get significant SG support, most of them would defend; if Pandora's Box attacked, they probably wouldn't. (That's an intentionally ridiculous example before someone runs in to point out Umbrella's, GOONS' and GOD's friendships with MK.) Like how all VE's friends didn't actually defend it when the hegemon of the day decided to roll them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Denial' timestamp='1286512368' post='2478603'] You would think so, but it's been proven time and time again in the Cyberverse that your claim is not necessarily true. Alliances have been able to break formal treaties just as easily. [/quote] Most definitely, however it still doesn't change the fact that a verbal agreement is easier to break then one written on paper. You can't expect others to get mad at someone for breaking an agreement when you can't prove there was an agreement in the first place. The only reason why more verbal agreements aren't being broken is because very few (really no one) use verbal agreements as a form of treaty. Edited October 9, 2010 by Mr Damsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='SynthFG' timestamp='1286570041' post='2479080'] Depends on the leadership how going paperless is played, but a treatyless alliance that is into bandwaggoning will not be popular and will be the obvious candidate for a curbstomp without the bonds of paper it is even more important for a treatyless alliance to be seen as decent and honest lest is bring down the wrath of the mob [/quote] so basically no one will really escape the wrath of the mob then... [quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1286574797' post='2479126'] Isn't that what happens anyway? [/quote] pretty much, hence why i said add to the curbstomps. if we did as Synth suggested, then it will simply be much easier as now no one will truly know who is allied to who. the obvious would be along the lines of MK and NPO or UPN and BAPS saying they have a MADP. that would obviously be a lie but for some who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1286584986' post='2479242'] This has been happening since 2006, and having large paperless alliances just makes it a bit harder to work out the sides (and also ensures that if those alliances enter and lose they'll stay down for longer, probably). But that wasn't actually what I meant – I meant that by having publically known treaties you can make a better case for being the defensive side and get more support to your side, making you more likely to win. For example look at GW2; Fark were clearly the primary defender but because LUE hadn't announced their treaty, they lost the legal argument about defence and half the League abandoned them. Aloha: in such a case, MK would be defended if and only if their friends (former allies) were completely sure that they'd win the resulting war. For example if NPO attacked and they were sure they could get significant SG support, most of them would defend; if Pandora's Box attacked, they probably wouldn't. (That's an intentionally ridiculous example before someone runs in to point out Umbrella's, GOONS' and GOD's friendships with MK.) Like how all VE's friends didn't actually defend it when the hegemon of the day decided to roll them. [/quote] If someone attacked MK, Ronin would roll in no matter the odds. I think you underestimate the relationships that MK has built over the years. Granted, I can be considered an MK fanboy most of the time, but I believe real friendships were built and that some if not most of the former MK allies would roll to war in their defense no matter the odds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1286584986' post='2479242'] This has been happening since 2006, and having large paperless alliances just makes it a bit harder to work out the sides (and also ensures that if those alliances enter and lose they'll stay down for longer, probably). But that wasn't actually what I meant – I meant that by having publically known treaties you can make a better case for being the defensive side and get more support to your side, making you more likely to win. For example look at GW2; Fark were clearly the primary defender but because LUE hadn't announced their treaty, they lost the legal argument about defence and half the League abandoned them. Aloha: in such a case, MK would be defended if and only if their friends (former allies) were completely sure that they'd win the resulting war. For example if NPO attacked and they were sure they could get significant SG support, most of them would defend; if Pandora's Box attacked, they probably wouldn't. (That's an intentionally ridiculous example before someone runs in to point out Umbrella's, GOONS' and GOD's friendships with MK.) Like how all VE's friends didn't actually defend it when the hegemon of the day decided to roll them. [/quote] AirMe has already covered most of what needs to be said, but I'll also correct you on your claim about The League. The fact that LUEnited Nations fought alone on the battlefield while other League signatories sought peace had nothing to do with losing some 'legal argument'; rather, it was because LUE realised it was the prime target of NPO and GOONS, and as such, bargained peace for its allies at the expense of having to face weeks of war alone and rather harsh surrender terms. It was better that we took the hit rather than the entirety of The League and associated alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashok Posted October 9, 2010 Report Share Posted October 9, 2010 [quote name='Krack' timestamp='1286578223' post='2479160'] You could attack them and test your theory. I wouldn't advise it, but then we could all find out if MK's friendships are worth more than your paperwork. [/quote] I was not saying I was going to test it by attacking I was merely pointing out that words really mean nothing unless backed up by action and we have yet to see if MK will honor its friendships without treaties since they have been cancelled before any wars have broken out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted October 10, 2010 Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 [quote name='Ashok' timestamp='1286636116' post='2479663'] I was not saying I was going to test it by attacking I was merely pointing out that words really mean nothing unless backed up by action and we have yet to see if MK will honor its friendships without treaties since they have been cancelled before any wars have broken out. [/quote] Are you saying we were supposed to wait for wars to break out? If not, then what does it matter? Someone is welcome to try to test us on our word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted October 10, 2010 Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1286584986' post='2479242'] MK would be defended if and only if their friends (former allies) were completely sure that they'd win the resulting war. For example if NPO attacked and they were sure they could get significant SG support, most of them would defend; if Pandora's Box attacked, they probably wouldn't... [/quote] You, sir, are 100% correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted October 10, 2010 Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 [quote name='Stormsend' timestamp='1286722258' post='2480394'] You, sir, are 100% correct. [/quote] I think if PB attacked us, we would have more support than you would think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted October 10, 2010 Report Share Posted October 10, 2010 What a silly discussion to have. PB is going to do no such thing. [img]http://www.umbrella-alliance.com/style_emoticons/genmaycnsmilies/allnighte.gif[/img] 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.