| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Janosch 
Wordsmith
Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 169 |
 Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 21:15 |
 Brids17 wrote:
Janosch wrote:
Strange comment from a Crowalition member, I thought this would be also the aim of Crow policy, not to let conflicts escalate to something seriously violen, if possible. |
I don't particularly like how stagnant the crow alliances are and how fearful people are to get involved in a conflict with one due to the chance they'll all get involved, so it's really not as strange as you might think.
The aim of your non-aligned alliance movement seems to be to prevent war whenever possible. This is silly. Newbies of all people are the single best suited players to go to war. Unlike many of the vets, they don't have a whole lot to lose. So what if they lose their 750 man army? So what if their 2k city with 200 cows and 10 saddles get's sieged? It's not a lot to lose. And while you may not stop them, the fact that they're in the huge confed of alliances is enough to stop it alone. Inter-confed conflicts are obviously going to be pressured to stop because that would defeat the purpose of it. So the entire thing is anti-war and I just want to know specifically:
Why?
|
I am the last one that wants to stick my nose into affairs that are none of my business. So if people want to fight, I do not mind. I do know that creatures like trolls or the definition of bully and self-defence are significantly shaped by power constellations here in this forum. So particularly small alliances do need friends. They can eventually come here and find assistance, if they need it (and as I said, they might find it or not). But as some players do not like to beg for resources, some players do not like to beg for military assistance. So the idea NAAM is not entirely about peace. If the game became stagnant, that is certainly not the fault of NAAM or the “small” alliances. But there are reasons why “small” alliances should join together and be it tournament participation or forum support. How precisely the policy of NAAM will look like and if the aim of NAAM is to prevent war whenever possible, depends on the alliances that will join. So I cannot predict what will happen and how this will influence the game.
|
|
|
 |
ES2
Postmaster
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 550 |
Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 21:17 |
Janosch wrote:
Brids17 wrote:
Janosch wrote:
Strange comment from a Crowalition member, I thought this would be also the aim of Crow policy, not to let conflicts escalate to something seriously violen, if possible. |
I don't particularly like how stagnant the crow alliances are and how fearful people are to get involved in a conflict with one due to the chance they'll all get involved, so it's really not as strange as you might think.
The aim of your non-aligned alliance movement seems to be to prevent war whenever possible. This is silly. Newbies of all people are the single best suited players to go to war. Unlike many of the vets, they don't have a whole lot to lose. So what if they lose their 750 man army? So what if their 2k city with 200 cows and 10 saddles get's sieged? It's not a lot to lose. And while you may not stop them, the fact that they're in the huge confed of alliances is enough to stop it alone. Inter-confed conflicts are obviously going to be pressured to stop because that would defeat the purpose of it. So the entire thing is anti-war and I just want to know specifically:
Why?
|
I am the last one that wants to stick my nose into affairs that are none of my business. So if people want to fight, I do not mind. I do know that creatures like trolls or the definition of bully and self-defence are significantly shaped by power constellations here in this forum. So particularly small alliances do need friends. They can eventually come here and find assistance, if they need it (and as I said, they might find it or not). But as some players do not like to beg for resources, some players do not like to beg for military assistance. So the idea NAAM is not entirely about peace. If the game became stagnant, that is certainly not the fault of NAAM or the “small” alliances. But there are reasons why “small” alliances should join together and be it tournament participation or forum support. How precisely the policy of NAAM will look like and if the aim of NAAM is to prevent war whenever possible, depends on the alliances that will join. So I cannot predict what will happen and how this will influence the game.
|
So in short you are combating large confeds with a large confed?
|
|
Eternal Fire
|
|
Janosch
Wordsmith
Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 169 |
Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 21:22 |
Janosch wrote:
The idea of a non-aligned movement is to be not aligned formally with or against any major power bloc. |
|
|
|
|
dunnoob
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800 |
Posted: 01 Oct 2012 at 21:58 |
ES2 wrote:
I believe there was a coalition rising because there widespread thinking that Aesir was attacking TLR for resources and therefor a coalition rose to protect their economic interests. |
No, I don't think that ~KV~ or the Nightbringers Confederation had any
"economic interests" in whatever TLR considers as Greater Ursor, let alone before trade v2. It was a perfectly
non-aligned alliance mess, some last minute NAPs throw in just in time before folks could click
attack.
|
|
STAR
Greenhorn
Joined: 11 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 99 |
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 11:48 |
Janosch wrote:
Non-Aligned Alliance Movement (NAAM)
We imagine a loose (and maybe sometimes closer) community of alliances with good intentions that aim to cooperate for the good of their alliances and all of Illyriad, without being pushed around by large alliances or annihilated for whatever reason. This would also avoid that small alliances need to run to this forum in order to get some help (which they might get or not). Internal and external conflicts should be solved peaceful (if possible). And finally there will be no force to participate in any decision that you do not support. We propose to agree on a declaration of intention which covers the following points:
1. Cooperate in peace;
2. Support in conflicts (if appropriate);
3. Form a large alliance (of large players) in the next tournament or for war effort; and
4. Be open to more members that like to see how a Non-Aligned Movement can work in Illyriad.
NOTE: This movement is not created to bully other alliances but to stand together against bullies. |
Just a few Suggestions
5. Trading opportunities - arrangements for alliances to inter-trade with one another at "special rates"
6. Basic Resource support between NAAM members if in a position to do so.
7. Friendly military operations (for training purposes)
etc etc......
Its great that you want to gather smaller alliances together as a collective but the incentive to join is limited to war scenrios more so then anything else....
I just think there is more benefits to be reaped from this situation or venture then what you have put forth in your proposal and if explored further you may get the desired results you are trying to achieve
|
|
Naxos
New Poster
Joined: 18 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 20 |
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 15:09 |
|
NAAM is closely linked with Illyriad Trade Union so that will provide inter trade between members and also at discount prices.
|
|
Janosch
Wordsmith
Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 169 |
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 20:48 |
STAR wrote:
5. Trading opportunities - arrangements for alliances to inter-trade with one another at "special rates"
6. Basic Resource support between NAAM members if in a position to do so.
7. Friendly military operations (for training purposes)
|
I think these are great ideas and indeed we are already cooperating economically. FTG obviously and also TOR are relatively trade oriented. NAAM will be open to whatever ideas the members will contribute. So if the game will provide further cooperation opportunities (i.e. roads), we are happy to include such things.
We are currently considering forming an alliance for tournament participation. It will also be open to players/alliances that are not sure if they want to join NAAM. I think this would be a great opportunity to get to know each other and how NAAM can eventually work.
|
|
|
|
BlindScribe
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 168 |
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 21:17 |
ES2 wrote:
BlindScribe wrote:
I like the goals set forth here, but feel that the best way of dealing with such things is down at the local level.
What I mean is this:
Let's say you're a small alliance based largely in Middle Kingdom, and I'm a small alliance based largely in Kumala.
You get bullied.
Exactly what can I do to assist you, other than make a few rumblings in the forums?
Small alliances are (by their very nature as, well...small) limited in their response options to begin with, and would find mounting a credible response to an infraction half a world away to be daunting indeed.
Instead of having an overarching system that covered the whole of Elgea with a blanket of protection for small alliances, I feel that perhaps the best response would be to move in a different (more localized) direction.
True...there are some wampum big alliances out there.
True, they sometimes throw their weight around, but I do not believe it to be a radical concept that a small, highly localized alliance can be quite effective at holding its own IN that localized area. If the small alliance is relatively tightly clustered for mutual defense, and ardent about standing up for its rights in the region they operate in, most larger alliances (all the "big boys" are far flung affairs, with interests scattered all over the map) would probably find it too thorny an issue to be profitable tackling. (not to say that the sheer weight of the larger alliance *couldn't* crush the small, tightly defended group...they very likely could, but the effort required to do so would be far greater than the effort needed to swat at 30 widely scattered towns that had little hope of actually helping one another in times of genuine trouble or need).
$0.02
|
Hey buddy, thats what they get for joining a small alliance. want real protection? join an established one.
|
It would seem you could use this rationale to basically write off the entire point and purpose of this thread.
Not that I think that'd be a good idea, cos I think what they're trying to do has merit...just feel that their approach is off. Still, I like the idea in principle.
|
|
ES2
Postmaster
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 550 |
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 21:24 |
BlindScribe wrote:
ES2 wrote:
BlindScribe wrote:
I like the goals set forth here, but feel that the best way of dealing with such things is down at the local level.
What I mean is this:
Let's say you're a small alliance based largely in Middle Kingdom, and I'm a small alliance based largely in Kumala.
You get bullied.
Exactly what can I do to assist you, other than make a few rumblings in the forums?
Small alliances are (by their very nature as, well...small) limited in their response options to begin with, and would find mounting a credible response to an infraction half a world away to be daunting indeed.
Instead of having an overarching system that covered the whole of Elgea with a blanket of protection for small alliances, I feel that perhaps the best response would be to move in a different (more localized) direction.
True...there are some wampum big alliances out there.
True, they sometimes throw their weight around, but I do not believe it to be a radical concept that a small, highly localized alliance can be quite effective at holding its own IN that localized area. If the small alliance is relatively tightly clustered for mutual defense, and ardent about standing up for its rights in the region they operate in, most larger alliances (all the "big boys" are far flung affairs, with interests scattered all over the map) would probably find it too thorny an issue to be profitable tackling. (not to say that the sheer weight of the larger alliance *couldn't* crush the small, tightly defended group...they very likely could, but the effort required to do so would be far greater than the effort needed to swat at 30 widely scattered towns that had little hope of actually helping one another in times of genuine trouble or need).
$0.02
|
Hey buddy, thats what they get for joining a small alliance. want real protection? join an established one.
|
It would seem you could use this rationale to basically write off the entire point and purpose of this thread.
Not that I think that'd be a good idea, cos I think what they're trying to do has merit...just feel that their approach is off. Still, I like the idea in principle.
|
It does appear you(rhetorical you) could use that rationale to write off the entire point and purpose of this thread. I appear to possess rare thoughts among this player base with the belief that the best benefits should go to those in established alliances whereas those who venture out into the "new world" alliances.. so to speak, should be content battling for scraps.
|
|
Eternal Fire
|
|
BlindScribe
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 168 |
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 21:29 |
ES2 wrote:
BlindScribe wrote:
ES2 wrote:
BlindScribe wrote:
I like the goals set forth here, but feel that the best way of dealing with such things is down at the local level.
What I mean is this:
Let's say you're a small alliance based largely in Middle Kingdom, and I'm a small alliance based largely in Kumala.
You get bullied.
Exactly what can I do to assist you, other than make a few rumblings in the forums?
Small alliances are (by their very nature as, well...small) limited in their response options to begin with, and would find mounting a credible response to an infraction half a world away to be daunting indeed.
Instead of having an overarching system that covered the whole of Elgea with a blanket of protection for small alliances, I feel that perhaps the best response would be to move in a different (more localized) direction.
True...there are some wampum big alliances out there.
True, they sometimes throw their weight around, but I do not believe it to be a radical concept that a small, highly localized alliance can be quite effective at holding its own IN that localized area. If the small alliance is relatively tightly clustered for mutual defense, and ardent about standing up for its rights in the region they operate in, most larger alliances (all the "big boys" are far flung affairs, with interests scattered all over the map) would probably find it too thorny an issue to be profitable tackling. (not to say that the sheer weight of the larger alliance *couldn't* crush the small, tightly defended group...they very likely could, but the effort required to do so would be far greater than the effort needed to swat at 30 widely scattered towns that had little hope of actually helping one another in times of genuine trouble or need).
$0.02
|
Hey buddy, thats what they get for joining a small alliance. want real protection? join an established one.
|
It would seem you could use this rationale to basically write off the entire point and purpose of this thread.
Not that I think that'd be a good idea, cos I think what they're trying to do has merit...just feel that their approach is off. Still, I like the idea in principle.
|
It does appear you(rhetorical you) could use that rationale to write off the entire point and purpose of this thread. I appear to possess rare thoughts among this player base with the belief that the best benefits should go to those in established alliances whereas those who venture out into the "new world" alliances.. so to speak, should be content battling for scraps.
|
But if this was not already the current state of affairs, it would seem that an idea like this one would gain little in the way of traction? (I mean...were the opposite case true, I'm not sure anybody would be motivated to form a group like this...)
|
|
Tweet
Non-Aligned Alliance Movement