A joint announcement from Hollywood, Rosesphere, Oasis, and Clockbloc

[Raphael]

Recognizing the community trend of signing Non-Aggression Pacts after almost every war, regardless of scale or length, we as representatives of the community have come together to make a joint statement regarding this practice as representatives of our alliances and our wider spheres.

This statement reflects the following:

1. Superfluous non-aggression pacts, otherwise known as blanket NAPs, that cover a majority of the active alliances, risk stagnating the game and we will strive to avoid signing them going forward.
2. It is our belief that non-aggression pacts should not be signed after short wars, especially not for longer than the length of said war.

The superfluous non-aggression pacts of the past couple of years are partially responsible for the stagnation we've all recently been experiencing. Rather than continuing to complain in the backrooms of PnW, this group is coming together publicly to let it be known that we all would like a more interesting and fun experience from the meta. We encourage all those who are not already involved in this project to commit yourselves to this idea, and further the idea of creating a more interesting political world moving forward.

 

/s/

Empire of the Romans

The Knights Radiant

Hand of Fate

Cataclysm

The Fighting Pacifists

The Immortals

Rose and their sphere

Aurora

Weebunism

Name Withheld

The Monastery

Arrgh

Space Invaders

Black Knights

Grumpy Old Bastards

Guardian

 

 

 

The hope is that many of you read this and see how many of us are committed to these ideals and join us in the fight to make this game not suck.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Justinian the Great

[Luna Moonfang]

Where's the Rosesphere?

ah fuc I'm blind

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Luna Moonfang

[Chad]

This is a win.

[Thalmor]

I thought this was to announce the Hollywood-Rose-Oasis-Clock MDoAP treaty? Does that come next week?

[Raphael]

1 minute ago, Thalmor said:

I thought this was to announce the Hollywood-Rose-Oasis-Clock MDoAP treaty? Does that come next week?

Stop leaking

[YangMoment]

1 minute ago, Thalmor said:

I thought this was to announce the Hollywood-Rose-Oasis-Clock MDoAP treaty? Does that come next week?

its actually Hollywood-Rose-Oasis-Clock-Mystery MDoAP now, get it right

i heard signing blocwide treaties is the trend now. can i get my name on this one?

[StressAndMess]

2 minutes ago, Thalmor said:

I thought this was to announce the Hollywood-Rose-Oasis-Clock MDoAP treaty? Does that come next week?

Everyone v blackwater😎

[zigbigadorlou]

Note the lack of Black Water $yndisphere. I will confirm that they did not agree to end NAPs so it will be imposed upon them. 

[MinesomeMC]

As far as i've heard it was Rose that pushed the blanket NAP. If true, its weird they signed this. 

[Thalmor]

3 minutes ago, MinesomeMC said:

As far as i've heard it was Rose that pushed the blanket NAP. If true, its weird they signed this. 

Rose is probably the best at politics right now. As the meta is now shifting towards anti-NAP sentiments, it is only natural that they would jump on that train. 

[hidude45454]

3 minutes ago, MinesomeMC said:

As far as i've heard it was Rose that pushed the blanket NAP. If true, its weird they signed this. 

That's what I heard too, and if this is legit then I'm glad that ppl are beginning to take steps in the right direction.

I'm not exactly sure how suspect discussions were to enact this announcement but regardless, the past two or three months have been completely dead because of the NAP. Most people don't move unless they have a fire lit behind them, so I'm glad this is a thing.

Still, the simultaneous Oasis-Mystery MDP seems to be a step in the opposite direction and towards stagnation (a la Quack), so maybe a bit ironic they signed onto this one as well? 😛

[Zukran]

NAPS do not stagnate the game, blocs do. The game being divided into as of today... 5 major blocs is what stagnates it.  Having such large blocs requires alliances to be in a large bloc purely for safety, which further stagnates the game. If we really want a dynamic game that doesn't revolve around 1 or 2 lopsided global wars every year, we need to break up the blocs.

Doing so will create dozens of smaller wars and conflicts that would greatly increase activity. So many wars aren't started or avoid purely because of blocs.

• "We can't attack them they are in x bloc"
• "Our alliance has only 30 people, their alliance has 30, but their bloc has 500"
• "We want to attack this alliance, but they are in x bloc, will our bloc come to our aid? No? ok we wont attack"

Getting rid of NAPS is masking the underlying problem that no one wants to address. This is like trying to use scotch tape over a foundational crack.

This wont solve anything.

 

[Kosta]

2 minutes ago, Zukran said:

NAPS do not stagnate the game, blocs do. The game being divided into as of today... 5 major blocs is what stagnates it. 

Its better than the TWO major spheres that we had during NPOs time. Right now we have more BLOCs than what history has presented us. We are progressing. 

[Mayor]

9 minutes ago, Zukran said:

NAPS do not stagnate the game, blocs do. The game being divided into as of today... 5 major blocs is what stagnates it.  Having such large blocs requires alliances to be in a large bloc purely for safety, which further stagnates the game. If we really want a dynamic game that doesn't revolve around 1 or 2 lopsided global wars every year, we need to break up the blocs.

Doing so will create dozens of smaller wars and conflicts that would greatly increase activity. So many wars aren't started or avoid purely because of blocs.

• "We can't attack them they are in x bloc"
• "Our alliance has only 30 people, their alliance has 30, but their bloc has 500"
• "We want to attack this alliance, but they are in x bloc, will our bloc come to our aid? No? ok we wont attack"

Getting rid of NAPS is masking the underlying problem that no one wants to address. This is like trying to use scotch tape over a foundational crack.

This wont solve anything.

 

That is just how the game is now. No way anyone creates a new alliance and sits alone like they did years ago. But you can still find weak alliances with weak allies whom you could attack if you had some guys. I know I was raiding Camelot and having some fun doing it. I think the real reason is many of us are just burnt out or people just not wanting to take risks. There are also tons of more people playing the game, so many alliances are 150+ members which you never had years ago so you can't just do a simple raid on some of the isolated alliances. I mean many, many times I raided Rose protectorates and they didn't do shit about it and nothing is stopping you from doing that now as well. For a long time we only had 2 blocs, now with 5 or so things are getting better but I think people just looking for easy pickings rather than risky ventures. I mean these blocs didn't stop KT a bunch of times.

[Horsecock]

Took you long enough.

I can't help but point out the irony that this includes alliances who themselves signed a blanket NAP less than 3 months ago. But instead of seeing it as just another case of hypocrisy, I'd rather be hopeful and say it's never too late to grow a spine. This one definitely makes the world a better place today than it was yesterday. 

Now, as for Oasis/Immortals...

Edited December 8, 2021 by Horsecock

[zigbigadorlou]

10 minutes ago, Horsecock said:

Took you long enough.

I can't help but point out the irony that this was posted by someone, and includes other alliances, who personally signed a blanket NAP less than 3 months ago. But instead of seeing it as just another case of hypocrisy, I'd rather be hopeful and say it's never too late to grow a spine. This one definitely makes the world a better place today than it was yesterday. 

Now, as for Oasis/Immortals...

Justinian war dodged wasn't a part of last war so only is part of the NAP by extension from TKR. He's the prot leader that could. 

You also say "took you long enough"... you know you could do this kind of stuff too right? 

[Horsecock]

5 hours ago, zigbigadorlou said:

Justinian war dodged wasn't a part of last war so only is part of the NAP by extension from TKR. He's the prot leader that could. 

Ah shit, for some reason I thought it was posted by TKR. Fixed.

5 hours ago, zigbigadorlou said:

You also say "took you long enough"... you know you could do this kind of stuff too right?

You mean make a forum thread to virtue signal? Actions speak louder than words, and anyone with a shred of awareness knows I've not only talked, but acted against NAPs for years.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Horsecock

[hidude45454]

1 hour ago, Zukran said:

NAPS do not stagnate the game, blocs do. The game being divided into as of today... 5 major blocs is what stagnates it.  Having such large blocs requires alliances to be in a large bloc purely for safety, which further stagnates the game. If we really want a dynamic game that doesn't revolve around 1 or 2 lopsided global wars every year, we need to break up the blocs.

Doing so will create dozens of smaller wars and conflicts that would greatly increase activity. So many wars aren't started or avoid purely because of blocs.

• "We can't attack them they are in x bloc"
• "Our alliance has only 30 people, their alliance has 30, but their bloc has 500"
• "We want to attack this alliance, but they are in x bloc, will our bloc come to our aid? No? ok we wont attack"

Getting rid of NAPS is masking the underlying problem that no one wants to address. This is like trying to use scotch tape over a foundational crack.

This wont solve anything.

I agree with this for the most part tbh; IMO there should be at least double the amount of blocs there currently are which would make wars more exciting and make a lot of political action possible that isn't atm. The reason why I dislike NAPs so much is that people only really make exciting diplomatic moves when they're not under the influence of a NAP and so therefore I think blocs would have more opportunity to fragment without them.

[Jacob Knox]

39 minutes ago, Horsecock said:

anyone with a shred of awareness knows I've not only talked, acted against NAPs for years.

Can confirm

[Istandor]

If you don’t want NAPs, don’t put them in peace deals?

[Indger]

19 minutes ago, Istandor said:

If you don’t want NAPs, don’t put them in peace deals?

Don't know to whom this is to specifically, but i can say that we have been against NAPs and wasn't it Blackwater, who asked for NAP last war? 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Indger

[TitanJazza]

This... this i do like

[The Titan]

NPO Does Not Approve...

[BelgiumFury]

9 hours ago, Justinian the Great said:

 

Oh my god this might just be the best piece of diplomacy we have ever had in orbis bro.

The only "recent" war that needed a NAP was NPOLT, that's all. At that point everyone wanted / needed a break. But now its just like six months here, six months there. The guy who started these talks is an absolute madlad.

[Ogaden]

8 hours ago, Zukran said:

NAPS do not stagnate the game, blocs do. The game being divided into as of today... 5 major blocs is what stagnates it.  Having such large blocs requires alliances to be in a large bloc purely for safety, which further stagnates the game. If we really want a dynamic game that doesn't revolve around 1 or 2 lopsided global wars every year, we need to break up the blocs.

Doing so will create dozens of smaller wars and conflicts that would greatly increase activity. So many wars aren't started or avoid purely because of blocs.

• "We can't attack them they are in x bloc"
• "Our alliance has only 30 people, their alliance has 30, but their bloc has 500"
• "We want to attack this alliance, but they are in x bloc, will our bloc come to our aid? No? ok we wont attack"

Getting rid of NAPS is masking the underlying problem that no one wants to address. This is like trying to use scotch tape over a foundational crack.

This wont solve anything.

 

The stagnation is due to the constraints on sovereign action that bind alliances.  Non aggression pacts are one such constraint, but so are blocs and all treaties especially mutual defense treaties.  Every time you commit to mutual defense you give up some of your sovereignty, and people with more than two allies basically no longer have control over their foreign policy.

The root of this is naturally a combination of cowardice and an aversion to the responsibilities that entail being a fully sovereign alliance.  Why do all that thinking about strategy and goals when you can just hitch your wagon to someone else to do that.  The problem is when everyone does that, the wagons are hitched in a circle and can no longer move.