|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 23456 7> |
| Author | |
ES2
Postmaster
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 550 |
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 21:35 |
|
Which is why it's a rare thought, because you have groups like NAAM emerging to bring forth more support for newbies in newbie groupings.
There are lots of different illyriad political parties, in this server. You are bound to have conflicting ideas.
|
|
|
Eternal Fire
|
|
![]() |
|
BlindScribe
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 168 |
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 21:37 |
|
Heh...okay, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Seems like (to me), given the current state of affairs (big alliances get what they want...little guys protest at their peril), then your position (which essentially is a bid for the status quo) is the majority line of thought--and therefore, not rare-- (else, the gaming community would have already changed/moved away from the status quo, right?) Just sayin... ;) Edited by BlindScribe - 02 Oct 2012 at 21:38 |
|
![]() |
|
ES2
Postmaster
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 550 |
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 21:41 |
|
Not really, my thoughts go as far as to say newbies in newbie alliances shouldnt be given military protection or economic aid from other players, of course then comes in the "free will" tidbit. but that thought, I can assure you is not so common in this hugglebear community. I'd welcome a reply from janosch on my thoughts, or anyone for that matter. As it is on the forums I am assuming all of this is open for debate, all comments pertaining to original subject line open for debate.
|
|
|
Eternal Fire
|
|
![]() |
|
BlindScribe
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 168 |
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 21:43 |
|
right, but now you're moving WAY beyond the scope of the original discussion - we can surely debate it, but giving help to newbs in GC is a totally separate thing, really - Gotta say tho...I disagree with that too. You might prefer it personally, but there is that niggling free will thing. ;) OTOH, there are games like that....Evony, to name one. Edited by BlindScribe - 02 Oct 2012 at 21:45 |
|
![]() |
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009 Status: Offline Points: 2224 |
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 21:46 |
|
I'm probably reading this wrong, but are folks suggesting that an alliance of newbies named NumNum be created?
That might perhaps give hungry vets the wrong idea... ;) |
|
![]() |
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 22:29 |
/me looks at STEEL's member list. /me has sudden insight So THAT's what was up with Sir Bradly! A severe case of the munchies! Dude, lay off the herb.
|
|
![]() |
|
bansisdead
Postmaster
Joined: 08 Jan 2012 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 609 |
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 22:38 |
|
small alliances doesn't mean newbies. If newbs want protecting there is already existing avenues, for instance BSHx or for pointy ears, stunties and stinkin' ummies T? DSA, and all the other training alliances Ofc.
Edited by bansisdead - 02 Oct 2012 at 22:39 |
|
![]() |
|
NAAM Spokesman
New Poster
Joined: 04 Dec 2012 Status: Offline Points: 34 |
Posted: 28 Oct 2013 at 23:21 |
|
Greetings, We want to remind the interested audience that NAAM is nothing new. We are a group of peaceful small and mid-sized alliances that have joined together for cooperation and self-defence more than a year ago. Until now we managed to handle our affairs with the necessary discretion and successfully avoided to get involved in wars. Some of the NAAM-alliances have decided to join together to handle the current crisis and we created the NAAM-alliance. XckX is a member of NAAM. RE has decided to violate standards of courtesy (settled within ten squares, military occupation of sovereignty and T3 resources, failed to reply to messages, attempted to siege “inactive” players and tried to recruit spies within XckX). What started as XckX's short and punitive expedition would certainly not have been a NAAM operation. Even RES intervention against XckX would not have been a reason to constitute the NAAM-Alliance. From NC there was clearly no approach to get to a reasonable solution but sieges were sent straight away against XckX. The main problem about NC intervention is the fact that NAAM already has a history with them. When they declared on II (a war that ended in March this year), they attacked a close friend from different NAAM alliances. TFS decided to aid II by sending over some players. When II accepted surrender and TFS players returned, NC sent out armies to TFS. Although NC stopped hunting TFS-players when TFS collapsed, NC intervention against TFS led to the collapse of the entire alliance, and a valued NAAM-Member. II was considering NAAM participation before but was afraid of being dragged us into something larger. So they were attacked and had no friends to help them. Consequently, II went looking for serious allies after they lost the war, negotiations with NAAM started again and a merger with BANE was negotiated. In this moment NC (being bored without PvP-combat) declared on BANE using the most ridiculous reason they could find. BANE not being an official NAAM-member, was only backed by II who decided to aid them since they were planning to merge. When NC got into trouble they asked TCol to intervene against II (who were defenceless at the time...) to force II-players out of BANE. This incident brought NAAM-alliances close to war participation. The rest of the story is known due to DARK intervention and forum post. We cannot tolerate further aggressive movements against NAAM alliances and have therefore declared war against NC. We certainly have the right and the duty to defend our confed when NC keeps playing this game like that. We are a group of seven (and more) small, tiny and mid-sized alliances. The current events do give us reason to worry. NC is more or less randomly attacking growing alliances. The fact that those alliances have a higher population size is void because many factors play a much more important role. NC has developed into a crucial threat to a few NAAM alliances and many others in this game. Already in the BANE/NC war it became apparent that this way of gameplay is supported by very influential alliances. While I cannot confirm any sort of plot between NAAM and the Crowalition (or whatever alliances), to me it rather appears like NC and those alliances that support this sort of gameplay to drag Illyriad to server war. As the forum sometimes is an unfriendly place, you are certainly welcome to contact our alliance directly, if you have any questions or comments on this post. Respectfully, The NAAM-Council |
|
![]() |
|
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012 Status: Offline Points: 944 |
Posted: 28 Oct 2013 at 23:45 |
|
How are you non-aligned? You have a confed and are seeking another. Name should be changed to Aligned Alliance Movement to prevent confusion.
|
|
![]() |
|
NAAM Spokesman
New Poster
Joined: 04 Dec 2012 Status: Offline Points: 34 |
Posted: 28 Oct 2013 at 23:55 |
|
Currently we only have a confed with CK which is a member of the Non-Aligned Aliance Movement. Please stay with the truth.
|
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 23456 7> |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |