United Alliance as Illyriad's United Nation
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Elgea
Forum Description: For everything related to the Elgea Continent
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=1089
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 08:12
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: United Alliance as Illyriad's United Nation
Posted By: Special One
Subject: United Alliance as Illyriad's United Nation
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 05:53
|
How if we create United Alliance in Illyriad? United Alliance is the same with United Nation in real world. In United Alliance, all alliances have a representative person to talk about issues that related with alliance conflict. Of course we should put requirement for an alliance to be invited to United Alliance, maybe minimum amount of alliance member or minimum alliance population. In UA, we can set some rules "in the name of humanity", maybe some of them are: - UA not allow players to farm active players. - An effort to completely destroy a player or even an Alliance will be considered as genocide. All alliance ambassador may talk about an issue and even release an UA resolution. I know that maybe not every alliance willing to join UA or UA decision/resolution is not followed by an alliance but this can bring more color to Illyriad diplomatic aspect. |
Replies:
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 06:23
I take great offense to this. And I'll just say... meh to this, as it is. |
Special One wrote:Posted By: Special One
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 06:31
LOL, I didn't mean to offense you. I suggest that to reduce number of UA members. Imagine if all Alliances which only have 2 members join UA. That will make UA ineffective. Maybe 6 members is enough for an Alliance to join UA and have voice there. |
Posted By: Fateful Ending
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 10:02
|
But you realise this may turn out to be as ineffective as the 'league of nations' (the predecesor to the UN), a toothless tiger.
You would need massive armies, the resources to fuel protracted war, and the time of day to do all of this. And then you would have to deal with the 'Your policing the server' cries that will inevitably ensue.
Also the logistics of imposing the humanitarian laws would be ridiculously difficult to manage.
Although i find the idea of it good, it could do with some more refinement.
Just my 5 cents
|
Posted By: Aelfric
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 11:27
| Good for role-playing purpose, I think. But won't be that effective in getting conflicts under control. It is already challenging to come to a consensus within an alliance. Imaging trying to do so when multiple alliances are involved. |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 13:41
|
This Unites alliance would be unable to enforce anything without the blessing of H?, well, like the real UN is powerless without the US (not starting a political thread, just for comparison). Perhaps it helps bringing in some moral ideas (always a good thing), but most "bad" guys just won't listen (again, like in real life  ).So great idea, but hard to implement. |
Posted By: Special One
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 14:01
|
Aelfric and Hora, you guys got my point. This is for role playing only but if this success, it can affect the way this game is played. As the strongest alliance, H? can choose to join UA (even become the founder) and try control it. If H? choose to don't care with UA, alliance which is not friendly can use it to gather support from other alliances. This will make alliances should play in two side, the game itself and diplomacy side. However, this can be only work if Illyriad has enough role playing players. |
Posted By: Laccy
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 14:03
| It's a very grand idea. Maybe too early in the game's evolution, but I would be happy to see this work. |
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 16:21
| Because the UN has shown itself to be such a capable entity for solving world issues... |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 16:51
|
Been there, done that. Partisan allegiances, grudges, and bias consistently drive even the most obvious and straightforward proposals into stalemate. Either the UN has no power, or the alliances become vassals and slaves to public opinion and anti-minority causes, or worse, both. Back in IK, alliances would find consecutive ranges of account IDs (by the heap) all being developed in exactly the same way, online at the exact same time, and with irrefutable proof that they're all being played from the same IP...sometimes with reports of attacks from all accounts on a single target proven to have all been launched within 20 minutes of each other or all at once (definite scripting/account automating). And would the AMC (anti-multi coalition) destroy these obviously cheating accounts? For a while... The AMC was a simple union with one clear goal and clearly marked jurisdiction. It really existed just so the public could satisfy itself that attacks on small accounts were genuine attacks on cheaters and multis, by means of peer review. But it was very unfair that most of the coalition members were friends or at least neutral with DiggIK (Harmless here). So the neutrals started pushing to accept more high-ranking alliances. It only took a couple, and suddenly every case was a "bloodthirsty power grab." When evidence linked the cheater accounts to older players with friends and alliance ties, it was all a conspiracy to weaken DiggIK's enemies. Enemies would oppose anything DiggIK wanted, and neutrals would side against us because it felt morally superior to find fault with the leading alliance and spew some pseudo-intellectualism--oddly they never felt the need without a push from the new members (kind of like some of the new voices participating in recent conversations where they know little to nothing of the background or full story). So we left the coalition to their own devices and abstained from influence. The AMC never pursued a case again, and the game is still rampant with cheaters and multis. Illyriad is an actively-developed game with vigilant watchdogs stopping cheaters before they become such a player-facing problem. You will never be so lucky to have a single case so free of moral subjectivity, inaccurate and biased reporting, and influences by allegiances both public and hidden. I can tell you now Harmless would never join...and we'd never fear any threat such a UN might throw in our faces. We shall conduct all our relationships on a one-on-one basis, knowing that each of our partners as well as ourselves have the freedom to act upon our own conscience and judgment isolated from the differing opinions of 3rd parties. By the way, you can see the standard confederation agreement Harmless makes at: http://illyriad.honoredsoft.com/wiki/UK1:Harmless/Treaties - http://illyriad.honoredsoft.com/wiki/UK1:Harmless/Treaties (Note also that to us a pledge of confederation is one-directional...by this document we can, for example, present clearly-documented obligation by ourselves to Toothless, without any implication that Toothless reciprocates those obligations.) |
Posted By: -hypocritical-
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 17:00
 I'm guessing that is aimed at(amoungst others) me, but I know alot(most of my information comes from h? posts actually)
anyway to stay on topic
it wouldn't work, just like the real UN, it has good goals, but it would be next to useless really
|
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 17:35
| I think this is a bad idea. Right now everyone is in NAP or a Confederation with each other as it is. You can't attack someone without getting 15 other alliances pulled into it. And war really is a very large part of this game, so to combine forces to stop war seems a little counter productive. If anything, I think this idea would start more wars then solve them. |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2010 at 03:00
|
I dunno... I think it might provide a fun venue for us to endlessly debate issues.... Oh wait... we have the Politics forum for that!!! Though could possibly provide some good roleplaying content?
|
Posted By: G0DsDestroyer
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2010 at 04:29
|
the only way to have a United Alliance would be to have a superpower controlling it.
That superpower would be H?.
No one wants to be controlled by one group everyone is too independent even in their alliances people aren't always connected as well as they should be.
So United Alliance is a good idea, but one that won't wotk well with Illyriad in my opinion, but you never know. ------------- http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamertag=G0DsDestroyer" rel="nofollow - Tia mi aven Moridin isainde vadin |
Posted By: King EAM
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2010 at 22:19
If you can find a good easy way to make it work more power to you  , but as for now I dont think it will.
|
Posted By: Jargas
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2010 at 01:09
|
*Waits for HonoredMules response on the next topic in line* ------------- Jargas Bargnothaltros Officer of Dark Blight Resident of The Underdark |
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2010 at 01:23
| you really like how HM writes don't ya? :) I agree, he should write a book or something.. I'm sure people will read it. |
Posted By: Ivorich Von Forge
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2010 at 02:24
I would be interested in participating in such an experiment, but not exactly as presented. If it has any chance of working at all it has to: Allow any alliance of any age and/or size to apply. Give an equal vote to each alliance. Have admission, rejection, and ejection all decided by a simple majority vote. To avoid accusations or actual instances of favoritism and/or powerbrokering, no individual or alliance will have any office or control over any other individual or alliance but all matters may be presented for a vote by any representative and will be voted on by every representative. A activity requirement for representatives, which if not kept, the alliance is asked to send a new rep, rather than being kicked from the UA. If on any vote, an alliance rep is not active, the alliance's vote is counted as "Abstained/Absent". The votes are given a reasonable amount of time for reps to vote, regardless of in which time-zone they reside. (I would say no more than 48 hours on a single vote, but most likely 24 hours would be more efficacious.)Voting would be done via a poll forum post in the (to be created) "UA" thread, in the politics category on this forum. Representative must use their in-game character name when voting so that all UA actions are public and there is both transparency and responsibility for the decisions made. I may add more suggested policies as I think of them; But, in the meantime, feel free to comment on the above or the over-all package I propose. |
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2010 at 03:44
| The problem, among other things, is that there's exactly 0 incentive for the powers that actually matter to join. |
Posted By: Ivorich Von Forge
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2010 at 03:52
|
Larry the incentive/disincentive is in the moral stance. If the UA becomes powerful and immoral, the "powers that actually matter" would do themselves a huge PR favor by abstaining. Likewise, if the UA proves to be powerful and moral, abstaining could give one of those powers an image or being "evil", which could be sufficient incentive for them to join. Or, their incentive to join could be a desire to turn the UA to their own will, whichever moral stance they have chosen. As I said, I would hope it would become a force for "good", not "evil" but it's an experiment and since no one, not even I, will have any superiority in the organization, it would be interesting to see how it evolves. |
Posted By: KarL Aegis
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2010 at 12:58
|
Morals mean nothing when money is involved. Just refuse to trade witht them. A boycott/embargo if you will. ------------- I am not amused. |
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2010 at 14:17
|
If the UA forms, someone needs to form a counter coalition. And then a 3rd coalition. And a 4th. |
Posted By: Borg
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 18:36
| i would think a counter coalition would be created almost immediatly. those that have agrudge with the original members of the first coalition would see a need to have thier own. an "opec" type of group would evolve. the enemy of my enemy is my friend. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 20:35
| Suddenly "coalition" sounds more like the confederation concept already built into the game. |
Posted By: Borg
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2010 at 12:52
| yes, but you can still attack a coalition member if he pisses you off |
Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 12 Oct 2010 at 15:32
|
Coalition, people working together for a preferred outcome to an objective. Doesn't mean they need to butt in on the little tiffs that coalition members get into outside of that objective. Confederation though, generally should mean that both sides will militarily back each other and stuff. Though I believe a few alliances are just using it as a 'trade pact' and/or 'bloatware' to make it look like they have more backing then they really do have. |