Nations that are able to remain neutral do so by either being powerful enough that the warring states avoid them or they offer resources the warring states want to use or dont want to harm.

The Swiss stay neutral because they have a small but very effective military that combined with the natural terrain made the Germans unwilling to attack, also the Nazi leadership was happy to continue using the fine Swiss banks to hide their war loot.

So to those teams wanting to stay neutral, what do you have to offer? Are you strong enough to deter the warring teams by force or do you have resources/funds that could buy your neutrality. Just wishing to be left alone for the sake of peace is rather naive.

Essentially the first stages in extortion and "protection" payments?

For my part I've absolutely zero interest in prosecuting a war, and wouldn't want to be in a team that intended to make aggressive steps. I'd hope to maintain my neutrality by treating others well and not giving them the reason to attack me... perhaps we get too hung up on the competitive element of play when there is a such extensive potential for rich collaborative work?

Were people to tell me that I had to pay for the privilege of being left alone I'd resist, but ultimately if they pushed their case I'd rather leave this game than cave to craven thugs. The recent attacks on my own teams left me with a lasting disdain for the perpetrators and a sour taste in my mouth at the "compromise" we arrived at.

The game is not divorced from reality, PvP is an integral part of it, but only to the extent that it remains fun. If individuals or teams choose to throw their weight around in the same way as normal-world bullies other players will hold them in contempt, and ultimately leave the game if pushed too far. In time there may be an admin response to that.

There is a naivety to believing that SS is a self-contained universe, players and teams who kid themselves that it's reasonable to threaten, intimidate and demolish others beyond sensible limits will find that they do significant damage to the game they've invested so much effort into... their victory becomes somewhat hollow once they recognise that, although reaching that stage sometimes takes a degree of mature retrospect.

Thats unexpected coming from Adum's team XD its a joke no offence admins.

But seriously Jey supports this O.o

Adum's Team?

I mean at the end of the day each person has his/her opinion.

My comment does not reflect EF's stance but is mearly an observation for those who are complaining about being attacked. Each team has choices, be strong enough to deter attacks, create an alliance that can do the same, pay off those who threaten you, pay someone to defend you, hide in some corner of the uni and hope for the best; these are all options every team in the game has. Just because the ostriche sticks its head in the sand doesn't mean the lion isn't going to eat it.


Ich bin Krieg
Timberwolf

Sure (and apologies for the implication that I thought that was your stance) but I dispute the relevance of your analogy, it's entirely possible, even common, for an immature player/team to imagine that they're lions. They're not.
Many players would consider that they don't need to pay someone to defend them, if it comes to that level of hostility they simply move elsewhere, to the detriment of this game, and the gain of some other.
More like horses moving away from a swarm of gnats.

Bleh I just feel there's so much more fun to be had collaboratively in this game than destructively, wish the warmongers would get to grips with that.

This is fun.

I'm not saying everyone has to or even should work together on all things all the time. I'm not saying pvp is out of order- I've said elsewhere I approve of it in many ways and it's an integral part of the game (albeit not an area I'm often interested in myself). But I do think people tend to resort to all out wars in a rather immature way. You refer to a hypothetical ada gal... well the fact that we ended up effectively caving to the aggressive team really sticks in my craw, and if I'd been above peon in team I might have had more to say on it at the time, but consider that the bigger team could have achieved almost the same result, much cheaper, without accruing anywhere near as much negative feeling with simple diplomacy instead of unprovoked attack.

Are my ideals communist? nope, although politically I'm certainly left of centre, there's plenty of examples of collaborative work across the political spectrum. Are horrific human rights abuses anything to do with this, or the preserve of the communist regimes of last century? Not really, but nice hyperbole.

I guess I'm trying to communicate 2 things:
- very few would consider any team in game a "superpower", or a lion, or whatever analogy they choose for themselves, I can escape their so called power with a mouse click. Fine for me, but if players keep doing that (and they do, some rage quitting, but some permanently) it diminishes the game's key asset, its player base.
- war and pvp are entertaining, temporary diversions, but what all of us have probably most enjoyed about the game is that long building of a really good set-up, skill base, galaxy, team, etc. The depth of this side of the game seems much overlooked, and especially with genuinely challenging skills, extremely complex builds and difficult ubers there's loads of scope for great collaborative play at the friend/squad/team level... with the promise of playerbase level content soon. That's far more promising than "heh heh I can wtfrape this poor schmuck on a team I hate for some slight, oh he's left the game what a noobzorr".

apologies TG I've broken two internet rules... hijacking a thread and engaging in argument on a forum.
Points made Ferret... put the keyboard down and back away...

No trouble Ferret - I really wanted to see what people thought. Unless you an Shawn are both aliens in disguise I guess you count as people! SS politics can be pretty interesting.

TG

You can say that again, it's one of the best parts of the game.

Kanga