This is a rather delusional and arrogant take. Unfortunately, CCnet players are not rational and base a lot of sieges on personal hatred rather than material gain, see Russia and Britain for example. Sometimes occupying powers will just not accept anything. And your point on smaller nations is as arbitrary is it is subjective. You are not an authority on said matter and don't get to decide its irrelevant, rather it is most relevant. Smaller nations have won sieges by themselves before by fighting while the occupier is busy/occupied themselves and or receiving help from nations at war with that occupier. This makes a lot of sense, and the 2 week revolt timer basically allows larger sieges to overlap more often and create more opportunity for smaller nations to revolt.

your suggestion quite literally does nothing to go back to small scale sieges, it just punishes small nations and makes sieges easier for the attacker (which just shouldn't be the case).

CCnet players aren't rational human beings, that should be painfully obvious, so your logic doesn't compute, small nations matter... and the powerscale on CCnet and how long this server has dragged on means its likely new nations will always be at the mercy to larger... given the largers stockpiles... therefore the revolt timer being so-so should allow them enough of an advantage to sneak a siege in when the occupiers are busy.


this suggestion as a prescription does not match the diagnosis

i'd say 75% of the sieges i started were based on emotion rather than personal gain, but even then i was fine with making peace with them and moving on after a few major sieges. it's healthier for u and the server, trust me. at the start of N2 people would make peace with each other, even if they used to have a personal vendetta. it's not like people have rly changed that much in the past 2 years either. nations would make peace treaties if they were actually needed, but they just aren't now. one of the biggest peace treaties on the server that completely changed the sides of war for a year, only happened because no one knew how easy revolts were. the first coalition thought we'd never get unoccupied, so we decided to settle for peace after we planned for a month to revolt. at the end of the day, there's really no reason to hate on specific players for years because they were toxic on minecraft, so it's better to try and make peace, and this could help with that

i brought up the smaller nations point because i've brought this idea up in the past and it immediately got looked over as a suggestion that just hurts small nations. like half my suggestions end up with "this hurts small nations so bad suggestion", but like i said, that's a fallacy. i didn't make that part up, and that can be compared to modern problems. every thing in the world has problems no matter the system. every political system or economic system has corruption or poverty. like u could say "democracy is bad because it has corruption" which wouldn't be a false statement cuz it obv has corruption and no one denying that, but every political system has corruption so it's rly not a good argument. that is essentially what people say when they say "this suggestion has a power imbalance, so it's bad". it's just a way to argue against a suggestion without coming up with an actual argument. think of any semi-major change and u can likely say that it hurts small nations, unless that suggestion is specifically designed to help small nations. sorry if it came off as arrogant, but it pisses me of that the players that make this argument are trying to act like they care about the small nations, but they're the same nations that siege them and make them quit in the first place. im not saying ur doing that, cuz i dont rly know who u r, im just talking abt the people i hear make that argument in general, and i said that in anticipation for that argument

while it can happen that a small nation wins a revolt cuz the occupiers are busy, it is still unlikely to happen, so why should features be based on the off chance that a small nation wins a revolt by themselves? most of the time the small nation fails, so this shouldn't be decided based on a rare event

If you won the siege but lost 9/10 out of revolts? Did you "really" won them in the first place?

Reason people did then and don't know is there's nothing to do. As people seem to throw shade at people who enjoy building or the role play elements the server has basically become a PvP server.

No geopolitics happens, because there's nothing else to do.

In terms of wars starting and stopping. It would therefore be better to add external factors or make the alliance process difficult.

These would need to be done through a diplomatic update rather than a rework of sieges.

Also over the span of N2, players have soured. It would not be a stretch to say there is genuine hatred between players.

So many new geopolitical features have been added recently but that hasn’t helped at all. Diplomatic points, political stances, government types, political parties, in game truces, and just another was added today about occupation truces. None of that has worked because people can simply just revolt immediately after being occupied and that results in the never ending wars. Those wars only end when players leave the server, but new players come and take their place anyway

Also this is irrelevant, but I find it funny how my suggestion went from 1-1 votes after 1 hour of being up. Then it went to 1-2 and within 5 minutes jumped to 1-7, with no new comments, and now I wake up to 2-15+ o.O
Idk what pinging everyone to mass downvote does, but it just kinda shows how desperate the top nations are to keep their control over the server. This isn’t a new problem and has existed since the start, but there was always discussion in the comments about it at least… almost 20 votes but only 2 ppl commented?? bru -.-

With all due respect, how are you able to judge the current state of the game after just returning from months of inactivity? Things seem okay right now. There are three major sides and each one holds power. These alliances fight each other and most of the small nations get left out of it now unless they wish to join. There is plenty of new nation drama and a lot of smaller scale conflicts that support new player/nation growth and entertainment that is no longer engulfed into a full-scale mega-alliance war. The political changes have helped, and a lot of people utilize them as intended while some don't - they were just released a few months ago and haven't even had a proper trial run if I'm being honest. I was told that your video stated a pretty clear intent to abolish the mega alliances and make the server more fun/save it but that simply isn't the case nowadays. From what I'm seeing and have been told (by Coa, Alliance, and Federation members), there isn't much to be saved; everyone has a spot and is getting to play, movecraft regions are at a super active spot and sieges have been decently balanced (I say this when my allies and my nation both have won and lost). No, not everyone is happy but if everyone was happy then it wouldn't be a war server. There isn't one nation that controls the server, and there isn't any specific alliance that controls the server anymore. It is leveled out pretty well already and I personally don't see any small nations that are being abused by any mega alliances.

PS: I hope this didn't come off as rude I am just trying to clear the air on why I (and perhaps some others) downvoted the suggestion.

Like skulled said, unless smaller nations choose to get involved for the most part they have been left alone. For instance New California Republic and Alaska had beef with each other. Very rarely did cultist or other nations get involved even tho my town was only a couple hundred blocks away from NCR's fort. NCR has since fallen/been disbanded bc of the fort leaving the nation after there were problems internally and people were banned/inactive. This is just one example of smaller nations being able to have smaller scale wars/conflicts with not really any major powers getting involved.

This is just another mr main character symrome gamer trying to change the whole servers foundation cause he doesent like it anymore instead of playing something else

So without reading the previous comments my first impression is that this really only prolongs grueling occupations especially when combined with your previous suggestions, this just gives larger nations power to completely dominate over nations that they occupy.

After reading the comments I second Skulled in the sense that it feels like your arguing against something that doesn't exist anymore, there is a TON of new things since last year and honestly you sound very disconnected from the current Geo-Political N2 society. I myself am apart of a new neutral nation and we have all of our strife and hijinks. From what I hear from when I read your suggestions I think you just need to take yourself down a few levels back to small nation life. The good life.