Jump to content
  • entries
    7
  • comments
    129
  • views
    2,806

Are There Too Many Alliances?


Caleb279

539 views

People have nearly always been saying it: there's just too many. But how many is too many? After all...its pretty much every nation's dream to run their own successful alliance. I'm not saying its everybody's, but if you're serious about the game it probably is.

Now Corinan posted a thread stating that a majority of the top 80 alliances disband. That's not right in my opinion...the alliances that do their own thing, whether they let the world know about or not is respectable. There's a place for that. Alliances with rich history, a knack for causing debate and war, alliances known for spying or that hold "historical" CN figures deserve to stay. What I don't like is any alliance made "for the lulz" with no serious regard for the game. I'm not talking about the fun loving alliances...I mean alliances that really don't care, and are just here for stats.

Alliances that are really just copycats, bandwaggoners, and neutrals need to disband as well. There are exceptions to every rule, but these are my principles for what makes an alliance "legit" and worthy of remaining in Planet Bob.

I also am against all the micros created by players who don't know what the hell they're doing. We see them post a recruiting thread every once in a while, claiming to be unique and such. But its getting ridiculous, and it hurts the game. Other games that revolve around alliances (or factions, groups, teams, etc) usually have a requirement before making one. Say, $100,000, $3,000,000, 500 EXP, something like that.

Why doesn't CN do that? It'd cut down on the chaos and stupidity of some trying to create an alliance. Perhaps make it 4 months experience, $10,000,000, government experience, 10,000 NS, or some other reasonable goal. This gives nations with the hopes of creating an alliance something to look forward to, and will make sure all new alliances at least somewhat know what they're doing.

Check out my full view on that here.

Schattenmann made a great post in Corinan's thread mentioned above:

I'll tell you th e problem wit h all these !@#$@#$ alluances and here it is: Theyre all meatmarket generic turd alliances. Valhalla should disband or else Joe should give the new gnernation the keys. Bam, there ya go. These alliances that are all the same with some silly veneer trying to act unique but they are like a pathetic echo chamber.

Val's Norn thing is cool but how often does it come into play? We need alliances with no SENSE OF SELF to give it up, and we need shortsighted rulers with primal desires to grow spines and hit the fringe.

I agree with this post, 100%. Meatmarket generic turd alliances? Thats beautiful. An echo chamber is a great way to describe a lot of alliances on CN. They repeat the same themes over and over (Star Wars, ancient empires, etc.) and don't bring anything new to the table. Boring. Unless you've got something new, pack it up and go home.

Here's my breakdown of the top 50 (too lazy to go to 80 or 100):

Top 50 AA breakdown

Let me know what you think.

29 Comments


Recommended Comments



A) theres a reason why anybody can create an alliance in cybernations, because alliances are not really a part of "the-game". Alliances were originally completely done outside of the game's mechanics, the only thing that has changed to date is the addition of an Alliance Affiliation field in game.

B) Your list is humourous. I doubt you really know anything about half the alliances on that list, your list is alot less insightful then Corinan's list because at least he has the knowledge to be able to make such a list. Your list says that alliances that are 10x the alliance that yours is, that have unmatched dedication, loyalty, and ingenuity should disband. Your list reeks of your own political opinions, I find it pretty near-sighted, however I did get a pretty good laugh out of it.

C) If you think theres two many alliances, do something about it, start a war, survival of the fittest, the alliances that deserve to live will come out, those who don't may disband. Only one way to see.

Link to comment

MHA has a huge amount of political power? Are we talking about the same MHA? Also, both NSO and GOONS have more character and personality than half the alliances you want to stay. Add that to the fact "I don't like you" or "I like you" as a reason for alliances to stay or disband, I don't think you know much. I hate GOONS, for example, yet even I know they do good things for this game. They're a lot more exciting than most. Them disbanding would be a bad thing.

Link to comment

I'm confused.... Did you go down the line just picking alliances you didn't like to disband? I hate \m/ and I somewhat hate GOONS, but you have to admit if it wasn't for them we'd be missing a good bit of stuff in this game. It's not going to be interesting when you realize the only alliances you left in the game is people you like. You'll either have to end your friendships or never fight ever again. Either way the game would suck like that.

Link to comment

This was pretty good.....until I opened your top 50 list. I know it's your opinion and to each his own, but I personally like to think of how the game as a whole would be if those alliances disbanded/stayed. Taking from that list I wouldn't find the game interesting in the least.

Then again, perhaps \m/ and GOONS would merge into PC and we could rule the world :awesome:

Link to comment

The argument that there are too many alliances is primarily made by those individuals who have objectively and demonstrably failed to make the case that their own alliance is superior to others.

For example, I despise the silly 10 man commie micros because I have failed to convince them that they should, in fact, be members of the International instead.

...And many people reject my alliance because they don't understand the appeal of being surrounded by people who share the same general worldview.

Small alliances disappear when large alliances become more hospitable. Period.

-Craig

Link to comment

Okay yeah, the Corinan's list was at least proper one and it was based on actually (even remotely) reasonable arguments, but this is just stupid. I mean, when you're just saying "I don't like you, disband", you're pretty much throwing all of your credibility out of the window. At least Corinan kept those alliance he disliked but considered still to be somehow relevant. This is hardly what you're doing, and thus this listing or whatever has value only from your perspective, as it's totally and completely subjective and lacks any consistence whatsoever. You still thinking Bastion was actually for real is also stupidity beyond imagination. It's burning, honestly.

tl;dr a list disbanding both Fark and RIA and letting WTF and Asgaard stay alive is by definition a really really bad one

Leave this little game to the more eloquent gentlemen, honeypup.

Link to comment

I personally do not believe that there are "too many" alliances in CN. On the contrary, I believe that alliances are what make the game great.

Each have their own personalities, which makes for a diverse, non-monotonous community. How boring the game would be, if only those we liked, or fit our ideals on what an alliance should be, existed.

This goes for micro-alliances too. I have never been much a fan of the elitist attitude that some have toward small micro-alliances. Not everybody wants to be with a huge alliance, nor does everybody want to be taking orders from somebody else, when they would rather make an attempt to create, and run their own. Whether or not they know what they are doing is completely irrelevant. If bad choices are made, then they will most likely gain some first rate learning experience by being rolled, such is the nature of the game. The "You shouldn't exist unless you join one of the elite alliances" attitude of some are what truly ruins the game, as is the case in most other games.

I can assure you that there are some in this community who started out trying to do things on their own, and would of most likely quit right away if they had to jump through hoops so to speak, to earn the ability to create their own alliance. Many do realize that they need to learn more, end up joining an established alliance, and grow to become a contributing member of the CN community. If somebody is being stupid, I don't see what concern it is to anybody else, especially if it has no baring on themselves, their alliances, or their allies. To put it bluntly, if you don't like some alliance being stupid, and it bothers you that bad, roll them, but don't complain about, or discourage them from, existing.

Link to comment

Okay yeah, the Corinan's list was at least proper one and it was based on actually (even remotely) reasonable arguments, but this is just stupid. I mean, when you're just saying "I don't like you, disband", you're pretty much throwing all of your credibility out of the window. At least Corinan kept those alliance he disliked but considered still to be somehow relevant. This is hardly what you're doing, and thus this listing or whatever has value only from your perspective, as it's totally and completely subjective and lacks any consistence whatsoever. You still thinking Bastion was actually for real is also stupidity beyond imagination. It's burning, honestly.

tl;dr a list disbanding both Fark and RIA and letting WTF and Asgaard stay alive is by definition a really really bad one

Leave this little game to the more eloquent gentlemen, honeypup.

Well really since he based the list only on his opinion putting it in his blog was a good choice. Since the blogs are suppose to be about how we see things or that's how I always interpreted it. I mean he could have made a topic now that would have been bad :P

Link to comment

I personally do not believe that there are "too many" alliances in CN. On the contrary, I believe that alliances are what make the game great.

Each have their own personalities, which makes for a diverse, non-monotonous community. How boring the game would be, if only those we liked, or fit our ideals on what an alliance should be, existed.

This goes for micro-alliances too. I have never been much a fan of the elitist attitude that some have toward small micro-alliances. Not everybody wants to be with a huge alliance, nor does everybody want to be taking orders from somebody else, when they would rather make an attempt to create, and run their own. Whether or not they know what they are doing is completely irrelevant. If bad choices are made, then they will most likely gain some first rate learning experience by being rolled, such is the nature of the game. The "You shouldn't exist unless you join one of the elite alliances" attitude of some are what truly ruins the game, as is the case in most other games.

I can assure you that there are some in this community who started out trying to do things on their own, and would of most likely quit right away if they had to jump through hoops so to speak, to earn the ability to create their own alliance. Many do realize that they need to learn more, end up joining an established alliance, and grow to become a contributing member of the CN community. If somebody is being stupid, I don't see what concern it is to anybody else, especially if it has no baring on themselves, their alliances, or their allies. To put it bluntly, if you don't like some alliance being stupid, and it bothers you that bad, roll them, but don't complain about, or discourage them from, existing.

This man wins the blog entry comments.

Link to comment

tl;dr a list disbanding both Fark and RIA and letting WTF and Asgaard stay alive is by definition a really really bad one

Oh yes, that's right, he said he expected WTF to do something once it got sanctioned. Well, I've got news for you, sweetie, I was sanctioned. It did nothing. It's been around since early 2007 at the least and hasn't done anything but sit there. Even GPA and TDO have done more than WTF. WTF man.

Link to comment

They are Neutrals RV, they are SUPPOSED to do nothing!!! wasn't "doing something" what got GPA and TDO in trouble in the first place?! Plus they are color snobs, forcing their members to reside on a single color. WTF is the only truly neutral AA by that standard. :D

Link to comment

MHA has a huge amount of political power? Are we talking about the same MHA? Also, both NSO and GOONS have more character and personality than half the alliances you want to stay. Add that to the fact "I don't like you" or "I like you" as a reason for alliances to stay or disband, I don't think you know much. I hate GOONS, for example, yet even I know they do good things for this game. They're a lot more exciting than most. Them disbanding would be a bad thing.

I'm going to have to unironically agree with RV here. You chose the list based on your personal views, not what's good for bob. Really I think half or more should disband, just to get back to the 'simple' MDP web days.

Link to comment

Ive looked through your list and cants say i disagree with all of them but your reasoning is terrible. THEY HAVE A LOT OF TREATIES who cares how many treaties you have as long as you have quality treaties with people you trust. Im curious as to why Valhalla should disband or RIA and yet TTK gets to stay. ***edit look at post above I agree with that*****

Link to comment

If people want there to be fewer alliances, make the ones that are here more attractive in the first place.

As someone who started an alliance (not the one I'm currently in) the reason I did so was that in spite of all the choices out there, there wasn't one I could find at the time that I wanted to join. Too many rules and regulations, someone else gets to decide when I go to war and when I don't for reasons that have nothing to do with me and all the fun positions (i.e. something in the leadership) were filled.

Frankly, if I didn't become a co-founder at the time, I would have left CN out of boredom or frustration with going to war for reasons I didn't understand within a couple months. Starting an alliance from "scratch" (i.e. couple days after joining CN, without knowing a thing...but I had the sense to listen to others advice) was one of the best decisions I made. I wouldn't suggest it for everyone, though - especially with the GOONS "welcoming committee." Now I'd suggest that people who want to get really involved with an alliance but are new join a micro that already has a protector. Many of the same advantages of starting ones own but with less work.

Link to comment

You've mentioned MHA being a political power and WFT as "it'll be fun to see them sanctioned". Please stop.

Neutral alliances have a place in the game, despite most people's opinions. Your list is terrible.

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...