Watch Blog

I'm not sure how clear cut this trend is. I generally ascribe to the idea that quality>quantity, but I'm rather happy that Zenith doesn't leave out the possibility for newer nations to get in on that quality action. Although the application process in Zenith is... lengthy, we don't refuse anyone on the basis of nation strength, time spent in CN, or even past history (if their mistakes have been forgiven). While I respect other alliances, especially Gramlins for how they have grown from nothing to one of the most powerful (I believe highest ANS), and now have an admission policy to maintain their stance, I'm a little skeptical of other alliances that when formed, are formed with "star" members of the CN community. Is it easier to maintain a smaller, more tight-nit alliance? Probably, but that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.

Obviously, I realize that my views are very one sided - I've heard from the other side that many of those leaders who left their alliances to form smaller, more elite alliances that they paid their dues to their previous alliance. Fair enough. It's a point of view that I can understand, so I don't hold a grudge for the standpoint, I just happen to disagree.

I'm a little skeptical of other alliances that when formed, are formed with "star" members of the CN community. Is it easier to maintain a smaller, more tight-nit alliance? Probably, but that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.

Hi Ferrous! Thanks for adding to the convo.

I guess, I am confused about your usage of the word "right." What do you mean by that?

Well, it kinda feels like you're abandoning your alliance when you go join an elitist one for the sake of a fresh new start. It's one thing to join an alliance because you want a change of scenery - and it wouldn't necessarily be leaving on bad terms with your old alliance. And it's another when something went horribly wrong in your old alliance, and it's not healthy to stay there any more. But it's another case entirely when you lose faith in your old alliance, and lose faith that it can turn things around. That might just be the idealist in me though.

I believe that community, not quality, is the current prevailing trend in alliance formation. For any well-established alliance in Cyber Nations, there are ten others who are dedicated to filling a niche (take NSO for example). While I can only speculate on the internal dynamics of other alliances, the most successful alliances (hint: choose your metric for 'successful') usually have a community which fosters a specific mindset.

In Echelon's case, it is that we're war-mongering elitist-types that show disdain for people who can't take a joke. yet we play the game seriously. A thesis of "play for keeps" and "lol srs bsnz" if you will.

Solidus117 will say "community" and I will refer to it as a family like "band of brothers" I think there are divergent ideas on the game and the point of the game. There are two camps that stand out to me. One is a blended game play and value of the social component of the game and then some that think the game is lame and are here just for the social aspect and are just existing.

I think it's pointless to be in a group that is heading in a different direction. It only builds resentment which is counter productive for any family. You have been to a family reunion to see bitter factions. Yes it has lots of drama, but desiring drama is rather cold in my opinion.

What is left is finding the place where you fit that has the game play you desire and a group that shares a core of values that you do. This combination of game play and values leads to a close bond between each other. You might call it "elitist" but I see it more as a "Band of Brothers" (fellow sisters of course).