anenu
-
Posts
1,196 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by anenu
-
-
[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1293157520' post='2552208']
TOP-IRON-R&R-GOD is why I don't get this move. Am I to guess that GOD will either kick R&R out of SF or leave SF?
+1 for GOONS
[/quote]
I would assume that either GOD is planning on leaving SF or R&R is or else Xiph actually doesn't actually care about being indirectly allied to TOP in which case this entire thread would make no sense whatsoever. -
I don't know about anyone else but after reading RV's post in this thread i suddenly hope that Archon follows through on his "veiled threat" and MK does indeed roll TOOL.
All I can say RV is good job I entered this thread with a low opinion and more or less complete disinterest in TOOL but no desire to roll them and left hoping to see them burn in a combined fire of MK/GOD -
[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1289276977' post='2507264']
Something tells me that if there are four alliances with less than 200 members above a sanctioned alliance, something needs to change.
[/quote]
just be glad its not 300 anymore or else only 8 alliances would meet sanction requirements. -
I believe i said it before in this thread but no one seemed to be paying attention so i will say it again.
Despite the many flaws in how the game is set up now i see no reason to believe that more nations are leaving the game than ever before. Instead i believe that less new nations are coming in. When the game was new many people linked to off world forums and we saw many invasion alliances that greatly increased the numbers of players. Now however the numbers of people in those off world forums that haven't already been exposed to cybernations and would be interested in it are far to few to cater to and as such many less people are joining the game then in times past. -
I fail to see any reason to believe that more nations are fleeing the game now than in times past. The difference between now and times past when alliances had over a thousand nations each is that far fewer new nations are coming into the game than when the game was newer.
-
I don't believe that raiding or political stagnation have much to do with nation departure. Instead it probably has more to do with less new nation coming in than an increase in nations leaving
-
[quote name='lorddagon' timestamp='1284609488' post='2455499']
I believe i stated at the beginning of the post that it was unrelated O.o what an i doing to improve the image? im volunteering for diplomat service. getting out there to tell people about my experience in the alliance, because my experience has been excellent so far. Sure i joined in the middle of reps so everyone was doing their own thing, but noone ignored me when i had a question or needed help. The people a little demented at times but fun to chat with, sure the government isnt perfect but i rather have the illusion of democracy, something i am very comfortable with since i was born in the U.S., than have no choice who rules me. The only bad experiences so far that i have had on bob is all this from the MK. All this hate and mudslinging has surprised me, i thought the image of the Alliance was everything, yet you people, in my mind, have degraded yourselves just to torment us. It gives me a bad taste of the MK that im sure will follow me around where ever i go.
[/quote]
you quoted someone and made a rather poorly attempted slight at MK meaning it wasn't really unrelated.
Also you seem to be unaware of the history of the alliance you are in and why people hate your alliance as much as they do. Your history as an alliance plus your generally poor performance in the fields warfare and alliance growth are what has earned you the title of WAE. This is not to say that WAE is exactly a proper name for it as alliance can out grow it, like GATO did or can disband and we find a new one, like GGA did. Personally i suggest asking people on IRC both within your alliance and those you are allied to as well as those who have generally faced off against you what they truly think of Legion and why they think that so you can gain an understanding of the reason it is considered so terrible of an alliance. -
[quote name='lorddagon' timestamp='1284605271' post='2455404']
On a completely unrelated note, i cant wait for the succession of the throne, if its anything like earth succession its gonna get bloody, unless of course you have solved that problem inside the charter by defining a clear line of succession. Still there is always the threat of a coup or such during the transition, a weak leader being ousted by the stronger general.
[/quote]
Congratulations on making a pointless post. I see you have not responded to my or anyone else suggestions on why Legion is a terrible alliance and have instead continued to counter with pointlessness or comment that Legion is great because its still here or it has enough inactive members to be sanctioned.
So instead i will simply ask this question. I think Legion is a terrible alliance, why am i wrong or what are you doing to improve this image? -
[quote name='lorddagon' timestamp='1284589602' post='2455090']
If we suck so bad then answer this, how are we still in business? If the legion is so horrible in it's policies how is it still getting recruits? If we are just garbage, then how are we only two spots behind MK in strength? Why haven't we been curb-stomped into oblivion? Why? It is because we endure. Forever and always, AVE LEGIO!
[/quote]
Having a large number of members doesn't equal quality it just means you have quantity. You hold the lowest average score of any sanctioned alliance and the second lowest slot usage beaten only by TDO who is a neutral alliance. What you need to do is cut the fat from your alliance and shed around 200 members or so and make sure that your remaining members are active and have a good warchest on hand so that they are capable to fight in an extended conflict instead of having 300 or so inactive nation that serve as nothing but cannon fodder for anyone at war with you to feed off of while they hit however many prepared nations you have. -
[quote name='lorddagon' timestamp='1284581205' post='2454971']
well then the Legion cannot be voted WAE if not even close to the majority of bob votes. otherwise its just you and your mk buddies against the legion in an attempt to get us mad and attack you, and we cannot have that now can we.
[/quote]
Once again you make excuses and do nothing to better yourself. Legion is winning this poll for a reason but instead of looking at that and think that maybe you should revise your policies you make elawyer claims that since not every single nation on bob voted its an invalid poll. Well guess what that does nothing to prove you are not a terrible alliance and in fact only helps to cement the point.
[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1284584866' post='2455027']
Solution: MK/Athens v Legion
we fight till Legion surrenders lol
[/quote]
So next Thursday midnight blitz and peace cake on Friday right? -
[quote name='lorddagon' timestamp='1284580298' post='2454961']
Actually it shows me that only 3% of bob really cares about YOUR polls and what you do, pathetic really in the long run.
[/quote]
most of bob isn't even aware that this place exist stop making excuses and start making changes. -
[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1284563850' post='2454772']
Ten million national strength BUILT OFF THE BACK OF YOUR SLAVES.
[/quote]
Shut up and get back to work. That monument to Archon won't build itself like the last one did. -
[quote name='kulomascovia' timestamp='1284266943' post='2450656']
Of course it is acceptable for an individual to think that a certain alliance is "worst alliance ever" in IC or in OOC. The problem is that this is an OOC contest that uses IC justifications. Players judge according to whom they are treatied or with whom they are enemies, a rather IC reason. Then they extrapolate these thoughts into OOC and vote. It's this muddling of OOC and IC that I dislike. What I would suggest is having a standard by which players can vote. Something akin to a rubric that is either IC or OOC.
[/quote]
Which is why UPN an alliance that is allied to 2 different MK allies one of which is in CnG was eliminated in the first round and in no way managed to defeat a MK favorite NSO. -
colored text just means that the person has nothing important to say so the post should simply be skipped
Also it looks stupid even if you are RV.
[size="1"][color="#FFFFFF"]Although white is cool[/color][/size] -
[quote name='Rugby' timestamp='1283226579' post='2436566']
Up until 2010, and including 2010 actually, MHA has never lost a war. Sure our position in the MDP web was a significant factor, but the same is true for NPO. They lost GW1 and Karma when the tables were turned. MHA has consistently gone against larger alliances (The Legion, GOONS. IRONS, and the 6 vs 1 from UJW 2.0) and have never failed to defeat their targets. Just because we gave them white peace instead of ridiculous surrender terms doesn't make it less of a victory every single time.
I wouldn't at all say we were the best, but it seems our inclusion on the Worst is based on presumptions and fallacy, and not on anything approaching reality.
[/quote]
while i don't really want to bash on MHA (and i'm sure someone will be around shortly to do such anyway) i do have to point out that having never lost a war should not be a point of pride for any alliance because it generally means that either you either have always made sure to stay on the winning side or that you aren't very old and haven't had enough time yet to prove your loyalty to your friends. As MHA is a rather old alliance i'm sure you see what that makes you seem to be. -
[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1283063800' post='2434547']
Top 10 alliance contest.
Numbers: There is power in numbers, there can be no question of that
MHA-10
NPO-9
Legion-8
NpO-7
Sparta-6
ODN-5
GOONS-4
VE-3
GATO-2
Iron-1
Fark-0
Infra: Sure largely determined by the numbers, but still a key factor
NPO-10
MHA-9
GPA-8
NpO-7
Sparta-6
Fark-5
Legion-4
VE-3
ODN-2
TDO-1
WTF-0
Tech: Always a key factor
MHA-10
GPA-9
MK-8
Fark-7
Sparta-6
Umbrella-5
NpO-4
NPO-3
WTF-2
VE-1
TOP-0
Nukes: How much damage can they do
NPO-10
NpO-9
MK-8
Sparta-7
MHA-6
VE-5
FAN-4
Fark-3
ODN-2
FOK-1
Legion-0
I believe based on the points above, the following are listed as the top 10 most powerful alliances. This does not take into account wonders/warchest/treaties
End result:
1)[color="#48D1CC"]MHA[/color]- 35
2)[color="#FF0000"]NPO[/color]- 33
3)[color="#0000FF"]NpO[/color]- 27
4)[color="#000000"]Sparta[/color]- 25
5)[color="#006400"]GPA[/color]- 17
6)[color="#00FFFF"]Fark[/color]- 15
7)[color="#00FFFF"]MK[/color]- 14
8)[color="#800080"]Legion[/color]- 12
9)[color="#006400"]VE[/color]- 12
10)[color="#FFA500"]ODN[/color]- 9
Umbrella-5
GOONS-4
FAN- 4
GATO- 2
Iron- 1
TDO- 1
FOK-1
WTF- 0
TOP- 0
[/quote]
shiny but it ignores the most of the true key features such as average NS, previous military performances, treaties, and if they are neutral or not.
Edit: Also ignores the loudness factor which of vital importance as we all know the louder the alliance on the OWF the more powerful it is. -
If an ally ask you not to go in you don't have a moral or "legal" obligation to defend them. However if the ally ask to defend them or gives you a choice then you defend them no matter what the odds.
-
[quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1280812680' post='2399210']
Please don't merge again.
[/quote]
Do the exact opposite and merge with Rok to form an alliance that literally consist of more alliances than are currently in the sanction race. -
both Rok and Atlantis where i believe sanctioned in under 6 months from the date of there creation. I also vaguely recall seeing something about how Rok was literally 1 day slower at achieving sanction than Atlantis was but i may be wrong.
-
[quote name='Lao Pan' timestamp='1280379291' post='2393575']
What's the purpose of the tier lines, wouldn't it be simpler to have sanctioned alliances and then everyone else in one large group?
[/quote]
the race used to be one large conglomerate but as the qualifications to be in the sanction race are to have over half of the lowest sanctioned alliance score the alliances at the bottom are in truth still months away from sanction at best so the tier system shows who is actually racing for sanction and might achieve it with a small merge or a growth spurt while the alliances below tier 1 or 2 are farther away and more unlikely to achieve sanction soon without some major event.
Or at least that is the purpose that i see behind the tier system -
i don't disagree with the idea that to many alliances exist right now but this list is clearly biased as several cookie cutter follower alliances are allowed to stay for no explained reason while others are told to disband.
-
[quote name='Thunder Strike' timestamp='1279944671' post='2387063']
Fixed it for you
[/quote]
but i thought we where raiding red to get it all out of our system before the move are you telling me that we have to redo all of that again on maroon now? -
[quote name='Thunder Strike' timestamp='1279944338' post='2387053']
I'm waiting for all the sceptics ITT to realise that this is real and Bastion is back
[/quote]
but you forgot to mention that all the alliances are moving to red as well, how can you expect people to believe things when you don't tell them everything?
also congrats on your birthday. -
I also wish to have one of these super fun happy slides
Mushroom Kingdom / Pandora's Box
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
Considering that I don't really know anything about the inner workings of PB and the poll won't let me vote for more than 1 actual PB member I have no choice vote for MK, because I can.