Azaghul Posted April 27, 2011 Report Share Posted April 27, 2011 Before the other thread, which you can find [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=101370&st=0"]here[/url], becomes unreadable and overly long because of people arguing, I figured it was best to start a discussion thread. So if you want to discuss what someone says, post it here and leave the other one for ratings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 TOP only got a 2 cause I'm here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 Blue is terrible and should feel terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1303952517' post='2700741'] TOP only got a 2 cause I'm here. [/quote] Not bad, double the score of the second place alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I think the general consensus is that TDO should disband and refer most of its members to GPA. The more active ones willing to experience a real alliance should be referred elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 Both of these threads should be relocated to the OWF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Rahl Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='janax' timestamp='1303956231' post='2700802'] Blue is terrible and should feel terrible. [/quote] So say we all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I deducted points from TOP because of Blue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 These things are pointless. People rate based on like or dislike rather than the ability or achievements of the alliance with peoples allies rating high even if they are crap and low ratings being given for reasons as petty as not liking a single poster or having the wrong ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I often find them interesting. I realise people rate the alliances they like highly, but often they rate the ones they are warming towards highly too. It shows where people's priorities are. I also find reading the comments some people make good too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 (edited) Reading the thread is more interesting than arranging trades. It is also interesting to read the comments, more than the ratings. Edited April 28, 2011 by Alfred von Tirpitz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 Yeah, they're useful to see how alliances are perceived by the wider world. That said, I just realized I rated some completely subjectively, whereas others I based on more objective standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I thought the point was supposed to be to rate based on how you feel about them. [OOC]After all, they're posted in the IC forum[/OOC] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagrr Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 Rating alliances objectively here is probably doomed from the start. I didn't rate them objectively, I just rated them based on how much I liked their gov. Occasionally, a couple of members bring up the score a point or so. Opposition can't get above a 5. Neutrals get a 0. Alliances that don't do anything, either pro or con, tend to lose points. Hopefully no one takes these too personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1303996691' post='2701087'] I thought the point was supposed to be to rate based on how you feel about them. [OOC]After all, they're posted in the IC forum[/OOC] [/quote] I'm not sure what IC or OOC has to do with whether you rate them based on how you feel about them, or based on things like military and economic prowess. You can do both in an IC or OOC sense. Besides which, people don't always put threads in the right place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1303997927' post='2701100'] I'm not sure what IC or OOC has to do with whether you rate them based on how you feel about them, or based on things like military and economic prowess. You can do both in an IC or OOC sense. Besides which, people don't always put threads in the right place. [/quote] The way I see it is that military/economic prowess ratings don't really change from IC to OOC. For example, nobody is going to give Umbrella a 1/10 with the reason being that they can't fight and never use their aid slots. Everyone knows those statements are false, even the people who straight up hate them. Admittedly, I did kinda merge OOC with mil/econ... and still can't really figure out what I was thinking there. Suppose I'll have to give you that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarmatian Empire Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I found it odd the amount of alliances people never heard of, like TTK, who has been around for years, is a reliable players on maroon and...was a member of GUARD? Not sure on that, but TTK has been in the game for as long as I can remember and has head a decent NS. Also looking at these alliances, saying you dont know them and giving them a 1 or 2, if you dont know them, shouldnt you feel neutral towards them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Greenberg Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 Shame thatt worthless boring alliances like NATO, NADC, TFD, and UBD do nothing for the sphere. Even if you like Polar or not, at least they do something and start wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 What always interests me isn't what ratings people are getting, but who is giving them those ratings. Especially on those occasions when someone in high government fills one of these out. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Velox Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I found out NSO weren't only capable fighters,they're also good sports considering they're on the other side and most of them rank us pretty high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1304023276' post='2701322'] I found it odd the amount of alliances people never heard of, like TTK, who has been around for years, is a reliable players on maroon and...was a member of GUARD? Not sure on that, but TTK has been in the game for as long as I can remember and has head a decent NS. Also looking at these alliances, saying you dont know them and giving them a 1 or 2, if you dont know them, shouldnt you feel neutral towards them? [/quote] Listing a completely useless bloc like GUARD as one of their redeeming features does nothing for them. They only have so much NS because they've been stomped nor have they ever put forth a real fight in any world war. They're as useful as their #1 nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tautology Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I've just discovered that rating alliances is entirely subjective. (I used to think it was mostly subjective) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 I always find it fun, if pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAAAAAAAAAGGGG Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 If you're going to rate, at least give a small explanation as to why you've given that score. It makes reading the scores all the more hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted April 28, 2011 Report Share Posted April 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1304023276' post='2701322'] I found it odd the amount of alliances people never heard of, like TTK, who has been around for years, is a reliable players on maroon and...was a member of GUARD? Not sure on that, but TTK has been in the game for as long as I can remember and has head a decent NS. Also looking at these alliances, saying you dont know them and giving them a 1 or 2, if you dont know them, shouldnt you feel neutral towards them? [/quote] TTK was a member of GUARD which fit what their direction was at the time basically neutral. It has faced many ups and downs and usually pulls through due to solid core membership. They are a quiet bunch not a huge OWF presence or if they have a presence it wasnt always the best. They have been a member of 3 blocs GUARD, The Hegemony (NOV,MDC,TTK and one other cant even remember whom)and now Chestnut. They have been as high as 200 members but tend to fall back to the 110-140 mark with lows in the 80s. Zoom unfortunatly is right they have avoided wars and if not avoided always been on a mellow front. Hopefully Wiccan will change that and solidify TTK in to the AA i knew it always could and should be. I guess my point being that they are pretty isolated to maroon and not always on the front page so many people may not know who they are. As too your second question you would think so. Edited April 28, 2011 by Buds The Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.