Jump to content

Rating Alliances discussion thread


Azaghul
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[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 by Buds The Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...