commander thrawn 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] Yeah, it happens. I guess for many it comes with being in alliances that are always in the center of global politics and war. They tend to look more towards the other larger and loud AAs. I know we got a bunch of new visitors to our forums when we got into the top 40 and sanction race. It is disappointing to an extent. Yes in theory, they should be neutral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Greenberg Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 Looks like IRON is gunning for an MK treaty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1304036667' post='2701530'] Looks like IRON is gunning for an MK treaty [/quote] Now thats new. Edited April 29, 2011 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Greenberg Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 [quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1304037285' post='2701540'] Now thats new. [/quote] Not saying it's a bad thing. It makes sense for both Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 [quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1304038167' post='2701553'] Not saying it's a bad thing. It makes sense for both [/quote] What I was trying to say is that its the first time I've heard about it Ryan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted April 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 [quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1304036667' post='2701530'] Looks like IRON is gunning for an MK treaty [/quote] Their ratings of us have been pretty mixed, IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealthkill Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 Oh biased ratings are biased. Personally, I don't judge how much I like an alliance based on their Econ/Mil, but each to his own I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1303984333' post='2701029'] 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] No one ever really expected you to understand the utility of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BastardofGod Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 I could care less on the whole thing. Most of the people I started with are gone or spread out in other alliances. That being said I could go rate but looks like a giant troll thread. And I don't troll. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylar Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 [quote name='BastardofGod' timestamp='1304043452' post='2701648'] I could care less on the whole thing. Most of the people I started with are gone or spread out in other alliances. That being said I could go rate but looks like a giant troll thread. And I don't troll. Ever. [/quote] [IMG]http://i449.photobucket.com/albums/qq220/SDXS_WacaWaca/1303519167616.jpg[/IMG] nice to see people personal opinions, id post mine but having recently returned from along hiatus im not 100% caught up on politics since my departure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagrr Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 [quote name='BastardofGod' timestamp='1304043452' post='2701648'] I could care less on the whole thing. Most of the people I started with are gone or spread out in other alliances. That being said I could go rate but looks like a giant troll thread. And I don't troll. Ever. [/quote] I think you mean being [i]overly critical for the sake of self amusement[/i]. You should try it though, feels good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted April 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 [quote name='Stealthkill' timestamp='1304040925' post='2701601'] Oh biased ratings are biased. Personally, I don't judge how much I like an alliance based on their Econ/Mil, but each to his own I guess. [/quote] These things are always a mix of how much people get along with an alliance vs. how good they think an alliance is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 [quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1304036667' post='2701530'] Looks like IRON is gunning for an MK treaty [/quote] Yeah, we've always based our foreign affairs decision upon which alliance gave us the most 4s and 5s in a rating thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinite citadel Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 [quote name='Denial' timestamp='1304048270' post='2701704'] Yeah, we've always based our foreign affairs decision upon which alliance gave us the most 4s and 5s in a rating thread. [/quote] We've been outed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 If nothing else, it is a good barometer [or as good a barometer as is available] of the perceptions regarding various alliances from the diverse corners of the political landscape. Of course over time, there are a few trends that cannot be bucked. So there are few surprises when looking at the ratings from a majority of those that bothered to rate. A few however [again those you expect to] buck the trend [but then they always do so its a trend too i guess] I also read here somewhere that opposition never gets more than 5, i find that to be an erroneous statement. You just have to look at the ratings. The majority might be partisan, but the few that know more, do more, usually rise above such mundane concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 [quote name='Denial' timestamp='1304048270' post='2701704'] Yeah, we've always based our foreign affairs decision upon which alliance gave us the most 4s and 5s in a rating thread. [/quote] Shhhhhhhh. You'll reveal our secret strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagrr Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 [quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1304048904' post='2701711'] I also read here somewhere that opposition never gets more than 5, i find that to be an erroneous statement. You just have to look at the ratings. The majority might be partisan, but the few that know more, do more, usually rise above such mundane concerns. [/quote] I was just talking about myself. I don't pretend to be unbiased in discussions like this. Like I gave MK a 3. I'll be real for a moment, if we actually got along, I would rank them an 8 or so. We usually know which alliances are objectively terrible before we look at individual rankings anyway. Sometimes you just have to keep up appearances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 Continuing the discussion on me rating alliances to NPO: in response to alyster Global Alliance And Treaty Organization 5 - Too pro-NPO Basically, on this one, they're not allied to NPO at all, but have been staunchly supportive and it's kind of grating. I liked GATO before this. Olympus 6.5 - I don't like fighting Olympus over and over again and they didn't seem to fit in with the mindset of the rest of the NPO coalition, so it would be beneficial for them if they weren't tied to NPO. Invicta - In this case, it's literally all about NPO. In the past, Invicta at least had CDT and Purple(even if it was ridiculued) as something independent going for it. I wouldn't have guessed they were so attached to NPO until Karma came around. TPF - In their case, I credited them with being able to take lead of the coalition. I don't think they're inherently good for staying in as long as they did during Karma, either so it was a 5. NATO - The issue for me here is I genuinely had a high opinion of NATO when we fought them in Bi-Polar and I thought they'd forge a different direction after that rather than just recreating old structures. Legion treaty could be cited here as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyster Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1304082089' post='2701901'] Olympus 6.5 - I don't like fighting Olympus over and over again and they didn't seem to fit in with the mindset of the rest of the NPO coalition, so it would be beneficial for them if they weren't tied to NPO. Invicta - In this case, it's literally all about NPO. In the past, Invicta at least had CDT and Purple(even if it was ridiculued) as something independent going for it. I wouldn't have guessed they were so attached to NPO until Karma came around. TPF - In their case, I credited them with being able to take lead of the coalition. I don't think they're inherently good for staying in as long as they did during Karma, either so it was a 5. NATO - The issue for me here is I genuinely had a high opinion of NATO when we fought them in Bi-Polar and I thought they'd forge a different direction after that rather than just recreating old structures. Legion treaty could be cited here as well. [/quote] So anyone who dares to value friends and not power is in the wrong because of that Edited April 29, 2011 by alyster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 (edited) I'm not claiming to be an all seeing eye with objective truths, so I'll generally rate the opposition lower like Henry was saying. That's pretty much it. I guess it's disappointing to have alliances you like perpetually across the aisle as well. Other people have their own biases like: "Umbrella is under MK control." Edited April 29, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1304082632' post='2701903'] Other people have their own biases like: "Umbrella is under MK control." [/quote] You mean I shouldn't be taking orders from Archon? Edited April 29, 2011 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyster Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 TBH my bias about Umbrella is that you just bought up GOONS with 10 trillion (?) francos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarmatian Empire Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1304082089' post='2701901'] TPF - In their case, I credited them with being able to take lead of the coalition. I don't think they're inherently good for staying in as long as they did during Karma, either so it was a 5. [/quote] I could care less about the others, but I'm just curious why you wouldnt rate them a tick higher because they stayed in so long. It seems like the perfect ally to me, they went to hell with their friends while others left and here we are two years later and they are doing it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 The issue is that in most cases people don't have an issue with allies exiting the war before them if it's not going to provide any added benefit. Staying in for the sake of it isn't inherently good or bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarmatian Empire Posted April 29, 2011 Report Share Posted April 29, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1304084873' post='2701915'] The issue is that in most cases people don't have an issue with allies exiting the war before them if it's not going to provide any added benefit. Staying in for the sake of it isn't inherently good or bad. [/quote] Damn your quick Fair enough 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.