Jump to content

Rating Alliances discussion thread


Azaghul
 Share

Recommended Posts

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1304132592' post='2702322']
I don't recall what I gave Polar but I don't think it was extremely unfavorable. Just because they did a few questionable political moves, have members that openly don't like us, and royally screwed up, doesn't mean I think they're an objectively terrible alliance.
[/quote]

There's nothing in the ratings thread indicating that we should be attempting any sort of objective measurement and not simply offering our personal opinion. There is not, at any rate, any metric by which an objective measurement could be made, so all the ratings are subjective anyway, and some are merely masquerading as being based in something other than personal opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1304085792' post='2701919']
I find it funny seeing the butthurt from some members of Polar tossing 0's and 1's our way :P
[/quote]

The Viridian Entente declared war on the New Polar Order in January. Currently, it is April. I would be stunned if any dislike for an alliance that started a war on grounds considered questionable by the vast majority of Polar members had subsided within the one and a half months since the conclusion of the war.

Incidentally, most of the hatred and low ratings for us stem from political decisions made around the Bipolar War. I would not consider any opinion that stems from the Bipolar era to be out of date, nor would I consider a rating based on opinions of our actions during that time to be invalid simply because they didn't like what we did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doing these lists, if anything, is a good way to find out how I feel about alliances. It's sort of hidden away for the most part, but when you begin to rate them all, it's laid out on paper and you realise what you, yourself, think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prettymuch every single alliance has uncharismatic leaders, terrible posters, inflated sense of self-worth and a total lack of vision. You all get 1s except a select few. Polar and FAN get high marks for sheer survivability, especially considering how intact their respective cultures remain. They stick to their guns and that's a hell of a lot more than the rest of you wishy-washy panderers can say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1304149202' post='2702429']
Prettymuch every single alliance has uncharismatic leaders, terrible posters, inflated sense of self-worth and a total lack of vision. You all get 1s except a select few. Polar and FAN get high marks for sheer survivability, especially considering how intact their respective cultures remain. They stick to their guns and that's a hell of a lot more than the rest of you wishy-washy panderers can say.
[/quote]

More or less accurate, though I'd probably disagree with you on some of the finer details of your distribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1304149202' post='2702429']
Prettymuch every single alliance has uncharismatic leaders, terrible posters, inflated sense of self-worth and a total lack of vision. You all get 1s except a select few. Polar and FAN get high marks for sheer survivability, especially considering how intact their respective cultures remain. They stick to their guns and that's a hell of a lot more than the rest of you wishy-washy panderers can say.
[/quote]

As much as i'd like to agree cause its funny, you're actually wrong. A lot of alliances are like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people seem to take these ratings seriously. They're kinda worthless, only good as an exercise in contemplating how you feel about the other alliances out there and seeing what other people (esp. leaders and general membership) think. If you're rating low on someone for the sake of bringing them down, that's butthurt. If you're rating low on someone just because you don't like their political goals, etc, that's fine. I avoided rating alliances I'm actually closely familiar with, because it'd be tainted by personal perspective, and pointless as an exercise anyway.

On another note, it is interesting how just one person can drastically change a lot of people's perspectives on the entire alliance more easily than NS strength or political moves. CN has its celebrities.

Oh, and I find it amusing that INT is left out, while Gotham is in there XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funniest part is seeing people rate MK low for the preemptive strike, and then rate Umbrella high despite the fact that they played at least as much of a role as MK in organizing the preemptive strike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304185469' post='2702595']
The funniest part is seeing people rate MK low for the preemptive strike, and then rate Umbrella high despite the fact that they played at least as much of a role as MK in organizing the preemptive strike.
[/quote]

yeah its pretty !@#$@#$ hilarious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304185469' post='2702595']
The funniest part is seeing people rate MK low for the preemptive strike, and then rate Umbrella high despite the fact that they played at least as much of a role as MK in organizing the preemptive strike.
[/quote]

No no no. Umbrella, GOONS, NPO, Legion, whoever... are but puppets in our hands. ~The People~ know who the true evil mastermind behind this most recent preempt is. You cannot fool ~The People~ and its collective knowledge and wisdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1304061943' post='2701840']
New Sith Order - 5 - You should have won WAE except you'd have liked it too much. You are literally the worst alliance in the game economically, politically and militarily. That said, your members seem to really enjoy being there no matter how much of a craphole it is so I suppose that means you serve a function even if I don't understand it.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I won't argue economically. We're terrible at growing nations. And politically I suppose you can make an argument there. But militarily? I'm not saying we're a powerhouse or even good, but really, there are several alliances much worse than us in that regard.[/color]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1304189166' post='2702627']
[color="#0000FF"]I won't argue economically. We're terrible at growing nations. And politically I suppose you can make an argument there. But militarily? I'm not saying we're a powerhouse or even good, but really, there are several alliances much worse than us in that regard.[/color]
[/quote]
Okay, that's fair. I think I'd temporarily managed to forget just how bad some alliances are at fighting. Damn you for reminding me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal opinion aside, I found that alliances that tend to start conflicts either get the highest or lowest of ratings based off of the rater's moral disposition to the conflict.

Imo, any alliance that starts a war regardless of the reason gets a 10 (MK, VE) if for any reasons, because the political atmosphere is less stale and wars are awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1304158738' post='2702465']
Oh, and I find it amusing that INT is left out, while Gotham is in there XD
[/quote]
heh I am not sure whether to laugh or cry, obviously we so irrelevant that we hardly register on anybodies radar :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1303965988' post='2700888']
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]

I disagree, TDO is the only truly neutral AA out there, all of the other so-called neutrals either favor one color, or hate them all(Grey Council). If I were ever to go neutral it would be TDO all the way. B-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1304192177' post='2702667']
I disagree, TDO is the only truly neutral AA out there, all of the other so-called neutrals either favor one color, or hate them all(Grey Council). If I were ever to go neutral it would be TDO all the way. B-)
[/quote]
Isn't TDO Aqua and WTF multicolor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1304189471' post='2702631']
Okay, that's fair. I think I'd temporarily managed to forget just how bad some alliances are at fighting. Damn you for reminding me.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Actually, and I know I may be biased, NSO may have been one of the better performing alliances of our side this war. Granted, that may not be a reflection of the NSO's ability as much as it is the terribleness of its side. But we were pretty good at cycling in and out of peace mode and coordinating. Had we not run out of money we probably could have fought longer.[/color]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1304155385' post='2702452']
As much as i'd like to agree cause its funny, you're actually wrong. A lot of alliances are like that.
[/quote]
I'm sure there are other alliances like that, but those that might be considered for their persistence I have an unfathomable loathing for for other reasons; cast and point, TOP. Of course, it's difficult to draw comparisons, because nobody has been knocked down as hard and as often as Polar and FAN. GATO would qualify but the nature of their alliance keeps the inner-workings and outward image fluid with the people elected. Polar has changed very little in the demeanour of its membership and its internal structure over the past 3 or 4 years. Few alliances can boast existing that long, let alone staying true to themselves that long.

Anyway. It still stands to point that the vast majority of alliances on that list are terrible and should be ashamed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1303983967' post='2701025']
I deducted points from TOP because of Blue.
[/quote]
As did I.

[quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1304197021' post='2702703']
I'm sure there are other alliances like that, but those that might be considered for their persistence I have an unfathomable loathing for for other reasons; cast and point, TOP. Of course, it's difficult to draw comparisons, because nobody has been knocked down as hard and as often as Polar and FAN. GATO would qualify but the nature of their alliance keeps the inner-workings and outward image fluid with the people elected. Polar has changed very little in the demeanour of its membership and its internal structure over the past 3 or 4 years. Few alliances can boast existing that long, let alone staying true to themselves that long.

Anyway. It still stands to point that the vast majority of alliances on that list are terrible and should be ashamed.
[/quote]
You're correct. Polar has been a terrible alliance for most of their existence. At least ES was actually threatening. Grub is like a chihuahua barking at random people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On neutrals, I think GPA is the only neutral that actually actively works with people. You see GPA-ers writing blogs, sending out diplomats, making hippy propaganda, playing in TE, hanging actively around the temptrade channel. There are a lot of other neutrals around, but I don't see their presence anywhere.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1304189166' post='2702627']
[color="#0000FF"]I won't argue economically. We're terrible at growing nations. And politically I suppose you can make an argument there. But militarily? I'm not saying we're a powerhouse or even good, but really, there are several alliances much worse than us in that regard.[/color]
[/quote]

Well, most of NSO did do horribly during the 6 Million Dollar war, and someone in GOD would look down on you based on that. Still, anyone would be demoralized under those numbers. And the whining at the end of that war didn't help. But I think NSO redeemed itself during the most recent war.

Now that I think of it, I think NEW deserves a few bonus points for being one of the few alliances to take a curbstomp so cheerfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This man is correct, I was basing my judgment off of bipolar and and the Rok-NSO conflict. It's entirely possible you've improved since then but combined with me not being in an alliance fighting you and my retirement from active duty milcom I wouldn't really know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1304198738' post='2702713']
This man is correct, I was basing my judgment off of bipolar and and the Rok-NSO conflict. It's entirely possible you've improved since then but combined with me not being in an alliance fighting you and my retirement from active duty milcom I wouldn't really know.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I'd like you to name one alliance that has performed well while it was being beaten down. We were up against four larger alliances, and attacked at a time when most of our members were not around. Yes, FAN did well, but it had time to recover from the initial blitz and waged a long term conflict. Plus, it knew it was coming days ahead. The NSO didn't find out until only a few hours before the attack. That's hardly enough time for any alliance to prepare.[/color]

Edited by Rebel Virginia
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...