A 'super-alliance'

[IYIyTh]

Inb4 elitist alliances are bad for the game.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1312828818' post='2775076']
Inb4 elitist alliances are bad for the game.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]NSO isn't all bad, and as I've already made clear, NSO is this game's most elite alliance. No one else can hold a candle to our greatness.[/color]

[Van Hoo III]

As some have already pointed out, this sounds a lot like what Nemesis was founded on. It was a great idea and would have worked, but a lot of the founding fathers had RL get in the way and weren't able to lead for very long ... four months or so, as Zoom3 said. In order for it to work, you'd need the core founders to retain interest and be dedicated for a good year. Obviously, that is difficult to do.

[D34th]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1312820844' post='2774936']
Welcome to The Order of the Paradox.

We are taking applications there: http://ordoparadox.com/top/index.php?showforum=9

Thank you for your time,
[/quote]

Can I join, please?

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1312836013' post='2775176']
Can I join, please?
[/quote]

I'll vouch

[jerdge]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1312781900' post='2774671']What if there was an alliance forming that consisted of active and driven members who, to put it simply, actually gave a !@#$ about CN? Everybody (100% of the members) in the alliance would aim to grow their nation efficiently, and play a role in IA, FA, or any other aspect of the alliance. They were IRC active, and generally recognized on the OWF.

Is this something that would appeal to you? Meaning, if you knew that there were 20-30 people involved for the DoE and you met the previously-mentioned criteria, would you join?[/quote]
A 100% active alliance looks like a place where the vast majority of people spend really [i]a lot[/i] of their time for CN, ending up in being completely involved and [i]way[/i] too attached to the game... Unable to have fun anymore because they'd be continuously risking to see tens of thousands of hours of their collective time wasted in some stupid situation. I'm not talking of the NS (only).
I think that a more reasonable balance means more fun in the long run.

On a not entirely different note, I'm where I am (also) because I like to be "required" to do stuff (almost) only when I have time for it, thus my answer is "no, I'd prefer a moderately active alliance". One where at times you might be unable to contact people, but you know that when they'll be back they'll treat the game just like a game.


[size=1][[b]Edit:[/b]something was missing][/size]

Edited August 9, 2011 by jerdge

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1312781900' post='2774671']
Having been in something like 10 alliances during my first 3 years of CN, I've finally been able to really settle into one that fits more or less anything I want from a CN community. In 2006-mid 2009 I went through a series of alliances that now no longer exist due to merging or disbandment (VE you are literally the only one ruining the pattern here, I think I'm 9-for-10 on past alliances that don't exist anymore). With the exception of NAAC (8 months) I was never on the same AA for more than half a year. But MK has been entertaining, active, and shows the drive to remain a fun and interesting alliance.

I was recently thinking if there was any situation where I might even consider leaving MK. Nothing very tempting came to mind until this evening.

What if there was an alliance forming that consisted of active and driven members who, to put it simply, actually gave a !@#$ about CN? Everybody (100% of the members) in the alliance would aim to grow their nation efficiently, and play a role in IA, FA, or any other aspect of the alliance. They were IRC active, and generally recognized on the OWF.

Is this something that would appeal to you? Meaning, if you knew that there were 20-30 people involved for the DoE and you met the previously-mentioned criteria, would you join?


Note: This is just out of curiousity, or hypothetical. I don't have any plans to actually attempt this. I'm simply trying to think of scenarios where I would be tempted to leave an alliance I've been in for so long, and can't really see myself elsewhere.
[/quote]

I've actually been in the same boat myself wrt AA switching.


For the hypothetical AA, it would honestly depend on who the members are and what your policies would be etc. But if you can guarantee strong and consistent activity you'd at least have my attention.

[Cairna]

If NSO had semi sexy looking forums, I'd be tempted to merge CD into them. When it comes to government, they've got plenty of people to keep the ship running, plenty of IRC activity, OWF activity. As RV said, they're probably about as close to this sort of thing as you'd get.

It's an attractive idea, and at this point in my CN career I certainly don't give two kicks about leadership so long as the alliance lasts.

[Varianz]

[quote name='Cairna' timestamp='1312849540' post='2775325']
If NSO had semi sexy looking forums, I'd be tempted to merge CD into them. When it comes to government, they've got plenty of people to keep the ship running, plenty of IRC activity, OWF activity. As RV said, they're probably about as close to this sort of thing as you'd get.

It's an attractive idea, and at this point in my CN career I certainly don't give two kicks about leadership so long as the alliance lasts.
[/quote]
No, simply because the &*&^ Trekwiz would spew everywhere would destroy NSO.

Edit: damn word filter. Cairna will get the reference to the picture thread on our forums.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Varianz

[Bob]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1312835489' post='2775173']
As some have already pointed out, this sounds a lot like what Nemesis was founded on. It was a great idea and would have worked, but a lot of the founding fathers had RL get in the way and weren't able to lead for very long ... four months or so, as Zoom3 said. In order for it to work, you'd need the core founders to retain interest and be dedicated for a good year. Obviously, that is difficult to do.
[/quote]
It requires an unhealthy amount of activity to lead an alliance like that.

[Trout]

It would be appealing.. Too bad I'm too inactive to participate in anything anymore.

[Sephiroth]

Join NTA.

[Unknown Smurf]

Theres just not enough 'jobs' (slash things to do) once an alliance ages. Activity always drops off. You find your niche in the CN world. You don't have to set up the forums, recruitment becomes a chore, etc.

[Daikos]

I prefer our model of alliance where nobody cares at all about anything related to CN. Makes for a much more enjoyable environment.

But to each his own.

[Schattenmann]

Cult of Justitia. CoJ's theme is CN-based rather than drawing on external sources; we were founded to espouse, spread, and act on specific ideals rather than just to exist and get bigger; we don't actively recruit (started with 2, highest membership was ~40); we expel people who don't show an interest in being part of what we're doing (cut ourselves in half mid-war). We're almost all over 18, most of us are pushing 30. Most members are ex-gov from Nemesis to NSO to GATO to Vox to GPA to Old Guard to MHA and all sorts of places in between. The only thing we don't have is high OWF participation (they all read it but me and Jaxon are pretty much the only two that have anything to say in public :3 ). We don't have a problem with too many goats--people join knowing what they're joining, and if they're not on board with CoJ's agenda they don't join; in fact, the problems started when we got lax on entry standards so that we'd have more sheep. We project ourselves when its in line with our goals and where we can, and when we work with others, we don't subjugate ourselves to bigger alliances just because they happen to have a good newb-spamming team.

Coincidentally, our only treaty was with Nemesis until Browncoats reformed.

It isn't easy and it's not always exciting but as other have pointed out there are several examples. CoJ isn't perfect but your outline is pretty much our handbook. Our biggest limiting factor isn't any of the reasons touched on already, but our stance against compulsive treaties which keeps most alliances from wanting to deal with us.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Schattenmann

[NationRuler]

The best part of this thread is people claiming their own alliances to be super-alliances.

[Locke]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1312916724' post='2776040']
they all read it but me and Jaxon are pretty much the only two that have anything to say in public :3
[/quote]
You make Biff and Hyperbad cry.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='NationRuler' timestamp='1312917148' post='2776044']
The best part of this thread is people claiming their own alliances to be super-alliances.
[/quote]
Drai laid out some specific qualities that [i]he[/i] calls "super," and some alliances meet them. If Drai wants to talk about an alliance that he calls a super-alliance and a person's own alliance possesses many of them, why wouldn't they bring it up?

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1312920514' post='2776085']
You make Biff and Hyperbad cry.
[/quote]
You're right, Hyper and I somehow never cross OWF paths though so I forget he's on here a lot Biff's out there too.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='NationRuler' timestamp='1312917148' post='2776044']
The best part of this thread is people claiming their own alliances to be super-alliances.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Well, in NSO's case it is true.[/color]

[Locke]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1312929582' post='2776179']
You're right, Hyper and I somehow never cross OWF paths though so I forget he's on here a lot Biff's out there too.
[/quote]
While we're at it, what happened to MegaAros? Haven't seen him post much in a while.

[Hyperbad]

The idea can work, it'd just be extremely difficult. They'd all need to be pretty close in views on how affairs should be conducted.
[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1312920514' post='2776085']
You make Biff and Hyperbad cry.
[/quote]
And Schatt still hasn't apologized how mean is that?

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1312929582' post='2776179']
You're right, Hyper and I somehow never cross OWF paths though so I forget he's on here a lot Biff's out there too.
[/quote]
Only when [s]I'm at work[/s] I have time available.

eh, I only really post when I'm feeling loopy or extremely bored. Most of the time when I have thought up replies I don't post them out of a realization it isn't relevant to the post I was responding to, someone else has already argued the point or I found a flaw in what I was going to say. Most of my posts aren't entirely serious anyway.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Hyperbad

[Wilhelm the Demented]

I would certainly be tempted... in an ideal world.

[The Pansy]

I'll be honest, I'd join just to see the in-fighting that would go on for power.

[OrangeBeard]

I think it'd be a great idea, except for as many people mentioned, too many leaders. (Forgive me if I'm repeating, didn't read every post) - The problem can be solved with tons of recruiting. If you gave those 10, 20, whatever respected members a lot of advertising and recruiting, most n00bs (myself included) would jump on board the chance to be involved with some of the CN studs.

It may not work out, as every alliance may not, but it certainly has more appeal than morons who don't know what they're doing starting an alliance and dragging people down with them. I'd join it anyway.

[Homeboy]

[quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1312895503' post='2775780']
I prefer our model of alliance where nobody cares at all about anything related to CN. Makes for a much more enjoyable environment.But to each his own.
[/quote]

God bless our ideals.