LAAT501legion Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 No matter how you look at it elite alliances are much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Frontier Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 [quote name='LAAT501legion' timestamp='1325626921' post='2891661'] No matter how you look at it elite alliances are much better. [/quote] Not necessarily. In fact, I would argue that the best overall "war machines" would be the more competent mass alliances like an ODN or IRON or even a Sparta, simply because they can inflict more damage in total than the smaller ones that might be better fighters, but have less fight to go around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 [quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1325606011' post='2891510'] I think having lots of inactives is a burden rather than a benefit. Most of the mass member alliances actually comprise of an active core of competent members (akin to that of an elite alliance), they just waste their resources babysitting nations who contribute next to nothing for the cause. So it is natural that the elite alliances (who don't have such burdens) prove more capable. If someone allows themselves to be so inactive that they become a burden to their alliance, they don't deserve to be a member of it. When I lost most of my interest in actively playing this game, I started sending aid and tech to my alliance-mates. Over the past year and a half or so I've spent virtually no time on my nation but have still contributed several hundred million dongs and thousands of tech to my alliance. I also have a funny picture thread which I think is the only reason why TOP keeps me around these days. [/quote] If you're in a mass alliance and you're "babysitting" "inactives," then you're doing it wrong. The key to success in a mass alliance is to create systems whereby your core players can get the most out of your less active players. What you lack in efficiency, you more than make up in volume. And the breadth of efficiency among different mass alliances I've observed is astounding. There's a lot of wrong out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 First, I'm not exactly sure what the definition of "mass" and/or "elite" is. From reading the comments, people don't necessarily agree. Is it nations strength or entrance requirements or size or the internal rules...So perhaps define your terms better. Personally, I've never been in an alliance over 60 members as I'd much rather hang out with a few well trained players who I know well and feel I can count on than a large number of people who are only semi-active, so guess that puts me in the "elite" camp. It's not about which one is better at winning a war. It's about what type of culture I prefer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmoo Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I think a mix of alliance models are necessary. I won't comment on which is "better" because I have only been in one mass alliance. What I have noticed over 3 years is that mass recruiting is necessary if you wish to have and maintain a large alliance. Keeping a core with three well rounded and capable military tiers is a PITA to say the least. Some have proven to be very successful: NPO, ODN, GATO, MHA, IRON, to name a few. I look at it like dating: If you want to meet one cool woman, you need to talk to ten. If you want to meet ten cool women, you need to talk to one hundred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 You need both. One of the downsides of high-ANS elite alliances is that they tend to do a disproportionate amount of damage in a very short period of time, which leaves their opponents a couple tiers out of range. Umbrella, as an example, has just 34 nations below 10k tech...in other words, even if all of their nations sold off all of their infra, land and navy to keep fighting (keeping only tech/soldiers/nukes), they'd have only those nations capable of hitting nations below 45k NS after the first round, and that'd be the majority of any opponent they face. The damage output of the mass-member alliances won't be as good on a per-member basis, or anywhere near it, but someone has to sweep up all that rubble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ch33kY Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Elite alliances and mass alliances rely on one another. You'll notice how most elite alliances are very close to a mass alliance. Elite alliances co-ordinate the fight in the top tiers and the mass alliances co-ordinate the fight in the lower tiers. Edited January 4, 2012 by Ch33kY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 In poker if you're at a table full of aggressive people you play cautiously and watch your opponents self destruct. If you're at a cautious table you can bluff most rounds and watch as your cautions opponents fold and give you the chips. I think a similar thing happens here at CN. If you're the only alliance recruiting, you're going to succeed. while if every alliance tries to recruit from a limited pool, then you're going to have problems. If there is one mass recruiting alliance, and a bunch of elite alliances, then all those elite alliances could only get members from one another, or that one mass recruiting alliance. Generally this will lead CN towards an equilibrium, but as the game matures this will likely move the balance more towards elite alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 [quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1325619197' post='2891591'] How many elite-calibre players would want to be neutral, over the long term? [/quote] Aye, there's the rub. Fortunately, I already have some friends who are interested in my ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted January 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Many interesting points: I don't really feel like addressing any specific one (nor I could), but one that deserves an apology and an explanation: [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1325632526' post='2891725']First, I'm not exactly sure what the definition of "mass" and/or "elite" is. From reading the comments, people don't necessarily agree. Is it nations strength or entrance requirements or size or the internal rules...So perhaps define your terms better.[/quote] You're right and I was conscious of that omission: apologies. The difference in opinions and even the uncertainty over the exact meaning of the base elements anyway enrich this discussion, IMHO. Maybe we won't reach a shared conclusion, but my objective was the debate in itself rather than trying to get any "truth" out of it. Even if I provided exact definitions (and I doubt I could have expressed good ones) people wouldn't have really sticked to them, anyway... So please carry on. (And yes, I realize that this answer too is unsatisfactory... I apologize.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Holton Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Meh. You need both types. Let's not forget micros too! Mass alliances have the advantage of MASS. So despite the inefficiency their mere mass gives them strength or projectable power. Elite alliances with high NS members also give a considerable amount of power projection- see TOP, Umbrella, (maybe) MK. Their ability to hit their targets is minimalized due to them not having enough lower tier nations. Thus they have little true "power" to back up words but they have a lot of "perceived power" due to efficiency and strength- resulting in ties with mass alliances that can give them that needed lower tier. It's a symbiotic relationship really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Black Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 [quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1325611753' post='2891546'] As head of admissions for Umbrella, I can tell you that with this attitude, you will not be admitted to Umbrella. Also you need to be dutch (or Antoine Roquentin) to join FOK! [/quote] By the time our paths cross to the point I would apply to Umberella (no offense intended) we will both be much older and our ways of thinking will have changed to point that we will be completely different people, I look forward to the day I can consider Umberella a friend though, membership or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timberland Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 [quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1325607129' post='2891519'] Interesting, I'll have to add one of them to my list of places to visit before I die(leave cn). [/quote] ask someone about the term "TOP speed" Elite alliances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerridwyn Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 I disagree with you Muddog. I think there are 3 facets to this game for every alliance, but war is not one of them. For many or even most it might be, but never for all. Players play at 3 levels: 1. They log in daily to every 20 days and build a nation. 2. They are involved at some other level in their alliance, whether recruiter, messenger, minister or leader. 3. They are involved in the metagame which is the world of Bob and the OWF. Most alliances have some of all 3. Level 1 can be great bankers, reliable tech sellers if they are small, tech buyers who contribute to overall NS if they are big. Level 2 are needed for an alliance to exist and even maintain itself. While there are some who really do not have people even at this level, they are few and far between. Not every alliance has people at level 3 because, in some cases, they do not want to, or they may have only 1 visible voice, for announcements and FA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valtamdraugr Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 none of it matters.. it'll all end in tears. Null vote: The "stay drunk coupled with !@#$ nation building and reckless abandon" AA is disturbingly missing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Mass is the best type of alliance for the game. Elite alliances harm it by putting active members away from the new members and failing to provide a community to bring them into the game. However, we seem to have reached a stage where "mass alliance" is synonymous with "!@#$ alliance" in all but a few circumstances and I don't think i'd ever want to go back to a mass alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameris Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 I'm just gonna throw my useless opinion in. Both are on equal ground. With mass alliances, you get significant inactivity issues. You may have unsavory characters whom cannot get along due to personality problems. With elite alliances, the group tends to be moreso a stable unit (until someone screws up). The loss of one significant member in an elite alliance can be a death spell. When these kinds of alliances split up, because of the closeness associated with its members, feelings get hurt and it opens up a !@#$storm of future retaliatory strikes. I've seen both sides of the coin. Each has its advantages (ie strength in numbers v strength in high activity people who know how to fight) and disadvantages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Whimsical Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 I agree with Steve Buscemi in that, it is much more of person per person activity sort of thing than an alliance sizing sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 I've never been in a mass alliance. I would say an obstacle would probably be bureaucracy. "You can't do this, you're not authorized." Also that a lot of people are used to being out of it more or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 [quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1325597323' post='2891443'] From what I’ve seen of elite alliances internal politics is almost nonexistent. The amount of movement done within the government is probably what makes the elite in the first place (they know what to do, how it works and they get it done) good or bad this can and is discouraging. Knowing that regardless of what you do, you’re not going anywhere (for me) makes me less likely to compete with others. The drive to do better than someone else is diminished if there is nothing to be gained from it (tragedy of the commons/Glass ceiling) This may not be true of all elite alliances as I’ve not see a democratic elite alliance. For mass alliances it seems different, having to please the masses comes a more difficult task if instead of pleasing 25-100 you’re trying to please 500-1000. And so the nature of government seems more fluid, working hard and being better than someone else seems to actually have a reward at the end. Now for alliances like NPO or NpO this isn’t the case (or maybe it is I’ve never been in either) it may not be as fluid, but it seems their lower elections have new faces more often than elite alliances. [/quote] I disagree here. Maybe it's just my experience in MK, but there is a decent amount of turnover from government members having to resign due to RL issue or getting burned out. There are also plenty of active members in elite alliances who are either "retired" or just don't have the time and/or desire to be in government, but are still well informed and active at war and nation building. Per the OP, I think both are necessary. I don't think there's a black and white way to say that one is better than the other. In terms of warfare and ability to fight, relatively inactive members can still be useful and valuable, if they somewhat regularly launch attacks, just not as useful or valuable as active ones. A mass alliance can still beat an elite alliance in terms of usefulness. In war I tend to think of it as you should apply a "multiplier" to each alliance. Take their total NS and stats, which is their maximum capacity. Than use a multiplier to represent average activity and preparedness, and how much damage each nation on average will do to an opponent. A mass alliance may only have a "multiplier" of .2-.4. An elite alliance might have a multiplier of .7-.9. So it takes [i]more[/i] of a mass alliance to equal an elite alliance. Get 30,000 NS of mass alliances with a .3 multiplier against 5,000 NS with a .8 multiplier, the mass alliance is going to win. Get only 10,000 NS of mass alliance with a .3 multiplier against 5,000 NS with a .8 multiplier, and the elite alliance will win. The same works with the proposition that the "top tier wins wars". The only reason that tends to be the case is that top tier nations, when beaten down, become mid tier nations with large tech stockpiles and warchests able to do very well against other mid tier nations. Same with mid tier nations fighting low tier nations. Assuming you have a good warchest for your level, you can "double dip" and so to speak and fight in the middle tier after fighting in the top tier. An equivalent number of top tier nations can project their power downward into the lower tiers much more effectively than a lower/mid tier group of nations can can project themselves upward. But the lower/middle tiers can still win out, it just takes having a much larger advantage to overcome the relative inefficiency of your lower/middle tier nations against their middle/upper tier nations. Not all mass alliances or elite alliances are the same. Some mass alliances have a lot higher average activity and ability than others. Pound for pound alliances like ODN, NPO, and IRON are a lot more effective than others like MHA or MCXA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 MK can't defeat a mass alliance in a standup fight. Their strength comes from political activity. People don't understand that 4-5 well placed forum/embassy invasions can significantly alter an alliances foreign affairs path, very few alliances have played that card as well as MK. TOP comes to mind. That said, I always giggle in the one on one strength bravado, because it's simple math that an alliance like MK would not defeat an alliance like IRON or MHA on its own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted January 6, 2012 Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 In an ideal world, we'd all be in one of only a dozen mass alliances. But since the world is not ideal, I'm glad I'm in a non-recruiting alliance. Both types are great fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted January 6, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1325822897' post='2893706']People don't understand that 4-5 well placed forum/embassy invasions can significantly alter an alliances foreign affairs path, very few alliances have played that card as well as MK. TOP comes to mind.[/quote] Do you think that a mass alliance is harder or easier to influence in that way? And what about "elite" ones? Also, which of the two can play that card better in your opinion? (Assuming that there aren't other decisive factors.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 [quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1325891409' post='2894330'] Do you think that a mass alliance is harder or easier to influence in that way? And what about "elite" ones? Also, which of the two can play that card better in your opinion? (Assuming that there aren't other decisive factors.) [/quote] On our planet all large alliance suffer from chronic underemployment, I've yet to meet an alliance of over 250 that can say with a straight face over half its members know 100% how to play the game effeciently and have a grasp on CN politics. Elite alliances have the advantage of A. Either having 5-6 individuals of having the authority to make decisions and influence other alliances that know their !@#$ entirely, or B. Focusing on nation building solely and relying on their strength rather than political influence. Mass alliances generally are more easily influenced than elite alliances. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but at the end of the day, elite alliances either have a more established pecking order or have members who can smell !@#$%^&* from a mile away, whereas Mass alliances' members are generally naiive, innocent, which is a benefit to its leadership who may want to play dumb and allows them to do a political 180 at a whim. Historically, CN populations that have been subverted are mass alliances because turnover tends to be higher and internal dynamic/culture weaker than elite alliances. One is not better than the other, there is just two different ways of doing things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacky Posted January 7, 2012 Report Share Posted January 7, 2012 NPO in it's day managed to be a mass alliance that wasn't completely inadequate. There is no real "dead weight", in a mass alliance. The members whose inactivity affects themselves, does not necessarily adversely affect the alliance. They act as meat shields, reducing damage taken, etc. Also in terms of warfare their skills can range from semi-proficient to proficient -- and this does not hinder the alliances ability to produce elite members. Through a high quantity alliance you will have players of a higher caliber, sadly, they have to pick up the slack for the rest of the alliance. By incurring more damage in wars, paying more in reps, helping more in rebuilding programs, etc. Of course, this is somewhat offset by their chances of getting promoted to positions of government. A mass alliance of 400 members (with some semblance of order and coordination) has as many competent nations as an alliance with 100 members. The difference is of course inflated NS. If they can also manage member retention another benefit is growth. 400 member alliance - NS 15,000,000 (real strength 8,000,000) 100 member alliance - NS 9,000,000 (real strength 8,000,000) 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.