im317 Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 [quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1317178855' post='2810042'] MK and NG have more nations on maroon than any other colour; TLR is currently stradling aqua and maroon in roughly equal amounts. [/quote] may as well take a look at NSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 This just in, irony is dead. It just died. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 [quote name='Gopherbashi' timestamp='1317178893' post='2810043'] Oh did you? I figured that it hadn't been since Karma. Edited. [/quote] We rebuild really fast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 IRON was #2 before Karma, not #3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 I'm allied to three of the top five alliances in the game. I'm also one of them too! Woot. Hells yessss IRON. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dracule Mihawk Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 [quote name='Locke' timestamp='1317179489' post='2810047'] He was being sarcastic. [/quote] Bingo. -Drac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1317191935' post='2810138'] I'm allied to three of the top five alliances in the game. I'm also one of them too! Woot. Hells yessss IRON. [/quote] Yay for being a passive and inactive alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1317193523' post='2810150'] Yay for being a passive and inactive alliance. [/quote] Yay for being a dick. Edited September 28, 2011 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1317193868' post='2810151'] Yay for being a dick. [/quote] Yay for handling the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRena Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1317193980' post='2810153'] Yay for handling the truth. [/quote] Yay for am I interrupting something. Seriously though, shouldn't be having an argument here Edited September 28, 2011 by LittleRena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 C'mon guys this isn't the place for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 You're right, it most certainly isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 Just for clarification purposes MK, NSO, TLR and NG are moving to Maroon gopher. I also heard GOD/RIA/CSN are moving to aqua, but thats the rumor mill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 [quote name='Dajobo' timestamp='1317195411' post='2810163'] C'mon guys this isn't the place for that. [/quote] Certainly is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melancholy Culkin Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1317201294' post='2810170'] Just for clarification purposes MK, NSO, TLR and NG are moving to Maroon gopher. I also heard GOD/RIA/CSN are moving to aqua, but thats the rumor mill [/quote] R.I.P. Aqua. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 While I am not interested in arguing for the sake of it, this thread is about stats and how people get them is on topic and legitimate talk (if we keep it friendly). [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1317193523' post='2810150']Yay for being a passive and inactive alliance.[/quote] I'd imagine that you don't mean that alliances on top are necessarily passive and inactive (I'm kinda sure you somehow noticed that Pacifica wasn't passive or inactive when they were number one). I'd say that you mean that being passive and inactive is just another possible way to reach the top, by staying "out of trouble" and in opposition to the "doing something" style; this is IMHO a strange theory as we don't lack passive and inactive alliances and they rarely become relevant, thus I'd rather say that the MHA necessarily has something that allowed her to emerge to the top - and that's not just "staying out of trouble" - even if you don't see what it is. I've been in the MHA and, at least during my two years there, the alliance activity was almost completely focused on internal affairs. Our politics wasn't aggressive as the alliance culture and the members' aspirations included having fun and maintaining casual and relaxed relationships with practically almost anyone that was interested in that. A lot of people just wanted to grow their nation without much hassle, and while we didn't neglect the military we hadn't any special itch for war. All of this is called "being peaceful and nice". The end result was that it was possible to have a lot of work done, even if it wasn't noticed from the outside, and (IIRC) the alliance never developed serious enmities with anyone, thus no one ever seriously gunned for us. What may look to you as passivity and inactivity was actually part of the very reason that allowed the MHA to be successful, not only stats-wise but also with the development of a pleasant internal environment (which kind of helps in retaining members). More aggressive military and political activity gives other people more fun (of the kind they like), with the side effect of having them more involved in destructive conflicts (sometimes seen from the bad end of the bigger guns), and the ultimate result of developing smaller alliances with worse stats. It's not better nor worse, it just depends on what people want - and I hope that everyone can continue to get what they are looking for. Bottom line, what the MHA does might of course be different from what you like to do in a game like CN, but I don't think that your point of view should have any special preeminence or that there are serious reasons to consider your stance better than any other one. It's silly that you see only the negative and that you (seemingly) want to remain unable to see the qualities of the MHA: denying that they can be doing anything right and implying that they reached the top just by inertia won't help you to understand the drives that allowed them to do that, over hundreds of other alliances. Feel free to continue like that, but be aware that you won't enhance your comprehension of events by doing that. Am I saying that the MHA is actually super active and that you're just stupid? Of course not! I think that other alliances are much more active, on average, than the Hitchhikers, and you look like you know what you're doing. I just humbly suggest that (in OOC context) you drop that sarcasm of yours, and that you start considering what other players do with an open mind. It's basically about respect, which entails being able to see and to understand what and whom is different from you, even when it isn't what you'd do, or how you'd like to be. The nice thing about respect is that when you give it, you can also expect it back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voytek Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 [quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1317207037' post='2810189'] While I am not interested in arguing for the sake of it, this thread is about stats and how people get them is on topic and legitimate talk (if we keep it friendly). I'd imagine that you don't mean that alliances on top are necessarily passive and inactive (I'm kinda sure you somehow noticed that Pacifica wasn't passive or inactive when they were number one). I'd say that you mean that being passive and inactive is just another possible way to reach the top, by staying "out of trouble" and in opposition to the "doing something" style; this is IMHO a strange theory as we don't lack passive and inactive alliances and they rarely become relevant, thus I'd rather say that the MHA necessarily has something that allowed her to emerge to the top - and that's not just "staying out of trouble" - even if you don't see what it is. I've been in the MHA and, at least during my two years there, the alliance activity was almost completely focused on internal affairs. Our politics wasn't aggressive as the alliance culture and the members' aspirations included having fun and maintaining casual and relaxed relationships with practically almost anyone that was interested in that. A lot of people just wanted to grow their nation without much hassle, and while we didn't neglect the military we hadn't any special itch for war. All of this is called "being peaceful and nice". The end result was that it was possible to have a lot of work done, even if it wasn't noticed from the outside, and (IIRC) the alliance never developed serious enmities with anyone, thus no one ever seriously gunned for us. What may look to you as passivity and inactivity was actually part of the very reason that allowed the MHA to be successful, not only stats-wise but also with the development of a pleasant internal environment (which kind of helps in retaining members). More aggressive military and political activity gives other people more fun (of the kind they like), with the side effect of having them more involved in destructive conflicts (sometimes seen from the bad end of the bigger guns), and the ultimate result of developing smaller alliances with worse stats. It's not better nor worse, it just depends on what people want - and I hope that everyone can continue to get what they are looking for. Bottom line, what the MHA does might of course be different from what you like to do in a game like CN, but I don't think that your point of view should have any special preeminence or that there are serious reasons to consider your stance better than any other one. It's silly that you see only the negative and that you (seemingly) want to remain unable to see the qualities of the MHA: denying that they can be doing anything right and implying that they reached the top just by inertia won't help you to understand the drives that allowed them to do that, over hundreds of other alliances. Feel free to continue like that, but be aware that you won't enhance your comprehension of events by doing that. Am I saying that the MHA is actually super active and that you're just stupid? Of course not! I think that other alliances are much more active, on average, than the Hitchhikers, and you look like you know what you're doing. I just humbly suggest that (in OOC context) you drop that sarcasm of yours, and that you start considering what other players do with an open mind. It's basically about respect, which entails being able to see and to understand what and whom is different from you, even when it isn't what you'd do, or how you'd like to be. The nice thing about respect is that when you give it, you can also expect it back. [/quote] you sure wrote a whole lot of words in order to say absolutely nothing at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 [quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1317208640' post='2810198'] you sure wrote a whole lot of words in order to say absolutely nothing at all [/quote] A whole lot of nothing or a whole little nothing is still nothing. Moving on! I think a few Maroon alliances have an announcement to make that they're not making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 [quote name='Great Lord Moth' timestamp='1317211747' post='2810214'] A whole lot of nothing or a whole little nothing is still nothing. Moving on! I think a few Maroon alliances have an announcement to make that they're not making. [/quote] What is it you want to tell us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyster Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 [quote name='Great Lord Moth' timestamp='1317211747' post='2810214'] A whole lot of nothing or a whole little nothing is still nothing. Moving on! I think a few Maroon alliances have an announcement to make that they're not making. [/quote] SPAM has something to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 [quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1317207037' post='2810189'] While I am not interested in arguing for the sake of it, this thread is about stats and how people get them is on topic and legitimate talk (if we keep it friendly). I'd imagine that you don't mean that alliances on top are necessarily passive and inactive (I'm kinda sure you somehow noticed that Pacifica wasn't passive or inactive when they were number one). I'd say that you mean that being passive and inactive is just another possible way to reach the top, by staying "out of trouble" and in opposition to the "doing something" style; this is IMHO a strange theory as we don't lack passive and inactive alliances and they rarely become relevant, thus I'd rather say that the MHA necessarily has something that allowed her to emerge to the top - and that's not just "staying out of trouble" - even if you don't see what it is. I've been in the MHA and, at least during my two years there, the alliance activity was almost completely focused on internal affairs. Our politics wasn't aggressive as the alliance culture and the members' aspirations included having fun and maintaining casual and relaxed relationships with practically almost anyone that was interested in that. A lot of people just wanted to grow their nation without much hassle, and while we didn't neglect the military we hadn't any special itch for war. All of this is called "being peaceful and nice". The end result was that it was possible to have a lot of work done, even if it wasn't noticed from the outside, and (IIRC) the alliance never developed serious enmities with anyone, thus no one ever seriously gunned for us. What may look to you as passivity and inactivity was actually part of the very reason that allowed the MHA to be successful, not only stats-wise but also with the development of a pleasant internal environment (which kind of helps in retaining members). More aggressive military and political activity gives other people more fun (of the kind they like), with the side effect of having them more involved in destructive conflicts (sometimes seen from the bad end of the bigger guns), and the ultimate result of developing smaller alliances with worse stats. It's not better nor worse, it just depends on what people want - and I hope that everyone can continue to get what they are looking for. Bottom line, what the MHA does might of course be different from what you like to do in a game like CN, but I don't think that your point of view should have any special preeminence or that there are serious reasons to consider your stance better than any other one. It's silly that you see only the negative and that you (seemingly) want to remain unable to see the qualities of the MHA: denying that they can be doing anything right and implying that they reached the top just by inertia won't help you to understand the drives that allowed them to do that, over hundreds of other alliances. Feel free to continue like that, but be aware that you won't enhance your comprehension of events by doing that. Am I saying that the MHA is actually super active and that you're just stupid? Of course not! I think that other alliances are much more active, on average, than the Hitchhikers, and you look like you know what you're doing. I just humbly suggest that (in OOC context) you drop that sarcasm of yours, and that you start considering what other players do with an open mind. It's basically about respect, which entails being able to see and to understand what and whom is different from you, even when it isn't what you'd do, or how you'd like to be. The nice thing about respect is that when you give it, you can also expect it back. [/quote] When people act smug about being on top, I'm calling them out on it. MHA absolutely did nothing to warrant them being on top, as opposed to Pacifica. I have a lot of respect for Pacifica because they actively tried to get to the top, smugness in that sense is warranted. You say that passive and inactive alliances hardly become relevant? I disagree with that assessment, totally. We have GPA, WTF and TDO as neutral alliances, who all are relevant (they are within the top of CN). Besides those we have those alliances who claim to be not neutral but actually are very close to being neutral in the sense that they are of the same inactivity and passiveness as the real neutral alliances. We have several of those in the top40 too. Let's face it, you get on top when you dodge war, FARK would never be this big if they wouldn't have dodged the past wars, NPO wouldn't have regain sanction if they didn't dodge bipolar (was it bipolar?). You have alliances like GOP, Knight of NI, and a lot of smaller alliances that hardly do anything to shape this planet up. On top of that, most new players like to join the "#1" alliance. MHA has supposedly over 250 ghosts. Size attracts players. And a large other part of that is indeed inertia. Sure without those 250 some ghosts, MHA would still be a very large alliance, very likely be in top5. And that's good of them. But this has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with dodging war. I guess the latter could also be counted as an ability but I wouldn't act smug about that. Does this mean that I don't allow others to play the game like they want to? No, not at all. They can play the game how they want to, and I'll play the game how I want to. But if people act smug about their passiveness I'm going to call you out on it. To be honest, having a bit of competition (I guess both in the OOC and IC sense) is healthy. I'm sure Myth enjoys our fights as much as I do. Respect? I don't have any respect for people I barely know, even more so in the OOC sense. I sure as hell don't expect others to treat me with respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 [quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1317186654' post='2810108'] IRON was #2 before Karma, not #3 [/quote] Well yes, but they had a brief stop at #3 on the way down from #2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 [quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1317207037' post='2810189']snip [/quote] [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1317217351' post='2810242']snip [/quote] It's arguable that the tactics of avoiding excessive war and focusing on internal matters instead of trying to dominate the world with continual repression of enemies and manipulation of allies IS the most effective strategy. Can't argue with success. Not being a complete !@#$% seems to have some survival benefits, hmm? If you don't have respect for how they accomplished this feat, perhaps you should try to take their spot away from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manis B Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 nag nag nag. everyone fails compared to GATO argument over. Anyway, we lost our quarter point because kers decided he wanted to try a new alliance for a while. But as always we'll be back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im317 Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 RIA had a largeish member delete due to inactivity eliminating our recent gains 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.