The results are... on to step 2.

[Mandrivia_2]

1. LUE

2. NAAC

3. MK

4. Ragnarok

5. Athens

6. Norden Verein

7. PC

8. FOK

9. \m/

10. GOONS

[Vladimir Stukov II]

I realize your own massive arrogance says to you that "my own opinions is clearly more right than someone else's." That being said, I 100% follow my own advice. I weigh the totality of the alliance impact on HOW the game evolved. It is, in my estimation, the truth that the game impacted LUE and GOONS far more than LUE and GOONS impacted the game. When faced with adversity, they took their ball and went home. Unlike, say MK at the top... when they faced adversity the took over the game. Now you are free to make the argument that those in MK got to where they were because of what they learned in LUE, and you are certainly free to make that argument, and I will not come here and call out your opinion, as I have no need to try to break down, or lessen the meaning of someone else's opinion. It is called humility. You could use some, and accept that not everyone sees things as you do.

Right, keep telling yourself that Athens impacted the game more than LUE or GOONS. Athens was never anything more than a second rate alliance. Not trying to talk shit, just being honest. For the record, I was never in any of those alliances and have no reason to promote them. I was in BoSS and GOLD but I'm not delusional enough to pretend they had as major of an impact on the game as you are with Athens. I just see how ridiculous it is that you plead for people to vote based on political impact in the game instead of how much they liked an alliance and then proceed to vote your largely irrelevant alliance second.

[Tick1]

Right, keep telling yourself that Athens impacted the game more than LUE or GOONS. Athens was never anything more than a second rate alliance. Not trying to talk !@#$, just being honest. For the record, I was never in any of those alliances and have no reason to promote them. I was in BoSS and GOLD but I'm not delusional enough to pretend they had as major of an impact on the game as you are with Athens. I just see how ridiculous it is that you plead for people to vote based on political impact in the game instead of how much they liked an alliance and then proceed to vote your largely irrelevant alliance second.

 

Indiana Jones to Raiders of the Lost Ark is what, Athens to Cybernations is.

 

I think this is a valid comparison.

[Rush Sykes]

Right, keep telling yourself that Athens impacted the game more than LUE or GOONS. Athens was never anything more than a second rate alliance. Not trying to talk !@#$, just being honest. For the record, I was never in any of those alliances and have no reason to promote them. I was in BoSS and GOLD but I'm not delusional enough to pretend they had as major of an impact on the game as you are with Athens. I just see how ridiculous it is that you plead for people to vote based on political impact in the game instead of how much they liked an alliance and then proceed to vote your largely irrelevant alliance second.

 

The answer is simple... if I am ridiculous... and delusional... then do not participate in my game(this OPINIONATED question)... I know its difficult for you to understand that I cannot raise onto a pedestal , in terms of impact... ANY alliance that folded under political pressure. You think they were the bees knees... THINK THAT BRO. I have never taken the time to comment or denegrate ANYONE else's rankings.. yet you and an unnamed mouthbreather, felt the need to take what is supposed to be a FUN thread , and make it into a "You are stupid because you do not think like I do" jabfest. I know what you think, I know what Cockroach thinks... and I STILL manage to not really care... learn to have some fun. Disagree with me if you must. Its completely absurd to think I rank Athens where I rank them due to "my accomplishments".. because in regards to Athens, I have NO accomplishments. If it were just an ego stroke for me, I would have included some way to throw something that actually has my fingerprint on it into the mix. 

Edited December 22, 2013 by Rush Sykes

[Ravenous]

1) LUE

2) MK

3) NAAC

4) GOONS

5) \m/
6) FOK
7) NV
8) PC
9) Athens
10) ROK

[ChairmanHal]

1) \m/

2) Ragnarok

3) FOK

4) GOONS

5) NAAC

6) PC

7) LUE

8) MK

9) Athens

10) Norden Verein

[IYIyTh]

 Seriously, your obsession borders on creepy.

 

it's like i can't get away from all of your bad topics

[Rush Sykes]

 

it's like i can't get away from all of your bad topics

 

Its really simple. Do not click on them. I know. I know.. that is a groundbreaking approach. 

[Cataduanes]

1) LUE
2) NAAC
3) GOONS
4) MK
5) FOK
6) Rok
7) Athens

8) PC

9) \m/

10) NoV 

[Neo Uruk]

ANY alliance that folded under political pressure.

to be fair, I would rather disband after a yea-long political struggle than to just *poof* after inactivity set in.

That said, LUE is carried by their accomplishments while alive and impact post-mortem.

[Rush Sykes]

to be fair, I would rather disband after a yea-long political struggle than to just *poof* after inactivity set in.

That said, LUE is carried by their accomplishments while alive and impact post-mortem.

 

Maybe so.. but considering the alliances that spawned out of LUE, activity was probably not the driving force. Those folks eventually got it right, and that is to their credit, but in MY mind (why is this so  hard for people to grasp)... I cannot drop accolades on ANY alliance that QUIT when the going got tough. Hate my opinion all you want, it is not changing.

[pd73bassman]

1. MK

2. NAAC

3. GOONS

4. LUE

5. PC

6. FOK

7. Ragnarok

8. \m/

9. Athens

10. Norden Verein

[Delta1212]

Every alliance on this list quit when things got tough. That's why they're on this list. What was tough varied considerably from one to the next, but nobody on this list said "Things are perfect right now as they are, let's disband/merge into some other alliance/otherwise surrender this identity."

For all of them, ceasing to exist as they were was easier than continuing on.

[Robster83]

1) MK

2) NAAC

3) LUE

4) FOK

5) RoK

6) GOONS

7) PC

8) \m/

9) Athens

10) Norden Verein

 

 

 

 I cannot drop accolades on ANY alliance that QUIT when the going got tough. Hate my opinion all you want, it is not changing.

 

 

Why did you create the topic then? :laugh:

Edited December 22, 2013 by Robster83

[Stewie]

Every alliance on this list quit when things got tough. That's why they're on this list. What was tough varied considerably from one to the next, but nobody on this list said "Things are perfect right now as they are, let's disband/merge into some other alliance/otherwise surrender this identity."

For all of them, ceasing to exist as they were was easier than continuing on.

PC merged with iFOK to get sanction and change the status quo for both alliances (smaller brother of other alliances). Edited December 22, 2013 by Stewie

[Master Hakai]

PC merged with iFOK to get sanction and change the status quo for both alliances (smaller brother of other alliances).

So the going got tough and you all QUIT. bunch of wussies

[Delta1212]

PC merged with iFOK to get sanction and change the status quo for both alliances (smaller brother of other alliances).

Right, it was difficult to gain power as PC or iFOK so they gave up on those alliances to form a new one that had a better shot at it.

Of the list, it's probably the least hard and fast example of "giving up" but I knew someone was going to say that so I worded my statement to encompass it.

Even if you disagree, though, it just means Rush should be ranking PC at #1 and everyone else ties for 10th.

[Neo Uruk]

(smaller brother of other alliances).

Which was a very tough spot to have a voice in PB from :v

[Stewie]

Which was a very tough spot to have a voice in PB from :v

Precisely.

[Delta1212]

Precisely.

So we all agree.

[Helbrecht]

1. Ragnarok
2. \m/
3. MK
4. LUE
5. NAAC
6. Athens
7. PC
8. FOK
9. Norden Verein
10. GOONS

[JoshuaR]

 

Maybe so.. but considering the alliances that spawned out of LUE, activity was probably not the driving force. Those folks eventually got it right, and that is to their credit, but in MY mind (why is this so  hard for people to grasp)... I cannot drop accolades on ANY alliance that QUIT when the going got tough. Hate my opinion all you want, it is not changing.

I think Delta beat me to the punch, but I am viewing all of these alliances on the same "quit" level and just ranking them based on my perceived impact on the game.

[Altheus]

Fun thread :)

 

1) MK

2) GOONS

3)LUE

4) NAAC

5) \m/

6) Athens

7) Ragnarok

8) FOK

9) Norden Verein

10) PC

 

Although, I do think it's a bit of travesty that GGA aren't on this list. Their impact in the early days of CN would make them a comfortable top 5, despite their ignominious end.

[Helbrecht]

Fun thread :)

Although, I do think it's a bit of travesty that GGA aren't on this list. Their impact in the early days of CN would make them a comfortable top 5, despite their ignominious end.

Thats just it, isn't it? People remember how it ended (that it ended usually means it was sordid/unpleasant/less than glorious) and forget all that went before the beginning of the end. Of course, no-one is entirely objective out here anyways. One could rank something lower or higher based on how pleasant their association with it was. Heres to hoping that everyone does it subjectively in a partisan manner and cancels each other out :P Edited December 23, 2013 by Helbrecht

[Farnsworth]

1) MK

2) LUE

3) GOONS

4) FOK

5) PC

6) \m/

7) Ragnarok

8) Athens

8) NAAC

10) Norden Verein

 

 

I didn't rank NAAC as high as most people. I must not have been active during the time of their relevance.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Farnsworth