Jump to content

"micro" alliances and actual, established alliances


Master Hakai
 Share

Recommended Posts

Now, I'll admit I don't do much in this game anymore and when I actually log into these forums or my alliance's, I plan on doing little more than responding to maybe one post where I just point out how goofy something is or engage someone in an argument to which I never intend to return. Six times outta ten I accomplish that goal and I am very proud of that.

 

The main reason I come to these boards is because there's always something retarded happening with some smaller alliances and it's usually pretty entertaining to read about (as often as I check in, there's at least 3 or 4 pages of hilarity to read through). Whether or not I support the troublemakers, and I usually don't because many of them are plain damn weird, is beside the point. If it's entertaining enough to kill 5 or 10 minutes then I'm happy to do it. I roll my eyes a lot and occasionally LOLIRL, but at least it's not boring.

 

On the other hand, I see the occasional government or treaty announcement from bigger, older alliances. Sometimes they're supposed to be funny, other times they're completely serious, but the one thing they (almost) all have in common is this: they're boring and predictable. A few overused jokes, lots of "congrats to all"s, and members of "opposing" alliances congratulating each other. Super lame all around every time. That's about the extent of what we get from the big guys.

 

 

Getting to the point; I don't think I've ever read a "micro drama" (to utilize an overused CN term) thread where at least one person didn't point out that these are crappy micro alliances, and there are real, established alliances out there, and that things would be better if everyone would simply join one of these "real" alliances. And I've thought about what life here would be like if everyone were to follow their advice. So far in the 1 1/2 years I've been back on this particular reroll, the tried-and-true established alliances have brought us two wars. Both were extremely carefully planned out, completely fail-proof, and utterly lopsided. Or, in other words, boring. These ignorant, egotistical micro alliances, on the other hand, bring to the table some sort of drama almost weekly. Sure, most of it may be high up on the petty scale, and has a tendency to be handled kind of obnoxiously, but at least it's something. If all I had to look forward to each time I logged on here was monotonous election announcements and treaties, well, I wouldn't still be here. Got much better things to do with my time and you should too.

 

So what am I trying to say? I am here to encourage the small, interesting, daring alliances to keep doing what you're doing. Even if the big guys upstairs don't appreciate it, I do. And what else are you playing this game for if not for my entertainment? Just don't be my tards about it, that's all. And I'm not here to attack anyone in particular, I don't know the difference between most of you. If the shoe fits though go ahead and wear it.

 

 

 

Criticize this post, go ahead. That would bother me so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"micro" has become a distinction that has more to do with the way an alliance acts than its size. There are alliances with low membership counts that don't act like mucking forons people wouldn't consider micros, then there are alliances with 40+ members that act like major dolts most would still classify thusly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"micro" has become a distinction that has more to do with the way an alliance acts than its size. There are alliances with low membership counts that don't act like mucking forons people wouldn't consider micros, then there are alliances with 40+ members that act like major dolts most would still classify thusly.

3941221+_aa78a3e8f30e6b4595d433355d2a751

 

 

there are those who act like dolts, and those who act like 90-year-old men who hate having their routine spoiled, and those who act like major dolts; I prefer the dolts myself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was in Tetris, I really enjoyed our micro drama and it was some of the most amusing stuff I've ever done in CN. I spent a decent amount of time on the OWF posting and amusing myself and a few other friends, and thought people in big alliances were boring. Now that I'm in NSO which is bigger and more into playing the game, I hardly ever come on here anymore. There's just not enough time, and this is a huge time waster. When I do come on here to see something interesting, I certainly don't spend my time reading about drama that won't ever effect me, between alliances I don't know or have any reason to care about.

Understand: I'm not hostile to micros. I love Kashmir and still look very fondly on my time in Tetris. But it's just not relevant to my interests anymore because I don't know any of the people and none of the stuff matters to me. Just more stuff to potentially keep track of that doesn't make things more amusing for the vast majority of us who aren't involved. So, some people choose to give the micro players grief about it, probably on a whim because "lol who are these people I think I'm gonna mess with them." But basically, I wouldn't worry about it too much. I don't think most people even pay attention much anymore to begin with. And I'm glad the micro alliance players are enjoying themselves.

Edited by Hereno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"micro" has become a distinction that has more to do with the way an alliance acts than its size. There are alliances with low membership counts that don't act like mucking forons people wouldn't consider micros, then there are alliances with 40+ members that act like major dolts most would still classify thusly.

 

I think you're a micro  :v:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, Kashmir was the micro that was creating the most drama during/before/after The NSO-NpO War. It was quite obvious when Kashmir took to fighting me because I was an unpopular opponent and they wanted their "e-cred" by jumping on that bandwagon to do "something about it". 

 

Micros want attention because they want to make a name for themselves usually. Rightfully so. It just depends on what kind of alliance you want to be in. A known micro or an incognito micro or an established alliance.

Edited by Rotavele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I think micros offer players a good alternitive to the coalition game play of the larger aa's. In the years ive been playing i have watched my nation and alliance(s) of the time fight for absolutly no reason as it pertained to that aa and only because one alliance wanted a piece of another for political/past grudge/just dont like them reasons. That is the life of a large aa nation, fight for an aa 6 ties away on the web just because.

 

  The "drama" that comes along with micros is only natural as without those long ties to 3 month wars of obligation a lot of them do not end up fighting in the yearly/bi-yearly wars and need a place to vent/enjoy the war mechanics of the game. Another benefit to the game that micros provide is a more personal experience to new players that larger aa's generally can not provide. While the level of knowledge provided to new members through micro membership varies by the aa you do get a much more hands on experience and education when there are only a dozen or so guys in an aa verses an aa with 100+ members. It is easy to get overwhelmed as a new player in such a large aa no matter how well estabished their edu dept is.

 

  To those that like to take jabs at micros or belittle them with taunts of "join a real aa" please remember every alliance in the game has started small(ish) and your nay saying will help weed out the micros that cant handle the pressure but it will also fuel the drive of those that can and may just be the seeds of a later grudge that you'll have to answer to weeks/months/years down the road.

 

  Damn you Hakai for making me put this much effort into this, im not going to fix the spelling or grammer of this though as thats just too much work for the OWF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Micros only detract from the game if they pull away otherwise active people from larger alliances. Should the micro fail and those individuals become discouraged and quit, we've lost active and contributing people for the sake of a failed project. Micro drama is entertaining in its own right, just not at the expense of pulling away from other groups that could use the active folks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would contend the opposite Saladjoe.  I think coalition warfare is detracting from the spirit of forming an AA in the first place. 

 

 

*Not an actual proposition, but something to ponder* Think about how the game mechanics might change, particularly within a war senario, if we limited the number of members an AA could have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coalition warfare is something caused by the sheer number of alliances combined with the ridiculous number of treaties they all hold with each other. I'm not sure how micros make that any better.

I'm not really against small alliances, but I would contend that there's a critical mass needed for an alliance to become sustainable. It's exhausting to run an alliance that grinds to a complete halt if one person logs out, and that can/has happened to alliances of any size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Micros only detract from the game if they pull away otherwise active people from larger alliances. Should the micro fail and those individuals become discouraged and quit, we've lost active and contributing people for the sake of a failed project. Micro drama is entertaining in its own right, just not at the expense of pulling away from other groups that could use the active folks. 

I disagree with that statement, because in some situations it is true however, think of alliances like MI6 or Atlas that were made in the last two years, I would argue that alliances like those alliance are what helps to build the game up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with that statement, because in some situations it is true however, think of alliances like MI6 or Atlas that were made in the last two years, I would argue that alliances like those alliance are what helps to build the game up.

I think MI6 is going to be in a different boat than most micros. Similar to how sengoku is probably going to be in a different boat. It's not like we in sengoku built up from nothing, NS wise or experience wise.. We formed with a lot of people who've been playing for a long time. Similar to MI6. I remember when their entire gov lineup was in a different AA and in a lot of cases gov in another alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think MI6 is going to be in a different boat than most micros. Similar to how sengoku is probably going to be in a different boat. It's not like we in sengoku built up from nothing, NS wise or experience wise.. We formed with a lot of people who've been playing for a long time. Similar to MI6. I remember when their entire gov lineup was in a different AA and in a lot of cases gov in another alliance.


Most micros are made up of people who have experience in govt of larger alliances. Sengoku isn't special.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most micros are made up of people who have experience in govt of larger alliances. Sengoku isn't special.

take that back.

Also Sengoku isn't a micro.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with that statement, because in some situations it is true however, think of alliances like MI6 or Atlas that were made in the last two years, I would argue that alliances like those alliance are what helps to build the game up.

Those aren't micros, nor did they start as such. Sengoku, MI6, and atlas don't constitute the classical definition of a micro alliance so the comparison isn't valid. Those alliances are also involved in the bigger scheme of foreign affairs and not the classic "protectorate turning into a treaty when you hit ~20 members" formula that most micros go through. I don't think it's adequate to just divide the world into "micro" and "non-micro" either, there's a lot greater diversity out there. There's recruitment based AAs, large scale autocracies, large scale democracies, elite democracies, RP alliances, neutrals, micros, inactive shells AAs, you name it. 

 

The state of coalition warfare is a result of years of treaty redundancy and the complete mess that is the treaty web, not the presence or lack thereof of micros. As Auctor said, most micros' survival is contingent on one or two ex-gov of a larger AA being constantly present and involved and if RL takes them or they get burned out, the whole thing caves in. I ran my own micro back in 06 with some friends and it failed catastrophically, despite my constant presence and involvement in every aspect because it provided no incentive to new recruits to join over that of a larger alliance. So really unless you're going to start as a merger of several groups, or a splinter AA with a "critical mass" (I like that Auctor, nice phrase :P) you're going to be completely reliant on snatching up random recruits. And really, why would some random recruit join a 10 man alliance when they can join an alliance that's politically and economically established? It comes down to incentive present and the return of investment based on the pool of active players you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Master Hakai, that was probably the longest post I've ever seen by you. And it was really well thought out. Now I see what the hype was about. Good points, and I agree.

07

I used to do that a lot more when I was younger and had more time on my hands. Now I'm older and have all sorts of other things on my hands. Wait, there's hype? wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut

 

 

 

 

 

Coalition warfare is something caused by the sheer number of alliances combined with the ridiculous number of treaties they all hold with each other. I'm not sure how micros make that any better.

You're not? I thought I covered that in the OP but to reiterate, it has to do with the sheer number of alliances combined with the ridiculous number of treaties they hold with each other, resulting in massive stagnation and a complete lack of decent rivalry or good wars. The alliances labeled as micros make it better by providing entertaining little wars here and there for sons of snitches like me to watch go up in flames

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An alliance can be an established alliance and be a micro at the same time. OP is fundamentally flawed. :)

Though, it all depends on your definitions of it. Point is, I think the ability to defend oneself can make you an established alliance while still being a micro.

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...