"micro" alliances and actual, established alliances

[RevolutionaryRebel]

Games are about having fun. Allegedly.

I started a 'micro' for fun and while some people are intent on rabidly craving expansion,and subscribe to the idea that bigger alliances are inherently 'better', I recognise that sentiment for what it is; utter rubbish.

I've encountered good and bad players in alliances of all sizes and statures; the same goes for leadership for that matter. Furthermore, smaller alliances (which is all 'micro' should mean imho) give opportunities to nations to prove themselves and form tighter-knit communities. You can't build bonds amongst a group of say 50+ people that can ever match the sense of camaraderie you can have in a micro.

When some strive to shrug-off the 'micro' tag, that's often when the wheels fall off the wagon; egos come to the forefront, and the game becomes less and less about having fun and more about spreadsheets, treaty webs and other tedious nonsense. And the internal power struggles. Let's not forget about those.

Basically, I'd rather own Madvillainy than 50 Cent's entire catalogue. You could play that !@#$ for another 8 years and it still won't be stale.

 

Ya can't reform 'em

Edited May 1, 2014 by RevolutionaryRebel

[Unknown Smurf]

Games are about having fun. Allegedly.

I started a 'micro' for fun and while some people are intent on rabidly craving expansion,and subscribe to the idea that bigger alliances are inherently 'better', I recognise that sentiment for what it is; utter rubbish.

I've encountered good and bad players in alliances of all sizes and statures; the same goes for leadership for that matter. Furthermore, smaller alliances (which is all 'micro' should mean imho) give opportunities to nations to prove themselves and form tighter-knit communities. You can't build bonds amongst a group of say 50+ people that can ever match the sense of camaraderie you can have in a micro.

When some strive to shrug-off the 'micro' tag, that's often when the wheels fall off the wagon; egos come to the forefront, and the game becomes less and less about having fun and more about spreadsheets, treaty webs and other tedious nonsense. And the internal power struggles. Let's not forget about those.

Basically, I'd rather own Madvillainy than 50 Cent's entire catalogue. You could play that !@#$ for another 8 years and it still won't be stale.

 

Ya can't reform 'em

 

I'm going to take you the candy shop.

[RevolutionaryRebel]

 

I'm going to take you the candy shop.

I used to cop a lot

But never copped no drop

[SirWilliam]

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.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you here (and not for the sake of being contrary).

 

Regarding our prolonged conflict with you we were initially content with keeping the animosity confined to words. One of our own didn't get the memo though and declared, without our consent at that time mind you. However, it was hard to condemn attacks against you and Echelon seemed disinterested in pursuing it or ending things so we saw no reason to stop. Ultimately it had less to do with ""e-cred"" and more to do with the fact that you were a blowhard and we really just didn't like you.

 

On your second point, I'll assume it's at least partly referencing Kashmir. It's neither attention nor making a name for ourselves that drove, in your words, the drama we've caused. On the contrary we've just had significantly less to lose. We don't have the millions upon millions of nation strength, the years upon years of history, and the long-running, treaty-bound relationships with other parties. If we don't like someone or something we're apt to push it, simple as that.

 

At the end of the day this game has seen a proliferation of micros because by and large I think the main players don't offer what we want (and perhaps I'm again just speaking for Kashmir here). We can burn out with the cookie cutter big boys or take our toys and go play with the cool kids. If that's bad for the game by some subjective determination then so be it.

[Walshington]

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you here (and not for the sake of being contrary).

 

 

This is not why they invented the OWF.  Post again, only this time entirely for the sake of being contrary.

[Scorn]

 

This is not why they invented the OWF.  Post again, only this time entirely for the sake of being contrary.

No! You!

 

Can you imagine how quirky and overly dramatic the world would be if the big boys splintered into a dozen micros a piece?

[Unknown Smurf]

No! You!

 

Can you imagine how quirky and overly dramatic the world would be if the big boys splintered into a dozen micros a piece?

 

You say quirky and overly dramatic, and I say fun.

[Max Power]

As someone in a micro that's been fairly successful recruiting randoms, there's plenty to offer. Like big alliances, you can get the person a TC and tech deals, which don't exactly require 300 slots each. Unlike big alliances, the recruit actually gets to deal with high government on a regular basis, whenever s/he wants. It's like working for a small company versus working for a large company. Only in the small company does the entry-level guy actually get to chat to the CEO. Unlike in real life, though, the aid cap means the big alliance can't pay the recruit more to join it.

 

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.

It's virtually impossible to have more than about 4-5 treaties when you don't have the alliance size to have a dedicated FA team. When you have one person who's, say, MoFA plus some other government position, you're inherently pickier with things like how often you're on IRC or how many embassies you have. The bigger alliances end up with way too many treaties (Polar having 24 of them in 2010 being the most egregious example that comes to mind offhand) because they have the resources to do things like delegate different alliances to different FA representatives. Unsurprisingly, that can also lead to fractious FA because an alliance that treaties one of these behemoths might know a few diplomats really well and the other FA people not at all.

 

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.

I think by "actual established alliances" hakai was poking fun at the words people use to discourage micros, not creating an established/micro dichotomy.

 

I've encountered good and bad players in alliances of all sizes and statures; the same goes for leadership for that matter. Furthermore, smaller alliances (which is all 'micro' should mean imho) give opportunities to nations to prove themselves and form tighter-knit communities. You can't build bonds amongst a group of say 50+ people that can ever match the sense of camaraderie you can have in a micro.

When some strive to shrug-off the 'micro' tag, that's often when the wheels fall off the wagon; egos come to the forefront, and the game becomes less and less about having fun and more about spreadsheets, treaty webs and other tedious nonsense. And the internal power struggles. Let's not forget about those.

The first paragraph I've quoted here is spot on. The idea that people in large alliances have necessarily never interacted with some people in their own alliance is baffling to me.

 

Micros have to deal with spreadsheets and treaty webs too. The spreadsheets only have 1-2 people making them, although they are smaller so they're easier that way. The treaty web concerns are wonkier because you're not dealing with a bunch of people who at least kind of get the idea their big alliance will be dragged into a conflict, you're having to sell a bunch of people who are playing the game specifically to be away from the treaty web that your ally, who they like, is justified in immolating itself thanks to the treaty web but that such a situation merits your micro's intervention. Internal power struggles are relatively easy to deal with in CN because of how easy it is to splinter. You don't even have to do anything about the amount of land anyone controls.

[IYIyTh]

Lacks in diversity, fun.

 

Not saying Micro's aren't fun, but on average, if they experienced the kind of interaction a more mainstream alliance it would probably enhance rather than detract from their playing experience.

 

To each their own.

[BringMeTheHorizon]

 

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.

 

 

 

#truuuuuuuu

 

 

Once upon a time, I was known as an alliance hopper, because I left a lot of the AA's I joined within 2-3 weeks of joining. I was in MHA, when they were the largest alliance in the game in numbers, two man AA's, middle sized AAs, semi-large, sanctioned alliances, and inactive shell alliances. No matter the size of the alliance, i've always felt that smaller AA's were so much better suited to my game play. This is not a game that I want to sit out, and plan 6 months to a year later, like some AA's seem want to do. I just don't find that enjoyable, and I find that "micro's" just seem to play the game that I do, not that micro's don't plan for the future, or for a year in advance, because I don't know every micro, and how they play. I'm just saying, if that they played like that, I wouldn't be in that micro. 

 

 

I've just found micro's to have more fun with their membership, not an old-mens club, and have more one-on-one communication with members. 

 

Micro's will never go away, because large alliances don't play the game like some people want to play. 

[Steve Buscemi]

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.

Very good point.