Lyria Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Eh, if people want to they can knock themselves out. I won't be jumping back to any \m/ or GOLD reincarnations anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Dead alliances should stay dead - I like a good dramabomb but it seems like a reunion tour with a new singer to bring 'em back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 brb reforming /b/ */b/rb No need to thank me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinatownbus Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 maybe we can have a legitimate ending to the UjW if we let enough alliances reform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 maybe we can have a legitimate ending to the UjW if we let enough alliances reform. What exactly was illegitimate about the ending? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) Pretty sure GR = NAAC + Atlantis But Atlantis was Sanctum+ The Republic and Sanctum was NAAC + some GATO iirc As for Atlantis reforming I don't see it happening there is no will to reform not to mention alot of the people that made Atlantis what is was are either gone form the game hated by other people who would join or just plain wouldn't join it Edited May 8, 2009 by steodonn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slayer99 Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 But Atlantis was Sanctum+ The Republicand Sanctum was NAAC + some GATO iirc As for Atlantis reforming I don't see it happening there is no will to reform not to mention alot of the people that made Atlantis what is was are either gone form the game hated by other people who would join or just plain wouldn't join it While it's true I hated Atlantis, I actually liked a lot of people there. It made our rivalry fun...good times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIdiot the Great Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Personally, I couldn't care less if an alliance reforms. I wouldn't do it though. The upside with reforming is that you have a brand name to start off with, whether it be \m/, GOLD, ONOS, or any other disbanded alliance. Name recognition is good in that you are trying to draw recruits. Maybe trade on the 'hey days' of the reformed alliance. The down side is no matter how much you claim to be different, you're going to get saddled with the mistakes of the previous alliance, despite claims of 'we're different' from members. If it's really that different this time, why use the same name? That's the bit that baffles me. But I don't see it as a problem per se, just seems to be too many pitfalls. Reforming an old alliance is difficult too, especially considering the time, place, members, and conditions of the previous alliance are probably very different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 I posted this on the NAAC forums the day we disbanded. Nation Name: Svalbard 2Ruler: Virillus The NAAC was my home. You are all family. Game or not the friendships we made here were real. It's a testament to the human race then when all stereotypes are stripped away men and women of every race age and sex can become a family. I'll miss all of you, old, young, black, white, boy girl. We stood together, and won eternity. Nothing can destroy these memories, a little bit of the NAAC will carry on forever inside of us. I'm proud to have known all of you and been a part of these beautiful journey. Godspeed, Arcticans. Regards, Virillus I'd like to keep it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 maybe we can have a legitimate ending to the UjW if we let enough alliances reform. True Personally, I couldn't care less if an alliance reforms. I wouldn't do it though. The upside with reforming is that you have a brand name to start off with, whether it be \m/, GOLD, ONOS, or any other disbanded alliance. Name recognition is good in that you are trying to draw recruits. Maybe trade on the 'hey days' of the reformed alliance. The down side is no matter how much you claim to be different, you're going to get saddled with the mistakes of the previous alliance, despite claims of 'we're different' from members. If it's really that different this time, why use the same name? That's the bit that baffles me. What if you dont claim to be different? What if we brought back \m/ and said, we are exactly the same as before and dont plan on changing? Then how would you feel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miley Cyrax Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Why are so many under the impression that NoR has new members are leadership? All of our important politicians of old are in on the alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIdiot the Great Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 What if you dont claim to be different? What if we brought back \m/ and said, we are exactly the same as before and dont plan on changing? Then how would you feel? I direct you to my previous post specifically: Personally, I couldn't care less if an alliance reforms. But I don't see it as a problem per se, just seems to be too many pitfalls. Reforming an old alliance is difficult too, especially considering the time, place, members, and conditions of the previous alliance are probably very different. I don't have an issue with it either way. My only point is that it can raise issues that can hamper a 'new' alliance. For example, if alliance X disbands as a result of war, some might argue (and it wouldn't be me) that by reforming the alliance you are in fact, back at war as a result of the failure to surrender and/or come to peace terms in the previous conflict in which the alliance disbanded (using your example of an alliance stating that it was no different than the previous incarnation, above). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) Why are so many under the impression that NoR has new members are leadership? All of our important politicians of old are in on the alliance. Personally I'd be shying away the old leadership . Edited May 8, 2009 by Mogar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobboman Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) LUE and Gen[m]ay are still around yo!MK and Umbrella am i rite? MK made it clear when i was booted that they were not LUE reformed and it had the backup of NPO/ilk EDIT: However if LUE was to ever reform you better believe i would join, however i don't think there is enough LUEsers left to reform it Edited May 8, 2009 by bobboman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 If Polaris and Pacifica are keeping a watch on the AA, then how come there are people there who are not warred upon? Now, I wasn't here in the days of the NAAC, but unless I'm mistaken, that may be simply because you have the AA wrong. National Alliance FOR Arctic Countries was what I always thought it was. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Now, I wasn't here in the days of the NAAC, but unless I'm mistaken, that may be simply because you have the AA wrong. National Alliance FOR Arctic Countries was what I always thought it was.-Bama I am sorry to inform you, but you've been misinformed. It was, and always will be (unless someone makes a new mock-up of course) the National Alliance of Arctic Countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 I am sorry to inform you, but you've been misinformed. It was, and always will be (unless someone makes a new mock-up of course) the National Alliance of Arctic Countries. The wiki says otherwise. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megamind Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 The wiki says otherwise.-Bama The wiki would be wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 The wiki says otherwise.-Bama You'd think with all the NAAC fanboys around someone would have fixed that, or that Wiki article wouldn't look like total !@#$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 You'd think with all the NAAC fanboys around someone would have fixed that, or that Wiki article wouldn't look like total !@#$. I'll take y'all's word for it. I was just going by the Wiki and something I could have sworn an ex-NAAC guy once said. Ah well... You guys would know better than I would. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asriel Belacqua Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 While the TITLE of the wiki says "National Alliance FOR Arctic Countries" all throughout the wiki-page (including on the right-side where they do stats, flag, etc) it says "National Alliance of Arctic Countries" I can see where you and others would get confused, which is why I'm correcting it, because I was there, I am there, I have talked with Holyone and all the other leaders and have confirmed through all those sources that it is, in fact, N.A. of A.C. and not N.A. for A.C. (abbreviated for ease of typing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 I prefer not to see reincarnations of alliances. I prefer to see new blood enter the field, alliances that are forming their own history and not building on past history. You'd like to see alliances forming their own history, that doesn't make too much sense amirite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anenu Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 im fine as long as they stay true to what the alliance stood for in the past. In other words a reformed alliance should either be essentially the old alliance with some time between the disbanning and reforming or the people should start a new alliance and not try to take others past glories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Truck Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 I'm surprised people still argue about the of/for thing. Since the AA has always been in use since the disbandment it's as simple as looking it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Id be glad to see some of the old alliances that disbanded come back. Now that they power structure that forced them out of the game isnt capable of doing it again right now, i think a few of them may 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.