Salmia Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) You keep talking about rights. Are these rights published somewhere? Heh, nope but no one is going to stop them. If people really wanted to, they could DoW every small alliance but considering small alliances tend to have smaller nations, it would be hard to get in their range. I am talking about how in this, anyone can do anything they want to. That is their "right" so to speak. You can nuke rogue someone, you can attack someone, you can peace someone. Does it mean other people like it or it follows the rules of what the wide community thinks? No but at the end of the day, anyone can do whatever they want to here, it may just end up with consequences but they still have a right do it. Edited August 1, 2009 by Salmia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlashill Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 New alliances tend to pop up right after major wars. I established a micro alliance shortly after GW3. And like most micro alliances, we only lasted fewer than two months. Then we merged into another micro alliance (turned out to be a reverse merger) and after another six weeks, gobbled up another micro before merging into Invicta, who formed after GW3 and a solid four months before several of the now-sanctioned alliances who formed the backbone of Karma. Much as alliances formed when the mantle of power coalesced more around Pacifica after GW3, this is part of the transition of alpha status from Pacifica to Sparta, TOP, and other Karma alliances least damaged in the past war. People see a new world and get ambitious, or are disgruntled with the fall of the old world and strike out on their own. Yes, many of them will never get past square one, but for every 5-10 Kaleidoscopes, there is a Poison Clan and Ragnarok. New alliances mean new ideas and players. Targeting these alliances just to keep them from forming is very much elitist and downright counter-productive to the ongoing dynamics of Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) Actually, if anything, it's MORE evidence of the tidal ebb and flow of these smaller alliances that so many of them are born, live and die without ever changing the makeup of this 'top 200' shoreline. The data does not support that conclusion nor can it say anything about the change in the number of alliances under 20. You can speculate that there are more now than there were a year ago, but I have never seen any solid evidence to support the statement (not that it doesn't seem plausible). The fact that there has been no change in the number of alliances above 20 members supports either (1) The increase in the number of alliances is all in our minds or (2) The increase in the number of alliances is balanced by a shortened expected lifetime or (3) The increase in the number of alliances is entirely in the under 20 member category. 1 and 2 probably wouldn't have a stagnating impact on alliance politics because continuing in that trend there would be the same number of political players now that there would be tomorrow. 3 could have a minor impact, but most alliances under 20 members tend to stay out of alliance politics until they're larger anyway. I wish I had member count data for alliances above 20 to see if there has been any significant population shift that might represent some impact of an increasing number of sub-20 member alliances, but I don't. It seems most likely that the fears of a skyrocketing number of small alliances are psychological, perhaps brought on by a perceived increase in DoE postings without as many visible disbandment notices and/or by some variety of the recency effect on our memories. Edited August 1, 2009 by Penguin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I think we should leave them alone and maybe not rush to bring back the curb stomp wars that have represented the past few years of this game. Also Penguin's analysis is interested, as always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanadrin Failing Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) The data does not support that conclusion nor can it say anything about the change in the number of alliances under 20. You can speculate that there are more now than there were a year ago, but I have never seen any solid evidence to support the statement (not that it doesn't seem plausible). The fact that there has been no change in the number of alliances above 20 members supports either (1) The increase in the number of alliances is all in our minds or (2) The increase in the number of alliances is balanced by a shortened expected lifetime or (3) The increase in the number of alliances is entirely in the under 20 member category. 1 and 2 probably wouldn't have a stagnating impact on alliance politics because continuing in that trend there would be the same number of political players now that there would be tomorrow. 3 could have a minor impact, but most alliances under 20 members tend to stay out of alliance politics until they're larger anyway. I wish I had member count data for alliances above 20 to see if there has been any significant population shift that might represent some impact of an increasing number of sub-20 member alliances, but I don't. It seems as though most of the fears that the number of alliances continue to skyrocket out of control are psychological, perhaps brought on by a perceived increase in DoE postings without as many visible disbandment notices and/or by some variety of the recency effect on our memories. Actually, the main point I was making was that whether there are now more alliances under 20 members or not, it hasn't made much of an impact in the number of alliances with more than 20 members. I personally believe it's more of a summertime phenomenon. More people with too much time on their hands who go out and make a new alliance only to disappear or manually disband/merge when they find that they can't keep up the level of activity needed. Come autumn (in the northern hemisphere), we'll likely have fewer of these DoEs. One can't deny their prevalence over the past few months, though... It's been averaging one per day since we formed in early May. ^^; Edited August 1, 2009 by Vanadrin Failing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lennox Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 What the hell kind of topic is this? The Liquor Cabinet is a new, small alliance as well. Does this make us unnecessary? It seems to me like you were just desperate to make a topic to gain some attention. If anything is 'unnecessary' it is this thread. Yes, you are completely unnecessary. See you at update, old chap! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 What the hell kind of topic is this? The Liquor Cabinet is a new, small alliance as well. Does this make us unnecessary? It seems to me like you were just desperate to make a topic to gain some attention. If anything is 'unnecessary' it is this thread. My answer to this depends on what quality of stuff you bring to the party tonight from your stockpile I hear you have in your basement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 You keep talking about rights. Are these rights published somewhere? It's called game rules and game mechanics. These are inherent "rights" that are either impossible to violate or will result in consequences you would expect from breaking game rules. Thus, these alliances have the right to exist because it is part of the game mechanic and doesn't break any rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supa_Troop3r Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Better idea. New alliances take down the old ones? Amirite? But seriously, this is basically like saying Statement: " look the birthrate has gone up! It's getting a little crowded" Solution: "Kill the new generation" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewolfe2015 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Go Ahead, DoW on Asgaard. I will welcome the OP's boldness to follow through and attack a new alliance such as us. We'll show players such as yourselves that new alliances aren't some two-bit operation, there are many new alliances that spring up with a purpose and dedication to the game and actually make something of themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriegsdrachen Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Most of these micro-alliances have their protectorate treaty in their DoE threads. Most alliances protecting micro-alliances have other treaties, and I'm guessing they wouldn't mind activating them to help against this kind of unprovoked uneeded agression. Good luck with that though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Better idea. New alliances take down the old ones? Amirite? But seriously, this is basically like saying Statement: " look the birthrate has gone up! It's getting a little crowded" Solution: "Kill the new generation" That's exactly what he said... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riddick Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 cool idea bro lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinite Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I think the OP is an act of war against Athens. How are they supposed to merge with all of these new alliances if you go out and try to kill them first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loannes Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 We've had many new (an unnecessary) alliances popping up during the summer. What to do with them? Well,I've had this idea bouncing around my head for a short while. I have now decided I want to show my idea to the general CN community.DoW these mini alliances, and cause disbandment. Alright, how about you take action yourself? Go rogue on TCI and see what happens. Let these alliances run their course. The poorly organized ones will fade out of existence. The good ones will add some spice to CN in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddog241 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 worst idea ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Stalin Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 They all have protectorates =\ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 We've had many new (an unnecessary) alliances popping up during the summer. What to do with them? Well,I've had this idea bouncing around my head for a short while. I have now decided I want to show my idea to the general CN community.DoW these mini alliances, and cause disbandment. Why are you not in PWN? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 Best idea ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chosen One Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 What if all of those "mini alliances" decided to get help from their "big alliance" friends and fight back? Seriously if we do something like this we'll never know what could have been, just think about when your alliance was small, would you have wanted it to happen to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrik Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 (edited) Ruckus fully supports the OP in his endeavor. /sarcasm Edited August 1, 2009 by Syrik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jphillips412 Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 You really just said that? ...like in public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiabelly Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I like your style. Come visit us in #is anytime. Well, that is enough proof for me that this is a bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 I think the OP is an act of war against Athens. How are they supposed to merge with all of these new alliances if you go out and try to kill them first. I like the cut of your jib good sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 That kind of attitude from you two is pretty amusing considering how new and irrelevant the Internet Superheroes actually are. Seriously, what's with you and me agreeing today? Just let 'em play. Let 'em do their thing. Most will fail, but they all deserve a chance. -Bama 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.