Classification of Alliances

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Especially as we're an \m/ satellite.

GTFO, its Ragnarok that is a \m/ 2.0, or is that RAD, or.. you know almost anyone.

The thing is when a big mountain gets blown up, bits of rock land all over the place. Apart from invasion alliances [per the OP] almost every other alliance has shades of other alliances in its make up. People moving from one to another, mergers, allies, even war shapes the culture of an alliance. It is a very commendable effort to attempt to classify alliances based of the method/means of their origin/birth, however I feel that it would take a lot more discussion/work, to get to where theAUT wishes to take this.

[Hell Scream]

Hey all, I've been wanting to make this thread for quite some time now.

We all know there are alliances in this game and their history. However, do we know what type of alliance it is? How was it founded? Why was it founded? And who founded it? This is a good question that really helps to explain an alliance and their feelings towards things. To me I classify alliances into four groups:

1. The high profile alliance. Alliances that are founded by big names and as a result people migrate towards it wanting to be a part of something "epic." They can pick up a lot of skilled members very quickly but often their members aren't as loyal since some may just be in it for some quick fun. Eventually the mystique of it dies off and it becomes an alliance that retains some loyal, very experienced members and builds from there. But there is no doubt they can attract some of the top notch nations in Planet Bob. Alliances I'd put this under would be TJO, NSO, Nemesis.

2. The branch off alliance. Alliances that branch off another major alliance and feel they can do better than their home alliance. They tend to be founded by active and larger nations looking to make their way on Planet Bob on their own. They're usually active and have a great core of nations. They still have a lot of building to do but they often know how best to go about it. Because they branched off another alliance they carry over experience and have a very similar but not identical way of dealing with things. Alliances I'd put under this category would be Genesis, TSI, RAD (or what is now Bel Air).

3. The invasion alliance. These alliances tend to recruit from other sites. Their recruitment could be next to unlimited however it tends to be a paint to train them all. They usually have a very loyal base although not neccessarily active depending on their strictness. They usually share a very unique culture outside of Cyber Nations itself. Alliances I'd put under this category would be Fark, GOONS, TOP.

4. The scratch alliance. Alliances that start from literally nothing and try to make is way on Planet Bob. They usually start from maybe an experienced player who wants to make his or her own alliance and will take the time and effort to develop prospects (nations looking for a home) and draft picks (newly recruited alliances) to make their alliance work. It lacks depth, especially in the upper tiers, and takes a lot of hard work and dedication to pull off. It's probably the most difficult way of founding an alliance. However, the nations you build up and the core you're able to surround yourself with are often the most loyal nations you can ask for. Alliacnes I'd classify under this category would be UINE, Carthage, Tetris.

Whether you plan on founding an alliance or want to know more about an alliance, these four elements is what truly defines them.

Hope you liked this read.

It's funny you didn't put NSO in category 1. Why is there no NPO in category 3? And did you put micro-alliances into category 4? Majority of current big-time alliances were started from scratch.

[Haflinger]

I think the whole of Purple can be categorized in #2. Most of them are spun off from Legion if I recall their history correctly. Hell, even iFOK can be classified as #2. Although we also have a little bit of #1 in us.

You need to check your history.

Valhalla is the only major Purple alliance that's spun off from Legion. UPN, Invicta, M*A*S*H, Avalon, BAPS, Olympus... and lots of others were not.

[Hymenbreach]

I'd add the

Contrary/Protest Alliances: Vox being the most example of an alliance forming specifically to oppose something or someone.

Invitation Alliances: Usually invite only, usually made up of long term rulers, usually low key. Order of the Black Rose would be the most famous.

The Underground Alliance: Usually impractical or incompetent, they are individuals or groups of individuals who band together informally, usually for some hazily defined moral purpose (high or low).

Edited September 11, 2009 by Hymenbreach

[Delta1212]

It's funny you didn't put NSO in category 1. Why is there no NPO in category 3? And did you put micro-alliances into category 4? Majority of current big-time alliances were started from scratch.

He did put NSO in category 1...

Also, about half of the sanctioned alliances are invasion and NpO is a break away (if not a traditional one). Most are definitely not scratch, although a higher portion of major alliances are non-invasion thanthey have been historically right now.

[HellAngel]

I dont like throwing all alliances into one bag, thats just an excuse to not need to get to know them individually. Even if alliances are close on your scale, that actually doesnt say anything.

I hope new players are not fooled into thinking there are just four kinds of alliances. Because there are exactly as many kinds of alliances as there are alliances.

[WalkerNinja]

Really this is a study of alliance origins rather than a classification of alliances. These origins don't tell us much about how the alliances actually behave, merely how they came into being (and #1 doesn't even match that).

What would be more useful is an established nomenclature for classifying alliance tendencies and ideologies. There are already two types that are readily used, but that are so broad as to be almost useless. I refer, of course, to Lulz Alliances and SrsBznss Alliances.

[LJ Scott]

You need to check your history.

Valhalla is the only major Purple alliance that's spun off from Legion. UPN, Invicta, M*A*S*H, Avalon, BAPS, Olympus... and lots of others were not.

If Valhalla is a major alliance of your sphere, well then thats pretty :3

[The AUT]

Really this is a study of alliance origins rather than a classification of alliances. These origins don't tell us much about how the alliances actually behave, merely how they came into being (and #1 doesn't even match that).

What would be more useful is an established nomenclature for classifying alliance tendencies and ideologies. There are already two types that are readily used, but that are so broad as to be almost useless. I refer, of course, to Lulz Alliances and SrsBznss Alliances.

A nomenclature?

That's taking things a bit too far don't you think?

Also yes this needs a lot more work, hopefully others can expand on it. I can't, busy with work/school.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

I like theAUT's effort and initiative and i also like the direction suggested by Walkerninja. It is but natural for a society to study itself, and a society is eventually what Planet Bob is.

Bobian University anyone?

[Bob Sanders]

i dunno where PC would fit in.

Pretty clear case of #2, basicly all the founders were from TPF.

[kriekfreak]

You need to check your history.

Valhalla is the only major Purple alliance that's spun off from Legion. UPN, Invicta, M*A*S*H, Avalon, BAPS, Olympus... and lots of others were not.

I stand corrected. I thought UPN and Invicta were also spun off from Legion. Reading through Purple's history it seems that have not. Not sure why I got that impression though.

[janax]

Argent is a 13

Irrelevant second-chance alliance rejects from all over who love our stats and nukes.

[JoshuaR]

Agreed that the 5th type of alliance is the merger alliance, taking most of its character from that rather than from however it was founded. For example, Ragnarok is more so a merger giant rather than a split away from \m/ (it was just one random insignificant guy, by his own words). And it grew not really from a scratch group, but as many people were absorbed.

And yeah, I can attest to scratch alliances (MFO being one of them) being the most loyal. Not one of the original founders/members left for another alliance, and we have had only one person, overall, leave our alliance for another (caveat, member must have been at MFO for more than a week).

[Timmmehhh]

Invasion alliances are way more loyal than scratch alliances I think.

We also have a lot of nationbased invasion alliances in the game. And they are very good and loyal fighters.

FOK = Dutch / Flemish

WAPA = Scottish

BAPS = Irish

NEW = Indonesian

FAN and FARK are mostly American.

[Cyphon88]

I thought WAPA was more Australia based?

[Locke]

Invasion alliances are way more loyal than scratch alliances I think.

We also have a lot of nationbased invasion alliances in the game. And they are very good and loyal fighters.

FOK = Dutch / Flemish

WAPA = Scottish

BAPS = Irish

NEW = Indonesian

FAN and FARK are mostly American.

Don't forget FCO. Got Finnish right in the name.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Locke

[Overlord Shinnra]

Type 5 - Merger Giants needs to be introduced

[President Obama]

Type 5 - Merger Giants needs to be introduced

Ragnarok and TPF are the only ones I can think of for that. But I'm probably missing somebody huge.

[Locke]

Ragnarok and TPF are the only ones I can think of for that. But I'm probably missing somebody huge.

Athens.

[Haflinger]

Ragnarok and TPF are the only ones I can think of for that. But I'm probably missing somebody huge.

Arguably, Invicta, although we're not huge.

(Invicta first merged with PAW, who merged with Kaleidoscope immediately before, and Novus Orbus, Nebula-X, and a longish list of smaller alliances.)

[Timmmehhh]

Yeah FCO is a very strong and loyal nationbased alliance too.

[rsoxbronco1]

Athens.

Yeah...at this point we're probably one of the best known merger/absorption alliances.

[Andover]

Id be interested on hearing what people consider Aqua Defense Initiative (we recently DOE'd) on one hand you could call us a split off alliance since 95% of our membership is former The Democratic Order members but on the other hand we could be called a High Profile due to our leader , John Warbuck, who was the former chancellor of TDO just before the split before the crap happenened that made us want to leave.

[janax]

Never heard of him. Not that high profile.