USMC123 Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 All alliances started as micro-alliances, perhaps barring a few invasion alliances who migrated to CN en masse. But also, micros can have some of the coolest people around. AOD Brigade DAAN So yes, I care about micro-alliances. *cough*cough* )): Also: Tetris cares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Yes and no. It really depends on the micro-alliance and the people in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Bleh, it's hard to say. Yes and no (I voted no in honesty). I care about the ones that have friends in them and the ones that are protectorates, but other than that they are simply satellite alliances in which to wage war. Seriously, what better casus belli then to have your protected alliance start something and create a massive snowball effect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiabelly Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 You are saying that all micro-alliances will eventually become a major player in the game. Since that statement is false and more alliance fail your logic hearby eludes whether we should care about a micro alliance.Please ask yourself how many alliances have exsisted over the course of cybernation and the derive a percentage of how many actually made a difference in the game. Sorry for the grammar I'm not on the laptop. :s I am sorry, but you have mis-read or mis-interpreted what I said. I said that MANY great alliances started as micro alliances and that I am sure there are MANY micro alliances out there who are or may become great. I never said ALL. I never said they were ALL great or that ALL alliances came from micro alliances. Please be more careful when refuting what you think I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 I am sorry, but you have mis-read or mis-interpreted what I said. I said that MANY great alliances started as micro alliances and that I am sure there are MANY micro alliances out there who are or may become great. That's the thing though, there is a major barrier between newer and older players that is unlikely to be overcome. With the exception of a few formidable alliances, most micro-alliances fail because they simply can't get off the ground. I've been in a micro-alliance before and I've seen how it is very difficult to recruit people when it's a hundred times easier to go to Alliance Affiliation, click the drop down, ghost a sanctioned alliance, get yelled at by said sanctioned alliance, and then formally apply for membership to said sanctioned alliance. If micro-alliances have any hope of succeeding, they need an extremely efficient and competent government team to get the ball rolling. Inactivity is what kills micro-alliances more often than war, though as I posted above, they are the perfect tool to start wars, which is why I try to not jump on the bandwagon and make my own alliance and get caught with my pants down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiabelly Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 But you can be great, by my definition, without becoming big. I think an alliance of 20 that has a good community and has a small presence on the world radar can still be a great alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 But you can be great, by my definition, without becoming big. I think an alliance of 20 that has a good community and has a small presence on the world radar can still be a great alliance. Ah, if you define in terms of qualitative observation, definitely. TYR, for instance, insists on remaining small for that reason. I definitely agree with that sentiment, though the only hardship is overcoming inactivity and being constantly harassed about mergers and the sorts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiabelly Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Im not sure whether my definition of micro alliance fits the one every else has.Personally, I hate it when 1 man alliances issue declerations of war. If I ever rule an alliance I will ZI every person who issues a personal decleration of war by claiming to be an alliance. I get it if an alliance issued previous declarations, at the very least a declaration of existence, but when an "alliance"/person declares existence and war in thesame post I just wanna physically hurt them. Well, you owe me a ZI retroactively if you ever get that head job. When I was independent for a few months, over a year ago I called my one man alliance the "Prince Edward Island Freedom Front". I had my own flag and had somewhere between 5 and 10 medium to large size alliances recognize my existance as an alliance. I also declared war on one of the Mafia inspired alliances...the Family, something that came before hand, brain freeze right now...and in my opinion I won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 My bad, not only did I appear to direct that at you but I misspelled "your" D:And agreed with the post if it matters. It's all cool Drai, I tried not to point out your bad use of grammar. Any agreement is worth something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 You wouldn't catch me in a micro alliance. Oh.. wait. Oh, I made a tie. Go me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 (edited) Ah, if you define in terms of qualitative observation, definitely. TYR, for instance, insists on remaining small for that reason. I definitely agree with that sentiment, though the only hardship is overcoming inactivity and being constantly harassed about mergers and the sorts. Where is OMFG when you need them? They could fill us in. Edit: Grabbed wrong quote. Edited December 7, 2009 by Tick1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonOfHoward Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Voted yes because VE is a micro alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facade Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) I voted yes and tied it to no with 143 votes each. Thread should be closed etc. Edited December 8, 2009 by Facade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChimpMasterFlash Posted December 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I voted yes and tied it to no with 143 votes each.Thread should be closed etc. It does indeed look close but I took 'Who' as a sarcastic no with an error rate of +/- for unsure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperbad Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 I don't care no matter the size of an alliance. I read what's going on and contemplate the situation. I typically write up a reply regarding what has transpired but then delete it as I wonder why I'm even bothering. Any drama can easily be cleared up if the parties desire it and anyone can tech trade. The doom of one does not equate to the doom of all. [OOC: Interests aren't represented in the game proper thus I have no reason to care about anyone else. The only thing which has me 'care' is my desire to roleplay somewhat of a benevolent ruler and then it's about the actions taken, principles of any matter as opposed to who takes them. In a more devious mood or mindset or with differing game mechanics I'll instead care to the point of how useful they are in dooming others.] Maybe I'll care when I see an alliance that stands out as exceptional but I've yet to see one. It's always possible that I just haven't seen them much here of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustakrakish II Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Its been a while since i've been able to VFABIC... And i say yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Schrodinger Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 VABIC I've seen more interesting things come from smaller alliances than the larger ones. I also haven't been paying attention much. I've also been known to be biased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) I wouldn't write off all micro alliances as meaningless, but the vast majority of them are going nowhere fast and doing nothing but watering down the political landscape. There are just not that many original themes, causes, or governments etc. that people need to be creating alliances left and right. Especially when they stay on the same color and get a protectorate from their original alliance. I'd encourage every micro alliance to re-examine their growth trend and recruiting trend, and take an honest assessment of whether they're going to even break 1 mil. in the next 6 months. If not, then just what are they going to do to create any sort of effect in this world? And if you're not going to create any impact, then why not stay in your original alliance or join GPA? The reason I even care is because I think CN would be a lot more interesting if the number of alliances came way down, so that every treaty really counted. As it is, it's a bunch of extremely similar alliances of varying size who are mostly all friendly with each other, who get pulled in one direction of a war or the other based on a chain of MDP's. When sanctioned alliances are at 8 mil, anyone under a million NS is hardly worth even taking into account. We need more big and original players - not tag-alongs - to make things interesting again. The more power gets splintered into little pieces the less likely it is that we'll see big, clearly-defined sides. Edited December 8, 2009 by Prodigal Moon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar833 Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Someone just needs to restart an Offspring type thing so that people notice small alliances again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Depends. If it was KIDS, FDA, a makeshift alliance or something, no. If it was an alliance that went through a lot and got in various damaging wars for the good, then I would. I only care about ones that actually make an effort to stand up for their beliefs and allies in front of a larger opponent and have some influence on the political environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uralica Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 *cough*cough* )): You're listed. In my eyes that =/= micro. Tetris is pretty epic, mind you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Just as you might find it fun attacking a micro alliance, another alliance might find it fun to use that as an excuse to attack. So in the end it has nothing to do with whether they care about them, just whether they feel its time for war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 Not really, but micro alliance drama can be funny from time to time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) Even the invasion alliances start with just a couple of members, and bring friends over and stuff. They may grow a hell of a lot faster, but they still start with the basics. OTF Alliance founded with 70-100 members. There's exceptions to every rule. Edited December 8, 2009 by Poyplemonkeys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted December 8, 2009 Report Share Posted December 8, 2009 (edited) Micro alliances sit on the edge of the game and have less influence on world politics than the rank and file members of major sanctioned alliances for the most part. The only exceptions are the micro alliances founded by deposed leaders or influential former members of sanctioned alliances. And Gramlins, they are a special exception. Edited December 8, 2009 by Prime minister Johns 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.