Jump to content

Alliance Revivals


Robster83
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am posting this to engage into a discussion of whether alliance revivals can work and whether it is worth the time. Recently we saw a few alliances re-doing their DoE and actually declaring their comeback rather then existence. Some people seem to have no faith in these revivals, some people think that the history should not go to waste and they want to carry on the legacy as such.

Usually, an argument involving an alliance revival is split into two groups. The first group is the group that is against the alliance revival, and thinks that the alliance in question should remain dead. The second group is usually the people who loved the alliance from its creation, and wishes to see it in action again picking up on their history. Usually, the first group believes that the leader of the 'dead alliance' is only reviving it due to the name and history.

To run an alliance in the first place, you must have dedication and know WHY you are wanting to run the group. One can't just go out and create an alliance without have the reason to nor being dedicated enough, otherwise it will just fail. I do think SOMETIMES it may be worth the revival if the alliance disbanded in the first place with good terms. Recreating an alliance puts a few steps ahead since you have the forums, materials ( charter, flag etc... ), irc channel, publicity, established contacts, some followers and some history. However one could argue that if an alliance failed the first time it will fail again, and any argument saying that they may improve from their mistakes could be countered with that even if they start a fresh alliance with the right dedication they would succeed.

I’m going to leave you all with a question to answer:

Is reviving an alliance really worth it? Please post your reasons with your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If it died, it died for a reason. However, some people feel they can correct these mistakes to ensure a better future. This usually doesn't work because some of the key members are spread throughout the cyberverse. People are usually hypocritical in the sense that certain alliances are welcomed back while others need to play dead, but I believe it has to do with the government as one of the main priorities.

If an old alliances' former founding, or ruling government, brings the alliance back, usually it is accepted more so than regular common members trying to attempt the same situation. All in all, I believe if something dies and you truly value it -- do what you can to have it. But, as the above gentleman said, you can always create and establish something new with a new start and future. I am a little iffy about it, but from time to time, I miss ONOS and can understand why people miss the name and environment they once were apart of.

Edited by Ejayrazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if an alliance comes back with the same name I think most people will keep their existing feelings about them. Especially if it was a well known alliance. That being said, I think that people should keep an open mind to see if they were run the same way they were previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bonus you got two HITMANS back to back replies awesomeness..

But if an alliance is forced to disbanded it should never be allowed to form under the same Name regardless of any major changes it has made.

That's your opinion personally, I don't care what anyone calls themselves because it's not going to change what I call them when driving them into the ground.

Alliances have done all of the following to "revive" or whatever you want to call it. You can look at old GOONS and new GOONS. They're nothing like old GOONS and most of the community refuses to take them serious because they still have to live up to the originals standard set and they haven't, but it's not completely their fault because when the old GOONS was around the game was still new and an alliance could rise withing a month and this was in the time of invasions, not to many internet communities don't already know about this.

Then you have the name changers like Atlantis they got a raw deal or something and they reform under basically the same name, it escapes me at the moment, but it's not important. Then they get stomped again.

Statistically alliance revivals don't have a high success rate, look at LUEnited Nations or LUE or whatever they went by. It's best to just give it up, but who cares if there is another GDI?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is.

The Viridian Entente was forced off Green and disbanded to save its member from fighting for a hopeless cause. (From a statistical point of view) At the time it seemed the right thing to do. ( A VietFAN was something uncalled of at the time ) Although the Entente formally died its spirit amongst the former members never did. We kept using our old forums although everyone headed to different places on Planet Bob. We just seized the first opportunity to make that spirit formal again.

That's atleast how I experienced it at the time.

And if I look at what a thriving community the Entente eventually has become, it has been worth all the effort.

It think it just depends wether the fundament of the original alliance never died in the firstplace.

Edited by CylonNL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

\m/ isn't exactly a real revival. It's Bel Air with a different name so they can get attention and new members.

This. If people would just call their brand new alliance by a different name then there would be no problems. Its obvious that the group will be changed so thus the name should be. Its not hard to choose a new name and it really isnt important what your called. Its the group that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to answer this as IAA specific, IAA has spent the past 8 months becoming a new entity in hopes of joining the major players here on bob, to say that we have done so the same way attempted in our first incarnation would be a lie. We have taken a new path, with new faces and new allies in hopes of creating a similar community to which we previously had, as well as make it safe for us to continue on. I would say we have succeeded in these goals, recently crossing the 3 million NS barrier (about 1 million more than our peak in our first incarnation) as well as having about 80 less members than we previously had. Foreign wise, we stuck to our roots by signing treaties with our great friends in GATO and LoSS, then we went further and made ourselves a much more active alliance in the scheme of things here on bob, by signing treaties with Nemesis, GR, Athens, NpO and =LOST=. So essentially, we took the best parts of our history, and created new perks to make us better than the original incarnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends entirely on two things: 1) how much they are composed of members of the original alliance, 2) whether they try to forge a new identity or flounder around imitating their glory days.

VE did it right. GOONS, not so much.

The Jedi hath hit the nail on the head; however they are always annoying in the beginning.

Edited by youwish959
Link to comment
Share on other sites

VE didn't have the high-profile personality that GOONS or \m/ did. It's much easier to separate one's self from a low-profile personality like that. We're going to have a time of it.

You know damn well Egore was a big personality with a bigger ego. It was just that fact that got it rolled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...