Jump to content

Quality of alliance leaders


thedestro

Recommended Posts

This is something I've just come to notice, as I'm sure others already have, but it seems there is a strong correlation between the quality of an alliance leader, and the quality of his nation.
Pretty much at the point that you can look up somebody's nation and know whether or not they're competent.

ex:

CSN leader, 124k NS around for 4+ years. Pretty good, but when you take into account the casualties, the NS is impressive.
MK leader, 81k NS almost 5 years. Taking into account casualties and possible past damage, it's not bad.
Invicta leader, 43K NS around for 3+ years. With 600k casualties, this guy is lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is not really a good metric at all. The skills involved with building up a large nation have nothing to do with the skills involved in leading an alliance. At best you have a correlation without causation, as most leaders of prominent alliances will have had to spent a while getting to the top and therefore have older and larger nations. Plenty of alliance leaders - successful ones - have served their alliance while not bothering to spend effort on their nations. Aside from Ivan, Sponge comes to mind as one that had a miserable nation during his highly successful reign in 2007 because if he built it up at all it would just get nuked back down anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1295056320' post='2575589']
ivan moldavi, theory destroyed
[/quote]

I was just about to point out this.

But what about how many nations we have over 100K NS? We even have a 300K Nation, what I'm saying is if the quality of a leader be reflected by his nation, surely more of the leaders would be over 100K NS?

Nations who have been around forever, who are active usually can't let go and will endeavour in their alliance and reach the top ranks, because of their experience and age. Also Moridin summed up what I think of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An utterly absurd theory. Given that the mechanics of the game are not exactly difficult to master I don't see how alliance leaders with great nations are anything special. On the other hand for those who prefer the politics of Digiterra as one might expect from an alliance leader perhaps they might neglect what might be considered the rather dull task of purchasing infrastructure.

It's not just Ivan Moldavi that disproves this theory. Practically every hate figure in CN has a terrible nation even if they are extremely powerful alliance leaders. Trotsky's Revenge comes to mind, though I haven't glanced at his nation for a few years but it used to be plagued by constant rogues. Or mpol77, to judge by yours standards, is clearly an [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=321305"]utter dunce.[/url] [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=232967"]Warriorconcept's nation[/url] isn't exactly a contender for strongest nation either. And on the very extreme end of the scale, [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=439185"]Walford[/url], who is a skilled organizer and sometime leader despite his diplomatic shortcomings, has an utterly minuscule nation.

EDIT: Ivan Moldavi's nation has 0 NS. How on earth does that reflect his leadership abilities?

Edited by Bordiga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many leaders of alliances that play the game of war purposefully keep their NS lower, because, as one once said to me, that's where the fun is.

Building a large nation has little to do with leadership skills. It might, and probably does have something to do with management skills. To be big, you have to know the rules and how to make the most of them, simple.

And as someone who has taught leadership and management off and on for about 8+ years, I can tell you that there is a significant difference. I've worked or both, and I'd rather have a great leader with integrity and honor than a great manager who can read a spreadsheet but does not lead her/his people.

Yes, you can be both. I've worked for that person too. I can tell you she was my mentor for years and is one of my best friends.

Ceannairí luaidhe (Leaders lead)
Bainisteoirí bhainistiú (Managers manage)

Managers follow the crowd of corporate policy.
Leaders stand in front and are not afraid to say when it's broke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1295056320' post='2575589']ivan moldavi, theory destroyed[/quote]
To back this up, Ivan said on multiple occasions that he isn't very good at the actual game. Additionally, he suffered a lot of rogue kamikaze assaults on his nation.

It is true that he never actually cared for his nation, he plays with humans not pixels. Hence, why he is a legendary character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I must have very different ideas of what makes a quality leader, destro. IF there's any truth to this theory, I'd say one could much better judge the quality of a leaders skills by the NS of his/her follows (for the alliance's size) as opposed to the leader. Good leader = alliance > one's own nation.

Maybe I should get to know the leader of Invicta better :awesome:

Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1295062664' post='2575683']
All it shows is that the nation is old.

And you can't compare Sponge, Moo, Ivan etc because of all the rogue attacks they used to get.
[/quote]

Honestly that would be a good barometer of your success, how often you get nuked by some one with a vendetta. I've always thought that I've known I've "made it" when some one rogues me b/c they don't like me. I've been rogued twice, but both times I don't think it was personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1295062664' post='2575683']
All it shows is that the nation is old.

And you can't compare Sponge, Moo, Ivan etc because of all the rogue attacks they used to get.
[/quote]

Regardless, Sponge in general didn't give a damn about nation building (again need to add IIRC) so I'd say he still applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bordiga' timestamp='1295061144' post='2575661']
It's not just Ivan Moldavi that disproves this theory. Practically every hate figure in CN has a terrible nation even if they are extremely powerful alliance leaders. Trotsky's Revenge comes to mind, though I haven't glanced at his nation for a few years but it used to be plagued by constant rogues. Or mpol77, to judge by yours standards, is clearly an [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=321305"]utter dunce.[/url] [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=232967"]Warriorconcept's nation[/url] isn't exactly a contender for strongest nation either. And on the very extreme end of the scale, [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=439185"]Walford[/url], who is a skilled organizer and sometime leader despite his diplomatic shortcomings, has an utterly minuscule nation.
[/quote]

A correlation is a statististical significance, not a 1:1 map. Ivan was rogued so much he quit trying to build IIRC. Mpol's current nation isnt that old, and isnt too horrible for its age. WC was in \M/ what do you expect there? And I know Walford only rerolled a few days ago.

I think there probably is a correlation though. Smart people who spend enough time on the game to actually figure out all aspects build stronger nations, and are more likely to have the activity level required to make it into alliance government in the first place. So how could there not be a correlation?

[i]edited to remove kitty's contribution. [/i]

Edited by Sigrun Vapneir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bordiga' timestamp='1295061144' post='2575661']
An utterly absurd theory. Given that the mechanics of the game are not exactly difficult to master I don't see how alliance leaders with great nations are anything special. On the other hand for those who prefer the politics of Digiterra as one might expect from an alliance leader perhaps they might neglect what might be considered the rather dull task of purchasing infrastructure.

It's not just Ivan Moldavi that disproves this theory. Practically every hate figure in CN has a terrible nation even if they are extremely powerful alliance leaders. Trotsky's Revenge comes to mind, though I haven't glanced at his nation for a few years but it used to be plagued by constant rogues. Or mpol77, to judge by yours standards, is clearly an [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=321305"]utter dunce.[/url] [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=232967"]Warriorconcept's nation[/url] isn't exactly a contender for strongest nation either. And on the very extreme end of the scale, [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=439185"]Walford[/url], who is a skilled organizer and sometime leader despite his diplomatic shortcomings, has an utterly minuscule nation.

EDIT: Ivan Moldavi's nation has 0 NS. How on earth does that reflect his leadership abilities?
[/quote]

Of course the idea isn't that higher NS correlates directly to higher quality. NS relative to time of existence and casualties is relevant, and that covers a few of your examples.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...