Upper Tier Alliances

[Prefonteen]

4 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

It's Grumpy.

GOB.

[Sir Scarfalot]

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

GOB.

Grumpy.

[Buorhann]

@Lordship

So instead of answering James post, you quote mine and go with that angle.

It is odd how any time I’ve made a reply along the lines of “TKR is a threat”, that a few of you get riled up about it.

Afterall, you guys did use it in your CB.  Which pretty much validated the statement then.

Edited August 12, 2018 by Buorhann

[Mikey]

I think in part the disagreement comes down to how we use the term in difference contexts. Without considering this thread or really thinking about it, if you were to ask me if TKR was an upper tier alliance, I would reflexively answer no. On the other hand, if you were to ask me who I consider the most powerful upper tier allainces, I would absolutely include TKR in that list. In the first case my mind inherent jumps to broad classifications based on overal membership and tiering. In the second, I'm only thinking of overall firepower in the tier, of which they have a great deal.

All of which is to say, while sketchy is of course right that the label itself is not so useful, I don't think either use of it in this thread is without merit

[Sketchy]

17 hours ago, Lordship said:

I thought this was a discussion about what the community considers upper tier alliances, and when I challenge the contention, we are accused of being offended or of being scared of the label lol. Is this a discussion or are you trying to score some political points by doing your best to make as unintelligent an argument on the topic at hand as possible?

If you agree the label is redundant and subjective, what exactly is the point of arguing against other peoples subjective labels of TKR?

You were the one who objected to TKR being an upper tier alliance and pushed the conversation in that direction. This whole debate is fairly redundant.

[Lordship]

12 hours ago, Buorhann said:

@Lordship

So instead of answering James post, you quote mine and go with that angle.

It is odd how any time I’ve made a reply along the lines of “TKR is a threat”, that a few of you get riled up about it. 

Afterall, you guys did use it in your CB.  Which pretty much validated the statement then.

I answered two posts in one, and only reason I responded to you specifically is because you took the opening to take shot.

4 hours ago, Sketchy said:

If you agree the label is redundant and subjective, what exactly is the point of arguing against other peoples subjective labels of TKR? 

You were the one who objected to TKR being an upper tier alliance and pushed the conversation in that direction. This whole debate is fairly redundant.

That's the entire point of the thread, to argue who is and who isn't in that category, and it is the entire reason that any of us are having this discussion heh. It isn't particularly important, but since we're having the discussion, might as well discuss it

[Placentica]

On 8/9/2018 at 11:15 PM, Sketchy said:

I would define upper tier as the highest city count for people in the range where the  fights happen. So right now I'd say 18-23 perhaps a bit higher. I'm not sure average city count is relevant so much as how many people are available to fight in particular ranges. 

Top 20 Alliances by 18-20, 21-23, 24-26 and 27-33 respectively.

 

So TKR, TCW, Rose, The Syndicate, Guardian, TEst, The Golden Horde, Church of Spaceology, Knights Templar, etc. Obviously some alliances are upper tier, but have a low member count, so they won't rank as highly on this list as say TKR, who has a tonne of members in all ranges. 

Thanks! This was basically what I was thinking too, but impression of what an upper tier alliance is, is important as uppers tend to join other uppers.  I know there was a guy who attacked Grumpy back in the day when Hogwarts bailed them out, who now actually joined Grumpy, lol. So the draw to join for self-protection is strong.  Grumpy being more whale tier or super-tier which is quickly becoming an important 4th class (ignoring the connotations of "whale", which I'm not after here).  As a previous #1 nation, I fought in a lot of wars where my larger nation was very much needed by Guardian way back in the day.

[Aksel]

On 8/10/2018 at 3:24 PM, Buorhann said:

Is this really a worthwhile argument to pursue over one person's opinion though, @Kastor?

He lost relevance and spotlight in the other thread. Only makes sense to show face in this hot topic. 

Kastors be kastors. 

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

In case you guys were wondering Grumpy now averages over 29 cities per member

That is how you upper tier folks.

[Sir Scarfalot]

8 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

In case you guys were wondering Grumpy now averages over 29 cities per member

That is how you upper tier folks.

And your average score is still beaten out by a nation with 14 cities.

https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=4924 averages 7805 score per member. THAT is how you upper tier tbh.

[Micchan]

So the the Rolled by TKR group (a group that is growing faster than Pantheon under The Emperor) is now trying to push for a TKR doesn't want to be called upper tier for some obscure reason

You hould stop trying this hard

[Fraggle]

Honest Question....would Los Pollos Hermanos, ranked 76th last time I checked, be considered an upper tier alliance? 

 

Thoughts? I'd like to hear Scar, Kangaroo, and the Hippo, but all others are welcome.

 

Many hugs.

Edited August 18, 2018 by Fraggle

[Prefonteen]

1 hour ago, Fraggle said:

Honest Question....would Los Pollos Hermanos, ranked 76th last time I checked, be considered an upper tier alliance? 

 

Thoughts? I'd like to hear Scar, Kangaroo, and the Hippo, but all others are welcome.

 

Many hugs.

Youre the upper tier in my heart

[Kastor]

On 8/13/2018 at 8:15 PM, Micchan said:

So the the Rolled by TKR group (a group that is growing faster than Pantheon under The Emperor) is now trying to push for a TKR doesn't want to be called upper tier for some obscure reason

You hould stop trying this hard

Delusional as usual.

[Buorhann]

8 hours ago, Fraggle said:

Honest Question....would Los Pollos Hermanos, ranked 76th last time I checked, be considered an upper tier alliance? 

 

Thoughts? I'd like to hear Scar, Kangaroo, and the Hippo, but all others are welcome.

 

Many hugs.

I'll let it pass.

[Sir Scarfalot]

9 hours ago, Fraggle said:

Honest Question....would Los Pollos Hermanos, ranked 76th last time I checked, be considered an upper tier alliance? 

 

Thoughts? I'd like to hear Scar, Kangaroo, and the Hippo, but all others are welcome.

 

Many hugs.

Los Pollos Hermanos would absolutely be an upper tier alliance by virtue of being comprised of primarily upper-tier nations, which Fraggle Rock (#10) certainly qualifies as. That's the logic that makes the most sense to me.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

On 8/18/2018 at 6:23 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

Los Pollos Hermanos would absolutely be an upper tier alliance by virtue of being comprised of primarily upper-tier nations, which Fraggle Rock (#10) certainly qualifies as. That's the logic that makes the most sense to me.

Personally I think you need more than one member to be considered an alliance.  I would think you would need to have more than 5 members to be considered, or atleast taken seriously.

[Sir Scarfalot]

7 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Personally I think you need more than one member to be considered an alliance.  I would think you would need to have more than 5 members to be considered, or at least taken seriously.

I'd dispute that, since there are loads of micros that nobody takes seriously that have a lot more than 5 members. Meanwhile there sometimes (albeit very rarely) are alliances that people take seriously with fewer than 5 members; sometimes even with just one member. Then there's alliances like yours, which are more akin to MDoAP agreements between the individual nation members than a traditional alliance, and there's alliances like NPO which are more akin to a single nation as opposed to an alliance of nations.

In any event, when I use the word "alliance", I mean the game mechanic where individual nations group together under a leadership and officer corps and pay taxes into a bank. The mechanic doesn't exclude 1 member alliances, so how can we?

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

I am not saying that I also don't take many micros that seriously either, but if you are an upper tier alliance, I need you to have more than 4-5 members before I would take you seriously.

"In any event, when I use the word "alliance", I mean the game mechanic where individual nations group together under a leadership and officer corps and pay taxes into a bank. The mechanic doesn't exclude 1 member alliances, so how can we? "

In your description of an alliance, you yourself exclude 1 member alliances.