Coolossus Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Recently, I have been pondering about the true differences between alliances and their classification, which is utilized frequently anywhere when referring to them in pertinent debates or for trolling purposes. This post is intended for that purpose. What precisely qualifies an alliance as good, bad, better, worse, etc., and what criteria are applied that are generally accepted in the game? (In particular, when discussing phrases like majors, support, farms, macros, and micros) Kindly enlighten me what you guys think and consider for such in as many words as possible. I love reading long posts filled with valuable content. Remark: Be polite, civil, respectful and up to the point of context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Oily Men Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 The topic of alliances, especially in pnw, is a deeply nuanced and widely debated one. When players or communities use terms like “good,” “bad,” “better,” “worse,” “majors,” “support,” “farms,” “macros,” and “micros,” they often refer to varying factors that define the value, influence, or quality of an alliance within the game. These distinctions are typically shaped by a blend of gameplay mechanics, strategy, player behavior, and meta-analysis. Below is a detailed breakdown of these classifications, explaining what qualities make an alliance "good" or "bad" and how these terms apply. 1. Major vs. Minor Alliances: Majors: In the context of an alliance system, "major" alliances are typically those that hold significant power and influence within the game. These alliances are often characterized by having: Large numbers of active members, sometimes in the hundreds or more, which gives them the ability to control territories, resources, or influence in the game. High-level coordination and well-established leadership structures. They often have a network of experienced players who contribute valuable resources, strategies, and guidance. Access to powerful resources or assets that give them an edge over smaller groups. They may control rare or hard-to-acquire items, areas, or game mechanics that other alliances cannot easily access. Political clout, meaning they can make or break deals with other alliances or dictate the direction of the game’s meta (whether it’s through warfare, diplomacy, or trade). Minors: These alliances tend to have fewer members, are often more specialized, and can range from highly skilled smaller groups to loose collections of players. While they might lack the raw power or resources of major alliances, they often bring unique strategies, tactics, or niche roles to the game. 2. Good vs. Bad Alliances: This classification is subjective but generally refers to an alliance’s reputation, behavior, and impact on the game. "Good" and "bad" alliances can be evaluated based on several factors: Leadership and Coordination: A good alliance often has clear, effective leadership with communication that is organized and transparent. Members in a good alliance understand their roles and work together in a coordinated effort. A bad alliance may lack these qualities. Poor communication, a lack of strategy, or even internal conflicts can reduce an alliance's effectiveness. Ethics and Sportsmanship: A good alliance is often seen as one that plays fair, maintains honor, and seeks to foster a positive gaming environment. They might avoid “trolling” tactics, cheating, or exploiting game mechanics to gain unfair advantages. A bad alliance might be seen as one that engages in toxic behavior, such as griefing, exploiting bugs, or constantly sabotaging other alliances through underhanded methods. Impact on the Game’s Balance: A good alliance contributes to the game’s balance, perhaps helping underdog factions or enhancing gameplay for all by maintaining a fair competition. A bad alliance could be one that throws off the balance of the game, for instance, by hoarding resources, bullying smaller groups, or preventing new players from engaging fully. 3. Farms and Support Alliances: Farms: This term often refers to alliances that are either intentionally or unintentionally created to be easy targets for other alliances to raid for resources. In some cases, a farm alliance may be used as a resource hub, where larger alliances use the smaller alliance to "farm" for materials, experience, or rewards. Farm alliances are sometimes considered "bad" in a broader social sense because they can contribute little to the community or game, merely existing as a source of supply for others. However, players in these alliances may still enjoy playing within their dynamic. These alliances can also be viewed as low-maintenance, providing minimal conflict but offering few strategic advantages outside of resource accumulation. Support Alliances: These alliances often serve as back-up or secondary factions that provide assistance to stronger or more dominant groups. They might not engage in direct combat but can offer other forms of help, such as diplomatic support, resources, or logistical backing. While support alliances can be beneficial, they can also be seen as “weaker” due to their reliance on larger factions for survival or advancement. However, this is not always a negative trait—many support alliances play critical roles in the larger political or military landscape. 4. Macro vs. Micro Alliances: Macros: These are alliances that operate at a large scale. They often have a broad, sweeping strategy that looks at the game from a high-level perspective. Their decisions are influenced by long-term goals, territorial control, and large-scale military actions. They might dominate the game, control vast portions of resources, and have a broad network of allies and sub-alliances. Macros are effective at managing large numbers of players and executing complex strategies. Some players may see them as "overpowered" or as contributing to an imbalance, especially if they are unwilling to make meaningful alliances or help lower-level factions. Micros: Micro alliances operate on a much smaller, more intimate scale. These alliances may only consist of a handful of players, and their strategies tend to be more flexible, with a focus on personal relationships, small-scale tactics, or niche strategies. Micros often thrive in a more "agile" manner, able to adapt to changing circumstances and respond more effectively to threats or opportunities that arise. They may not have the same military might or resources as larger alliances, but they can often be more innovative, utilizing unconventional tactics, creating alliances with smaller factions, or forming alliances within alliances. While they may be seen as weaker compared to macros, micro alliances can still be highly respected for their skill, flexibility, and creative approaches to overcoming adversity. 5. What Makes an Alliance “Good” in the Larger Context? An alliance can be considered good or respected if it maintains a balance of power, respect for the game’s rules, and strategic foresight. In more detail: Unity and Community: Good alliances often form tight-knit communities where players enjoy each other’s company, support one another, and collectively benefit from their in-game actions. A strong community can enhance the gameplay experience, making players feel invested in the group. Strategic Vision: An alliance that can strategize and make informed decisions about alliances, resources, and territorial control is often seen as competent. These alliances play a key role in shaping the game’s world and culture. Conflict Management: A good alliance knows how to handle conflict. Whether through diplomacy, negotiation, or combat, they understand how to manage external threats while maintaining internal harmony. Adaptability: As games evolve and new mechanics or updates are introduced, a good alliance adapts to changes, learning to harness new tools, technologies, or systems that emerge. Sustainability: Lastly, a good alliance is sustainable over time. It doesn’t just dominate in the short-term but continues to thrive across multiple sessions, with systems in place to deal with turnover and keep players engaged. Conclusion: The classification of alliances as “good,” “bad,” “major,” “minor,” “support,” “farm,” “macro,” and “micro” represents a wide spectrum of values and strategies in the gaming world. Whether an alliance is considered better or worse depends on many factors, including leadership, resources, strategy, ethics, and the ability to adapt. The broader gaming community often values balance, respect, and creativity in alliances, even while acknowledging that the more cutthroat, competitive factions can bring excitement to the game. Ultimately, the best alliances are those that remain true to their goals, support their members, and contribute meaningfully to the game’s evolution, all while navigating the complex dynamics of power, cooperation, and competition. ;tldr rose bad 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolossus Posted January 5 Author Share Posted January 5 (edited) Gonna raid, roll every single spammer, bomber on this post followed by previous ones in-game ;-0 MARK MY WORDS Edited January 10 by Coolossus 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anri Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 4 hours ago, Black Oily Men said: The topic of alliances, especially in pnw, is a deeply nuanced and widely debated one. When players or communities use terms like “good,” “bad,” “better,” “worse,” “majors,” “support,” “farms,” “macros,” and “micros,” they often refer to varying factors that define the value, influence, or quality of an alliance within the game. These distinctions are typically shaped by a blend of gameplay mechanics, strategy, player behavior, and meta-analysis. Below is a detailed breakdown of these classifications, explaining what qualities make an alliance "good" or "bad" and how these terms apply. 1. Major vs. Minor Alliances: Majors: In the context of an alliance system, "major" alliances are typically those that hold significant power and influence within the game. These alliances are often characterized by having: Large numbers of active members, sometimes in the hundreds or more, which gives them the ability to control territories, resources, or influence in the game. High-level coordination and well-established leadership structures. They often have a network of experienced players who contribute valuable resources, strategies, and guidance. Access to powerful resources or assets that give them an edge over smaller groups. They may control rare or hard-to-acquire items, areas, or game mechanics that other alliances cannot easily access. Political clout, meaning they can make or break deals with other alliances or dictate the direction of the game’s meta (whether it’s through warfare, diplomacy, or trade). Minors: These alliances tend to have fewer members, are often more specialized, and can range from highly skilled smaller groups to loose collections of players. While they might lack the raw power or resources of major alliances, they often bring unique strategies, tactics, or niche roles to the game. 2. Good vs. Bad Alliances: This classification is subjective but generally refers to an alliance’s reputation, behavior, and impact on the game. "Good" and "bad" alliances can be evaluated based on several factors: Leadership and Coordination: A good alliance often has clear, effective leadership with communication that is organized and transparent. Members in a good alliance understand their roles and work together in a coordinated effort. A bad alliance may lack these qualities. Poor communication, a lack of strategy, or even internal conflicts can reduce an alliance's effectiveness. Ethics and Sportsmanship: A good alliance is often seen as one that plays fair, maintains honor, and seeks to foster a positive gaming environment. They might avoid “trolling” tactics, cheating, or exploiting game mechanics to gain unfair advantages. A bad alliance might be seen as one that engages in toxic behavior, such as griefing, exploiting bugs, or constantly sabotaging other alliances through underhanded methods. Impact on the Game’s Balance: A good alliance contributes to the game’s balance, perhaps helping underdog factions or enhancing gameplay for all by maintaining a fair competition. A bad alliance could be one that throws off the balance of the game, for instance, by hoarding resources, bullying smaller groups, or preventing new players from engaging fully. 3. Farms and Support Alliances: Farms: This term often refers to alliances that are either intentionally or unintentionally created to be easy targets for other alliances to raid for resources. In some cases, a farm alliance may be used as a resource hub, where larger alliances use the smaller alliance to "farm" for materials, experience, or rewards. Farm alliances are sometimes considered "bad" in a broader social sense because they can contribute little to the community or game, merely existing as a source of supply for others. However, players in these alliances may still enjoy playing within their dynamic. These alliances can also be viewed as low-maintenance, providing minimal conflict but offering few strategic advantages outside of resource accumulation. Support Alliances: These alliances often serve as back-up or secondary factions that provide assistance to stronger or more dominant groups. They might not engage in direct combat but can offer other forms of help, such as diplomatic support, resources, or logistical backing. While support alliances can be beneficial, they can also be seen as “weaker” due to their reliance on larger factions for survival or advancement. However, this is not always a negative trait—many support alliances play critical roles in the larger political or military landscape. 4. Macro vs. Micro Alliances: Macros: These are alliances that operate at a large scale. They often have a broad, sweeping strategy that looks at the game from a high-level perspective. Their decisions are influenced by long-term goals, territorial control, and large-scale military actions. They might dominate the game, control vast portions of resources, and have a broad network of allies and sub-alliances. Macros are effective at managing large numbers of players and executing complex strategies. Some players may see them as "overpowered" or as contributing to an imbalance, especially if they are unwilling to make meaningful alliances or help lower-level factions. Micros: Micro alliances operate on a much smaller, more intimate scale. These alliances may only consist of a handful of players, and their strategies tend to be more flexible, with a focus on personal relationships, small-scale tactics, or niche strategies. Micros often thrive in a more "agile" manner, able to adapt to changing circumstances and respond more effectively to threats or opportunities that arise. They may not have the same military might or resources as larger alliances, but they can often be more innovative, utilizing unconventional tactics, creating alliances with smaller factions, or forming alliances within alliances. While they may be seen as weaker compared to macros, micro alliances can still be highly respected for their skill, flexibility, and creative approaches to overcoming adversity. 5. What Makes an Alliance “Good” in the Larger Context? An alliance can be considered good or respected if it maintains a balance of power, respect for the game’s rules, and strategic foresight. In more detail: Unity and Community: Good alliances often form tight-knit communities where players enjoy each other’s company, support one another, and collectively benefit from their in-game actions. A strong community can enhance the gameplay experience, making players feel invested in the group. Strategic Vision: An alliance that can strategize and make informed decisions about alliances, resources, and territorial control is often seen as competent. These alliances play a key role in shaping the game’s world and culture. Conflict Management: A good alliance knows how to handle conflict. Whether through diplomacy, negotiation, or combat, they understand how to manage external threats while maintaining internal harmony. Adaptability: As games evolve and new mechanics or updates are introduced, a good alliance adapts to changes, learning to harness new tools, technologies, or systems that emerge. Sustainability: Lastly, a good alliance is sustainable over time. It doesn’t just dominate in the short-term but continues to thrive across multiple sessions, with systems in place to deal with turnover and keep players engaged. Conclusion: The classification of alliances as “good,” “bad,” “major,” “minor,” “support,” “farm,” “macro,” and “micro” represents a wide spectrum of values and strategies in the gaming world. Whether an alliance is considered better or worse depends on many factors, including leadership, resources, strategy, ethics, and the ability to adapt. The broader gaming community often values balance, respect, and creativity in alliances, even while acknowledging that the more cutthroat, competitive factions can bring excitement to the game. Ultimately, the best alliances are those that remain true to their goals, support their members, and contribute meaningfully to the game’s evolution, all while navigating the complex dynamics of power, cooperation, and competition. ;tldr rose bad This is chatgpt isnt it 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Oily Men Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 22 minutes ago, Coolossus said: Seen kids on 4chan with broken english write better than this. Mate, spammed whole AI cancer. I guess, that's all there is to competency to some folks. What does being FA got to do with using ChatGPT 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolossus Posted January 5 Author Share Posted January 5 12 hours ago, Anri said: This is chatgpt isnt it Hey @Anri @Anri long time no see. How u been? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anri Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 On 1/6/2025 at 4:03 AM, Coolossus said: Hey @Anri @Anri long time no see. How u been? I'm doing well, how about you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolossus Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 3 hours ago, Anri said: I'm doing well, how about you? Owsum, irl-wise job & productivity followed by new hobbies, relationships etc. while PnW-wise mostly bored followed by receiving bullying, harassment, death threats & OOC slanders in DM's from weaklings via multiple burner accounts as expected, haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anri Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 1 hour ago, Coolossus said: Owsum, irl-wise job & productivity followed by new hobbies, relationships etc. while PnW-wise mostly bored followed by receiving bullying, harassment, death threats & OOC slanders in DM's from weaklings via multiple burner accounts as expected, haha. Good to hear man, besides the threats and all that jazz of course. Sounds like things going well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolossus Posted February 3 Author Share Posted February 3 On 1/7/2025 at 1:08 PM, Anri said: Good to hear man, besides the threats and all that jazz of course. Sounds like things going well Thanks, wishing you the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolossus Posted February 3 Author Share Posted February 3 On 1/5/2025 at 11:51 AM, Black Oily Men said: What does being FA got to do with using ChatGPT I pray for your health mate; seriously dude you & your pals spent last 3 months spamming my discord account with super OOC derogatory NSFW stuff using multiple burner accounts to make me delete. Are you indeed twisted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Oily Men Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 13 hours ago, Coolossus said: I pray for your health mate; seriously dude you & your pals spent last 3 months spamming my discord account with super OOC derogatory NSFW stuff using multiple burner accounts to make me delete. Are you indeed twisted? First of all, I have no idea what pals u are talking about nor have I heard of such things before right now. In fact so far it is you who brings up random 4 week old threads just to say smth dumb to me. Nor do I see how what u said is relevant to the quote. Get a life. You seriously need one. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conald Petersen Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 On 1/4/2025 at 8:57 PM, Coolossus said: for trolling purposes. This post is intended for that purpose. Your alliance sucks the hardest (just doing what you asked for cuzzie) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolossus Posted February 9 Author Share Posted February 9 On 2/8/2025 at 12:08 PM, Conald Petersen said: Your alliance sucks the hardest (just doing what you asked for cuzzie) 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.