Mass alliances vs Elitist alliances

[Crust]

then let 70-90% of Mensa run an alliance, i guarantee 70-90% of their alliances will fail

That makes no sense tbh

[LordStrum]

So I may just be saying this because I hate doing work, but I would much rather take an elite alliance over a mass member alliance. The members in an elite alliance are less likely to be a burden come war time, since they're (at least in theory) the cream of the crop, and therefore don't make dumb mistakes such as beiging for no god damn reason, or raiding during a war, or even not keeping a warchest.

 

I would much rather have 10 guys who know what the hell they're doing over recruiting 100 guys who know nothing for the chance of getting those 10.

 

But that's just me.

[Redael]

So I may just be saying this because I hate doing work, but I would much rather take an elite alliance over a mass member alliance. The members in an elite alliance are less likely to be a burden come war time, since they're (at least in theory) the cream of the crop, and therefore don't make dumb mistakes such as beiging for no god damn reason, or raiding during a war, or even not keeping a warchest.

 

I would much rather have 10 guys who know what the hell they're doing over recruiting 100 guys who know nothing for the chance of getting those 10.

 

But that's just me.

with your nation score you could leave black knights to join an eltieist if you want.

[Redael]

That makes no sense tbh

im saying most alliances fail, and most of mensa hqs members couldn't do any better than non Mensa HQ at starting a decent sized allaince

[LordStrum]

with your nation score you could leave black knights to join an eltieist if you want.

If I didn't have standing threats to start a war over it.

[Buorhann]

im saying most alliances fail, and most of mensa hqs members couldn't do any better than non Mensa HQ at starting a decent sized allaince

I think 70-90% is too high of an estimate for Mensa, but 50% definitely sounds about right.

 

Several of us were in positions of demanding leadership in other games; sometimes against one another.

 

This is why during war time, our own leadership here don't need to really stress out. It's just like what LordStrum said about elitist type alliances.

[Victor Truchev]

Mass recruiting with an effective academy to weed out idiots and pixel huggers is usually the best method of keeping an alliance effective long term. Can confirm due to being in NPO for several years and being apart of exactly that method.

 

Can confirm as this is a huge focus of mine in UPN. UPN does have an Academy, and I can say it has done wonders to weed out the "one-weekers" and the folk who won't put forth the effort. From this, UPN has been able to cultivate and keep a rather large number of players since the inception of the Academy. This past war was also a decent way to weed out pixel huggers. Wars always are. It is nice to see active new blood making waves in UPN. Edited November 29, 2015 by Victor Truchev

[Redael]

Sometimes an alliance needs to take a mass strategy to grow, and also having inactive players doesn't at all hurt an alliance, it just doesn't help them, and also what the heck is a pixel hugger, ive seen this term used alot in this game, but have no idea what it means

[Tali]

Sometimes an alliance needs to take a mass strategy to grow, and also having inactive players doesn't at all hurt an alliance, it just doesn't help them, and also what the heck is a pixel hugger, ive seen this term used alot in this game, but have no idea what it means

People who avoid war at any cost.

[WISD0MTREE]

I prefer smaller alliances who can show me how to play and personally help me until I'm self sufficient and get to know the game. Then I go for a government spot in the alliance and get involved in the meta. Eventually I lead the alliance when I am prevented from doing so effectively. I lost someone close when I led Dictators United in Bloc, the game got reset somewhere else, and I moved when I killed EoS. 

Edited November 29, 2015 by WISD0MTREE

[Lordship]

We actively recruit new players like a mass alliance, and we kick players that pass a certain amount of time without logging in. We kicked a guy with like 1.4k score the other day iirc

 

In terms of which is better, that depends on what you want out of the game, or which way you're looking at it. What are you using to measure "which is better?" Is it which one can win more wars? Do the most damage per nation? Damage as a whole alliance? Which can generate more taxes? Which can coordinate more efficiently? I think it all comes down to which one will you have the most fun in.

 

I find it pretty incredible how people sometimes forget that we are playing a game lol. Enjoy whatever it is you do. If you're not having fun, why are you playing?

[Redael]

I find it pretty incredible how people sometimes forget that we are playing a game lol. Enjoy whatever it is you do. If you're not having fun, why are you playing?

ad·dic·tion

əˈdikSH(ə)n/

noun

 

1. the fact or condition of being addicted to a particular substance, thing, or activity.

   "he committed the theft to finance his drug addiction"

[Spite]

I think 70-90% is too high of an estimate for Mensa, but 50% definitely sounds about right.

 

Several of us were in positions of demanding leadership in other games; sometimes against one another.

 

This is why during war time, our own leadership here don't need to really stress out. It's just like what LordStrum said about elitist type alliances.

You know them better than me, but go through our membership list and tell me who has not got experience of leading groups of at least 500 players.

[ELPINCHAZO]

What SRD has wrong here is that in the 'elitist'  model players generally are very involved. So the lines between members and leaders are far less distinct than the 'blob' model or even the 'middle-of-the-road' model. People generally end up with as much responsibility as they want,they have far more of a chance to impact the entire AA with any input or actions. 

[Redael]

if BM was selective, it would have a lot less money

[Spite]

if BM was selective, it would have a lot less money

You guys should ask Kings Parliament or whoever your protectors are to share info on how to optimise cities.

[Sisyphus]

Based on my experience the best combination is a mass-recruitment alliance with extremely close ties to an elitist alliance.

 

A lot of your experienced members will pretty much always leave before the gov turn over gets around to them but they'll usually move next door to hang out with the "cool kids", without that close relationship they could just as easily end up on the other side of the treaty web.

 

The mass-recruiter maintains itself on new blood and the elitists get a buffer from attrition at the cost of supporting the mass-recruiter's top tier and deterring aggression. Both serve their purpose, each play their role.

 

Other than that, a rigid training process that actively weeds out terrible members is the only comparison, and that's not an easy process.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Lu Xun]

A good mass alliance is better than a good elite alliance, an average elite alliance is better than an average mass alliance. Elite alliances have even quality as their strength, while mass alliances have the vitality of open recruitment to keep them alive. This means that even bad alliances can remain alive longer than they should, fed off by newbies who don't know what they're getting into, while bad elite alliances are still collections of experienced players. A good mass alliance, on the other hand, can combine the strengths of both mass alliances and elite alliances, in that they have access to quality and experienced players, as well as new blood that can be molded into good members. A good elite alliance, on the other hand, only has quality players. Hence, in a healthy game the best alliances should be mass alliances, while in an unhealthy game the best alliances are elite alliances. VE, Rose, UPN, BoC, despite their failings, are good for the game in a way that Syndicate and Mensa are not.

[Ayayay]

This means that even bad alliances can remain alive longer than they should, fed off by newbies who don't know what they're getting into

*cough* SNX *cough*

[Buorhann]

VE, Rose, UPN, BoC, despite their failings, are good for the game in a way that Syndicate and Mensa are not.

 

 

Aw?  Did the Corporation throw away your resume?  Did Dio touch you in a bad spot?

[Ayayay]

Mass AA's always last longer. Problems occur when the top tier, whose job is to teach the noobs, either stop caring or leave due to displeasure over how the alliance is run/lack loyalty to the AA.

[LordStrum]

*cough* SNX *cough*

pls don't remind me

[Ayayay]

pls don't remind me

2l8 Mr. Senator

[Lu Xun]

Aw?  Did the Corporation throw away your resume?  Did Dio touch you in a bad spot?

At one time, I was contacted by certain parties in the Syndicate offering recruitment, and your members did as well. I suppose with my recent posting that's defenestrated, but it's objective that alliances like yours typically are bad for the game, because while all alliances roll others, getting people to quit the game, those like yours minimally recruit, and when they do, they often do so from other alliances, churning players on their way to froth.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Inst

[Buorhann]

I would absolutely love to know who offered you recruitment in Mensa because we very rarely ask anybody from here to join us, and I doubt you made it on the cool kid's list.

 

It's strange how you say alliances like Mensa is bad for the game when we literally recruit outside of this game.  You're right we don't chase after new accounts here, but we do actively seek to pull others from outside of this game to join us here.