Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest
I think it rather depends on the alliance.
I think with Asc (without a proper knowledge of them, so feel free to put me right) would have members influence the alliance a lot.
But then with 1up, Sid knew what he wanted and what could be achieved and he would do it. If members didn't like it, they could leave and would be promptly roided.
I think he would take into account the members but generally, would have members who would do what he wanted. It was always about doing what the command wanted. Fury were the same.
Legion were always planet/member orientated and never really seemed to have hc in full command, it was more that hc would react to what the members did, whereas with Fury/1up it was members having to react to what the hc wanted.
Players seem to stay on the same side.
Whether that was the good Fury/1up/asc/ct/nd side of pa or the Legion/exil/section/dragons/ldk/apprime/ultores side too.
of course there was/is some crossing over but as a general I don't think there was too much
|
While an interesting theory, this is so inaccurate and so grossly over simplified and generalised and that you couldn't be farther from the truth. Not to mention that at first you contrast Asc with Fury and then later lump them in the same category without a second thought.
At times Asc could be compared to how you describe Legion, but for different reason: there simply is no alliance will/collective to shape its opinion around how the players play, it really is a collection of players of varying independance. And yet in other rounds Asc could be compared to how you describe the Fury/1up dictatorship, but this is only in outside appearance and in reality is more like a polygamous cyclic leadership. Enough about Asc though; Asc's running is so different to other alliances it isn't really possible to make these comparisons, I'd hazard.
(Note that I have no knowledge of Legion's working so I shall avoid the question of whether Forest provides an accurate description, instead commenting on the description itself as a point of comparison.)
eXi, as another example. I would contest that they were in fact closer to your Fury/1up description, except with the dictatorship control being multifaceted: the alliance was controlled by equally strong will that was decided upon by consensus committee of the HC / BG leaders.
App, in its prime (
), similarly should be compared more closely to Fury/1up given the iron fist with which carDi ruled. Recetly of course the alliance is just a shell of its former self, full of morons and trolls that think they've joined the big league.
CT and ND on the other hand maintain much less control over their alliances, and can be quite easily described as a collection of people playing not for alliance win but for their own planets. Not the rank whores of yore, this is something similar but less competitive. And at the same time these players feel a much closer affiliation to their alliances than I would imagine you would say of those in Legion. I'd guess that these alliances experience a much less pro-active loyalty to their collective and perhaps instead have a nearly apathetic loyalty to their leadership, wherein communication and behavioural modelling is much more two-way than in either of your Fury or Legion categories. The leadership is aware of and acts on behalf of the collective, not reacting to and certainly not dictating its will on the players.
A lot of the new alliances, the one round wonders as they might be described pre-round, might be well compared to your description of Legion. Often the struggle or rush to recruit in members results in a lot of extra players being taken on who have less loyalty to the leadership. These players might still think themselves as loyal to their collective, but by being disloyal (or at least not sufficiently committal) to their leadership, they are naively shooting their collective in the proverbial foot. Or in some cases I wouldn't be surprised to hear it wasn't naivety at all.
Still, an interesting theory. One worthy of further discussion I hope.