[Forest]

Nice post, I will try and reply.

Please note, I played up to, I dunno, r20 or something I think and only came back last round for half a round as a break from real life so I am only going on the views that I have from irc/forums.
Also, as you can imagine, things always have two sides and I see it from what I personally term 'the good side'.

I would hate for you to think I put little thought into my post though. Some may be wrong, we shall see, but I am quite a thoughtful poster who is talking from experience of being there in the thick of it for a long time.

Originally Posted by ellonweb

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.

Of course its simplified. I don't do things any other way
I did say I didn't have much knowledge of asc and would stand corrected.

With regards to asc being compared to fury, whilst contrasting them, let me explain a bit better.

Fury and 1up, to some extent, were a dictatorship. Sid and the HC made the decisions, as a very good command team and what was decided goes. It was always Sid who had the final word to members and in public, though I am sure behind the scenes it wasn't quite like that.
I can remember 1up at one point being accused of taking over the forums.
We did indeed have a high proportion of posters and would jump on every thread, take it over and use propaganda etc. However, as soon as Sid demanded we didn't post on certain threads or about certain issues, not a single member did. His word ruled.

I guess I should explain how I see the connection. Fury as above was run as a dictatorship.
1up was the same.
However, Fury had a lot more members and so the average standard was probably lower. Then came 1up, again on the good side. This consisted of some brilliant players and the best group of players I have ever played with. Nearly all of them had been top planets, top galaxies, run alliances or battle groups and the standard was very very high. This alliance run any other way could have failed, but a very strong hc team held everyone together and we would run through walls together. To be able to keep 60(?) planets out of tag until 2 weeks left of the round, without anyone getting a real grip on what happened is quite a hard things to happen and shows the level of skill and trust we had in each other.

Anyway, I went off-topic slightly.
Then came Asc (I believe had a fair few people from 1up as well as some other top players). Although they had come from the dictatorship of Sid, they were able to be more planet orientated (or so it appeared from the outside, if an asc says different I am in no position to prove otherwise as never have been in asc).

Maybe I could make a tenuous link of a high proportion of asc players as like the sas, in that they could play well in a team but equally well as an individual. Hope that makes sense, it does in my head.

Originally Posted by ellonweb

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.)

I think with regards to legion, most would agree, even legion hc, that they were more a collection of individuals that played for themselves rather than the alliance.

I also think I agree with you when you say asc were at times like 1up and at times like Legion. Due to the point I made above, I can totally see how that would happen, a group of players who can play individually or as a team is indeed a rare commodity.

Asc is probably the one alliance I wanted to join but never applied. I think because, in private, I am actually a well respected guy on the whole, my pride would never have been able to accept it if I applied and got refused and because I am quite vocal on the forums there was always a chance of that and I wasn't willing to that on the line. I reckon I would have been good in there though

Originally Posted by ellonweb

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.

Interesting point. Exil is one of the very few alliances I would refuse to join, mainly because of who they are and what a few of them stand for (but lets not go there, my thoughts on Section etc are well documented).
This again means I can't talk from a point of experience.

This might be a difficult point to contest and open a can of words, because from my view members were not controlled by hc at all, otherwise they wouldnt have such a high level of cheating. I am assuming by that statement though that HC didn't know what was going on, or at the very least knew but were unwilling to deal with it.

It may be best just to side step that though

Originally Posted by ellonweb

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.

I think the second statement says it all, I played only half way through last round. It appears completely disorganised, members doing what they want and kicking etc going on, as well as fake nicking etc on irc.
This is all I see of App. Maybe it is sad then that they are still going and should have moved on long ago.

I should point out, app are a difficult one for me.
I think they could be brilliant for the game. Last round was kept interesting because of politics and app certainly had a hand in that (I can't remember refreshing sandmans over and over again in the final week like I did with KIA).

They should be praised in the game. However, because of the whole 'we will let you win if you nap us or kill you' attitude they have, they aren't well liked.
I think that is a shame.

Originally Posted by ellonweb

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.

Just to clarify, I was lumping in ct/nd with the 'good side' rather than the dictatorship of fury and 1up.
I do however think you have it pretty spot on.

I don't think gm would be too annoyed with me to reveal that I have at times last round and this got very frustrated with some members who don't show the same level of dedication that I was used to in my previous alliances (I guess we all grew up and have different priorities in life now) and that at times I have pissed people off with my insistance that they need to fight harder and longer.
I have told gm on MANY an occasion he needs to be more like a dictatorship, telling people what to do and kick/roiding them if they refuse. CT just isn't in that same bracket though.

I guess I would put CT/ND in a different bracket with the likes of TGV etc in that they aren't super powers, they want to win but are more relaxed about things in how they will get there.

It takes a very special person to make a dictatorship work and also for a more planet-orientated alliance to work. It is these alliances that go on to be super-powers.
I would class the other alliances more as recreational alliances that absolute hard core winning alliances.

That said, and though I have been frustrated at times, I have loved my time in CT and have been truly touched at how many people, from both inside of CT and out, have wished me good luck in the future (I leave PA tomorrow for ever). I hope I have proved to players who I would always have been on opposite sides of the war, that I am a good player and a good MO who knows the game, the politics and the strategy to do what it takes to win.
I love you all!!

Originally Posted by ellonweb

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.

I usually view one round wonders as having poor leadership, as a strong leadership would take in the players that would subscribe to its ethos and pull them together in a team. Rushing to mass recruit is poor leadership imo.

I think loyalty at the start tends to come in the form of loyalty to the leader/hc.
1up members for instance had total respect and trust in Sid/Mazz/Tiz/Zhil/anyone else I missed, rather than 1up. We joined because of them, not because of 1up. They forged a team that worked well together and from there became loyal to 1up.

People need a true reason to become truly loyal to someone or something. 1up had that respect and we not only would we run through walls for them, we would offer our sisters and wives if hc deemed a hc orgy was neccessary for a successful round.

Originally Posted by ellonweb

Still, an interesting theory. One worthy of further discussion I hope.

I hope it does. Shame I won't be around after tomorrow to follow it up.

I also hope you see my points as valid, even if you disgree with them.