Alliance Members

[Maddix]

I am just curious as to what kind of members do other alliances value most?

There seems to be two kinds of players around these days, on one hand you have the die hard 'team player', that will always have a defence fleet available for his alliance and would sooner defend with two fleets than attack with two. On the other there is your typical 'selfish player' that will constantly attack with three fleets, hardly ever defend his alliance, but still expect defence.

It would seem at face value that its not too hard to choose between these two types of people, but there are other things to take into consideration. The 'team player' while a great benefit to your alliance is unlikely (altho not impossible ofc) to achieve any really high ranking score wise, but having these players definately increases the average member size in an alliance.

The 'selfish' player while giving almost nothing physically to an alliance is however far more likely to achieve the top rankings and thus give their alliance an 'achievement' - especially in a random round when galaxy rankings don't really mean anything.

If we use LDK as an example (no I'm not flaming), they have a large number of top planets, but it is widely known that these planets consistantly attack with three fleets, making it physically impossible for them to defend their alliance mates - maybe not all the time, before someone moans, but more often than they defencd. These planets however, as seen last night, suck up a very high majority of the defence fleets from their alliance mates and, again as seen last night, they get roided and take loses while their alliance is defending someone who doesn't 'give' to the alliance.

So in conclusion, what would alliances, HCs and their members prefere to have their alliance consisting of and in what proportion? 'Team players' increasing their general memberbase size, strength and moral (in the terms of a moral boost to protect your own roids consistantly while defending others than losing your roids while protecting your alliances top players) or the 'selfish players' who give your alliance their top ranks and moral boost from knowing your alliance has the #1 player, even those the general member base is a little more 'vunerable' and weaker?

Also for the case of this discussion can we please leave out all the 'multi-escort planets' jibes and assume these top players all have one account and three fleet slots please and yes I know there will be some exceptions to what I've said above, but in general I feel its a set of reasonably accurate generalisations

[Cochese]

I've defended with two fleets more than I've attacked with two (never with three, that is a pet peeve of mine) and still managed to do quite well.

Being aggressive and a team player, aren't always mutually exclusive qualities. In general though, I'd rather have team players due to the reasons you already pointed out

[Aryn]

i've been yelled at for not attacking with the alliance enough. when in the meantime i try to defend as many planets as i can on a fairly regular basis.

alliances always want 'defence' players, but not if they're not meeting their attacking 'quota' i suppose.

[lrytas]

Actually maddix you are wrong. Yes, we do have some players that attack with 3 fleets, but they attack when they get approval from HC. I dont know how many times, for example, naq pmed me his whole fleet, i, myself didnt dare to take all the ships, and still, he is highly ranked in the universe. No, he is not the only one, i may give you lots of examples of our players that are high and attack with 2 fleets and always (at least fake) have at home. Of course, as each alliance we contain as u call 'selfish players', but they are minority of an alliance.
________
Dodge magnum specifications

[Toop]

Alliances probably want both . Not too many, but not too few of each.

[Scorpio]

I think you actually need some of those selfish bastards, but they have to be loyal to the alliance (ie. no defecting).

When they're high up in the rankings, they give other alliance-members a feeling of pride ("look, that's my alliance at the top!").

Going for a 20/80 ratio suits best I think.


Personally I don't really care that much if the top-players are constantly out attacking. When they need to, they will defend. And I'll defend them til I drop. That's how I was in Xanadu, that's how I am in LDK.

[Maddix]

Originally posted by lrytas
Actually maddix you are wrong. Yes, we do have some players that attack with 3 fleets, but they attack when they get approval from HC. I dont know how many times, for example, naq pmed me his whole fleet, i, myself didnt dare to take all the ships, and still, he is highly ranked in the universe. No, he is not the only one, i may give you lots of examples of our players that are high and attack with 2 fleets and always (at least fake) have at home. Of course, as each alliance we contain as u call 'selfish players', but they are minority of an alliance.

Perhaps later in the round is a bad example of these players, its probably better to look at the period when they were 'getting big'. Was it still the same at the beginning of the round when you didn't have such a clear military advantage and your 'selfish players' were not actually clearly top ranked, but still attacking with three fleets and not defending as much as they could?

As I said I'm not singling out any particular alliance or even players, just generalising and theorising and as I also pointed out there are always exceptions to the rule, as there are with every rule

[lrytas]

Originally posted by Maddix
Perhaps later in the round is a bad example of these players, its probably better to look at the period when they were 'getting big'. Was it still the same at the beginning of the round when you didn't have such a clear military advantage and your 'selfish players' were not actually clearly top ranked, but still attacking with three fleets and not defending as much as they could?

As I said I'm not singling out any particular alliance or even players, just generalising and theorising and as I also pointed out there are always exceptions to the rule, as there are with every rule

Well Maddix, it is hard to say how are the people in LDK this round, cause during the round we didnt have any problems with defence, a lot of players could allow themselves flying with 3 red fleets . But when we demanded to leave 1 fleet for defence, they always listen. And in that case i have to agree with Scorpio, we need that kind of players (top players), cause they put in a lot of work to the alliance, because they sit most of the time online scan/launch/recall/scan/launch/etc. And some players, just come in the morning, send def, send attack with an alliance and go to work or somewhere else . But as i said before, we also have players that leave 1 fleet for defence and still dancing in the top of the universe . BEERTIME !
________
Magic Flight Launch Box Review

[Empress]

Originally posted by Scorpio

Personally I don't really care that much if the top-players are constantly out attacking. When they need to, they will defend. And I'll defend them til I drop. That's how I was in Xanadu, that's how I am in LDK.

But dont u get tired of always defending the big guys and hardly receiving anything in return?

If i had to defend someone over and over again and hardly if at all see them defend in return (and i dont mean defend me.. i mean defend the alliance in general) i'd get bloody tired of it and prolly have a good b*tch and moan at them.

I personally love the go for it all team players. The ones that take pride in being with the group and become "family" Together a group like that can achieve more and gain a good reputation and respect in the community.

If the "selfish" players gave back to the alliance in some form then it wouldnt be a problem. I take no pride in seeing an alliance member up at the top if i know he's gotten there by not helping those that helped him achieve that top spot.

in short "superstars" altho needed also need to remember how they made it and help those around them climb the ranks as well.

[KoeN]

imo people who are able to reach top10 in a round, should be given the opportunity to roid with 3 fleets every night, while the alliance defends them when they get incs.
i don't understand why singu for example was kicked out of Fury cuz he was a defleak...:/

[Toop]

Originally posted by Empress

in short "superstars" altho needed also need to remember how they made it and help those around them climb the ranks as well.

That's the problem with side-swappers and defectors. You keep defending them to help them to get big, and when things go wrong they just switch sides and attack you .

[das_experiment]

I dont usually have more defence fleet to aid my alliance with, but in return that def fleet is quite large.

I also manage quite good rankings even in rounds where i am very active defender.

[Maddix]

Originally posted by KoeN
imo people who are able to reach top10 in a round, should be given the opportunity to roid with 3 fleets every night, while the alliance defends them when they get incs.
i don't understand why singu for example was kicked out of Fury cuz he was a defleak...:/

Why is this? Especially if they have already been using three attack fleets to get there?

[KoeN]

in the end it's the achievement that counts, not the amount of def someone gave to an alliance. imo there aren't too many players around that could actually win a round simply cuz they can be (and want to be!) online always. (otherwise sliekas wouldn't have won the game twice i think).
if a topplayer can give an alliance "glory" by winning the round, then the alliance should support him i think, atleast the first 7/8 weeks.

[Axis_WLF]

It is usually because the people in the top 10 have protection from their alliance and friends that they are able to reach the top in the first place. I hate it when peeps get to the top and then act as if they did it with 0 help or aid , and especially hate it when they expect special treatment etc.

[KoeN]

Originally posted by Axis_WLF
It is usually because the people in the top 10 have protection from their alliance and friends that they are able to reach the top in the first place. I hate it when peeps get to the top and then act as if they did it with 0 help or aid , and especially hate it when they expect special treatment etc.

do you guys watch cycling these days? it's so beautiful to see 8 guys work their arse off to get their sprinter in position so he might win the race. and when he does win, the whole team is happy. beautiful.

[Scouse]

It is possible to have 1 defence fleet available every day and still do very well.


People who think they're too big or too special to defend everyday can get to fk, as far as I am concerned.


When your alliance is doing well, and can afford to let their big players attack with 3 fleets, then it's ok, but only when OK'd by command.

[The_Fish]

It is possible to do both, not easy, but possible. My gal mate was top 5 until LDK roided him, and every day I saw fleets of his harpies going out on def missions.

Personally, I'd say you'd need a good mix, myself, I'll never be a top 10 player, but I have decent size planets, and def as much as possible, a mix between the two I'd say.

[dabult]

Originally posted by The_Fish
but I have decent size planets,

You multi scumbag!

[zamoda]

Originally posted by Empress
But dont u get tired of always defending the big guys and hardly receiving anything in return?

If i had to defend someone over and over again and hardly if at all see them defend in return (and i dont mean defend me.. i mean defend the alliance in general) i'd get bloody tired of it and prolly have a good b*tch and moan at them.

I personally love the go for it all team players. The ones that take pride in being with the group and become "family" Together a group like that can achieve more and gain a good reputation and respect in the community.

If the "selfish" players gave back to the alliance in some form then it wouldnt be a problem. I take no pride in seeing an alliance member up at the top if i know he's gotten there by not helping those that helped him achieve that top spot.

in short "superstars" altho needed also need to remember how they made it and help those around them climb the ranks as well.

Well, that the difference in the LDK from other alliances. We are playing as a team, not everyone of us is a greedy person who always wants something in return. We have lots of players who are ready to sacrifice his planets for a greater goal, in other words pe0ns, like this pe0n

[Razorback]

Originally posted by KoeN
i don't understand why singu for example was kicked out of Fury cuz he was a defleak...:/

maybe because he wasnt kicked out of fury ?

Infact Singu wasnt let in back in r7. Singu decided in the first place not to play and signed up only a random planet in a private random galaxy.
During this r7 there was a Fury rule stating that Fury only allows members in full private galaxys. As singu didnt fit this role he couldnt rejoin Fury and joined Virus for r7.
During R8 he was again Fury As this round was completely random if my memory serves me right, eventho he only played at maxfor a half a round due to rl commitments. During his time in eclipse he offered his ships to quiet some defences in both rounds. Same as in the days of r5 and r6 (where he was my galm8)

[Maddix]

Originally posted by zamoda
Well, that the difference in the LDK from other alliances. We are playing as a team, not everyone of us is a greedy person who always wants something in return. We have lots of players who are ready to sacrifice his planets for a greater goal, in other words pe0ns, like this pe0n

So you defend every day and expect nothing at all in return? Wouldn't complain if you never got defence, don't care if you get bashed repeatedly and your alliance does nothing?

Its not greed to expect the defence you put into an alliance to be returned, its fair.

[Blend]

Originally posted by zamoda
We have lots of players who are ready to sacrifice his planets for a greater goal

Heh, notice planets in plural

[KoeN]

maddix, if i may ask; how did you get to this subject in the first place? what point are you trying to make here?

[SpazMonster]

Give me 1 t50 planet that defends nightly over a t10 3-fleeter any day. You need a sense of equality among your members, regardless of their planet sizes. Everyone is still a person at heart that wants to do well. People sucking up alliance resources without providing much more than a symol do not contribute to the core of the alliance - its attitude.

[Maddix]

Originally posted by KoeN
maddix, if i may ask; how did you get to this subject in the first place? what point are you trying to make here?

As I stated in my original post (I 'got to this subject in the first place' by starting the thread) I was curious as to what types of players people prefered to see in their alliances.

There is no underlying flame, evil campaign against an alliance or person hidden within, nor is there any 'point' I am attempting to make, sorry trollers

[swollen plums]

Originally posted by Razorback
maybe because he wasnt kicked out of fury ?

Infact Singu wasnt let in back in r7. Singu decided in the first place not to play and signed up only a random planet in a private random galaxy.
During this r7 there was a Fury rule stating that Fury only allows members in full private galaxys. As singu didnt fit this role he couldnt rejoin Fury and joined Virus for r7.
During R8 he was again Fury As this round was completely random if my memory serves me right, eventho he only played at maxfor a half a round due to rl commitments. During his time in eclipse he offered his ships to quiet some defences in both rounds. Same as in the days of r5 and r6 (where he was my galm8)

i and several others went random in rnd 7 and we were still full fury members
though i personally never asked for any fury defence because my gal was soooooooooo bad it would have been pointless

[Dizzyness]

its not impossible to be t50 and send at least 1 fleet def every night. its sorta a slap in the face when u get a member to t10 and all he does is suck up d and defect if hes not happy heh.



btw, where did mundo go?

[Silva baby]

ideally i think would be a planet that

sends out two attack fleets or one attack fleet
and one defence fleet everyday
or at least thats the idea i get

[The_Fish]

Originally posted by Silva baby
ideally i think would be a planet that

sends out two attack fleets or one attack fleet
and one defence fleet everyday
or at least thats the idea i get

ideally you'd log in more than once a day

[HobbieRogue4]

Knowing I can rely on people and knowing they can rely on me definately makes my playing experience much more enjoyable, especially within alliances. I recall how difficult it was for some top players in Legion and how much crap they got for not defending what seemed like every single defense request, or attacking every time there was an alliance attack. Poppa is a prime example.

Additionally, there are players who can manage what seems like all three. OpusX is the ulitmate example of someone who was able to do all of these things and more. And he was pleasant about it too! Round 3, 4, and 5, I never saw a complaint, and I always saw him up there with the best of 'em.

So then, here's an additional question to Maddix's: What sort of leaders (HCs, BCs, Officers, etc.) do basic members prefer?

There's a wide range, but the two extremes that stick out in my mind are those who selflessly use their fleets for the betterment of members - the alliance - and those who use their positions to their own personal advantage. In my eyes, it's as if the difference is whether a leader has given himself to the alliance versus using the alliance for himself. Again, like 'typified members' it generally means the extreme differences of having a defense-oriented (or sometimes scan-focused) planet or a high ranking one.

[Empress]

Originally posted by Dizzyness
its not impossible to be t50 and send at least 1 fleet def every night. its sorta a slap in the face when u get a member to t10 and all he does is suck up d and defect if hes not happy heh.



btw, where did mundo go?

Mundo never defected from RaH .. he stopped playing properly after round 8 then got removed from rah in rd 9 when he decided it was fun to see how long he could have multi planets since he wasnt playing then reported himself. When RaH found out about this he was removed.


But when he was playing properly he was loyal to RaH and the members there.

[Dizzyness]

ah, didnt mean it as an attack, just when i left rd 8 he wos t3 and in some sort of trouble and never heard what happened to him in rd 9