DeletedUser29066
Guest
Nice review, well done
MRA's are not bad things as they do produce good players who will leave for greener pastures do to fact of many MRA's have horrible leadership. I prefer a alliance who is selective on membership with players who know whats going on and how to play as this world grows so too will the big fish and we all know that the big fish eat the minnowsLOL, I guess we should be happy we made it to the list. It will be interesting to see if things pan out as folks are predicting... After all history is full of instances where the masses, against all odds, rose up against the elite and took power (french revolution, american revolution, and so on). The key to a successful MRA is nurturing and growing your new players and keeping them active in the game. If you can build their loyalty to the game and the alliance and expand their skills they will follow you into battle and lead you to victory. At least that is our take on the situation (we will see if it works out). Please know I am not claiming this is a new strategy or claiming it as the only strategy or stating that all other strategies are worthless. Just that it is ours and we believe that with proper execution it can take us to victory.
I must say, I truly enjoy reading other players take on the status of the world/alliances and do feel that the different viewpoints provide valuable topics of discussion within our alliance!
I look forward to the upcoming months and all the action which is sure to take place in Delos!
P.S. It also helps to have many experienced players to coach and lead in such an alliance
marco, I have seen alliances like yours on many worlds and have seen that they breed some great players, but being spread thinly across 4 oceans is not a good way to create a solid player base. The players that are top players will be a long way away from each other giving smaller, more compact, better communicating (all larger alliances communicate worse, fact of grepo) alliances the upper hand. Also, I feel like an alliance based right next to the core with a good few of it's members out of BP should have a higher average than my central o66, day away from BP ending alliance. That being said I have been wrong about alliance's outlooks several times and this may be one of those times.
Ohhhh snap, wrong person :supermad:
pdj, I have seen alliances like yours on many worlds and have seen that they breed some great players, but being spread thinly across 4 oceans is not a good way to create a solid player base. The players that are top players will be a long way away from each other giving smaller, more compact, better communicating (all larger alliances communicate worse, fact of grepo) alliances the upper hand. Also, I feel like an alliance based right next to the core with a good few of it's members out of BP should have a higher average than my central o66, day away from BP ending alliance. That being said I have been wrong about alliance's outlooks several times and this may be one of those times.
mattr, yes that happens in Theta my alliance controlled the entire south east fourth of the world, the difference is that players are at one city and can't be spread throughout the alliance. later on when players have 20+ cities they can spread themselves through an entire ocean.
back to top 12 alliances only LD and ER are any good. I see the rest merging or disbanding.