Discussion: What does an alliance mean to you?

  • Thread starter DeletedUser14006
  • Start date

DeletedUser14006

Hello people of the west, I come here in search of your opinion with regard to alliances and what they mean to you.

Why such an impromptu question? I am glad you asked
:razz:

After many years of playing on world one I have become a bit of a grouch, mostly because of alliances and the painstaking challenge of keeping everybody happy while trying to push it in the direction I believe it should be headed.

My view on an alliance is that it is first and foremost there solely to accommodate fort battles in the way they are set up, e.g. to allow a selection of players to fly under one banner allowing for unified recognition, not something that was easily achievable before they came along.

Of course an alliance caters for a whole range of other aspects in the game such as dueling cooperation and crafting, market activity, etc. But to be blunt mainly for the aforementioned reason surrounding fort battles as they require a larger proportion of numbers than a town limited to 50 can provide.

Pushing back to the
focus of this discussion, the main point I want to get to the bottom of is how do you manage, or how do you feel about those that manage your alliance.

In my experience rarely, if ever can a decision be made regarding my alliance without a whole bunch of naysayers and a few hundred polls. To me the answer to the problem is a simple one but there are always those who feel different.

The group of people I am referring to are those I like to call 'The Dinosaurs of The West' and I am sure by now they must know who they are. I do not dislike these people, far from it as it is at the end of the day just a game. Of course if they were not in my alliance I would set about keeping them under 48 hour lockdown for quite some time just to get back at them for all the endless hours I have spent chirping on the IG forums. The problem I have with this type of player is that to them it is all about the alliance, the history of the alliance, fallen comrades and dare I mention it, the god damned glory days!

It is a game and when the going gets tough and after a year or two at the top empathy sets in, happens in all worlds and the top dogs become the underdogs. The way I see best to deal with this is to raise a glass, shake a hand or two and admit your time at the top has come to an end, shortly followed by finding a way to get the hell back up there where you belong!

I have found an effective way is to reform, create new alliances, meet new people and throw some giant bloody rocks in the ocean! But then I am faced with those who want to stick with the alliance they have been part of for so long, those who do not want to make significant changes, those who just wait for something to happen. This drives me insane!


I guess the question I am asking here is, do you show loyalty to a game based alliance once your time at the top is up and you are in the losers circle or do you have a radical shake up and start over?

Opinions please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser34315

I feel that fort battles are far less than half the reason for an alliance. An active alliance chat, a tight-knit group of players- it becomes far more about the social aspect than it does about any in-game convenience of remote sign in, battle coordination, or duel coordination. Yes, perhaps there does come a time to leave an old inactive alliance behind, and form a new, more active one.

A way to avoid the hundred polls to accomplish anything is to elect a couple of leaders- and give them authority to make decisions quickly.

Does abandoning all the players who have gone inactive since joining the alliance actually increase, well, anything? You will still have the same group of active fighters going to battles. You won't have a bunch of non-battler players in your alliance; but again, that does not increase how many players will go to battles.

As to loyalty to a specific alliance; that really depends. There are 'alliances' that transcend actual in-game alliances- you have groups of players/towns that have connections that go back a long ways, and they are all still a cooperative group. An alliance that was founded specifically to be, say, an elite group of fort fighters- disbanding that and starting anew would not be a big deal, imo, because you would once again have a group of active, elite fighters. (Which, ofc, would still not improve attendance.)
Essentially, what i am trying to say- you have a formal alliance. I'll use w1 towns as examples for this.

Take Hells Cavalry- ~270 members, all different towns, some migrants, some older players.

Within that alliance, you have the TW towns, who would certainly have a great deal of history. You've got the SB towns, also with a lot of history. You've got the migrant towns- which have their alliance histories from other worlds as well.

While you're all in a formal alliance- it could be argued that it's the long-term player associations that make up informal factions in a formal alliance- and that's the sort of history players want to hold on to. Their identities as towns, past alliances, and inter-player relationships isn't something most players are willing to drop at the beat of a hat.
 

DeletedUser

I feel that fort battles are far less than half the reason for an alliance. An active alliance chat, a tight-knit group of players- it becomes far more about the social aspect than it does about any in-game convenience of remote sign in, battle coordination, or duel coordination. Yes, perhaps there does come a time to leave an old inactive alliance behind, and form a new, more active one.

+1

Fort Battles arent the main aspect of an alliance and when leaders shift their focus to that aspect only is the time when an alliance starts crumbling and tensions arise.

Take for example Colorado - I am in Holes, the winning alliance at the moment..but once upon a time we used to be the underdogs. But what the Holes leaders like Major Hasan and some others did was not to become too upset upon that fact and carry on. And what made the people not lose trust in them was that they were always a lively bunch, chatting and giggling with low level and high level players alike..they kept us happy. Thus we never felt inclined to join another alliance. Till today though we are at the top, ranking blunders do happen everyday , however tensions do not soar up. Why? Because the social bonding is too strong to break apart.

I believe the first and foremost thing a leader should focus on is to strengthen all the social bonds within the alliance..once that is done half the battle is won. People learn to respect you and count you as their friend, not as their dictator. That is why they support you in battles. And that is how both the sections live happily together.

IMO,
Mj :)
My leaders are awesome
 

1Big Chief

Well-Known Member
I have to Agree with Derek... but also with Gandalf too

The best way to get your Fort Fighting alliance... is by inviting .. and ONLY inviting.. Fort Fighting towns.. and keep it less but fuller towns
If they share the same views.. that fort fighting is what the alliance is about... Then you have a good start
Don't invite ANYONE.. unless... 90% of the town are dedicated Fort Fighters
This needs to be done from the start... so there is no misunderstanding.. or whining

But it has to start with the town.. being dedicated Fort Fighters 1st .. and can then dabble in Duels etc
Not Questers.. crafters.. duelers... and then some dabble in Fort Fighting

We can only dream :cool:
 

DeletedUser

I've always cared more about my town than my alliance. There are very few towns I respect as a whole, since most recruit and pass out hats indiscriminately and generally think too highly of themselves. After my town, it's my friends in different towns and often different alliances. The majority of my allies usually bug me as much as my enemies, if not more, because I don't have to listen to my enemies whine, complain, beg, brag, or just be idiots.

[That's also an alternate answer to Why don't you fort fight?]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

canufeelit

Well-Known Member
derek is right because that's what alliances were set up to do and is still their most useful function. but the others are right too as they have morphed into much more with the addition of in game content since then.

and the only thing i know about leadership in the west is to avoid it like the plague...
 

DeletedUser30224

In arizona I belong to an alliance called Fighters Offensive. We had rich spells as well as dry spells, we were on top, bottom, currently rising again (I think). I consider myself as a cogwheel of the leadership process, but I realized that I have to steer myself more often to the right direction than my natural response would be. For example, you feel that you know more than a player you haven't heard of, you feel very confident in your abilities as a "leader" and since you have your own group of people that "respect" you, your tendency is to start being cocky. It takes a small conscious effort to fight your would be natural reactions yet sometimes you fail to do so and create a blunder that you remember for a while :) I am talking small stuff not something incredibly stupid, like angering a guy when you could have prevented it, or posting a comment that definitely would better be left out unsaid.

So yes, it takes an effort to be part of the leadership process, it takes balls, experience and a cool mind to solve troublesome puzzles but finding acceptance between other players makes it a very sweet process. Most of us want to be liked by everybody, and that is simply not possible. There are more people that lead the alliance and is is such a bureaucratic process that you loose the will to live :D There are some people that are part of the alliance from the beginning and just love to let everyone know that they are the central figures of the alliance and you better not disagree with them without having the support of at least another 2 leaders. Maybe they do it without knowing, maybe they feel protective of the old ways and want desperately to keep it that way. Maybe it's a natural thing, actually I am sure it is, we want to be remembered. If you put 100 of hours effort into something, you want to be remembered for it, you want people to know that you were/are an important entity in your group.

Meh, allot can be said about alliances, and I am sure some people will deny such preposterous thoughts, but in most cases is true. We never do anything for unselfish reasons, there is always a reward that you want in return, even if it is just the gratitude and the remembrance of the deed that you helped him and he better remember it! :)

So when the alliance you "helped" to create or develop finally collapses, you might want to find yourself at the helm in the next alliance you are part of if it is a new alliance. If you move to another alliance you already accepted the defeat that you might not be part of the helm in the near future and it takes a long time to reach that point. Why it is important to have a say? Well if the new alliance is not to your liking, you might want to propose a reform to it, and who is going to listen to you if you are a dirt eater?

The fact that this is a game and not real life is not always true. This is the activity we engage in as part of our real life and we are unable to disconnect ourselves from the reality and the realities of the reality. The pixels on the screen don't represent actual value but it does represent your effort and effort is valuable.

I for one show loyalty solely to my town and my friends within and outside of alliance. The alliance represents a boundary of people sharing or forcing themselves to share the same interests for a common goal. If I wouldn't have a strong affection to the alliance I wouldn't bother making it better. However if my town would decide to leave alliance for good reasons, I would not think twice about it. If the alliance I am part off would do dishonorable deeds, I would either loose interest and focus solely on town activity or try to get my town out of the alliance if my/our effort would be futile in redressing the alliance to the correct path. It's true that I would not find it hard to disband the alliance and for a smaller one on the ruins of the old one and keep just the players that are committed to the cause, but I would never leave the alliance if it would be sinking just because it no longer is the dominant force. There are plenty of people that want to be in the dominant alliance because their life is easy that way, but these people have no integrity and are a bunch of rotten weasels!
 

DeletedUser22493

Being in a large alliance is always about coexisting. You can't just put 500 different people together an expect it to work out. But in the end, its more the town leaders than the alliance leaders that make or break the alliance.

Always look out for your towns best. When you join a large alliance, its easy to forget the towns social aspect.
If the towns social factor dies, your members will move on to other towns within the alliance, or join the other side.

Even if your leading a large alliance, its always good to keep some space between alliance and town affairs.
Think of yourselves as alliance consultants.

Give others space. Let minor mistakes go by without creating a big fuzz about it.
Don't try to run other peoples towns.
 

Nisa

Well-Known Member
I agree with some opinions here but to answer Dereks Question : im all about loyality to my alliance and will not pull out easily but if/when things get unbalanced there is no point in refusing to change anything and let one side be too powerfull while other is suffering, world domination is soo lame and not really fun, maybe for a day or 2 .

So yes for the good of the world , ppl should close one chapter and and move into next one.


@Chief big problem on most of our worlds is when you recruit towns they all say yes of course we will go to battles etc, and they usualy go to first one and later just do their own thing and using alliance markets, forts or whatever .

I appreciate more when ppl say 'hey im not a ffer but my gun will be there if alliance is struggling to fill and needs me.'
 

DeletedUser16628

Some very long winded folk here.I agree with some of this but in short an alliance means to me less targets to hit plain and simple.We are part of a great little alliance on Dakota and I have not as of yet wanted to duel any of them yet which is saying something.I'm done.

]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

For me I am more about playing with just friends and family in the same town. A few other games I has alliances and it ended up being an constant spy verses spy in the ranks and I just got fed up with the hole issue, I a not against alliances but I would have know a few of the players rely well to join. I have a few friends that are talking to joining but starting a new city instead if my joining my city and I would be willing to going a alliance but I have to know some of then to joint first.

Just my two cents.


Also I am not much of a fort fighter more of a quester and collector. (trying to collect every available item that can be bought and sold).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser19518

In this game, and to the point you notice Derek, i think my answer is simply.
Our behaviour in this game may sometime suit in our rl behaviour. What i mean?
I support a football team/soccer and i dont change it even it is not playing in premiership.
One day someone told me that is just a game, its just 11vs11 running around a ball or trying to score. He called it stupid..

This is just a game, fact, that our feelings have been incorporated to it.

V
$1
 

DeletedUser16008

I would absolutely LOVE to have simply much bigger towns and to hell with alliances.

Alliances especially large ones are only useful re forts nothing more, remote sign up is the only reason .... give everyone the choice of remote sign in to battles please and fort attendance would raise on all worlds im sure.

Alternatively alliance founders COULD have tools that they can turn on or off for joining towns such as alliance market and useful stuff if they don't fort or bother.

i'm in agreement with Elmyr too, generally in worlds im in an alliance my towns chat is always far far more active, mostly because alliance chats these days seems to be full of I want this and I want that.

Quite simply town loyalty absolute, alliance if its convenient nothing more and thats only due to towns being so small.

All games are only that, games Ive never considered an alliance to be a spectator sport anymore than I enjoy watching football, which I don't but playing and taking active part ? ahh now thats different.
 

Ripwise

Well-Known Member
I agree here fully with Vic even tho i aint active in any chats except whispers because of the reason people want this and that so im sticking to people who are ok!

Alliance as such doesant mean anything if it doesnt have mutual goal which in majority cases isnt hapening. Fort attendance goes down even tho there are 500+ members in alliance so for those not FFing alliance aint nothing more but a place to trade or chat maybe.

Just my opinion, nothing more!
 
Top