Definition of an MRA

DeletedUser1405

Guest
Im going to put this up for discussion as everyone is jumping on the bandwaggon and using the term so loosely that every alliance over 100 people is being branded as an MRA and this is not so.

In my experience in these type of games i tend to put this description to an alliance that invites Hundreds of people without the thought of late game support and locality.
They will spread everywhere and in every ocean/world they can recruit in. What seems to have happened in this game is even alliances that are in One ocean are being branded as such just because they have plenty of members.
MRA,s (and i have to accept this term) are badly run with at least 50% of inactive members that run as an individual ingame and never help each other. Im not naming names but i can think of several alliances across Grep that has been branded as such just because of size and nothing else.
All you newer players dont run away from an alliance just because of what is written ask questions, check locality and check out member activity, that way you can make your own decisions
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Those are excellent points to make. Not every large alliance is an MRA. The connotation of the word is actually more important than the literal meaning of the words making up the acronym. The thoughtlessness in the recruiting of the MRA that the term conjures is the key characteristic of the MRA, not the number of members.

It's just a consequence of the thoughtless recruitment that results in a large number of members.
 

DeletedUser1405

Guest
Every alliance has a small amount of inactive players it's the way the game goes, it's best just to keep them to a minimum and take the larger players villages inhouse.
What i'm talking about is the missuse of the term MRA, its thrown about in all the world forums like its some type of plague.
Yes MRA,s are bad but stop branding all large aliances as MRA,s . I cant beleive the amount of people that use the term and when you speak to them they don't understand what the term means, they use it because they think it sounds right to.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It's become part of the "cool speak" of Grepolis. It's as handy of a forum-legal insult as "noob." To say things like that publicly make one appear (at least in that person's mind) to be part of the "in" crowd.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Mike62 said:
What i'm talking about is the missuse of the term MRA, its thrown about in all the world forums like its some type of plague.
Yes MRA,s are bad but stop branding all large aliances as MRA,s . I cant beleive the amount of people that use the term and when you speak to them they don't understand what the term means, they use it because they think it sounds right to.
Click to expand...

Exactly MRA should be used only for massively recruiting indiscriminately, a large alliance that recruited carefully is just...a large alliance.

:)
 

DeletedUser1405

Guest
The one main thing about this is that so-called elitist players will never accept this and they will always see any alliance over 100 members as an MRA.
This is the sad fact of it, and yes i do think some of them say this because they think it's right to do so and it makes them look good.

This term is a term that seemed to find its way over from Tribal wars, i accept the term the way its used in there but not in here.
And nobody is going to change my mind on this, i get sick to death of seeing this plastered everywhere.
What makes elitist alliances think they are playing the correct way
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Elitism (the attitude) requires a certain amount of...hubris.

Honestly, elitism and the elitist idea of playing with small, very capable units is a matter of pride. You'd have to pull an elite in here to get that person to explain just what makes them think that they are playing correctly, though.

That idea, the small, elite unit, is a valid one, though, and it has been pulled off to massive effect. Just look at Just For Laughs (JFL) in Theta. They've staved off alliances FAR bigger than they are, and they have grown off those battles.
 

DeletedUser1405

Guest
If we pulled any Elite member in here you would get a very One sided view on things.
I agree that Elitist alliances can cause massive amounts of damage if run properly but a large well run alliance can do the same thing.
I am the founder of a large alliance that has been at war since it started, we have slowly moved up the rankings and all we get is insults because of our 250 members of which 90% are in One ocean.
This is what is annoying the Elitist just wont accept that there is room for the 2 types of alliance Elitist and Large well run aliance.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Well, they don't have to accept it. It doesn't change the fact. You can always just ignore their elitist attitude.

I do, and regularly.

EDIT: A second thought. Right now, this is a rather one-sided discussion, unless you consider my rather neutral stance on the issue another side. I think what you are trying to accomplish here is to combat the attitude of elitism with a formal definition of the MRA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser1405

Guest
Been moaning about this since registering in Jnuary and all it brings is grief from our friends in small places :)
Anyway thanks for the chat, im sure next time we look in here it will be full of insults from our best buddies for us to laugh at.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
An alliance cannot give itself the title of "Elite" and have it mean anything. That title must given by others because the alliance has earned it and the respect that comes with it.

I agree with Mike, in that the term MRA gets bandied about far too much. In the older worlds, alliances have grown large just because of thier longevity and the amount of area they have conquered, it does not mean they have recruited massively in a short period of time. I have seen alliances that have started out as the stereotypical MRA, only to evolve and mature. They shrink down to a smaller size, but are still stuck with the reputation. I think a large portion of the overuse though can be attributed to writing first, then thinking(if at all).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
people use it as a offensive term, if they are trying to offend an enemy alliance they call it an MRA regardless of what the recruiting methods of that alliance are.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
epikness said:
people use it as a offensive term, if they are trying to offend an enemy alliance they call it an MRA regardless of what the recruiting methods of that alliance are.
Click to expand...

Bingo. That's actually part of the problem, in my opinion. It's used when not exactly relevant.

It's like calling someone you disagree with an idiot in an argument, even if that person ends up being right. (That's just a for instance. I'd never call anyone an idiot...in the forums or in-game.)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Dirty Harry Callahan said:
Bingo. That's actually part of the problem, in my opinion. It's used when not exactly relevant.

It's like calling someone you disagree with an idiot in an argument, even if that person ends up being right. (That's just a for instance. I'd never call anyone an idiot...in the forums or in-game.)
Click to expand...

yup, that happens plenty of times in the D&D section.

It gets quite ridiculous. Even if the alliance has like 20 people and an insanely high average points it is branded an MRA.


Oh well, it happens and there is really nothing we can do to deter people from using it so generously.
 

DeletedUser1405

Guest
I know what you saying but recently i've noticed the term being used in conversation, i know some alliances ask for this term to be stuck on them but to use it as regularly as it is being used is just plain silly.
MRA=Mass recruiting alliance, doesn't say lot does it, whilst most experienced players know its a term of Endearmant(Joke :D) some of our newer friends just want to use it as it makes them seem knowledgeable and this is what i dont like.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Well maybe we could change the term to MIRA (Massively Indiscriminately Recruiting Alliance)?
That way it would become obvious that there are Alliances it cannot be applied to...

;)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Herculatides said:
Well maybe we could change the term to MIRA (Massively Indiscriminately Recruiting Alliance)?
That way it would become obvious that there are Alliances it cannot be applied to...

;)
Click to expand...

That kind of massive "cultural" change would never catch on in the forums. Though, since such alliances are often targets because of their perceived (and often factual) vulnerability, I do find it ironic that your new acronym is also Spanish for "look".

As in, "Oooh, look at us!!"
 

DeletedUser1405

Guest
We could call it a ,
Margarine aliance= Very easily spread.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top