DeletedUser
Guest
The Thought had occurred to me, (after all Spanish is my mother tongue), and I thought it added to the definition,
Margarine mike?, lol nice, they certainly do seem to spread all over don't they?
The Thought had occurred to me, (after all Spanish is my mother tongue), and I thought it added to the definition,
Margarine mike?, lol nice, they certainly do seem to spread all over don't they?
DeletedUser
Guest
In the theory of MRA founders their MRA's will eventually become what is being termed in this thread as large well run alliances. I have two questions
1. Has this ever happened?
2. Presumably at some point if it did happen said alliance/tribe stopping being referred to as an MRA when is this point?
I suspect that it must have worked at some point. Otherwise why do we still have them even if MRA success rate is very low?
1. Has this ever happened?
2. Presumably at some point if it did happen said alliance/tribe stopping being referred to as an MRA when is this point?
I suspect that it must have worked at some point. Otherwise why do we still have them even if MRA success rate is very low?
DeletedUser1405
Guest
Thats the problem, if you look in Beta at the top 5 alliances 3-4 of them are over 150 members and are very well run and can hold their own against most but they still get called MRA,s.
They have worked but the label hangs around like its a term that has to be included ingame.
They have worked but the label hangs around like its a term that has to be included ingame.
DeletedUser
Guest
Any alliance that hasn't been able to take out an MRA in the insulting sense by this point in world beta should be laughed at. By definition, classic MRA's splinter easily under pressure and become hulks of inactives. Assuming that these alliances have fought wars and haven't fractured they no longer fit the stereotype.
DeletedUser8362
Guest
hey all,
now i am one of those ppl part of one of those elite alliances. In fact I am the war leader for this "elite" alliance. We were branded as an elite alliance a long time ago, when we got the top alliance to beg for mercy. Currrently ranked 6th, with 39 players and a 200k average. But i find some of these posts are very steriotipical.
I agree it gets used too often, and people need to acually understand what it means.
@ mike62 - i am assuming you are talking about TeA. Personally i dont think that they are an mra. they were, back when you had 500+ players, but you have deffinatly trimmed the fat and are acually looking to be shaping up as a good alliance. Let our war live on, and once we get through the wall of stoneCutters, we will acually be able to conquer you guys
either way, i think each "MRA" has to be judged on a case by case bases. For example and alliance that fights alot, and was giving alot of ground recruits in its new areas as it grows, and ends up with 300+ members. Does it count as an MRA? I wouldnt consider this alliance an MRA
what about an alliance that just invites everywhere? Yes i would consider them an MRA.
An alliance that invites alot in a localised area. Well it will really vary from person to person. Either they could say that they invited too much and ended up becoming an MRA, or they could say that they are localised and good. I would consider TeA this type of alliance. My oppinion acually changes as different changes happen.
well, in beta, their was a massive fight for the core. It ended up 1 elite taking out 5 or 6 mras, and a bunch of other elite alliances, and an ally turning on them, who crushed them. Those were at the time the top 2 elites. Now the elite that had taken out the 5-6 mras is gone, and the other is still around. Because this all happened in the core and have taken many months away from MRA crushing, what would have been easy mras to destroy have bonded well.
Anyway, just my opinion on whats been said here.
mango97
now i am one of those ppl part of one of those elite alliances. In fact I am the war leader for this "elite" alliance. We were branded as an elite alliance a long time ago, when we got the top alliance to beg for mercy. Currrently ranked 6th, with 39 players and a 200k average. But i find some of these posts are very steriotipical.
I agree it gets used too often, and people need to acually understand what it means.
@ mike62 - i am assuming you are talking about TeA. Personally i dont think that they are an mra. they were, back when you had 500+ players, but you have deffinatly trimmed the fat and are acually looking to be shaping up as a good alliance. Let our war live on, and once we get through the wall of stoneCutters, we will acually be able to conquer you guys
either way, i think each "MRA" has to be judged on a case by case bases. For example and alliance that fights alot, and was giving alot of ground recruits in its new areas as it grows, and ends up with 300+ members. Does it count as an MRA? I wouldnt consider this alliance an MRA
what about an alliance that just invites everywhere? Yes i would consider them an MRA.
An alliance that invites alot in a localised area. Well it will really vary from person to person. Either they could say that they invited too much and ended up becoming an MRA, or they could say that they are localised and good. I would consider TeA this type of alliance. My oppinion acually changes as different changes happen.
well, in beta, their was a massive fight for the core. It ended up 1 elite taking out 5 or 6 mras, and a bunch of other elite alliances, and an ally turning on them, who crushed them. Those were at the time the top 2 elites. Now the elite that had taken out the 5-6 mras is gone, and the other is still around. Because this all happened in the core and have taken many months away from MRA crushing, what would have been easy mras to destroy have bonded well.
Anyway, just my opinion on whats been said here.
mango97
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser1405
Guest
Im not just talking about TeA Mango as i gave up a long time ago defending my guys and gals.
Im talking about newer players in general using a term that they dont understand, and the way its used across the board at every alliance.
And Mango you are going to need some big hammers for breaking stones in VM as they did last time.
Either way i look forward to you guys trying to get into O34 on the back of their villages.
Back on subject you have to agree that the top 5 in Beta DJ apart are shaping up and they are still called MRA,s because of their size.
Im talking about newer players in general using a term that they dont understand, and the way its used across the board at every alliance.
And Mango you are going to need some big hammers for breaking stones in VM as they did last time.
Either way i look forward to you guys trying to get into O34 on the back of their villages.
Back on subject you have to agree that the top 5 in Beta DJ apart are shaping up and they are still called MRA,s because of their size.
DeletedUser2663
Guest
The term MRA dose get used overly so. (I will use examples from gamma as thats my main world)
In gamma we have the Four types of alliances.
Elite's - consisting of under 30 members
Standard - consisting of 30-70
Big - 100+
MRA - Anything above 100 and fits the standard MRA style
In gamma we have few "Elite" alliance's (PORT) and none are in the top 12 but they are definatly deserving of their title "Elite" as they can do some serious dmg to "most" top 12 allliance's and generally have the highest avg points. (300k+)
We have a majority of the leader boards fitting into the standard alliance build with around 40-60 members and have an avg avg points. (200k)
Then at the top of the rankings we have big alliances with around 100 members and above avg avg points. (250k+)
We still have MRA's that are around but they are nearly gone for good in gamma. many alliance's used to be MRA's (300+members) but have now reformed or are trying to refrorm. these alliances (including the reformed ones) have a low avg points (under 125k).
The remaining alliances that are still called MRA's are spread out over all of of gamma. the reformed ones have now become localised and have shaken of their MRA tag.
Just giving input and an idea of gamma in terms of MRA or not alliances.
In gamma we have the Four types of alliances.
Elite's - consisting of under 30 members
Standard - consisting of 30-70
Big - 100+
MRA - Anything above 100 and fits the standard MRA style
In gamma we have few "Elite" alliance's (PORT) and none are in the top 12 but they are definatly deserving of their title "Elite" as they can do some serious dmg to "most" top 12 allliance's and generally have the highest avg points. (300k+)
We have a majority of the leader boards fitting into the standard alliance build with around 40-60 members and have an avg avg points. (200k)
Then at the top of the rankings we have big alliances with around 100 members and above avg avg points. (250k+)
We still have MRA's that are around but they are nearly gone for good in gamma. many alliance's used to be MRA's (300+members) but have now reformed or are trying to refrorm. these alliances (including the reformed ones) have a low avg points (under 125k).
The remaining alliances that are still called MRA's are spread out over all of of gamma. the reformed ones have now become localised and have shaken of their MRA tag.
Just giving input and an idea of gamma in terms of MRA or not alliances.
DeletedUser
Guest
In defining an Elite alliance the first thing that comes to mind is the definition of the word itself:
Noun: the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
Adjective: representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors.
While I cannot say from experience in Grepolis what is or is not an elite alliance I will use my prior experience in being part of several Elite guilds in MMPORGs.
The first and foremost that separates them is skill in play style, meaning the ability and innate knowledge of the game played to maximize all possible advantages.
Dedication to the game and the alliance/guild itself, meaning that you will sacrifice portions of your RL to ensure that the guild/alliance meets the goals set out for it.
Activity is a must, as stated above you have be highly active in both play and communication.
Follow-the-leader... I use that term because the leader of the elites is someone who is highly respected and will not brook dissent. I have found them to be highly structured organizations, all members of the alliance/guild follow the direction without question providing a high level of focus on the current and future objectives.
Finally, most elites will cherry pick and not take people who are below the current group of members. If a person can get to that level on "their own" so to speak then they would be worthy of joining a potentially dominating force.
Noun: the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
Adjective: representing the most choice or select; best: an elite group of authors.
While I cannot say from experience in Grepolis what is or is not an elite alliance I will use my prior experience in being part of several Elite guilds in MMPORGs.
The first and foremost that separates them is skill in play style, meaning the ability and innate knowledge of the game played to maximize all possible advantages.
Dedication to the game and the alliance/guild itself, meaning that you will sacrifice portions of your RL to ensure that the guild/alliance meets the goals set out for it.
Activity is a must, as stated above you have be highly active in both play and communication.
Follow-the-leader... I use that term because the leader of the elites is someone who is highly respected and will not brook dissent. I have found them to be highly structured organizations, all members of the alliance/guild follow the direction without question providing a high level of focus on the current and future objectives.
Finally, most elites will cherry pick and not take people who are below the current group of members. If a person can get to that level on "their own" so to speak then they would be worthy of joining a potentially dominating force.
DeletedUser
Guest
lol so true. A badly run alliance is just that A BADLY RUN ALLIANCE - MRA or not, it makes no difference.
To class an alliance as 'good' or 'bad' based on their recruitment style is just moronic and egotistical. There are pros and cons for any style of alliance, small, big, massive, whatever. Just because an alliance has a large number of players does not make it an MRA either. MRA by definition means MASS RECRUITING ALLIANCE - recruits anywhere and anyone....but that doesn't make them evil or bad either!
Larger player based alliances are possibly harder to run because it requires people who are competent in managing large numbers of players with different activity levels. However good delegation resolves that, and gamers are usually not very good managers/leaders. Having a large player based alliance doesn't mean they're MRA's either. Large alliances tend to replace themselves in-house rather than rely on external sources (like recruitment alliances, large refugee invites, etc)
Players simply don't know how to define what they mean by MRA and then they confuse the term with 'poorly run alliance' - there is a difference, those that can't tell need to grow some brain cells.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
I think 'MRA' is one of those words like 'noob' or 'elite' that people throw around to display their prejudices or vanity and don't really have any worthwhile meaning at all because such people have robbed them of any objective status. When I hit those words I pretty much stop reading because I usually know what's coming next.
DeletedUser
Guest
So I am a NEWB who recently started using the term MRA. So I will lend you my opinion on this interesting discussion.
I first saw the term and of course had no idea what it meant. I then spent the time and effort to find out. Then having been a Travian addict I immediately equated this as an insult very similar in use and meaning to the terms "Meatwall" and "Farm" alliance bandied about on the Travian Forums. I think each user has effectively their own pseudo definition for it and then begins to use it according to that definition. I think you will find that unfortunately this is not limited to terms like MRA. I think most of you know people here and in RL who use a lot of words according to their own personal definition. Perhaps the main problem is not the use/misuse of this single term but the fact that a large number of people do not know the definition of most of the multisyllabic words they use.
So in summary.
1. I am new
2. I use MRA as an insult
3. I mean a meatwall/farm alliance -or-
Please just join we need to look bigger so that hopefully they will stop attacking us alliance.
Just my 2 cents.
I first saw the term and of course had no idea what it meant. I then spent the time and effort to find out. Then having been a Travian addict I immediately equated this as an insult very similar in use and meaning to the terms "Meatwall" and "Farm" alliance bandied about on the Travian Forums. I think each user has effectively their own pseudo definition for it and then begins to use it according to that definition. I think you will find that unfortunately this is not limited to terms like MRA. I think most of you know people here and in RL who use a lot of words according to their own personal definition. Perhaps the main problem is not the use/misuse of this single term but the fact that a large number of people do not know the definition of most of the multisyllabic words they use.
So in summary.
1. I am new
2. I use MRA as an insult
3. I mean a meatwall/farm alliance -or-
Please just join we need to look bigger so that hopefully they will stop attacking us alliance.
Just my 2 cents.
DeletedUser
Guest
MRA (M-R-A) The grepolis term to define the alliances with 300 members or more, WITH NO CORRELATION WHAT SO EVER. A perfect example of an MRA would be the Hogs of Destiny that are just begging to reach 2000.
DeletedUser
Guest
To term an alliance as an MRA solely based on player numbers is naive. It would be better to class them based on average points but even that depends on the average point comparison of other alliances as well, and then perhaps on player numbers. Since large alliances of 300+ players can have an average of 100k+ points per player while others on the server can also have 300+ players with an average point base of say 20-30k per player, I would say the prior are NOT MRA's. Without including some aspect of 'Recruitment' in an "Mass Recruitment Alliance" you go way off the mark on its origins. Classing an alliance as an MRA based on player size is inappropriate since size does not determine their recruitment practices as it may not involve any form of non-selective 'Mass Recruiting'. Especially when other alliances on the same server average (say) 10k-20k points per player, and you have a spread of variation of players in the game, alliances of 300+ players with 100k average point size are not MRA's on a server that also has alliances with 300+ players with (say) 10-20k ave point size players.
DeletedUser
Guest
I would tend to agree. However at least noob is a coin'd term to specifically mean something, where as MRA is an acronym that has been mis-interpreted show the attitude of the person saying it in a derogatory way. Perhaps players should just simply say 'Noob Alliance', its simpler.
DeletedUser
Guest
I wish I could agree, but I feel that 'noob' is one of the most over- and mis-used terms of all. I see it all the time in these forums just used as a generic insult, without regard to its meaning as an unskilled player who fails persistently to understand the game mechanics.
An example: this was a charming rep comment I received regarding a discussion about Israel (nothing to do with Grepolis): "theres only one word i can think of to discribe you. Sadly, i cant say it on these forums, for now i call you a noob."
I can't wait to see what he calls me later - an MRA perhaps?
DeletedUser
Guest
I think that sometimes when someone is trying to find out if an alliance is really an MRA they would be too lazy to look at how far spread they are, their recruiting methods, Ave points per members and they just look at how many members are in that alliance, which leads to alliances being classed as one when they might not be.
I class MRA's as being spread out over most oceans, low average points, with members with low points (between 175-10000 points), not so much recruiting methods because that is already determined through looking at there spread, and members with the lowest points. E.g in epsilon i class Open source government an MRA because it is spread out across almost all the oceans with members in it, has an average points of 39,490, and they have 5 members under 1k points and has 65 members which is 1k-10k points.
I class MRA's as being spread out over most oceans, low average points, with members with low points (between 175-10000 points), not so much recruiting methods because that is already determined through looking at there spread, and members with the lowest points. E.g in epsilon i class Open source government an MRA because it is spread out across almost all the oceans with members in it, has an average points of 39,490, and they have 5 members under 1k points and has 65 members which is 1k-10k points.
J.n.c 1993
Strategos
Nice post mate,
It's like on World Eta. An alliance called ARMY OF ZEUS was a MRA but there not anymore as they've fallen apart due to organised alliances defeating them. They had over 300 members at one point who were scattered round the world, at least a third of them were inactive and they invited anyone to join them. Same with Warriors of Ares on Eta, they have 127 members, they used to have over 200 and are proper scattered and seperate round the world, There very disorganised and every alliance pawns them lol.
It's like on World Eta. An alliance called ARMY OF ZEUS was a MRA but there not anymore as they've fallen apart due to organised alliances defeating them. They had over 300 members at one point who were scattered round the world, at least a third of them were inactive and they invited anyone to join them. Same with Warriors of Ares on Eta, they have 127 members, they used to have over 200 and are proper scattered and seperate round the world, There very disorganised and every alliance pawns them lol.
DeletedUser
Guest
300? The Hogs of Destiny have 2000 members no joke.
DeletedUser2795
Guest
I think we can always reference a certain type of very unpleasant tigers on Gamma a while back, but many people are unaware of their *lack* of existence. We can not express the definition of an MRA easily in numbers, but all of us can recognize one (I hope). If you wish to have a new abbreviation, try: Massively R(sorry, I would prefer not to finish this word without the approval of moderators) Alliances. Or, more correctly, Massive, ragging, Alliances. For Mr. Toast's, I think that we can agree that Hogs of Destiny are not exactly perfect . But, for their size, they do not have too bad an activity rate.
. But, for their size, they do not have too bad an activity rate.DeletedUser
Guest
The Hogs recruit geographically. I am sorry if there is too many letters in that word for you to understand it. We do not recruit randomly but only within certain oceans where we have a strong presence. And by strong presence I mean DOMINANCE as we are the TOP alliance in over 30 oceans. I am sorry that your alliance can barely handle one ocean.
If we were a disorganized group with no structure, we would have fallen apart long ago like you predicted. Looks like just another mistake in the endless series of them that has made up your life - starting with your conception.
Last edited by a moderator: