DeletedUser
Guest
That is WAY over the line, catalan. There's a way to disagree and a way to flame. Perhaps you should learn the difference.
That is WAY over the line, catalan. There's a way to disagree and a way to flame. Perhaps you should learn the difference.
DeletedUser1405
Guest
Catalan you should take it on the chin iv been geting it for years and the more it affect you the more they do it.
Everyone should be entitled to their opinion as long as they can put an arguement together for having said opinion in the first place.
Everyone should be entitled to their opinion as long as they can put an arguement together for having said opinion in the first place.
DeletedUser
Guest
On Alpha people say Hogs of Destiny, a 2000 member alliance is an MRA. It may be but it has an enormous amount of organisation and I put an account in there and after it had been inactive for 3 days I was sent a message and then later kicked
DeletedUser
Guest
What about the unrequested invite appearing in your reports with no accompanying letter. To me this is the calling card of MRA. But that's just me.
(In the future I will be sticking to meatwall and farm alliance when I wish to denigrate. Who would have though MRA was so personal)
(In the future I will be sticking to meatwall and farm alliance when I wish to denigrate. Who would have though MRA was so personal)
DeletedUser
Guest
I would die in the morning trying to read their forums if they all posted
They may have 2000 members but if you attacked them at one time they all can't support each other. If only their alliance average was 100k+, i don't think any alliance would mess with them. And when you look at the map they surround everyone . When they get bigger players they will be a force to be reckoned with. I don't class them as a complete MRA because they are recruiting only in certain oceans and not just every single ocean.
DeletedUser4013
Guest
I decided to Sticky this thread since it has the same merits as the Refugee Definition thread. Keep it civil and on topic.
DeletedUser
Guest
I still don't know why people are trying to label alliances as MRA's (in a bad way) here, when
the definition of an MRA has yet to be defined and distinguished between a technical definition and just a derogative term.
the definition of an MRA has yet to be defined and distinguished between a technical definition and just a derogative term.
DeletedUser
Guest
Here's my definition:
MRA (Mass-Recruiting Alliance): An alliance that continues to recruit members after recruitment ceases to be beneficial to the alliance, and possibly starts to become detrimental.
MRA (Mass-Recruiting Alliance): An alliance that continues to recruit members after recruitment ceases to be beneficial to the alliance, and possibly starts to become detrimental.
DeletedUser
Guest
i dont believe they are an MRA, simply because an MRA on everyother world ive played has around 120 to 500 members... these guys have 2000, which means they must have a superior leadership force, and if what tyroncs said was true, effective leaders.
as for them surrounding everyone, i believe that also given the chance, that could prove to be very useful, as they now know whats going on in almost every ocean, and i bet that there leaders are perfectly safe tucked away in the core of there 2000 members.
on Gamma i had an alliance in 3 oceans, and i was flagged to be an MRA, this alliance has members in much more oceans, and there still quite effective at the game.
i wish them goodluck, and would like to see them go far.
as for them surrounding everyone, i believe that also given the chance, that could prove to be very useful, as they now know whats going on in almost every ocean, and i bet that there leaders are perfectly safe tucked away in the core of there 2000 members.
on Gamma i had an alliance in 3 oceans, and i was flagged to be an MRA, this alliance has members in much more oceans, and there still quite effective at the game.
i wish them goodluck, and would like to see them go far.
DeletedUser
Guest
Lmao your only at the top because you have about 100 members in all of those oceans, and right below us is our allies, I don't think thats a bad thing. Your going to have a real hard time invading the west cuz we are forming an impenetrable shell, then we'll move to your oceans, and destroy your precious members.
DeletedUser
Guest
MRA = Mass recruiting Alliance
Is that definition not enough???
For me, an MRA is an alliance which recruits any/every player regardless of points, activity level or location in the (game) world. You get good MRAs (which generally tend to cut out noobs and inactives after a while) and bad MRAs (which don't) as you do with any type of alliance depending on the leadership, but MRAs will obviously lose more cities due to the higher % of inexperienced players and noobs in their alliance to compared to others.
That's my POV at least
Is that definition not enough???
For me, an MRA is an alliance which recruits any/every player regardless of points, activity level or location in the (game) world. You get good MRAs (which generally tend to cut out noobs and inactives after a while) and bad MRAs (which don't) as you do with any type of alliance depending on the leadership, but MRAs will obviously lose more cities due to the higher % of inexperienced players and noobs in their alliance to compared to others.
That's my POV at least
DeletedUser
Guest
That probably makes them hard to take out as at least 400 of them are probably organised players.
I hate mra's they act as if points are everything :Angry:
DeletedUser
Guest
I would die in the morning trying to read their forums if they all posted
They may have 2000 members but if you attacked them at one time they all can't support each other. If only their alliance average was 100k+, i don't think any alliance would mess with them. And when you look at the map they surround everyone . When they get bigger players they will be a force to be reckoned with. I don't class them as a complete MRA because they are recruiting only in certain oceans and not just every single ocean.
Exactly, they are made up of lots of n00bs, and actually it's calatans fault. THey don't know their error, so they are conquered.
DeletedUser
Guest
Imagine their forums... wow, they must be extremely disorganized...
DeletedUser
Guest
Well time to address the most recent cases of diaherra of the mouth from Toast and others.
I think Milonious' definition of MRA is probably the best and most accurate.
We don't really care about points at all - but apparently many others do as they follow our statics like hardcore sports fans. We look for activity, helpfulness and geographic location. Id much rather have a 2000 point newbie who tries to help than a 100K player who just plays his own game and doesn't get involved much.
I find it very kettle-like that Toast flames us when his alliance doesn't compete with us on any measurable way. % of of active member - we kick your ***. Yes we have a lot of newbies, but we have a lot of larger members too. # of players over 10K in Macedonian Empire = 31. In the Hogs = 179.
Yes we get conquered because we actually fight instead of kiss ***, Toast. In fact earlier today we were ranked the #3 alliance for conquests this week only after TW and EOW. I think that is pretty respectable company.
And our forums are very neat and orderly, for the record.
I think Milonious' definition of MRA is probably the best and most accurate.
We don't really care about points at all - but apparently many others do as they follow our statics like hardcore sports fans. We look for activity, helpfulness and geographic location. Id much rather have a 2000 point newbie who tries to help than a 100K player who just plays his own game and doesn't get involved much.
I find it very kettle-like that Toast flames us when his alliance doesn't compete with us on any measurable way. % of of active member - we kick your ***. Yes we have a lot of newbies, but we have a lot of larger members too. # of players over 10K in Macedonian Empire = 31. In the Hogs = 179.
Yes we get conquered because we actually fight instead of kiss ***, Toast. In fact earlier today we were ranked the #3 alliance for conquests this week only after TW and EOW. I think that is pretty respectable company.
And our forums are very neat and orderly, for the record.
DeletedUser4013
Guest
Ok guys...while the discussion has been on the definition of what makes an MRA an MRA, there is no need to go into specifics about various alliances. If this continues to become a discussion about a specific alliance, I will move this thread to the relevant world.
DeletedUser
Guest
The numbers don't mean everything, catalan, or else JFL on Theta would be long gone before now. And leaderboards are nothing but a measuring contest of numbers. Usually the best make it to the top, but as we all know, other unpleasant things can float, too.
That's just a point that comes to mind while reading your post, not a value assessment of your alliance. Honestly, this little tangent about your alliance honestly belongs in whichever world forum your alliance exists, not here.
Back to the MRA definition debate, I think there is a clash between the denotation (the literal definition) of the term and the negative connotation (the image the term invokes in people's minds) of the term. Though there is also the issue of a large alliance that doesn't mass recruit, and whether their being large qualifies them as an MRA.
I would submit that any alliance that became large quickly through indiscriminate recruitment is an MRA, though one that grew slowly or grew quickly through carefully selected mergers is not an MRA.
Although, regardless of the actual definition of the term "MRA," one will find "elites" everywhere that will decry most large, organized groups of players as an "MRA."
EDIT: Heh, I took too long writing my post and Tyrion has beat me to the point I started out making. + rep to him.
That's just a point that comes to mind while reading your post, not a value assessment of your alliance. Honestly, this little tangent about your alliance honestly belongs in whichever world forum your alliance exists, not here.
Back to the MRA definition debate, I think there is a clash between the denotation (the literal definition) of the term and the negative connotation (the image the term invokes in people's minds) of the term. Though there is also the issue of a large alliance that doesn't mass recruit, and whether their being large qualifies them as an MRA.
I would submit that any alliance that became large quickly through indiscriminate recruitment is an MRA, though one that grew slowly or grew quickly through carefully selected mergers is not an MRA.
Although, regardless of the actual definition of the term "MRA," one will find "elites" everywhere that will decry most large, organized groups of players as an "MRA."
EDIT: Heh, I took too long writing my post and Tyrion has beat me to the point I started out making. + rep to him.
DeletedUser
Guest
Yeah I agree with most of what you said DHC. I think elitists like to label other alliances as MRA so they don't feel like cowards for beating up on newbie players.
DeletedUser
Guest
You keep saying having over 2000 members is nothing new. One day some f your 6-7 city players are going to realize they should leave and you'll be stuck with 2000 n00bs Ok sorry tyrion, that was my last flame.
DeletedUser1405
Guest
Nice definition,
Can anyone give me a reason why recruiting can become detrimental to the alliance, the definition can be looked at several ways as an alliance can recruit 300-500 members at the start and look terrible.
Once the leaders get hold of it then kick out non responsive players and inactives you could end up with an alliance of 200-300 top draw players.
Is this alliance still going to be called an MRA just because of it's large numbers.
I would doubt that, most of these lame terms come about from new players to the game without any experience that seem to want to carry on terms from other games that are not relevant to this game.
It has been shown several times that large alliances can work in Grepo.