MRA or not

Mike62

Strategos
I am sick to deathn of the MRA label being thrown around at every large alliance in every world.
Can these people please learn the meaning of an alliance that can rightly be tagged as One of these before acting like idiots and sending messages with labels in.
As far as i know the label MRA is reserved for alliances that,
1-Recruit in every ocean
2-Send mass invites out without a note with it
3-Have loads of inactives in
4-Have a very low average
5-Very little BP of any kind
6-Large turnover of members.

I can understand if an alliance falls into all these categories, but please all you so called Elite players, if you are going to label something please learn what you are talking about as all it does is cause lots of people to have a laugh at your response.

If an alliance has lots of members and doesnt have these labels then guess what people they are just a large alliance (simple as).
 

piratedj

Phrourach
No offense Mike, but when you join the game and your alliance invites every person in the world to join them, this is an MRA alliance, no matter what anyone says. I am not too bother by MRA, I just find looking for the correct players who are willing to work as part of a team, a greater way to achieve success within the game. Numbers do not make success a team does.

Just my opinion ;)
 

Ituralde

Phrourach
I totally agree with you Mike, I was looking at the Byz forum and thinking the same thing about overuse of the term "MRA."

I would even go so far as to argue that a large turnover of members doesn't necessary equate an MRA-- most good alliances at this point are also trying to sort through the players that are here for a laugh and the ones that want to play seriously.

Personally, these are my indicators of an MRA:

1. Sending invites without messaging individual players, or sending messages that are generic.
2. Recruiting players that are spread across many oceans, so that the only support members can offer are condolences for lost cities
3. Having multiple branches of an alliance (the alliance cap is so large that if you shouldn't need a second alliance to hold players at this stage)
4. High rate of inactives (totally with you there)
5. Nonsupportive alliance, perhaps an inactive forum
6. Often they will have a low average, although this doesn't necessarily equate an MRA.
7. Very little BP-- Yes, totally agree.
8. Lots of useless pacts. I understand political jockeying in oceans at this point, but generally most good alliances that I've seen only need 1-3 pacts if even that.

As Mike62 said, a large alliance doesn't necessarily mean MRA at this point, particularly if alliance leaders are later able to slim down their alliances to a solid core. Wait another week or so and see how everybody does then.
 
Last edited:

Mike62

Strategos
No offense Mike, but when you join the game and your alliance invites every person in the world to join them, this is an MRA alliance, no matter what anyone says. I am not too bother by MRA, I just find looking for the correct players who are willing to work as part of a team, a greater way to achieve success within the game. Numbers do not make success a team does.

Just my opinion ;)
So you didnt send a few invites out when you started, as far as i know you sent about 50 out in the first couple of days, while this isnt mass invites its not far short.
Anyways i am not going along the line of naming any large alliances MRA as this is totally against the way i feel about the game.
Labelling alliances is not a good way to move forward in any game, whilst some alliances need to look at their recruiting i know my alliance now has its recruiters(only they can invite) and an are they can recruit in. Yes we are a large alliance but for outsiders to call every large alliance an MRA shows a high level of inexperience in the game.
If people want to label things at least learn what it means, then your opinion will be respected more and more people will listen.

Sorry to sound off, its just so annoying that people are still labelling after so long in the game.
 

Epleskrell

Guest
MRA's are valuable to the game, just because it’s a place for new players to start to know people in game. Most of us started out in an MRA, and started stronger alliances together with the people we found out we could play with.
It is a pity MRA is such a curse word, cause it is very important to the game, and thus for us as players. Getting more players inn is just a good thing  at least players who wants to play with us!
And besides, some MRA’s turns out to be good alliances in the end. When they manage to create an alliance structure and found the members who wants to play, and can play.

Yay MRA :D

Oh and yay first post (finaly)
 

DeletedUser21770

Guest
Mike's posts and the above post are so very true in different ways.

Mike's posts: MRA is indeed an incredibly overused word to describe any alliance that seems to grow in numbers rapidly, sometimes ignoring the fact that the members are either experienced, or simply quick learners. It seems as if any alliance with a large playerbase is waiting to have an 'MRA' tag slapped onto it.

Epleskrell's post: A very VERY good point on any genuine MRA's. Without these, the game would probably never have existed. Sure, MRA's can be reasonably annoying in terms of rankings, but MRA's, more often than not, produce some potentially great players.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Saska

Guest
I agree lots of members does not make an MRA; at one point had an alliance within 180 members and 90,000,000 points.. average around 500k per player, all in the same few oceans. That was far from an MRA, but to run well and communicate well you need smaller alliances.

We see with every world that opens people flock to some alliances, safety in numbers but within a few weeks it evens out and the "elite" separate from the MRA.
 

Mini Me Leto

Guest
MRA is the only way for the lot of us to have enemies in the Ranking Top :)

Please join the MRA or we will run away from you on the Ranking
 

Mattimeo144

Guest
so... any advice for a new player who joined the nearest random MRA 'cause it seemed like a good idea at the time?
 

Mattimeo144

Guest
ABP? I'm assuming attack points / food score killed while attacking...

Is there some easy way to telling the rankings of that within your alliance? I can get grepostats to show kills obtained in the last 7 days, which at this stage is fairly trivial to add up and work out the highest attackers, but is there an easier way to get a ranking of the alliance by the number of kills they have?

(thanks for the other advice as well, it was pretty much what I had surmised)