Where did The Fallen fall?

  • Thread starter DeletedUser43485
  • Start date

DeletedUser10962

Guest
Ben the Emperor said:
A few people who left from fallen after zeus ghosted are so far up where the sun doesnt shine. 'aka'. up the A.R.S.E. Working as a team takes time.
4 weeks ago we were taking a city and myself and plenty others supported so much that zeus asked us to pull back. quoting him 'im so proud to be in this alliance'. The next opp taking over bunniez was easy yes but we had alot of support Again.
The last and only opp that went wrong wasnt even a complete failure lol yes a large number of them didnt support me included in this one. However sticking up for the team here not to say it wasnt organised proporly because it was, but the first post on about the landing time was past 10pm whereas most people probably would have logged off to bed, a solution i think would have been to mass mail everyone on the day to make people aware it was today but no. Now Zeus left because of one failure as a team, it hasnt been consistent so abit over dramatic. It didnt need that much work other than telling the members what you want and what is expected, didnt help you and djom contradicting each other you will get confused. Plus things slowed down becuase it takes longer to get city slots.
Plus another thing, it was the two leaders who decided to merge with legends of anarchy, so if you didnt think they were pulling their weight why wouldnt you just kick them??? what kind of leader does that?
Click to expand...

There was never a merge with lords of anarchy. We took in a small group of people mainly to give one of our other big players some support and a team to work with. In hindsight this was a bad plan and I never should have compromised my standards and let in players I thought weren't good enough.

With regards to the one partially unsuccessful op your attitude shows exactly why when miknel and I decided to set up a new alliance. In the tab for the op there was the information about the op. For example it said the op would be landing on sunday morning not really sure how anyone can claim when it was up for 3 days that they didn't know when it was going to be. Considering the targets offline times were all listed roughly when it was going to land should also have been easy for people to work out. There were a lot of complaints from people about the landing times of opps. I have no time for those sort of players. Why are we landing at 04:00 not 13:00 13:00 is so much easier for me etc. Well if he's offline around 04:00 and online at 13:00 when do you think they should be hit.

It wasn't slowing down because of a lack of slots because a lot of people were sitting on slots. We had a lot of players who wanted to take the stacked 9k city as opposed to a 5-6k city that would be easy to get into. Too many people cared only about the points of their cities saying they needed to take big cities to keep on growing.

The reason I left instead of just kicking the guys I thought weren't working well was because I would have kicked 15 or so people. The reality is we never really recovered from losing 2 of our biggest guns and a big restructure was required. Many people didn't seem to appreciate that our lead in BP over the other allys had come from in a huge part The.Great.Cornihlio and vulekeva when we lost those two it was a huge blow to our ability to provide support.

The other reason was that frankly I can run an alliance in the amount of time I have if the alliance is a well grouped together team. However when I have to spend a lot of time running around and putting out fires I just don't have the time for it. To give some example of the ridiculousness of what happened in the final day of The Fallen (the straws that broke the camels back). Snausage went yellow (inactive) I put him up for repo and a whole group of the ally protested saying it was unfair to do it because he had gone inactive one guy posted in one tab he was ready to take one of his cities yet in another slammed the decision to repo him. Another member sniped the attempt to repo one of his cities then laughed about it and claimed it was because the player had come back online apparently he didn't realise you can see whether or not they've logged in.
 

DeletedUser43325

Guest
Kadjayuni said:
ahhh... the joys of team spirit lol
Click to expand...

Haha yes... which is even more indicative by the 35 PM's I came back to from nearly every remaining player explaining why they are the most qualified to lead the alliance now that dj and zues were gone and I had to choose someone new given that I was the only founder remaining. So we decided to give the people what they wanted. I handed out founders to those that felt they were better qualified and subsequently started a new band with dj. And as of this morning TF is disbanded. Wah wah.
 

DeletedUser46395

Guest
Miknel said:
Haha yes... which is even more indicative by the 35 PM's I came back to from nearly every remaining player explaining why they are the most qualified to lead the alliance now that dj and zues were gone and I had to choose someone new given that I was the only founder remaining. So we decided to give the people what they wanted. I handed out founders to those that felt they were better qualified and subsequently started a new band with dj. And as of this morning TF is disbanded. Wah wah.
Click to expand...

Yes, I just couldn't begin to understand the way people reacted. Nobody cared about what had gone wrong, and why Zues had left, it was all "We need someone with founder rights" (meaning themselves). I got into a discussion with some of the more active remaining players, and all they wanted to do was implement a new leadership structure (meaning themselves), not address the base problems; they couldn't even see the base problems.

Top alliances need a little arrogance, certainly externally, but they need not to lose sight of reality. Too many in TF felt they could do no wrong, and allowed that arrogance to blind them to the need for teamwork. We believed our own press, TF was invincible. It wasn't an issue of structure or who led the alliance, but a state of mind that needed changing. We had built a monster that in the end consumed itself. I've no doubt that most of the players involved will return to a high level now the spell is broken.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Bearissimus said:
Yes, I just couldn't begin to understand the way people reacted. Nobody cared about what had gone wrong, and why Zues had left, it was all "We need someone with founder rights" (meaning themselves). I got into a discussion with some of the more active remaining players, and all they wanted to do was implement a new leadership structure (meaning themselves), not address the base problems; they couldn't even see the base problems.

Top alliances need a little arrogance, certainly externally, but they need not to lose sight of reality. Too many in TF felt they could do no wrong, and allowed that arrogance to blind them to the need for teamwork. We believed our own press, TF was invincible. It wasn't an issue of structure or who led the alliance, but a state of mind that needed changing. We had built a monster that in the end consumed itself. I've no doubt that most of the players involved will return to a high level now the spell is broken.
Click to expand...
that's exactly what I thought at the start.. a lot of top alliances think they're invincible. and are blinded by this..
*cough* Berzerkerz *cough* - well the leader at least ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Arrogance certainly seems to be an issue. Members (And leaders) thinking they're untouchable. Should make for interesting play.
 
Aicy

Aicy

Strategos
Did the alliance have a skype group chat? It sounds like that's what the problem was to me.
 

DeletedUser13240

Guest
Aye, there were one.
However, just havin' a room don't be meanin' anythin'.
Ya gots to be usin' it an' talkin' with yer mates.
They didn't!

yer friendly
unit
 
Aicy

Aicy

Strategos
Yes I was thinking of adding the word "active" in there.

I think this is the most important reason why an alliance has the problems that has been described. The best way to get members to support one another is to make them care about one another... and the best way to make them care about one another is to make them become friends by chit chatting in a skype chat and in the forum.

Additionally it sounds a lot like a lot of the problems were because the members had little respect for their leaders, and for each other. I don't know because I wasn't in the alliance, but maybe your leaders could have acted more worthy of respect... and the skype chat is also another important factor for this.

Bearissimus said:
A very early decision was that straight out of B.P., some players would go for conquests, others support attacks, and others would provide def support. Everyone agreed, and I went for def. However, it just didn't happen; come the end of BP, almost everyone was going for conquests, and virtually nobody was providing any support. It didn't really matter at that point; people were strong enough to catch victims off guard, and those of us who were providing def support - it felt like only me, but there must've been some others - weren't getting any BP. So before long, I realised it was a mug's game, and I wanted in on the conquest action. So now everyone was going for it, nobody was providing support, and still the opposition was weak.
Click to expand...
I can't believe you'd be so naive.

Of course that was going to happen, that idea was doomed from start. The people who were the supports were at a definite disadvantage and it would be unfair to just expect them to sit there helping others get their conquests while they dwindle in rank.

The best way to make people do the right thing for their alliance is to incentivize them to do so, not just tell them to do so.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser46395

Guest
Aicy said:
Did the alliance have a skype group chat? It sounds like that's what the problem was to me.
Click to expand...

Sheesh, is it that hard to grasp? ;) It wasn't structures, processes or facilities that was the problem, it was attitudes, no more, no less.
 
Aicy

Aicy

Strategos
How do you know that for sure?

How do you know that attitudes wouldn't have been a lot different if all your members had become friends?
 

DeletedUser46395

Guest
Aicy said:
How do you know that for sure?
Click to expand...

Because I was there. Because I'm actually quite good at analysing things. And mostly, because I was there.

How do you know that attitudes wouldn't have been a lot different if all your members had become friends?
Click to expand...

Sheesh, and you say WE were naïve. ;)

We had a good go at it early on, and .aka is pretty much made up of those who did end up as friends, or at least have mutual trust and respect if we've not had time to become firm friends as yet. I've no idea what your experience of the game is, and I certainly don't want to patronise you, but this was an alliance moving at a blistering speed - most I've been in start slowly and gradually get up to speed, but this one started at a zillion miles an hour and didn't let up. Mistake? Possibly, but it was part of the legend - and that legend helped as well as caused problems, nobody wanted to be our next target. But that speed didn't really allow us time to properly absorb new members, or reflect on what wasn't working so well.
 
Aicy

Aicy

Strategos
The "speed" wasn't even that fast. I've seen and been in alliances that have grown and dominated worlds far faster than The Fallen did. My experience is in alliances very similar to yours, with many experienced and cocky players in a premade alliance.

You use an awful lot of romantic language and ideas, assuming that things like "attitude" and "blistering" speed are just things that happened and were completely out of the leader's control.

I'm just saying... In the future get and use a skype chat, it helps!
 

DeletedUser46395

Guest
Aicy said:
The "speed" wasn't even that fast. I've seen and been in alliances that have grown and dominated worlds far faster than The Fallen did. My experience is in alliances very similar to yours, with many experienced and cocky players in a premade alliance.
Click to expand...

I'm just amazed at how much you think you know when you weren't there, and how you just won't accept what those who were there and know what happened are telling you. That's exactly the sort of attitude that caused our problems. ;)

I'm just saying... In the future get and use a skype chat, it helps!
Click to expand...

We did, it didn't.
 

DeletedUser43325

Guest
Bearissimus said:
I'm just amazed at how much you think you know when you weren't there, and how you just won't accept what those who were there and know what happened are telling you. That's exactly the sort of attitude that caused our problems. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, you really have to love people that blindly hold onto to an opinion that is back with zero evidence or logical support, while ignoring those that have intricate knowledge of the situation. I feel like I've seen this before...

But thank you, aicy, for your well formulated diagnoses that you've come up with out of thin air on a situation that you know nothing about - despite it being explained to you several times in great detail. We will surely try to heed your wisdom and advise in the future.
 
Aicy

Aicy

Strategos
You're right, I wasn't there and so should suspend judgement on this specific situation.

I shouldn't have delved further into discussion after my first post or two, because as you say I don't know about what happened and my origonal two posts were made just for the reason to say that this sounds like the sort of thing that happens when alliance members don't form friendships, and didn't mean to start accusing that that is exactly what happened with The Fallen.

Sorry about that, I guess I tend to get caught up in the drama. :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I dunno guys, i still think this could have been solved by just hugging it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top