Quote:
Originally Posted by Onim
If this is what you mean by organisation
|
I don't.
What I mean by organisation is that an alliance has the willingness to be discipined, to adhere to an alliance-wide strategy. Whether this strategy is defined by one central HC or by some form of consensus decision making is not really important. What
is important is that everyone or nearly everyone has to be willing to stick to it.
To take a fairly basic example, if you have an approximately equal number of each race in your alliance, and an equal value in ships in each superclass (fi/co, fr/de, cr/bs), then you're not going to be as effective as an alliance with two races and mostly ships in one superclass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onim
Activity is still what drives an alliance. Yes, a good strategy thought out at roundstart is important, but one can have the best strategy but lack of the ppl who can live up to whats expected, and organisation breaks apart. Not due to how its organised, but due to the memberbase as a whole.
|
Agreed. This is also why I disagreed with your earlier post, by the way. For all the benefits less active players now get (prelaunch, hidden base fleet, value based capping, XP), there are still many areas in which hardcore players have a huge advantage. Think for example about launch-recall-relaunch, being texted when you can recall defence, when you're under attack or when you're about to crash, getting intel about an attack in advance and arranging prelaunched defence. While it is certainly possible to less active players to
survive nowadays, winning still requires a lot of activity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onim
The game mechanics of rewarding lower activity means that alliances' organisation breaks apart more easily.
|
I'm not sure I agree with that. We don't have nearly as many one-round wonders as we did in the late 20s. Similarly, I'm not seeing that many alliances getting literally torn apart mid-round, which is something else we have definitely seen in earlier rounds (Furious Omen, anyone?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onim
The alliances that become victorious are the ones with the most active memberbase, combined with experience in how to play. However, sad thing is, this fact does not lead to more activity among players. No, it actually makes the gap between the winning alliances and the losing ones even bigger.
So no, i do not agree with you that organisation has become so much more important. Alliance like CT and ND have had their round wins without organisation like (i think) u mean (preround strategy in fleetcomposition , race choice, how ppl are to be distributed in galaxys etc) Joy, activity, momentum and politics make more difference.
|
I don't think activity has become more important in recent rounds than it's always been. However, as you correctly point out, CT and ND have won rounds without being organised in the fashion Apprime and Ascendancy are now. Surely that is a clear indication that organisation has in fact become more important?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linkie
It's more about avaliability than activity.
|
Agreed. That definitely has changed, in Ascendancy at least, we're much better at getting people online nowadays.