Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Demise of Training Alliances
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Demise of Training Alliances

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
Author
Captain Kindly View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2011
Location: Fremorn
Status: Offline
Points: 276
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Kindly Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Demise of Training Alliances
    Posted: 10 Oct 2014 at 13:20
This is something that has been on my mind for a while.

For Credit, I have been involved with leading a few training alliances for EE. In that capacity, I have had contacts with leaders of other training alliances. I even managed to get a training alliance compact for mutual defense during the Consone war. LL launched it, but the initiative was mine.

Illy has changed since then. There are no longer training alliances aiming at sending recruits to the mother alliance, and I think even H? can no longer protect T?

I do not think that Alliances calling themselves 'Training Alliances' should have a special protection place because they call themselves that. All alliances take in new people and train them. Nor do I think that other alliances should rush in to help 'because they call themselves a training alliance'.

As I said, Illy has changed. And every alliance can do confeds and naps. The Shield of calling yourself a Training Alliance is gone.

I am pretty sure many players know this already. This coming from a HUGger should say something.


Back to Top
auel View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 61
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote auel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2014 at 14:29
Well CK, I probably don't have either your depth of experience or as many contacts as you but I want to take issue with you on a matter of fact.  

Whatever the status of other training alliances, while it is happy to help graduates into any alliance where they find a good fit, TOR-U does expressly try to prepare players for TOR and most of its members came through that route.  Therefore I have to say you are a bit off beam on that.

Because in your opinion H? may no longer be able to protect T? (open to debate) that does not mean other alliances feel the same and your opinion does not make it a fact.

In the recent small skirmish players would from time to time produce proof that a training alliance was helping a combatant with supplies and wanted to attack them for doing so.  I would not allow it then and I still wouldn't now.  If the leaders of a training alliance is proved to be allowing or even encouraging direct attacks or provocations by its members that is a different matter but there had better be a very strong case made before anything is done.

Sorry my old Hugger ( I say this with respect and affection) because you say something does NOT make it so, the shield for Training Alliances is in place as far as I am concerned but I await the reaction and opinions of this forum with interest.

Asio - Consul of TOR

Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2014 at 15:30
I don't understand. In the past, many training alliances graduates were directed to a parent alliance. FF to EE, T to H, and so forth. They were fairly partisan, which caused some arguments. Now training alliances seem more willing to send their graduates anywhere, including to adversaries of their own parent alliances. And that new neutrality is apparently bad? So bad that it warrants lifting traditional training alliance protections? I would still consider it quite cowardly to attack anyone in a training alliance, and I think many people would feel the same way.

By the way, I have been told on multiple occasions that HUGcr is not a training alliance. It is a crow alliance that happens to take in many smaller players.
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2014 at 18:45
interesting post, a little befuddling.

like Brandmeister, i am perplexed at the idea that a training alliance being willing to engage in "capture-and-release" somehow disqualifies it from protection. indeed, training alliances that take in and train newbs regardless of their eventual destination have always struck me as the *only* training alliances worthy of special status. but this has been true of T? (or was true, i am not too knowledgeable about T?'s mission since LadyLuvs left the administration) since its founding. H? provided military protection, certainly, but graduates were not prejudiced and at best H? (and then T-O, it must be said) had a first opportunity to recruit them. many T? graduates (including Rill, as it happens) found their way to the crows and other alliances not affiliated with H?, and this seems to me to be the very definition of why a regular alliance might extend special status to a training alliance--not only are the members newbs, but the alliance itself is neutral with regard to any ongoing conflicts, and as likely to place a newb with it as with any other group in the game. T? also, at least until recently, had a strict policy of turning out graduates at a particular size, so it did not become simply a refuge for those who wished to avoid the dangers of the game.

the others are junior branches of larger alliances, and, while they are peaceful so far as it goes, are avowedly not neutral and their members have been known to pass into the senior branch upon graduation even in the midst of a war. it is not so clear to me that the neutrality of these groups should be respected, as they are not actually neutral. in the last war, it was said to me that it had become so common for the junior branches to provide war materiel to the senior alliance (without actually participating in military action) that neither side was attempting any longer to track it. hmmmm.

and then there are what might be referred to as "special entities", "training alliances" created on the brink of conflict simply to shield weak players from harm and to exempt certain holdings of an alliance from becoming spoils of war. this seems quite transparent, and probably unworthy of any exemptions at all.

perhaps we simply need a better definition of what training alliances are and do, a definition that would be independent of an individual alliance's self-declared status.


Edited by Angrim - 10 Oct 2014 at 18:47
Back to Top
Jane DarkMagic View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Jane DarkMagic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2014 at 19:04
I agree with some parts of what CK has to say but not other parts.

I find that more training alliances are becoming neutral and sending their players to different alliances is a positive shift.  I would like to see more of it, and not less.  Also, I am more apt to protect training alliances that send their players to different alliances because they do not necessarily have a big brother alliance looking after them.

I think the protection of training alliances has become a hot topic because of players hiding behind them.  I think as a community we should protect all deserving new players(those who are actively trying to learn the game and not trolling or attacking people).  That said, I don't thing that same protection should be extended to training alliances as a whole.  I think staff members of training alliances should be able to be targeted just like any other player.  It is up to them, like every other vet in illy, to secure their protection through their own troops, alliances, and confederations.  For example, Epidemic has recently called SIEGE a training alliance.  If he does something to piss me off, for example if he were to siege any of my alliance's inactives, I would feel a right to go after him.  I would, however, leave any new players in SIEGE out of the war.

In any case, that is my two cents on the new status and treatment of training alliances.


Edited by Jane DarkMagic - 10 Oct 2014 at 19:05
Back to Top
Pellinell View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 298
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pellinell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2014 at 19:57
It is pretty easy to tell who are actually training alliances and who aren't. And I will say now so there is no confusion latter. TO will always defend training alliances. 

And I'd like to go into something Angrim said a bit. TO did not in any way hand pick players from T? I went out of my way to remain 100% neutral with my alt in T? Feel free to ask any and all T? grads. With that said I was an active member of the alliance and formed friendships with many there. Some chose to come to TO because of that. But it was their choice and I never recruited with my alt while there. 
Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2014 at 20:11
@Pellinell: I think it is only natural that people would look positively on the alliances who trained them. As long as players are free to choose any alliance when leaving, I see nothing wrong with that. It's a small perk to running a training alliance, and if others covet the advantage, they should train players as well.

@Jane: Yes, that's the core of the problem. Non-students hiding assets in training alliances. They are easy to identify, but if everyone does it, perhaps that's why everyone ignores it?

@Angrim: How would you propose to track war materiel from training alliances, neutral alliances, concealed farm accounts, or any other "inappropriate" source? Any player with a shred of sense would just swap resources in a trade hub, hiding all evidence of the collaborator.
Back to Top
Jejune View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1015
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Jejune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2014 at 21:56
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

the others are junior branches of larger alliances, and, while they are peaceful so far as it goes, are avowedly not neutral and their members have been known to pass into the senior branch upon graduation even in the midst of a war.

I'd like to do a little confessing here so as to bear witness to what Angrim is saying.

When I was in Rhyagelle, we launched a training alliance (Rhylet). However, to suggest that it was not a de facto part of RHY would be completely disingenuous on my part. The closest thing I could compare it to is a minor league baseball team -- a "farm team" -- which is directly tied to a major league ball club. Yes, we took in recruits, but we also all had alts in it (mine was Eraisuithon), and when the war broke out, just as a major league baseball team "calls up players" when needed, we "called up" the best and biggest player accounts from the training alliance so that RHY was at a full 100 active players. 

So, who were we fooling? Rhylet wasn't a "neutral training alliance." It was "the training alliance for Rhyagelle." There's a distinct difference there, and one that I'm pretty sure we didn't make on the Rhylet training page at the time.



Back to Top
EvilKatia View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2012
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 210
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote EvilKatia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2014 at 23:02
Odd to see that only people not in training alliance talk about the 'demise' of training alliance. /me scratch head. I would've expected the leader of said training alliance to announce that. After that they are the one knowing whats going on or not.....

So anyone got facts to back this up or its just rumor making ?


Kat

'They have to always turn a forum post into a badly written book that gives a headache and takes your iq points' - AO
Back to Top
Zatchman View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 10 Oct 2014
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zatchman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Oct 2014 at 00:02
Being new to the game I have fully enjoyed being in a Training Alliance [MOON], they have been super helpful. They are preparing me to become self reliant and then I will move onto a Regular Alliance.

There is a real benefit to a Training Alliance. Yes, there is protection, there should be for new players.

Seems to me that maybe a bad experience in the game has caused you make this post.

~Z
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.