Verified:

Detmer Game profile

Member
4243

Jun 30th 2010, 20:17:14

If you are gone, you don't make the cut. You aren't better than someone who outlasted you*

1) SoF

SoF was a force in 2000 and 2001, but from 2002-2003 SoF dominated totally. This wasn't a passing HAN or RoCK domination, this was long term. If SoF warred you, you died. Even after fighting RD and eventually deciding to leave the game, SoF returned and remained a major force until very recently. SoF has petered to second tier now, but they are still in the game, and they still have a (relatively) good showing.

2) LaF

LaF is old, old, old. LaF has long been the/one of the best netting alliances. Over the history of the game their netgaining body of work is the undisputed greatest. Something that is impressive about LaF is that their membership has stayed rather constant over the last 10 years. Their membership has swelled at times, however their 70 member tag now is not terribly far from historic levels, despite everyone else losing members by a factor of 10 at least. Since 2005-2006ish LaF has in my opinion made the push from a tier 2 all-around alliance to a tier 1 alliance. Over the past couple of years LaF has consistently moved up and is now handily the top alliance in the game.

3) SoL

SoL has historically been one of the largest alliances in the game and remain so despite being only a fraction of their previous size. SoL has always been a warring alliance but their success has waxed and waned. SoL has had some spectacular war performances and some abysmal moral victories. Even if SoL has not been the best alliance pound for pound, they have often made up for it in numbers.

4) Rage

The biggest alliance of all time with around 330-340 tagged members at the end of one round. Rage has never had much for netting but could certainly war anyone, especially due to massive girth. Membership may be way down recently, but Rage has more or less always been one of the larger alliances and has been involved in some spectacular conflicts throughout the history of this game as a result.

5) PDM/TIE

Two alliances with amazingly similar histories. Both alliances have generally been large in membership and have had some very skilled members... and some not so skilled members. Both alliances have historically tended to be involved in things and accordingly had great successes and great failures. Both are shadows of their former selves now.

7) LCN

LCN has been a very consistent alliance. Always sort of a middle tier, never the largest but pretty good pound for pound. Historically a netting rival for LaF, LCN seems to have been left in the dust in that regard over the past few years. LCN is still a middle sized alliance, but that is saying something considering that there aren't even 25 tags in existence, let alone 25 clans of 50+ members. LCN has just sort of endured, taken some knocks but by and large has never gotten too badly beaten up for too long.

8) Omega

Generally a smaller sized alliance that has kept to themselves, Omega has been involved in war when they must, but generally just net (quite solidly I might add) in peace. With the game as small as it is now, Omega finds themselves solidly a medium sized alliance.

9) Monsters

After the game has long been shut down Monsters will still be netting peacefully by themselves. Monsters have been around forever and while never choosing to make a splash, are still doing that as well as ever.

10) iMag

iMag has actually become quite the force now relative to their history of being smaller force. Independent of size iMag have made their mark by doing nothing but fighting, ever. They sort of remind me of a hyperactive kid with a hammer and I feel like that might closely approximate their role in history.

11) NA

NA is a relatively new alliance and has never done a lot with what it has had (in my opinion) which is why it is so low. In its existence, which again is short compared to most alliances) NA has been big, netted when they could and have some skilled members. Perhaps NA is most well known for "questionable" tactics such as aiding members to the top. As far as my thoughts in this ranking go though a top rank for an alliance member in an alliance game is a top rank, even if it isn't necessarily the indicator of individual skill that some alliances so desperately crave it to be.

12) ICN

ICN has been around for a long time, been a small alliance, a medium sized alliance and a large alliance. I feel like ICN has never done a whole lot. Sometimes they net, sometimes they war - never really stand outs, but they have withstood the test of time and now they are right on par with any other tier 2 alliance.

13) Evo

New alliance, lack of history. Good netters by and large. Would be a lot higher if I included the history, of say RED... but that's not Evo, that is RED and Evo. RED didn't last.

14) Collab

Like Evo, would be higher if I incorporated the history of the constituents. Collab is one of the best alliances now, but that isn't a lot in the history of Earth.

15) Neofed

Congratulations for being the 15th greatest alliance in history! I don't exactly remember when you came into existence, maybe 2002? I know you took a lot of time off, but what matters is that you're back as an alliance. Neofed has never really been a major player, but you don't have to be to have fun.


*complete cop out to not have to really think about everything that has happened over the course of this game and all the alliances that were involved

Edited By: Detmer on Jun 30th 2010, 21:46:48. Reason: Change of heart
See Original Post

joe2 Game profile

Member
716

Jun 30th 2010, 21:18:20

SoL is ranked to high!

Detmer Game profile

Member
4243

Jun 30th 2010, 21:19:39

Originally posted by joe2:
SoL is ranked to high!


I know. LCN is clearly misplaced as well.

Klown Game profile

Member
967

Jun 30th 2010, 21:41:50

11th jokes aside, LCN should absolutely not be 4th. They have never been better than mediocre. I'd put at least Omega, TIE, RAGE, ahead of them.

Detmer Game profile

Member
4243

Jun 30th 2010, 21:45:02

Originally posted by Klown:
11th jokes aside, LCN should absolutely not be 4th. They have never been better than mediocre. I'd put at least Omega, TIE, RAGE, ahead of them.


Hrm, thinking about that again, I do feel like I went a bit overboard on LCN... I agree... should move them between PDM/TIE and Omega

Serpentor Game profile

Member
2800

Jun 30th 2010, 22:29:38

without IX, this whole thread is wrong.
The EEVIL Empire

Detmer Game profile

Member
4243

Jun 30th 2010, 23:01:34

Originally posted by Serpentor:
without IX, this whole thread is wrong.


IX would have made the list (in the realm of 3 or 4) had there been a single hold out member still tagged IX. Alas, IX has not survived.

NukEvil Game profile

Member
4327

Jun 30th 2010, 23:23:19

Originally posted by Detmer:

13) Evo

New alliance, lack of history. Good netters by and large. Would be a lot higher if I included the history, of say RED... but that's not Evo, that is RED and Evo. RED didn't last.


Lack of history??

Only because you never bothered to look for either of our public historical libraries...
I am a troll. Everything I say must be assumed to be said solely to provoke an exaggerated reaction to the current topic. I fully intend to bring absolutely no substance to any discussion, ongoing or otherwise. Conversing with me is pointless.

llaar Game profile

Member
11,276

Jun 30th 2010, 23:56:04

i founded NA 5 years ago... with 2 people... and we've grown to be the largest or 2nd largest clan in the server about half the resets we've been around...

NA holds the TNW record in EC
NA has more top 1's than any other clan in EC
NA holds the record for most top 100's in a single set in EC

the only thing we never excelled at was ANW, which is because i let people join all set long, and never drop people from tag to raise ANW end of set.

ANW of our top 20 members is higher than the ANW of the top 20 members in any other clan, the majority of sets we have netted. and that includes even if you take the top country off of both tags to not count an aided top country

locket Game profile

Member
6176

Jul 1st 2010, 0:28:12

lol llaar that last bit is a strong opinion there ;)

Dragonlance Game profile

Member
1611

Jul 1st 2010, 0:36:51

the anw of the top 20 arguement is absurd llaar lol.

I think you'll find det has given extra weighting to alliances that were on top, during the golden age of earth. Since being on top during the golden age, is surely superior to being on top in the doldrums.

Hence why LaF is only #2. Because during that golden age, they really were on the periphery and 2nd tier, even though both before and after that period, they were top tier and often #1 in the server.

SolidSnake Game profile

Member
867

Jul 1st 2010, 0:53:21

Originally posted by llaar:

NA holds the TNW record in EC (beating laf by like 15m nw with 50 more members)
NA has more top 1's than any other clan in EC (id be suprised if you have more than 3 legit (meaning unaided) rank 1's after the 1a alliances moved over)
NA holds the record for most top 100's in a single set in EC (news to me? how many t100's meh)

the only thing we never excelled at was ANW, which is because i let people join all set long, and never drop people from tag to raise ANW end of set. (a: so do alot of alliances, and b: you never had a chance at anw so it never made sense to try to drop members, since you'd be looking at droping 70 odd members)

ANW of our top 20 members is higher than the ANW of the top 20 members in any other clan (really shouldnt say any other clan when laf regularly put up 10-15 of the top 25 in a reset), the majority of sets we have netted. and that includes even if you take the top country off of both tags to not count an aided top country (as far as i know only na and tie ever really practiced aiding a top country... and nbk once i guess


In all honesty, i cant think of one netgainer that regularly played in na that is even t10 average, and t10 average is embarisingly easy...

Edited By: SolidSnake on Jul 1st 2010, 0:54:48
See Original Post

SolidSnake Game profile

Member
867

Jul 1st 2010, 0:55:26

Originally posted by Dragonlance:
Hence why LaF is only #2. Because during that golden age, they really were on the periphery and 2nd tier, even though both before and after that period, they were top tier and often #1 in the server.


For the tier system, it has always related to war performance, which i think most can agree laf was far from the greatest during the "golden ages". However during the golden age, laf was more overly dedicated to netgaining than it has been recently. Really the start of laf being able to war was the LCN and pdm wars in 1a, which probably explains why if you made a tier system based on netgaining, laf would be the only top tier alliance since no one ever came close during the period.

Gibber Game profile

Member
84

Jul 1st 2010, 1:02:55

its all in perspective.


Detmer, where would you insert MD on that list if they was still around ?

Fuzzy Logic Game profile

Patron
98

Jul 1st 2010, 1:18:17

EAT is not high enough.

Dragonlance Game profile

Member
1611

Jul 1st 2010, 1:21:07

also SS with regards to a pure netgaining rankings, no other netgaining alliance has really been around for the entire length of the game's history, except possibly NM/Monsters in some form.

SolidSnake Game profile

Member
867

Jul 1st 2010, 1:28:42

omega if you call them a netgaining alliance (which they tend to be nowadays) would be the closest i guess

All im saying is, laf is being rated on war performance during that period, when laf never entered into a reset war prep'ing. So naturally they come off badly.

H4xOr WaNgEr Game profile

Forum Moderator
1931

Jul 1st 2010, 2:12:46

mm, there were a couple periods during the "golden years" where LaF was often ranked #1 by a lot of people (Febuary - May 2004ish comes to mind)

Dragonlance Game profile

Member
1611

Jul 1st 2010, 2:34:31

i'd say 2004 was really borderline golden years, and also the only reason LaF would have been ranked #1 then would be because SoF was getting multied by RD, and IX was being botted, and Rage was being botted, and MD was fighting Multies.... I'm sure there is a developing theme here.... !!

Is there anywhere still online where you can see previous clan TNW/ANW rankings?

Dragonlance Game profile

Member
1611

Jul 1st 2010, 2:35:46

in fairness to llaar, i can vouch for the fact that NA has been fairly involved politically near the top from the very first set of EC at least:p

Detmer Game profile

Member
4243

Jul 1st 2010, 3:25:43

I was strongly considering putting NA higher because they were a larger alliance later on. As Dragonlance noted there is perhaps some weighting towards the "Golden Years". I think that is fine for the reasons he noted. I very nearly put NA above iMag but I do feel like iMag has a much stronger identity. I feel that NA has an identity right on par with PDM and TIE, but has been around for significantly less of Earth. If NA had been around as long I expect there would be a three way tie for fifth (unless NA had been around and surpassed Rage in membership, as opposed to being a 120 member alliance, in which case who knows how high NA would be).

In 2003 I do think LaF started to emerge as a capable warring alliance. I do remember periods though where LaF was not a quality warring alliance though. During the "Golden Years", which I more or less view as 2000-2003, SoF would have mopped LaF in any war. Sure, alliances peak at different times, but even if LaF didn't make any huge warring statements then, I think we can all acknowledge they would not have held a candle to SoF then.

Gibber, most likely third. If I were to include MD and IX I think MD would be three and IX four.

Trife Game profile

Member
5817

Jul 1st 2010, 4:02:31

LCN should be ranked 11th..

TheORKINMan Game profile

Member
1305

Jul 1st 2010, 4:05:37

Just IMO LCN and SOL should swap places on this list.
Smarter than your average bear.

Requiem Game profile

Member
EE Patron
9092

Jul 1st 2010, 4:13:06

Your rankings suck, no offense.

Dragonlance Game profile

Member
1611

Jul 1st 2010, 4:27:12

yeah, i imagine MD has the whole, being the #1 alliance at the very peak in ingame membership and popularity thing going for them. where there 1 set of dominance in that period would be worth 1 years now lol

Pangaea

Administrator
Game Development
822

Jul 1st 2010, 4:28:35

SoF was run from the game for a while. They ceased existing at all and had a period of not being overly relevant when they came back. That period puts them below LaF and SoL, IMO, as both have been a consistent force throughout the history of the game.
-=Dave=-
Earth Empires Staff
pangaea [at] earthempires [dot] com

Boxcar - Earth Empires' Clan & Alliance Hosting
http://www.boxcarhosting.com

TheORKINMan Game profile

Member
1305

Jul 1st 2010, 4:30:04

I am sorry, but the only thing consistant about SOL is that they exist. I remember them losing quite a bit more often then they won in wars vs similar sized alliances. And most of the time when they did win is was being propped up by alliances that should be higher than them on the list.
Smarter than your average bear.

Dragonlance Game profile

Member
1611

Jul 1st 2010, 4:37:10

being run from the game by multies deserves extra kudos in rankings for fighting the good fight.

AoS Game profile

Member
521

Jul 1st 2010, 5:06:21

SoL is only relevant because it has the same first two letters as SoF.
The dreamer is banished to obscurity.

Fooglmog Game profile

Member
1149

Jul 1st 2010, 5:24:54

I think that this may be the first serious attempt at alliance rankings that has ever put iMagNum in the top 10...

Holy fluff...

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Viceroy Game profile

Member
893

Jul 1st 2010, 5:25:56

SoL, SoF... LaF?

fluff York, fluff Sargent... Sargent York!
And, Monsters, do not forget to specify, when time and place shall serve, that I am an ass.

torment Game profile

Member
278

Jul 1st 2010, 5:30:43

imag at least deserves a notable mention in being so....different and being able to stand the test of time.



de1i Game profile

Member
1639

Jul 1st 2010, 5:32:55

Bad

iXenomorph Game profile

Member
406

Jul 1st 2010, 5:57:30

This thread made me shed tears of happiness.

I have always dreamed of being compared to a hyper kid with a hammer!

WAR! WAR ! WAR! MORE! MORE! MORE!!!!!!
"Have you ever noticed how a cat is genuinely sad when the mouse they are playing with dies ???" - Prima

ViLSE Game profile

Member
862

Jul 1st 2010, 8:19:42

GO DBD! :)

dagga Game profile

Member
1559

Jul 1st 2010, 8:28:21

Someone pissed in OrkinMan's wheaties..

Quiet down moron, LCN is a second rate alliance and I don't recall ever being particularly impressed with anything they have ever done.
signatures are stupid.
Months since LaF netgained: 22

Gibber Game profile

Member
84

Jul 1st 2010, 8:35:29

Detmer,

Perhaps you shouldnt leave MD off that list :) because technically we are not gone :)

Think about it for awhile and when you have come the conclusion that i think you might PM me.

de1i Game profile

Member
1639

Jul 1st 2010, 9:00:57

Originally posted by dagga:
Someone pissed in OrkinMan's wheaties..

Quiet down moron, LCN is a second rate alliance and I don't recall ever being particularly impressed with anything they have ever done.

Detmer Game profile

Member
4243

Jul 1st 2010, 13:42:15

Originally posted by Pangaea:
SoF was run from the game for a while. They ceased existing at all and had a period of not being overly relevant when they came back. That period puts them below LaF and SoL, IMO, as both have been a consistent force throughout the history of the game.


I guess we value standing up against RD differently. Personal difference of opinion. I understand your point but respectfully disagree.

As for Req and de1i... well de1i gets off free because he just tries to push my buttons, but Req, you couldn't do better =P

And Gibber, I don't get it... but I can PM you =P

TAN Game profile

Member
3211

Jul 1st 2010, 13:49:22

PDM IS RANKED TOO HIGH!
FREEEEEDOM!!!

Sifos Game profile

Member
1419

Jul 1st 2010, 14:29:00

Woohoo, hammers for everyone!
Imaginary Numbers
If you're important enough to contact me, you will know how to contact me.
Self appointed emperor of the Order of Bunnies.
The only way to be certain your allies will not betray you is to kill them all!

XTO Game profile

New Member
13

Jul 1st 2010, 15:12:30

ANW - I'm gonna have to give that to Elitez. Those guys took it set after set after set back when it was a lot more competitive.

I'd have to agree IX should be top 3 (MD close as well) if this list wasn't only alliances in existence. If you look at the dominant alliances over the course of when this game was most popular and the most people played SoF/SOL/IX were the stand outs.
The EEVIL Empire - Foreign Affairs
ICQ: 71709439 ... MSN:

Requiem Game profile

Member
EE Patron
9092

Jul 1st 2010, 15:46:58

Detmer I'm not trying to push your buttons just saying: I don't think they are valid.

But I can tell you're quite fond of your rankings so I'll leave it at that :)

Detmer Game profile

Member
4243

Jul 1st 2010, 15:48:36

Originally posted by Requiem:
Detmer I'm not trying to push your buttons just saying: I don't think they are valid.

But I can tell you're quite fond of your rankings so I'll leave it at that :)


I believe you don't think that... but since you have no public reasoning I outright reject your notion. Post some constructive criticism and I can consider your thoughts =P

BobbyATA Game profile

Member
2367

Jul 1st 2010, 16:03:15

Solidsnake: Grimjoww was a regular NAer and has multiple top tens. But ya other than him not sure there is a guy in there who can expect to top 10 if they more or less avoid suicide/war.

wari Game profile

Member
223

Jul 1st 2010, 16:20:42

Aided or unaided?

Apples to oranges. Even an unaided 5-10th is consistently not difficult, unaided. Whereas a 3rd-10th place finish with aid isn't remarkable at all.

jakeb Game profile

Member
94

Jul 1st 2010, 16:30:59

http://neofed.fsenthusiast.net/Home/index.html

i don't believe neo ever took time off. we stayed in 1a while others moved to ec. check out our history page. the recorded history ends in 2007, just before what i would call neo's golden age. in 2008-2009 up till just before EE we were steadily in the top 3 alliances in 1a with membership around 50-80 most of that time. most of the time we netted, unless someone picked a fight, which i can't remember ever losing a war since I started in late 2006 (i think).
ICQ - 562899104

SolidSnake Game profile

Member
867

Jul 1st 2010, 16:32:09

i only rate un-aided, anything aided may as well be dead, is carries the same weight to me...

and grim isnt particularly good bobby...

de1i Game profile

Member
1639

Jul 1st 2010, 16:46:58

Originally posted by Detmer:
Originally posted by Pangaea:
SoF was run from the game for a while. They ceased existing at all and had a period of not being overly relevant when they came back. That period puts them below LaF and SoL, IMO, as both have been a consistent force throughout the history of the game.


I guess we value standing up against RD differently. Personal difference of opinion. I understand your point but respectfully disagree.

As for Req and de1i... well de1i gets off free because he just tries to push my buttons, but Req, you couldn't do better =P

And Gibber, I don't get it... but I can PM you =P


Not trying to push your buttons, I just don't like LCN.

Detmer Game profile

Member
4243

Jul 1st 2010, 17:00:02

Originally posted by de1i:
Originally posted by Detmer:
Originally posted by Pangaea:
SoF was run from the game for a while. They ceased existing at all and had a period of not being overly relevant when they came back. That period puts them below LaF and SoL, IMO, as both have been a consistent force throughout the history of the game.


I guess we value standing up against RD differently. Personal difference of opinion. I understand your point but respectfully disagree.

As for Req and de1i... well de1i gets off free because he just tries to push my buttons, but Req, you couldn't do better =P

And Gibber, I don't get it... but I can PM you =P


Not trying to push your buttons, I just don't like LCN.


Ok, I will assume your comment was directed at LCN and not the rankings then ;)