More alliances is a good or a bad thing?

[Master Hakai]

The sooner we all realize that more alliances is both a good and a bad thing, the better off we're going to be. so,

[IYIyTh]

Needs moar animosity imo

[Chimaera]

I, for one, think there are some recently-formed alliances that are simply fantastic.

[Letterkenny]

Previously I've "advocated" that we need an alliance cap, or some in game requirement for starting an alliance. In a perfect world there would be 50 alliances that go strong and have decent membership. But you know how those utopia stories go. If we took all alliances under 50 and "forced" a merge, the world would be a better place. I've got a lot of good friends in smaller alliances, and it would be great if they made it; as a whole alliances sprouting up all over the place only serve to detract new players from becoming a part of the actual game. You know, in my humble opinion. Or you have to pass a trial of some kind to make it as an alliance - a hunger games if you will. 24 alliances enter, one alliance leaves. 

 

edit: 

 

I believe new alliances are good. all are not gonna become big but there will be a few. As some old alliances run there course and slowly wither away,  new ones need to take their place.

 

Yeah see, this is always the thought. We'll start an alliance and be the next era blah blah blah. A noble effort, truly. But NPO, IRON, Polar, etc etc aren't going away. They'll always be here. Once in awhile there are reincarnations - Anarchy, NG, etc. and those are great. But they aren't "new" alliances.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Letterkenny

[Krzyzewskiville]

There are two fundamental problems with the sheer number of alliances we have and the increased number of alliances:

 

1) People being spread too thin.  The game has 12000 members, but really, probably only 1000-2000 active people.  When there's 80 alliances with 30+ people, it spreads those people out far too much.  There are not enough true, good leaders.

 

2) More tiny alliances means more entangling alliances.  There are too many treaties, period.  You cannot have a war without it becoming global.  You cannot hit one alliance without drawing in 20 by Day 2 of the war.  It takes forever for a war to start, for a war to be fought, and for a war to wind down.  And then it takes a long, long, long time before the next war.  When coalitions have 50+ alliances, it is impossible for things to happen with any reasonable, fun speed.

 

By creating more alliances and creating this complicated, clusterfuck of a treaty web, we are ruining the game for ourselves.  If your alliance is less than 50 members, you should disband or merge.  Screw your alliance's "culture" or whatever else... alliances are not that different.  Get into other alliances, make them bigger and stronger that way, and get some serious changes.

[Caladin]

There are two fundamental problems with the sheer number of alliances we have and the increased number of alliances:

 

1) People being spread too thin.  The game has 12000 members, but really, probably only 1000-2000 active people.  When there's 80 alliances with 30+ people, it spreads those people out far too much.  There are not enough true, good leaders.

 

2) More tiny alliances means more entangling alliances.  There are too many treaties, period.  You cannot have a war without it becoming global.  You cannot hit one alliance without drawing in 20 by Day 2 of the war.  It takes forever for a war to start, for a war to be fought, and for a war to wind down.  And then it takes a long, long, long time before the next war.  When coalitions have 50+ alliances, it is impossible for things to happen with any reasonable, fun speed.

 

By creating more alliances and creating this complicated, clusterfuck of a treaty web, we are ruining the game for ourselves.  If your alliance is less than 50 members, you should disband or merge.  Screw your alliance's "culture" or whatever else... alliances are not that different.  Get into other alliances, make them bigger and stronger that way, and get some serious changes.

Agreed.

[MadScotII]

2) More tiny alliances means more entangling alliances.  There are too many treaties, period.  You cannot have a war without it becoming global.  You cannot hit one alliance without drawing in 20 by Day 2 of the war.  It takes forever for a war to start, for a war to be fought, and for a war to wind down.  And then it takes a long, long, long time before the next war.  When coalitions have 50+ alliances, it is impossible for things to happen with any reasonable, fun speed.

 

 

Then the buigger alliances need to stop signing treaties with those on "both sides".  

[Letterkenny]

Then the buigger alliances need to stop signing treaties with those on "both sides".  

So, we all should be following the Doctrine?  :smug:

[Wu Tang Clan]

Yeah see, this is always the thought. We'll start an alliance and be the next era blah blah blah. A noble effort, truly. But NPO, IRON, Polar, etc etc aren't going away. They'll always be here. Once in awhile there are reincarnations - Anarchy, NG, etc. and those are great. But they aren't "new" alliances.

I agree the major powers rarely fall, but the fringe alliances of various eras collapse all the time, and are usually more fun to be involved in than the major players anyways. See: TFD/NADC/GGA of the WUT era; MA/RoK/=LOST= of the SuperGrievances era; Deinos of the PB era; and many others...

[Max Power]

More alliances should mean a global war is tougher to start, if anything. Imagine if 400 nations only required one treaty activation rather than four? Or ten?

 

I'm on the side of "whether more alliances is better or worse depends on what they do", really. Having tons of alliances kicking around like in the old days is interesting from a stepping out into the yonder looking for friends kind of way but it can get difficult to keep track.

 

There are two fundamental problems with the sheer number of alliances we have and the increased number of alliances:

 

1) People being spread too thin.  The game has 12000 members, but really, probably only 1000-2000 active people.  When there's 80 alliances with 30+ people, it spreads those people out far too much.  There are not enough true, good leaders.

 

2) More tiny alliances means more entangling alliances.  There are too many treaties, period.  You cannot have a war without it becoming global.  You cannot hit one alliance without drawing in 20 by Day 2 of the war.  It takes forever for a war to start, for a war to be fought, and for a war to wind down.  And then it takes a long, long, long time before the next war.  When coalitions have 50+ alliances, it is impossible for things to happen with any reasonable, fun speed.

 

By creating more alliances and creating this complicated, clusterfuck of a treaty web, we are ruining the game for ourselves.  If your alliance is less than 50 members, you should disband or merge.  Screw your alliance's "culture" or whatever else... alliances are not that different.  Get into other alliances, make them bigger and stronger that way, and get some serious changes.

Again, it depends what they do. As someone who has almost exclusively been in under 50 member alliances (BN at its highest hit 53), yet has always felt like part of a unique culture, I can't identify with your general statement. Yes, some micros are bland and should probably be absorbed, but that tends to happen with time anyway. At least give people a shot to do something special with theirs. On the other hand, there have been bigger alliances that just seem to sit there.

 

To bring in our personal experiences, imagine if, say, BN/Argent/OMFG/Gramlins had all merged and just held a TOP MDP instead of a bloc. Would that have been better? All the instability and bickering people are blaming on micros in this thread looks like it'd be tenfold in a merger of alliances that are better off holding treaties.

[Hereno]

There are two fundamental problems with the sheer number of alliances we have and the increased number of alliances:

 

1) People being spread too thin.  The game has 12000 members, but really, probably only 1000-2000 active people.  When there's 80 alliances with 30+ people, it spreads those people out far too much.  There are not enough true, good leaders.

 

2) More tiny alliances means more entangling alliances.  There are too many treaties, period.  You cannot have a war without it becoming global.  You cannot hit one alliance without drawing in 20 by Day 2 of the war.  It takes forever for a war to start, for a war to be fought, and for a war to wind down.  And then it takes a long, long, long time before the next war.  When coalitions have 50+ alliances, it is impossible for things to happen with any reasonable, fun speed.

 

By creating more alliances and creating this complicated, clusterfuck of a treaty web, we are ruining the game for ourselves.  If your alliance is less than 50 members, you should disband or merge.  Screw your alliance's "culture" or whatever else... alliances are not that different.  Get into other alliances, make them bigger and stronger that way, and get some serious changes.

 

Mergers more often than not do not end up working. The cultures and attitudes of some alliances and some people necessitate that they maintain a certain amount of space. I agree that this dilutes the active player-base and makes alliances in general more inactive, but I question whether there really could exist quite a few less alliances.

[Neo Uruk]

Mergers more often than not do not end up working. The cultures and attitudes of some alliances and some people necessitate that they maintain a certain amount of space. I agree that this dilutes the active player-base and makes alliances in general more inactive, but I question whether there really could exist quite a few less alliances.

Most mergers do notwork because of ego, tbh. Somebody thinks they should set the policies according to whatever position they had in the last alliance, and then there's a huge split based on friendships, not capabilities.

[cjunqun]

more alliances leads to more drama. that's the fun of the game, no?

[Sunny Side King]

NG and AI have certainly made a impact that their predaccsor alliances would not have been able to do as seperate AAs.

[Rayvon]

[Take 2, damn backup lol -- wish I could remember everything the original said]

 

You have to be extremely dumb to not be able to get into gov if you really want to.

 

Some alliances are still lucky to have a good amount of both activity and intelligence - and thus run into issues with people not being able to advance into gov. We just recently had a couple active, involved and capable people fail [multiple] challenges to ascend due to the competition. We've even been able to get new players into our system and start to cultivate a new generation of competent leaders enlarging that aforementioned competition pool.

 

I have to agree with previous sentiments, though, that the number of alliances doesn't affect the larger scheme of things around here; it's when they break off and sign multiple treaties to protect themselves and entangle the web and then go silent [comatose, as I saw referenced above] that we run into issues - or just become vassals of those they separated from to begin with; the quantity vs quality issue.

[D34th]

As soon the "Bad" votes surpass the "Good" votes, we will give to all alliances under 50 members and less than 2 years, 1 week to disband or merge before declare war against them.

You are warned!  :war:

 

 

signed,

Cyberverse.

[Knighted Seagul]

When i first read this i was thinking to myself, i think it would be cool if there were only like 20 alliances or so. However after reading more i think the major problem is the treaties. Smaller alliances are not "bad" it what they do. They get intangled in the treaty web and link alliances that do not want to be linked together. Hahaha i remember when the alliances you joined was based on the color you were GIVEN when you 1st created your nation. I do not think a ton of alliances are bad i think its what they do that kinda screws up the game a little. They make the treaty web thicker and more complex.

 

I am a memebe of a very small alliance with very little activity....I have found myself thinking several times why not just merge with someone. However my small alliance does not have a huge web of MDP. I think this is a great read and very interesting.

[Josh Knight]

First, let's not pretend that mergers are always a good thing. I was in OSA for a long time, and we became inactive. So, we merged into TLR. I think there are probably no more than 5 left in TLR of the 30 or so OSA members who went over.

 

That isn't TLR's fault, it's just that being in a new alliance just isn't the same. Almost all the OSA gov, including myself, just quit playing. I happen to be back now, but that's after a long break and allowing my nation to be deleted. The merger just didn't do good for anyone in the long run.

 

Also, I've never been a fan of the mega-alliances. When I came back, I got the traditional spam wave of alliance recruiting messages. I just deleted the ones from all the huge groups right away. I ended up at Aurora Borealis because it's about 40 members, which I feel is a great size to be it. Why do I think that? It allows me to know the members of my alliance better than I would if I tried to get to know 100 people. Plus, if I ever feel like getting in gov again, it seems like a much easier thing to do when there are only a few other people vying for the job as opposed to a dozen. So, overall, I would want to see many 50 member alliances as opposed to the 150 member ones.

[Letterkenny]

First, let's not pretend that mergers are always a good thing. I was in OSA for a long time, and we became inactive. So, we merged into TLR. I think there are probably no more than 5 left in TLR of the 30 or so OSA members who went over.
 
That isn't TLR's fault, it's just that being in a new alliance just isn't the same. Almost all the OSA gov, including myself, just quit playing. I happen to be back now, but that's after a long break and allowing my nation to be deleted. The merger just didn't do good for anyone in the long run.
 
Also, I've never been a fan of the mega-alliances. When I came back, I got the traditional spam wave of alliance recruiting messages. I just deleted the ones from all the huge groups right away. I ended up at Aurora Borealis because it's about 40 members, which I feel is a great size to be it. Why do I think that? It allows me to know the members of my alliance better than I would if I tried to get to know 100 people. Plus, if I ever feel like getting in gov again, it seems like a much easier thing to do when there are only a few other people vying for the job as opposed to a dozen. So, overall, I would want to see many 50 member alliances as opposed to the 150 member ones.

So you like it for the closeness and the ease of getting into government?

To each his own. The mega alliances bring together several (usually sub par, or struggling) AAs and become a superpower. It's a genius move usually (see: AI and NG). e: Also, 150 is not a "mega" alliance in comparison to those sanctioned. Some have well over 200, or even 300. NSO has over 100 members but we're by no means a mega alliance. Edited June 1, 2013 by Letterkenny

[cjunqun]

Too little AA, in the future, every war will be a world war.

 

if cyberverse would become OOC: like soccer, they have their own league to present wars, like BPL, Spanish League, France, Germans, Some AA belong to some league and they have their wars now and then, 

 

THEN every 2 year, champions league occur, escalating to a world war etc.

 

but that won't happen, sadly.

[potato]

Too little AA, in the future, every war will be a world war.

 

if cyberverse would become OOC: like soccer, they have their own league to present wars, like BPL, Spanish League, France, Germans, Some AA belong to some league and they have their wars now and then, 

 

THEN every 2 year, champions league occur, escalating to a world war etc.

 

but that won't happen, sadly.

 

That's not at all how football, this "soccer" thing, works.

Edited June 1, 2013 by potato

[cjunqun]

That's not at all how football, this "soccer" thing, works.

i know that's not the perfect example, but just the 2cent thought for concept.

[potato]

Why not use an example that would be accurate then?

[King Wally]

New alliance creation I believe needs to be seen not as a good thing or bad thing but as a end result for what kind of state our realm is in.

Having a steady influx on new alliances DoE-ing is a sign of good health and vitality that should be seen as a good thing for the planet. It's only when no one bothers to try any more that you should be concerned.

[Rayan Thomas]

.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Rayan Thomas