Jump to content
  • entries
    16
  • comments
    534
  • views
    29,130

When did FA become so lazy in this game?

Rush Sykes

2,009 views

Truth is, I am guilty of the implications of the title of this blog as well, so everyone understand, I am not coming down on anyone at all.

But seriously.. when did the management of FA become so lazy? I have spent a few days talking with alliance VIPs and leaders from everywhere on Bob asking if there were examples of FA moves by allies and close knit partners sprung on them at the last minute (either by themselves or others).... I found that nearly universally, every alliance has holes in their communication processes.

What do I mean by this? Well, back in the day, when you were pursuing new FA options, part of that process included discussion with your current allies about the impact of the new signee on your current relations. It really does seem like nobody on any side of the web cares much about this anymore. It is now less about building a sphere (or extending your influence within an existent sphere)... and more about just adding a few more NS for the coming conflict.

I will only provide examples that I personally witnessed , those whom I talked to may choose to, or not to include the examples they gave to me, its completely up to them. NG signed with UPN, told no allies about it till 5 mins before signing. INT leaves C&G, tells nobody in TLR gov until it is already posted. GOONS signs TOP with about 6 hours notice to us. Believe me when I tell you there are exampled just like these rampant on each side.

When did FA change? When did how FA is managed change? If these things had happened in 2006-2011 ... it would have caused uproar and outrage, now one example just begets another, and laziness has become the norm. There is a new generation, it seems, that is looking to make its mark on this game. Are these types of examples to be the norm from now on? Thoughts? Opines?



47 Comments


Recommended Comments



Probably because there's no such thing as a private convo anymore with all of you putting OOC friendship first and breathlessly gushing every little morsel you come across hoping to be the news breaker/info broker/popular. If I were in your neck of the web, I wouldn't tell any one of you my dinner plans much less my FA plans. Especially if I was changing course, the way all you old bitties with your mucked up friendship "politics" treat every adverse move like a personal blood feud insult.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Probably because there's no such thing as a private convo anymore with all of you putting OOC friendship first and breathlessly gushing every little morsel you come across hoping to be the news breaker/info broker/popular. If I were in your neck of the web, I wouldn't tell any one of you my dinner plans much less my FA plans.

The creepy thing is, you may be right. So does this mean the days of meaningful discussion between allies is totally over? It sure does seem so. The picking of allies seems to be less and less pragmatic and more and more about convenience.

Share this comment


Link to comment

We all became friends. There's less pressure to do things properly.

It shouldnt be about pressure though. If we are all friends, then there should be a modicum of respect for that friendship to NOT leave people out of the loop. It just seems very lazy, all the way across the game.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I enjoy discussing things with allies, and whenever I am in government with the power to do so, I help ensure that all allies are kept in the loop about our affairs. Honestly, I think people just forget to tell each other because we're all online less often and don't care as much anymore.

Share this comment


Link to comment

The creepy thing is, you may be right. So does this mean the days of meaningful discussion between allies is totally over? It sure does seem so. The picking of allies seems to be less and less pragmatic and more and more about convenience.

Not totally but largely. The lack of a OOC/IC divide has helped kill the ability to properly discuss FA with allies and even your own alliance in cases. Many people are now are more loyal to their friends than to their own alliance and that seems to be the accepted norm.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I think it's more related to alliances becoming cemented into their own corner of the treaty web. The only time they reach out to other alliances, like what was said before, is to put more NS on their side when a conflict comes. After the conflict, the treaties get put on the back of the bookshelf, then collect dust.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Not totally but largely. The lack of a OOC/IC divide has helped kill the ability to properly discuss FA with allies and even your own alliance in cases. Many people are now are more loyal to their friends than to their own alliance and that seems to be the accepted norm.

Exacty! Take Rey the Great, who literally sees nothing wrong or even strange about taking his entire alliance to the brink of war because "MK were our friends and so MQ are our friends." I've never heard anything so stupid in my life, but his stance is typical of a large swath of alliance leadership.

These numbskulls who love their "friends" so much baffle me! If they're so wonderful, fine, join their alliance. Why in the Hell do people not go to the alliance where their pals are if their bond to their pals is stronger than to their own alliance?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Exacty! Take Rey the Great, who literally sees nothing wrong or even strange about taking his entire alliance to the brink of war because "MK were our friends and so MQ are our friends." I've never heard anything so stupid in my life, but his stance is typical of a large swath of alliance leadership.

These numbskulls who love their "friends" so much baffle me! If they're so wonderful, fine, join their alliance. Why in the Hell do people not go to the alliance where their pals are if their bond to their pals is stronger than to their own alliance?

I don't think you realize the special circumstance, but in case you missed it; there was also the fact that the alliance's charter had been broken and my member mask taken. Basically, it was an anarchy move.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I've been making rounds (or getting/letting/slacking until Cent or Sal do it) telling allies whenever we even get the idea of signing a treaty with somebody. My little birds tell me this isn't exactly a unique practice, even if there are clear holes throughout CN.

I think the problem is more evident with cancellations. People rarely cut ties on "good terms" anymore, if they ever did. Treaties don't fall until there is not a single hook left to hang it on. So when cancellation comes around, the one or both of the alliances probably (1) dislike the other, possibly intensely and/or (2) calculate that the other will be on the opposite side of a foreseeable conflict. The former provides an emotional motivation to be curt and cut with little heads up. The latter provides a pragmatic reason: you don't want to give a potential enemy any additional time to react or control a situation.

I have been lucky to not have to cancel any treaties in recent history (excepting CTI and CE, which were already clearly defunct), so I can't provide detailed guidance on how to properly move forward with divergence. I can say that the trend of surprise nullification and misleading or false justifications provided (cancelling over A when in fact you're preparing for war B) provides for very dangerous and powerful resentment that people underestimate and which can lock up global affairs for a very long time. If nothing else: don't send deputies to do it, don't go public before you've informed in private, and be honest in your reasoning. The last may well prove surprisingly helpful and the other party you're looking to cut may give you a view you hadn't considered.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I get your point, but there have always been gaps in communication sometimes. I don't think this is a new thing. Of course, you know that.

What always used to piss me off was when people were coming to me swearing my allies were going to do something and I'd tell them they were insane they would have told me. Then last minute here comes someone letting me know what they're ablut to post. Because that means they told someone just not you.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Maybe this is just you lot... we talk to our allies just fine.

Oh look another TOP poster who is a condescending know-it-all. The trend continues.

I think sometimes alliances just get too excited and as treaty lists grow and grow, notifying everyone, finding them on IRC, becomes a lot of work in a more inactive CN. You can't post potential treaties in embassies due to opsec, and people are even far less active on IRC these days.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Not everyone is getting "lazy" with their communications. A lot of the people just coming back to power are, in my view, more or less "traditionalists," as opposed to the chaotic madness of DH and friends. What Schatt said certainly applies to your side of the web, but in my limited experience, quiet communication between serious allies still occurs elsewhere. I think it is more a degeneracy of your side of the web, than CN as a whole.

Alliances like TOP, for instance, are wasting no time at all making their way back up, while most of the "lulzy" type alliances have pretty much thrown in the towel.

As the attitudes of MK and friends become a distant chapter in history, I think we may see a trend back towards a level of OPSEC in alliance affairs. But I'd guess that permanent damage has been done, in the form of new precedents. Remember when spying used to be cause for a good stomping? That standard had been long gone, and with it, people are more loose with their tongues.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Oh look another TOP poster who is a condescending know-it-all. The trend continues.

Oh, please. Like you didn't know Bob was a condescending know-it-all before you opened this blog. :P

Share this comment


Link to comment

I've been making rounds (or getting/letting/slacking until Cent or Sal do it) telling allies whenever we even get the idea of signing a treaty with somebody. My little birds tell me this isn't exactly a unique practice, even if there are clear holes throughout CN.

I think the problem is more evident with cancellations. People rarely cut ties on "good terms" anymore, if they ever did. Treaties don't fall until there is not a single hook left to hang it on. So when cancellation comes around, the one or both of the alliances probably (1) dislike the other, possibly intensely and/or (2) calculate that the other will be on the opposite side of a foreseeable conflict. The former provides an emotional motivation to be curt and cut with little heads up. The latter provides a pragmatic reason: you don't want to give a potential enemy any additional time to react or control a situation.

I have been lucky to not have to cancel any treaties in recent history (excepting CTI and CE, which were already clearly defunct), so I can't provide detailed guidance on how to properly move forward with divergence. I can say that the trend of surprise nullification and misleading or false justifications provided (cancelling over A when in fact you're preparing for war B) provides for very dangerous and powerful resentment that people underestimate and which can lock up global affairs for a very long time. If nothing else: don't send deputies to do it, don't go public before you've informed in private, and be honest in your reasoning. The last may well prove surprisingly helpful and the other party you're looking to cut may give you a view you hadn't considered.

It's interesting that you think its mostly related to cancellations, because in my talks around the game, it has been far less in cancellations, and more in the pursuit of new relationships. Treaties just being thrown down at the last minute. The thing is... there are a few alliances (TOP may be one) that are exceptions. There may even be alot that are exceptions, but there are clear and prominent guilt examples of this in each sphere in the game. It is disheartening for me because I cut my teeth on FA, and this would have been 100% unacceptable back in those days. It does not bode well for the future of the game, IMO.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I have experienced similar things in the last several months through my diplomatic responsibilities Rush. I agree that this trend has probably touched each corner of the web in some way or another and it is indeed unfortunate.

Share this comment


Link to comment

It's interesting that you think its mostly related to cancellations, because in my talks around the game, it has been far less in cancellations, and more in the pursuit of new relationships. Treaties just being thrown down at the last minute. The thing is... there are a few alliances (TOP may be one) that are exceptions. There may even be alot that are exceptions, but there are clear and prominent guilt examples of this in each sphere in the game. It is disheartening for me because I cut my teeth on FA, and this would have been 100% unacceptable back in those days. It does not bode well for the future of the game, IMO.

Well, I can only hope everybody else is slacking off on communications. We won't be and I'd love for it to become another powerful advantage in our pockets :P

Share this comment


Link to comment

Oh look another TOP poster who is a condescending know-it-all. The trend continues.

I think sometimes alliances just get too excited and as treaty lists grow and grow, notifying everyone, finding them on IRC, becomes a lot of work in a more inactive CN. You can't post potential treaties in embassies due to opsec, and people are even far less active on IRC these days.

Thought I appreciate the compliment, that wasn't the intent. I was simply being honest. I won't deny the validity of Rush's point- there are plenty of holes in communication among allies, and those holes certainly cause issues between various groups of people, be them allies, common friends, or enemies. I've experienced the pains of miscommunication first hand in leadership positions at other alliances. What I was trying to communicate (ahem) was that I (and others, given the amount of ex-foreign gov in Paradoxia) don't want to repeat the same mistakes, and thus are open about our various schemes and other plans with our allies.

Also, glad to know I've got your support Gibs :P love you too.

Share this comment


Link to comment

As a former TOP ally they were the only ally MK had that actively came to them with things outside of NG. And TOPs things were actually usefull and interesting.

It partly a case of a dying game that people are bored with. You can be leader of an alliance being on 4 days a week for 3hours a time. A few years ago you could barely be a deputy in FA with that kind of activity. Another major factor is the opsec culture, brought about partly because people are actually good at leaking intel now & partly due to everybody knowing everybody. It's a shame though because it's a part of what kept the game interesting.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...