The Age of Super-Alliances

[Joseph Black]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1308360326' post='2733423']
The scripted TV show analogy is a pretty bad one. The proof is in the pudding. And fun, was never addressed in relation to alliances. It just simply is a fact, that the presence of MULTIPLE political entities make getting anything to happen, much more difficult. It also brings about slower ends to wars. It just does. Prime example? One particular front that Athens was in during this past war, was dragged on an extra 9 days because we had to literally gather signatures from 11 different alliances for 3 seperate peace deals, all of which relied on one another to come into effect.

You are in a micro, so you will, of course, fight to defend your turf, and I am ok with that. I just happen to think that the game needs to have less of you, and not more of you.
[/quote]

I want to thank you for actually responding to the merit of what i said, and not simply brushing me off. I agree the TV analogy was a poor choice. As far as the proof that micro alliances are to blame, I've not seen. Depending on what spectrum of problems your addressing, the larger alliances are as much to blame as the micro alliances. Fewer more interconnected alliances lead to less conflict than a world of hundreds of strung together alliances. I draw the issue of war not because it was something you addressed, but simply because it seems to be the biggest issue blamed on Micro Alliances.

[LittleRena]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1308359654' post='2733412']
The proof that micros are not needed to start drama, is all over early CN history. Micro drama almost never explodes into anything substantial anyways.
[/quote]

Aside from the last war, what was the last event not involving a micro?

Although, I must add I've not been too active from before the previous war and a little after TPCs exit from the war so I have missed a fair bit.

I just get the impression that a lot of the time, the larger alliances want to avoid drama.

[Ryan Greenberg]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1308359292' post='2733404']
I have a problem with change, I get too attached to seeing names around and then a new name comes along.

But yeah, more larger alliances might be a good thing but we do also need a few micro alliances as well, else who's going to cause the drama
[/quote]
About 2% of the microalliances actually cause drama. GDI was hilarious to watch and so is AcTi, but most do nothing. These mergers are hopefully a sign of the future. Doubt it though.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Ryan Greenberg

[Mogar]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1308352702' post='2733331']
I think they peaked at over 1,600.
[/quote]
how many of them were actually members though is a very important question...

[Conformist Maryland]

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1308361573' post='2733444']
how many of them were actually members though is a very important question...
[/quote]

Elaborate on "actually members". As in 'not ghosts'?

[Emperor Whimsical]

Less than a dozen alliances merge. All of a sudden its a new era.

I do hope more alliances choose to merge though.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Emperor Whimsical

[eyriq]

Condensed NS leads to more activity. You can either achieve this through mandatory blocs or super-alliances. In today's environment you are going to need to lay down the foundation of a mandatory bloc before you see the emergence of a super alliance. It is also a sign of the refining phase that the game is going through. Active and dedicated cores are outgrowing their fellow mates and finding themselves in an ever less acceptable alliance, so they merge with other active and dedicated cores that are aligned congruently. Look at iFOK and PC, they had almost identical FA and culture, and frankly will be a great fit. The better the bloc culture, the more likely a merger, should it be necessary. C&G and PB are some of the best blocs the game has seen, so not surprised to see their culture creating completely merged communities. Of course, I'm not sure we want a scene entirely comprised of super-alliances, that would just be too damn hard to compete against.

Edit: By activity I mean action, mobility, drama, war, political intrigue, that sort of thing.

Edited June 18, 2011 by eyriq

[Bob Ilyani]

This new "era" (I'm honestly not convinced much has changed) is a good thing. At least 3 or 4 micro alliances could merge to form something that is more powerful, active, and influential than any of those alliances would be on their own.

Now let's see more of it!

[Conformist Maryland]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1308363547' post='2733470']
This new "era" (I'm honestly not convinced much has changed) is a good thing. At least 3 or 4 micro alliances could merge to form something that is more powerful, active, and influential than any of those alliances would be on their own.

Now let's see more of it!
[/quote]

Dr Fresh was doin' it right in 2006. Pretty sure CXA was composed of multiple micros. He then merge CXA with MCA. Thus MCXA was born.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1308358595' post='2733389']
Sadly, this man is right. Further, the more micro AA's that exist, the worse off the game becomes. I dont think that it is coincidence that as the larger alliances get smaller, wars are fewer and further between. And those wars last longer because now you have get umpteen alliances to agree on terms for one combatant. The splinters from the larger alliances that make these smaller ones, are a detriment in every way to the game (except for the satisfaction of the founders, in their own minds, that they have their own little piece of CN to hold on to)... I hope more smaller alliances take this advice to heart, and begin to seek out mergers into larger alliances, that we may restore some political fluidity to this game.
[/quote]

As someone who was part of a large democratic alliance, I know the internal drama was just as good as the external most of the time. Having larger alliances do make things more interesting.

[Comrade Craig]

What we're witnessing is not a new age, it's a minor spike in an otherwise linear decline. The trend is clearly downward. In order to maintain viability in a shrinking universe, the smartest among us are pooling their resources.

-Craig

[mattski133]

As a key member of a recent merger between two alliances to make a much larger alliance, I would like to state two things.

1) mergers can result in a more effective system, a stronger alliance, more political power, and less stagnation. They can put people in a position to really maximize their talents that might otherwise be lost in the effort to run everything at once.

2) mergers should only be done between groups of people who agree fully on the same things, and are compatible with each other. Otherwise, you end up with a bloody civil war, backstabbing, and more pure unadulterated BS than a certified Black Angus cattle ranch.

So, in closing, yes the world's largest alliance in terms of membership was totally embarrassed by two smaller alliances (Legion vs. TOP and FAN in GWIII); however, it should be noted TOP and FAN at that time had memberships similar to our largest alliances today.

What I am saying is, hire GOONS to cleanse this world of micro's and reap the benefits of activity.

[Mogar]

[quote name='Conformist Maryland' timestamp='1308362023' post='2733448']
Elaborate on "actually members". As in 'not ghosts'?
[/quote]
that would be what i was implying.

[Sarmatian Empire]

[quote name='Conformist Maryland' timestamp='1308363903' post='2733476']
Dr Fresh was doin' it right in 2006. Pretty sure CXA was composed of multiple micros. He then merge CXA with MCA. Thus MCXA was born.
[/quote]
You mentioned Legacy in another thread, and now you mention found memories of Dr Fresh. I like you

[Lord Boris]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1308352702' post='2733331']
I think they peaked at over 1,600.
[/quote]

And even then they were still terrible.


While there is an over-saturation of alliances, the bigger issue is that too many of the alliances have massive amounts of treaties, and further expand those with numerous heavily interconnected blocs.

[IYIyTh]

lol. a couple alliances merge or are rumored to be merging and suddenly a grand new era has begun.

Ideologically compatable alliances merge because they can achieve more together on their own.

NG is a perfect example.

There are negative aspects to mergers, but those usually show up later.

[janax]

BRB, merging into Umbrella

[Mason]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1308367386' post='2733566']
lol. a couple alliances merge or are rumored to be merging and suddenly a grand new era has begun.

Ideologically compatable alliances merge because they can achieve more together on their own.

NG is a perfect example.

There are negative aspects to mergers, but those usually show up later.
[/quote]

The OP wasn't a statement that a new era has begun, but rather a question of "will it?" It was meant to provoke the thoughts and feedback provided thus far.

[MrMuz]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1308367386' post='2733566']
lol. a couple alliances merge or are rumored to be merging and suddenly a grand new era has begun.

Ideologically compatable alliances merge because they can achieve more together on their own.

NG is a perfect example.

There are negative aspects to mergers, but those usually show up later.
[/quote]

I wouldn't call it a couple... TOOL, Sanitarium merged earlier on too, but when the big ones merge, people take notice. It shows that successful alliances that people look up to can do it too.

It's the fallout from a massive war though. Post war, everyone is exhausted. Many members of upper gov either step down or delete. Treaties are signed and broken. People start seriously thinking about their alliance's direction. Some split off to form new paths (like Gre), others merge after realizing that they're going the same way. There's always some internal damage during a war, mergers are often the fastest way to patch them. Chances are that there's probably a few others planning to merge.

Yeah, I agree there's a negative side too. I've always seen mergers as simply disbanding and encouraging members to join a specific AA. A lot of those former members will just walk off into a different AA instead or delete.

[D34th]

Unlikely. We are just at the season were those people who were dying to lead their own alliance realized that lead an alliance isn't not all about fun and becoming relevant, and also realized that to an alliance properly work there is a need of time, skill and hard work, so they disband or merge, but soon the season of new micro alliances start again and we'll see that repeat ad nauseam,

Obs: Not saying that was Athens/LOST/GR case, in this particular case I think the reasons are inactivity and key leaders of those alliances retiring.

I'm more inclined to say that we are in The Age of Blocs, IIRC never we had so many(relevants) blocs: PB, DH, CnG, SF, XX, Vikings, Duckroll... in fact I was going to create a thread to start a discussion about this when saw this thread.

Edited June 18, 2011 by D34th

[IYIyTh]

Or the game's numbers are declining and the benefits of considering/undertaking a merge are more substantial, so alliances that were less-inclined to undertake them are now more open to the idea.

[flak attack]

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1308354441' post='2733347']
As the leader of a (relatively) newly merged alliance, I agree that more alliances need to merge. It doesn't mean you failed, it means you realized you'd be better together, and that most importantly, CN needs less alliances.
[/quote]
Agreed. When Vanguard and MK merged, it was because we were already functioning as one alliance, including shared forum and IRC access. A merge isn't always a result of a failure. Sometimes it's simply moving in with your best friend.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1308369347' post='2733614']
I'm more inclined to say that we are in The Age of Blocs, IIRC never we had so many(relevants) blocs: PB, DH, CnG, SF, XX, Vikings, Duckroll... in fact I was going to create a thread to start a discussion about this when saw this thread.
[/quote]
I would credit that to the decentralized nature of the current power structure.

[Bob Ilyani]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1308372252' post='2733653']
I would credit that to the decentralized nature of the current power structure.
[/quote]
It's also essentially an extension of the "unite to gain power" idea that drives mergers forward; people get more done as a group than on their own.

[Denial]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1308358595' post='2733389']
Sadly, this man is right. Further, the more micro AA's that exist, the worse off the game becomes. I dont think that it is coincidence that as the larger alliances get smaller, wars are fewer and further between. And those wars last longer because now you have get umpteen alliances to agree on terms for one combatant. The splinters from the larger alliances that make these smaller ones, are a detriment in every way to the game (except for the satisfaction of the founders, in their own minds, that they have their own little piece of CN to hold on to)... I hope more smaller alliances take this advice to heart, and begin to seek out mergers into larger alliances, that we may restore some political fluidity to this game.
[/quote]
[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1308359027' post='2733398']
This is 100% correct. The large number of alliances also makes it a lot harder for anyone to wield much power without having dozens of treaties. That's also detrimental.
[/quote]
Agreed with these two gentlemen, though I must say the proliferation of small alliances is just one of a handful of major, fundamental problems with the game and Cyberverse.

We've come a long way, in terms of the characteristics of alliances. As others have pointed out, the original 'Age of Super-Alliances' was in the midst of the Great War. You had alliances such as LUE, GOONS, ODN and NAAC with anywhere between 600 and 800 members, while those such as GATO, NPO and Legion were well over 1000. As far as the quantity of alliances goes, well, I still remember being a MoFA and struggling to find enough alliances to assign to just four senior diplomats (though, this was back in early 2006).

[char aznable]

in my relatively short time on planet bob, this is the most that i have seen.
i hope that this not be the trend and just take this, as a change to shake things up, perhaps.