The Age of Super-Alliances

[Ironfist]

Absolutely. But I find it a little strange that alliances who have only recently decided to merge can suddenly get their high horses and say "follow us". If this was really what all of CN wanted, this is what would have happened a couple of years back when things BEGAN to slide. I fear it's just too late to try and bring back political fluidity. It's dead.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Ironfist

[Hereno]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1308357782' post='2733380']
Alliances sometimes merge to come together and make a more powerful alliance. Alliances sometimes merge as an alternative to disbandment. Just because we've seen several cases recently doesn't mean we're at the "coming of a new age of super alliances".

[b]In before mindless micro bashing by members of objectively terrible alliances, because we all know that is the future of this thread.[/b]
[/quote]

Completely called this.

It's so easy for everyone to just sit back and blame their lack of fun on the micro alliances. Truth is, they're partially a symptom of the real problem, and partially just an easy scapegoat. Nobody looks to blame the sanctioned meatshields with zero political goals, or the people who all but won the game and now refuse to do anything except kick the Orders in the nuts annually. Everybody has all these solutions, and coincidentally, none of them involve making any effort themselves.

If you all spent half the time you do whining about how terrible the game is and how micro alliances are ruining everything for you, and actually made your alliance a little more appealing and did something (even just slightly!) different politically from what you have been for years, maybe the problems would start sorting themselves out. All I know is that within the micros I've spoken to, they seem to be having a hell of a time in their insignificant corners of the world. Yet, all I hear from the larger alliances is complaining about how little fun there is... while they sit around and chastise anyone who does something out of the ordinary.

[LegendoftheSkies]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1308413290' post='2733973']
Completely called this.

It's so easy for everyone to just sit back and blame their lack of fun on the micro alliances. Truth is, they're partially a symptom of the real problem, and partially just an easy scapegoat. Nobody looks to blame the sanctioned meatshields with zero political goals, or the people who all but won the game and now refuse to do anything except kick the Orders in the nuts annually. Everybody has all these solutions, and coincidentally, none of them involve making any effort themselves.

If you all spent half the time you do whining about how terrible the game is and how micro alliances are ruining everything for you, and actually made your alliance a little more appealing and did something (even just slightly!) different politically from what you have been for years, maybe the problems would start sorting themselves out. All I know is that within the micros I've spoken to, they seem to be having a hell of a time in their insignificant corners of the world. Yet, all I hear from the larger alliances is complaining about how little fun there is... while they sit around and chastise anyone who does something out of the ordinary.
[/quote]


A fair poiint.


Though I can't help but think the world would be a lot better off if the more active members of CN were more concentrated. I've been in small alliance after small alliance and all of them have fallen prey to inactivity or a waning interest. But you're right, they'd have to be sure to coagulate themselves into alliances with some balls.

Edited June 18, 2011 by LegendoftheSkies

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1308413290' post='2733973']
Completely called this.

It's so easy for everyone to just sit back and blame their lack of fun on the micro alliances. Truth is, they're partially a symptom of the real problem, and partially just an easy scapegoat. Nobody looks to blame the sanctioned meatshields with zero political goals, or the people who all but won the game and now refuse to do anything except kick the Orders in the nuts annually. Everybody has all these solutions, and coincidentally, none of them involve making any effort themselves.

If you all spent half the time you do whining about how terrible the game is and how micro alliances are ruining everything for you, and actually made your alliance a little more appealing and did something (even just slightly!) different politically from what you have been for years, maybe the problems would start sorting themselves out. All I know is that within the micros I've spoken to, they seem to be having a hell of a time in their insignificant corners of the world. Yet, all I hear from the larger alliances is complaining about how little fun there is... while they sit around and chastise anyone who does something out of the ordinary.
[/quote]

I agree with part of this. There are few alliances that make the game more fun. I'm not going to say micros start all the drama; the last war(s) were started between sanctioned alliances (and DH). Micros are more likely to wage a cold war because they just don't have the odds or meatshields to really start a war and hope to come out intact. Cold wars are definitely more fun than those hot nuclear wars where a quarter of the alliance deletes, but on the other hand, it doesn't change things politically and doesn't change other people's fun. Micros still have their place in wars, as long as they do something.

There are, of course, a lot of micros who are having fun and wouldn't want it any other way. But hey, a lot of micro alliances are those who [i]wish[/i] that they were sanctioned meatshields with no political goals. Those are the ones who should just find some other similarly minded people and merge to accomplish that.

Edited June 18, 2011 by MrMuz

[Hereno]

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' timestamp='1308415611' post='2734001']
A fair poiint.

Though I can't help but think the world would be a lot better off if the more active members of CN were more concentrated. I've been in small alliance after small alliance and all of them have fallen prey to inactivity or a waning interest. But you're right, they'd have to be sure to coagulate themselves into alliances with some balls.
[/quote]

Sure; and that's a common opinion. The problem is that the only thing people with that opinion are willing to do (for the most part) to concentrate active members are whine at micro members who have no incentive to quit being members of micros. They're having fun; why fix what isn't broken? And the micros who do fail because of lacking interest or inactivity either leave or end up joining forces with other players anyway.

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1308415829' post='2734004']
I agree with part of this. There are few alliances that make the game more fun. I'm not going to say micros start all the drama; the last war(s) were started between sanctioned alliances (and DH). Micros are more likely to wage a cold war because they just don't have the odds or meatshields to really start a war and hope to come out intact. Cold wars are definitely more fun than those hot nuclear wars where a quarter of the alliance deletes, but on the other hand, it doesn't change things politically and doesn't change other people's fun. Micros still have their place in wars, as long as they do something.

There are, of course, a lot of micros who are having fun and wouldn't want it any other way. But hey, a lot of micro alliances are those who [i]wish[/i] that they were sanctioned meatshields with no political goals. Those are the ones who should just find some other similarly minded people and merge to accomplish that.
[/quote]

I would agree that it's not only micros who contribute to political drama; it would be flat out wrong to assume otherwise. I'm simply saying that the micro members are at least making an attempt to do something, whereas the majority of members in large alliances who complain about micros aren't.

I'd also like to see some examples of micros who want to be "sanctioned meatshields with no political goals". Furthermore, I'd like to know why everyone is so much more bothered by an alliance who is small and has no political goals rather than an alliance who is large and has no political goals. One is soaking up a lot more NS in order to do the same thing (see: next to nothing). Seems like priorities are being confused here.

Edited a bunch of times for grammar and clarification.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Hereno

[Scorponok]

[quote name='Mason' timestamp='1308347824' post='2733271']
Has the time finally come? Will more and more small to mid-tier alliances abandon their posts to melt into other AAs, forming a new age of super-alliances? The argument has existed since I can remember that there are simply too many alliances. Combining active members under common banners, much more can be achieved. Despite running a micro, I tend to agree. When the majority of active members in Planet Bob are spread thin across numerous AAs, inactivity can appear to be more prevalant. So much focus has to be spent just on recruitment and fostering activity that it can bog you down. Larger alliances have the luxury of having enough members to have a fully functioning government and people who can focus on other activities that provide entertainment and generate interest. Competition is greater, and that also breeds activity. I could go on. But, I don't believe that's the reason we could see this trend continue.

For the most part, the same sanctioned alliances have dominated Bob forever. Other alliances exist that have the talent, but not the individual muscle, to really achieve all their capable of. Mergers can shake up the playing field, create new drama, fun, and interest. I can't say for sure if the age of super-alliances is upon us, but I can say it would definitely get interesting.
[/quote]

Waits for Athens announcement.

But yes if alliances were so similar in like every way it would be better to merge. But finding someone who is identical to you Politically, Morally and Methodically is a hard enough task in itself.

[Joseph Black]

What about moving toward a more realistic game? This isn't really on the original topic, but seems to be where the topic has come. Move toward a stronger OCC/IC line, so that when people do something its not held against them OCC and they loose friends as a result. That way people don't feel like they have as much to loose OCC by doing something off the wall.

Controlling color spheres
Controlling senate seats
Bloc run tech deals
Trade Embargo's
Maybe a touch of imagination to the built in game mechanics; Slavery, Human Rights Violations, Promote Democracy, Communism, ect.
All of these things are just a slight change in the mind set, but open up worlds of possibilities.

[MrMuz]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1308418811' post='2734029']
I would agree that it's not only micros who contribute to political drama; it would be flat out wrong to assume otherwise. I'm simply saying that the micro members are at least making an attempt to do something, whereas the majority of members in large alliances who complain about micros aren't.
[/quote]

Well, I was mostly addressing some people earlier who says micros start all the wars, I can see how it was confusing quoting you on that bit

[quote]I'd also like to see some examples of micros who want to be "sanctioned meatshields with no political goals". Furthermore, I'd like to know why everyone is so much more bothered by an alliance who is small and has no political goals rather than an alliance who is large and has no political goals. One is soaking up a lot more NS in order to do the same thing (see: next to nothing). Seems like priorities are being confused here.[/quote]

I'm not going to name them, but you can recognize them. They're the ones who get excited about every 1M NS they get (well, everyone does, but they actually set it as a goal and feel like they're winning). If you ask them what their political ambitions are, they'll tell you that they want to grow huge and treaty the strongest alliances in the game. They care little for their members and are more interested in trying to gain political capital. Their members are mostly semi-actives, the people who those "we protect you from tech raiders" recruitment messages pull in. Their gov consists of a bunch of people who don't even know each other or where the alliance is going, but work together because they want to be 'gov' and want to claim some success for their own.

The difference with big and small is that the small ones don't actually accomplish anything. A big meatshield is still a meatshield. Some people call Legion a meatshield, but if an active smaller alliance like Argent wanted to punch through them, they would be able to blunt most of the damage and even cause quite a bit of harm back from the sheer quantity of nukes even if they were inactive. But a small 1M NS meatshield will just get rolled over. The big one contributes to the game. It adds a strategic angle. The small one doesn't do anything, and then disbands when they have to do something.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1308352759' post='2733332']
Fingers crossed.
[/quote]
GOD-CSN merger. Go.

[Hereno]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1308434227' post='2734193']
I'm not going to name them, but you can recognize them. They're the ones who get excited about every 1M NS they get (well, everyone does, but they actually set it as a goal and feel like they're winning). If you ask them what their political ambitions are, they'll tell you that they want to grow huge and treaty the strongest alliances in the game. They care little for their members and are more interested in trying to gain political capital. Their members are mostly semi-actives, the people who those "we protect you from tech raiders" recruitment messages pull in. Their gov consists of a bunch of people who don't even know each other or where the alliance is going, but work together because they want to be 'gov' and want to claim some success for their own.

The difference with big and small is that the small ones don't actually accomplish anything. A big meatshield is still a meatshield. Some people call Legion a meatshield, but if an active smaller alliance like Argent wanted to punch through them, they would be able to blunt most of the damage and even cause quite a bit of harm back from the sheer quantity of nukes even if they were inactive. But a small 1M NS meatshield will just get rolled over. The big one contributes to the game. It adds a strategic angle. The small one doesn't do anything, and then disbands when they have to do something.
[/quote]

Virtually everything you say in the first paragraph could be attributed to just about any alliance if you got right down to it, including your own. Also, just because a smaller meatshield is smaller doesn't make it inherently worse than a larger one like Legion. Did you see their performance last war? Look at MCXA's performance last war as another fine example of a large alliance contributing less to their coalition than a micro. Saying that an alliance is worth having around because they soak up damage for more important alliances, and that they're better than micros who actually have their own ambitions, is quite ridiculous.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1308435945' post='2734206']
GOD-CSN merger. Go.
[/quote]

Eeewww I don't want to be in an alliance with Gibs again.

[JDavis]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1308434227' post='2734193']
I'm not going to name them, but you can recognize them. They're the ones who get excited about every 1M NS they get (well, everyone does, but they actually set it as a goal and feel like they're winning). If you ask them what their political ambitions are, they'll tell you that they want to grow huge and treaty the strongest alliances in the game. They care little for their members and are more interested in trying to gain political capital. Their members are mostly semi-actives, the people who those "we protect you from tech raiders" recruitment messages pull in. Their gov consists of a bunch of people who don't even know each other or where the alliance is going, but work together because they want to be 'gov' and want to claim some success for their own.
[/quote]

As a smaller alliance government member, I have to disagree with the last bit of what I quoted above. Most "smaller" (micro or low ANS mid sized) alliance government members are fairly competent, and have goals that go beyond signing treaties with sanctioned alliances. Yes, I will agree there are some, but it is wrong to generalize all of us as incompetent and not caring.

I have a pretty strong feeling that most of the micro hating comes from the mass announcements from smaller, "insignificant" alliances on the AA forum. What most people on the OWF seem to fail at is realize that most successfull, smaller alliances do not post often on the OWF, and thus do not get recognized by the larger community. Therefore, small alliances have two options: post a lot, make some mistakes, and be laughed into disbandment, or be careful, become ignored, and fall into obscurity. Neither is a particularly good option if you ask me.

[Schad]

[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' timestamp='1308415611' post='2734001']
Though I can't help but think the world would be a lot better off if the more active members of CN were more concentrated. I've been in small alliance after small alliance and all of them have fallen prey to inactivity or a waning interest. But you're right, they'd have to be sure to coagulate themselves into alliances with some balls.
[/quote]

Some small alliances do become large alliances over time, though, and I'd worry that too much merging would lead to a world where you had nothing but cookie-cutters on an in-game level, with politics being the only source of differentiation. It tends to be the smaller (under sanction size), more cohesive alliances that have had the latitude to do things 'their way' who have distinguished themselves over time, rather than the behemoths. I'm sure that you could take several of those alliances now and fuse them together into massive, elite groupings and it'd work, but I'm not sure that, had the Umbrellas and Gramlins and so forth began as sprawling monstrosities, they would have had the same room to innovate.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1308367166' post='2733560']
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.
[/quote]
Couple that with the negative PR to letting a friend stand or fall on their own according to the situation and others doing treaty grabs then you get a sense of why this cycle has continued. The division of members and NS into smaller alliances has however contributed to it in one way outside of treaties. Gradually players are feeling less passive and more willing to go out there for matters of principle which even if treaty ties were done away with, you'd have an unknown quantity of how many would be passive and how many would become involved.


[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'd agree with this. Blocs have taken the role mega-alliances used to have/play.

[Heft]

The age in which single alliances held or could hold global pre-eminence died with Great War I, a time when the "super-alliances" of the day (NPO, GATO, and Legion, maybe LUE I guess) were roughly comparable in size to middle or lower-upper tier alliances today.

The age in which sanctioned alliances commonly had over 500 or even over 1000 nations was an age in which world-straddling blocs (Initiative, Continuum, maybe sort of BLEU) dominated the game. Blocs like Continuum, BLEU, and sort of kind of Initiative weren't so much uniting alliances as they were uniting entire spheres of power and subsuming other blocs. Continuum tied One Vision and Citadel together, most obviously.

The modern age is dominated by blocs, but the number and diversity of blocs that actually wield significant influence is greater and the blocs themselves are smaller and more distinct. This allows a greater mobility for individual alliances and allows individual alliances to have a more pronounced influence. There are a few blocs that overlap with others in terms of alliances being part of multiple blocs (R&R in SF and XX, GOONS in PB and DH), but there is not a single bloc out there that truly subsumes others.

Furthermore, it's not exactly a secret that most of those "super-alliances" were filled largely with ghosts, free-riders, and inactives. Legion never had 1500 members in any meaningful sense. Honestly, NPO has probably come the closest to generating activity across a large base of members, and even there they've historically had plenty of members that did nothing and evaporated the moment a serious threat appeared.

I've led an alliance with 800 nations and an alliance with 80. The difference in raw member count is one of the less important differences. The only thing it seriously impacts is the projection of power, but the impact on actual power or meaningful activity tends to be much less.

In summary, the entire premise of this thread seems to be based on a thin understanding of history and how the distribution of power has and does work.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1308444267' post='2734287']
The age in which single alliances held or could hold global pre-eminence died with Great War I, a time when the "super-alliances" of the day (NPO, GATO, and Legion, maybe LUE I guess) were roughly comparable in size to middle or lower-upper tier alliances today.

The age in which sanctioned alliances commonly had over 500 or even over 1000 nations was an age in which world-straddling blocs (Initiative, Continuum, maybe sort of BLEU) dominated the game. Blocs like Continuum, BLEU, and sort of kind of Initiative weren't so much uniting alliances as they were uniting entire spheres of power and subsuming other blocs. Continuum tied One Vision and Citadel together, most obviously.

The modern age is dominated by blocs, but the number and diversity of blocs that actually wield significant influence is greater and the blocs themselves are smaller and more distinct. This allows a greater mobility for individual alliances and allows individual alliances to have a more pronounced influence. There are a few blocs that overlap with others in terms of alliances being part of multiple blocs (R&R in SF and XX, GOONS in PB and DH), but there is not a single bloc out there that truly subsumes others.

Furthermore, it's not exactly a secret that most of those "super-alliances" were filled largely with ghosts, free-riders, and inactives. Legion never had 1500 members in any meaningful sense. Honestly, NPO has probably come the closest to generating activity across a large base of members, and even there they've historically had plenty of members that did nothing and evaporated the moment a serious threat appeared.

I've led an alliance with 800 nations and an alliance with 80. The difference in raw member count is one of the less important differences. The only thing it seriously impacts is the projection of power, but the impact on actual power or meaningful activity tends to be much less.

In summary, the entire premise of this thread seems to be based on a thin understanding of history and how the distribution of power has and does work.
[/quote]

This is a very thought out and intelligent post. Kudos!

[Mason]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1308444267' post='2734287']
I've led an alliance with 800 nations and an alliance with 80. The difference in raw member count is one of the less important differences. The only thing it seriously impacts is the projection of power, but the impact on actual power or meaningful activity tends to be much less.[/quote]

I like this.

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1308444267' post='2734287']
In summary, the entire premise of this thread seems to be based on a thin understanding of history and how the distribution of power has and does work.
[/quote]

There is a bit of truth to that. I've been around throughout most of CN's history, but never been deeply involved in the politics, especially in the first years. I rarely even browse the CN forums. Threads like this offer meaningless bickering among some, but serious insight from others, and I learn from that. CN has evolved and it is blocs, not megapower alliances, that dominate now. I'd also have to agree that even if a trend continued of mid-tier alliances forming larger ones, eventually the cycle would come full circle and many would begin leaving to form micros again. So, meh. It is what it is, I guess.

[Xiphosis]

[quote][b]The age in which single alliances held or could hold global pre-eminence died with Great War I[/b], a time when the "super-alliances" of the day (NPO, GATO, and Legion, maybe LUE I guess) were roughly comparable in size to middle or lower-upper tier alliances today.

The age in which sanctioned alliances commonly had over 500 or even over 1000 nations was an age in which world-straddling blocs (Initiative, Continuum, maybe sort of BLEU) dominated the game. [/quote]

See, I don't agree simply because - at least the Initiative - wouldn't have been possible if NPO didn't have preeminence on the side. The fact that everyone did defer to them is what made it possible, and effective.

[Heft]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1308447357' post='2734307']
See, I don't agree simply because - at least the Initiative - wouldn't have been possible if NPO didn't have preeminence on the side. The fact that everyone did defer to them is what made it possible, and effective.
[/quote]
Well, even if you extend that period of single alliances having power through the end of the Great Wars, it still ends before Summer 2007 (at which point the system that relied upon NPO's dominance started to fall apart) and the NPO certainly had less relative influence after Great War I than before - it was only after Great War I that the dominance of an alliance became dependent almost entirely upon its network of allies. So the notion that making alliances larger is the key to empowering alliances still doesn't hold water.

Whether global dominance by individual alliances died in Summer of 06 or Summer/Fall of 07 (which is a separate, though potentially interesting, discussion), this thread still doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Heft

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1308452167' post='2734344']
Well, even if you extend that period of single alliances having power through the end of the Great Wars, it still ends before Summer 2007 (at which point the system that relied upon NPO's dominance started to fall apart) and the NPO certainly had less relative influence after Great War I than before - it was only after Great War I that the dominance of an alliance became dependent almost entirely upon its network of allies. So the notion that making alliances larger is the key to empowering alliances still doesn't hold water.

Whether global dominance by individual alliances died in Summer of 06 or Summer/Fall of 07 (which is a separate, though potentially interesting, discussion), this thread still doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.
[/quote]

Oh, I see what you're saying. NPO no longer had self-contained power to be preeminent but it was dependent on their ties as well. In that case, I suppose you're right, but it'd be impossible for me to say - I joined after GW1.

I can certainly see it being done now, but I can't see many people who'd do it. It would take some balls.

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Comrade Craig' timestamp='1308364308' post='2733481']
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
[/quote]

I agree with the commie. It is essentially harder maintain an alliance, to recruit new and active members, to keep a fully stocked and functioning government, to keep your members interested and active, than it once was in the past. Now that we're hovering around the 19k levels, some alliances are simply not viable anymore, so it makes sense to combine the existing talents of both alliances, stock all positions and duties, NS and activity, and perhaps make your members more interested.

I think it all depends on the community and whether it's active and viable or not. Newer alliances like the Nuclear Proliferation League look promising, while ones that stay as a 1 or 2-man AA (like the Arab League ), not so much. The only thing you can really complain about micros doing is to pull in new CNers, not adequately educate or integrate them into CN, and then have them delete. Otherwise, I think the whining sometimes amounts to "we don't feel like learning new alliances names, their size, and treaties, so we just want less damnit!"

[Merlinus]

I'm biased, but I'll put my thoughts into this disucssion anyway.

Having fewer, large alliances makes the game "[i]more interesting[/i]', or "[i]more fun[/i]" for who, exactly? The benefit of rolling micros benefits who, exactly? Killing off the promise of a new generation of players to the game is precisely what [i]IS[/i] killing the game, in my view. At first it was that you needed to be with an alliance for growth, nation-building, learning the game, and developing a community of players. Then, it was that you had only a choice between going with a "[i]sanctioned[/i]" (read as "[b][i]real[/i][/b]") alliance to have [u]any[/u] chance at all of survival. Growing into a 700 or 7000 member alliance does nothing for the average member whatsoever. Government and other leadership positions are generational, regardless of elections or appointment. Tiered "[i]significance[/i]" (member caste system) is a fact of life in mid and large allainces. I joined TOOL when they were just zooming through the sanction barrier. Net result? This year, the number one complaint? Not enough activity. Why? Because every member matters, and it is governments obligation to prove that every alliance day! Using lower tier nations as "[i]collateral damage[/i]" or as "[i]meat shields[/i]" is certainly a strong reason to begin your experience in the game, isn' t it? Yes, it may answer an immediate necessity, but it is most often done dishonestly. The rebuild aid doesn't come. There are no partners with which to stagger, or "we will help you rebuild after the war!" On day two of a 3 month war, this is the message sent, and received. Yes, this is a strong reason to join that large alliance, for certain. Forgive my sarcasm, but we all know it to be true. No, it doesn't HAVE to be that way. It is chosen to be that way for convenience, and to allow the "more important" (read "Real!") members, the favored few, the opportunity to PM, save their pixels, and have one or two "GRAND BATTLES" for the fun of it. Certainly not all, but many alliances have this to offer their newer members. And, you want to further eliminate future growth, even outside the alliance that cannot, or will not sustain it's current membership?

Micro Alliances are the whipping post of the game right now. Yet, when the mergers happen, where are those 20+ percent of members who choose NOT to merge to go? If they begin a new aa, based and bult on the culture they come from (or create a new one, for that matter) they are IN the game, playing with a new community of players, many of whom are new to the game. We still average over 200 new nations per day. There are places for these new players to exist in safety as they learn the game, under the guidance, mentoring, and experience of protectors, who have one hell of a tough job to do in order to do the job right! Smaller communities grow from different needs, expectations, and game play. The game is, however being played! Their voice matters in their aa, just as some of the voices I "hear" here matter in your alliances. The difference is, these new voices matter, have weight, and accountability within their aas. Growth to independence is the goal of most [s]micro[/s] new aas that I see. Yes, there is constant positioning, recruiting (with its hilarious mistakes--just like YOU made when you began), and talks of Treaties and/or merging. But this is not the end goal of the leaders I meet. Their intent is to grow, strengthen their nations, create viable Treaty existence, and prepare to be significant in the next battle. I know it CAN be done right, because I was in a premiere alliance that would just not do it any other way, no matter what. That's a core value our founding members have taken on our new journeys. It is most surely a fundamental principle of my new aa.

I can find no reasonable explanation that should cause this to change, or stop. This thread seems, in my personal view, to be nothing more than a self-serving whinefest for the larger alliances that have the same problems my previous aa did. They have many members, yet few active contributors to the alliance, or the game. That is NOT the fault of the newer alliances, and it should be the responsibility of those same alliances to step forward, create protectorates for their next generation of players. The game will grow, and again be relevant to all players, not just the few who are "too big to fail". As we have recently seen, that philosophy is a very dangerous one, with the potential to evict hundreds of players out into the stratosphere of Bob with no anchor. There should be a place for those willing to play the game, and learn the game with absolute authority guiding them. New alliances, be they small or large, should take hold of that responsibility for once, and commit to creating the monster race of tomorrow, one worhy member at a time.

We are, and we're doing fine. Yes, we have goals, and we will announce them proudly to the OWF as they are reached. Why? Because, just like everyone else, they are hard earned, and worthy of recognition. Pulverizing the game, or purposely causing the demise of the game simply because you think (erroneously, I might add) that you can, as we recently witnessed (again) is still pipe dreaming at it's finest. The small, newer aas have a small environment to gauge and correct such erroneous thinking, and preserve the integrity the game should have. It's not the newer aas who are controlling the game, and it is not they who are diminishing the game for hubris, bragging rights, or alleged "power" over Bob. These good folks are, in my view, the next (and naturally developing) generation of exciting allinaces and players who will take the history of the beginning, place it squarely where it belongs in their careful, arduous, and demanding learning, and write the future history of this game. If that seems a dangerous threat to a large alliance, I would submit it is that same large alliance who should be woodshedding itself with its not nearly capable warriors, weak NS, no warchest nations and turn it's own house around. THAT would make a difference we all could see, and appreciate. That's what is busily happening in the new alliances, mine own included. I'm proud of it. I'm proud of the players who are lending their considerable experience as we begin to do the right thing, the right way, for the right reason. There is no excuse for bad play other than that of an incapable player. Any alliance who would let such a member exist without accountability is, in my mind, the next one to disband. Would you simply expel them, rather than take the time, treasure and talent to carefully mold them into superior warriors, diplomats and treadesmen? Many do, then point to the "ills" around them and cry. Insolence. What major league team would purposely destroy it's own feeder system of junior players? And declare at the same time it's strength, honor, and community?

I mean no offense, but this constant ragging on micros is simply ludicrous. It is not our fault sanctioned or larger alliances are not playing this game well, or to the level of their own enjoyment. Before you point your finger in what you may think is a "safe" direction, know that it is NOT a safe direction. It is a false direction, and you point your fingers for no purpose other than to avoid your own accountability and responsibility for keeping new players safe, vital, and active. Until then, consider the blame to be yours, and fix it. If you want or need help, ask a reasonably aged micro for help. There are plenty of them out here who, for a nominal fee, will help you re-invigorate your alliance to new growth that is valid, warranted, and deserved.We could be your most powerful weapon to success. You believe the "[i]best[/i]" option, for the sake of the game no less, is to eliminate that resource? Idiocy in its most basic form.

I think my best advice would be to remember your first year as a new member, in a new alliance. Remember the pains of learning, and the joys of the first tech deal's success. The new aa members look to you to see if those things we teach them really do matter. I know that, in many cases, the new members I reach out to are disappointed by what they see as a slow, boring game. I just keep asking myself which game they are seeing, and who are they looking at to give them that opinion. We plan to absolutely stuff our new members with obligatory actions, advanced learning techniques, and expectations of the highest level in those things we consider to be our strongest points as a new aa. Yes, it's hard. Yes, it requires absolute commitment by ALL members of the leadership team. But, even as our newest members learn, so are we as leaders learning how to promote, encourage and support those same values we are working to instill in EVERY member. I highly encourage and recommend the same for the largest communities of the game. In the least, you will get great nations reaching mid-tier in record time. At worst, you will be compelled to "remember" what you may have forgotten: why this game matters as much now as it did that magical day, way back in 20__, when you first logged in.

That's our task. Think of us as the junior league if you will, but do not let that thinking cause you to mistake the reality that this "junior league" will be the very best players on the planet in not so long a time, just as you see yourselves and your alliance today. Befriend us. Become our alliance mentors--it doesn't take a formal protectorate to do that. We are members of the same community, after all. That's a challenge that could, I think, make this game significant for EVERY player, and EVERY alliance, no matter the size.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Merlinus

[Schattenmann]

I love it when the alliances who've made political diversity and simple war impossible with their unending mess of treaties blame the situation in CyberNations on the smallest, most marginal groups. Vast moralist conspiracies, game-halting micros. It's a who's-who of hand-wringing leaders of the most influential alliances on the planet in here claiming little ol' CoJ and Avalon and 64Digits and Grämlins and Ronin and [s]Argent[/s]--oooooooh, [i]that's right[/i] I nearly forgot. It's never [i]their[/i] pet micros that need to disband or merge or get raided into oblivion. Team Rocket, Alpha Omega, Europa, Darkfall, The Prolific Empire, Alchemy--they're all golden, let's sign MDoAPs with all those micros, it's these [i]other[/i] micros's treaties that are messing up the game.


[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' timestamp='1308352771' post='2733333']It's what a lot of people are hoping for. I'd personally like to see a return to that kind global structure seeing as that era passed before I came to CN.[/quote]

And you'll never see any such era regardless of how many alliances merge or disband. Newsflash: ODN doesn't not have 1,000 members anymore because there are a bunch of micro-alliances stealing all their members, its because in 2007 there were 50,000 nations, and now there are less than 20,000.


[quote name='LegendoftheSkies' timestamp='1308352771' post='2733333']I'm thinking there's too many small individualistic groups who want to do their own thing for this type of structure to come about again though. It's too easy for them to get a protectorate or some other form of protection too. Hell even if an unprotected micro got attacked, there'd be an almost instantaneous rush of sympathizers to come to their aid.

In short, we must all collectively agree to start rolling micro alliances if we ever expect something like the OP suggested to come about. Demand that your protectorates or !@#$%* micro allies merge into you. If they don't, cancel on them and roll them once the cancellation period is up.[/quote]

See above. You guys first. Roll Misfit Nations.


[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1308360326' post='2733423']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.
[/quote]
And in the last war it was everyone but the micros holding up peace, from Doom House's re-writing a treaty because "we won, we get to write it [i]wah[/i]" to VE's "we declared war on you and now 4 of your nations are attacking us, that is escalation" to ODN's refusal to accept the surrender of an alliance that it had not had a war with in over a month.
The idea that only micros are able to completely grind everything to a halt with mind-numbing retardation has been proven patently false by the actions of your Big Alliance allies over and over and over again.


[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1308363114' post='2733463']Condensed NS leads to more activity.[/quote]
There's some good stuff in the rest of your post but we can stop right here. Yeah, because MHA is the most active alliance out there with all its condensed NS. IRON is really hoppin, you can't walk two feet without running into some guy from IRON. Can you believe this swarm of activity from GATO lately? Do you really contend that merging [i]multiplies[/i] activity instead of just adding it all under one AA?

[quote name='eyriq' timestamp='1308363114' post='2733463']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 [b][i]culture[/i][/b] 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.[/quote]
Also completely contradictory to all present reality. If mergers were going to happen because of the [i][b]culture[/b][/i] of the bloc, they would have happened over a year ago. The merger is happening because Athens, LOST, and GR (particularly GR) are three alliances that lost steam a year ago or more.

[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]
Come on, Bob. How many micros need to merge to reach ODN level? Let's get real.

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1308413290' post='2733973']
If you all spent half the time you do whining about how terrible the game is and how micro alliances are ruining everything for you, and actually made your alliance a little more appealing and did something (even just slightly!) different politically from what you have been for years, maybe the problems would start sorting themselves out.[/quote]
Man, speak it, preacher! Imagine, PB and Doom House bored! I mean they keep making more and more treaties and more bloc and sub-blocs and treaties between blocs so you'd think that they're having tons of fun!
Ohhhh, that's right. The only model they ever knew was the [i]Pax Pacifica[/i] model, so as soon as it was their turn to be on top they just followed old Papa Pacifica's example, and [i]Jesus[/i] don't we know how boring that was. I mean you've got James Dahl's Myth of Supergrievances thread where all these talking heads are saying how much SF and C&G didn't like each other [i]and[/i] talking about their initiatives to sign as many treaties between each other as possible regardless, and then in this thread you've got those guys and their allies talking about too many protectorate treaties making war impossible. It's like the Twilight Zone. It's insulting, is what it is.

Here's their problem:
<@Crymson|AWAY> OK, so the long and short of it is that GOONS signed that treaty in order to help ensure that there won't be a war anytime soon.
<@Crymson|AWAY> That's their avowed reason.
<@Crymson|AWAY> 1) GOONS wants to secure SF support.
<@Crymson|AWAY> 2) There's a new bloc forming that could alter the current order.
<@Crymson|AWAY> 3) That new bloc would never be involved in a war with SF.
<@Crymson|AWAY> 4) This treaty will thus help to ensure that there won't be a war anywhere in the near future.
<@Crymson|AWAY> Yay.
<@Crymson|AWAY> And apparently it was all GOONS, not PB. Some in PB didn't want it.

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1308434227' post='2734193']
I'm not going to name them, but you can recognize them. They're the ones who get excited about every 1M NS they get (well, everyone does, but they actually set it as a goal and feel like they're winning). If you ask them what their political ambitions are, they'll tell you that they want to grow huge and treaty the strongest alliances in the game. They care little for their members and are more interested in trying to gain political capital. Their members are mostly semi-actives, the people who those "we protect you from tech raiders" recruitment messages pull in. Their gov consists of a bunch of people who don't even know each other or where the alliance is going, but work together because they want to be 'gov' and want to claim some success for their own.
[/quote]
I'm not sure if you were being ironic and describing all the big alliances on purpose or if you did it on accident.

Listen up, folks, like a lot of you, I've been around for over 4 years, and let me tell the ones of you that don't know: There have always been about a million little tiny alliances. Here's one: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Azure_Empire made a big damn show about declaring war on GOONS and disbanded before the war ended. I'd list a bunch but, as micros tend to do, I've forgotten their names after all this time. The simple fact of the matter is that despite these legions of micros throughout history, alliances like NPO, GPA, GOONS, Legion, MCXA, Polaris, MHA all had 800, 1,000, and even 1,500 members. The amount of alliances out there has never had anything to do with the size of alliances; the only difference is the number of players then and now: 50,000 and 18,000.
Large, condensed NS (in Eriq's words) alliances weren't super active, they were super bloated.
Take a look, Azaghul and LegendoftheSkies: There are ~2860 nations in alliances with less than 50 members in the top 100 alliances. There are 2,883 nations with no alliance. Even if you big, faceless, cookie-cutter alliances recruited every single one of them tomorrow, there aren't enough to make two NPOs circa 2007. If every alliance under 50 nations merged tomorrow you couldn't make as many large alliances as there were. The micros not on the top 100? Probably mostly fake alliances, and let's think about why: over 10% of those 2,883 unaligned nations we have were attacked in the last 10 days; do you think they care whether they join MHA or Bob's Generic Micro #& to get away from raids [b][i]if[/i][/b] they keep playing? No, they do not. And if all 240 of them joined ODN tomorrow do you think ODN would become magically a new renaissance center of activity and ideas? Not hardly.
You don't have a micro problem, you have a playership problem. And while you're perfectly happy to moan about things, you're not willing (or smart enough, apparently) to address the real things that stop fast-paced gameplay: running off new players, treaty-web handcuffs, and tying up alliances with reps in defensive war. So blame moralists (all 5 of them), micros, lack of updates, and anything else you can think of that you don't think is your fault. You're in the alliances that can do something about the state of CyberNations, not anyone else.

[Schattenmann]

And to answer the OP's question: No. If you're defining superalliance by the past, it is an impossibility unless we reduce the number of [b]sanctioned[/b] alliances by more than half by merging them together.

[Xiphosis]

[quote]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.[/quote]

The funny thing is, even though the games user base has shrunk, it's far from dead. The alliances which are dieing/merging/whatever and becoming nonviable were going to do so due to mismanagement and poor-or-no leadership/ambition anyway [with some exceptions]. The soil never dried up, though.