New Alliances?

[Master Hakai]

Then all the one man alliances will form blocs. Eventually these blocs will grow to incorporate hundreds of alliances and have their own government structures. They'll require member alliances to be exclusive to their blocs. Then the blocs will sign inter-bloc treaties and eventually we'll see blocs of blocs.

I cannot wait for this. WHY CAN IT NOT BE NOW?!

[Vanadrin Failing]

Many people who choose to make alliances were previous high-up government officials in larger, older alliances. The main reason they choose to create a new alliance is because they wanted change in their old alliance....

These people who do create alliances have tried to change the former system but ultimately failed due to old procedures in the alliance or senior members who are not willing to try the new change.

This one rings true for the founders of House Atreides.

The reason there are so many new alliances is because there aren't any original ones. Unfortunately, members are stretched thin and the remotely original concepts have no room to take off while even the majority of the new alliances remain the exact same product under a different label.

And this was one thing that we had in mind when we hatched our Idea. Sadly, even the most unique Ideas require momentum that is difficult to gather in this increasingly crowded field. Patience will be a virtue to those alliances recently formed, and vital to those who intend to survive longer than two weeks.

There are a number of alliances that have popped up since we've formed that I've had to grudgingly admit had good concept Ideas. ZoomZoomZoom's 'Planet Express' comes to mind. Folks LOVE them some Futurama. Zoomx3 also has the experience needed to give it a good shot at working.

Unfortunately, it takes some good solid prospecting work to sift away the silt and discover the gold nuggets within. Today's micro-alliance could be next year's newest Sanctioned Alliance.

I'd like to think that'll be us.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Vanadrin Failing

[Joe Kremlin]

smashed hegemony alliances = fresh source of founders/new members

Also Vox types who were on hegemony sh*t lists can now don't have to worry about them.

[Drai]

It's actually becoming so common that I'm rather annoyed by it. It takes a fair amount to do something that makes me angry but this is as close as anything in CN. I wish there would be a rule where you had to have at least 30+ members when starting an alliance.

[PhysicsJunky]

It's actually becoming so common that I'm rather annoyed by it. It takes a fair amount to do something that makes me angry but this is as close as anything in CN. I wish there would be a rule where you had to have at least 30+ members when starting an alliance.

While the DoE's are annoying I fall on the opposite side of the issue. I would like to point out however that the proliferation of smaller alliances is caused almost entirely by the ready availability of protectorate offers. Some of the people who have been the most vocally against any new alliances forming happen to belong to alliances that have granted a protectorate in the last couple weeks. If people would like to see a reduction in small alliances the most productive thing they can do is start at home and argue against their own alliances giving out protectorates in the future, which is not to say some people haven't already behind the scenes.

[A Soviet Attack]

It has very little to do with the current war, the destruction of NPO, or anything like that. It's been a growing trend and in my opinion it goes hand in hand with the lessening number of democratic alliances in CN. If I wasn't so lazy I might actually look into that, to try and prove an inverse correlation.

Fact is that if government is controlled by an unchanging group of friends, and the membership have no prospects of promotion past a certain point, they will inevitably try to create their own alliance, no matter how clearly unsuited to government they may be.

[Fireandthepassion]

There's a war going on. Look after Second Patriotic War there were a lot of DoEs.

Most will fail and remain microalliances. Some will succeed and reach a decent size.

[WcaesarD]

I don't think most people realize that the trade off for an increase in fun when running an alliance is an even larger increase in stress and tedium. The most frequent topic of conversation in any gathering of alliance leaders I've ever been in tends to be how much we hate our jobs.

That's why I got out of leading when I could, I got tired of hearing you !@#$%* about it in the SF chan. Wait, what were we talking about?

[Branimir]

It has very little to do with the current war, the destruction of NPO, or anything like that. It's been a growing trend and in my opinion it goes hand in hand with the lessening number of democratic alliances in CN. If I wasn't so lazy I might actually look into that, to try and prove an inverse correlation.

Fact is that if government is controlled by an unchanging group of friends, and the membership have no prospects of promotion past a certain point, they will inevitably try to create their own alliance, no matter how clearly unsuited to government they may be.

Everybody knows that every alliance that wanted to form had to come to NPO to ask permission and if NPO did not like that new alliance they would shoot their dog. So now that NPO is gone, people form new alliances like crazy,.......wait no that doesn't make sense your post makes more sense.

I will just add one more thing, never underestimate peoples desire to be sheriffs. Everybody wants to be a sheriff, very soon, we will only have alliance leaders and no alliance members. Also dogs,...many dogs around.

[Vilien]

It's actually becoming so common that I'm rather annoyed by it. It takes a fair amount to do something that makes me angry but this is as close as anything in CN. I wish there would be a rule where you had to have at least 30+ members when starting an alliance.

Honestly, 3/4s of the alliances that form will be gone within the next three months. They're not going to bother you, and while the DoEs take up some space, they get pushed off the front page pretty quickly.

[Logan]

I'm in a micro alliance because I love ruining the game for everyone that's in a larger alliance

[Näktergal]

I don't think most people realize that the trade off for an increase in fun when running an alliance is an even larger increase in stress and tedium. The most frequent topic of conversation in any gathering of alliance leaders I've ever been in tends to be how much we hate our jobs.

I know I've been leadership of varying types in smaller alliances, and it's always too much work for my taste. I always take the jobs more out of a sense of obligation than excitement, so they feel even more like unpaid work. Plus, I lack the driving need to be in charge so that people will love and respect me, so the allure of a leadership position really isn't all that strong. So yes, leadership positions do tend to decrease fun while increasing stress and tedium.

And, of course, with the advent of "IRC politics", the job tends to more or less force you to spend far more time in IRC than is healthy for anyone over the age of 16.

My biggest problem has always been one of balance - on the one hand, I want the freedom to be able to think, act, and speak on my own, without being shackled by alliance policy or orders from above I vehemently disagree with. On the other hand, that freedom usually only comes hand-in-hand with power, especially in larger alliances, which means anyone who doesn't want to be just another cog has to work their way up into a leadership position of some kind. Smaller alliances tend to be better for freedom and sense of community, but at the same time, they also tend to have fewer people capable of leading, so able-bodied people tend to get drafted into positions of responsibility whether they want to or not.

I've always thought it was unfair to simply dismiss every new smaller start-up alliance as being the pet project of a few people who want to lead but aren't good enough to work their way up into power in larger alliances. But maybe that's because most of the people I've known who have started smaller alliances always had other reasons for it. And often, those reasons were less "I WANNA BE A POWER IN CN!" and more "I want a place where my friends and I can hang out in a less serious environment."

[Drai]

While the DoE's are annoying I fall on the opposite side of the issue. I would like to point out however that the proliferation of smaller alliances is caused almost entirely by the ready availability of protectorate offers. Some of the people who have been the most vocally against any new alliances forming happen to belong to alliances that have granted a protectorate in the last couple weeks. If people would like to see a reduction in small alliances the most productive thing they can do is start at home and argue against their own alliances giving out protectorates in the future, which is not to say some people haven't already behind the scenes.

I know in GR we didn't have a protectorate for the last 3 months I was Archon there, proactive

But yeah, I can see where you're coming from.

Honestly, 3/4s of the alliances that form will be gone within the next three months. They're not going to bother you, and while the DoEs take up some space, they get pushed off the front page pretty quickly.

That's true, and I'm beginning to look at it that way so I don't feel like trolling every DoE I see

[Lord Brendan]

While the DoE's are annoying I fall on the opposite side of the issue. I would like to point out however that the proliferation of smaller alliances is caused almost entirely by the ready availability of protectorate offers. Some of the people who have been the most vocally against any new alliances forming happen to belong to alliances that have granted a protectorate in the last couple weeks. If people would like to see a reduction in small alliances the most productive thing they can do is start at home and argue against their own alliances giving out protectorates in the future, which is not to say some people haven't already behind the scenes.

The problem with that is it only works if everybody does it. If one alliance decides not to sign any protectorates, their potential protectorates would just go somewhere else.

Besides, having protectorates has several benefits and few disadvantages.

-Good source of technology sellers

-If they fail and disband, they generally merge into the protector

-If they succeed they become a dependable ally

[TheEraser]

I have a general question for all CNers.

Why do you think politically, there is an increase(New ones everyday) in alliances? Also do you think this trend with continue or die out?

if someone were bored enough to go through and make a timeline of alliance creations throughout the years of CN, it would probably show that after every major war there is an increase in new alliances. A lot of that has to do with people being displaced (in this case by the hundreds) and wanting to branch out on their own in a more politically open (and i use the term loosely) atmosphere.

[Kryievla]

The trend has been ongoing for quite some time. I am not sure why anyone is blaming the NPO for keeping new alliances from starting; that is an accusation that I have never before seen leveled. It's also quite silly, as folks have been complaining about the number of new alliances for at least the past year.

Anyways, Soviet Attack hit one of the main reasons, I think. I had not considered that before, but it makes a lot of sense, and fits in well with what I have seen. The other is that folks do want a shot at being government and running things, but there are only so many spots. Both those reasons boil down to people wanting more voice in how their alliance is run. There is also something real nice about tiny communities; the smaller they are, the closer they seem to be.

I think it is great that there are many new alliances. That means folks are maintaining their interest in game and bringing something new to it as well. While most of the new ones do end up merging or disbanding, some stay in stasis for long periods of time, and some few do end up growing to be world powers.

[Ricardo]

Because CN needed a futurama based alliance.

[WcaesarD]

I'd have to agree that the larger number of small alliances stem from a want to be in control of the alliance, or at the very least in a .gov position.

[Vanadrin Failing]

And that's actually one problem that should be addressed... How can you give your alliance members a sense of progression without having a ridiculous number of people in government?

A lot of these new alliances are enticing starting membership by offering government positions or money... but what about afterward? What can you offer your membership once those spots are gone and the money's beeen paid? Why should someone pick your democracy/kingdom/empire over another? Once in how do you keep your membership engaged, active and motivated?

These are some important questions that ALL alliances need to keep in mind - Big and Small. Big alliances to prevent their skilled members from splintering off and small alliances to set themselves in motion.

I'm not entirely willing to share our plans yet of course... We need all the 'secret weapons' we can get. But these questions are constantly asked in House Atreides among the leadership AND are asked of the Membership.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Vanadrin Failing

[Atanatar]

I dunno but I think it's because everybody in CN wants to be an emperor, and the best way to do it is just make your own alliance.

A year from now I see every member of CN being emperor of an alliance in which they are the only member. The Face of CN as we know it is rapidly changing!!

As Emperor of the Empire of the Prism Protection Front, I frown upon your shennanigans.

[Republic of Lenahan]

And that's actually one problem that should be addressed... How can you give your alliance members a sense of progression without having a ridiculous number of people in government?

I couldn't agree more; a lot of times those same people will be taken out of government for various reasons. Its as if they were put in charge not because of their merit, but as an incentive to join the alliance.

[Electron Sponge]

Simply put, Pacifica was not built in a day.

Actually, it pretty much was. We were an 'invasion' alliance from another game. We walked in and the only alliances more powerful than us on paper were GATO and NAAC. In reality we'd have thumped either of them pretty badly because they were so horribly disorganized in comparison to us. In fact we did thump NAAC pretty badly.

Speaking as someone running one of these new, small alliances I started mine because Vox was disbanding and I really didn't want to go to an established alliance and I didn't want anything too strenuous or serious. tLC is growing steadily, we'll be one of the ones that make it. We'll be passing 1 million total NS pretty soon and we'll likely be passing 40 members right about the same time. None of that is really my doing but it's pretty cool just the same. Slow, steady alliance growth with active recruiters and a good plan for individual nation growth is the key to longevity. We don't want a bunch of alliance hoppers or title chasers, which is why I never made a "DoE" thread and why most of our original people were invited personally by either Hannah, Random, or myself. We had an excellent core group and that's starting to really pay dividends. That and quite a few came from Vox. Everybody knows that Vox Populi members are like the rock stars of CN.

[Mason]

Slow, steady alliance growth with active recruiters and a good plan for individual nation growth is the key to longevity.

We had an excellent core group and that's starting to really pay dividends.

Excellent points. I've created a successful alliance and I've had a couple of failures. The one that succeeded met the standards in the quote above. For me, it's never been about power. I enjoy the creative aspect of developing a new alliance and getting it rolling, then I prefer to sit back and hand over the reigns to those who deserve it. Some people, like me, get bored with the same theme and same elements, etc. The challenge is fun, but when the end result doesn't pan out the way you wanted it to, that's when the reality of CN hits. If you don't have that core group of people and active recruiters with a solid plan for your growth then you're going to fail. And it doesn't matter how well you've developed your forums or your structure. Without the right people and time to dedicate to it, you're done.

[Randleman]

Cuz everyone wants to be the next badass alliance. also cuz there are a lot of power hungry ppl in CN who wanna start an alliance so they can be gov

Exactly this. Everyone in this game are power mongers. Also I hope this trend dies out, I want smaller amounts of alliances that run more effieciently and ineract with each other more.

[Valerius]

The trend will die out as we enter the post-war climate, as will many of the newly created alliances.