Open Discussion Re: Protectorates

[Xiphosis]

[b]The Questions:[/b]

[list=1]
[*]Do you feel that there currently exists high standards for receiving protection?
[*]Do you feel those standards directly result in more alliances forming?
[/list]

Will add my two cents after a few replies.

[Xavii]

1: Not really, many will take on new guys in order to buy tech or want to absorb them down the road.

2: Yes, many splinter off as a result.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1283473076' post='2439623']
[b]The Questions:[/b]

[list=1]
[*]Do you feel that there currently exists high standards for receiving protection?
[*]Do you feel those standards directly result in more alliances forming?
[/list]

Will add my two cents after a few replies.
[/quote]
1. No. Most know people in the alliance they want to be protected by and in most cases its granted.
2. This connects with the first. Many people have friends from their previous alliance or friends in alliances their previous alliance had a treaty with so they can get a protectorate very easily. So, their tends to be alot of splinter alliances that form. Some grow just enough to not be too micro, most are just there growing and waiting for their big allies to drag them into a war.

[Michael von Prussia]

1. No, nor do I think there necessarily should be.
2. Perhaps, but I don't see why this is a bad thing. I'm all in favor of people being able to choose an alliance that is right for them, rather than being mindlessly absorbed into larger alliances.

[Mirreille]

It's hard to answer number 1, since obviously different AAs set different standards for their protetorates. I do think the trend has been to have more restrictions on protectorates, but that is strictly my opinion.

Since that is what I think I would say it is less likely for new alliances to form these days, but only marginally.

[Locke]

I'd say no to the first, it's pretty easy to get [i]someone[/i] to protect you. Usually an old home of yours. As to the second, yes and no. It does make it easier and more appealing to create an alliance, but it doesn't change the fact that not everyone is built to be an alliance leader, and many new alliances die of their own accord.

[Kowalski]

If you're getting at what I think you're getting at, I think you're absolutely right. Too easy to get a protectorate, too many alliances form, alliance politics fractured and not relevant to too many players, game becomes dull.

[Xiphosis]

For the record, I have my own opinion on this but I tried to not slant the questions so people would be more honest.

[kerschbs]

1. No, it's pretty easy to get a protectorate.
2. Probably not directly, but it's a large factor.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1283474059' post='2439635']
It's hard to answer number 1, since obviously different AAs set different standards for their protetorates. I do think the trend has been to have more restrictions on protectorates, but that is strictly my opinion.

Since that is what I think I would say it is less likely for new alliances to form these days, but only marginally.
[/quote]
Have you seen the incredible amount of DoE threads lately? So its not less likely. If you meant relevant and influential alliances then I agree with you. It's very difficult for new alliances as it seems that the active talent around is already in an alliance and the decline in new nations points to it being hard to getting new blood to a new AA.

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1283474149' post='2439638']
If you're getting at what I think you're getting at, I think you're absolutely right. Too easy to get a protectorate, too many alliances form, alliance politics fractured and not relevant to too many players, game becomes dull.
[/quote]
I don't know what you hope he is getting at or what Xiph is getting at but...I would hope Xiph and others use the current power they have to quite honestly force a new standard upon planet bob. My standards would be very extreme and many alliances would no longer be considered alliances.

*50 members
*20k Average NS
*1 million total strength
*Perhaps within a certain amount of time otherwise the creators are kidding themselves.

Is that too much to ask? I hate seeing top heavy alliances that get over 1 million strength because they have 7-10 80k+ nations and the rest are pretty tiny nations. If you're over 1 mil ns and have 20 members, you're really only disgruntled or power hungry and think you will shape the world or just don't want to follow anyone's orders but your own and want to "lead" your alliance to war but it's really your larger ally saying its time to go to war.

[Xavii]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1283475306' post='2439671']
*50 members
*20k Average NS
*1 million total strength
*Perhaps within a certain amount of time otherwise the creators are kidding themselves.

Is that too much to ask? I hate seeing top heavy alliances that get over 1 million strength because they have 7-10 80k+ nations and the rest are pretty tiny nations. If you're over 1 mil ns and have 20 members, you're really only disgruntled or power hungry and think you will shape the world or just don't want to follow anyone's orders but your own and want to "lead" your alliance to war but it's really your larger ally saying its time to go to war.
[/quote]
Even if you don't recognize them as an alliance or not, would you want to take the chance to raid a top heavy alliance like Creole or OBR? They don't need protectorates. There is some truth in what you say, but small top heavy alliances can ruin a bigger alliances top tier with ease.

[DeadAnimal]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1283475306' post='2439671']
If you're over 1 mil ns and have 20 members, you're really only disgruntled or power hungry and think you will shape the world or just don't want to follow anyone's orders but your own and want to "lead" your alliance to war but it's really your larger ally saying its time to go to war.
[/quote]

Way to make wild generalizations. Perhaps you should actually talk to the members of the alliances that fit that criteria before you ascribe motives to people you have never met, let alone understand.

In response to Xiphosis, yes it is very easy to get a protectorate. Is it 'bad' per say? I am not sure. Yes, some woefully under experienced and under prepared alliances linger and fail after a few months, but some alliances that would not necessarily meet a high standard do succeed.

Edited September 3, 2010 by DeadAnimal

[D34th]

1- You just need to be an ex-member of the alliance you want the protection and leave said alliance in good terms

2- I don't think this is the main factor or a relevant factor. Majority of new alliances are created nowadays because the founders are incompetent to get high gov positions in relevant alliances but nonetheless want to be in power and prefer to be leaders in their own alliance even when there aren't nobody to lead.

I like the protectorates treaties since they provide drama and protectorates has been the main starters of many global wars in CN.

Edit: Also I support a raid against Creole, please someone do that.

Edited September 3, 2010 by D34th

[Xiphosis]

Okay, addressing the questions and some of the replies now that it's died down a bit but we have a decent volume:

[b]Do you feel that there currently exists high standards for receiving protection?[/b]

No. From experience, the majority of protectorate treaties are based on sentiment. Members leave and humbly request protection from their home, and it is usually granted. The bigger the alliance, the more likely they are to have multiple protectorates; probably for this reason.

[b]Do you feel those standards directly result in more alliances forming?[/b]

Yes. By making it easy to receive protection, the initial amount of quality that people [i]have[/i] to sink into an alliance is proportionally small.

[b]Arguments Against The Status Quo:[/b]

I think I can safely sort this into three categories:

[list=1]
[*][b]Brain Drain[/b]: Consider two scenarios.

In one scenario, an ambitious member repeatedly loses elections to a more popular candidate or is denied higher appointment. Knowing full well that his alliance will back him or a friend's alliance, he takes the chance, writes up a charter and dubs himself King/Emperor/Whatever. Had more consideration been given to merit, this could be avoided, and the drive that member felt would not have fizzled out as he tried to build a micro-alliance from scratch. In addition, by rising in an established alliance he would have older counsel to curb some common mistakes; be it mistaken action or thought.

In another scenario, an untalented but opinionated member makes unsound arguments, is repeatedly denied promotions they feel they deserve, and ultimately leaves. With minor effort, he secures protection. Other members, dissatisfied due to peace/boredom/or internal quibbling leave with him, or use his leaving as an excuse to do so and go elsewhere. Due to poor control by government, as well as easy access to protection, this alliance - though having no reason for existing, nor no quality leadership or goals - will likely plod along for years undisturbed. It is almost a surety they will make gigantic FA mistakes, and some poor sod in their protector will likely waste hours of their life fixing the problem.

In both cases - the talented, and the untalented - the ease of acquisition made splitting a more favorable way of achieving a short-term goal. By consequence, less effort was sunk into making their own alliances better, and the talent pool of the game was spread even thinner.

[*][b]MDP Web:[/b] Consider again scenario two. For every alliance that forms as a reaction; without common purpose or ambition that fails, two more will very likely manage to hold it together for a decent length of time, sometimes for years. As the supply of protectorates continues indefinitely, CN will steadily approach a point where alliances numbering over 200 are a rarity. We already have seen this; as it used to be a much higher bar than 200.

[*][b]Significance of Sanctioned Status:[/b] This ties into the last line of the previous argument. As the talent pool drains and splits from the major alliances, the bar for what constitutes sanctioned status is conversely lowered. The significance, prestige and achievement of the moment is cheapened as a result; when you can say you went up against significant, 600+ man alliances and all the talent within and still surpassed them for a top spot that [b]is[/b] a major achievement. At the moment, you simply have to wait for the bottom sanctioned alliances to go to war. I'm looking at you, neutrals and misc cowards.
[/list]

[Fernando12]

Nice post (#14) Xiph, but what do you plan to do about it besides stating the obvious?

Edit: BTW, I agree 100% but will you do something about it or is this just another topic cuz we bored?

Edited September 3, 2010 by Fernando12

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1283477892' post='2439718']
Nice post (#14) Xiph, but what do you plan to do about it besides stating the obvious?
[/quote]

I forgot to address your post [I'd meant to].

[quote]I would hope Xiph and others use the current power they have to quite honestly force a new standard upon planet bob. My standards would be very extreme and many alliances would no longer be considered alliances.

*50 members
*20k Average NS
*1 million total strength
*Perhaps within a certain amount of time otherwise the creators are kidding themselves.[/quote]

There is no means, if I desired, to force people not to take on protectorates. If you tried as much, people close to you would take them on simply to show you that you were going about it wrong. I have put forth my position, and if various leaders have solid arguments in favor of lower/current standards I will be happy to address them and concede to it if valid. If their reasons do not hold up to scrutiny, then by arguing rationally, they will be able to change their position without losing face or feeling bludgeoned with a particular opinion.

My own alliance started small and without protection. We were given protection by VE, later, on relatively weak grounds (TypoNinja and the rest of their gov liked us some). Obviously, we made something of ourselves. A lot of work was sunk into it, and we spent three months mulling over whether it'd be a good idea to do so - to start our own. We did this because we intended to do so without protection, and be sovereign, but I feel the same line of thinking will have to happen if people find protectorates hard to find.

[memoryproblems]

As for the first question, it varies alliance by alliance, alliances grant protectorate agreements for a variety of reasons, usually they get some solid technology, if it doesn't work out they might get some members through absorption, and in the rare event that it does work out, they tend to get a loyal ally.

I don't know that many alliances put as much care into selecting protectorates as they should, and in the same vein some alliances don't manage protectorates in a way to limit liabilities in the case that their protectorate is completely inept and steps right into the line, dragging their protector with them. If the protector is talented enough at the former, the latter isn't as important, but you never know how things will turn out.

I think it does make it easier for alliances to form, and it'd be difficult to forge your own path without a protectorate, thats just a fact of life, I speak from personal experience on the matter. If you can rectify the problem presented with question one, the problem with question two would be resolved as well.

[Joseph Black]

Do you feel that there currently exists high standards for receiving protection?
I do not understand where most are going with this, so I'll answer the way I read it. No, most alliances have no problem accepting members and protecting them for no contribution what so ever. While I speak with limited knowledge, when an alliance has 300 members, but the total replays on the forum's only number in the 20-30 there is something wrong with that. There is always a reason for a member to be wanting to leave an alliance, while they may put their opinion in a kind way, there is always an underlining reason for them to leave, something in the alliance is missing that makes them look else where.

Do you feel those standards directly result in more alliances forming?
Yes and rightful so. Many members talk about Giant alliances, but they speak as members of government or prestigious members of an alliance. It really sucks to be the new guy in an alliance. Most the time larger/older alliances are not willing to consider new opinions that may differ from what is traditional for their alliance and they have every right to be that way. However the saying Vote with your feet stands to reason that if a nation does not wish to be part of the existing alliances that they would create their own alliance. True not every alliance is going to make it and as a result members lower their standards or simply bid their time to do it again, I notice that many of the "new" popular alliances are simply re-creations of alliances that couldn't make it in the past. What defines the worth of an alliance should not be what OWF thinks about them, but first and for most what they think about themselves, if members are content in a small alliance than why shouldn't they?

I believe many senior players are blaming the number of alliances as the reason for the lack of war, however if the judgmental attitude is swung back, more alliances will mean larger chances of wars starting. However it is not anybody else responsibility to entertain you in this game. If you have an itchy trigger finger maybe you should pull it. It will add to the "lolz" as well as the need for a war. If alliances would start doing something other than building their pixels and complaining the game would fill the natch they are wanting it too.

\m/ could have easily told STA they were going to raid GGA and STA could just blow it out their ears. Would have resulted in \m/ being attacked which would have escalated. Today to many alliances are too concerned with their "image" or their fragile hold on power to do anything. As a result there is less war, which to those complaining seems to be the #1 reason for the complaining. If you want change make it happen.

[Kevanovia]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1283473076' post='2439623']
[b]The Questions:[/b]

[list=1]
[*]Do you feel that there currently exists high standards for receiving protection?
[*]Do you feel those standards directly result in more alliances forming?
[/list]

Will add my two cents after a few replies.
[/quote]

1- Not at all, unless you're trying to receive one from the ODN or Pacifica.
2- Yes, I have no doubt in my mind that it contributes to more alliances forming. Getting rid of protectorates will help (at least for a little while, MDPs are still thrown around like candy so it wouldn't matter too much. MDPs will replace Protectorates if we do decide as a community to outlaw the Protectorate pact.) Our main problem? The MDP. Even in my alliance, they are signed/in stages of being signed just because one or two gov members knows a few of the other alliance's gov. It's been that way in almost all of the alliances I've seen over the past few years, unfortunately it has become the norm. Laziness is hurting FA.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1283475306' post='2439671']If you're over 1 mil ns and have 20 members, you're really only disgruntled or power hungry and think you will shape the world or just don't want to follow anyone's orders but your own and want to "lead" your alliance to war but it's really your larger ally saying its time to go to war.[/quote]
Doh, I knew we've been doing something wrong. We got the whole disgruntled act down years ago but we flat out forgot to acquire a leader.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1283473076' post='2439623']
Do you feel that there currently exists high standards for receiving protection?
[/quote]
No.

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1283473076' post='2439623']
Do you feel those standards directly result in more alliances forming?
[/quote]
No. Lots of alliances form without protectorates all the time.

The low standards for protectorates being granted do result in microalliances surviving longer than they would otherwise though. But that's different from the question you asked.

[New Frontier]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1283473076' post='2439623']
[b]The Questions:[/b]

[list=1]
[*]Do you feel that there currently exists high standards for receiving protection?
[*]Do you feel those standards directly result in more alliances forming?
[/list]

Will add my two cents after a few replies.
[/quote]
No and yes, but I think that you expect those answers from everyone (or everyone with an IQ over 30, at least), so I'm going to move on from the questions themselves and focus on the implied discussion.

Many if not most alliances enter into protectorate agreements in the hopes of, at best, nomming the protectorate and at worst grabbing some tech and a loyal ally. You can argue that if we as a community adopted stricter vetting of protectorates then protectors wouldn't need to nom because they wouldn't lose members to upstarts in the first place, but until the entire community accepts that you'll have a hard time convincing alliances to adopt your views one at a time.

[VeritasK]

* Do you feel that there currently exists high standards for receiving protection?
No. To my knowledge the more legitimate the attempted Alliance is, the better protection they can end up getting.

* Do you feel those standards directly result in more alliances forming?
In forming? No. If an alliance is going to form, its going to form. In existing longer than the fizzled out attempt would normally dictate? Of course.

[Blue Lightning]

I don't think the fact a monkey could get a protectorate is what motivates people to create new alliances. It makes starting a new alliance easier in that there is one less thing to worry about, but I don't think making it harder would stop someone making a new alliance if they wanted to.

The only way it might be a significant obstacle is if standards are raised to the extreme, making it impossible for them to find protection and severely stifling their chances of making it to a self-sufficient level regardless of their talent or merit as an alliance.

I agree that there are too many small alliances and it's hurting the game a lot. I think the problem is more what you described in your scenarios - people getting disgruntled and/or wanting to be chief - than it has to do with the ease with which an alliance can be founded. I don't know of a solution to this problem beyond generally trying to raise the awareness of it.

Also, as a non-sanctioned alliance, GOD should disband and merge into a relevant alliance.

[Xiphosis]

[quote]Also, as a non-sanctioned alliance, GOD should disband and merge into a relevant alliance.[/quote]

UPN and GPA have been sanctioned.