Open Discussion Re: Protectorates

[Blue Lightning]

Both would be fine choices.

[KingEd]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1283485570' post='2439866']
UPN and GPA have been sanctioned.
[/quote]

I believe you forgot TDO, another neutral waste of space.

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283486316' post='2439881']
I believe you forgot TDO, another neutral waste of space.
[/quote]

Them as well.

[quote]Both would be fine choices.[/quote]

Stop derailing my thread

[KingEd]

The Questions:

* Do you feel that there currently exists high standards for receiving protection?

No. The standard are extremely low if any exist at all. I guess there's an underlying sentiment that if an alliance wants to exist, they should. Whether this hurts the game or not...I have no clue.


* Do you feel those standards directly result in more alliances forming?

Of course. But as many pointed out before, it's because they disagree with their own alliance or can't obtain a high government position in the alliance they are in. Does this mean they have no talent ? Probably...


So to fix this problem, give everyone a position in Govt ?

[Kevin McDonald]

In order for us to take on alliance they have to meet one of three conditions:

1) Allies raiding them
2) Friends with leader
3) We know they will fail and will absorb them.

Brutally honest but the truth. Take from that what you will.

[Kosh Naranek]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283486316' post='2439881']
I believe you forgot TDO, another neutral waste of space.
[/quote]

The Legion must also be remembered.

[KingEd]

[quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1283486827' post='2439895']
3) We know they will fail and will absorb them.

Brutally honest but the truth. Take from that what you will.
[/quote]

Probably true and I guess every protectorate knows this to be true in the back of their heads.

[Kevin McDonald]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283487416' post='2439901']
Probably true and I guess every protectorate knows this to be true in the back of their heads.
[/quote]

Well, I didn't mean it like that. We certainly aren't pining for our protectorates to fail, and 90% of the time are offering protection from this world while teaching what we feel are life skills.

That said, this game is a competition, and one of the proven ways to "win" (or at least succeed) is to grow in strength and numbers... taking on protectorates helps achieve that goal.

[Mirreille]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1283483252' post='2439834']
I agree that there are too many small alliances and it's hurting the game a lot.
[/quote]

Show me a single example of this, please.

You could take half a dozen small and micro AAs, and still not come up with enough materiel or political strength to equal even one large AA. Most small and micro AAs have relatively few treaties and much less conflicting ones then their larger counterparts. Pound for pound the small & micro AAs provide more drama IMO. Realistically the smaller AAs tend to follow the larger ones' lead, so how are we the problem? I just don't see it. If you are fishing for reasons why there is not as much conflict now as there was in years past I think there are much better reasons then there being "too many" smaller AAs.

[abdur]

As a person leading an alliance which is a protectorate myself, I can assure you that TFD(our protectors) scrutinized us(and our charter) very carefully before choosing to accept us as a protectorate. It all depends on the type of alliance and the type of people leading it. If you have an experienced, enthusiastic group willing to do things, things will be done.

[KingEd]

[quote name='abdur' timestamp='1283492339' post='2440007']
As a person leading an alliance which is a protectorate myself, I can assure you that TFD(our protectors) scrutinized us(and our charter) very carefully before choosing to accept us as a protectorate. It all depends on the type of alliance and the type of people leading it. If you have an experienced, enthusiastic group willing to do things, things will be done.
[/quote]

I think Xiphosis is getting at the quantity of new protectorates not the quality. However, it's very good that TFD is being responsible in handing out their Protectorate slips.

[R3nowned]

As a leader of a protectorate myself..

1. Depends on who you talk to, but for most part, it's rather easy.

2. I doubt it. More experienced players know how hard and time consuming it is to run an alliance, starting an alliance from scratch is a bit... overboard. More inexperienced and ambitious players will create an alliance, all of a sudden seeing how hard it is, and fold rather quickly. There are also those rare micros that survive to become successful.

[Scorponok]

1. Depends on which alliance the protectee is seeking as a protectorate. I can understand alliances that are top heavy alliances such as TOP and Polaris would be careful on who they protect. But if you know a few of the alliance's leadership, then Protectorates come very easily.

2. No, I see it as a result of so many stupid alliances, and they way they play this game and treat their allies.

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='Blue Lightning' timestamp='1283486172' post='2439878']
Both would be fine choices.
[/quote]

haha, this made me laugh, a lot. Well played.

To answer the questions, obviously no and yes. To expand because that's obviously the intention of the questions:

I don't think it's a bad thing that it is easy to create an alliance. It's easy to sit in your established alliances and point out how many terrible new alliances there are, but where did you start out from? Obviously there's exceptions (zombies, spin-off alliances like Polaris was and to a lesser extent invasions) but a lot of alliances are going to start from a small group of people and go from there. I'd rather have to deal with huge amounts of average-terrible alliances that disband after a few months if it makes it easier for someone to succeed and end up with a quality alliance that contributes a lot to the game. I suppose there is the counter-argument to this, that the people who will succeed are more likely to find protection anyway under the more stringent requirements, but I don't see the point in unnecessary difficulties being put on someone trying to enjoy a game.

Also people like to scoff, and turn their nose up at micro-drama but it's a lot of fun. That and it's often the cause of the demise of small alliances that just aren't very good. People like to hang around in their established alliances and laugh at the drama between two small alliances, simultaneously complaining that there isn't any drama and the game is dull. I know which of the two is having the more fun, and at the end of the day, that's what I'm here for?

Would rather have hundreds of pointless micro alliances scrapping with each other over minor issues than alliances like GPA, TDO, WTF, you know what I'm getting at.

[thaone]

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' timestamp='1283508693' post='2440273']
haha, this made me laugh, a lot. Well played.

To answer the questions, obviously no and yes. To expand because that's obviously the intention of the questions:

I don't think it's a bad thing that it is easy to create an alliance. It's easy to sit in your established alliances and point out how many terrible new alliances there are, but where did you start out from? Obviously there's exceptions (zombies, spin-off alliances like Polaris was and to a lesser extent invasions) but a lot of alliances are going to start from a small group of people and go from there. I'd rather have to deal with huge amounts of average-terrible alliances that disband after a few months if it makes it easier for someone to succeed and end up with a quality alliance that contributes a lot to the game. I suppose there is the counter-argument to this, that the people who will succeed are more likely to find protection anyway under the more stringent requirements, but I don't see the point in unnecessary difficulties being put on someone trying to enjoy a game.

Also people like to scoff, and turn their nose up at micro-drama but it's a lot of fun. That and it's often the cause of the demise of small alliances that just aren't very good. People like to hang around in their established alliances and laugh at the drama between two small alliances, simultaneously complaining that there isn't any drama and the game is dull. I know which of the two is having the more fun, and at the end of the day, that's what I'm here for?

Would rather have hundreds of pointless micro alliances scrapping with each other over minor issues than alliances like GPA, TDO, WTF, you know what I'm getting at.
[/quote]

The problem is that there are few alliances that actually make a difference.
In the past three years I'm part of this community I've seen about three or four alliances who started from scratch and made some sort of serious impact on the political landscape.

[Poyplemonkeys]

So why would you want to lower odds that are already pretty heavily against it?

[Xiphosis]

Because it gives the bigger alliances more to work with, less government spread out to deal with, easier to make MDP webs, and all that. Checking in-game right now, there's 194 alliances with >20 members. That's [b]a lot[/b]. Especially when a lot of the weakest AA's are familiar >_>

[Goldie]

I think the Display Alliances page should only list you if you have more than 40-50 members. That would solve some problems.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1283519968' post='2440343']
I think the Display Alliances page should only list you if you have more than 40-50 members. That would solve some problems.
[/quote]
How would this change anything except make it even harder to figure out who all the small alliances are?

It's bad enough now with all the 15-man alliances, if alliances like BAPS, Nemesis, TORN and the like disappear from the list it just gets even worse.

(There are currently 47 alliances over 100 members. There are another 40 in the 50-99 range.)

[Goldie]

Adding an impetus for people to not create alliances that stall out at 20-30 members and dilute the politics of the game is a good thing

[Xiphosis]

[quote](There are currently 47 alliances over 100 members. There are another 40 in the 50-99 range.) [/quote]

That's a lot. I know we're pushing for >100 and [almost] there.

[quigon jinn]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1283521311' post='2440354']
Adding an impetus for people to not create alliances that stall out at 20-30 members and dilute the politics of the game is a good thing
[/quote]

I'd hazard a guess that one of the main reasons people create their own alliances is because a majority of the "game" [actual politics, inter-alliance drama/negotiation/discussion, etc] takes place at least at the government level or perhaps even "top 3" level in the majority of larger alliances.

People get bored just sitting around letting other people do a large portion of the "game" and so create their own alliances, allowing them too to be government actually playing the "game" that has evolved.

Solve the problem of the overwhelming majority of people being unengaged from any sort of meaningful inter-alliance activity (minor diplomats do NOT count in the slightest towards this goal) and it's likely you will stop seeing multitudes of smaller alliances created.

"politics of the game" only really exists for a small percentage of players unless you count the OWF as "politics" somehow.

[Ashoka the Great]

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

It depends. Nordreich is quite picky about would-be protectorates, and has actually turned some away.

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

See above.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='quigon jinn' timestamp='1283524730' post='2440387']
I'd hazard a guess that one of the main reasons people create their own alliances is because a majority of the "game" [actual politics, inter-alliance drama/negotiation/discussion, etc] takes place at least at the government level or perhaps even "top 3" level in the majority of larger alliances.

People get bored just sitting around letting other people do a large portion of the "game" and so create their own alliances, allowing them too to be government actually playing the "game" that has evolved.

Solve the problem of the overwhelming majority of people being unengaged from any sort of meaningful inter-alliance activity (minor diplomats do NOT count in the slightest towards this goal) and it's likely you will stop seeing multitudes of smaller alliances created.

"politics of the game" only really exists for a small percentage of players unless you count the OWF as "politics" somehow.
[/quote]
This has some truth to it. A whole lot of alliances are created though by players who want to get away from the politics of the game, as they don't have the time, connections or interest required to get involved in it.

The basic problem is opsec; alliances keep the interesting stuff hidden because otherwise their operations are exposed to their enemies.

[Biff Webster]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1283521311' post='2440354']
Adding an impetus for people to not create alliances that stall out at 20-30 members and dilute the politics of the game is a good thing
[/quote]
Yeah just have them join existing alliances and we can fight the same war over and over for eternity. I don't see how it is a good thing to have the game be run by the same handful of people.