Open Discussion Re: Protectorates

[Hereno]

On one hand, we have tons of smaller alliances who don't do a whole lot and clog up the treaty web. On the other hand, there's obviously a reason that these people wanted their own alliance as opposed to staying members of larger ones. If you want less protectorates and smaller alliances, and more larger alliances who contribute to the community, then the leaders of larger alliances need to address the concerns which cause these smaller alliances to form to help minimize the need to create a new alliance.

A huge start would be having the community be more open and welcoming to newcomers. And no, that doesn't mean stopping tech raiding, it means being nice people for a change. We're all guilty, myself included, and I'm still moderately new myself (2 years). Also, larger alliances could be more open to having new blood come in and actually advance to tiers of importance, and reward effort instead of appointing the same old friends to positions of power all the time. Even in democratic alliances, elections are more often popularity contests or disputes between factions of people within the alliance, rather than an actual judge of which candidate is better than the other. Maybe the answer would be to scrap democracy and then have leaders just reward positions based on merit? Heck if I know, y'all figure it out

[TypoNinja]

[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 really no. It does depend on who you are trying to get protection from, but typically anybody bothering to shop around can secure a protectorate from somebody. The quality of protector you are willing to settle for influences this.

2. Again, not really. How many micros are kicking around right now who simply completely fly under the radar of CN at large? I think alliances would still form anyway. Many more micros would not survive their first meeting with a tech raiding alliance maybe, but that's different.


[quote name='R3nowned' timestamp='1283505092' post='2440253']
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.
[/quote]

VE actually has spawned more than a few spin off alliances in our time, members moving on, wanting to strike off on their own, not quite able to break into higher gov positions, the reasons are almost always as numerous as the people departing, but there is one very very common occurrence.

A person, and a hand full of their friends who are relatively new think it would be a awesome to start an alliance together. That idea lasts about 3 days after they depart. Running an established alliance is far far easier than setting one up from scratch. People see a good government in action and everything looks smoothly running and fairly easy to stay on top of things. They strike out on their own and suddenly discover that bootstrapping up your own micro looks suspiciously like work and is not resembling fun so much anymore.

I'd say at least a half the protectorates fail based on some variation of this.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1283486316' post='2439881']
I believe you forgot TDO, another neutral waste of space.
[/quote]
Haha! [i]Ohhhhhh hahahaha[/i]! Because your 25-member generically-named The Adjective Noun alliance with it's off-the-shelf triumvir charter and pre-made biohazzard symbol flag that was a protectorate for 9 months has a lot to say about who is a waste of space and who isn't. At least TDO and other neutral alliances have their own freaking [i]style[/i].

To Xiphosis point on neutrals just waiting at the bottom for sanctioned AAs to go to war in order to (the implication is) somehow "steal" or snatch sanction away: GPA was the largest alliance in the game at one point. The UjP bloc was courting it, and they built their sanction through the [i]same[/i] work that their mega-sized sanctioned fellows in GOONS, NPO, etc (also over 1000 nations) did. Smaller neutral AAs have been able to gain sanction recently not by some lazy "wait for it to fall in our laps after a war" strategy, but because you people who have been lording it over Bob and fighting the same wars since 2007 have failed to keep rulers interested enoguh to stick around. Large AAs aren't shrinking because they're being looted of members by a plethora of micros, their loss in membership is directly correlated to the massive loss of nations that [i]even exist[/i].

The brain drain argument holds water, but to try and argue that big AAs aren't bigger because there are too many small alliances is a fool's errand.

Here's the solution: All you bitter old turds that have been running the same crappy generic alliances for 5 years: wrap your crap up, sing "Thanks for the Memories," disband those monuments to decadence and death, and start fresh. The world that is hemmoraging nations is the world you're running (into the ground).

Edit: And, ironically, the sanction standards were [s]lowered[/s] changed to accommodate elitist AAs like TOP and Gremlins and honor their accomplishments apart from having the fastest spambots, that has no bearing on larger AAs' inability to stay large due to their own death-scented stagnation.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Schattenmann

[Scorponok]

Schatt is the only one who can actual sum up how people feel these days.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='DeadAnimal' timestamp='1283476278' post='2439680']
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.
[/quote]
Why did your founders create the alliance? Are you one of them? Are you going to give the small close friends/community line that small alliances use?

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' timestamp='1283479606' post='2439751']
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.
[/quote]
Maybe your not disgruntled. What is your reason though for having a small alliance? Don't want to let your nation be dragged to war and drop under 100k? Are you guys protected? I seem to recall you guys are, I really don't know. But yeah, why do you prefer being on a small AA to being in a large alliance?

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1283546152' post='2440685']
Large AAs aren't shrinking because they're being looted of members by a plethora of micros, their loss in membership is directly correlated to the massive loss of nations that [i]even exist[/i].

The brain drain argument holds water, but to try and argue that big AAs aren't bigger because there are too many small alliances is a fool's errand.
[/quote]
June 5th, 2009 when I joined up here I recall there being over 30,000+ nations. 10,000 gone in just over a year is alot.
A good study I'd like to see is which alliances have lost these 10,000 nations, which alliances have completely vanished, etc.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Fernando12

[KingEd]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1283546152' post='2440685']
Haha! [i]Ohhhhhh hahahaha[/i]! Because your 25-member generically-named The Adjective Noun alliance with it's off-the-shelf triumvir charter and pre-made biohazzard symbol flag that was a protectorate for 9 months has a lot to say about who is a waste of space and who isn't. At least TDO and other neutral alliances have their own freaking [i]style[/i].
[/quote]

What are you part of? The 72,000 Cult in History? [i]Very unique.[/i]

[Hyperbad]

I see a lot of scape goating in this thread by several people where every possibility comes out except the most obvious. If this is an issue for any alliance then safe to say there is some element of "you" involved be it their members, its uclture or its policies which will impede on your growth. Off the top of my head maybe it would help if they just sucked less among other things. One glaringly obvious reason some might not join you all is minus a few topics/poliices just about every alliance with military treaties is the same as one another. Ditto with the neutrals. You're all not identical to one another but there are very few areas where you all differ greatly enough and in a meaningful way in public to really set yourselves apart.

tl;dr fix your !@#$, quit blaming others and look at what you could do better

Edited September 3, 2010 by Hyperbad

[Monster]

[quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1283537812' post='2440569']
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.
[/quote]

Actually, the splinter alliances result in having the same people run the game. For the most part, new-ish protectorates will have no influence on the game. Working to advance within an existing alliance and change its values is much a better way to go. Believe me I know.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1283556424' post='2440823']
Actually, the splinter alliances result in having the same people run the game.[/quote]
Not if enough people leave

[KainIIIC]

Agreed with Schatt, except for his bit on TDO (neutrals = useless), and with Hyperbad too. Sanctioned alliances and memberships have declined because there's been an overall decline in CN membership. One thing I would blame to some extent is a failure in alliances to correctly incorporate these new members into the game and their alliances, both with some newer alliances experiencing massive membership gains only to not have the ability to incorporate+educate them (leaving them to delete soon after), as well as older alliances that do a poor job of the same task (see: all those alliances in those recruitment drives, how many do you still have?). I would tend to think with a higher concentration of AAs, that talented people in recruiting, education and finance would be able to keep more newcomers to the game. Still though, it's hard to strike a balance between an overbearing recruitment process and something that keeps them in the game.

Moreover, I think there's simply a problem with the fact that it's just a daunting task to have the patience to sit and build your nation while realizing that it'll probably take you 2 years minimum to reach the middle-upper tiers and gain a lot of wonders. Even if you do EVERYTHING correctly, both individually and if you have an alliance that sleds you with 15m every 10 days, it'll still take ~100 days to get your first wonder, and it'll typically take the average newcomer who joins your average alliance double that. That for your average joe is simply an astounding time commitment. I'd personally like to see the game mechanics changed to quicken that process up so that people just don't quit after 2 weeks when realizing it'll take an eternity just to catch up to the rest of CN.

and yes, a lot of alliances suck, are the same and offer little difference with each other. I don't think it'd be a bad thing if a lot of the micro alliances begin to merge with each other.

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1283556953' post='2440836']
and yes, a lot of alliances suck, are the same and offer little difference with each other. I don't think it'd be a bad thing if a lot of the micro alliances begin to merge with each other.[/quote]
eh, I wouldn't really push them to merge myself. If they don't care then great. If they do care however then accentuate those features baby.

[DragonsPhyre]

Schattenmann brings up some excellent points. A couple others too, particularly the one that mentioned the "politics is really only played at higher levels" thing. The nature of the game as it has evolved is less of a "nation simulator" than a "alliance politics simulator". Our nations are more provinces in the larger nations that alliances are, which means a minority of the players actually see the real CyberNations. Most players see us bicker and piss and moan at each other, threatening this and that and using them largely as pawns in our grand schemes. Enough like it that way that they stick around. Some are more ambitious and go for middle management. Others are even more so and seek to replace the leaders or to become leaders themselves. But by and large, the population of big players in the game hasn't really changed in ages. The playing field shifts every so often and some names change, but the objectives and the people going for them are the same or copies of what was there before.

Specific alliance requirements for protectorates aside, we have several blocks that new alliances must overcome before they're considered a real alliance. In no real order -

[list]
[*]They must meet tech raider alliances' definitions of being a non-target. This varies per alliance, but usually of moderate double-digit size in membership. Usually solved with a protectorate. If this doesn't happen, they risk getting taken apart by one of the numerous alliances full of tech raiders in the game.
[*]They must gain the respect and sponsorship of at least one serious alliance before they can really show themselves to the world. You noticed, I assume, that almost all DoEs are accompanied by a protectorate agreement.
[*]They eventually have to get enough players to follow them that they'll be something more than a micro-alliance, forever dependent on a Big Daddy alliance to protect them from the rest.
[*]They have to be not led by strutting fools. Most alliances fail here.
[/list]

New players face the ingrained attitudes of veterans at the game. If they want to go anywhere to see "the real game", they have to prostrate themselves before the leaderships, bleeding for someone else's causes, and doing their chores. They have to prove themselves to not be a threat to the status quo or else face the wrath of those with connections and power. Essentially, unless they show themselves to be brilliant geniuses that inspire the common man in sacrificing himself for their own greater cause, they have to make playing internal alliance politics a bit of a career before they're ever really introduced to the smoke-filled back rooms of inter-alliance politics.

Democratic and meritocratic alliances both have their advantages for new blood and old players alike, so there's no obvious solution in the structure and procedures of the alliance itself. Similarly, the reasoning for the smoke and mirrors game of the leadership is sound. Their enemies can't know too much of the leadership's plans. So simply making everything transparent doesn't really work as a solution.

That pretty much just leaves the people that make up the leadership. People like Xiphosis, Cortath, myself, TypoNinja who all make up some part of how the alliance government runs. And it's not just the people in the positions themselves. Often ex-government members will continue to advise the present government, adding their views and biases to the mix. It's the people you have to change. The culture that they make up and take part in. Unless we all start getting much more welcoming to new alliances and players, letting more of them into the sanctums over time, while simultaneously opening up "the real game" to more than the select few, I don't know that this game can really continue to be anything more than it is. It's not like the browser game is some epically entertaining challenge to overcome.

I've been contemplating solutions that I can implement to do my part in it, but I'm not sure what real effect they would have. It's a difficult problem to overcome. People are prone to just do what they've been doing for the past two, three, six years. You can always challenge someone in power and change the leadership, but how do you change their attitudes, their biases, when you're not in a position to kick them out?

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Man what if an alliance was a protectorate of a neutral alliance?! They'd be worse than mecha-Hitler!

[Xiphosis]

[quote]You can always challenge someone in power and change the leadership, but how do you change their attitudes, their biases, when you're not in a position to kick them out? [/quote]

You make the better argument.

[DragonsPhyre]

[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1283558549' post='2440854']
You make the better argument.
[/quote]
You can make the better argument and still fail to convince anyone. Arguments are words. They do nothing by themselves.

[magicninja]

I'm so vain I probably think DP's post is about me.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1283551345' post='2440746']Maybe your not disgruntled. What is your reason though for having a small alliance? Don't want to let your nation be dragged to war and drop under 100k? Are you guys protected? I seem to recall you guys are, I really don't know. But yeah, why do you prefer being on a small AA to being in a large alliance?[/quote]
Our alliance is a community that dates back over three years in this game, it took us awhile to reassemble under a single AA again but with a couple stragglers and some friends we made along the way we still look forward to growth. If you're going to assume that anybody above 100K is a coward I'd appreciate if you'd spread the love to Umbrella, Argent and what's left of the ex-Citadel crowd.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='PhysicsJunky' timestamp='1283564986' post='2440981']
Our alliance is a community that dates back over three years in this game, it took us awhile to reassemble under a single AA again but with a couple stragglers and some friends we made along the way we still look forward to growth. If you're going to assume that anybody above 100K is a coward I'd appreciate if you'd spread the love to Umbrella, Argent and what's left of the ex-Citadel crowd.
[/quote]

I never said you guys were cowards. Large 100k+ nations take alot to develop. Meaning perhaps you all got tired of being taken to war so much and instead decided maybe its better to have your own AA and go to war on your terms.

[bakamitai]

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1283479507' post='2439748']
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.
[/quote]
I love you for this.

[bakamitai]

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

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1283556424' post='2440823']
Actually, the splinter alliances result in having the same people run the game.
[/quote]
No, they don't. This is a pretty big myth.

For a huge example, look at NPO two years ago. Now look where the people who were important in NPO then have gotten to now. Many went to other alliances, and others left the game entirely, and it's hard to not argue that the decline in NPO influence is linked to them leaving, especially when you count how many went to alliances like MK which are now influential.

[LittleRena]

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

No, there isn't a problem, there might be if you are a new national ruler and just make an alliance with friends, you would have to meet other alliances and get to know people. As oppose to having links with alliances you've been in.

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

Doubtful, if someone was so determind to create their own alliance, they would do it anyway, it might stop the few average members of large alliances from trying it.

[quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1283479507' post='2439748']
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.)
[/quote]

Getting rid of protectorates I think would be silly, I mean someone who is very new to FA eager to make their own alliance may make some mistakes and sign MDPs all over the place, a protector prevents that and should offer guidence on treties, it means they are unlikly to make as many enemies by making stupid mistakes.

[quigon jinn]

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1283556953' post='2440836']Moreover, I think there's simply a problem with the fact that it's just a daunting task to have the patience to sit and build your nation while realizing that it'll probably take you 2 years minimum to reach the middle-upper tiers and gain a lot of wonders. [b]Even if you do EVERYTHING correctly, both individually and if you have an alliance that sleds you with 15m every 10 days, it'll still take ~100 days to get your first wonder[/b], and it'll typically take the average newcomer who joins your average alliance double that. That for your average joe is simply an astounding time commitment. I'd personally like to see the game mechanics changed to quicken that process up so that people just don't quit after 2 weeks when realizing it'll take an eternity just to catch up to the rest of CN.
[/quote]

Just an fyi -

http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=403758

I'm not sure what makes you believe this but I have gotten a total of 3M in free aid and tech deals (mostly at 3M/100... or 'worse' - 6M/250 ) and easily have done this (actually have 3 wonders in just over 100 days ).

Granted, I spent a lot of time learning how to best grow my nation and did so and the overwhelming majority of people don't do that. But if I was funded with free aid I'd have significantly more 'nation stats' than I do as a result of my own building.

[PhysicsJunky]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1283566548' post='2440995']
I never said you guys were cowards. Large 100k+ nations take alot to develop. Meaning perhaps you all got tired of being taken to war so much and instead decided maybe its better to have your own AA and go to war on your terms.
[/quote]
I'm sorry I read connotation into your post that wasn't there. Choosing which wars to get involved in is definitely one of several reasons our alliance exists. I think that you have the causality backwards however and that we have large nations because we're picky (and mostly old nations) rather than us being being picky because we have large nations. When a fight comes along that we want a part in we'll be there eating nukes with the best of them.

[Näktergal]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1283546152' post='2440685']Large AAs aren't shrinking because they're being looted of members by a plethora of micros, their loss in membership is directly correlated to the massive loss of nations that [i]even exist[/i].[/quote]
The saddest part is, even if it [i]were[/i] true that the main reason why there are no 1000-member alliances left in the game is solely because the available membership is now diluted across a far larger pool of available options, it still doesn't alter the fact that people are confusing cause/effect here. It wouldn't be the case that the only thing keeping the smaller major alliances of today from achieving the heights of glory and prosperity that the older, larger alliances did ~3 years ago is that too many smaller alliances exist and have stolen all their potential members - a multitude of smaller alliances now exist because those major alliances have utterly failed to engender the sort of environment and culture that attracts said members in the first place.

Or, to put it another way, if some members of the "elite" alliances are upset that there are so many smaller alliances detracting from their potential recruitment, they'd be far better off actually improving themselves to the point where all those would-be individualists would flock to their door and beg to be let in, rather than pissing and whining about it and implying that the best solution is to take steps to eliminate the ability of newer players or more casual players from ever actually forming a smaller alliance.

Then again, it's always easier to complain about the flaws one sees in other people than to fix one's own flaws, so it's not as if this is entirely surprising behavior regardless.

But no, by all means continue your discussions on how to force microalliances and neutral alliances to disband so their uprooted members can be harvested into your own alliances instead. I'm sure you're newfound nations will love you for it, and would never consider being disloyal or mostly inactive out of spite. No, indeed, clearly the best possible way to re-invigorate declining alliance activity and the game as a whole is to force people into narrower and narrower visions of the "appropriate" way to play the game, regardless of how they might actually feel about it.