Jump to content

Chicken or the Egg? New Alliances or Old Problems?


Raphael
 Share

Recommended Posts

If you've been in PnW for longer than a couple of years, chances are you've either created or joined a new alliance. Some of us have created many new alliances, some of us have been faithful to our original AA's since day one. Chances are though, if you're active and involved - you have at least tried to found a new AA.

On the surface, this is a great thing. A fluid and engaged community that seeks to constantly upend its own status quo for the entertainment and interest of itself, sounds pretty great. I would like to present another viewpoint and then offer a bit of self-opposition: Active and engaged players constantly leaving established communities creates a two-sided issue that actually stagnates the game worse than it helps create a new political environment. The existing power alliances are not as stable as many would like to sell you, and many of our historically powerful groups often have long periods of internal stagnation due to a lack of engaged and fresh blood - even if they don't necessarily realize it. On the new alliance's side of things, way more often than not even the most promising new alliance stagnates due to a lack of political influence.

What do you mean by stagnate? To be fair, dear reader, my definition of stagnation is probably a bit more liberal than typical. If your alliance is seeing very little growth, very little activity, and generally just hangs out attached at the hip to another alliance and that's the totality of your FA - then I believe you have stagnated and likely entered into a decline. Many people will define simple survival as success, and in many ways it is, but I believe the community has higher standards than that.

So why do people still pursue founding new AA's when the success rate is so low? This is the other side of the coin that cannot go unrecognized: The large and powerful alliances themselves have abandoned democracy as a viable method of selecting leadership, low turnover rates as a result even when many gov may be too inactive to serve, and ever-shrinking government sizes as a trend have all combined into one fatal flaw: There is simply no room in most of the historic major powers for newer or more ambitious players to hone their craft and attain the influence they seek.

 

So I guess it's a bit of a chicken or egg question as to what is fueling what. We have these larger and more influential groups in constant need of fresh blood, but unwilling to sacrifice perceived stability. Then we have these new groups with relatively no influence, but willing to take almost any warm body with ambition or charisma. I can confidently say through personal experience that a new alliance is the more appealing option to an active player looking to make their mark though, or it wouldn't be as popular of a choice.

I'm curious to hear what you all think though.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are as good as the folks you surround yourself with. You also need to be willing to take risks. People !@#$ and moan about the game being stagnate/how things need to change. Those same people are the ones who think folks trying to proactively supply ‘change’ are ‘shady’.


I think this is why so many new alliances flop/there is a lack of change within the power dynamics. Folks don’t want to be treated as an enigma or pariah. They would rather safely collect their pixels or piggyback off of others until they fade into obscurity.

For a new alliance to be successful/influential they need several folks with a similar mindset, a clear goal and are willing to take risks.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kevanovia said:

You are as good as the folks you surround yourself with. You also need to be willing to take risks. People !@#$ and moan about the game being stagnate/how things need to change. Those same people are the ones who think folks trying to proactively supply ‘change’ are ‘shady’.


I think this is why so many new alliances flop/there is a lack of change within the power dynamics. Folks don’t want to be treated as an enigma or pariah. They would rather safely collect their pixels or piggyback off of others until they fade into obscurity.

For a new alliance to be successful/influential they need several folks with a similar mindset, a clear goal and are willing to take risks.

Building off of this, I also think a big part of it is that the major powers have stopped really participating in the politics of the rest of the world. There is no accountability other than verbal threat for most of the smaller AA's. Pay lip service and stay out of the majors ways and you're pretty much safe except from raiders. Get a protector and suddenly natural selection no longer exists.

TKR, Rose, t$, Eclipse, Cata, etc. all only concern themselves with whatever TKR, Rose, t$, Eclipse, Cata, etc. are doing.

 

If we stopped constantly slamming into each other over tiering issues and start going after grudges or loud-mouthed micros, I think the game would become more interesting and politics would flow a little more naturally than constantly arguing over tiering, size, or treaty chess.\

I can scarcely think of the last time I actually felt emotion from any given war against Rose or t$ or whoever.

Edited by Roberts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make interesting points here, but I wanted to mention one point in particular:

4 hours ago, Roberts said:

This is the other side of the coin that cannot go unrecognized: The large and powerful alliances themselves have abandoned democracy as a viable method of selecting leadership

This seems like a strange way to phrase the issue. "Democracy" would just allow the most charismatic and arrogant idiot to take charge and likely run things to the ground. I think what you meant is more the realm of scouting or meritocracy. Alliances would have better success if gov members actively seek talent within their membership and help train members who are interested in volunteering. Being more open to giving interested members a chance to show what they can do would be a good way to keep the ones with potential on your side and let new ideas have a chance in even the most established of communities.

  • Upvote 2

2016/04/26 –

mIjXiMx.gif

Unreleased Bad Company advert, circa 2018

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Beating the hell out of loud mouthed micros was fun.  Wasn’t challenging, but definitely fun.

Except any war a major alliance fights that isn't against Florida/Fortuna/HOGG/Bowling allows one side to grow while the other isn't growing. It's considered a waste of effort. Everyone would need to buy into the idea that politics can involve people outside of those few alliances.
 

Hell, that mentality is what allowed Eclipse to grow into the powerhouse they have become - everyone was so focused on beating each other up, people so were worried about GGO, that eclipse was able to become a whale powerhouse with relatively little resistance.

Right now, Midgard is in a similar situation. They've grown almost continuously, have slowly but surely gained an upper tier, and really haven't had any major setbacks that I can think of recently, while everyone else has either taken a serious rolling or been in multiple wars. I've gotten way off track from the original post, but the idea remains - the biggest alliances are overly focused on themselves and setting each other back, as opposed to supporting and involving smaller alliances and spheres.

  • Upvote 2

unknown_3_1_65.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Roberts said:

On the surface, this is a great thing. A fluid and engaged community that seeks to constantly upend its own status quo for the entertainment and interest of itself, sounds pretty great. I would like to present another viewpoint and then offer a bit of self-opposition: Active and engaged players constantly leaving established communities creates a two-sided issue that actually stagnates the game worse than it helps create a new political environment.

I don't see how propping up legacy alliances with active people helps to create a more interesting political environment.

The reality is many of these older alliances gatekeep people from getting into their governments, but then expect the active ones to stay in their alliances rather than create their own thing. Just as a general rule, if you have an alliance with 100+ something people, you still only have so many government positions to give out.

Yes, at various points in time the major legacy AA's have lacked a solid roster of talent to fall back on, but legacy AAs are unique in that they tend to be more durable and able to overcome these periods than other alliances due to their long history, and usually, older guard who will step in to at least keep the lights on. Also I think legacy AA's are usually less inclined to give people a chance than newer AAs, who have less options.

The issue isn't active and engaged players constantly leaving established alliances, its them leaving too early and/or leaving before they can get any real gov experience. Legacy AAs are in my opinion, the best place to get a start in the game, IF you can get into their government. If you are gatekeeped from a government position, whether that is justified or not, it leaves that person with limited options. Of course, some people essentially become lifers in these alliances, and that completely negates the benefits as far as I am concerned.

Currently the top 6 alliances have 740 people in them. That's a lot of people for very few potential opportunities. The formation of new main players is what I think makes the game interesting, and that has been lacking.

The issue with many non legacy alliances is they simply lack ambition. Or have ambitions that exceed their ability. Both are equally fatal. Some people just make their own alliances so they can be autonomous, without any express purpose or desire. Some alliances exist as essentially social clubs or "hangout alliances" as I like to call them, that could easily be turned into discord servers instead.

Also to be frank, some people are just not good enough. And are too prideful to admit it, or too lazy to change it. So their alliances exist in stagnation forever.

I don't think there is a solution. These flaws will always exist, they conform to the inherent self interest of all parties involved. Legacy AA's will always safeguard their inner circles, will always try to retain talent/active people rather than give them the tools to flourish. Incompetent or lazy leaders too prideful to merge or disband or hand off their alliances will always cling to power.

Best you can do is control your own actions. If you are in an alliance you've been in for 4-5 years. Try leaving. Do something new. If you lead an alliance that isn't going anywhere, find someone to help you, merge it or disband it and let go. Don't sit around waiting to be taught, message the people who know things, ask them questions. learn the game as best you can, leverage that knowledge to get yourself government positions. Find the shortages and exploit it. Message people you've never spoken to before, bury a beef you have, start a new one.

Be proactive...or failing that just do what most people do and complain about it.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Fulcrum said:

You make interesting points here, but I wanted to mention one point in particular:

This seems like a strange way to phrase the issue. "Democracy" would just allow the most charismatic and arrogant idiot to take charge and likely run things to the ground. I think what you meant is more the realm of scouting or meritocracy. Alliances would have better success if gov members actively seek talent within their membership and help train members who are interested in volunteering. Being more open to giving interested members a chance to show what they can do would be a good way to keep the ones with potential on your side and let new ideas have a chance in even the most established of communities.

There are plenty charismatic and arrogant idiots in charge of more than a few alliances already, and that'a without democracy.

  • Like 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Charles Bolivar said:

There are plenty charismatic and arrogant idiots in charge of more than a few alliances already, and that'a without democracy.

Fair, but imagine how much worse it would be if all those alliances were also democracy fanatics 

2016/04/26 –

mIjXiMx.gif

Unreleased Bad Company advert, circa 2018

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Fulcrum said:

Fair, but imagine how much worse it would be if all those alliances were also democracy fanatics 

I'm not so sure tbh. I admit there would be a few, but no more higher a percentage than compared to regular alliances I suspect. Considering the other game, which has a lengthy history of functioning democratic alliances, democracy if implemented correctly is perfectly viable. In a lot of ways, most democratic alliances end up resembling meritocratic AAs overtime anyway.

Personally, I'd be interested in seeing a more radically inclined direct/consultative democracy if only to see how it would operate. Indeed, as a few might know, I've contemplated creating such an alliance in the past 🤷‍♂️

  • Upvote 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about democracy in these games is that, unless you have a relatively strong and talented player base, any democratic alliance is going to be beset by demagoguery. Such an act does not represent true ability or skill at the wider game; merely what you can do or present to your own members. The flip side is that democracy can work, but again, you have to have active and engaged players to pull it off. Such alliances tend to be smaller anyway, because managing all the personalities in the room is hard at scale. Charles posted about that idea just above.

Some game departments do not lend themselves to having a lot of people involved, and some alliance cultures also constrain this. You really do not need that many people in Econ or Tech; and there is a good chance that in some places the Econ people blend with MilCom or IA. On a different note, while there have been attempts to have a large FA staff in t$, it usually has not been a long lasting or durable idea. This is more down to alliance culture, and the types of people who have led t$ FA, than realities on the ground with managing global affairs.

Having said that, there is a relatively diminished scale in terms of working with other alliances compared to what would happen if we had 1000 member alliances and more major powers. You have a much easier time managing those kinds of decisions in smaller groups when you do not have as many people or places to visit. The advent of improved technology, and the blessing to use it in some instances by the admins, has led to some departments needing far fewer staff to operate.

Most of our alliances in this game are within the realm of Dunbar's Number, whether the 150 version or the expanded 230 Bernard–Killworth version. That will play into community formation, and how some larger alliances will grow and have something attractive to join, versus a smaller group with more limited resources and less ability to influence world politics.

 

On 1/15/2023 at 6:47 PM, Roberts said:

Building off of this, I also think a big part of it is that the major powers have stopped really participating in the politics of the rest of the world. There is no accountability other than verbal threat for most of the smaller AA's. Pay lip service and stay out of the majors ways and you're pretty much safe except from raiders. Get a protector and suddenly natural selection no longer exists.

TKR, Rose, t$, Eclipse, Cata, etc. all only concern themselves with whatever TKR, Rose, t$, Eclipse, Cata, etc. are doing.

 

If we stopped constantly slamming into each other over tiering issues and start going after grudges or loud-mouthed micros, I think the game would become more interesting and politics would flow a little more naturally than constantly arguing over tiering, size, or treaty chess.\

I can scarcely think of the last time I actually felt emotion from any given war against Rose or t$ or whoever.

 

I am very much on record for beating the tar out of micros with skill issues because they are a waste, and I am more than eager to clear them off of the Green color sphere as well. Most of the powers on Green are not exactly the best of friends with each other, but there is a tacit understanding that they will all be better off if scrubby nations are cleared from the color. This is an act of politics that transcends alliance treaties, and it really only one of the few examples of it happening out there. For some reason most alliances feel like they can put their offshore on Green too, which is misguided.

This does not change the fact that for most of the majors, there is little need to "participate in the politics of the rest of the world", because there just are not that many alliances in the world which are worth paying attention to. Changeup mentions the same thing above.

But this is not some attempt to crack at a historical punching bag like (insert your favorite historical punching bag here) - when you account for offshores and academies, there are not really that many alliances outside of the Top 60 or so worth really dealing with. As I stated earlier, I am more than glad to see them exiled from Green, but otherwise... meh. And for most nations above c20, there would not be a lot to do either.

 

In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem.
Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cüm Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Damn I totally missed this topic.

 

From what I understand the main question is "Do we have a shortage of new blood in macros due to new alliances forming or do new alliances forming attract new blood, leaving macros with a stagnant government line up?" And I am gonna rant about it

 

Well, as someone that very much fits the definition of "new blood" that has definitely taken the micro route over and over again I can say that macros are the most depressing thing ever. I like some of the macros like TKR (although I would never join it due to slack) and at times I was very much looking to get out of the environment I was in and join a new alliance, but macros are so depressing.

 

The problem with macros was always that, whichever one I joined, I would be looking at, at least, over 6 months without having any real form of decision power in my department, pretty much no matter my level of activity and time put into doing aa work. In smaller alliances you can get some form of decision power within the aa within a month and see clear political growth in the meanwhile. Macros are just so depressing.

 

And I honestly wonder just how much decision power even the high government of established alliances have. I assume that the IA head of TKR could not, all of the sudden, start having the same standards and procedures as the IA head of TFAP has and viceversa. The same with Econ or even milcom. The system already exists and, at best, after months of grinding, you might be chosen to just carry the torch. Maybe you get lucky and get into a position to make some small changes.

 

All of this is only as long as the old department head that was absolutely amazing doesn't suddenly decide to just come back and take over the department.

 

Meanwhile there are alliances like SRF (Now part of Serene Wei). SRF was a bit of special case since it essentially goes back to IKEA, 2020, but it still followed the micro situation where the government might be full, but there are opportunities everywhere and a lot more room for change than in almost all established alliances. A place in which I could get a real chance of getting some decision power and play the politics game. (Granted this was a particularly special case because I knew the leader, Matshaa, from a year ago and he had mentored me on some things before)

 

If alliances like SRF didn't exist, I don't think I would have joined Eclipse or whatever alliance with the same motivation. It is just extremely depressing to know that, no matter how well you do, you are just not getting that decision power in ages. I think I would have decidedly pretty much quit gov/staff work and just focuss on some separate project like the essays I was writing. Instead I am currently in charge of Serene Dojo (the training AA for Serene Wei) and contributing much more to the game than I would have otherwise. 

 

I don't see how macros should change their current position too much either. Largely speaking, the best people should be in charge of the most things and new blood usually just isn't up to the level of people with half a decade more of experience.

 

Micros will just always offer new blood something macros shouldn't offer. There is not much to do about it and I am happy micros exist, they motivate me much more than those established alliances.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Johnson Boris said:

I assume that the IA head of TKR could not, all of the sudden, start having the same standards and procedures as the IA head of TFAP

Welp now I've gotta do it.

  • Haha 1

Humans cannot create anything out of nothingness. Humans cannot accomplish anything without holding onto something. After all, humans are not gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Johnson Boris said:

The problem with macros was always that, whichever one I joined, I would be looking at, at least, over 6 months without having any real form of decision power in my department, pretty much no matter my level of activity and time put into doing aa work. In smaller alliances you can get some form of decision power within the aa within a month and see clear political growth in the meanwhile. Macros are just so depressing.

 

And I honestly wonder just how much decision power even the high government of established alliances have. I assume that the IA head of TKR could not, all of the sudden, start having the same standards and procedures as the IA head of TFAP has and viceversa. The same with Econ or even milcom. The system already exists and, at best, after months of grinding, you might be chosen to just carry the torch. Maybe you get lucky and get into a position to make some small changes.

I have to wonder if you even tried at all since when I ran Rose Econ I hired anybody who seemed helpful and gave them all the power they wanted to do their job. No one was active enough or dedicated enough to take over the reins for Econ (and believe me I tried to find them). And when I joined Rose originally I was helping milcom and Econ within literal days of joining (and took over Econ not so long after that). And all the time I interfered with Rose FA team or shouted down Mhearl until he explained his plans to me. Seems to me like you had a preconceived notion of what alliance politics would be. You have to step up and make yourself known since I do not believe for one second you were super active and competent and didn't get promoted right away.

I have nothing against micros and have joined many over the years but saying they are clearly superior is just wrong imho. People have to learn to speak up for what they want and not just wait for it to be given to them passively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mayor said:

I have to wonder if you even tried at all since when I ran Rose Econ I hired anybody who seemed helpful and gave them all the power they wanted to do their job. No one was active enough or dedicated enough to take over the reins for Econ (and believe me I tried to find them). And when I joined Rose originally I was helping milcom and Econ within literal days of joining (and took over Econ not so long after that). And all the time I interfered with Rose FA team or shouted down Mhearl until he explained his plans to me. Seems to me like you had a preconceived notion of what alliance politics would be. You have to step up and make yourself known since I do not believe for one second you were super active and competent and didn't get promoted right away.

I have nothing against micros and have joined many over the years but saying they are clearly superior is just wrong imho. People have to learn to speak up for what they want and not just wait for it to be given to them passively.

I don't mean that I wouldn't be able to do staff work, I mean that I wouldn't be able to make decisions on, in the example of Econ, how high the taxes should be, whether the AA should grant X and y or only y, that type of stuff. Staff work you can do anywhere, but making decisions on how a certain area is run, not so much.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Johnson Boris said:

I don't mean that I wouldn't be able to do staff work, I mean that I wouldn't be able to make decisions on, in the example of Econ, how high the taxes should be, whether the AA should grant X and y or only y, that type of stuff. Staff work you can do anywhere, but making decisions on how a certain area is run, not so much.

That is not so true tbh, as leader of Rose Econ I would talk to others all the time about the tax rate. I remember a rebellion against my high taxes and Dynamic (Emperor) decided to lower taxes without telling me because everyone was complaining. Anyone leading Econ after me could do exactly the same thing and there are no laws against that. People need to learn to be more assertive in order to get what they want and not make excuses.

When I joined Rose I didn't like the direction of the Econ team, so I joined low gov and eventually took it over unofficially, and then got elected with Dynamic as Econ lead. I made many decisions regarding grants and taxes already and was probably not even in the alliance for 6 months at that time. Many of the big alliances I have joined and none are nearly as rigid as you make them out to be and are pretty open to suggestions and changes. Anyways I am glad you found a place you feel you belong but your experience is unique to you and not universal.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.