Jump to content

Elite Alliances are Obselete


Sketchy
 Share

Recommended Posts

It is more fun to be in elite alliances, being in alliances like Rose are boring because you are just a tiny nation in an alliance over 200. I feel like in elite or smaller alliances I have more say on what goes on (even if not in gov), and am listened to. Also they are way more unique, more challenges and opportunities for shenanigans. Large alliances usually don't want to rock to boat too much. This is actually why I left Paradise because I thought we were losing our small alliance charm.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the alternative would be either micros or large alliances I guess elite alliance would be better. Large alliances indeed are boring. The elite small high govs don't have the time nor interest to really engage with the lower 75% and wars are extremely well planned, followed by long NAPs. 

Micros on the other hand seems to enjoy the best parts of the game, better cb's, relative quicker growth or decline, exiting wars with lasting impacts. Elite alliances could atleast in part better fit the micro playstyle than the large alliances. 

But the benefits for large alliances are better than the other sides apparently and many people who play pnw for a long time feel comfortable having a minimum of input without loosing all the effort already made. 

 

On another note, very nice to see the forums a bit more active!

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and to think @Sri Lanka 001 wanted to kick all my farms from E404 /s

Anywho, there's always going to be a place for playstyle specific alliances, because there's an attraction to a playstyle that can't be as well met by mass member alliances. But they would have to compete in aggregate (i.e. with allies) as opposed to rivaling the majors 1 to 1. 

You also see a lot of "democratic" micros pop up with a lot of members, because whilst being dysfunctional, offer less barriers to gov participation to inexperienced players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Arthur Wellington said:

Micros on the other hand seems to enjoy the best parts of the game, better cb's, relative quicker growth or decline, exiting wars with lasting impacts. Elite alliances could atleast in part better fit the micro playstyle than the large alliances. 

I like this point a lot, the comparison is especially obvious and is more in align with 2016-2018 CB’s. 
 

Here are some notable examples that I liked a lot:

- Micro Management [2018] CB: Bricks wanted 50 million. :ehm:

- Antarctic Expedition/Aqua War [2023] CB: Classic color bloc purge  :P

- Strategic Arms Limitation Talks [2018] CB: Bloc Politics :popcorn:

 

Also not to mention civil wars (which are always fun) and those rare moments where micros gang up against macros. Anyways, I never seem to see any of those war reasons anymore (also where did extortion wars go?) it always seems to be “Backroom Dealings” for some reason…

  • Upvote 2

2b871152847bb14e5612b4881402f8e8da8b93c0x376.gif

35053a4b9f3dfa4fe407d2282afcfd3d52874832x427.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shamelessly co-opting an Aba analysis I see.

 

In all seriousness though I more or less agree. I think a numerical advantage provides a major strategic benefit, even in spite of the potential for uneven skill or activity distribution. A player that seems relatively inactive but is max milled is still a potential liability to not target in a global. And to an elite AA facing off against a mass AA, that means at best excess losses and at worst the makings of a losing war.

 

But importantly when you recruit you’re often not just getting numbers to pad your stats or distract your enemy. Encouraging new players to raid and thus propel themselves drives self-sufficiency, mechanics competency, and general responsiveness. Granted, the type of player who can follow through on the play-style involved comes through maybe 1 in 5 applicants, and results may vary based on IA competency. But overall that’s often good enough to build a pool of relatively reliable new players. 

 

But I can’t say I don’t understand why everyone isn’t hopping on this train. While not in-game resource intensive, it can be time intensive. And frankly you could put all your effort into trying to get someone to follow a play-style and be engaged, but if they’re not having fun they’re going to just leave and that time investment is lost. As well, the game has changed so much that I think it can be difficult for veteran players to even comprehend what the new player experience is like. Playing the game efficiently in this era is a lot different than in the past, and is pretty divorced from the “build and customize your own nation!” type messaging that the game markets itself on (though perhaps this has been true for a while). Not to mention that raiding was once a pretty niche play-style. A lot of veterans don’t know the first thing about maximizing raid profit. And the meta has even shifted since raiding became standard practice.

 

Overall I think new players are a very overlooked part of the game. From what I’ve seen, the idea of “low tier MA”, for example, more or less just has the makings of a bad joke to many players. But I think there is a difference to be made if not an opportunity to be capitalized on by focusing on and shaping the new player experience in a way that both makes an impact in the game while being meaningful and engaging for the new players. Frankly, to Roberts’ point, it can be difficult given the state of the game, but I think there is more potential than many might presently realize.

  • Upvote 3

Resident DJ @ Club Orbis

Founder of The Warehouse

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alastor said:

People are migrating in larger numbers to mass members due to logistical capacity increasing, but only for the most high-effort and well-connected players: Locutus is not a substitute for the bots that most majors have access to. TSC has been using Locutus since inception and have been extremely grateful that we have any bot at all, but it's an esoteric mess that if I hadn't been using it for years I'd have no idea what I'm looking at for even basic commands. 

I mean I agree it's not user friendly but it has probably more functionality than any inhouse bot I've seen, and it's open source.

4 hours ago, Alastor said:

Another point worth noting too: The culture shift of the game has moved away from big personalities starting new alliances, and more into joining established groups to try and take leadership roles there. Again this is yet another bad cultural phenomena we can blame on Rose for popularizing. I'd actually say for quite awhile it's been considered taboo to not poach for talent instead of growing it, but realistically this is a game and "growing" talent is probably 1 in 10,000 players. The real "homegrown talents" are just new players who already had IRL skillsets and personality matches ready to step into leadership roles like Canbec for TKR.

I half agree. The game hasn't moved away from big personalities starting new alliances specifically though, it's moved away from big personalities in general. Big personalities form when things happen, drama etc. There isn't much drama in the game, people are focused on playing it lowkey/avoiding conflict.

 

Rest of your post isn't really disagreeing with me, just adding more reasons why my premise is correct. I don't necessarily disagree the game is in decline, but I think you've weaved a little far from the primary claim being made.

  • Upvote 2

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

I mean I agree it's not user friendly but it has probably more functionality than any inhouse bot I've seen

That's Roberts' point, yes. functionality alone means little to a new user who can’t grasp the commands. Advanced users might value more features, but for beginners, ease of use is often more important

That said, I agree with both your points, that Locutus is a boon for people without tech skills wanting to manage an alliance. and that, the barrier to entry to it is quite high (in terms of time and effort needed to learn the commands)

HEADERS_CTO12.png

Inform Zigbir I have forgotten how to edit the signature field
Please remind me how to do it post haste!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Krampus said:

That's Roberts' point, yes. functionality alone means little to a new user who can’t grasp the commands. Advanced users might value more features, but for beginners, ease of use is often more important

That said, I agree with both your points, that Locutus is a boon for people without tech skills wanting to manage an alliance. and that, the barrier to entry to it is quite high (in terms of time and effort needed to learn the commands)

That's fair. My point was the tech level of the game has massively improved and has made managing larger alliances easier for smaller groups of people.

The barrier for entry to use Locotus might be high, but the existence of it and other alternatives/knowledge in the game is still better than it was.

Still I'm not making the case it's easy to make a mass member alliance. I'm making the case it's the most competitive way to play.

 

Edit: Also, I had no idea how to use Locotus when I first came back. I find Borg to be pretty helpful/able to answer questions.

Edited by Sketchy

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone in an elite alliance, I think the experience we bring to the table is still very valuable, but because the stupid ass meta of the game is completely optimized for tiering and high tier cities now, it is very correct by definition that mass member alliances will achieve this growth far easier than small alliances given sufficient econ gov. Is it killing the game because everyone optimizes toward the same lame meta? Yes. Is anything ever going to be done about it? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, hidude45454 said:

As someone in an elite alliance, I think the experience we bring to the table is still very valuable, but because the stupid ass meta of the game is completely optimized for tiering and high tier cities now, it is very correct by definition that mass member alliances will achieve this growth far easier than small alliances given sufficient econ gov. Is it killing the game because everyone optimizes toward the same lame meta? Yes. Is anything ever going to be done about it? No.

And yet you can't be bothered to obey your MDP with Guardian but to farm and spy @Buck Turgidson, Sad times indeed. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PnW is a game based around the idea of Rock, Paper, Scissors as its most basic balancing mechanic. The problem is that this balancing no longer applies to the games most important feature: alliances. Currently micros and nanos (the ones that last more than a week or two) raid for growth (Rock) and the major and macro alliances (top 25 or even 50 depending on where you draw the line) generally farm for growth (Paper) at their mid and high tiers. The elite alliances could fulfill the scissors role but there is no such thing at this point (at least that I can think of). They are less efficient at raiding for growth because there are fewer and more risky raid targets at the mid to high tier level and cannot compete with the larger alliances in farming because it is purely a numbers game. The game needs an incentive (mechanics wise) to create and join smaller elite alliances. Am I smart enough to think of any? Absolutely not. (also the commenter above me is an idiot who sniffs sharpies for fun)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Conald Petersen said:

PnW is a game based around the idea of Rock, Paper, Scissors as its most basic balancing mechanic. The problem is that this balancing no longer applies to the games most important feature: alliances. Currently micros and nanos (the ones that last more than a week or two) raid for growth (Rock) and the major and macro alliances (top 25 or even 50 depending on where you draw the line) generally farm for growth (Paper) at their mid and high tiers. The elite alliances could fulfill the scissors role but there is no such thing at this point (at least that I can think of). They are less efficient at raiding for growth because there are fewer and more risky raid targets at the mid to high tier level and cannot compete with the larger alliances in farming because it is purely a numbers game. The game needs an incentive (mechanics wise) to create and join smaller elite alliances. Am I smart enough to think of any? Absolutely not. (also the commenter above me is an idiot who sniffs sharpies for fun)

Scissors in your metaphor would be turreting/dogpiling, waging war with the objective of causing damage and thus slowing farming growth. Which elite alliances are good at, so I agree with your point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2025 at 2:42 AM, hidude45454 said:

As someone in an elite alliance, I think the experience we bring to the table is still very valuable, but because the stupid ass meta of the game is completely optimized for tiering and high tier cities now, it is very correct by definition that mass member alliances will achieve this growth far easier than small alliances given sufficient econ gov. Is it killing the game because everyone optimizes toward the same lame meta? Yes. Is anything ever going to be done about it? No.

I'm getting to it, dw

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.