Dilemma of 2 powerful groups forming and never braking up into many diverse groups

I noticed a serious dilemma, which practically all games face, where people can unite into groups. While at the early stages of a game there is a big diversity of alliances, over time they tend to group together, resulting in only two powerhouses and only insignificant neutral alliances.

From my point of view these are the causes:
-People are social creatures and they tend to group together (creating alliances)
-When there is danger, bigger groups are more likely to ensure survival (alliances banding together)

What behaviour helps fights this:
-Players who have ambitions to be leaders can brake away from alliances and create their own, helping to create diversity.

In real life we experience the same thing, strong nations trying to expand their spheres of influence (We see it now mostly by USA, EU, Russia and China), and nations grouping together. In the past nations were also grouping together, often forming 2 powerhouses (30 years war, Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2, Cold War), which usually ended in a massive war, and either one powerhouse absorbed the nations of the other one, or the losing side became weak and lost their influence. Then there was a period of a strong superpower, which eventually has broken apart due to internal strife, or due to other causes (new ideology, religion, doctrines, or simply ambition of people to become their own leaders)

Now we are talking about games, and the problems that happen in RL can be solved by changing the way how the game works. So let's think of ways how this can be solved.

What behaviour won't solve the problem:
-Artificially restricting alliance sizes, because then simply empires will form with multiple alliances grouping together.

The most important thing needed to have more alliances is to have people with a strong ambition to be leaders. I fear there are not enough people with such an ambition. Because if they were there, they would have created alliances long ago. Aderan Wars gained many new players, but how many alliances were recruiting members? I don't think it was many.

Please discuss what causes this dilemma and what could have been done to prevent it (for games generally)

Two..?

Yes, eventually it all leads to only two sides. Of course it can go to an extreme and there will be only one side left (If those two go to battle until one is destroyed)

Obviously more sides make the game more interesting. Imagine if instead of the big top alliances there were many alliances about 10 people each led by ambitious leaders?

I have suggested this before but admin was adamant he didn't want this option at the time, I do agree in some ways that alliances should be limited in size 10 or 16 would be my preference. But there would have to be some kind of incentive I believe to achieve this.

Although the likelihood is most would stay loyal and become a part of an empire, But there could be more scope for in house fighting and skirmishes due to game and maybe political/diplomatic fall outs.

It doesn't look good for the game with the gulf between the first few alliances in my view with the current situation.

Kenzu wrote:Yes, eventually it all leads to only two sides. Of course it can go to an extreme and there will be only one side left (If those two go to battle until one is destroyed)

Obviously more sides make the game more interesting. Imagine if instead of the big top alliances there were many alliances about 10 people each led by ambitious leaders?

Interesting comments considering that there is really only one alliance that is growing in members

mental wrote:I have suggested this before but admin was adamant he didn't want this option at the time, I do agree in some ways that alliances should be limited in size 10 or 16 would be my preference. But there would have to be some kind of incentive I believe to achieve this.

Although the likelihood is most would stay loyal and become a part of an empire, But there could be more scope for in house fighting and skirmishes due to game and maybe political/diplomatic fall outs.

It doesn't look good for the game with the gulf between the first few alliances in my view with the current situation.

As I said restricting the number of members will not solve anything, because the main problem is that there are not enough leaders. Most people just want to play and don't want to spend time on organizing alliances. It's not only more responsibility, but also more work.

Manleva wrote:

Kenzu wrote:Yes, eventually it all leads to only two sides. Of course it can go to an extreme and there will be only one side left (If those two go to battle until one is destroyed)

Obviously more sides make the game more interesting. Imagine if instead of the big top alliances there were many alliances about 10 people each led by ambitious leaders?

Interesting comments considering that there is really only one alliance that is growing in members

Try to guess why. Because the other alliances lack the ambition to recruit members. Hence why I said there is a lack of ambitious leaders.

I checked 1000 of the newest players, and this is how many joined which alliance:
WR +25
Holy Cross +3
TDK +2

This is going to sound truly abrasive and like it is a personal attack against you Kenzu, but I will ask you please read it as the forum admin, and the creator of this thread, not as the leader of WR.

I see things a bit differently then you. You see I see WR as the biggest problem. All the other alliance self regulate. They do not bring in ever single account they possibly can. As an example WR is well over 100 members, but if it self regulated itself to lets say 50, then that is 50 accounts that would have had to find new homes. If all the "established" alliances had standards then those 50 accounts would have to create new alliances to even have homes at all.

Again, this will sound personal against you, but its not. I am just being honest on how I see my alliance in comparison to other alliances in the game. My alliance has approximately 6 leaders. I think 4 of them have carried the title of alliance leader, and all can speak or act on behalf of the alliance. We have and do cultivate leaders within our alliance. Our alliance was born from splitting from another alliance.

Munjengan has both the alliance leader and 2IC vacated. No one can even tell anyone who is in charge. Issues with individual players have to be dealt with without any leadership from Munjengan.

WR Has 1 leader, no known or active diplomat or second in command. It sucks up every account that shows signs of life. From past experience, not only my own but past WR members, there is little to no ,,,,what I call real communication. A few blanket generalization tips, and little to nothing past that. In all honesty I think the leader of WR tries to do to much with to little support and it leads to the early death(players stop playing) of many WR members.

Lastly, to the real issue at hand,,,,and this is just how I perceive the real issue. It is lack of activity and player to player interaction in the game. To be completely honest the game is boring. The most active times are war times, and those happen 1 maybe 2 times a year on average. I agree running an alliance is work, so why would anyone want to do it if there is no gain? A boring game you play to stat build and climb ranks and little more. You don't need an alliance to do that. Maybe idlely sit in one for protection but the "Drive" to create and run your own alliance in an action-less game just isn't there. One of the greatest instigators is need. If you need help and protection and no one will help you then you find others like you and make your own group. As long as there is no "need" for new leaders, none will ever step forward because it is hard work.

To me even game driven alliance restrictions would be a great thing. Yes I do think empires will form, but I see 2 good things that could be born from this. The first is an empire of 3 alliances will be divided. You have A, B, and C. Now A is the overall leader, B, and C are the lower/smaller alliances. B hates alliance X and wants to wage war. C is friendly with alliance X and wants peace. This is called internal strife and conflict. This is what splits empires and forms new alliances. It is common knowledge birds of a feather flock together. The more aggressive players will find people like them who are aggressive and eventually things will happen. Secondly the reason I think it could be a good thing is AW is very political, and this would be a way to allow wars that are not "full scale alliance on alliance". 2 empires are having issues, so instead of going full scale and putting every account at risk they migrate the warrior accounts to 1 alliance. 2 empires with 3 alliances each can put 10 guys in 1 alliance, and those 10 fight it out, leaving the rest out of the war. This would protect the weak/new/smaller/wounded from previous battles accounts.

Ultimately this is a player issue, not a game issue. Only the players can "fix" this. The administration, nor any code will ever fix it.

Again, I hope you can understand that this is not a personal jab at you, but honestly how I see things inagme. I do apologize for it basically being more against you and WR then anything, but again I am just trying to be honest and express how I see fault in your and WR actions when it comes to taking on so many accounts that you as a single person can not offer the 1 on 1 training time that we do in my alliance. I am not saying "this is how it is" I am saying this is how it looks from an outsider looking in on the WR ranks.

Nomad wrote:This is going to sound truly abrasive and like it is a personal attack against you Kenzu, but I will ask you please read it as the forum admin, and the creator of this thread, not as the leader of WR.

I see things a bit differently then you. You see I see WR as the biggest problem. All the other alliance self regulate. They do not bring in ever single account they possibly can. As an example WR is well over 100 members, but if it self regulated itself to lets say 50, then that is 50 accounts that would have had to find new homes. If all the "established" alliances had standards then those 50 accounts would have to create new alliances to even have homes at all.

Again, this will sound personal against you, but its not. I am just being honest on how I see my alliance in comparison to other alliances in the game. My alliance has approximately 6 leaders. I think 4 of them have carried the title of alliance leader, and all can speak or act on behalf of the alliance. We have and do cultivate leaders within our alliance. Our alliance was born from splitting from another alliance.

Munjengan has both the alliance leader and 2IC vacated. No one can even tell anyone who is in charge. Issues with individual players have to be dealt with without any leadership from Munjengan.

WR Has 1 leader, no known or active diplomat or second in command. It sucks up every account that shows signs of life. From past experience, not only my own but past WR members, there is little to no ,,,,what I call real communication. A few blanket generalization tips, and little to nothing past that. In all honesty I think the leader of WR tries to do to much with to little support and it leads to the early death(players stop playing) of many WR members.

Lastly, to the real issue at hand,,,,and this is just how I perceive the real issue. It is lack of activity and player to player interaction in the game. To be completely honest the game is boring. The most active times are war times, and those happen 1 maybe 2 times a year on average. I agree running an alliance is work, so why would anyone want to do it if there is no gain? A boring game you play to stat build and climb ranks and little more. You don't need an alliance to do that. Maybe idlely sit in one for protection but the "Drive" to create and run your own alliance in an action-less game just isn't there. One of the greatest instigators is need. If you need help and protection and no one will help you then you find others like you and make your own group. As long as there is no "need" for new leaders, none will ever step forward because it is hard work.

To me even game driven alliance restrictions would be a great thing. Yes I do think empires will form, but I see 2 good things that could be born from this. The first is an empire of 3 alliances will be divided. You have A, B, and C. Now A is the overall leader, B, and C are the lower/smaller alliances. B hates alliance X and wants to wage war. C is friendly with alliance X and wants peace. This is called internal strife and conflict. This is what splits empires and forms new alliances. It is common knowledge birds of a feather flock together. The more aggressive players will find people like them who are aggressive and eventually things will happen. Secondly the reason I think it could be a good thing is AW is very political, and this would be a way to allow wars that are not "full scale alliance on alliance". 2 empires are having issues, so instead of going full scale and putting every account at risk they migrate the warrior accounts to 1 alliance. 2 empires with 3 alliances each can put 10 guys in 1 alliance, and those 10 fight it out, leaving the rest out of the war. This would protect the weak/new/smaller/wounded from previous battles accounts.

Ultimately this is a player issue, not a game issue. Only the players can "fix" this. The administration, nor any code will ever fix it.

Again, I hope you can understand that this is not a personal jab at you, but honestly how I see things inagme. I do apologize for it basically being more against you and WR then anything, but again I am just trying to be honest and express how I see fault in your and WR actions when it comes to taking on so many accounts that you as a single person can not offer the 1 on 1 training time that we do in my alliance. I am not saying "this is how it is" I am saying this is how it looks from an outsider looking in on the WR ranks.

It doesn't appear to me to be a personal attack at all.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. As you know our opinions differ on a lot of issues, including this one.

While I believe that by caring about new players, giving them advice, inviting them to the alliance and becoming friends with them, World Republic is doing the right thing and helps to increase the chances that a player will stay, you disagree and believe that their membership in World Republic harms their activity. TMI and World Republic are alliances with ideologies and beliefs very different from each other.

Also the people who are in each of these alliances differ a lot in their mentality and their origins. World Republic is raising new generations of players, who never played such games before, while TMI relies on old players who have played similar games for years. It is clear that someone who is one of the old players may have a hard time imagining what new players think like and to understand the reasoning of an alliance, which is led by reasoning completely different from his own.

Interesting comments Kenzu and you are correct that opinions will differ.

What you have also been incorrect about that in this case you are wrong. While TMI may be composed of many members who are experienced it does not mean that we do not accept or encourage new players. We just go about it in a different manner.

While we do not actively recruit new players or even members we are not a closed shop and anyone is able to join so long as they meet our requirements and will follow our policies and no size is not a condition. We will also assist anyone who asks for advice.

Limiting Alliance size is one mechanism that can increase the number of Alliances but by it's self it is not the answer. The attitude of existing players has an affect as does a strong and well supported forum. A good forum should encourage players to communicate about many different things outside of the game which in turn causes different relationships between players to develop. These relationships it turn lead to alliances founded on different principles and for different reasons.

It might change your perception to know it is not past experience that is required, but activity and dedication. 3 HC never played these games before AW (I think 1 played SGW for around a month). One of the people who has been both leader and 2IC in also not an "experienced" player.

I don't think WR is "doing wrong", but I do think your trying to do far to much with to little help.

See when I said two? I was right. Muj may qualify as another power alliance but WR are bunch of jokers

Save the politics for someplace relevant, would you?
Not the thing I want to see when I return from a long weekend.

Gamniac wrote:Save the politics for someplace relevant, would you?
Not the thing I want to see when I return from a long weekend.

then I would say for you to tell your boss (keinutnai/kenzu) to stop making ridiculous statements, as it is his continually making false claims that started this in the first place.

Stop going off topic. Leave your accussations to relevant threads.

in the relevant INGAME poll, people rejected alliance restrictions

I was thinking about a better way of promoting more/smaller alliances, like some weird formula that gives each alliance member extra gold based on size of alliance and/or a leadership only bonus (so more ppl willing to lead their own alliances for extra gold)

But ultimately it boils down to semantics and people's behavior. I can't force people to break up, adding incentives for small(er) alliances will just make people readjust to get as much benefits as possible but still "sticking together"

Admin wrote:in the relevant INGAME poll, people rejected alliance restrictions

I was thinking about a better way of promoting more/smaller alliances, like some weird formula that gives each alliance member extra gold based on size of alliance and/or a leadership only bonus (so more ppl willing to lead their own alliances for extra gold)

But ultimately it boils down to semantics and people's behavior. I can't force people to break up, adding incentives for small(er) alliances will just make people readjust to get as much benefits as possible but still "sticking together"

You are correct. I know I would simply pull into groups of 4 or 5 players each and fly an empire banner to unit them.

Only issue is the alliance war experiance. Its jacked up already, and I think long term its doing more harm then good now, but thats neither here nor there.

As someone who has long since departed this game (I occasionally stumble by to see how things are) let me offer my personal view on this:

The Problem is, and has always been - World Republic tends to suck up all new players it can into its masses - where you then fail to actually pass on the necessary skills & experiences to turn those players into competitive players.. and by competitive: I mean players with a real chance & shot at becoming among the very best on the game.

There also was very little/no team spirit/direct communication in World Republic beyond the "elite" members of WR - and by that, I mean your old-core players & mainly leadership.

I still remember back when The Commonwealth joined this game - we were all new, but we worked together & placed heavy focus on individual development & on passing on skills & experiences to our members so they could become strong players limited only by their motivation & activity.

Then we expanded further to take on new players, and trained them up - then we eventually formed our alliance with The Company... and together built The Imperium Empire.....

.... a empire which at its peak, it took 4 different alliances outnumbering its members more than 4 to 1 to even hold the line against.

Why was that? It wasn't because our members were "Better" than any other alliances. It wasn't because they were "more experienced" - it was because they worked as a team and shared their experiences with one another & taught one another.

By Sharing experiences, by teaching one another, by together working as part a of a team we laid the foundations for all of our members willing to listen, to have the necessary skills & understanding to develop into strong & effective members - which in turn eventually led to them actually becoming better, more experienced & generally enjoying the game a lot more due to being successful.

Its all about giving the members the tools they need to be successful - as the saying goes "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day - teach him to fish, feed him for life".

World Republic fails to teach its members adequately - The Imperium, Mujengan and a few other alliances in their prime did succeed in doing this.

If the game is to have any future - the larger (membership wise) alliances need to ensure they teach their members how to play, so that those members are more likely to be successful & keep playing or otherwise keep playing & move onto other alliances/create their own/invite their friends etc...

If they don't: Those new players will eventually grow bored and leave... and just join the endless horder of inactive or borderline inactive accounts which exist.

The responsibility rests with the alliances & their leadership - ensure you give them those skills they need... or don't bother accepting them and let another alliance with more time & willingness do it instead.

To limit the alliance to 10 members will do just great:D:D:D

ian wrote:
The Problem is, and has always been - World Republic tends to suck up all new players it can into its masses - where you then fail to actually pass on the necessary skills & experiences to turn those players into competitive players.. and by competitive: I mean players with a real chance & shot at becoming among the very best on the game.

There also was very little/no team spirit/direct communication in World Republic beyond the "elite" members of WR - and by that, I mean your old-core players & mainly leadership.

(...)

World Republic fails to teach its members adequately - The Imperium, Mujengan and a few other alliances in their prime did succeed in doing this.

If the game is to have any future - the larger (membership wise) alliances need to ensure they teach their members how to play, so that those members are more likely to be successful & keep playing or otherwise keep playing & move onto other alliances/create their own/invite their friends etc...

If they don't: Those new players will eventually grow bored and leave... and just join the endless horder of inactive or borderline inactive accounts which exist.

The responsibility rests with the alliances & their leadership - ensure you give them those skills they need... or don't bother accepting them and let another alliance with more time & willingness do it instead.

As one who has yet to breach the "old core" (I'm still among the last to hear the latest news, though joining the forums did add a predicting factor), I can at least verify WR's communication issues (except possibly during war).

Oddly, though, the lack of people telling me what to do and how to do it is what I like in the Republic. I've had a handful of lesser experiences in other MMO's where people would nearly obligate me to use a certain (PVP oriented) macro, method or move pool. I recall one instance, during a dungeon run, when my (pick-up) companion at the time actually stopped me, performed a macro right in front of me and simply yelled "use it!".
Naturally, that didn't fly with me (PVE oriented).
I'm the sort who simply played (I quit them all for for varying reasons) those games as an equivalent of kicking my feet up.
I'm perfectly content with just reading the tutorial (if it's not in the tutorial, I do not have to know to play) and figuring out the rest, along with my play-style, on my own from there. To me, pleasantries from a Guild or Alliance are completely optional (which does not mean I won't go out of my way to aid Guild-/Alliance mates when they ask for help).
That's the approach I take in Aderan Wars. In WR, I (usually) don't get yelled at for doing my own thing, simply taking things at my own pace (or until I run out of AT) and remaining largely independent of the Alliance insofar as possible. As a result(?), I actually fit in here.

Rule, meet exception.

I'm not stating this in (full) defense of World Republic's way of "mentoring" the smaller fry, and I understand this freedom or whatever you call it is not everyone's cup of tea, I'm merely stating that it works for me. I wouldn't know how to go about teaching newbies, myself, either.
I have made a point of telling my officers that, if they have questions, they are free to ask, and pointed them at some of the juicy Farm targets, ones I hit for at least 2,5 bill twice a day. All of them are (borderline) in-active as a result, so my method is quite probably faulty (though the last war, during which they fell in in-activity, probably didn't help much, either).

So far for my reply to Ian's post and similar criticism to WR's methods in regards to newbies.

vaga wrote: To limit the alliance to 10 members will do just great:D:D:D

Still doesn't avoid the whole 'Empire-of-five-alliances-under-one-supreme-ruler' scenario, Vaga.

While I would agree we don't do a stellar job of training up new members, my personal earlier attempts at helping some newer players were rather unfruitful. It wasn't anything to do with me not trying to help them adequately, it was more along the lines of me being blatantly ignored.
I gave up on training less experienced members after a sizeable amount of failed attempts.

I can't blame you there.

I think its all about recruitment that leads to retaining.

Yeah. I guess it's just about how much the new recruits enjoy the game. If they don't enjoy it enough to commit to the game, we can't do anything about it. We also can't do anything about some people just being utterly stupid.

goku1719 wrote:Yeah. I guess it's just about how much the new recruits enjoy the game. If they don't enjoy it enough to commit to the game, we can't do anything about it. We also can't do anything about some people just being utterly stupid.

I'm going to bite that one mate, to good to pass up!

Hehe ... it's true though. We can try as hard as we like, but sometimes people forget that we can't control what others do. Oh, some people like to think that they are such manipulative geniuses that they control the world, but in the end it turns out that they were the ones being manipulated by the world.