What Causes the Fall of Empires in a Single-Shard Universe?

[ATMLVE]

I remember a while back reading about the Bloodbath of B-R5RB, which was the biggest battle ever fought in EVE Online, occuring in early 2014 and consisting of thousands and thousands of ships from two opposing alliances fighting over a single system. Upon looking up these factions recently, I was intrigued to find that some of them apparently no longer exist.

 

I then watched some related EVE videos, surfing comments, and found a really neat story of a guy who randomly met a pretty big faction leader and got invited to join that faction; someone else commented asking about the faction, but the guy responded that the faction had long since disbanded.

 

This stuff really got me interested in the mechanics of long-term organizations in Dual Universe. Why do factions rise and fall in EVE; what causes large forces to disband, and might those same causes affect organizations in DU? What is the main cause? Is it players getting bored, or traitors, or crap leadership, or people just wanting something new, that results in once fearsome coalitions falling apart into nothing?

 

The current numbers in DU orgs have been pretty steady; the largest orgs have stayed the largest, biggest names always on top. Nothing really changes, but that's because we don't have the game. Can we expect to see the Terran Union even in existence six months after launch? Or could it still be the largest ten years later; and regardless of whatever happens to it, what lead to it's lifespan being as long as it was?

 

TL;DR: What causes huge factions in EVE to fall, and how are those forces relatable to Dual Universe? What forces could cause DU empires to crumble away?

[Anaximander]

The GSF wanted to set up a Viceroy system. They got the entire EVE server setting differences aside just to destory the GSF.

 

 

Everyone, the bankers, the trolls, the scammers, the traders, everyone who could bring a gun, brought a gun - even the low-sec edgelords. Everyone came together to beat the Goons to death. Some of them, have fled to this very community - You know who you are  - others have fled to Star Citizen.

 

 

Bigger alliances have failed due to bad economics, others like BoB, died off due to trusting the keys to the kingdom to a person they repeatedly belittled - that betrayed BoB to the Goons.

 

Lack of SRP (Ship Reimbursement Program) also forces people on YOUR side, to think twice before following you into battle.

 

The Honeybadger Coalition's downfall came from bad handling of economics.

 

 

 

 

So, to answer your question, circumstances. But terrible management also pushes an alliance to its downfall. 

[ATMLVE]

So with that ship reimbursement program, a faction would reimburse you for a ship you lost while conducting operations they ordered? How did that work, was it an official system or was it more like, you just report your ship destroyed and they send you money?

[Novarkian]

When I played Eve long ago, the corporation I was in provided the actual ship you flew in battle. If it was lost, no biggie, they had many more that were produced for replacements.

[Anaximander]

So with that ship reimbursement program, a faction would reimburse you for a ship you lost while conducting operations they ordered? How did that work, was it an official system or was it more like, you just report your ship destroyed and they send you money?

What Novarkian said above me.

 

A person has only to BUY their ship once. If they lose their ship during a Strategic Operation, you get another one, paid by the coaltion or alliance (depending on what Strat Ops it happened in).

 

But you have to abide by doctrine of the fleet.

 

If I say "bring me one ship from THIS list" and you bring a ship that's not on that list, you WON'T get reimbursed if the ship is destroyed.

 

 

However, some alliacnes only flew expensive ships, and they drained their coffers faster.

 

 

It's sorta like joing the army in many alliances. They take care of your PvP needs, you only have to be in-time for the oepratio w-hcih is usually an easy thing to do in a single-shard server. I have like 3 Fleets I can join every day and that's not including the ones that are with sihps I can't afford nor care to buy into.

 

 

Think of it like joining an army in DU and the recruiter telling you "no worry son, here's your armor, heres' your gun and ammo. If you lose them in service, we'll get you a new one. If you want to upgrade your armor, you'll have to buy a new one and register it for SRP (Suit Replacement Program?). "

 

 

There are some other perks, but those are technical, all it boils down to is "some alliances fail, due to lack of proper management".

[El_Nadie]

Of course to a specific info about EVE we have CaptainTwerkmotor, and he has already manifested himself but in case of that my experience in other games could be relevant,I played some games in big and/or top factions/alliances/whatever and when they reached their end there were a common point in almost everyone of them: the active guys leading the group lost their interest or their availability to play the game in full time and that evolved into a inability to maintain the group working together.

 

With that i want to say that  large groups needs active people to manage them properly and even if you delegated part of this work, people involved in this kind of management needs to be able to spend some time attending this and be very communicative. When you lost one of these people and you need to replace it its not common to find a ideal candidate, and your community starts to not feeling confortable. If you add to this some questionable decisions from the leaders and some economic stabilty problems (or wars lost) and you probably have lost almost your entire group.

 

But, overall , it really depends of the development of the game. If the game is able to dont let the people loss their interest in the game with a proper risk-benefit ratio and enough things to do (or time spent-benefit ratio), this kind of things happen less.

[Anaximander]

Of course to a specific info about EVE we have CaptainTwerkmotor, and he has already manifested himself but in case of that my experience in other games could be relevant,I played some games in big and/or top factions/alliances/whatever and when they reached their end there were a common point in almost everyone of them: the active guys leading the group lost their interest or their availability to play the game in full time and that evolved into a inability to maintain the group working together.

 

With that i want to say that  large groups needs active people to manage them properly and even if you delegated part of this work, people involved in this kind of management needs to be able to spend some time attending this and be very communicative. When you lost one of these people and you need to replace it its not common to find a ideal candidate, and your community starts to not feeling confortable. If you add to this some questionable decisions from the leaders and some economic stabilty problems (or wars lost) and you probably have lost almost your entire group.

 

But, overall , it really depends of the development of the game. If the game is able to dont let the people loss their interest in the game with a proper risk-benefit ratio and enough things to do (or time spent-benefit ratio), this kind of things happen less.

That's a Theme Park MMO problem.

 

When Blizzard gives you the same "level cap / loot / gearscore" cycle, it's inevitable peopel will get tired. 

 

EVE's unique in that sense. The players ARE the content. Youdon't got an "end-game" to grind for. That's what people don't get about DU. Yo uare MEANT to play the Red-Shirt or Stormtrooper.  Becoming Captain Kirk in a game like DU or the Emperor, is a ewhole lot of responsibility to take into account.

 

But most people who become Captain Kirk are idiots like Kirk. And guys who becoem the Emrpror claim they achieved things a subordinate achieved, like a key victory and such or a masterful tactic.

 

so yeah, favoriting the wrong people can ruin an alliance as well.

[Lethys]

They fall because of

 

Wrong decisions

Bad leadership

Power struggle within the alliance

Scamms/awoxing

Making too many enemies

Making the wrong enemies

 

But the most significant factor why big groups fail is the leadership itself. You need dedicated people to run an alliance, being in command, getting things done. It's a 24/7 job for no-lifers.

You need to be online to get people into fleets, mining, doing stuff. I myself was an fc and more than once per week my mobile rang and I got up to lead a fleet. If you don't have such people, then you won't be able to run a huge alliance

[Zamarus]

Bad Leaders

 

Dumb Politics

 

 

Sometimes goes hand in hand, sometimes not. These are the most probable IMO.

[Pang_Dread]

Bad Leaders

 

Dumb Politics

 

 

Sometimes goes hand in hand, sometimes not. These are the most probable IMO.

Yep pretty much.

 

Bad leadership, drama, and adversity or rather the inability to deal with and overcome adversity and the combo of those three aspects is usually the most common way guilds especially large and long standing ones go down in flames.

[Lord_Void]

It comes down to one thing: trust.

 

Trust that your leaders will do their job.

Trust that your group will protect you.

Trust that there will be content.

Trust that people will treat decently. 

 

One thing that generally happens is that when an alliance starts to lose, the different factions within it (there are always factions, even in DU groups) begin to blame each other and they lose trust. People also jump ship when things are not going well. If you lose half of your space, many people will just pack up and leave rather than stay and fight. Other times leaders are ineffective or the just log off and never come back. 

 

I guess in it's most basic form, something will happen that causes a trust issue, which throws other things out of balance and so on until it collapses. 

 

You mentioned the TU and wondered if the same thing could happen to them. I say, absolutely. Already, looking in as an outsider, it seems as if there are several factions with in the TU that do not trust each other. Does this mean they will fall? Not necessarily, but they need to address and rectify any trust issues. (Sorry TU, not trying to pick on you, it was just mentioned) This can happen in any group, especially large groups. There is a certain inertia that causes large groups to fracture. 

[Warden]

I simply view it on a large scale: nothing lasts forever. Time kills everything; all Empires fall.

 

You can only try to delay this process. How?

 

Many above have given tips or explained how to not fail too early.

 

I think it is vital to not start with (or develop) the expectation to rule it all or expand endlessly.

 

Expectations, skills and having the right people in the right positions. Easier said than done.

[Stig92]

I don't have much experience in single shard mmos but in real life one thing that has ended many empires is the loss of the leader.  (Creeks, Mongols, Galactic empire etc.)

 

In game this might be even more significant since some players only play casually so really hardcore focused players are even more important. Let's say one or small group of those has managed to hold the org together and make sure that casual players know what to do when they turn up. Now lets say that those core trusted leaders get bored of the game or don't have time for it anymore. Even if their successor(s) know what they are doing, some people might bail just for lack of trust. If new guys don't have same skill/control as former leader the whole thing can crash and burn pretty quickly. This doesn't even account for competition for the throne.

 

In case you didn't figure it out yet, this is especially problem in dictatorships and companies, not so much in democratic republics.

 

Lesson of the story, don't make organisation dependent on one or small group of people with all the power and make sure there is a process to replace the leaders, unless you want a civil war (which could be fun in game).

[Ben Fargo]

The building aspect of DU could help organizations last longer than in games without it.  I expect many organizations will develop a distinctive style of building and they will almost certainly have unique structures everyone associates with them.  Those could give the organizations a stronger sense of identity that enable them to persist.  Good leadership would still be as important as ever, but if people have a stronger identification with their organization, they might tend to try to oust bad leaders, instead of forming new organizations.  That is, of course, just my speculation.

[Warden]

The building aspect of DU could help organizations last longer than in games without it.  I expect many organizations will develop a distinctive style of building and they will almost certainly have unique structures everyone associates with them.  Those could give the organizations a stronger sense of identity that enable them to persist.  Good leadership would still be as important as ever, but if people have a stronger identification with their organization, they might tend to try to oust bad leaders, instead of forming new organizations.  That is, of course, just my speculation.

 

Interesting point. I think in those "classic" building focused sandbox games, this might have different influences on people (sub-)consciously because assets are perhaps more visible, persistent, obvious and thus might influence or provoke different reactions. You might just establish a connection with the surroundings better than in simple space where ships move about and are often not at one fixed spot, nor that custom opposed to buildings and constructs you built piece by piece.

 

Still, in the end, it really depends on many factors. Might result in more long-term group or identity survival, might also just result in some "civilizations" (larger groups with custom identities) perishing and leaving behind a Fallout-esque world with slowly decaying or destroyed infrastructure, should said group fall apart and move away or not care for said constructs anymore.

 

It would certainly be harder to just quickly "pack things up and move to a new group" if you invested into buildings and whatnot though.

 

If I had a larger city but human organization or command would subjectively begin to be "faulty" I think I'd rather try to encourage positive changes (again, subjectively anyway) than immediately run off I think - if said building effort could be saved, not abandoned.

[SpeakerfortheDead]

I would think that the fall of a big organization would come from a few different things. Primarily it would come from bad leadership or lack of structure and/or purpose. Although you would think that if the organization was a big one it would have had some kind of direction at some point. Obviously another thing that could end an organization would be its absorption into a larger organization either willingly or by force. People might get bored and leave but for the most part I think that if you have good structure and a purpose you should be able to find people to join.

 

I am certainly interested to see how all of this plays out in DU because from what I read this game will likely have the most sophisticated form of player run politics and economy, which will of course dictate the way that organizations are run. For instance I am thinking you will see a lot of small organizations like mining companies, security forces, and even banking and trade guilds. These smaller organizations will likely be integrated into larger organizations that are in charge of the infrastructure and politics of territories and eventually perhaps entire planets or even systems.

 

It is the whole idea of the game that the players are what define the history of this new chapter of humanity so it is almost certain that as the game progresses you will see the rise and fall of empires and a perpetual struggle for power over planets and systems.

 

Sounds fun to me!

[devu]

We are not playing a game yet. My prediction is, the current setup has nothing to do with the one we will see upon launch of the game.

There will be reality check because conditions may be so much different from what most of us has in mind. 

 

People joining orgs today goes by social media behaviour factor. Kind of sheep behaviour, meaningless value to org. Just raw numbers and the only good it can serve is to bound some people together.

 

If I can predict anything is that some of the active names here and now will remain that way. Influencers so to speak. But getting used to current setup is irrelevant for next 2 years.

You can hardly name any of org to be an empire today. They know and posses nothing, so they can provide and serve the same back to their people.

[Godrath]

People don't like math. That's why empires fall.

[KingNazar]

Foolish leaders lead to the demise of Empires.

[Kuritho]

Pressing the big red button leads to the fall of Empires.

[Stig92]

[Lord_Void]

I think it's more like a lot of little orange buttons than one big red button.

[Hotwingz]

My 2 Quanta,

 

One important factor in an empire falling apart is the rate of communication. Things will move faster in DU compared to real life but you can expect to see similar dynamics.

 

Communication and information which are interchangeable are key elements in the rise and fall of empires.

[Azerin]

I haven't played EVE, but I've been leading gaming communities for the last 14 or so years. Generally speaking, most communities or game branches I've seen died out because of boredom, in-fighting, hopelessness, or game death. This includes the big communities of 300-2000+ active members.

 

Boredom is a simple cause, it builds up over time, much faster if the game is shallow or otherwise uninteresting. For the community I'm in, our ESO and Division branches were examples of the latter, while our Planetside 2 branch has been going for years, passing off leadership if any of us burn out. Large multi-game communities aren't immune either, as they may be unable to find a game that can hold their interest for the long-term; looking at you, DU!

 

In-fighting can have a number of sources, but most commonly it's an argument between authoritative figures on policy or action, or disruptive individuals not being dealt with. It's uncommon for all of the major players in a community to play nice for years on end, I myself have argued at length with nearly every leadership figure in my community. Arguments and differing opinions are common place, but you'll find the successful communities are all very clear about their direction, and for everything else, they've got their discussions down to a science. It's natural to have varying opinions and styles, good communities foster acceptance and make use of what these people have to offer, but if a member is unable to fit in or their attempts to sway opinion are biased or hostile, appropriate action needs to be taken. Inexperienced leaders are often too hesitant, or in some cases, too aggressive or distasteful in their response, both of which can lead to further in-fighting. It can be ugly, emotionally charged business, which is one of the reasons why I've taken to saying "Systems are easy, people are not".

 

Hopelessness is a bit of an interesting one, and probably highly relevant for games like EVE, where there are significant investments involved. I'm referring to the widespread sense of loss or depression following failure, or the realization of pointlessness or impossibility, whether or not that's actually the case. It's important for any community to have direction and focus. Smaller goals will likely change as they're met, while larger aspirations might shape the community's identity. When these fall through it can be depressing, it's up to the leaders and core members of the community to pick up the pieces and begin progress towards the next goal. If they fail to do this, the hopelessness will spread and gradually push the member's away. From my experience, it's uncommon to find people with the mental fortitude to weather major incidents on their own, as they not only need to tackle their own feelings about the matter, but what all of their friends are saying, and the challenge of finding a new goal and meaning to strive for. I suspect this is what happened to those EVE guilds after the bloodbath, they chose to give up rather than start anew.

 

Then there's game death. As the influx of new players dies down recruitment becomes more difficult, and over time the old players will pick up and leave. Sometimes you'll see communities disband while they still have active members, but often times loyalty will keep most of them there until the end. This is how my first community died, 5 years of great health followed by 1-2 years of decline, after which I decided to pull the plug.

 

None of these need be a quick death. Communities with more resilient core groups can linger on for years, perhaps even making a comeback if the game is healthy and circumstances change, but usually they die quietly as the core members leave one by one.