Post by Victus on Oct 31, 2004 16:36:48 GMT -5
Victus' Breakdown Of Command Structures
Different alliances can have entirely different command structures. Some alliances are ruled by as little as a single person, where as others can have several officers in everyone one of their sectors. Several alliances have even made attempts at full democracy for their members.
Smaller alliances typically have fewer officers, probably because of a lack of need for high order organisation. There are, however, exceptions. Some leaders will hand out officer positions easier than others. Older alliances such as Zamoloxis or Fenris tendto have many officers, howerver many of these officer are not in active duty at any given time. As time goes on an alliance's number of officers usualy increases as it becomes more and more popular. A succesful alliance will either attract high quality officers to their alliance, or train them from the people who landed in their member sectors. If an alliance loses quality officers in succesive rounds then this alliance is in a state of decline/
Of course, not all officers are of the same quality, experience or calibur. Some players seem to have a natural talent for officering, where as others are forced to spend many many rounds of study and slow advancement through the ranks. These various skill levels brings us to a structural commentary portion of this article. Various alliances have different levels of officer ranks. Below I will outline some of the more common designs for alliance command structures.
Single Level Design
An alliance run entirely by the AL. There may be one or two VAL's but they typically have the same authority as the AL. This design is rarely seen in larger alliances. As the alliance grows it may need more officers (depending on the activity of the founders). While it's entirely possibly for 1-3 people to manage the problems of an entire alliance, it could also lead to an overflow of work. An expansion of the command structure may be crucial later on.
img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/Victus109/b3c9824e.bmp
Bivalent Design
This describes when there are two distinct levels of officers. Most often this involves the AL (and possibly Co-AL's) and a 2nd level of officer (many different names have been used for this). This 2nd level of officers are most often used to lessen the work load for the AL(s). Instead of issuing orders they are more often "workers", carrying out the directives given to them by the AL(s). This command design can be applied to alliances of all sizes. A possible drawback to this design is that returning alliances might have troubles with promoting their returning officers. After several rounds people will probably become tired of inhabiting the same rank, and may leave for possible rank advancement
img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/Victus109/2b0cc915.bmp
Mulitvalent Design
As before, this is an expansion on the designs mentioned above. In this design there can be 3 or more levels of officers. This is the almost universally used design for alliance command. It can be formated to fit both small and and large alliances. It gives alot of room for advancement for every officer or potential officer. The various levels often have different powers and responsibilities. The higher up the chain of command one looks, the more managing the officers do. This allows the AL(s) to concentrate on making the entire alliance the best it could be, while others handle the day to day grunt work. The officers directly under the AL(s) in rank often manage the lower ranking officers. A possible drawback to this design would be that officers (especially in the lower ranks) may not always be of the highest quality. This design often encourages larger numbers of officers, allowing for lazy or incompotent officers to shirk their workloads onto their co-workers.
img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/Victus109/multivalent.bmp
Team Design
This design is most often seem with Bivalent or Multivalent designs. It is best described as when a level of the alliance command structure is a series of leaders who are responsible for a set of sectors. The effectivness of this design depends on the type of players in this alliance. If it is very active and everyone is involved with the alliance then this design can be very effective, forming a sense of family between members of each team. A possible problem is that if the members of the alliance aren't active in the alliance then they probably won't know what team or group they're in. This would lead to them ignoring the strcture that's been set up. The same happens when one or more of the team leaders is inactive. The members of the alliance will message their problems to the officers that are online, as opposed to their team leader. This design can be very effective, but what most often happens is that the members of the alliance will ignore the complex structure that has been created.
img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/Victus109/teams.bmp
Democratic Design
Possibly the rarest form for alliances, democracies have been peppered across StarKingdoms' history. They have taken many different formats but typically speaking there is a council of KD's elected by the members of the alliance. Typically these groups are very very large. According to many interviewed, democratic AL's this is to avoid an appearance of elitism. Command councils or Senates often have around 1-4 representatives from every member sector. These groups may be the driving force behind decision making in the alliance. Democratic alliances can have officer as seen in prior mentioned designs, however these officers typically only handle the grunt work (investigations, ect) of the alliance. The decision making is often either done entirely by the Senate or is a process of compromise between the Senate and the AL(s). There is a sharp disadvantage to this design in an in game alliance. To stay true to its democratic ideals, the alliance must wait for either the Senate or the general alliance members to vote on what they want. Depending on activity levels, this can take days. If or when a crisis emerges it must be handled as fast as possible by a source of authority. If the alliance stays true to its democratic ideals then it risks slow reaction times, and being a tempting military target for any alliance looking to prove themselves in battle. On the other hand if the AL or the officers act withot taking a vote then the alliance loses some of its validity, at least where democracy comes in. Most alliances with this design never grow beyond a few small sectors.
img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/Victus109/democratic.bmp
These designs are not rigid by any means. They are often found to be mixing and combining with each other. Some have a tendency to succeed while others have a natural tendency to negate the growth of an alliance.
Different alliances can have entirely different command structures. Some alliances are ruled by as little as a single person, where as others can have several officers in everyone one of their sectors. Several alliances have even made attempts at full democracy for their members.
Smaller alliances typically have fewer officers, probably because of a lack of need for high order organisation. There are, however, exceptions. Some leaders will hand out officer positions easier than others. Older alliances such as Zamoloxis or Fenris tendto have many officers, howerver many of these officer are not in active duty at any given time. As time goes on an alliance's number of officers usualy increases as it becomes more and more popular. A succesful alliance will either attract high quality officers to their alliance, or train them from the people who landed in their member sectors. If an alliance loses quality officers in succesive rounds then this alliance is in a state of decline/
Of course, not all officers are of the same quality, experience or calibur. Some players seem to have a natural talent for officering, where as others are forced to spend many many rounds of study and slow advancement through the ranks. These various skill levels brings us to a structural commentary portion of this article. Various alliances have different levels of officer ranks. Below I will outline some of the more common designs for alliance command structures.
Single Level Design
An alliance run entirely by the AL. There may be one or two VAL's but they typically have the same authority as the AL. This design is rarely seen in larger alliances. As the alliance grows it may need more officers (depending on the activity of the founders). While it's entirely possibly for 1-3 people to manage the problems of an entire alliance, it could also lead to an overflow of work. An expansion of the command structure may be crucial later on.
img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/Victus109/b3c9824e.bmp
Bivalent Design
This describes when there are two distinct levels of officers. Most often this involves the AL (and possibly Co-AL's) and a 2nd level of officer (many different names have been used for this). This 2nd level of officers are most often used to lessen the work load for the AL(s). Instead of issuing orders they are more often "workers", carrying out the directives given to them by the AL(s). This command design can be applied to alliances of all sizes. A possible drawback to this design is that returning alliances might have troubles with promoting their returning officers. After several rounds people will probably become tired of inhabiting the same rank, and may leave for possible rank advancement
img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/Victus109/2b0cc915.bmp
Mulitvalent Design
As before, this is an expansion on the designs mentioned above. In this design there can be 3 or more levels of officers. This is the almost universally used design for alliance command. It can be formated to fit both small and and large alliances. It gives alot of room for advancement for every officer or potential officer. The various levels often have different powers and responsibilities. The higher up the chain of command one looks, the more managing the officers do. This allows the AL(s) to concentrate on making the entire alliance the best it could be, while others handle the day to day grunt work. The officers directly under the AL(s) in rank often manage the lower ranking officers. A possible drawback to this design would be that officers (especially in the lower ranks) may not always be of the highest quality. This design often encourages larger numbers of officers, allowing for lazy or incompotent officers to shirk their workloads onto their co-workers.
img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/Victus109/multivalent.bmp
Team Design
This design is most often seem with Bivalent or Multivalent designs. It is best described as when a level of the alliance command structure is a series of leaders who are responsible for a set of sectors. The effectivness of this design depends on the type of players in this alliance. If it is very active and everyone is involved with the alliance then this design can be very effective, forming a sense of family between members of each team. A possible problem is that if the members of the alliance aren't active in the alliance then they probably won't know what team or group they're in. This would lead to them ignoring the strcture that's been set up. The same happens when one or more of the team leaders is inactive. The members of the alliance will message their problems to the officers that are online, as opposed to their team leader. This design can be very effective, but what most often happens is that the members of the alliance will ignore the complex structure that has been created.
img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/Victus109/teams.bmp
Democratic Design
Possibly the rarest form for alliances, democracies have been peppered across StarKingdoms' history. They have taken many different formats but typically speaking there is a council of KD's elected by the members of the alliance. Typically these groups are very very large. According to many interviewed, democratic AL's this is to avoid an appearance of elitism. Command councils or Senates often have around 1-4 representatives from every member sector. These groups may be the driving force behind decision making in the alliance. Democratic alliances can have officer as seen in prior mentioned designs, however these officers typically only handle the grunt work (investigations, ect) of the alliance. The decision making is often either done entirely by the Senate or is a process of compromise between the Senate and the AL(s). There is a sharp disadvantage to this design in an in game alliance. To stay true to its democratic ideals, the alliance must wait for either the Senate or the general alliance members to vote on what they want. Depending on activity levels, this can take days. If or when a crisis emerges it must be handled as fast as possible by a source of authority. If the alliance stays true to its democratic ideals then it risks slow reaction times, and being a tempting military target for any alliance looking to prove themselves in battle. On the other hand if the AL or the officers act withot taking a vote then the alliance loses some of its validity, at least where democracy comes in. Most alliances with this design never grow beyond a few small sectors.
img.photobucket.com/albums/v353/Victus109/democratic.bmp
These designs are not rigid by any means. They are often found to be mixing and combining with each other. Some have a tendency to succeed while others have a natural tendency to negate the growth of an alliance.
The only rank of Fenris officer that has the choice to be inactive is an Elder, which more or less means they are a VAL except they never do work unless no one else is online/available to do it. Any ex-officers or officers that are inactive are demoted to their non-officer rank [Usually Berserker or Viking] - which have no say in anything other than of course that they can be respected for what they have done and their knowledge so their opinions are often listened too [but do not have to be]. In fact I think that Fenris generally has what, 10-12 officers a game? Most alliances have like 30 nowadays...
