Imagine, if you will, a scenario. The location? Russia. The circumstances? A vanilla server; always somewhat full, but never entirely. Several groups of varying size are on the server, as well as a healthy population of solos. Now, consider this; in the current environment, large-scale alliances between the groups are impossible. Mutual distrust prevents any alliance that goes beyond cordial greetings between groupmates; and, perhaps, a gift from time to time. As of such, the large groups are focused on combat between each-other, and, as such, cannot snowball to a point where they have such a stranglehold on the server to prevent any significant opposition arising without some serious effort.
Let us now consider this situation, but under different circumstances; to better clarify my point, the groups will be classified. We have Group A: a respectably large group, with average fighters and resource-obtaining ability. Group B: A smaller group than Group A, but a significantly more dedicated one. Group C: A small group of almost little to no note; three friends just having a good time. And lastly: Group D: rather similar to Group A, but with perhaps a little more skill within the ranks. Say that your suggestion was added within the game; groups could now safely confederate without risk of severe betrayal. Look at the circumstances; none of the groups truly have the potential to entirely dominate the server, being limited by both the resource-gathering capacity of their members, and their manpower. If any of the major groups confederated, as is eventually likely to happen, they could flat-out dominate the server, eliminate any other major competition in the form of large groups or small upstarts; in short, make the server unfun. This is already possible under the existing mechanics and situation; but adding the confederations themselves as an existing game mechanic would intensify the rare occurrence of group confederation into a more wide-spread, and dangerous, phenomena.
Challenge makes games fun. This is no secret; all games have a form of challenge, be it the relaxing numbers-game of Stardew Valley, or the fast-paced gunplay of CS:GO. If you eliminate the base form of challenge, you eliminate the fun of the whole thing. While zombies and PvE can be impressive threats, until the advent of the spritual machine, they cannot compare to the greatest challenge of all; a fellow man. His actions are not based off of lines of code, or preset protocols; he is free to do whatever he wants, however he wants. However, this does not mean his comrades in humanity, with significantly more equipment, cannot put this man in a state where he is not free to act in a manner that could potentially threaten their domination. Achieving this is simple; you can obtain raiding materials from a defined set of locations, and, if you can control access to these locations in any significant way while your enemy is online, you are practically invincible.
Let us return, if you will, to the example posed earlier; and say that group A confederated with group B. Group B assigns 2 men to go, with the barest essentials of equipment, to go to Volk and essentially fight anyone else for domination of the site. Over time, if the men keep coming, they will solidify their grasp; and in that situation, very little can be done to upset it; for if you control the supply of military-grade armaments, you simultaneously get the best guns and prevent anyone else from obtaining them. From here, it is an easy path to server domination; knock out your enemies with superior firepower, ensure that they can never rise again. The result is obvious: the server becomes unfun.
There was nothing special about our hypothetical server; and who is to suppose that this could not repeat on a large scale? Groups of poorly-organized teenagers are not hard to come by, and low-quality political arrangements are no oddity. A cascading series of events, resulting from this change, could essentially result in a far more brutal style of gameplay than we have currently; far from increasing friendliness, this could essentially turn servers into group competitions focused around mad dashes towards military locations in the ever-increasing race to the top. The solo would be sidelined; and, if I’m being honest, it would rather resemble Rust.
This is just a worst-case scenario, however, and is, at most, mere speculation.
Let us, for a moment, put these doom-and-gloom predictions aside; relentless pessimism accomplishes little. Another hypothetical, if you please. Imagine that your very own Royal Arms group, in all of their friendly glory, is on a server. For this scenario, let us imagine that there are, instead, 3 groups: Group RA; average skill, average manpower, but inclined towards treaties and kind words rather than bullets and explosives. Group B: A neutrally-aligned group. Skill: once more, average, but well-gifted with manpower. And finally, group C: the stereotypical “evil” clan that shoots on sight and feels the need to expulse a racist epithet once in a while. Groups are naturally distrusting of each other; they would rather see them gone than ally. However, due to necessity or weakness, an armed truce between groups is more likely. This would most likely be observed between Group RA and Group B. Say, however, that they have friendly relations; they don’t shoot each other, say hello, and share things from time to time. As if this were a recipe, let us add your suggestion into the mix. Would things really change? In all fairness, the bonds created via confederation would most likely be weaker, and less “friendly” overall; if another man has the choice to shoot you, and he repeatedly doesn’t, would that not create more of a bond between groups than some artificial group system that only the leader need enforce? Outside of one or two very specialized events, such as group raids, the confederation system would not only be ineffective, but in some cases actually worse than just having no system at all.
Additional Evidence
My credibility, to you, may not seem amazing; while I have provided interesting hypotheticals, and some backing behind them, is there any real proof or legitimate reasoning to these examples?
Let us touch on the underlying motivation behind this idea, and I think it shall explain more clearly my reasoning.
Friendliness and overall cooperation, on a large scale, is very hard to achieve; nigh-impossible under most circumstances.
Let us assume three basic principles:
Resources, are, in some way, limited. Whatever you need, be it high quality food or magazines for your gun, could be found by somebody else before you can take it; although resources are theoretically infinite, the rarity of certain items create scarcity.
Players will, naturally, put their own survival above the common whole. Let’s say that you are low on food, and spy a bag of chips. You can see another player nearby; he could potentially need the food more than you do. While some may be selfless enough to give up their own welfare for that of others, I do not believe that this is possible on a large scale.
Groups of players would rather have no other groups but their own; in a situation where they can choose between allies or nobody but them, they would most likely choose the isolation. No matter how selfless you are, this is a simple rule that most groups follow; they do not want to share the top dog’s position of prime loot and other benefits with anybody else.
These three assumptions are all near-universal; while there may be small exceptions to the rule in the form of philanthropists and other givers of charity, the basic grounding fact is that people will nearly always put their own survival ahead of others.
And now, let us supplement these three assumptions with one fact:
If there is no challenge, the game isn’t fun. PvE servers are in the distinct minority in the server browser, and for good reason; the threat of a hostile player is exciting, and gives your loot more value.
Large-scale cooperation is possible, sure, in the short-term; large confederations to fight against some centralized evil are not impossible, and have occurred beforehand. But whether out of jealousy, selfishness, or just plain boredom, these alliances will inevitably break apart. This can be replicated infinitely; to the smallest scale, in a miniature band of robbers, or on a grand scale, in a clash of clans the size of small towns.
Fixing this issue, and making unturned more “friendly” and open to cooperation, is not easily fixable. It’s part of the human condition for us to act like this, and is not something that can be easily solved with mechanics and confederations. To be topical, there is no real solution that can be achieved within the confines of game design; to reprogram such a base part of the human psyche would require, at the least, large-scale psychological training; something not really possible without the resources of a nation at your disposal, and a large one at that.
TL;DR: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The forces behind the idea have good interests behind them; but the idea itself is, at best, ineffective, and at worst, ruinous.
it's long
so it’s gotta be good
ok i made the funny joke guys can i get likes now
i’m quirky and hilarious guys why aren’t you laughing
