"Derid, Hydr, I can see you favor the "fill out in duplicate 5 different forms for the ability to take a shit" alliance type vs the "community" that pulls its own weight and has the freedom to do what it wants that I'm suggesting."

Hmmm. Noone said anything about bueracracy. Just simply, if you dont even have the same diplomatic standings in an alliance, it wont be effective in a real PvP game. Pretty soon there is drama about who is doing what, whos friends with who... it gets ugly.

If guilds dont want to stay on the same page and work together, the alliance will fail, period. It isnt about asking permission, its about being cohesive. It isnt about filing forms, its about the respective guild leaders and members deciding what to do as an alliance.

What is the benifit of being in an alliance that requires you do go defend someone constantly because they are dumbasses? What if the respective guilds in the alliance can't coordinate defenses because theyre all caught up in their own thing? Its not a chance, its a garuntee unless the alliance works cohesivly.

Honestly your better off just mass recruiting in that scenario. The successfull alliances that hold territory are going to be the ones that work as a group for the common interest. Not the ones with guilds that just do whatever they want, and expect backup when they get in trouble.

Having guilds that communicate, but do whatever they want, is just having friends IMO. Friends can be a good thing to have, but it doesnt need its own name. Having friends is good. Friends are just friendly though, an alliance works together.