Two sides ineviatably leads to staleness and no competion. It can also be observed in almost all troop games. Many companies manually interfere periodically, or in the case of instance/server based, old instances are abandoned and everyone starts over. Merged happen etc.
I would like to think we all wanted something more than nothing to do. I mean it’s basically simulated entropy. Eventually it leads to stable and boring if you don’t have something in place to keep the engine running.
A game is supposed to be fun for the majority. (I won’t say all, because that’s impossible) and must have winners and losers.
Anyone who thinks the greater “dread” and “not-dread” groups are competing with each other currently isn’t paying close attentin. (If you take issue with that labeling call it group a and b)
Personally I think a mechanic to allow new alliances grow without merging to a point would be healthy for competition. Feel free to disagree, I’m not sure anyone could, but I think it’s more of the entitlement of being strong to do what you want with who you want.
I think allowing neutral teams to exist without being destroyed or bullied into one side or the other seems like it wouldn’t be negative for the game. I’m not proposing a solution. But I do think it might better for the game to have more than two groups and even be possible to do something that doesn’t cater to the status quo.
One of the biggest indicators to me of there being a problem is that unaligned teams, nobody even bothers to try to sell them on their side, just pushed around until they either join the side pushing them (at the time) or the opposite side in some false principal based move. Not even a care in the world that being oppressive might drive them to the competition. I think this is because no real competition exists.