People lose the will to play there is no motivation once the top alliance is established it almost seems as if there is no way to topple them so everyone rolls over and 'dies' so to speak. The recent worlds have all been dominated by a premade made by the best players, right from early on in the world these top alliances would dominate the core oceans and take everything meaning that they would be almost invincible. These alliances don't appear to be looking for a fight they are just looking to be at the top of world with as little resistance as possible. And as you implied now people don't want a challenge if they aren't in the top alliance at the top of the world then to them there is no point in playing... This is a war game but there isn't a whole lot of warring involved anymore.
I think if the premade is more than 50 excellent players, or 100 average players who are eager and quick to learn, with decent leadership, then I think I would agree. Then the domination is purely based on numbers and less on actual skill or hard work. If the premade was 30 or less skilled players, or no more than 60 average players, then that might help foster some more competition. I think in the old days, most alliances formed fit either of these strategies, and MRAs back then literally meant alliances that tried to survive purely through big numbers, but were hopeless in organization and leadership. This was the natural equilibrium that is gradually becoming extinct. A big player dominating with a wide margin is one thing, they can still be brought down with team work and skill, but a bigger alliance tends to eliminate competition. These should really be formed later on in a world, if they have to exist.
As you said this is partly down to some of the poor leaderships of the players but it's also down to the poor mentality of the players in the worlds. And one final thing, everyone whines about morale being bad but is it really a bad thing? Morale will keep the smaller players in the world and should in theory lead to alot more fighting and a level playing field. The top players cant grow as fast because they have to waste countless numbers of troops to get cities.
I have been in some excellent alliances, past and present, where the leadership either became lazy, or wasn't particularly spectacular to begin with, and many of the better players left and their team mates subsequently had to consume them. This overall tends to hamper the moral of members, and even in smaller groups can adversely affect their ability to fight, but I digress.
Morale is no abuse-free way of tackling any of these issues, if anything it has helped to add to the problem, as the amount of players who join new worlds always tends to be the same (30k-60k), and a small player doesn't necessarily mean a newby or weak player, indeed some small players can be the most highly-skilled and experienced competitors around. Morale allows a loophole where larger players can stack defense into a smaller players city when they know a city-takeover is underway, and hampers larger players abilities to fully rim someone out of a game. If you grow fast and put in the time to remain one of the bigger players, which takes a greater amount of time than a small player, you shouldn't be put on equal footing. Dog eat dog is a crucial part of any serious or worthwhile war game.
