Squiddy Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 I feel as if (purely my own opinion, please list out any problems) there should be a member cap on alliances. Between 90-110 members. This would allow other alliance to be created since alliances would then become "Quality>Quantity". Alliances would kick out more inactives and non contributing members, and in turn allow those who do play the game to join. In addition, in order to become a top 10 alliance, they would have to concentrate on their members. I feel as if there are some flaws in this but do you guys see what the main purpose is? :3 Annnnnnd this is my first post on the forums. 2 Quote I love squids. If you want to bribe me.... Bring shrimp. <3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dio Brando Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 I feel as if (purely my own opinion, please list out any problems) there should be a member cap on alliances. Between 90-110 members. This would achieve little. Although having 100+ members under one alliance's jurisdiction is quite something, nothing stops an alliance from branching out, signing MDAPs, and doing whatever the government decides. Scenario: Alliance 'A' reaches its member cap of x members. Alliance 'A' has a Leader, and a Regent. The Leader tells the Regent to create Alliance 'B', and thus Alliance 'A' expands its memberbase by simply shifting the 'extras' to 'B'. Sure, this plan has its inherent risks, but overall, it can theoretically work. I feel as if (purely my own opinion, please list out any problems) there should be a member cap on alliances. Between 90-110 members. This would allow other alliance to be created since alliances would then become "Quality>Quantity". This is an artificial way of controlling politics; clear red mark. Alliances would kick out more inactives and non contributing members, and in turn allow those who do play the game to join. That's something they should already do; IA policies often have this. Hell, I've yet to see an alliance that doesn't have this unless they're tax farming. *cough* NPO *cough* In addition, in order to become a top 10 alliance, they would have to concentrate on their members. This is already present in the current mech. An alliance needs to focus on their members, otherwise they leave; score drops. Members don't grow - other alliances take the top 10 spots. New members don't come - alliance stagnates. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 First thing that needs to happen in regards to alliances is getting rid of all the ones that have 0 members Quote "There's nothing you can know that isn't known,Nothing you can see that isn't shown,There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be, All you need is love,Love is all you need." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripper Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 I feel as if (purely my own opinion, please list out any problems) there should be a member cap on alliances. This would allow other alliance to be created since alliances would then become "Quality>Quantity". Alliances would kick out more inactives and non contributing members, and in turn allow those who do play the game to join. In addition, in order to become a top 10 alliance, they would have to concentrate on their members. It's an interesting suggestion and I feel like there are more than one things you want to achieve with this, so I will analyze them furter. About the first point. As in many other games, new players tend to join the top alliances just out of reflex and, indeed, in many of these games there is a cap for guilds/alliances. Looking at the current state though, I think that the top alliances already have a filtering mechanism (time-consuming application procedures, etc.), so this is not such a huge concern: many new players prefer to join an alliance quickly rather than joining a top-tier alliance. True. That would increase the quality of alliances. This is something though that the alliances themselves should try to achieve and not something that would be imposed. If an alliance has 50% inactives just for the score, it just harm itself. Forget the taxes the inactives provide: Arrgh will make sure to change their nation color to grey. The first two points where about the alliance itself, while this point is about the individual players. I think this is the most valid point actually: a mechanism imposed by the game to ensure that active players are rewarded and attain the position they deserve. I think that many alliances have already built great communities around them and certainly the top alliances are part of this network. Annnnnnd this is my first post on the forums. Welcome on board. Although having 100+ members under one alliance's jurisdiction is quite something, nothing stops an alliance from branching out, signing MDAPs, and doing whatever the government decides. The thing is that people are greedy, so it would actually work the way Squiddy suggests. Two "brother" alliances or a mother alliance and an academy are quite different from an individual alliance. Even within alliances themselves you can see coups. And of course we have seen MDAPs being burnt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dio Brando Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 The thing is that people are greedy, so it would actually work the way Squiddy suggests. Two "brother" alliances or a mother alliance and an academy are quite different from an individual alliance. Even within alliances themselves you can see coups. And of course we have seen MDAPs being burnt. Aye, true. It would, I assume, add a certain flavor to intra-alliance politics However, my point is that this 'mechanic' can very easily be circumvented, though the execution of the circumvention will still be in the hands of the alliance leaders, and open for further faults by the alliance leader. Personally, I see the action as inhibiting to the alliance's policies as a whole. Sure, these can add more intra-alliance upheaval, but is that the game's duty to do, or is it the players? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 First thing that needs to happen in regards to alliances is getting rid of all the ones that have 0 membersClick on the alliance to view it. It'll remove it from the game. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 But yeah, this suggestion has been brought up and shot down more times than I can count (so like 5 times). Easy to get around, just makes a hassle for literally everyone in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trump Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 What's with all these suggestions which are asking for admin assistance on what is the fault of the community? You want a quality > quantity alliance? Go and make one, we need more of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 No. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 No. Basically. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 You'd be curtailing the gameplay of mass member alliances. No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tali Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 similar names, market sharing, and all in all it'd just overflow poor kurdanak with the treaty web. I like making Kurdanak work it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.