Jump to content

- - - - -

Make Alliance Ranking Matter

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Aeros


    Can't see the sword, but you'll feel it

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,898 posts
  • Nation Name:Empire of Chyrellos
  • Alliance Name:Valhalla
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Syracuse
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:Roman Empire

Posted 17 November 2012 - 11:22 PM

Problem: Cybernations is stagnating because there is no benefit for excellence.

Solution: Reward excellence

Proposal: We have a ranking system for alliances to determine, (kinda) who is winning the game. To a point. But honestly its meaningless. The benefits to rising to the top of the sanction heap are abstract, and when you get right down to it, pointless. Once you got your flag in the game, your alliance has pretty much accomplished all that is to be accomplished, even if they lose sanction a few days later. (Reference, the situation that put The Internationals flag in the game)

My solution is fairly straight foreword. Nations get a happiness bonus for being a part of a high ranked alliance, with +1 Happy points per sanction level, so any member of the #1 Sanctioned alliance will automatically get +12 Happiness points. Should add some caveats though to prevent new players just bum rushing existing power spheres.

Rule 1. In order to get the Happiness bonus, you need to have 6 months of service in the alliance.

Rule 2. If you join an alliance not presently sanctioned, you will gain all bonus points the alliance achieves once it gets sanction. So say the #15 ranked alliance reaches #9 in the space of a week. All its members will gain +3 Happy points regardless of time in service.

This will actually give a benefit to striving to reach the top, and will also cause consequences for a loss in rank, or sanction. The result should be the Alliances will be less complacent and work to retain membership and actually fight for their position as their economic well being will be tied to their position.

#2 Mogar


    5 spells = you're dead.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,407 posts
  • Nation Name:Mogatopia

Posted 18 November 2012 - 12:21 AM

no, this is a bad idea and you'll just get more merger AAs to get the happiness, the only possible benefit I could see is potential civil wars on AAs,

Edited by Mogar, 18 November 2012 - 12:22 AM.

#3 HM Solomon I

HM Solomon I

    His Majesty the Royal Pooper of Parties

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 410 posts
  • Nation Name:Kingdom of the Truth
  • Alliance Name:New Pacific Order

Posted 18 November 2012 - 12:55 AM

Yeah, I'm going to agree with Mogar here; this is too much of an incentive. Sanction is really just a prestige thing, especially since relatively low-ranked alliances can actually have more power and influence than sanctioned alliances in the treaty web. A large but isolated alliance isn't actually that powerful, whereas a small but well connected alliance can be quite powerful indeed.

Plus, the real in-game benefit to being sanctioned isn't the flag, it's the fact that sanctioned alliances are the only ones that show up in the drop-down menu when a nation chooses an AA; thus, sanctioned alliances get a boost to recruiting. This allows sanctioned alliances to more easily maintain sanction status (the rich keep getting richer, basically), which makes sanctioned alliances stay large and gives them prestige (and allows them to maintain sanction and thus maintain prestige).

The prestige is really the ultimate overall benefit to being sanctioned (both in-game and out). Prestigious alliances can more easily establish formal and informal connections to other alliances, better connected alliances are more powerful in the treaty web and thus more powerful overall.

Edited by HM Solomon I, 18 November 2012 - 12:59 AM.

#4 Avakael


    A Head Full Of Shadows

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Nation Name:Klaus Devestatorie
  • Alliance Name:MI6

Posted 18 November 2012 - 06:55 AM

I'm not so sure on seeing lots of alliances merge- it's a happiness bonus. Who's gonna give up what could be years of prestige as an alliance for a happiness bonus? Even if people DID want to do that- only the top 12 alliances get it; you aren't in that top 12, you just wasted your time.

Certainly having to wait a few months (maybe just 100 days) before you get the bonus would be useful so you can't just jump to the GPA when you back-collect every 20 days, but I don't think it'll change alliance dynamics much- it's an incentive, but not one alliances would shatter themselves over. Maybe people would move away, too, but if you're moving away from your alliance for a happiness bonus in, you're exactly the kind of player that your previous alliance won't miss.

#5 Winner12345


    No Matching Nation

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Nation Name:Winner12345
  • Alliance Name:Social Democratic Union
  • CN:TE Nation Name:Winner12345
  • CN:TE Alliance Name:International Armed Forces Group

Posted 18 November 2012 - 10:19 AM

I Like it. It seems realistic. I really think that maybe this is good. OK here`s why. Ok first your happiness bonus, then you get alliances merging, less posts on the OWF. Then witht he Civil War thing, when was the last time wesaw one of those? It`s very rarwe and i don`t honestly think it would happen.

#6 Icewolf


    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,044 posts
  • Nation Name:Icicle City

Posted 18 November 2012 - 03:20 PM

I dislike this;

Firstly...11 happiness bonus? So I get to collect more than twice my Birthday bonus just for being in IRON? Yeah...I'm sure I would love that kind of cash bonus but it is far too excessive.

Secondly I don't think this would have the desired impact. It would create an elite of the top 6ish alliances with those below them wrestling over the happiness points. There aren't many viable mergers that could threaten IRON, GPA or WTF. These alliances don't get the extra challenge, just the ability to calmly grow away. At the bottom those trying to get into sanction would face the fact that their growth is constantly slower than those above them, which would be noticeable over longer periods. You have to remember the top 20 alliances are there because they are good at growth...any slight advantage will make a change.

I would like to see more benefits in the game that could be fought over, but I think these would be better tied to teams than the sanctions.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users