admin Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Ever since the TE alliance system was implemented players have been asking me to implement the feature in SE. Now that I have announced plans to do that, players seem to be up in arms about it. I need to know, does the community support this feature in SE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 I shouldn't have to be online the minute these changes go live to ensure that the 130+ members in my alliance can be a member of the alliance. People who play this game casually shouldn't be without a home, and potentially without protection, while they catch themselves up on the situation. I don't see how this will address the largest problems this game has, which is member retention/recruitment. Rather, it is very obvious to see how this will negatively affect member retention, as people who have been members of alliances in some cases for several years will suddenly find themselves homeless. So no, I don't think you'll find many people who want this system in, unless you can seamlessly port members over into their 'new' alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 It would be good to have any new features added to the standard edition at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 I don't think people would have an issue with it if you were able to appoint the leader of the alliance as it's SE 'leader', with all of its members' automatically added to the new affiliation, and provide the ability for alliances to change their SE 'leader'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conistonslim Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Ever since the TE alliance system was implemented players have been asking me to implement the feature in SE. Now that I have announced plans to do that, players seem to be up in arms about it. I need to know, does the community support this feature in SE? It is a great idea which works really well in TE. People will bitch as they did when the ability to change resources was implemented, this improvement will benefit the game just as the resource improvement did. Thank you for taking the time to make these changes. They are needed and appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Implement it. It is without question a superior system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samus Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Just get alliances to post their memberlist on the forums, anyone who attacks such member will be dealt with as you would normally deal with a nation attacking someone on your AA. Or just give a 25 day transition period where no wars/spies are allowed to be declared or something, which is ample time for everyone to get on their right AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 The transition is going to be a special brand of chaos that'll probably wind up in a global conflagration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Carnoly Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) If there was a way to keep everybody on the AA and then assign ranks from there that would be good. Just have the leader message you for permissions. Either way it's an honor system. Edited June 23, 2013 by New Carnoly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Just get alliances to post their memberlist on the forums, anyone who attacks such member will be dealt with as you would normally deal with a nation attacking someone on your AA. Or just give a 25 day transition period where no wars/spies are allowed to be declared or something, which is ample time for everyone to get on their right AA. But what about alliances which are currently at war with another alliance or are in a long-haul war against a rogue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockingscheduled Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 The very-short term annoyance of having to get everyone back onto the alliance should not be a big factor in deciding whether to go through with these changes or not. with plenty of advance notice of a specific time/date that this is going to be implemented, alliances will have ample opportunity to prepare themselves and their membership for the change. they can post announcements on the owf listing who their protected members are, they can add something to their nation bio to reference their alliance membership, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rand0m her0 Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) No. It'll create a massive amount of hassle, especially when dealing with large alliances; migrating 100-300 members and then cleaning up the cockwads whole will go "Herp derp they're on None! TECH RAAAAAID" will be all kinds of not fun, for no gain. We've been successful in keep undesirables off our AA's for 7 years now, and it probably took less effort over that whole time than organizing this kind of clusterfuck will. Either find a way to port the current AAs over and then manually set the leaders, or don't bother. Edited June 23, 2013 by rand0m her0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Thank you for creating a poll for this issue admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im317 Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 this is going to create major chaos for at least 25 days, well everyone gets a chance to bring there members back onto there AAs. hopefully some probationary membership of existing AAs can be worked out rather then moving everyone to None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 I for one welcome all the new raid targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 I do wonder how the various alliances out there will deal with their applicant AAs once this system is introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 I do wonder how the various alliances out there will deal with their applicant AAs once this system is introduced. There are easy ways around it , ie, appoint a leader of an app aa who is a member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxfiles Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) Why cant we just nominate a leader for our AA's instead and leave everyone on the AA and we can sort it out later on???? this would make more sense.. Edited June 23, 2013 by maxfiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Well, it'll certainly be amusing when the big inactive alliances suddenly end up with 30 members instead of 200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxfiles Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Well, it'll certainly be amusing when the big inactive alliances suddenly end up with 30 members instead of 200. So much for NPO being a big power alliance.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 So much for NPO being a big power alliance.. Don't you mean MHA and the neutrals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im317 Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 how are powers given out? for example can a person be given approval power but not removal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 I agree with Goldie, unless something is put in place to mitigate the transition chaos, it's going to seriously hurt some semi-inactive members. I know in NATO, our activity during war skyrockets, but alot of those people are bill payer/tax collector players in peacetime. It's possible a decent % of our members will be left off the AA for a significant amount of time (though no more than 25 days as Goldie stated) Maybe the players can implement something amongst themselves, ie. 25 day freeze on Raiding/DoW's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Williambonney Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Seems that Walford has momentarily won the game :frantic: I like the new changes. Although for the new arrivals there will be a short hassle to deal with, it will make things harder for the alliance hoppers. I hope that alliances will watch over their own to keep the raiders at bay :war: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsRavan Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 I like the system... but tbh i have concerns about this AA reset. we have a few members (and I imagine we arent alone) whose main point in playing... like some people collect tech or casulties.. is there alliance seniority. If im honest, I worry about them not only being upset, but just fading away and moving on. ::shrugs:: I suppose you could say 'small loss' but frankly I do think its a loss. Even if they are inactive now, with time they might become active again. So all for the changes, but i wonder if we couldnt look into things a bit more to find a way to keep the AA seniority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts