HeroofTime55 Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 1) Admin announces that there will be a 6 month period after which all the Sanctioned Alliances become the official alliances for all time, and every other alliance is force-disbanded. All the alliances presently on the field will then duke it out until the victors remain, smaller alliances will tactically merge, there will be wars and bloodshed and general chaos as alliances work around the clock to secure their position or fight to gain a seat at the table. 2) There will then be a 2 week period of no war (mandated by game code) for people to find new homes in the remaining "official" alliances. For the first week, all the old alliances still exist, giving the leadership structures one last chance to direct their members to a new home. After the first week, all the non-victorious alliances are dumped on "none" and have one additional week to find new homes before war is turned back on and they are allowed to be raided. 3) Every three months, the lowest-ranking alliance will be eliminated, with a 2 week grace period similar to (2) so that those players may find a new home. And so, a glorious, 3-year game of Highlander takes place among the alliances, until only one remains. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted September 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 If CN suddenly becomes popular again, this cycle can, of course, repeat. Turn on unsanctioned alliances again, let people form up and do politics, and when the field is ripe, do it all over again. Perhaps a 4 or 5 year cycle takes place. If we don't get enough revitalization to last for additional cycles, well, it sure beats the hell out of letting CN die with a whimper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 I love it. Only thing I would add (which I think might've been implied) is that once in one of the sanctioned alliances, there should be no leaving. This would prevent any AA-hopping shenanigans to manipulate the cut-off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 Please no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrews Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 This actually sounds pretty fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyriakos Raanb Dorou Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 This could only end in Walford leading NONE to final victory. :P There was a brief time in the beginning when there were no official alliances (no in-game affiliation option), but everyone organized themselves and coordinated on forums regardless. The better organized of the smaller AA's would probably choose that option over a forced merger - or if literally placed on an AA against their will would attempt to sabotage it. But,I actually like the idea of going back to the no-affiliation days. It would add some small amount of uncertainty and perhaps could enhance the role of individual nations. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 NO..Bad idea all around! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eejack Posted September 1, 2015 Report Share Posted September 1, 2015 You captured the merits of the concept in the title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applesauce59 Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Great idea. Bold vision for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krihelion Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 games dead anyway, might as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Stupid idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted September 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 I love it. Only thing I would add (which I think might've been implied) is that once in one of the sanctioned alliances, there should be no leaving. This would prevent any AA-hopping shenanigans to manipulate the cut-off. Nah. Poaching is part of The Game. Poaching should absolutely, 100% be allowed. This could only end in Walford leading NONE to final victory. :P There was a brief time in the beginning when there were no official alliances (no in-game affiliation option), but everyone organized themselves and coordinated on forums regardless. The better organized of the smaller AA's would probably choose that option over a forced merger - or if literally placed on an AA against their will would attempt to sabotage it. But,I actually like the idea of going back to the no-affiliation days. It would add some small amount of uncertainty and perhaps could enhance the role of individual nations. :) Perhaps people will organize independently from having an AA. Perhaps. And massive credit to those who do so. But.... What is the harm? If we only go through Phase One, then we have culled all the inactive turds of alliances from this world. There are so many inactive trash AA's that wouldn't have the ability to coordinate on NONE. It is fitting, the idea of going back to a primordial time before the game code made it so brainless to maintain and manage an alliance. Let the game die in the same way in which it was born. Lots of naysayers in this thread. Mostly from Oculus, and that's not a surprise. And, indeed, I would like to give some time to see what this new bloc can do. But the time of this game is limited, as the population dwindles. One day, the money train will stop and admin will unceremoniously pull the plug to save on server costs. A grand tournament to end the world would be a far more satisfying conclusion, I think everyone would agree, and I would argue that the real disagreement is simply how close or far we are from the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 While it would be something like Game of Thrones ending with a winner-takes-all game of musical chairs, I can indeed imagine a point at which the game becomes stagnant enough that it feels worthwhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabonnobar Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 Sounds fun to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 do this but make it as a tournament edition round so we can still keep playing cn standard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 You should never make me agree with Hereno. do this but make it as a tournament edition round so we can still keep playing cn standard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caladin Posted September 2, 2015 Report Share Posted September 2, 2015 do this but make it as a tournament edition round so we can still keep playing cn standard Give some ridiculously oversized prizes for the alliance the wins, and that should encourage alliances to compete properly. Could be very fun :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilcroft Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 No. As Kyriakos Raanb Dorou mentioned, Alliances were originally entirely unofficial. In fact (and correct me if I'm wrong), the first Great War was fought before there were in-game AAs, and the game had almost twice as many players then as right now. People will organize themselves as they see fit, with or without sanction status. Alliances have never had any in-game effects. Even "sanctioned" status was just getting your alliance flag uploaded to the game, along with some extra publicity. I dare you to tell DBDC, Legion, Non Grata, or any of the many other AAs that they have to disband, and let me know how that goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrews Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 What if sanctioned alliances had more pronounced in game advantages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 What if you're the only person actually playing CN, and all of this has just been a very elaborate Turing test? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrews Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 What if you're the only person actually playing CN, and all of this has just been a very elaborate Turing test? Sounds like the worst M. Night Shamalama movie to date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrews Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) Double post Edited September 3, 2015 by Dcrews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted September 3, 2015 Report Share Posted September 3, 2015 What if you're the only person actually playing CN, and all of this has just been a very elaborate Turing test? That would be sort of like Ex Machina, but the exact opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted September 4, 2015 Report Share Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) What if sanctioned alliances had more pronounced in game advantages. I like this idea. Edited September 4, 2015 by Big Ego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted September 6, 2015 Report Share Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) What if sanctioned alliances had more pronounced in game advantages. Then (actually a bit more than) 75% of players would have even less reason to log in again. :facepalm: Edited September 6, 2015 by Sigrun Vapneir 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.