"What are alliances?" from Cyber Nations Information Index:

Alliances - Alliances are player created groups managed outside the game. Alliances offer players protection during wars, organized strategies in game, increased player interaction, and often offsite forums and communities of their own. There are no hard coded benefits in the game to being part of a player created alliance. Many of the player created alliances attempt to gain “control” over particular teams. This gives the various alliances a color identity and an opportunity to gain happiness by trading with one another in the game.


Current situation:

Alliances are santioned based in the score and number of members.

Problem with the current situation:

1-Nowadays the top three spheres(Black, Aqua and Blue) retains ~42,50% of all nations of the game, that create some "desert" spheres like Brown, Yellow and Pink. This situation tends to get worse because there are no real benefits in inhabiting these spheres or gaining "control" over these teams, there are also problems in finding good trades because there are few nations on those teams forcing nations to move to other spheres.

2-There is nothing to "fight" for in the game. War happens just over morality/ immorality or because someone is "evil" and after the "evil" alliance or block is retired from the power position the "boredom" state dominates the scene.

My suggestion:

1-There are 12 sanctioned alliances and 12 team colors so I suggest making the strongest alliance on each team sphere a sanctioned alliance.

2-Each sanctioned alliance should have the right to two senate seats on that sphere.

Why my suggestion is better than the current situation:

1-Because this will create a more competitive climate and alliances will really attempt to gain “control” over particular teams as per the alliance definition in the Cyber Nations Information Index.

2-This will mean that spheres will be more than places to find trades and therefore repopulate the "desert" spheres.

This has been mentioned before, but not suggested formally I think. Approved for discussion.

Would certainly shake things up
don't see a problem with it

Well now, this is an interesting twist on colors, as I do wish to see them have a little more weight then the +1 happiness from trading in-color. I see it as a good starting spot to help differentiate them.

Only thing I fail to understand is why give that sanctioned team two senate seats? Do they not have enough influence being a sanctioned alliance on their color?

I agree with Energizer, I like the idea, but two senators seem excessive. That might actually discourage people from trying to go to the smaller colors, work against the suggestion.

So you can choose to economically $%&@ your alliance in return for a sanction?

This could just lead to small alliances earning a sanction, say on pink, solely because no one is willing to move there. You also have to define strength i.e. does it follow the current sanction method of score, or do we use actual alliance strength. Similarly how do you define what colour an alliance is? For instance can alliance X say they're a brown alliance despite having the vast majority of nations on say blue? Or are we using a formula where by an alliance must have X% nations on that sphere.

Your also taking out the interesting element of senates, whereby should they choose, the people can install an opponent to a particular spheres dominant power. For example Vox Populi on red and green during the noCB War, and farung on the red sphere.

Tbh this suggestion smells more than a tad biased.

Disregard, I'll edit later

You're on the right track. But I think it needs to be modified somewhat to promote color wars, something which was an original design of the game.

QUOTE

1-Because this will create a more competitive climate and alliances will really attempt to gain “control” over particular teams as per the alliance definition in the Cyber Nations Information Index.

That would only be temporary. A couple of alliances would fight to win over a couple of spheres, but that would be

Well I would support color sanctions but not the senate seats. If we keep the senate rules it allows coalitions of smaller alliances to organize against the dominant alliance of that color. If they are guaranteed 2 seats it means we need to actually have an officially recognized in-game senator for those alliances (logistically inefficient) and it means that a dominant alliance can truly control the sphere without recourse (ie sanction everyone at will).

Interesting concept, although some spheres, like Black, this would have virtually no effect on.

My suggestion is just an draft, of course this need some modifications and ideas are really welcome.



I put the two senate seats to give more weight to the sanction that today means just a flag in game. Of course this will be controversial and could be changed.




The actual system is what do change for "desert" colors $%&@ your alliance economically and this is what I'm trying to change, create more balanced team spheres.




I doubt that nobody will be willing to move, I still remember when White and Aqua sphere were createdmany alliances changed their colors.

About too define how classify the alliance strengh in the sphere I have two ideas:

1-To can calculate the number of alliance nations in each sphere and then calculate the score based in the current score sytem.

2-Each alliance should declare your official color and should have more than 75% of nations members in the chosen team sphere.




As I explained above the senate thing was an personal opinion and not mandatorily should be included in the modifications.

Can you explain why this looks biased?

I see why you added the senate seats, but really in a color like pink, does senate really mean that much? While your suggestion may cause a couple alliances to move, I really doubt it will do anything to help the desertification of some spheres.

What you need to do is add some kind of benefit for being sanctioned that would matter to most people, and I don't think having a flag or guaranteed senate seats is it.

Problem is, whatever you give can't be something that makes it to unfair to people not sanctioned. (i.e. dont give +10 happy for every nation in a sanctioned AA, as it would make it extremely hard for unsanctioned to overcome that benefit)

So theres the balancing act. What could be given to sanctioned alliances that will make people want to fight for top dog in a color without giving them too much of an advantage?

Since one of the goals is to get more nations to the various colors to help with trades, how about giving a sanctioned allliance an additional +.5 happiness for every on team trade they have, inside the color for which they are sanctioned.

This has the possibility for providing up to +2.5 happiness for having all of you trades on the team that you are sanctioned on. Its small enough that its not too big of an advantage, but I think big enough for people to go for it.

As far as how to choose who is the largest AA, I'd only include those in the AA that are residing in that sphere (with a check in place to ensure that an alliance can only be sanctioned in one sphere)

Sanctioning based on colour sphere leads to one intriguing possibility.

If you granted each sphere a sanction, given to the alliance who had the most total NS in nations residing on that colour, alliances could attempt to dominate more than one sphere directly.

I like the senator thing a bit, but two is too many if we stay with three senators per sphere. One guaranteed senator would be enough IMO.

Yeah one of the main point is add something really worth of being sancioned. The only prize actually is the in-game flag what still there even if you lose the sanction so there aren't nothing really worthing in being sancioned.



We can prevent it because each alliance to run for sanction will need to have just one official color sphere.

I have to say that I've thought of this possibility before, and I've had this same argument with myself before.

And I've come to the conclusion that I oppose this change, solely because I'd have no clue how to update the Sanction Race.

That being said, I do think that there should be some reward for the strong alliance on each team. Senator(s) is a good idea, but then we run into the issue of which nation of that alliance is appointed as a Senator. Sure, we could just pick the largest, but we all know that could be abused. The other option drags us into a debate about an "Alliance Information Panel," which has been covered a number of times.

I would just say instead of an alliance declaring their official color (who decides, blah blah blah, and all that jazz) you base it off of whichever color the alliance is ranked the highest in, and in the case of a tie (i.e. #1 in both pink and yellow) then whichever one that the alliance themselves is strongest in (i.e. 670k ns in pink, 650k ns in yellow, yet strongest in both would make them sanctioned in pink with the yellow runner up earning the sanction).

Although depending on the benefit of being sanctioned, it may not matter if an alliance is double sanctioned. If you used my idea, it wouldn't mean much to be sanctioned in more than one color. If on the other hand you used senators, it would make a difference.

I think this is a terrible idea, and have to oppose it.
1. The alliances large enough to be sanctioned are not going to change colours to remained sanctioned, its a lot of work for nothing. This means the smaller sphere's will not gain any notable amount of nations.

2. The sanctioned alliances are the most powerful alliances, they are the alliances that should have the most political sway out of any alliance in the game. If the sanctioned alliances are just random alliances of any size, it basically makes a sanction worthless and takes away another reason to play the game for people whose goal is to have a sanctioned alliance.

This.

Along with the fact that Sanction and Senators provide almost no practical benefits so they don't really mean anything.

About the only time the Senate is ever important is in the very rare circumstance where an insurgency group like Vox tries to use it as a weapon. 99% of the time it's entirely symbolic and irrelevant.

If the Senate is gonna be modified at all it needs to be made useful. Give it some real power to do things that affect everyone the sphere. Right not it's doing very little for the game when it could be doing a lot more.

This is one of those issues that has been talked about and nothing has been done for years now, along with several other needed changes. The fact that these issues are ignored has caused me to loose faith in this forum being of any worth at all, since it's basically ignored anyway.

I agree, this wouldn't have any effect.

The only way to make Sanctions truly have any meaning is to put it back to needing sanction audits. Having them automatic, at least to me, destroyed the entire meaning of being sanctioned.

2 is too far. I wouldn't mind 1 sentator, ie the highest ranking member of the alliance NS-wise that doesn't have their nation disabled from senate elections would get a seat, even if they are not within the top 100 nations that can be voted on normally.

This pretty much. I like the idea.

We have already gone over this a thousand times to be honest. There is a group that wants scarcity and there is a group that does not. Admin and several mods have already said they don't want to change the game too dramatically and are not going to add scarcity.

I agree that the color/spheres are unbalanced, and I want to see it changed. However I don't think the way you suggest is the way to go. First of all as being said, having the number ones of each sphere sanctioned will not do any good. The only bonus you get from being sanctioned is to put your own flag into the game. Secondly, the senate seats currently aren't being used in the way admin (I think) envisioned it. Senate seats should be a tool for war. In the current climate using senate sanctions during war is severely discouraged.

I rather would like to see some (small) bonus for the alliances that are in the top3. Let's say 20 (#1) - 10 (#2) -5 (#3)% extra income. In order to let my suggestion work, admin need to code the Alliance Affiliation differently. It must be made so that one can only enter an AA with the consent of the Alliance leader. This should be a new ingame mechanic. This prevents people to ghost your AA in order to get said bonus. This will also lead to bigger alliances, which is a good thing i.m.o. We have too many small alliances in this game.

kriekfreak, that suggestion in your second pargagraph about structuring alliances differently has been shot down more times then I can count. It opens up a huge can of worms over who gets to approve/dissaprove who gets in the AA, and I am not sure that Admin does not think that ghosts are good for the game overall. His view might be a little different then a player's perspective.



I've honestly never thought of senators that way. You know, if that is true, then the best way to get them back to being used as tools for war would be to allow senators to sanction people on ANY color, not just their own. That would be a good place to start. Maybe senators should be immune to sanctioning themselves too, I don't know.

This idea is one the right track but it missed the idea since it considers sanctions important. I think some changes needed to be made to this idea namely.

1. Instead of getting sanctioned each color would have its own strongest alliance and that strongest alliance would get 1 guaranteed senate seat.

2. The senate of each color is increased to 5 nations and has more power/benefits. For example for every senator an alliance got the amount of money/tech/soldier aid they could send/receive goes up by 50% and if an alliance manages to get a majority in the senate their nations receive a significant happiness bonus. (All of this only applies to the nations on the alliances color)

3. Each alliance has their color determined by having 75% of their NS located on 1 color having less than 75% on 1 color qualifies them as multi colored and while they can run a senator they cannot become a colors biggest alliance.


I think this will provide enough incentive for alliance to seriously consider forming political blocs for complete color control and having alliances fight over colors while at the same time keeping sanction status for those who work at keeping their score up and not just joining a small color.

Make senators useful first, then maybe this will have some sort of good and worthwhile effect.

I don't think that Brown, Yellow, and Pink are semi-vacant because alliances cannot gain power there. I believe that they are in that state because of their colors. Most people wouldn't want to be associated with anything brown, yellow, or pink.

So, if I am reading this right, the main objection seems to be that there would be no point because senators aren't valuable.

So, how about submitting suggestions as to how senators could be made more useful/powerful, which would apparently then bring agreement on this suggestion.

Yeah, looks like people preffer their trade circles than dominate one sphere and have senators.

I suggest it in TE, but I'll suggest it here.

I want Nuclear Sanctions. Not just trade Sanctions which you hope can remove their access to uranium, I want a nation to be completely sanctioned from firing their nukes across all spheres and to completely isolate their ability.

Perhaps if 3 senators on the 12 spheres give Nuclear Sanctions on someone, they cannot fire, purchase or use them in general. If one uses Nuclear Sanctions the nation cannot fire or buy them on that sphere.

Even if you don't like how I proposed it, I think Nuclear Sanctions are something we need to add. Stop fighting over sanctioning trades and just force the nation to stop firing. During war you can target the best fighters, during peace you can target rogues.

No
Why spoil the fun of a rogue just because you don't like getting hit
If you want to play with senate powers then the following would perhaps be better

1) Ability to weight a sphere ie on a couple of issues each senator has 3 options (3rd option is to do nothing)
Ie choice between economic or military bonus's at the expense of the other ie If 2 senitors have a preference set for military, then all mill wonders and improvements on that sphere are 25% more effective but all eco ones 25% less effective, if 2 senitors set a preference for eco then the opposite occurs
have a 2nd choice between industry and agriculture (if industry chosen, infra purchace and upkeep costs are 5% less on that sphere, but pop falls by 5%) if agriculture the opposite

In both cases if do nothing is selected by a majority of senators then things remain as they are now, if the senate is split (1 vote for each option) then do nothing wins

Options like this would provide an incentive for an alliance to control 2 senate seats so that they can optimise the sphere to there needs


Also could have an option that if all 3 senators agree then anyone flying a selected aa is booted off that sphere and cannot return

How about having color events that pop up every now and then? Senators vote on one of two outcomes. Set them up so that the outcomes make definite divisions between the people of a color, say between large/small nations or nations that focus on war/infra. If you can't stand your senator's decisions, either vote with your feet and move to a color where the senate there "gets" your view, or throw the bums out and get guys that see things your way.

How about having senators with the ability to sanction an entire AA that has 75% of its nations on its color? Sanction would apply for 48 hours to affected nations, even if they switch AA or color, sort of like an anarchy event. This would make senators VERY powerful and give a big advantage to alliances able to control a seat.

Yeah, this shakes things up a lot and some of this would be unfair to this guy or that one, but you know what? They can deal with it and roll with the changes.

I'm not sure about the ability to sanction an entire AA, even if it's just for 48 hours, but Ilike the others suggestions.

Want to make senators relevant?

Give each team a bank that's fed into by a sphere-wide tax. Each senator can raise the tax by up to 0.5%, leading to a total tax rate of 0%-1.5% for each sphere that will be taken out of nations' taxes when they collect. Give each senator control of 20 team aid slots that function like normal aid slots drawing cash from the team coffers, as well as the ability to transfer cash from their team's bank to another team's bank.


Watch control of the senate become at least slightly more important than a symbolic declaration of prestige.

Another good idea that I like.

This is a great idea!

the amount of money moved would have to be far greater, somewhere around 50 mil per slot, because the bank would fill really fast on the Aqua or black spheres, to the point where it would be limitless if only 3 mil could be moved per slot

I like the idea.. But, how would an alliance be classified as #1 in that sphere? Would it be Alliance score of nations residing on the majority color? (Sorry if I don't make sense.. I'm trying to ask "How would each sanction alliance be divided?")

To determine who is #1 of each sphere, the score of Alliances would be defined only using the nations who reside in the official sphere of each alliance.

I think we're in agreement that if Senators had super-powers, there would be a lot more competition for those offices.

Admin?

I was thinking of something different to make Senators more powerful. I can work it out further if people like the idea.

How about we make Senators the option to put a few nations out of peace mode? This gives an extra stimulant to get your own senator voted in and it gives an extra dimension to warfare.

Cause we've been down that road before and got kicked in the face and told by admin it wasn't going to happen.

...actually the same could be said about most suggestions here.

I like this idea a lot.

That would be $#(*&@# awesome!

Give it an advantage above normal aid slots like a 5 mill aid limit, a 1 mill minimum, and as many outgoing aid slots as coffer funds allow (funds are withdrawn when offer is officially made). An aid transaction has to be suggested by 1 senator and approved by the 2nd.


The team events idea, where options are done in a way that affects different nations differently, would also be great. You'd have to limit the ability to change colors to prevent abuse, but it would still be awesome.

This too, sadly.

I've seen too many great and easy suggestions go nowhere to have a lot of faith in this forum any more.

Heck, I've yet to have one of my suggestions get accepted...

I like the idea of a "colour tax", but I think it should be basically an Infrastructure tax.

1) Reduce Infra upkeep costs by 5% (IE it was always there)
2) Add a 5% infra "tax" changeable by senators per colour. This tax can be set as high as 20% or as low as 0%

The money shouldn't go to aid slots though, and shouldn't be transferable directly to specific nations, but rather the money from "Infra Taxes" should be able to be spent on a few different ideas.

1) (team colour) Development Aid: A percentage of the money is divided evenly amongst the lowest 50% of the colour team. So if the Infra Taxes amount to $1 billion, and there are 5000 nations in the bottom 50%, every day they all get $200,000 added to their coffers.

2) (team colour) Humanitarian Aid: For nations with happiness under 20, increases happiness by +1 for every $5 per citizen in nations with happiness under 20 up to 20 happiness. So again if it's $1 billion and there are 5000 nations each with 10,000 working citizens under 20 happiness, they would all be boosted up by +4 happiness.

3) (team colour) Peacekeeping and Stabilization Forces: Adds defensive troops and tanks (not counted in national population) bought with and maintained by the tax budget for nations on your colour at war. They are not useable for offensive purposes and cannot be commanded by you. Troop levels refresh after update.

All these ideas make senators useless, the idea was to make senators useful.

The largest alliances have all of the power anyway.

I kinda like it, only not for your suggested ideas. How about making the senators able to buy "TEAM wonders"? The teams can decide whether to set the tax to 20 or to 0. The senators then can decide how they want to spend the money. They could buy economic team wonders that help the entire sphere or for instance buy a military wonder that gives extra attack power against a different sphere. That way you can also stimulate inter sphere relations, and strive. But also stimulate competition between spheres.

I like the idea of having sanctions based on color, as it would make things more competitive and interesting, but then you'd have to define what makes an alliance based on that sphere. And for those that would be bordering on that limit, some random trouble makers could all join that AA and make the sanctioned alliance no longer on that sphere. BUt that would take quite a few people to make much of a difference, I suppose.
Drop the senator thing, and the idea looks good to me.

How about have Senators have the power to boot people off the color - same as a sanction, but now without limit.

Oooh wait bad idea... imagine what KingZog could have done to NPO when he was a Red Senator for a while...

I like the idea of forced peace mode dropping. Then a Senator could order "military action" against an enemy of the color.

This would make grey the color for peaceniks with a shady past.