The Syzygian Hall of Ages

Totally agree. Get rid of this artificial boundary. It's not like alliances with < 200 members are less of an alliance. If they manage to get bigger with < 200 members then an alliance with > 200 members the one with < 200 members is apparently doing something better, so should be rewarded for it.

I'd rather see a codified alliance system to prevent ghosts entirely. Yes I realize it comes with its own set of problems, but damn it would make life so much easier in terms of issues like this and for other alliances in general.

This Border should be removed and I do like your ideas on getting Sanctioned.

I'd rather see a codified alliance system to prevent ghosts entirely. Yes I realize it comes with its own set of problems, but damn it would make life so much easier in terms of issues like this and for other alliances in general.

That was my first idea when I saw the membercount this morning, but I have been in a couped alliance before and it just seems too damn rigid for me.

If you had an "alliance admin" who could kick ghosts, that would make things much simpler.

Sure, it could lead to problems with one person going crazy with it and wiping everyone, but that's part of leading a stable alliance I guess.

If you had an "alliance admin" who could kick ghosts, that would make things much simpler.

Sure, it could lead to problems with one person going crazy with it and wiping everyone, but that's part of leading a stable alliance I guess.

Again, what I said above, coups have been a part of CN for years now and you will be removing the ability of an alliance to depose their leadership if they so choose. It is not just about the alliance admin going crazy.

I agree with Trace. Make it so that it is impossible to use an AA without that AA leadership's authorization.

*ahem*

NoWedge

Great idea =]

I really think that the tiered sanctioning would be an excellent thing to look into (as well as removal of the wall). Moreso because a tiered sanctioning adds another element to how alliances can work towards becoming sanctioned, although admittingly I don't see too many alliances working to get sanctioned status versus just trying to make their alliance better.

Mr Admin, tear down this wall.

I lol'd.

Also, I completely agree that this artificial border needs to be torn down. It is not an accurate representation of power otherwise.

I find myself in complete agreement. It was understandable before admin changed the score system, as we would have small alliances with high average nation strength with ridiculous score numbers. With the revised score system, the member cap is no longer needed due to the severe advantage and emphasis put on member count.

your move admin

Changing the ways in which sanctioned alliances are chosen would certainly add interest to the game, that's for sure. Something along the lines of what you proposed would add depth to the game, and open up new pathways for alliances as it would be possible to gain a sanction by something other than membership.

Perhaps select 4 by NS, then 6 by score, and 2 more in there for Avg. NS. I don't think it really makes sense to use both score and membership, since membership is the largest contributor to score in the first place.

A chance is needed though, regardless of what the change is. Hopefully it will not be something that simply addresses this instance, and instead actually solves the problem.

What is the negative side of TOP being sanctioned anyways? Being sanctioned doesn't mean TOP lost it's reputation for a Citadel alliance. Even if it works, it's just "meh", until Vox tires itself.

Still I can't see how a sanctioned status could be an advantage/disadvantage to power, political and game mechanics. It serves as good promotion for recruitment though. That's is based on my observation on the Citadel alliances.

I see the sanctioned status more like a cosmetics status,... looks good, but doesn't help you if you don't know what you are doing.

I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with your suggestion or on how you view the competition,... though I am intrigued with how the sanctioned races would be run if it were implemented (I am more interested in the team score changes on that topic, since it's an indicator of overall team growth, which could mean the trends for trade potential).

Its rather stupid that in order to get your 'sanctioned' status in the game you have to send out a ton of blatantly impersonal messages trying to convince a newbie to join your alliance. Its like who ever can spam the most and be successful can get sanctioned. Basing sanction on score is a good middle ground imo.

i voted to get rid of it, but if VE had 199 members i would have voted against it. i have ghosts and being sanctioned is just a giant ghost magnet.

the reason you dont want sanction is you are added to the drop down menu, which attracts ghost.

I personally think the better way of fixing the problem would be something that was suggested a LONG LONG time ago, by multiple people; a way to lock people from claiming any AA they want. For alliances over 100 members, they should be allowed a password known only by the mod team that locks their AA, and people can only claim the AA if they have the password.

There may be better ways of doing this than a password, but I think it would be nice to finally be done with ghosts altogether. The password-based AA's is my personal thought, but I'm sure it could be somewhat annoying to implement.

Either way, I think changing the sanction requirements wouldn't solve the problem so much as attacking the problem itself (people ghosting AA's they don't belong under).

How about alliances are sanctioned by strength only? Seems like the most logical way.

The fact that TOP is #2 in nuke count but still unsanctioned speaks volumes about the sanction criteria itself.

Voted to remove the 200 membership requirement.

I'd rather see a codified alliance system to prevent ghosts entirely. Yes I realize it comes with its own set of problems, but damn it would make life so much easier in terms of issues like this and for other alliances in general.

For the love of God, yes. I forget how long I've been trying to convince people this is necessary. It really would save a lot of hassle.

Also, yes, change the sanction system. It's ridiculous in its current state.

I personally think the better way of fixing the problem would be something that was suggested a LONG LONG time ago, by multiple people; a way to lock people from claiming any AA they want. For alliances over 100 members, they should be allowed a password known only by the mod team that locks their AA, and people can only claim the AA if they have the password.

There may be better ways of doing this than a password, but I think it would be nice to finally be done with ghosts altogether. The password-based AA's is my personal thought, but I'm sure it could be somewhat annoying to implement.

Either way, I think changing the sanction requirements wouldn't solve the problem so much as attacking the problem itself (people ghosting AA's they don't belong under).

This idea makes SO much sense. I wonder why the admins haven't implemented it, although it's probably more of a massive coding issue they don't want to deal with than anything else.

The problem with the password is that it would only prevent new players from joining your AA. But with the way information is passed back and forth easily, those not so new to the game could find out the password and still ghost the AA.

Damn double posts XD

The only way to control members is to implement a governmental system into the game in which a person could be designated as the 'gatekeeper', but that would be a major coding overhaul...