Il Principe Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Maybe nations in a sanctioned alliances should get +5 happiness points because of the benefit of stable politics? That could be a way to give sanctioning some extra meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Maybe nations in a sanctioned alliances should get +5 happiness points because of the benefit of stable politics? That could be a way to give sanctioning some extra meaning. Given some of the drama I've witnessed out of sanctioned alliances the last year or so (both public and private), maybe instead of +5 it should be -1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Perry Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 I agree totally that a sanctioned alliance should get some kind of benefit. Maybe not +5 happiness but something. It would clear up the MDP web great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Giving Sanctioned Alliances and their nations unexplained and unfair advantages over other players would be bad for gameplay in general. Plus, people would just ghost the santioned AA's to get the benefits anyway. Mass amounts of ghosts lead to mass amounts of problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Why should there be any incentives to merge? The answer to that question was located directly in the sentence you quoted:P In my personal opinion, there are far far to many alliances, especially small ones. And I personally feel that the game would be more interesting/engaging with less, more powerful alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cylon Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 The answer to that question was located directly in the sentence you quoted:PIn my personal opinion, there are far far to many alliances, especially small ones. And I personally feel that the game would be more interesting/engaging with less, more powerful alliances. I totally agree with you Virillus. I only find it ironic that you've recently founded a new alliance yourself, I totally understand why you did that though. That's the reason why there are so many alliances, small tight knit groups banding together. Can't blame them/you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 I totally agree with you Virillus. I only find it ironic that you've recently founded a new alliance yourself, I totally understand why you did that though. That's the reason why there are so many alliances, small tight knit groups banding together. Can't blame them/you. Yeah, I know. The irony is not lost on me:P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weiss von Toten Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Maybe nations in a sanctioned alliances should get +5 happiness points because of the benefit of stable politics? That could be a way to give sanctioning some extra meaning. I think +5 is a bit much. Maybe a 8% increase to population instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 I think +5 is a bit much. Maybe a 8% increase to population instead. 8% population is a huge improvement over 5 happiness:P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genzod Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) I think +5 is a bit much. Maybe a 8% increase to population instead. +8% population is too much as well. Maybe they should be allowed to build wonders every 10 days instead? Edited June 20, 2008 by GenZod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 +8% population is too much as well. Maybe they should be allowed to build wonders every 10 days instead? A Wonder every 10 days is still too much. They should be allowed unlimited donations each month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopherbashi Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Oooh, I was wondering when GR was going to make it on here. As well, last I heard, some members from TOP didn't want to be sanctioned because of the ghosts they would attract. Now, positions may have changed since then, but I'd like to hear a few more opinions from TOP before we say what would be beneficial for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keak Da Sneak Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 I'm pretty sure the flag is incentive enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLights Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) Oooh, I was wondering when GR was going to make it on here.As well, last I heard, some members from TOP didn't want to be sanctioned because of the ghosts they would attract. Now, positions may have changed since then, but I'd like to hear a few more opinions from TOP before we say what would be beneficial for them. Personally, I just want to have our flag in-game. I don't really care to be sanctioned or not. I think admin should have some standards to getting your flag in-game without a sanction. Maybe...last over X years or months and behaves on the forums. It would ensure he didn't have to do it alot but it would reward long play. Of course I'm biased though. I would enjoy nothing more than flying the Paradoxian flag Edited June 20, 2008 by NorthernLights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 A Wonder every 10 days is still too much. They should be allowed unlimited donations each month. also still too much. Any benefit would have to be indirect and not put anyone in a distinct advantage over anyone else for no reason. The most you could do without hurting game play as a whole would be something involving the random events (because it's not just another "hey give me a bonus k thnx bai"). Even that is stretching it though. However, this is all a discussion for another thread. Let's get back to the race... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randleman Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 However, this is all a discussion for another thread. Let's get back to the race... Just sittin and waiting for the update Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Oooh, I was wondering when GR was going to make it on here.As well, last I heard, some members from TOP didn't want to be sanctioned because of the ghosts they would attract. Now, positions may have changed since then, but I'd like to hear a few more opinions from TOP before we say what would be beneficial for them. We've felt that way for quite some time as well. In fact, I for a long time intended to get TOOL to turn down the sanction if we got it, because the problems so far outweighed the benefits, and we were swamped in ghosts and inactives at the time. Now though, it's not much more than a flag, and we've cracked down on ghosts to the point where we could handle a few from the dropdown list. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Honestly if sanctioned alliances got +5 happiness or whatever, I would just change my AA to say FOK, collect taxes then change my AA back. I think most people would do this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) also still too much. Any benefit would have to be indirect and not put anyone in a distinct advantage over anyone else for no reason. The most you could do without hurting game play as a whole would be something involving the random events (because it's not just another "hey give me a bonus k thnx bai"). Even that is stretching it though.However, this is all a discussion for another thread. Let's get back to the race... You do know that each one of those suggestions got increasingly unbalancing in favor of sanctioned alliances. Edited June 20, 2008 by Delta1212 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 In your post you say a few high strength nations can't affect the score, and then say that the sanction should be given to an alliance who has a high score from having a, relatively, few members with high Nation strength.My one man alliance is .23 score...I am on my way. Incredible that you being such an old player, are so ignorant of way CN works. Please, tell me, who has more impact on world politics, TOP, Gremlins or Monos Archein? TOP has 6.4M NS which is higher then sanctioned alliances Ragnarok 6.4M, Fark 6.1M, GGA 5.6M, FOK 5.4M, and TPF 5M. Next in line is VE 4.7M, TOOL 4.2M, and Monos Archein, with mind boggling 3.8M. We also have 2nd highest amount of nukes (ahead of IRON by a few nukes, but they have 800+ members, and 500 behind NPO who as well have 900+ members). Our potential is much higher then any of the alliances under us (as they do not have the hitting power in upper ranks we do), and I can't see how their large number of smaller nations can be an advantage over TOP. Also, it's important to mention that nations (large number of them), already factor in the equation, for example Ragnarok who has roughly same NS as TOP, but 300 members more, has 3 points more score, in my opinion that is enough (since numbers of newbies alone don't make you a powerhouse). I did not want to bring this up due to our allies TPF currently holding the 12th place, but as it was mentiond I felt I had to. Requirement for 300 members is a remnant from before new score equation, for those who remember, back then average NS contributed to Score by a fair bit, which meant that small alliances with high NS had insane scores. I remember that even one member alliances with high NS had really high scores, so at that time admin/moderators implemented the member cap rule. After it was changed, and after average NS no longer factors in the equation, 300 member rule only artificially punishes alliances that are not mass recruiters, and alliances that prefer to work in a smaller group. I hope that admin will realize that this requirement is no longer necessary, and that he will make necessary changes. I will probably push this forward as a suggestion later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Requirement for 300 members is a remnant from before new score equation, for those who remember, back then average NS contributed to Score by a fair bit, which meant that small alliances with high NS had insane scores. I remember that even one member alliances with high NS had really high scores, so at that time admin/moderators implemented the member cap rule. After it was changed, and after average NS no longer factors in the equation, 300 member rule only artificially punishes alliances that are not mass recruiters, and alliances that prefer to work in a smaller group. I hope that admin will realize that this requirement is no longer necessary, and that he will make necessary changes. I will probably push this forward as a suggestion later on. Actually, that's not all it is. Managing a larger alliance takes much more work than a smaller one (In terms of numbers.) The amount of effort and organizational abilities it takes to successfully manage a 300+ member alliance is easily double that of a smaller, more elite alliance. Part of the sanction requirement for 300 members is the recognization of the skill required to organize and maintain a larger alliance. Am I saying that TOP is easy and unskilled? Absolutely not, I have a great deal of respect for you and your alliance. But I do feel that reaching 300 members as a requirement is also a reward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) Actually, that's not all it is.Managing a larger alliance takes much more work than a smaller one (In terms of numbers.) The amount of effort and organizational abilities it takes to successfully manage a 300+ member alliance is easily double that of a smaller, more elite alliance. Part of the sanction requirement for 300 members is the recognization of the skill required to organize and maintain a larger alliance. Am I saying that TOP is easy and unskilled? Absolutely not, I have a great deal of respect for you and your alliance. But I do feel that reaching 300 members as a requirement is also a reward. Your argument is seriously failing. Please tell me, how does someone tell from number of members whether that alliance is successfully organized or not? Wouldn't a 400 member alliance of 5M NS with pathetic organization, still have better score then a 400 member alliance with 4M NS. Organization can be observed from retention rate of alliances, from their growth, and their adaptation to the times. Also, please tell me, what is the difference between managing 160 member alliance, and a 320 member alliance? How is it something radically different that is so hard to do, that it should be directly honored in alliance sanctions? Edited June 20, 2008 by Saber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myruler Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 Sorry to cut into this argument, but Saber, you should really get rid of that sig. Croats can't seem to be able to finish PKs very well... Also, I think the member requirement should stay for sanctions, but some new way of adding flags into teh game should be put in. Gremlins and TOP should definitely have their flags in-game by now, they have truly earned it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 I think he was saying that because there are more people they have more people to keep in line and control, which is somewhat true. But TOP deserves a sanction more than anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted June 20, 2008 Report Share Posted June 20, 2008 (edited) Sorry to cut into this argument, but Saber, you should really get rid of that sig. Croats can't seem to be able to finish PKs very well...Also, I think the member requirement should stay for sanctions, but some new way of adding flags into teh game should be put in. Gremlins and TOP should definitely have their flags in-game by now, they have truly earned it. I'm going to guess you are an Italian. Well, you'll have right to complain, when you win against us. OK, thanks, bye. I'm still proud, Lady Luck wasn't on our side though. Edited June 20, 2008 by Saber 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.