Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?

[eejack]

However, it was decided almost immediately that members would not be put on none.  When an issue was raised, Admin modified the plan almost immediately.  Yes.  In SE everyone being on none is different than the reset environment of TE.  But it's been addressed.  So let it go.  If you still disagree with the addition on other grounds, then state them.  But to continue to complain about the "None" situation isn't adding to the discussion.

 

I like the change.  The ghosts and virtual ghosts on our AA probably don't.  I'm not going to concern myself with them.  If you'd like, I can refer them to your AA when the change is made

 

I was answering the fellow's question. Nothing for me to let go. So far the information on this new set of restrictions is sketchy and fluid but we have kept up so far. Many folks - those who do not log in every day, nor log into the owf - have not kept up hence the continued concern.

 

I have raised objections already, but there is truly no point in doing so as it is decided.

 

We have never had a problem with ghosts ( or have any use at all for these new restrictions in the game ) as we have always been able to deal with things without assistance. Making rules and coding the game to deal with unsavory things always seemed to me to be cheating, a crutch, however it is the crutch we end up with so we will deal with it.

 

We have always been an invite only alliance, however if you wish to refer folks to us let me know and I will give them the consideration they warrant.

[eejack]

People keep asking for that because they didn't read that alliances which had their leader identified (in bros's thread) won't be put on "none". Basically, it's people posting without reading the entire thread.
I don't think that neutrals asked for no-war periods more than anyone else (quite the opposite ITT, in fact).

Ah ah you're right on this. I agree it's silly.
Embrace the change people! Why be afraid? :)

 

There is no clear information - many threads, many 'ideas' and the pristine clarity found on the owf. I never read anything about identified alliances not being put on none, the impression I got was NO ONE was being put on none. I made a suggestion about dealing with the hundred or so non-identified alliances out there when this change with occur, no idea if it was taken up or not.

 

Currently 94 alliances are listed. There are 136 over ten nation alliances - who knows how many smaller ones. So best case two thirds are covered, at worse, less than half.

 

There needs to be a default for the missing alliances.

Edited June 29, 2013 by EEjack

[D34th]

This is the perfect moment to an alliance limit be created. 

[eejack]

This is the perfect moment to an alliance limit be created. 

 

Agreed but difficult to code, since you can only create an alliance with one nation, therefore the lower limit is by necessity, one.

 

( the beauty of the existing system is in it's simplicity - it works just fine and adds to gameplay. the new system will break and restrict game play since it is more complex. )

Edited June 29, 2013 by EEjack

[Rayvon]

Currently 94 alliances are listed. There are 136 over ten nation alliances - who knows how many smaller ones. So best case two thirds are covered, at worse, less than half.

If even one single person out of these other 40 alliances can't find any piece of information about the upcoming change, or hear any single piece of word from any 'ally' in discussions (I know our embassies all exploded with "What do you think of admins new changes?", we most certainly are not the only active forum by any means - so safe to assume it's happened in countless other embassies) - then perhaps the game is better off with them on None.

Shit - as inactive as you guys are, you still found your way here. How did you find out about this thread?

[Caladin]

It is because not everyone checks in very often - sometimes I go 20 days before checking my nation - months without checking the OWF. This is not something that has been planned for months, more like a couple of days - and if ( like was originally explained ) you put everyone on none without telling them and without providing alliance protection folks will get raided.

 

Those players who are active are not concerned about it, but they are concerned for their less active alliance mates.

 

If you went away for a couple of days and came back to find yourself in None, raided and nuked, you would be less than pleased I wager.

 

If the system hadn't changed then what you would have here is a perfect opportunity to ZI a large raider. I would call that entertainment :P

[eejack]

If even one single person out of these other 40 alliances can't find any piece of information about the upcoming change, or hear any single piece of word from any 'ally' in discussions (I know our embassies all exploded with "What do you think of admins new changes?", we most certainly are not the only active forum by any means - so safe to assume it's happened in countless other embassies) - then perhaps the game is better off with them on None.

Shit - as inactive as you guys are, you still found your way here. How did you find out about this thread?

 

Partially the issue is the brevity of the implementation and part of the issue is the debate about who will be leader. Alliances of a communal nature have no single leader for example. The other part of the issue is the clarity in which it is being described and modified from the TE version. What would be a good true test of the system would have been to implement it mid game of a TE cycle - somewhere between month 1 and 2.

 

The bawwing on SE will be epic...

[eejack]

If the system hadn't changed then what you would have here is a perfect opportunity to ZI a large raider. I would call that entertainment :P

 

True, but I find it more entertaining to watch the folks who are removing their main form of involvement in this game complain about folks who are less involved then them. Once rogues and ghosts and AA flopping are removed, in the eternal words of Sheriff Bart...

"To speak the plain truth it's getting pretty darn dull around here"

[Hime Themis]

Gentle Persons

 

 While we embrace any changes that will enhance the experience on Digiterra I believe that the arguments made here are a bit spurious.  

 

Yes  (242 votes [70.97%])

Voted No  (99 votes [29.03%])

 

 To date this proposal has received votes representing less than 38% of those "active" players who play TE. It represents 3.03% of the nations who play SE. The argument that this change is universally supported if frankly completely disingenuous.

I think the changes are interesting but to be frank after playing 4 rounds of TE it is simply not the same game. TE is an interesting study of the war mechanics and the ability to not really give a darn about ones nation because it all goes away in a few months, BUT it is NOT SE and I would imagine most do not want SE to become TE since less than 8% of us play TE. One can use a volley ball to play dodgeball but it does not mean the rules should be the same in both games(though that would bring volleyball to a different place for sure). So please let us not presume that all that comes to TE NEEDS to come to SE. Personally while the protection of ones AA is interesting and certainly more important in TE this change is nice but not necessary to SE. The generals are cool but will primarily benefit those who are active in war. Logical and reasonable in TE where it is nothing but a free for all but not really complimentary to the overall SE style. I personally will benefit but this represents the kind of change that is intriguing but far more logical to the TE enviornment.

  I should also like to remind those vocal OWF posters that you are fully in your rights to express your opinions by the hour but if we wish to see Digiterra expand then you really should reduce the desire to hit new or infrequent posters like a school of piranha. There are many good nation leaders who are active on their own forums or even IRC who now shun the OWF for its rather low brow style and pummeling they take if they do not tow the line on owf of the hourly posters.

 Let us try to also give some credit to those "inactive, useless" nation leaders who have made sure that Digiterra continues to exist. While they may not play into the game the politically active players would prefer its is not only honest but fair to suggest without them there would be no Digiterra if it was only the some 900 "active" TE players in SE. In fact without SE there would be no TE either. Since I have enjoyed both I think we need to be a little more appreciative to all the nations who have kept Diggiterra afloat for all these years.

 

Respectfully

Dame Hime Themis

Edited June 29, 2013 by Hime Themis

[Regent of Omerta]

Enough whining from the masses Admin, flip the switch already please.

[jerdge]

There is no clear information - many threads, many 'ideas' and the pristine clarity found on the owf. I never read anything about identified alliances not being put on none, the impression I got was NO ONE was being put on none. I made a suggestion about dealing with the hundred or so non-identified alliances out there when this change with occur, no idea if it was taken up or not.
 
Currently 94 alliances are listed. There are 136 over ten nation alliances - who knows how many smaller ones. So best case two thirds are covered, at worse, less than half.
 
There needs to be a default for the missing alliances.

As I type this there are 348 different Alliance Affiliations, 212 of which have less than 10 members. All are covered, as any of them can certainly post in bros's thread and be "covered" by it.

If you instead meant that people that don't follow the main political forum on the official board of this geopolitical simulator might be taken off guard, that's certainly right. Is that the issue?


[hr]For the curious: those 212 alliances affiliations have a grand total of 553 nations.
The breakdown:
9 members: 5 alliances
8 members: 2 alliances
7 members: 7 alliances
6 members: 14 alliances
5 members: 10 alliances
2, 3 or 4 members: 79 alliances (214 nations)
1 member: 95 "alliances"

[eejack]

As I type this there are 348 different Alliance Affiliations, 212 of which have less than 10 members. All are covered, as any of them can certainly post in bros's thread and be "covered" by it.

If you instead meant that people that don't follow the main political forum on the official board of this geopolitical simulator might be taken off guard, that's certainly right. Is that the issue?
 

 

No, I am basically concerned for the one third of 'listed' alliances that have not posted in this thread. Those over 10 members, or what the game considers an alliance. 

 

Many folks don't cover the main political forum of this game and even if they did, there is no clear presentation of what is going to happen - one must dig through all sorts of sections and posts. Without reading everything the best you get is 'someone is gonna do something alliancy at somepoint'.

 

Considering this is the first major change to the game in many years, it seems that a bit of planning and forethought would go a long way.

[Overlord Wes]

How about a new entry in the game update log with an explanation and/or link to the thread

[Hime Themis]

Enough whining from the masses Admin, flip the switch already please.

Good Regent of Omerta

 

 You do realize the absolute irony of your statement? Admin ignore the masses (majority) do what the minority wants.

I may agree with the idea of making the changes but this is truly a sterling example of the concern people have.

 

Respectfully

Dame Hime Themis

[Dragonshy]

Mm, did I miss something here? I thought Admin already said here, and in other threads, that alliances won't be reset.
what's the fuss about?

Edited July 2, 2013 by Dragonshy

[Unknown Smurf]

Mm, did I miss something here? I thought Admin already said here, and in other threads, that alliances won't be reset.
what's the fuss about?

 

Wait; so we're not doing it? Link to where admin said that please. 

[Dragonshy]

Wait; so we're not doing it? Link to where admin said that please. 

 
 
We are doing it, but Admin said he had a way to do it without resetting alliances, hence bros thread asking for listings of alliance leaders so that Admin can implement it.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/117217-do-you-want-the-te-alliance-feature-in-se/page-7#entry3142460

Also there was one post on another thread where Admin said he was going to implement a way to transfer owners, but I don't have the time to hunt for that again, sorry.

EDIT: Nah hell, I'll be nice: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/117229-aa-leader-shifting;-se-and-te/?p=3143153 Edited July 2, 2013 by Dragonshy

[Sephiroth]

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.

I don't think the momentary confusion it might cause for some to adjust is reason not to implement a better a system. If the new system is better, it should be implemented regardless. That being said I don't see why it would be a problem to have people on the AA automatically in, then those who aren't real members can be removed.

[eejack]

If the new system is better, it should be implemented regardless.

 

And so far I have not seen anything that indicates that it is. It is better for one style of play and one type of alliance. It is worse for all else.

 

However, since it is going to be implemented anyway, it should be done in a way that makes sense.

[Rayvon]

And so far I have not seen anything that indicates that it is. It is better for one style of play and one type of alliance. It is worse for all else.

 

However, since it is going to be implemented anyway, it should be done in a way that makes sense.

 

You guys don't give a shit enough about the game to actually do anything except sit and pay bills/collect taxes, barely even peruse your own forums let alone the OWF - so why keep raising a stink for a couple pages of the same thing over and over? The alliances who do actually give a shit are the one's who seem to like this addition - and have taken steps to prepare for it. I see Empress Theodora is already on the list, so now OG is safe from the turrible, turrible chaos. Let the others fend for themselves, or go get their attention for them instead of beating a dead horse here while they (if you actually give a shit about 'they' and not just about raising a fuss in their ignorant stead) sit in threat of losing their AA till they register it themselves.

[Dragonshy]

For alliances who didn't register on bros thread, just give ownership to their highest NS nation. Problem solved. If drama ensues from that and comes to the OWF, it will activate them in the CN community. Or if they are too inactive to care, nothing would be the matter.

 

*shrugs*

Edited July 3, 2013 by Dragonshy

[eejack]

a rather enjoyable rant, much like Lee Elia's famous Cubs speech - I am glad to see your passion still rings out

 

The point Rayvon is not my alliance, nor your alliance, nor any 'one' alliance - it is the game as a whole.

 

While their *may* be some good points to this alliance system, without the much needed protests of the readers of this forum we would have all ended up on none, at some random moment. Good - that is resolved, but there are many other potential issues - foremost of them is there is no clear plan that has been presented on how this will happen.

 

All in all I personally believe that a RESTRICTIVE alliance system is a deterrent to game play. I have already listed the reasons.

 

Yes, OG plays differently than you do. We don't post in the political boards - we are old and find them unpleasant for the most part. However, MANY people play differently than you - that is the whole point of the game, and that is why major changes to the system need to be thought out and applied with care.

 

I appreciate the effort Admin is putting back into the game, but with the effort must come planning else chaos will ensue - and chaos means an even steadier decline in players.

[eejack]

For alliances who didn't register on bros thread, just give ownership to their highest NS nation. Problem solved. If drama ensues from that and comes to the OWF, it will activate them in the CN community. Or if they are too inactive to care, nothing would be the matter.

 

*shrugs*

 

Or to prevent stealing AAs - the nation with the most alliance seniority.

[Rayvon]

I appreciate the effort Admin is putting back into the game, but with the effort must come planning else chaos will ensue - and chaos means an even steadier decline in players.

You mean the effort of planning by beginning this discussion, and listening to and responding and being a part of it as Admin has? Yeah - there hasn't been any, thanks for taking the lead on it.



Oh! Mustn't forget! Thanks for the barrage of OOC insults in PM, Hime. You amused many with your feeble attempts to demean my person. Next time, man up and try it in public if you really wanna dance with me. Edited July 3, 2013 by Rayvon

[youwish959]

GENTLE PERSONS,

 

I forsee nothing but the bestest for the ever expanding game of CyberNations when this feature is put in place. Although there is no contrivance put into place at this moment in time, we must all be faithful in the great powers of Admin, Kevin, of Texas and have faith. For if nothing else this a huge undertaking that we ought to be thankful for in this ever declining world. Do not lose faith!

 

YOURS RESPECTFULLY,

youwish959