Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?

[IYIyTh]

I'm always amazed at how quick we are to defend the people who play the game once every 20-25 days.

 

At one point are you not even playing at all when you're unwilling to type one line to go back to the alliance you've been a part of for 4-7 years.

 

Seniority is a stupid feature and a horrible argument against improving an actual worthwhile implementation.

[Stealthkill]

I think the main issue people have isn't the system itself but the method of implementation. The transition period is gonna be chaotic as all hell, and if there's a way to mitigate that then I think it'd be fine.

[OsRavan]

Myth, im not arguing against implimenting the change.  Im just saying i think there's gotta be a better way to handle the transition if we put our mind to it.  What do you want to bet we will lose hundreds of people from this game due to the AA wipe?  I would put real life money on it.  Is that really in the best interest of the game if it can be avoided?

 

That doesn't mean dont change the system, but maybe we can put a little energy into seeing if there is a solution?

[dockingscheduled]

I agree with Goldie, unless something is put in place to mitigate the transition chaos, it's going to seriously hurt some semi-inactive members.  I know in NATO, our activity during war skyrockets, but alot of those people are bill payer/tax collector players in peacetime.  It's possible a decent % of our members will be left off the AA for a significant amount of time (though no more than 25 days as Goldie stated)

 

Maybe the players can implement something amongst themselves, ie. 25 day freeze on Raiding/DoW's?

 

if alliance leaders start sending out advanced notice now to be on the look out for this change and advance notice when a specific date/time is finally announced, it shouldn't even take anywhere close to 25 days. really that hard to ask even the most inactive members to check in once or twice a week for the next 1-2 months?

[Sakura]

On the one hand, had the system been in place when my current alliance came back, it would have been a lot harder for us to.  On the other hand, systems like this are fairly commonplace, including in other games I've played. 

 

I think the least chaotic means to handle the transition would be to switch everyone (or just those not currently at war) into PM at the same time the change goes live, and let them switch back out without collecting first that once. 

[rand0m her0]

I'm always amazed at how quick we are to defend the people who play the game once every 20-25 days.

 

At one point are you not even playing at all when you're unwilling to type one line to go back to the alliance you've been a part of for 4-7 years.

 

Seniority is a stupid feature and a horrible argument against improving an actual worthwhile implementation.

 

 

The problem is not the effort of typing in one line, but the clusterfuck of organizing a few thousand typings of that line over a freaking month while dealing with the idiots who think they should take advantage of the chaos. It's not worth it for the minor benifit stopping the odd AA hopper or ghosts, the former who can be dealt with by 5 seconds in a query and the latter by a few cruise missles. 

 

I think the main issue people have isn't the system itself but the method of implementation. The transition period is gonna be chaotic as all hell, and if there's a way to mitigate that then I think it'd be fine.

 

 

This. The new system is superior, unfortunately the planned transition will create more work than the problems its ment to solve ever have. 

 

if alliance leaders start sending out advanced notice now to be on the look out for this change and advance notice when a specific date/time is finally announced, it shouldn't even take anywhere close to 25 days. really that hard to ask even the most inactive members to check in once or twice a week for the next 1-2 months?

 

 

Says the guy in a thirty member alliance.

[IYIyTh]

Myth, im not arguing against implimenting the change.  Im just saying i think there's gotta be a better way to handle the transition if we put our mind to it.  What do you want to bet we will lose hundreds of people from this game due to the AA wipe?  I would put real life money on it.  Is that really in the best interest of the game if it can be avoided?

 

That doesn't mean dont change the system, but maybe we can put a little energy into seeing if there is a solution?

 

Maybe, but if there's not, so what?

 

We all bitch and moan for a change and then we get a couple and now we have goldie and a few others crying like this is going to kill Cybernations by forcing people to actually get online.

 

I get we're all looking out for our own asses and not getting our alliance mates raided immediately after but I'm sure we're all creative enough to think of a few ways to prevent that from happening.

 

Even if there is no better way to do it: ie , admin hardcoding whose alliance each member was a part of before implementation (a shitload of work for admin,) deal with it.

 

We have like two weeks before it even happens. So long as we have a time and date I don't think it's admin's problem we have a significant portion of the game who plays once every few weeks.

[Rudolph]

I'd be all for this new system if it was possible to appoint the already established leaders as the alliance 'owners' like it is in the TE system, that way people wouldn't be able to just cause untold amounts of chaos just for the sake of it. I'd also suggest putting people into PM so the transition can be as smooth as possible.

[Cable77]

Is there a link someone to read about how the process actually works? Can the current "leader" appoint a successor via a control panel or does Admin or mods have to get involved? One issue we're currently discussing is whether to use our true elected leader or a more stable appointed admin position. For some alliances, the leader can change fairly frequently due to elections. Not a big deal if we can change it ourselves but could be if it is more difficult.

Another option is to call the position "alliance admin" instead of alliance leader. This would allow for the more stable position without causing any in-game confusion as to who is actually leading the alliance. That would also alleviate issues for alliance with 2-3 heads of state.

I also feel it is very important to port over existing members and keep the alliance seniority intact. It really isn't fair to people who have been in the same alliance for 5+ years to suddenly have 1 day seniority.

I do think this has potential, but I voted no until the issues at hand can be addressed.

[dockingscheduled]

The problem is not the effort of typing in one line, but the clusterfuck of organizing a few thousand typings of that line over a freaking month while dealing with the idiots who think they should take advantage of the chaos. It's not worth it for the minor benifit stopping the odd AA hopper or ghosts, the former who can be dealt with by 5 seconds in a query and the latter by a few cruise missles. 

 

 

 

This. The new system is superior, unfortunately the planned transition will create more work than the problems its ment to solve ever have. 

 

 

 

Says the guy in a thirty member alliance.

 

30 member or 300 member, whats so hard about sending out notices to your members and asking them to check their nations once a week? i imagine u already have a pre-made list that makes this incredibly quick and easy.

[Varianz]

It's a good and necessary change in my opinion, though if there was a way to automatically move over everyone currently on the AA that would seem ideal.

[lonewolfe2015]

Ever since the TE alliance system was implemented players have been asking me to implement the feature in SE. Now that I have announced plans to do that, players seem to be up in arms about it. I need to know, does the community support this feature in SE?

 

Few tweaks. First, make a sign up/list or something of registered government leaders as a fail safe pre-upgrade. One person that can implement everything ingame.

 

Second, you need built in power management structures to prevent hostile takeovers from leadership. This is more work on your part, but will allow for it to successfully transition into SE. Don't have time to flesh it out, but I'm sure someone could detail the various template government over CN's existence and give you a few ideas on how to structure them. Such as a trium system where you need a percentage vote to kick someone out. Democracy wouldn't be possible, but all democracies I've seen have appointed officials anyways.

 

Third, enable alliance votes on topics ingame if we're doing this. Announcements with votes will improve turnout for places with less strict forum rules. Please?

 

Fourth, enable ghosting, period. Full membership = announcements, custom title, etc. But do not remove ghosting, just do not give them alliance access. Kicking from an alliance = ghosting it. This is as much a political thing as a strategic thing.

 

I like that you're working on the game again admin, as a less active player I really appreciate it and I hope that you continue to make improvements regardless of what the naysayers post. People will always complain about anything, including you not making changes. But they need to be done, for the better or worse. The more improvements you make the more likely we retain and improve upon the playerbase.

 

Cheers.

 

PS, in the offchance you read this, any chance we could get a more touch friendly version of CN for tablets and phones?

Edited June 23, 2013 by lonewolfe2015

[OsRavan]

im not actually concerned about the raiding.  You deal with that as you would any war and its likely to sort itself out fairly quickly.

 

What I *am* concerned about, is the AA wipe just causing people to throw in the towel and quit.  Silly or not, I know plenty of people who consider their 'standing' in the alliance as their most important thing, and who will likely go 'well why bother' after the wipe.

 

If there is no solution there is no solution.  If there IS one, lets spend some time looking for it. 

 

If you want people to be open to FUTURE changes myth, you need to take the time to address their concerns with current ones.  If people see those concerns addressed they will be less likely to distrust change for its own sake.  If you ignore it, they will come to resist any change for its own sake.

 

 

edit to add: Also pre-appointing leaders would be HUGE in limiting chaos.

Edited June 23, 2013 by OsRavan

[Crymson]

I think it's very late in the game to be making this change.

[Samus]

@admin

From a technical POV, is the cause of the reset because you need to remodify the schema of the table that alliance members are stored in?

Or maybe you need to create a whole new table to store alliance info and begin getting that data added to the respective table.

 

I can foresee many ways we can transition this out smoothly from a technical POV if my prediction of your setup is remotely close.

 

Give me a shout if you need an extra head to think on

[Caustic]

Speaking for myself, and probably echoing the sentiments of my crew, this change is going to be our special brand of chaos. Sounds fun :ehm:

[Samus]

I think it's very late in the game to be making this change.

agreed, but it's here and you're still playing so vote!

[irule777]

I think the idea of reseting all the alliances ruins it. Now I have to worry someone in the alliance will try to remake it, some noob perhaps and we'll have to run to get it up.

[IYIyTh]

I think the notion that people are only staying in CN because of how high their seniority is is a ridiculous concept. If that's the case, perhaps they need to leave anyway.

 

The only concern I can truely understand is people being so inactive they can't be arsed to put themselves back onto the AA, which again, is a problem I have little sympathy for.

 

Sure, I agree, if there was a way where no reset were needed to implement the change it would be more amiable, but if not -- oh well!

 

Part of change is that no one likes it.

 

If we're actually all serious about growing Cybernations as a community we have to recognize that it's going to require change and flexibility.

 

I mean, come on. This is about implementing a fairly useful improvement in addition to the Generals feature that with minor tweaks would improve the quality of the game immensely and we're all worried about guy x y z who logs in every two-three weeks not being online to fix his AA.

 

Imagine what would happen if Admin looked into fixing the broken game mechanics regarding how overpowered Tech is, fully wondered nations at 6k ns, massive income/warchests that could last decades?

 

Edited June 23, 2013 by IYIyTh

[Subcomandante VL]

I think it's very late in the game to be making this change.

This.

 

Also, a few alliances do not have "leaders" as such. How are they to be incorporated? First person to seize power gets it? That doesn't seem right.

[Lord Levistus]

I'm voting no at this time, unless there's a complete lock down on new war declarations for the first week of the transition, it's just going to be a free for all of higher NS raids.

 

I like the changes, and I like that Admin is engaged where he didn't seem to care for a couple years there, but we need to know HOW this gets implemented first. This isn't TE, we don't get a clean reset every couple months.

[OsRavan]

i think it would actually help a lot if alliances could submit their leader to admin ahead of time and the change opens with them on the AA in charge.  That would lead time for alliances to sort out for themselves who they 'officialy' wanted, and limit the possibilities for abuse.

[iamthey]

I think the idea of reseting all the alliances ruins it. Now I have to worry someone in the alliance will try to remake it, some noob perhaps and we'll have to run to get it up.

 

This has already been addressed read the game update log.

 

http://www.cybernations.net/game_update_log.asp

[Penedono]

I'll admit, my main personal gripe is losing more than 4 years of alliance seniority. Its pure vanity, I know, but there it is. Could a fella submit a screen shot and cash donation and have their seniority reinstated? I'd kick in a couple dollars for the hassle, merrily.

 

Would also like to back a suggestion in this thread: Pre-signups for approved alliances leaders to get the keys to their AA would prevent some bellyaching and hand-wringing, and be hugely appreciated by many of us.

 

Also: Thanks for putting the effort in, Admin. Whatever you bolt on, as always, we'll make it work.

[Baltus]

The system is fine but the implementation is horrible.