Jump to content

Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?


admin

Do you want the TE alliance system in SE?  

404 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

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.

 

 

If a fraction of your alliance can't be arsed to check the game in time, or just doesn't give enough of a fuck to keep track of what day a browser game they only kinda care about anymore, its 4-5 people, and who cares. The same fraction in a 300 member alliance has us spending a month running after 40+ people. Given that it's the larger alliances who primarily deal with the problems this is supposed to fix...

 

No solution should take more effort and inconvenience to implement than the problem it purports to fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 255
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

If it gets implemented how he's suggested- kicking everyone off every AA and letting the AA leader let people back on once it's created- the easiest way to prevent high NS raids (and any NS raids) is to just have your AA go into PM before the reset.  Once they're back on the AA, have 'em leave PM.  Easy solution which nullifies your concern. 

 

If a fraction of your alliance can't be arsed to check the game in time, or just doesn't give enough of a fuck to keep track of what day a browser game they only kinda care about anymore, its 4-5 people, and who cares. The same fraction in a 300 member alliance has us spending a month running after 40+ people. Given that it's the larger alliances who primarily deal with the problems this is supposed to fix...

 

No solution should take more effort and inconvenience to implement than the problem it purports to fix.

 

Again, if you're concerned about inactive members, send them a message  before the reset to hit PM, then they can take as long as they want/need to join the AA without fears of getting hit. 

 

Having inactive members shouldn't be a concern of admin for implementing this system.  That is not his nor anyone but that player's fault.  If they aren't active enough to be interested in these changes, it speaks for their interest in the game overall. Holding back improvements in the game because of those that care least about it doesn't seem logical in any way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I'm sort of at a loss on what the problem is that this is supposedly fixing.

 

 

Persistent rogues AA hopping and Ghosts. The former are annoying because of the Persistent rogue rather than AA hopping bit, and the inconvenience of the latter is offset by the convenient target practice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

I voted yes specifically because of this :P

 

I'll take organized chaos and political dealings over hum drum tax collecting any day of the week. This honestly sounds like it would make the summer tons more fun.

 

Maybe you can work in an invite feature that will mitigate some of the lag for nations who don't log in so often - the appointed alliance leader invites a nation to an alliance, subsequently taking them off the "None" AA but not allowing them access to alliance announcements, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we really arguing about this issue?

 

The system is superior: if losing a few inactives is the price, I will be glad to pay it. People worried about raids should act towards avoiding them: it's not like you don't have the tools to achieve that goal. We are planning to overcome this, you can do the same.


EDIT: We might even get some fun from this whole thing...

Edited by Garion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it gets implemented how he's suggested- kicking everyone off every AA and letting the AA leader let people back on once it's created- the easiest way to prevent high NS raids (and any NS raids) is to just have your AA go into PM before the reset.  Once they're back on the AA, have 'em leave PM.  Easy solution which nullifies your concern. 

 

 

Again, if you're concerned about inactive members, send them a message  before the reset to hit PM, then they can take as long as they want/need to join the AA without fears of getting hit. 

 

Having inactive members shouldn't be a concern of admin for implementing this system.  That is not his nor anyone but that player's fault.  If they aren't active enough to be interested in these changes, it speaks for their interest in the game overall. Holding back improvements in the game because of those that care least about it doesn't seem logical in any way. 

 

 

Regardless of whether it's admins job to worry about those players, it is the job of their alliances and this improvement to the game is a solution to a non-issue "affecting" the alliances who will be most inconvenienced by that solution. It is Admins job to not pointlessly waste our time. 

Edited by rand0m her0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, would it be possible to implement '-' into alliance names? Because I created the 'Shangri-La' alliance in TE for testing purposes and to see how the system works in general and it seems that the '-' was just not implemented at all as shown here:

3mxPT.png

The small fix would be massively appreciated from Shangri-La, Admin :>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a fraction of your alliance can't be arsed to check the game in time, or just doesn't give enough of a fuck to keep track of what day a browser game they only kinda care about anymore, its 4-5 people, and who cares. The same fraction in a 300 member alliance has us spending a month running after 40+ people. Given that it's the larger alliances who primarily deal with the problems this is supposed to fix...

 

No solution should take more effort and inconvenience to implement than the problem it purports to fix.

 

To be fair, I am a government member in a mass alliance of about 300 members, counting full members and applicants: I can guarantee you that we are eagerly awaiting this new feature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, I am a government member in a mass alliance of about 300 members, counting full members and applicants: I can guarantee you that we are eagerly awaiting this new feature.

 

Yeah but that's because you're evil and can finally pawn kata off into an applicant AA. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, would it be possible to implement '-' into alliance names? Because I created the 'Shangri-La' alliance in TE for testing purposes and to see how the system works in general and it seems that the '-' was just not implemented at all as shown here:

3mxPT.png

The small fix would be massively appreciated from Shangri-La, Admin :>

On this note, R&R would like to once again request an ampersand. :|
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against the alliance management concept in principle; simply because a more structured approach to the game removes room for player creativity and innovation, although I do admit that in this sort of stagnant game such things are unlikely. My own preference would be for a more hybrid approach; limiting managed alliances only to sanctioned alliances and/or donor alliances; sanctioned alliances does have utility in some circumstances.

With regards to a forced PM change; as others have mentioned, some players are currently at war and this would be disruptive to such players; as well as bringing the possibility that certain players will simply opt not to drop out of PM if they're given a free card to PM. In the latter case, changing it so their new nation penalty-less PM thing is active would be a good thing.

 

===


On an activity point of view, this is highly risky as you risk losing quite a few players that are only nominally active.

I have actually done deletion tracking for Mushroom Kingdom for quite a few years, and the situation is not as simple as lylyth makes it out to be. Quite a few players might be semi-retired; they come around, make contributions every once in a while or at war time, but they're inactive most of the year or considering quitting. Sometimes they become more active, sometimes they become less active. When they're already considering deletion, this could be the last straw; and once they delete, instead of thinking about whether or not they should become more active, they now have to think about coming back to CN and the latter is a lot less likely.

 

On the other hand, if adding alliance management creates raiding chaos, this might be good for activity as it might give players an entertaining spectacle over the summer.


So it could go both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only real benefit I see from this move is the drama and chaos it will cause.  It will certainly be entertaining, but, respectfully, I don't think that ingame drama should be the direct result of something admin does.


If people lose their AA?  They're going to be tech/land raided.  13 days inactive?  Probably still gonna get hit because Christmas only comes once a year.

 

Some people enjoy building and farming tech/infra, some people enjoy destroying and farming tears. (and wow will there be tears)

 

Playing devil's advocate, say I'm a 15k tech nation and there's some inactive infra cow from a neutral alliance currently off AA.  Maybe they have a warchest, maybe they don't.  One nuke at 20+ days and I've successfully bill-locked them.  Not saying it WILL happen, but it's a potential risk.

 

I definitely buy the AA seniority case.   I've lost too many nations for it to bother me, and most of MK couldn't care less (AA hopping etc) but for the people who play this game for the stats?  They're losing something that makes their nation truly unique.   Plenty of nations have tech, or land, or infra, but seniority is different. 

 

To have been in an alliance since 2008?  It's hard to quantify loyalty, but AA seniority is as close as it gets.

 

I will say, things could get... interesting with ingame leaders in SE.  AI's recent drama would have been even juicier if ingame AA leadership was at stake.

 

Are long term, and relatively rare moments drama worth the short term headache? meh

 

 

(Apologies if I misunderstand something about the change or TE leadership system, I don't play it)

Edited by rsoxbronco1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, I am a government member in a mass alliance of about 300 members, counting full members and applicants: I can guarantee you that we are eagerly awaiting this new feature.

 

 

Then you're vastly overestimating your alliances activity levels, or are just plain batshit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you're vastly overestimating your alliances activity levels, or are just plain batshit. 

 

lol

 

I don't overestimate them: I simply see the hassle as a necessary evil to get a much needed improvement: I have complete faith in my alliance's ability to survive this "ordeal".


EDIT: let me rephrase... It won't get done in one day, nor in two. We are working towards assuring that all our people will be safe in the process, and by what I have seen your alliance leaders are doing exactly the same. Perhaps you are too pessimist in this regard.

Edited by Garion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say, things could get... interesting with ingame leaders in SE.  AI's recent drama would have been even juicier if ingame AA leadership was at stake.

This opens up a whole can of unanswered questions.

 

What happens when an alliance disbands or merges? Inevitably not everyone leaves an AA when these things happen; will
admin be keeping personal tabs on it or having a mod monitor this so no one takes over the "dead" AA? And assuming that is the way it's handled, doesn't that create issues when someone wishes to reform an alliance?

 

This whole thing is just fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Roguing, AA hopping, etc are parts of the game, not problems.

 

As the earlier part of rsox's post says, I suppose the only real benefit is a shakeup, but like others I'm afraid this would drive more people away than it would attract. If admin is trying to attract people to the game again, this doesn't seem to be the best of strategies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the AA reset only required because each alliance needs an in-game leader?  If that's the only issue, I think that most alliances would probably prefer to PM you a name for you to drop into that field, instead of having to organize everything on a fresh AA.  Give them a deadline to submit a name; otherwise they're on their own.

 

It'll be a bit more legwork for you, but would save a ton of hassle for 12k others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...