Devilyn Caster Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Actually, VL brings up a good point...what do we do about protected AAs? For example, if we protect the property rights to Vanguard (we do), and someone registers that AA as an alliance leader, how can we remove them from that? What steps would be taken to guarantee that we can still claim ownership over our defunct AAs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Actually, VL brings up a good point...what do we do about protected AAs? For example, if we protect the property rights to Vanguard (we do), and someone registers that AA as an alliance leader, how can we remove them from that? What steps would be taken to guarantee that we can still claim ownership over our defunct AAs? The same way you do now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garion Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) Actually, VL brings up a good point...what do we do about protected AAs? For example, if we protect the property rights to Vanguard (we do), and someone registers that AA as an alliance leader, how can we remove them from that? What steps would be taken to guarantee that we can still claim ownership over our defunct AAs? Warfare? How can you even claim that right, without backing it with military force? Changes nothing from now. Edited June 23, 2013 by Garion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Knight Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 I'm all for it. It can only be a good thing that inactive members are purged from alliance rosters so that we can all see without a doubt who the strong alliances really are. No more being powerful just because of dead weight. At least for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 I'm all for it. It can only be a good thing that inactive members are purged from alliance rosters so that we can all see without a doubt who the strong alliances really are. No more being powerful just because of dead weight. At least for a while. It'll definitely be good as it should definitely level the playing field a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcomandante VL Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) Actually, VL brings up a good point...what do we do about protected AAs? For example, if we protect the property rights to Vanguard (we do), and someone registers that AA as an alliance leader, how can we remove them from that? What steps would be taken to guarantee that we can still claim ownership over our defunct AAs? Presumably the answer to all these questions is going to be "Property rights? What property rights?" But if anyone is allowed to become the supposed "leader" ingame of an alliance that elected to no longer exist, well, that creates some interesting political possibilities but it also would create an extreme amount of confusion for people who don't understand the community very well. Edit: thus, assuming this is going to be implemented, it'd be in TLR's/MK's interest to go have someone hop on Vanguard immediately, as well as any other alliance that protects the AA of an alliance that no longer exists. Edited June 23, 2013 by VladimirLenin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) The same way you do now. hahahaha PLEASE allow the control of an AA to be achieved through military conquest. Imagine it: Umbrella's AA under the administration of queenhailee edit: CSN under my administration. The Bronies under NG's administration. Now we're getting somewhere Edited June 23, 2013 by rsoxbronco1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 I mean, technically you don't own the AA now, so I don't get what the big deal would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garion Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Maybe people will give up protecting dead alliance affiliations, simple as that. It's not the end of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 hahahaha PLEASE allow the control of an AA to be achieved through military conquest. Imagine it: Umbrella's AA under the administration of queenhailee edit: CSN under my administration. The Bronies under NG's administration. Now we're getting somewhere That actually made me think of a question. Will viceroys be allowed once again as a valid term for peace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcomandante VL Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 That actually made me think of a question. Will viceroys be allowed once again as a valid term for peace? This just made me change my vote. The possibilities are glorious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 I wouldn't think so. The original intent of the ban on Viceroys would still hold. At least it seems to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 That actually made me think of a question. Will viceroys be allowed once again as a valid term for peace? It's not giving up control of something you own, so absolutely. Just wait till "send forged message to entire AA" making it look like a leader is saying something becomes a spy op. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakura Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Maybe people will give up protecting dead alliance affiliations, simple as that. It's not the end of the world. I doubt it. Right now nothing really stops people from forming an alliance with the same AA, or for that matter, acronym, as an alliance which was once around. In terms of game mechanics, anyway. Politically... well, that's another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rand0m her0 Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Is it really that difficult to believe that a mass alliance can maintain high activity levels or is IRON really that terrible? Given that we have no small number of nations who ran out of things to do several years ago? For something as utterly unexciting as this, we can reasonably expect a percentage of stragglers who don't give enough of a damn, and that it will take awhile to get them all back on the AA 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. As do I in mine. We could keep a watch over all *checks* 296 IRON members as they make their way back to the AA, what I'm questioning is the value of the kind of effort that implies. AA hopping rogues are neither that common, nor a real problem, ghosts are simply a nice source of target practice. It should be entirely possible to switch over to the the new system without this much trouble. I'm all for it. It can only be a good thing that inactive members are purged from alliance rosters so that we can all see without a doubt who the strong alliances really are. No more being powerful just because of dead weight. At least for a while. Yes because there are clearly a massive pile of large alliances with massive activity issues hemorrhaging 40 nations a day to deletion but managing to buoy themselves with recruitment..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im317 Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 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. what the Orange alliances are doing is very good, but not every color sphere has the same level of cooperation. from early reactions it looks like several of my fellow Maroon alliance inhabatints are in fact looking at this as an opportunity to do the very thing Orange is attempting to prevent. just because your alliance is able to handle this you have decided its not an issue. think about it from the perspective of an alliance leader on Black ,Maroon, Purple or the leaders of a neutral alliance. i could see this directly leading to a 5%+ member deletion rate in alliances like GPA, WTF and TDO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) I wouldn't think so. The original intent of the ban on Viceroys would still hold. At least it seems to me. The original intent was to stop people from demanding control of a non-CN property. You run into all sorts of legal issues when you demand access and control over something paid for IRL. In-game AAs have no costs associated with them and, despite their control by players, are (for all intents and purposes) the property of whatever company or person(s) own Cyber Nations. As they are owned by the game, they are technically part of the game. Not to say it will be allowed, but it's an entirely different animal. I know admin originally expected this game to be a fight over senate seats and I would not be at all surprised if this is an attempt to add a new variable to the reasons alliances go to war. Edited June 23, 2013 by rsoxbronco1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 If it wouldn't be difficult to code, retaining an option for manual entry (while not allowing names to be identical to the selectable AA's) would be nice. It would still allow for some better aspects of the old system that would be worth preserving like AA shenanigans during war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 i could see this directly leading to a 5%+ member deletion rate in alliances like GPA, WTF and TDO. All alliances are going to have a hit to their memberbase one way or another. If the neutral alliances lose a few members, it might make things a little more balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 The original intent was to stop people from demanding control of a non-CN property. You run into all sorts of legal issues when you demand access and control over something paid for IRL. Which is why I presume the ban on Viceroys would remain. This change wouldn't effect that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rand0m her0 Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 All alliances are going to have a hit to their memberbase one way or another. If the neutral alliances lose a few members, it might make things a little more balanced. Oh no GPA has more pixels than my alliance how unfair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
im317 Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 All alliances are going to have a hit to their memberbase one way or another. If the neutral alliances lose a few members, it might make things a little more balanced. i was low balling the number. perhaps non neutrals lose an average of 5%, i would bet money that the neutrals lost an average of at least 15%. not those exact numbers but 3x as much as non neutral alliances. there members don't want to fight just to build. some people will take this as an opportunity to get a free crack at the neutrals, and many of there members who are hit will quit as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 Oh no GPA has more pixels than my alliance how unfair? Not really, it will just be interesting to see how the neutral alliances react to this new system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcomandante VL Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) Which is why I presume the ban on Viceroys would remain. This change wouldn't effect that. It would. If an alliance is considering surrendering, the victorious party could demand the surrendering party hand over leadership of their ingame AA to a leader from the victorious party. That keeps things entirely within the context of the game, which was the problem. They still wouldn't be able to demand control over the "conquered" alliance's forums, but in effect they'd be able to do whatever they like with the alliance. Edit: And I suppose what we'd then see is a whole bunch of "conquered" alliances simply slightly altering their names. But what can you do I guess. Edited June 23, 2013 by VladimirLenin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted June 23, 2013 Report Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) Which is why I presume the ban on Viceroys would remain. This change wouldn't effect that. I'll use a historical example of viceroys: Say I'm the leader of the NPO AA. I'm just wrapping up my war on Legion and I want to exert control over them. In this version, admin has already outlawed viceroys, so I can't control their forums, but their ingame alliance is fair game because it's entirely IC and run through cybernations.net Instead of sending Zha (was it zha?) to their forums, I have zha running their AA. Someone gets out of line on the boards while they're under terms? Expelled and open to attack. Just some really basic thinking, but entirely believable. Edited June 23, 2013 by rsoxbronco1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts