Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?

[Anthony]

Voted for yes

[Roadie]

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.

 

Any alliance that agrees to hand over it's AA doesn't deserve to own one anyway. 

[Subcomandante VL]

Any alliance that agrees to hand over it's AA doesn't deserve to own one anyway. 

Totally irrelevant to my point, but we're certainly in agreement here.

[Phil Collins1]

Would suggest this is the ideal time to introduce a money spinning (for you, admin) World of Tanks feature which is to charge people to create alliances. In WoT it costs 2500 gold ($13) to create a clan/alliance. 

 

Just think? Money in your pocket and less pointless alliances around. Everyone's a winner. 

[Subcomandante VL]

Would suggest this is the ideal time to introduce a money spinning (for you, admin) World of Tanks feature which is to charge people to create alliances. In WoT it costs 2500 gold ($13) to create a clan/alliance. 

 

Just think? Money in your pocket and less pointless alliances around. Everyone's a winner. 

capitalism.txt

[rsoxbronco1]

Any alliance that agrees to hand over it's AA doesn't deserve to own one anyway. 

Any alliance that refuses to accept terms doesn't deserve peace anyway.

 

It's a system, and all systems are open to abuse. 

 

The current system is imperfect, but unless a new system is guaranteed to improve things, any change is likely an unnecessary one.

Would suggest this is the ideal time to introduce a money spinning (for you, admin) World of Tanks feature which is to charge people to create alliances. In WoT it costs 2500 gold ($13) to create a clan/alliance. 

 

Just think? Money in your pocket and less pointless alliances around. Everyone's a winner. 

MI6 just came out of nowhere because they had well known leadership and a half-way catchy theme.

 

They shouldn't have to pay for the privilege that we all enjoy because we got here first.

[Roadie]

Totally irrelevant to my point, but we're certainly in agreement here.

 

Yeah, I do go well off track there.

 

After having it explained to me, I do think it's a very good question and has massive potential. Perhaps before this world ends, some AA could truly conquer it and win CN.  

[B1gAlMan]

I think both of these are great concepts and will do a lot to add to the game, but I'm also concerned about the implementation of the alliance system.

 

On one hand, yes it will break the monotony of the game. But at what cost?

 

If it can be done no other way, maybe removing peacemode penalties from now until a couple of weeks after the change would be beneficial to everyone, that way people who aren't able to be around are able to avoid being hit.

 

I think that better ways should be explored.

[conistonslim]

Yeah, I do go well off track there.

 

After having it explained to me, I do think it's a very good question and has massive potential. Perhaps before this world ends, some AA could truly conquer it and win CN.  

An interesting development I hadn't thought about... could make things very interesting.

[eejack]

I voted no.

 

Basically for the reasons mentioned in the originating thread.

 

What do we lose?

 

Autonomy.

 

First and foremost, we will be putting mods in charge of alliance politics. It does not come up in a short term game, but who is really in charge of a 7 year old alliance? Already overburdened - we will be looking to them to 'fix' things often enough that it will be an issue.

 

We will be forced to choose leader within the gaming system ( some alliances don't roleplay leaders ),

 

Drama

 

We lose ghosting and coups and fauxcoups and viceroys and joke AA's and AA bouncing and basically the 95% of the game that is not collecting every 20 days.

 

Players

 

Scratch all the players who have played for years as the game presented no hassles. I'm throwing 10% out there as a number. While some may argue that getting rid of the inactive is a good thing, I believe it is not.

 

What do we gain?

 

Communication

 

Instead of a simple copypasta from your memberlist, you can push the spam alliance button.

 

Really, that is it.

 

Forget the massive hassle the conversion is going to create, forget all the stat huggers bawwing about losing their alliance stats and seniority, forget the new hassle of having designated leaders of training and POW AAs, all we get is a spam alliance button out of the deal.

 

Hardly seems worth what we end up giving up.

[katashimon13]

/me is going to echo the prefrence of admin moving everyone over

 

along with the senority

 

cause pplz like their senority...

 

mite as well give leader to the oldest person as well :/

 

then alliances can hash out internally wat happens

 

also this will probably hurt retention

 

but this is an improvement

 

overall

 

rawr

 

ps ampersand

 

rawr

Edited June 23, 2013 by katashimon13

[Overlord Shinnra]

I am for the changes. To allay some of the concerns though it would be sweet if you could come up with different structures of in-game leadership.

[maxfiles]

/me is going to echo the prefrence of admin moving everyone over

 

along with the senority

 

cause pplz like their senority...

 

mite as well give leader to the oldest person as well :/

 

then alliances can hash out internally wat happens

 

also this will probably hurt retention

 

but this is an improvement

 

overall

 

rawr

 

ps ampersand

 

rawr

 

 

yah most alliances have the great Seniority race.. and people watch who has deleted or what not.. and who is moving up in seniority. 

[Max Power]

I am heavily against this.

 

First of all, what is a "rightful claim"? What if there's a dispute as to who has one? Gov members of alliances fight all the time. On this note, most active CN players don't post on the OWF with any regularity. How does Admin even know who's prominent in each AA? I'm not sure a master list of nations with seniority would tell the story of who should be able to (re)found an AA.

 

What if the alliance admin/leader goes on vacation and there are new applicants who don't want to get raided? What if the applicant AA admin/leader is also on vacation?

 

What if the alliance admin/leader wants to join a different AA? Will there have to be an application to Admin with directions as to who the new guy should be?

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

Same here. Which problem does this fix? Ghosting doesn't even seem to be a problem, although a big AA member can correct me on this.

 

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.

You can blow up infra and tech but you can't blow up someone's AA. As long as someone's willing to be perma-warred, that person can be a squatter.

[Marine Sniper]

you want to change the system that less than 1/3 of the players from SE plays to cause chaos. alliances large and small will suffer for it. If you want this game to survive then don't make the change.

[eejack]

I guess the biggest issue is TE starts new and so you have no plan for converting nations.You also are looking at 13000 players vs 800. Honestly, just 'implementing it' with out a real plan makes it seem slapshod and poorly considered.

 

It works in a small fishbowl where you are gonna dump the fish in 2 months. Not so sure it works outside of that.

[dockingscheduled]

I am heavily against this.

 

First of all, what is a "rightful claim"? What if there's a dispute as to who has one? Gov members of alliances fight all the time. On this note, most active CN players don't post on the OWF with any regularity. How does Admin even know who's prominent in each AA? I'm not sure a master list of nations with seniority would tell the story of who should be able to (re)found an AA.

 

What if the alliance admin/leader goes on vacation and there are new applicants who don't want to get raided? What if the applicant AA admin/leader is also on vacation?

 

What if the alliance admin/leader wants to join a different AA? Will there have to be an application to Admin with directions as to who the new guy should be?

Same here. Which problem does this fix? Ghosting doesn't even seem to be a problem, although a big AA member can correct me on this.

 

 

 

You can blow up infra and tech but you can't blow up someone's AA. As long as someone's willing to be perma-warred, that person can be a squatter.

 

alliance leaders can give other nations power to approve/ban members. they can appoint alliance heirs in case they ever delete. they can make their alliance open to all people if they don't want to be bothered with approving people. also, new nations that set their alliance to one that required approval will still show that alliance under their nation bio, it'll just say "pending" under it.

[bcortell]

I am heavily against this.

 

First of all, what is a "rightful claim"? What if there's a dispute as to who has one? Gov members of alliances fight all the time. On this note, most active CN players don't post on the OWF with any regularity. How does Admin even know who's prominent in each AA? I'm not sure a master list of nations with seniority would tell the story of who should be able to (re)found an AA.

Admin could go by OWF posts or the wiki to determine if someone that isn't gov/the leader is trying to take the AA before the rightful person.  This was only a problem for a couple AA's when it was implemented in TE, and it was handled quickly.  I don't see it being any type of a difference maker on whether or not it should be implemented. 

 

What if the alliance admin/leader goes on vacation and there are new applicants who don't want to get raided? What if the applicant AA admin/leader is also on vacation?

The AA leader can assign multiple people to manage the AA (however many they want).  This would be an AA problem, not an admin problem.  Have enough people to allow members/recruits to be accepted in case someone is away.

 

 

 

What if the alliance admin/leader wants to join a different AA? Will there have to be an application to Admin with directions as to who the new guy should be?

 

 

In TE, the admin is able to select who the new leader is. (leader, as in, person with rights to the AA) If they assign someone that isn't the rightful person, I'm sure a simple PM to admin could solve the problem. 

 

You can blow up infra and tech but you can't blow up someone's AA. As long as someone's willing to be perma-warred, that person can be a squatter.

Admin can remove them from the AA, allowing the rightful person to have the controls of it. 

 

It seems you have some big misconceptions on how this works without knowing much about it.  You might want to explore TE a little to see how it actually works. 

[Instr]

The reason Admin needs to terminate the present system of alliances is because the coding for TE and SE alliances are completely different; in TE, alliances are identified by an id # instead of a name.

I'm guessing that when an alliance is called in TE, it calls some data object, whereas in SE, it runs a search on all nations that have the trait "alliance affiliation: example".

 

===

 

While it does appear that the majority of people support a swap to the TE system, I would suggest that the objections of the dissenters are considered in that that Admin take the time to code a switch-over mechanism that does not leave people on the none AA or cause people to lose their alliance seniority. This would change it from meeting a plurality of people's needs to a supermajority. Recently, it appears that Admin seems to have the time and motivation to work on the game, so perhaps it would be possible for Admin to put in the work for a smooth transition. Of course, I will continue to object to implementing the AA system based purely on principle.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Instr

[HM Solomon I]

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?

 

This is probably just a function of selection bias: those that want this change will lobby you until you implement it, but those that do not want it are not nearly as likely to say anything until there is a real possibility of the change being implemented.

 

That being said, I really appreciate you devoting time to shaking up the game and adding some new, cool features to it.  I would, however, like to echo some people's concerns about the way this is being implemented.  It would be vastly better if each alliance could designate one of their members to become that alliance's AA owner/leader in the new system and have all their members automatically ported over to the new AA that has the same name as the old AA with its old stats preserved, but with the new features implemented.  

 

On another front, the fact that this isn't TE cannot be ignored.  This isn't a game that has a pre-determined end date, and that absolutely needs to be taken into account for this to even work, never mind improve the game.  At the very minimum, it needs to be possible for alliance leaders/owners to be able to transfer ownership over an AA to another AA member without needing to consult with Admin/mods.  

 

I don't see the need for alliance government type specific in-game structures, like voting and such.  That kind of stuff is what forums are for, this is just supposed to be an in-game AA management system.

 

All I'm saying is if we're going to do this, let's do it right.  Let's not create a mess for no reason.  As much as people think it'll be fun, you likely won't be singing the same tune once the *@&! hits the fan and you have sludge through pain in the !@# after pain in the !@# just to get your AA back together again.

[YOLO SWAG]

I'm excited.

[Ayreonaut]

I don't mind seeing the changes introduced - they look like they could be potentially quite useful.  However, I voted no for now based on the alliance data being reset.  Forcibly changing something that affects a player's status in the game when it may have the secondary effect of driving them into deletion (be it via loss of stats or lack of protection from unscrupulous raiders) will only hasten the game's demise.  While I agree that it would have an interesting effect on an AA level, deliberately alienating a diminishing userbase is foolish.

 

If it means the game being taken offline for maintenance while Admin ports the data to the new table format with alliances nominating a leader, I wouldn't mind waiting.  I also appreciate that it involves rather more work.

[the rebel]

If putting everyone on none is the only way to do it, just disable declare war option for a week or so after the change, so that the semi inactive aren't put at a disadvantage.

Edited June 23, 2013 by the rebel

[Max Power]

Admin could go by OWF posts or the wiki to determine if someone that isn't gov/the leader is trying to take the AA before the rightful person.  This was only a problem for a couple AA's when it was implemented in TE, and it was handled quickly.  I don't see it being any type of a difference maker on whether or not it should be implemented. 

 

The AA leader can assign multiple people to manage the AA (however many they want).  This would be an AA problem, not an admin problem.  Have enough people to allow members/recruits to be accepted in case someone is away.

 

 

 

 

In TE, the admin is able to select who the new leader is. (leader, as in, person with rights to the AA) If they assign someone that isn't the rightful person, I'm sure a simple PM to admin could solve the problem. 

 

Admin can remove them from the AA, allowing the rightful person to have the controls of it. 

 

It seems you have some big misconceptions on how this works without knowing much about it.  You might want to explore TE a little to see how it actually works. 

Maybe it's not misconceptions, rather a suspicion that these potential pitfalls aren't as simply solved as you're saying. TE and SE are very different. You can consider multiple possibilities before getting snarky.

[maxfiles]

I am betting this could be updated and changed without destroying the data and porting things over and have the alliance officially state who they want to be the AA administrator, I doubt there are that many differences between the two db tables.