Do you want the TE alliance feature in SE?

[Overlord Shinnra]

people can't read or don't care to. Admin already said he was coming through with the no reset to implement these changes. Overall positive for everyone.

[Crymson]

Given the lack of major wars at the present time, I agree that an enforced peace for a week after the implementation of this system would be wise.

[Rayvon]

   

I dont wish to join the allaince just a good site you may know where I can create a cool signature

You wouldn't quite fit anyways. You'd ragequit within a day. No worries, Ambassadors can see that thread. PM or a different locale if you want to talk about a sig more though ;)

[HeroofTime55]

As written, the update should not be imposed. I would avoid dumping nations into NONE. Instead, just have the alliance leaders message you or other staff to install them as the alliance leader.

I understand that you're dumping everyone into NONE and saying "handle it yourself" so that you won't have to deal with that sort of thing. But I would like to note that, while undoubtedly a fair bit of work, it would only be a one-of thing on your part, and I think it's very worthwhile vs the amount of headaches just dumping everyone into NONE would cause.

I just saw admin responded to this and agreed to do this already. So change my vote to yes. Edited June 24, 2013 by HeroofTime55

[Letterkenny]

Nope. I don't like it in TE, won't like it here. The generals thing is interesting, and I like the alliance wide messages... I would enjoy those features without the overhaul of the alliance feature, especially the erasing of AA seniority.

[Special One]

My advice to solve transition problem: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/117228-how-to-make-new-alliance-system-transition-run-smooth/

[Overlord Shinnra]

Nope. I don't like it in TE, won't like it here. The generals thing is interesting, and I like the alliance wide messages... I would enjoy those features without the overhaul of the alliance feature, especially the erasing of AA seniority.

 

People don't read anymore :p

[Overlord Shinnra]

My advice to solve transition problem: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/117228-how-to-make-new-alliance-system-transition-run-smooth/

 

late also. Come on guys. 

[Stetson76]

The thing that few people are commenting on is that the sum total of this change will for greater participation from players who don't want to join forums. Heck, the alliances that try that now are at an extreme disadvantage but it will help retain players in the long run, even if it costs us some inactives in the short term.

[Gingervites]

I want this so I can boot that guy who refuses to leave peace mode.

[Caladin]

I want this so I can boot that guy who refuses to leave peace mode.

 

I'm kinda sad that we will lose our long time peace mode ghost :(

[President S O]

Worried about war? You could just use peace mode.  :v:

[Simon De Montfort]

My advice to solve transition problem: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/117228-how-to-make-new-alliance-system-transition-run-smooth/

I think this is a good idea. I like the idea of changing the current alliance system. But we all know that an immediate change will cause some serious problems. So a transitional period with both systems in place at the same time is a reasonable way to deal with the concerns of everyone.

[IYIyTh]

I was really looking forward to creating betting lines on drop %'s for each alliance.

 

Looks like you buckets of extra flab survive yet another day.

[jerdge]

THANKS ADMIN

This change is welcome to me. After having thought over the negatives I concluded that coups and other shenanigans can still be worked through other means, with a bit of imagination, thus there's no reason to oppose this change.


[hr]

I'm kinda sad that we will lose our long time peace mode ghost :(

Ah ah no, you're not really sad.

Ghost-busting might occasionally turn out to be funny, but in most cases it's just a time-consuming dry exercise of sending several PMs, of updating status threads and of struggling to find tiny/micro members active and smart enough to take care of the problem. Then some exceptionally stubborn ghost just sits in peace mode for years, and you can't literally do anything about it.
It's not just sovereignty over your AA, it's that, all the while, you have to maintain an off-game list of legitimate members, to avoid inadvertently give information to people that are not really in your alliance. When a rogue keeps hopping AAs you have to continue to query people to check about their actual status. Et cetera.
It's a lot of workload without any real reward or entertainment. Thanks heaven it's going to stop.


[hr]
A couple of minor issues:

Viceroys
This feature has nothing to do with viceroys or with the "ban" on viceroys.
For one, the ban only applies to existing forums and other RL properties. There has never been any rule that banned "viceroys": people had just to avoid demanding ownership of other people's RL properties.
As for this change, an alliance that has the strength to impose a viceroy over another already has the strength to take "control" of their AA too (e.g. by removing "ghosts" by force), no more and no less of what the surrendering alliance could do.
It might be an issue of giving too much power to certain nations (the newly created in-game leaders), but it has nothing to do with inter-alliance relationships.

Neutrals
I don't know why people were expecting that the neutrals would have been especially affected by this change. At the GPA we already have the membership informed of this change and we already have plans to adapt to it, however it will be done.
Neutral doesn't mean "inactive" or "dumb", you know... :P Edited June 24, 2013 by jerdge

[Hereno]

What happens when a leader doesn't want to give up AA leadership and decides to kick everybody else off of the AA and keep it for himself?

 

If the answer to that is "the mods interfere and 'fix' everything by telling alliance leaders what they can do with the AA's they 'own' and taking people's alliances from them based on a non-existent 'just trust us, it'll be fine' criteria". Just god damn. :facepalm:

[Alex987]

The very-short term annoyance of having to get everyone back onto the alliance should not be a big factor in deciding whether to go through with these changes or not. with plenty of advance notice of a specific time/date that this is going to be implemented, alliances will have ample opportunity to prepare themselves and their membership for the change. they can post announcements on the owf listing who their protected members are, they can add something to their nation bio to reference their alliance membership, etc.

 

Without reading past page 1 I'll echo this man's sentiments. It'll be a painful couple days of change, but it can be dulled with advanced notice and will make the game significantly better in the long run.

[Caladin]

What happens when a leader doesn't want to give up AA leadership and decides to kick everybody else off of the AA and keep it for himself?

 

If the answer to that is "the mods interfere and 'fix' everything by telling alliance leaders what they can do with the AA's they 'own' and taking people's alliances from them based on a non-existent 'just trust us, it'll be fine' criteria". Just god damn. :facepalm:

 

Roll him. Simple solution :P

[Omniscient1]

What happens when a leader doesn't want to give up AA leadership and decides to kick everybody else off of the AA and keep it for himself?
 

Actually that sounds great. That way we don't get noobs forming God awful terrible reformations like GGA, FIRE, GOONS, etc....

Most people do that X is under our protection thing, but this could work just as well.

[Vespassianus]

It works very well in TE, i support implementing it in SE too.

 

It may create some chaos at the start, but it will be fun and finally we get rid of those ghosts :D

[Indian Bob]

What happens when a leader doesn't want to give up AA leadership and decides to kick everybody else off of the AA and keep it for himself?

 

If the answer to that is "the mods interfere and 'fix' everything by telling alliance leaders what they can do with the AA's they 'own' and taking people's alliances from them based on a non-existent 'just trust us, it'll be fine' criteria". Just god damn. :facepalm:

 

Hopefully the mods won't be involved in anything after the initial transition.  A ruler taking over the national infrastructure and kicking out dissidents is a perfectly reasonable geopolitical outcome.

[Lizardo]

Will alliance seniority be preserved? It'd be upsetting to have that reset.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Lizardo

[PhilipBegger]

Will alliance seniority be preserved? It'd be upsetting to have that reset.

 

 

 From what I'm reading, no.

[Gopherbashi]

What happens when a leader doesn't want to give up AA leadership and decides to kick everybody else off of the AA and keep it for himself?

 

If the answer to that is "the mods interfere and 'fix' everything by telling alliance leaders what they can do with the AA's they 'own' and taking people's alliances from them based on a non-existent 'just trust us, it'll be fine' criteria". Just god damn. :facepalm:

 

The same thing that happens when a leader goes apeshit on his own alliance's forums.

[Rayvon]

The same thing that happens when a leader goes apeshit on his own alliance's forums.

Except that there's other admins existing for the event to take place (see: RoK/Adel/Joe/Bob) and tranfer leadership abilities/accesses; whereas the in-game scenario as Hereno mentions - only the mods have that in-game power to transfer ownership where leaders would refuse to relinquish -- else the new leader has to make a whole new AA to add everyone to ..