Round 31 Changes

[TBRaiders]

 

I'm thinking of the following changes for Round 31. Your feedback please:

• No Manhattan project wonder. Replace with EMP Wonder (where nukes can target more technology and less infrastructure and vice versa, players get to decide what they want to target when they launch their nuke). Only top 5% can get nukes.
• Get rid of the current prize structure. Bring back Most Casualties. Limit alliances in size to 10 members each. Top 3 nations prizes will be determined based on the top 3 nations by nation strength in the alliance that has the Most Alliance Casualties.
• Can only trade within your alliance.
• Bring back foreign aid. Can only aid within your alliance.
• Roll out the war related improvements from SE to TE. Forward Operating Base adds +1 offensive war slot. As such, Forward Operating Base will be more expensive.
• Roll out the crime index from SE to TE along with it's improvements and the airport improvement.

After reading through the feedback and thinking on things a bit more here's what I'm currently thinking:

• Drop the top 5% requirement, MP will be required to purchase nukes, nukes cost $500,000 base, and requires 200 tech and 2,000 infras (these are also the same requirements to buy a MP), nuke limit will be 10 (+5 with HNMS)
• Pentagon allows for +1 offensive war slot.
• Nukes can target higher tech or higher infras damage based on player choice when launching the nuke.
• Roll out the war related improvements from SE to TE. Also roll out the airport improvement.
• Get rid of the current prize structure. Top two prizes will be Most Casualties and Highest Peak Infrastructure. The other three nations prizes will be determined based on the top 3 nations by nation strength in the alliance that has the Most Alliance Casualties.

 

 

I was getting ready to comment on the OP and caught just as it was being edited.

 

- I like the MP requirement for nukes.  I'd love a round where the auto anarchy button wasn't available at all, but this is a great change of pace for a round.

 

- Love the pentagon addition.

 

- EMP Nukes: TE has basically had these forever.  TE nukes wreck tech at a much greater rate than SE.  It is always good to let SE folks test stuff in TE.

 

- Same holds true for testing the new improvements

 

- I am glad to see you scrap the aid idea and any restrictions on alliance size or trade.  I wasn't sure how the trade was going to fit well with people who play unaligned.

 

PRIZES - This is probably the only area I'd love to see something new tested.  Highest Peak Infra is a terrible award, but I do get having a prize that will motivate people to continue to donate.  I'd still like to see more prizes awarded for people who war, especially for damaging wars and not gamed casualties.

 

Ultimately, if you want a larger TE player base, I think you have to cater to the SE players by providing an incentive for them to play.  You get that through creating a prize that carries over to the SE alliance or SE team color.  I would think a TE Award that can provide a +3 Happiness bonus for 60 days in SE would motivate more people to play.

 

I also like prizes that can be won at certain points in the round such as most damaging war by day 30 or 45.  A great award would be most damage caused or greatest damage ratio; maybe damage caused/damage received or greatest damage per war with a minimum of 10 wars required.  If there was a way to track war damage that would be great.  I imagine you'd have to make it so no TE wars can be deleted from the war screens.

[Komplex]

Keep foriegn aid out. No crime index. Do not limit the alliance size. Really bad idea.

Everything else sounds good. The pentagon idea is cool.


If there only up to 10 nukes(15 with the silo) take out SDI then.

Airport improvement real pointless.

Events also been pointless too.

[kongland]

• Regarding Nukes - drop the top 5% requirement, MP will be required by everyone to purchase nukes, nukes cost $500,000 base, and requires 200 tech and 2,000 infras (these are also the same requirements to buy a MP), nuke limit will be 10 (+5 with HNMS)
• Pentagon allows for +1 offensive war slot.
• Nukes can target higher tech or higher infras damage based on player choice when launching the nuke.
• Roll out the war related improvements from SE to TE. Also roll out the airport improvement.
• Get rid of the current prize structure. Top two prizes will be Most Casualties and Highest Peak Infrastructure. Three additional prizes will be awarded to the top 3 nations by nation strength in the alliance that has the Most Alliance Casualties.

 

Round 31 will begin on Saturday 6/14/14 (mid-morning).

......................................................

 

That's much, much better. There are a few more suggestions, which could be implemented, but that's enough changes  for now.

 

Great to hear about more expensive nukes. GRL levels always rise to the 10 and stay there all game, which made GRL at level 10 sort of a permanent feature and therefore pointless. Hopefully it would change this time.

 

I assume we still have $10 Mln as a start money?

 

Thank you for giving the date, admin.

Edited June 9, 2014 by kongland

[Daenerys Targaryen]

The hard statistics I'm talking about are existing figures for ANS, casualties, etc.  These are already measured by the game and introducing a figure that computes the sum of qualifying alliance members casualties, infra, etc, and then divides them by the total number of qualifying members is ridiculously simple. 

 

• You mentioned the primary problem of introducing a cap would be the retention of members in the game. Since you claim this is about "hard statistics", I'd like to see yours? We all know the game calculates stat averages.

 

If these figures are measured you can see how an alliance with 10 members may find itself at an advantage in some regards to a 30 member alliance. 

 

• I can also see how a 3 member alliance may find itself at an advantage in some regards to a 10 member alliance. Even with your idea of rewarding alliance averages, you’ll need a cap. With admins awards proposed and implemented with your idea, you'd likely have alliances reset with only their top 3 nations in casualties. Pretty much defeats the purpose of having an alliance crown. With an overall based system, it’d be in the alliances best interest to meet the alliance cap and hold those nations.

 

This is a community-driven game and a part of that is the microcosmic community within an alliance. 

 

• We all know its community driven but I don't see how you'd jeopardize the microcosmic community within an alliance with a 10-15 nation cap. I'm sure even the largest alliances could trim some fat and still retain most, if not all of their close and active members. This would probably do more good than harm for even large alliances like Skaro who probably have about 10-15 active and close friends who'd still get to keep playing together. They'd most likely even enjoy it more instead of having to carry those that drag them down or/and don't obey orders. I'd go as high as 20 for an alliance like TEPD and that is rare considering, the size, the activity and amount of experienced members they had last round. Even in an average based system, you’d struggle to find 20-30 nations that do well enough to win any award. I’ll guarantee, even the large alliances will be trimming numbers to have a shot. No alliance that wants to win an alliance flag under an average based system will go to reset with 15 or more nation. I’d even be surprised if 10 do under an average based system.

 

Many alliances already will drop members who fail to remain active or egregiously ignore building and warchest standards.

 

• They'll have even more reason to drop them if they water down the alliance averages and jeopardize any alliance award and less likely if the alliance has no one better to fill their capped slots.

 

Have you considered the paradoxical effect that with a cap on alliance size you will end up with maybe 4 or 5 disproportionately skilled alliances filling to the cap with only the most experienced of players? 

 

• That is guaranteed to happen under any system, but I'd add a lock out time frame, so they can't stack their alliances just before reset and avoid being challenged.

 

 

You would end up with more options, true, but instead of 10-15 major alliances that vary round to round it's more likely you would see alliances close off their doors to new members for fear that a slot in their alliance would be taken by someone inactive or too inexperienced to provide the numbers for the statistics.  It would worsen the problem with people being removed.  Averages count all - in a system where you only have so many people allowed on an individual AA (10 is the number Admin put forward, so we'll go with that) you have so many slots.  Anyone who is not measuring up could be booted; to prevent this from being gameable you'd need a similar safeguard system to the one that I proposed and it still would increase the incentive to drop someone rather than decrease it.

 

• An average based system would be exploited the way you think having caps would be. Right before reset, what’s to stop alliances from not dropping everyone til they have the average alliance casualty record?

 

 

In the end you would have a very complex system that relegates new players to scrounge for position in "leftovers" alliances or form their own alliances. 

 

• It’s almost like your arguing against your own proposal because this is likely to occur under yours and admins proposal. I support just trying something new and moving in the direction of actually playing a real tournament. More incentives for alliances to work together, help each other and play with a team spirit. If it doesn’t work, we change the system, make adjustments or go back to the previous system. We can guess and make as many assumptions as we like but you’ll never really know what will happen until it’s tested live. Since the round resets, we have that advantage to try new things and admin has been.

 

You would also see fracturing of existing alliances and as this is a community-driven game and people prefer to play with their friends, it's likely that many people would leave the game (and this still would not prevent the remaining experienced players from denying entry to new players to their alliances).

 

• I don't see why people won't be able to play with friends in a capped tournament. This is how team sports works around the world. Even large alliances could create sub alliances that can coordinate wars, communicate via irc/pm; you could even add a joint announcements feature with other alliances. The main concept behind the idea is to have an alliance crown which I think you support but with an average based system instead of an overall based. Half of your arguments can be used against your own proposal so I’m not quite sure what you really support. I’d support an average based system but I’d rather see the overall stats rewarded first because it has less problems.

 

Furthermore there is the somewhat more disturbing issue that this attempts to force "equality" directly at the expense of the community.  As this is a community driven game, the community organizes itself within the game and attempting to mandate that no one alliance can have more members than the others is an unacceptable breach of what it means to be a community organized game.  And, it still doesn't change the fact that an alliance of 10 experienced and organized players could still easily dominate three 10 player alliances with little experience and organization.  Much like reality, you simply can't legislate equality through code.  It is impossible.

 

• We can only do the best we can to close as many loop holes as possible while maintaining as much freedom as possible. We already have experienced alliances/players that dominate the less experienced and we always will. I don’t know a game or sport where that doesn’t occur.

At the end of the day you can apply Occam's razor to this.  The more complex solution has too many risks in terms of alienating people who prefer to play with their existing alliance and also requires Admin to do substantially more work.  While it satisfies the goal of providing a means for an alliance incentive versus an individual incentive, the existing community will be altered so significantly that I can realistically see a loss of half of the total population of TE.  It places a choice in front of players that is very difficult - do I play with my friends/comrades that I've developed friendships with and know I can count on, or do I play with people I do not know?  It's way too altruistic to assume that people will go with option B there and forcing a choice like that is going to mean the new people get kicked aside. 

• Do you want to put your tech where your words are about half of TE leaving by the end of the round if the alliance cap is implemented? I’ll bet you 1000 tech in SE that doesn’t happen. You’re overreacting and exaggerating about communities not being able to play together with an alliance cap. How did you figure that having a cap will mean you’ll be playing with those you don’t know rather than your friends? Regardless of having a cap or not, first and foremost, you’ll be playing with your friends.

 

This is a sentiment bound to be echoed by others.  The less complex solution will satisfy the spirit of the goal - which is to provide an alliance incentive within the prize distribution - while remaining in keeping with the spirit of a community driven game and allowing new members the freedom to pick which alliance they want and the alliances the freedom to allow new members based on their own merits rather than based upon a quota.  There just isn't a situation where that's going to work.

 

• More like a sentiment bound to be echoed by others who'd just rather not see any changes in this direction. You'll always get that opposition simply because people just don't wan't to change a system they're already good at using. But some see a vision beyond personal interest and the potential to make the game more enjoyable. These freedoms you speak of would be even more redundant under an averaged based system, instead of the game rules mandating a cap if new members can join an alliance or not, it'll be the alliance leaderships who deciede. There will always be obstacles for new members, no matter how much you try and protect them, they have to eventually over come those and maybe they might learn how to play the game well. You can't help people that won't help themsleves and even newbies have to try like everyone else has or had too.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Daenerys Targaryen

[King James XVIII]

After reading through the feedback and thinking on things a bit more here's what I'm currently thinking:

• Regarding Nukes - drop the top 5% requirement, MP will be required by everyone to purchase nukes, nukes cost $500,000 base, and requires 200 tech and 2,000 infras (these are also the same requirements to buy a MP), nuke limit will be 10 (+5 with HNMS)
• Pentagon allows for +1 offensive war slot.
• Nukes can target higher tech or higher infras damage based on player choice when launching the nuke.
• Roll out the war related improvements from SE to TE. Also roll out the airport improvement.
• Get rid of the current prize structure. Top two prizes will be Most Casualties and Highest Peak Infrastructure. Three additional prizes will be awarded to the top 3 nations by nation strength in the alliance that has the Most Alliance Casualties.

 

Round 31 will begin on Saturday 6/14/14 (mid-morning).

 

It looks more and more like these changes are going to happen. I am ridiculously excited. 

 

1. I like the nuke changes. If we are lowering the number of nukes we should eliminate the SDI though. I had a guy lose 8 nukes on me in one night while others get through on the first shot. 

 

2. Love the idea of +1 offensive war slot in the Pentagon wonder. i wish we could get 2 or 3 extra since casualties matter more than ever now. 

 

3. Yes. Nukes in TE can do serious tech damage considering that there is no reduced cost to rebuild. I like this. 

 

4. Yes, yes, and yes. 

 

5. Again, I have fought for rewarding alliances for years and it almost brings a tear to my eye to know we are on the verge of the first iteration of an alliance crown ^_^ . Highest peak infra seems like a bad way to give an individual award, and I echo the same concerns of others. Most individual casualties works though.

 

The brilliance of awarding additional prizes to the alliance that wins the crown is that it brings the possibility of winning closer to average members more than I ever thought. In order for people to have a chance of winning they have to first commit to work as a team to do the most killing. This means they have to build well since that is the only way you can be an effective killer. Once you do that, you are only competing with guys within your alliance. You could finish 50th in NS and win because you put it all on the line for war and built well enough to have a decent finish.

 

I would say however that it would perhaps be best if you weighted most casualties/average casualties with alliance damage inflicted over the round. I can envision a scenario where some alliances declare war and others just don't fight to protect a lead or help someone else. Tracking alliance damage inflicted would incentivize both offense and defense. 

 

Total alliance casualties, avg casualties, and damage inflicted should be visible in an alliance's stats page. 

[Gingervites]

I'm thinking of the following changes for Round 31. Your feedback please:

• No Manhattan project wonder. Replace with EMP Wonder (where nukes can target more technology and less infrastructure and vice versa, players get to decide what they want to target when they launch their nuke). Only top 5% can get nukes.
• Get rid of the current prize structure. Bring back Most Casualties. Limit alliances in size to 10 members each. Top 3 nations prizes will be determined based on the top 3 nations by nation strength in the alliance that has the Most Alliance Casualties.
• Can only trade within your alliance.
• Bring back foreign aid. Can only aid within your alliance.
• Roll out the war related improvements from SE to TE. Forward Operating Base adds +1 offensive war slot. As such, Forward Operating Base will be more expensive.
• Roll out the crime index from SE to TE along with it's improvements and the airport improvement.

After reading through the feedback and thinking on things a bit more here's what I'm currently thinking:

• Regarding Nukes - drop the top 5% requirement, MP will be required by everyone to purchase nukes, nukes cost $500,000 base, and requires 200 tech and 2,000 infras (these are also the same requirements to buy a MP), nuke limit will be 10 (+5 with HNMS)
• Pentagon allows for +1 offensive war slot.
• Nukes can target higher tech or higher infras damage based on player choice when launching the nuke.
• Roll out the war related improvements from SE to TE. Also roll out the airport improvement.
• Get rid of the current prize structure. Top two prizes will be Most Casualties and Highest Peak Infrastructure. Three additional prizes will be awarded to the top 3 nations by nation strength in the alliance that has the Most Alliance Casualties.

 

Round 31 will begin on Saturday 6/14/14 (mid-morning).

Do it, please.

[ADude]

We could remove the alliance cap but if an alliance has 11 or more nations at reset then they forfeit their chance at the "Most Alliance Casualties", Top 3 NS awards and alliance crown.

 

You do know that alliances are the only thing keeping this game going right? In both TE and SE. Why would you want to break the legs on that?

[John More Dread]

This idea is really what i'd like to see implemented.

 

 

I'd just add a lock out time frame. For example, 2 weeks before the round resets, no nation can join any alliance.

How about, you can JOIN an alliance, but you won't be considered part of their statistics if you join in the last  2 weeks, That would have the same effect without limiting player choice.

[John More Dread]

We could remove the alliance cap but if an alliance has 11 or more nations at reset then they forfeit their chance at the "Most Alliance Casualties", Top 3 NS awards and alliance crown.

How about,  an alliance can have as many members as it likes, but only the top ten count for awards? It seems like this would solve all or most of the problems that have been brought  up, while incentivising all of the "right" behaviour, and giving people something to shoot for cooperatively. And this way large AAs wouldn't boot new players for bringing their average down.

Edited June 10, 2014 by John More Dread

[Nick GhostWolf]

 

The hard statistics I'm talking about are existing figures for ANS, casualties, etc.  These are already measured by the game and introducing a figure that computes the sum of qualifying alliance members casualties, infra, etc, and then divides them by the total number of qualifying members is ridiculously simple. 

 

• You mentioned the primary problem of introducing a cap would be the retention of members in the game. Since you claim this is about "hard statistics", I'd like to see yours? We all know the game calculates stat averages.

 

If these figures are measured you can see how an alliance with 10 members may find itself at an advantage in some regards to a 30 member alliance. 

 

• I can also see how a 3 member alliance may find itself at an advantage in some regards to a 10 member alliance. Even with your idea of rewarding alliance averages, you’ll need a cap. With admins awards proposed and implemented with your idea, you'd likely have alliances reset with only their top 3 nations in casualties. Pretty much defeats the purpose of having an alliance crown. With an overall based system, it’d be in the alliances best interest to meet the alliance cap and hold those nations.

 

This is a community-driven game and a part of that is the microcosmic community within an alliance. 

 

• We all know its community driven but I don't see how you'd jeopardize the microcosmic community within an alliance with a 10-15 nation cap. I'm sure even the largest alliances could trim some fat and still retain most, if not all of their close and active members. This would probably do more good than harm for even large alliances like Skaro who probably have about 10-15 active and close friends who'd still get to keep playing together. They'd most likely even enjoy it more instead of having to carry those that drag them down or/and don't obey orders. I'd go as high as 20 for an alliance like TEPD and that is rare considering, the size, the activity and amount of experienced members they had last round. Even in an average based system, you’d struggle to find 20-30 nations that do well enough to win any award. I’ll guarantee, even the large alliances will be trimming numbers to have a shot. No alliance that wants to win an alliance flag under an average based system will go to reset with 15 or more nation. I’d even be surprised if 10 do under an average based system.

 

Many alliances already will drop members who fail to remain active or egregiously ignore building and warchest standards.

 

• They'll have even more reason to drop them if they water down the alliance averages and jeopardize any alliance award and less likely if the alliance has no one better to fill their capped slots.

 

Have you considered the paradoxical effect that with a cap on alliance size you will end up with maybe 4 or 5 disproportionately skilled alliances filling to the cap with only the most experienced of players? 

 

• That is guaranteed to happen under any system, but I'd add a lock out time frame, so they can't stack their alliances just before reset and avoid being challenged.

 

 

You would end up with more options, true, but instead of 10-15 major alliances that vary round to round it's more likely you would see alliances close off their doors to new members for fear that a slot in their alliance would be taken by someone inactive or too inexperienced to provide the numbers for the statistics.  It would worsen the problem with people being removed.  Averages count all - in a system where you only have so many people allowed on an individual AA (10 is the number Admin put forward, so we'll go with that) you have so many slots.  Anyone who is not measuring up could be booted; to prevent this from being gameable you'd need a similar safeguard system to the one that I proposed and it still would increase the incentive to drop someone rather than decrease it.

 

• An average based system would be exploited the way you think having caps would be. Right before reset, what’s to stop alliances from not dropping everyone til they have the average alliance casualty record?

 

 

In the end you would have a very complex system that relegates new players to scrounge for position in "leftovers" alliances or form their own alliances. 

 

• It’s almost like your arguing against your own proposal because this is likely to occur under yours and admins proposal. I support just trying something new and moving in the direction of actually playing a real tournament. More incentives for alliances to work together, help each other and play with a team spirit. If it doesn’t work, we change the system, make adjustments or go back to the previous system. We can guess and make as many assumptions as we like but you’ll never really know what will happen until it’s tested live. Since the round resets, we have that advantage to try new things and admin has been.

 

You would also see fracturing of existing alliances and as this is a community-driven game and people prefer to play with their friends, it's likely that many people would leave the game (and this still would not prevent the remaining experienced players from denying entry to new players to their alliances).

 

• I don't see why people won't be able to play with friends in a capped tournament. This is how team sports works around the world. Even large alliances could create sub alliances that can coordinate wars, communicate via irc/pm; you could even add a joint announcements feature with other alliances. The main concept behind the idea is to have an alliance crown which I think you support but with an average based system instead of an overall based. Half of your arguments can be used against your own proposal so I’m not quite sure what you really support. I’d support an average based system but I’d rather see the overall stats rewarded first because it has less problems.

 

Furthermore there is the somewhat more disturbing issue that this attempts to force "equality" directly at the expense of the community.  As this is a community driven game, the community organizes itself within the game and attempting to mandate that no one alliance can have more members than the others is an unacceptable breach of what it means to be a community organized game.  And, it still doesn't change the fact that an alliance of 10 experienced and organized players could still easily dominate three 10 player alliances with little experience and organization.  Much like reality, you simply can't legislate equality through code.  It is impossible.

 

• We can only do the best we can to close as many loop holes as possible while maintaining as much freedom as possible. We already have experienced alliances/players that dominate the less experienced and we always will. I don’t know a game or sport where that doesn’t occur.

At the end of the day you can apply Occam's razor to this.  The more complex solution has too many risks in terms of alienating people who prefer to play with their existing alliance and also requires Admin to do substantially more work.  While it satisfies the goal of providing a means for an alliance incentive versus an individual incentive, the existing community will be altered so significantly that I can realistically see a loss of half of the total population of TE.  It places a choice in front of players that is very difficult - do I play with my friends/comrades that I've developed friendships with and know I can count on, or do I play with people I do not know?  It's way too altruistic to assume that people will go with option B there and forcing a choice like that is going to mean the new people get kicked aside. 

• Do you want to put your tech where your words are about half of TE leaving by the end of the round if the alliance cap is implemented? I’ll bet you 1000 tech in SE that doesn’t happen. You’re overreacting and exaggerating about communities not being able to play together with an alliance cap. How did you figure that having a cap will mean you’ll be playing with those you don’t know rather than your friends? Regardless of having a cap or not, first and foremost, you’ll be playing with your friends.

 

This is a sentiment bound to be echoed by others.  The less complex solution will satisfy the spirit of the goal - which is to provide an alliance incentive within the prize distribution - while remaining in keeping with the spirit of a community driven game and allowing new members the freedom to pick which alliance they want and the alliances the freedom to allow new members based on their own merits rather than based upon a quota.  There just isn't a situation where that's going to work.

 

• More like a sentiment bound to be echoed by others who'd just rather not see any changes in this direction. You'll always get that opposition simply because people just don't wan't to change a system they're already good at using. But some see a vision beyond personal interest and the potential to make the game more enjoyable. These freedoms you speak of would be even more redundant under an averaged based system, instead of the game rules mandating a cap if new members can join an alliance or not, it'll be the alliance leaderships who deciede. There will always be obstacles for new members, no matter how much you try and protect them, they have to eventually over come those and maybe they might learn how to play the game well. You can't help people that won't help themsleves and even newbies have to try like everyone else has or had too.

 

 

1. It seems I

[bombuator]

 

You do know that alliances are the only thing keeping this game going right? In both TE and SE. Why would you want to break the legs on that?

 

Or can just take the top ten casualties of each AA. It could give an advantage to larger AAs, but not many AAs have 10 guys that can get large amounts casualties a round.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

 

You do know that alliances are the only thing keeping this game going right? In both TE and SE. Why would you want to break the legs on that?

The community is what keeps the game going and I don't see how having a cap would break anything.

 

 

How about, you can JOIN an alliance, but you won't be considered part of their statistics if you join in the last  2 weeks, That would have the same effect without limiting player choice.

That could work too.

 

 

How about,  an alliance can have as many members as it likes, but only the top ten count for awards? It seems like this would solve all or most of the problems that have been brought  up, while incentivising all of the "right" behaviour, and giving people something to shoot for cooperatively. And this way large AAs wouldn't boot new players for bringing their average down.

It sounds like and i hope admin adds the "Most Alliance Causualties" award. With no alliance caps or lockouts, I'm picturing some very large alliances at reset, this will be interesting.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

 

Or can just take the top ten casualties of each AA. It could give an advantage to larger AAs, but not many AAs have 10 guys that can get large amounts casualties a round.

I'm already picturing the backroom deals going down.

 

It'll kind of be like an election, gaining members (with casualties) instead of votes. Those in the running will compete for the support of other alliance leaders. We have to at least give this a round.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Daenerys Targaryen

[Warhammer]

How about adding casualties to the requirements for purchasing nukes?
For example 10,000 casualties right off the bat to buy them and an additional 5,000 -10,000 for each nuke afterwards. (just using those numbers as an example)

To make it even more interesting and to make it so nation raiding doesn't increase much you could make it so that casualties don't count when you attack nations smaller than you.

 

I am also not seeing why everyone is getting so bent out of shape about an alliance member cap.

Whether there is a cap or not there could still be alliances full of veteran players.

I saw no where in the list of possible changes anything saying you could only fight one alliance at a time so if an alliance was full of ringers then we would just need 2 or more alliances to take them on or get better members in our own alliances. Problem solved.

 

I hate the SDI as much as the next guy but I think you should keep it in the game as it would make it possible for you to use every nuke you have on just one nation and I do kind of like that idea. (and I just got a bad feeling that will happen to me right out of the gate)

Might want to make it even harder to get though and raise the requirements to having all 5 Missile Defences and Satellite improvements.  :o

Edited June 10, 2014 by Warhammer

[Nick GhostWolf]

How about adding casualties to the requirements for purchasing nukes?
For example 10,000 casualties right off the bat to buy them and an additional 5,000 -10,000 for each nuke afterwards. (just using those numbers as an example)

To make it even more interesting and to make it so nation raiding doesn't increase much you could make it so that casualties don't count when you attack nations smaller than you.

 

If nukes are capped at 10 (15 with HNMS) I'm not sure how a clause invalidating raids would affect much.  I raid like a fiend - enough to take #1 casualties for a decent chunk of the first part of last round - and it still didn't put me much further than 50k.

[King James XVIII]

 
Or can just take the top ten casualties of each AA. It could give an advantage to larger AAs, but not many AAs have 10 guys that can get large amounts casualties a round.

I think this would keep new members out of the fight. We should count everything, avg it out, and measure damage inflicted. Those are the measures of a great alliance.

[dealmaster13]

I recommend that you consider how to make the alliance casualty criterion for the NS prizes fairer, as currently it has a higher tendency to reward alliances with high member counts and also allow exploitation concerning alliance hopping.

 

Personally I don't have an easy fix if you want to involve alliance casualties.

One suggestion is to take the total/average casualty count of the top 10 long-term nations in each alliance rather than the total casualty count over all members. You can classify a long-term nation as one whose alliance seniority is at least half the length of the round (~30 days), or better still you could use the alliance which the nation has been a member of for the longest proportion of time (in the event that a top 10 nation created halfway through the round).

 

I can't see any other issues with the changes, other than that there is a reasonable possibility that one nation with get both most casualties and highest peak infra.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

Only counting an alliances top 10 nation casualty count may lead to the alliances remaining nations minimizing their fighting efforts or just not fighting at all, so the top 10 absorb more casualties. Under this, you may even witness the slow demise of today's large alliance.

 

Those that can't keep up will be discarded in terms of their relevancy to the alliance and may end up quitting because of the lack of involvement. At least by counting all members casualties, every member becomes relevant, including new members. And even alliances like Skaro and NLON may even carry some political weight. This might be a good opportunity to have an award in everyone's reach to pursue and not just the TE elites, but also further encourage leaderships to train and advance its members building and warfare skills.

 

Its not like those after the top 10 actually get a lot of casualties so I'd count every nations casualties.

 

I suppose an AA lock out/seniority time frame isn't as necessary since its based on the highest casualties and not the highest NS/infra or most money. I suppose we could skip it as it'll be exploited regardless if a time frame is added and you can only add casualties to your opponents, not take them away.

 

We'll have those who turtle to minimize an opponents casualties but I'm not sure if you can or would even want to do anything about that. We can put that under strategic maneuvering.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Daenerys Targaryen

[dealmaster13]

That's an interesting point of view Daenerys, but it could be considered the other way by noting that small alliances will be significantly hampered by an unrestricted scheme.

 

 

On reflection, I think that the top three nations in the alliance with the most casualties should also be ranked by casualties rather than NS, or take the three nations with the highest NS which are ranked in the top 10 for alliance casualties. The prizes should be weighted accordingly, taking into account the fact that there is a reasonable chance that a nation gets two or more prizes.

 

Appropriate statistics for viewing casualties would be useful.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

As long as we don't see 100+ nation alliances or 2 or 3 super alliances at reset. It may have negative effects on the culture of TE alliances, including the disbandment and merging of many or will that be a positive in some cases. A membership cap or only counting a certain amount of an alliances top nations will prevent this which is probably the best way to go. Both have its pros and cons but I'd rather not to see super alliances at reset.

[King James XVIII]

As long as we don't see 100+ nation alliances or 2 or 3 super alliances at reset. It may have negative effects on the culture of TE alliances, including the disbandment and merging of many or will that be a positive in some cases. A membership cap or only counting a certain amount of an alliances top nations will prevent this which is probably the best way to go. Both have its pros and cons but I'd rather not to see super alliances at reset.

 

I highly doubt that we see that. First, because there aren't really enough players for it. Second, there is still a lot of hate out there and people don't seem capable of coalescing under some gov structure. I am still emphatically opposed to any alliance cap. We can find other ways to limit gaming the system without forcing alliances to divide up.

 

No matter what happens, I see this as the first crack at an alliance crown. It won't be perfect. It will be messy. But it will get better once we see how things really operate. It will change. 

[Daenerys Targaryen]

 

I highly doubt that we see that. First, because there aren't really enough players for it. Second, there is still a lot of hate out there and people don't seem capable of coalescing under some gov structure. I am still emphatically opposed to any alliance cap. We can find other ways to limit gaming the system without forcing alliances to divide up.

 

No matter what happens, I see this as the first crack at an alliance crown. It won't be perfect. It will be messy. But it will get better once we see how things really operate. It will change. 

From memory, I believe TE still gets 500+ nations so these super alliances of 100+ nations aren't impossible. Its also possible people will reconcile their differences and its no secret many alliances are on friendly terms and have friendly relations with other alliances. But as long as its within the rules, every resource at ones disposal can be used to advance ones position as it always has and always will. Analyze everything from all possibilities.

 

I don't just look at having an alliance cap as meaning alliances are just divided up but also the possibility to create more alliances under more leaderships and creating more choice for members. Experience and the inexperience being more concentrated, maybe this might decrease the amount of experienced alliances that go after the inexperienced so they can avoid fair/hard wars. Maybe, we might see a decrease in large alliances raiding the newer and smaller alliances since they'd be close to the same size. Many pros and cons for capped and uncapped.

 

Our best way to advance the alliance crown idea is by debating, discussing and dissecting the good and bad points of having an alliance crown. This is healthy so we can work out and correct as many of these problems it will have in the game if it was to go live. Of course we may still encounter problems we can't foresee or misjudge now.

[King James XVIII]

From memory, I believe TE still gets 500+ nations so these super alliances of 100+ nations aren't impossible. Its also possible people will reconcile their differences and its no secret many alliances are on friendly terms and have friendly relations with other alliances. But as long as its within the rules, every resource at ones disposal can be used to advance ones position as it always has and always will. Analyze everything from all possibilities.

 

I don't just look at having an alliance cap as meaning alliances are just divided up but also the possibility to create more alliances under more leaderships and creating more choice for members. Experience and the inexperience being more concentrated, maybe this might decrease the amount of experienced alliances that go after the inexperienced so they can avoid fair/hard wars. Maybe, we might see a decrease in large alliances raiding the newer and smaller alliances since they'd be close to the same size. Many pros and cons for capped and uncapped.

 

Our best way to advance the alliance crown idea is by debating, discussing and dissecting the good and bad points of having an alliance crown. This is healthy so we can work out and correct as many of these problems it will have in the game if it was to go live. Of course we may still encounter problems we can't foresee or misjudge now.

 

Those are some good points, even if I'm not persuaded we need a cap :P . This should be the goal of all alliances moving forward, and I can say that TPC is committing itself again to teaching a new generation.

 

This is some of the best dialogue I've seen about TE since I've been here. Despite what people say, I think we have a bright future with Almighty Admin willing to bring new things to our world.

Edited June 11, 2014 by King James XVIII

[Komplex]

If an alliance get 100 plus members than thats growing TE and i support it. Nothing wrong to have a good large alliance.

[kongland]

No idea why you guys are so bent on having some official prizes granted to the alliances. Any experienced government member who's been around for a while knows what each AA is worth. A very good AA can be really screwed due to the politics of the opposing forces and would look bad in statistics whereas a relatively mediocre AA might get those prizes.

 

Vanity rules I guess :smug: