Jump to content
AL Bundy

TE Suggestion: Limit on Members in an Alliance

Recommended Posts

TE Suggestion,

Create a limit on alliance memberships.

My suggestion is 12 nations per alliance to be the max. This is enough for two trade circles and is about the average in the game currently. This will make it easier to find better wars between alliances. Also it make awards based on the strongest alliance more fair than just have a couple more members than another. This might force some members to recruit more members to the game to max out their alliance.

What does everyone think?

Thanks for the time!

Also two other suggestions/edits:

  1. Alliance flag: be able to choose one at 10 members.

  2. Just an edit on the Weapons Research Complex description it states that once purchased you can buy 2 nukes a day, but you already can do that.

Thanks again,

Al Bundy -a dang good women’s shoe salesman!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about the number, but something like this might actually be very good, would promote a form of equality between alliances not seen before, also stops the same 2-3 AAs being top every round, every decently run alliance with max members would have a decent chance.

 

WRC description on improvements page is also wrong about size of multiplier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

Create a limit on alliance memberships.

My suggestion is 12 nations per alliance to be the max. This is enough for two trade circles and is about the average in the game currently. This will make it easier to find better wars between alliances. Also it make awards based on the strongest alliance more fair than just have a couple more members than another. This might force some members to recruit more members to the game to max out their alliance. "

 

I think that would be an outstanding idea... I have been saying the same thing for a long time.

 

this second part I would most likely get little support  but I will throw it out there.

 look at the number of nations we have this round that have a strength level of 3 (nearly  15%  ) that's because they are not playing they are just trade partners they do not grow or do anything but collect about every 15 days to stay alive for their trade partners.. I would take your proposal a step farther and require people to only trade with members of your AA.  This would force people to play or they would be penalty to their AA 's ability to win a round..  and it would limit rouges, because they could not get trade partners without belonging to an AA and if they go rouge it would make their whole AA subject to attack.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Wayne World said:

"

Create a limit on alliance memberships.

My suggestion is 12 nations per alliance to be the max. This is enough for two trade circles and is about the average in the game currently. This will make it easier to find better wars between alliances. Also it make awards based on the strongest alliance more fair than just have a couple more members than another. This might force some members to recruit more members to the game to max out their alliance. "

 

I think that would be an outstanding idea... I have been saying the same thing for a long time.

 

this second part I would most likely get little support  but I will throw it out there.

 look at the number of nations we have this round that have a strength level of 3 (nearly  15%  ) that's because they are not playing they are just trade partners they do not grow or do anything but collect about every 15 days to stay alive for their trade partners.. I would take your proposal a step farther and require people to only trade with members of your AA.  This would force people to play or they would be penalty to their AA 's ability to win a round..  and it would limit rouges, because they could not get trade partners without belonging to an AA and if they go rouge it would make their whole AA subject to attack.

 

Thanks man!

 

The second part I find to be hard to create, but what do I know haha.....Maybe just kick nations faster if they don't do anything.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Won't do anything. For various reasons I've run TE AA's with more than one AA before; if this was implemented, it would just add another reason to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 11:10 PM, Caladin said:

Won't do anything. For various reasons I've run TE AA's with more than one AA before; if this was implemented, it would just add another reason to do that.

If you can run two successful alliances in TE then id say go for it, love to see it.

 

Still this concept would keep the rounds from having 2 major alliances run the show, and give a chance to those alliances that cant get 20-30 people to join. All alliances would have a max of around 12 nations, better fights, and an even opportunity to get awards for their alliance.

 

Then for those that feel the need to run multi AA's other alliances with dog pile them like they do now when they feel cheated.

 

Al

Edited by AL Bundy
Because I can :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AL Bundy said:

If you can run two successful alliances in TE then id say go for it, love to see it.

 

Still this concept would keep the rounds from having 2 major alliances run the show, and give a chance to those alliances that cant get 20-30 people to join. All alliances would have a max of around 12 nations, better fights, and an even opportunity to get awards for their alliance.

 

Then for those that feel the need to run multi AA's other alliances with dog pile them like they do now when they feel cheated.

 

Al

 

I'm not running two. I'm running three or four, but in reality I'm just running one, and that is what the larger alliances will do; it's easy enough to create spare alliances, put an officer in charge of them, and run it as if it was one large alliance with only a slight increase in administrative workload.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Caladin said:

 

I'm not running two. I'm running three or four, but in reality I'm just running one, and that is what the larger alliances will do; it's easy enough to create spare alliances, put an officer in charge of them, and run it as if it was one large alliance with only a slight increase in administrative workload.

Well I wouldnt consider that running? Thats more like the hug circle I was talking about in a different post.....We all know some alliances wont attack certain ones......but i think have more smaller alliances, will bring more leaders, and better wars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AL Bundy said:

Well I wouldnt consider that running? Thats more like the hug circle I was talking about in a different post.....We all know some alliances wont attack certain ones......but i think have more smaller alliances, will bring more leaders, and better wars

 

Not really. It's more as if your battalion, squad, however your SE alliance organizes its military units had it's own AA; there is no structural difference.

 

The thing is, there is nothing that will stop someone doing that; creating multiple AA's to host their entire AA on - the only difference is that it will be slightly annoying to those who weren't already doing it for other reasons.

 

In general, I see no point to this idea, simply because it won't actually change anything.

Edited by Caladin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AL Bundy said:

Well I wouldnt consider that running? Thats more like the hug circle I was talking about in a different post.....We all know some alliances wont attack certain ones......but i think have more smaller alliances, will bring more leaders, and better wars

Different times demanded different actions so for the past dozen or so rounds we've had our hands forced to unite and again forced to compete against a common foe and naturally those ties are still strong today but the good news is, TE may be moving back to post Avengers era where the environment allowed more war and less stagnation cos more teams had balance. The circle you refer to want nothing more than an even playing field and the opportunity to fight everyone, most of all friends.

 

Another problem with a limited membership is it'll encourage newbies to be excluded from the more skilled alliances cos they're less desirable than veterans and i believe they're very important for the survival of the game as they help balance out those who leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 5:51 AM, HiredGun said:

Another problem with a limited membership is it'll encourage newbies to be excluded from the more skilled alliances cos they're less desirable than veterans and i believe they're very important for the survival of the game as they help balance out those who leave.

Good point. I still believe they would create their own new alliances.....it could end up 8 veteran alliances and 10 newbie alliances. More experience for them... would be nice to see some newbie alliances fighting each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" it could end up 8 veteran alliances and 10 newbie alliances. "

 

I think you would have vets trying their hand at running an alliances 

 

 

    Nations in TE

Started by Overlord Wes, October 9, 2011

 

It shows that we are a dying game if we do not find some thing to make it interesting again 

we are done

 

 

 

Edited by Wayne World
had a brain fart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wayne World said:

" it could end up 8 veteran alliances and 10 newbie alliances. "

 

I think you would have vets trying their hand at running an alliances 

 

 

    Nations in TE

Started by Overlord Wes, October 9, 2011

 

It shows that we are a dying game if we do not find some thing to make it interesting again 

we are done

 

 

 

Its the consistent player base who are keeping this game a float and I'd say we're a little over 100 strong. The rest will come and go but its important we hang onto those who show interest to balance out the core players who drop off and every round we lose more so look at opportunities to bring newbies through your academic programs/ranks and keep them interested in the game, the more they know the more they'll enjoy TE.

 

But not everyone is in a position to teach or guide the new comers, so there are other ways to support the game such as donating, disabling your ad blocker, inviting friends and family to have a go, more seasoned vets need to step up and contribute more cos at the end of the day, its your lost if you find one day that TE has been cancelled.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I'd still like to see admin trial a 12 membership limit, I've played a couple of other turn based war sims years ago that had membership limits and they were fun. A month or 2 at the most trial would be interesting, at this point whats there to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the amount of participation steadily declining..  as well as the increasing  popularity of temp trading... I think some creative changes to trades/rings could be of benefit...  The success of both individual nations/ alliances (old or new) depend on having good and active trades...   I think taking some of the frustration out of it would benefit the game as a whole.. What exactly those changes should be I don’t know...  I just know it’s not working in the same capacity it used to.. 

Edited by rexius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has diversified a bit so I don't feel too bad going off topic on some of this.

 

In response to the actual OP and Caladin, I don't think the possibility of having multiple AAs under one alliance is too much of a problem, very simply because the AAs will necessarily compete with one another in terms of stats and will have different internal communication, also the rules against intra alliance wars will not apply. So it's no different to having multiple AAs usually fighting together now, except unlike having everyone under one AA this creates the potential for conflicts involving only one part, or conflicts between the two at some point.

 

I think a few things could be done to make it a bit more appealing. One thing I would like to see is more efficient ways to launch attacks, like if you are trying to nuke someone with an SDI make it so that you can launch multiple times from the same screen, just like how you can launch multiple naval attacks without returning to the wars and battle screen, the same thing could be done with CMs as well. Additionally it would be very nice if attacks you have already run the maximum amount of could be crossed out/in red or whatever, just so if you are attacking your opponents in an irregular order you don't have to click through 7 screens to see who hasn't been GA'd or CM'd yet.

 

I doubt it would increase the player base but it would be nicer for those that continue to play I think.

 

Best way to get more people involved would be to advertise additional benefits in SE from doing well in TE; not just for a handful of people but for people in the top 40-50% in casualties or something like that (with greater rewards the higher up you are). Donations are decent bonuses but there's other stuff that could be cool, maybe if you could select an event to be applied to your SE nation or a senate proposal to be applied just to you (imagine the numbers if you had a chance to get an extra aid slot for 30 days once every 100 days!).

 

Other than that I agree that veterans have to bring more people on board and get them into the game, I assume Al does that with SE AW and I'm trying to do that with TTK this round, seems like a lot of alliances don't bother with that though, which is very sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blackatron said:

Best way to get more people involved would be to advertise additional benefits in SE from doing well in TE; not just for a handful of people but for people in the top 40-50% in casualties or something like that (with greater rewards the higher up you are). Donations are decent bonuses but there's other stuff that could be cool, maybe if you could select an event to be applied to your SE nation or a senate proposal to be applied just to you (imagine the numbers if you had a chance to get an extra aid slot for 30 days once every 100 days!).

I like the idea of additional or even alternative bonuses. The senate proposal especially. I think that can get some activity back into the game.

 

Maybe have the events broken down in tiered fashion and lower the percentage down to 5-10% of whatever the flavor is for that round. It can even be the top 5 of something like casualties, most destructive wars, etc. Only 1 event can be applied per color per round.

 

A few questions about it though...Would that stats be the end of the round or at everyone's peak? Would the event be an extra one applied to the color, replace one, or become an option for when the next set of events come around?

 

This suggestion should have it's own topic in my opinion. If you write it up, I'll back it.

 

E - i see that there was a thread with something close to this, but on a completely different scale,  crooked even. I think this idea is a more balanced approach, and shouldn't be that hard to implement. I would also say that there should be negative events as well. Maybe something like - $2 income for blue sphere and +$2 for red sphere due to some natural disaster. EMPs over a color sphere reducing tech shipments to be halved (50t). :D This would also mean that the events picked would be mandatory and not up to the senators. Maybe allow it so you can send a personalized message with the event as well.

Edited by rileyaddaff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rileyaddaff said:

I like the idea of additional or even alternative bonuses. The senate proposal especially. I think that can get some activity back into the game.

 

Maybe have the events broken down in tiered fashion and lower the percentage down to 5-10% of whatever the flavor is for that round. It can even be the top 5 of something like casualties, most destructive wars, etc. Only 1 event can be applied per color per round.

 

A few questions about it though...Would that stats be the end of the round or at everyone's peak? Would the event be an extra one applied to the color, replace one, or become an option for when the next set of events come around?

 

This suggestion should have it's own topic in my opinion. If you write it up, I'll back it.

 

Yeah, I'll write it up when I get around to it. The idea would be to rewards casualties (possibly just attacking casualties?) as they correlate to activity the best, and I suppose it would be measured at the end of the round.

 

My idea with the senate proposal part was not that it would be applied to the whole colour, but rather that you would chose one that applies only to your nation, but I don't know how that would be listed other than under events, but it would be interesting if players could chose a specific proposal to be generated that would affect the whole team, senators would still have to vote on it in that case.

 

I think top 30% is minimum needed, you want to ensure that people who are active every day and grow their nations properly reap the rewards. I agree it would help boost activity as currently all that is needed for maximum growth in SE is to log in a couple of times a week to maintain tech deals. If you want to see a small economic boost to your nation that applies 3/10ths of the time you have to work for it every day in TE else fall behind. Would only be +$2 citizen income or something along those lines for people in the top 30%, but enough to make a bit of a difference, and would obviously allow for better events if you're in the top 20/10/5%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understood were you coming from, i just tried to amplify it 10 fold is all. To be honest, i don't think admin would want to put extra work into, so it would have to be something he already has the structure for. So we would need to break down individual events into tiers.

 

If we are trying to draw more people from SE into TE, then going bigger, and doing color sphere events is the way to go in my opinion. I personally think the ability to give a color a negative event would add some much needed drama to the corpse of a world called SE.

Edited by rileyaddaff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2cents about growth.  Recruit recruit recruit, simple and solid magic for the game!  Here's a spin start a stat sheet for recruits and longevity by nation and alliance give us goals thru stats (ingame).    It is a game which has ingulfed our lives because we enjoy the challenge.  Ok, guys challenge is on us everyone recruit 2.  Need to make it fun bringing guys up and on as the editions become more strategised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/08/2016 at 6:46 AM, Blackatron said:

Not sure about the number, but something like this might actually be very good, would promote a form of equality between alliances not seen before, also stops the same 2-3 AAs being top every round, every decently run alliance with max members would have a decent chance.

 

WRC description on improvements page is also wrong about size of multiplier.

I'm not sure it'd promote a form of equality, I think what may happen is those who can, would consolidate their most active, coordinated and best builders/fighters. I know we probably would and I'm pretty confident this group of 12 would be more effective during wars than when we had 30 members this round, in terms of overall stats we would suffer but coordination, overall activity and the average skill level would considerably improve. Its difficult to tell though but that'd be my forecast.

 

As for changing the game mechanics or adding more incentives for more SE players to participate, I think admin has been doing this for years now with little success. As CB is basically saying, its mostly up to us and our efforts. I think overall the game mechanics and incentives are good but definitely support changing it up from time to time to help keep it interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Hoosier said:

My 2cents about growth.  Recruit recruit recruit, simple and solid magic for the game!  Here's a spin start a stat sheet for recruits and longevity by nation and alliance give us goals thru stats (ingame).    It is a game which has ingulfed our lives because we enjoy the challenge.  Ok, guys challenge is on us everyone recruit 2.  Need to make it fun bringing guys up and on as the editions become more strategised.

This is the key....

TE is a great place for my newbies in standard to learn about wonders, improvements, fighting, nukes and there is a lot more action to keep them active.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, we are running out of these so called newbies..What we need is incentive to bring people from SE to TE. I've been around a long time and only played TE a few times to help with trades. This last round is the first time I've played a complete round. There is no incentive to do so from my point of view. So in my opinion, some sort of SE perk would be enough to get a handful of players to hop over. Make color sphere perks and i believe we can get even more

Edited by rileyaddaff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rileyaddaff said:

The thing is, we are running out of these so called newbies..What we need is incentive to bring people from SE to TE. I've been around a long time and only played TE a few times to help with trades. This last round is the first time I've played a complete round. There is no incentive to do so from my point of view. So in my opinion, some sort of SE perk would be enough to get a handful of players to hop over. Make color sphere perks and i believe we can get even more

Create a dedicated thread for your SE perk suggestion to be added to the game, if its a good idea then I'll support it. Also the incentives i was referring to are the awards that if won have the option of a $30 donation to be added to yours or friends nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, rileyaddaff said:

The thing is, we are running out of these so called newbies..What we need is incentive to bring people from SE to TE. I've been around a long time and only played TE a few times to help with trades. 

 

This is why something needs to change with trades... newbies are usually always at a disadvantage because rings are usually already set up for returning veteran players.. I love the challenge and creativity trades once supplied...  however with declining participation...  it’s now more of a pain in the neck than anything..  And I think that’s one reason that the newbies we do manage to get...  ultimately get discouraged and quit. So it’s not just getting them here... it’s also finding better ways to keep the ones that we do get..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×