Lord Hitchcock Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) I'd like to propose the idea of capping alliances to 12 members. I have played many rounds of TE and every round it continues to skew upward. With regular alliances like misfits, the pheonix cobras, TE police, citidal, NDO, krabs, TDO, avengers, now obsoluete (without really a replacement). and it's really made the landscape bare. By capping membership, it would split up a lot of these alliances and make them more prone to war. Even if they decide to 'tie up' like alliance #1 and alliance #2, it would still make for offensive war declarations to be a marker which has always been the sort of 'gentleman agreement' TE uses to maintain the few remaining members that are left. This proposal would force alliances to be more personable among its members, make closer friends, increases player retention, and creates more activity by preventing nations to sit relatively untouched in the few big whales. The threat of these 'big whales' now-a-days is that they need their fix too. It's a real threat to the few alliances left, for example this current round, if AW and D1 wanted to be asshats they could end the round pretty fast. Edited January 22, 2017 by Lord Hitchcock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cazaric Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Heh, I should have posted my thoughts on this here, rather than in the D1 DoW, but oh well. I am strongly in favour of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL Bundy Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 @admin Another good suggestion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 Would like more input here. This would be an easy one to implement for round 46 if we can get a consensus on it. Why 12 for the cap? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaBeeGipson Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 17 minutes ago, admin said: Would like more input here. This would be an easy one to implement for round 46 if we can get a consensus on it. Why 12 for the cap? More balanced teams in my opinion. We tend to have teams get flooded with 30 - 50 members becoming unreachable in wars. Forcing alliances to exist at 12 members would cause them to split apart, and granted they could just team up with one another, the scores won't be effected to much which seems to be a lot of peoples concern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL Bundy Posted June 27, 2018 Report Share Posted June 27, 2018 2 or 3 alliance get over 20 nations.... two of them get to fight while the other has to wait of fight 3-5 other alliance to make it "evenish" With capping at 12 member (2 trade circle), this would make multiple same sized alliances for fighting. Will also make awards more fair to win, so the largest alliance doesn't win them all (most casualties) Im sure there will be flaws but may get more nations to step and be leaders..... Would be cool to try it out for a round or 2 at least. Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted June 30, 2018 Report Share Posted June 30, 2018 On 6/28/2018 at 1:38 AM, SeaBeeGipson said: More balanced teams in my opinion. We tend to have teams get flooded with 30 - 50 members becoming unreachable in wars. Forcing alliances to exist at 12 members would cause them to split apart, and granted they could just team up with one another, the scores won't be effected to much which seems to be a lot of peoples concern Score isnt a problem with "Strongest AA" gone. Not having a go at you but there are plenty of AAs who sit there with a handful of nations not contributing to or competing for AA awards anyways. Im neither here nor thereon capping, but if you dont like the fact D1 has 20 plus members and you dont, then recruit as they have done. What reward will they, or any AA for that matter continue to get from recruiting if you cap it at 12? You may get more smaller competition, but surely some hunger to recruit would disappear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted June 30, 2018 Report Share Posted June 30, 2018 55 minutes ago, StevieG said: Score isnt a problem with "Strongest AA" gone. Not having a go at you but there are plenty of AAs who sit there with a handful of nations not contributing to or competing for AA awards anyways. Im neither here nor thereon capping, but if you dont like the fact D1 has 20 plus members and you dont, then recruit as they have done. What reward will they, or any AA for that matter continue to get from recruiting if you cap it at 12? You may get more smaller competition, but surely some hunger to recruit would disappear? For once I agree with you. Alliance caps will pool the most active, coordinated and knowledgeable together meaning the playing field will still be out of balance. I'd say there will be 2-3 dominant super star alliances which is little difference from having 2-3 larger dominant alliances. I think a better solution would be to have inactive micros merge under an active and ambitious leadership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne World Posted July 3, 2018 Report Share Posted July 3, 2018 On 6/27/2018 at 9:20 AM, admin said: Would like more input here. This would be an easy one to implement for round 46 if we can get a consensus on it. Why 12 for the cap? If you have notice Admin There is no one who is against it. Your question was why 12 It is 2 trade circles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosier Posted July 9, 2018 Report Share Posted July 9, 2018 Yo Capping is fine IMO, Even down to 6 instead of 12. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted July 10, 2018 Report Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) No 6 would be plain dumb. It would be ok to try a round with capping it at 12, but I think if its always capped you are going to lose members not gain them. Sure it throws the AA prizes way up for grabs by limiting the effect of recruiting. The communities that are built out of the AAs we create and run may stick together with hard work from the leadership, essentially running multiple AAs under one umbrella to keep our communities engaged and interacting with each other. or it may just trickle out into nothing. . Some members from the smaller AAs to communicate and participate in the Wider TE Community, but the mainstay is these 20 odd man AAs, who harbour a community that is extremely interactive and communicative. Wolves and Iron can easily grow to 20 odd and that puts us at 4 AAs with 20odd. Decent really. But you would make all these AAs potentially cut a line down the middle and split into 2, so that the smaller AAs can compete for AA awards? You guys should just merge. Putting a 12 man CAP will turn it into a cutthroat game, which is absolutely fine for a round. Dont be squealing up declare down declare though. It will be no holds barred thats for sure. Edited July 11, 2018 by StevieG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasso Posted July 11, 2018 Report Share Posted July 11, 2018 Keep it as it is, no reason to cap anything at anything. Quality over quantity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaslov Posted September 21, 2018 Report Share Posted September 21, 2018 So far I've only played one round of CN:TE. It seems like the goal is to fight a lot of wars, and to help your AA win awards. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Personally, I found it to be good training for warfighting in the regular CN game, without the risk of hurting my CN nation. It was also fun to create a temporary nation. My alliance had 12 to 16 members, enough to set up three good trade circles for maximum resources -- yet small enough to sort of "get to know" the other people in my alliance. That's my 2 bits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL Bundy Posted December 19, 2018 Report Share Posted December 19, 2018 Everyone, This round makes it clear capping at 12 nations per alliances need to happen! If each alliance had 12 nations, that is enough for 2 trade circles, there would be 7 to 8 alliances with 8-12 members vs 1 huge, 1 medium and the rest below 10. Wars would be better for more choices in targets, and new leaders will arise. Ya there will be hiccups, like team-ups but we been through that crap before. Lets spread out the nations left playing TE and have some fun! @admin I will share this around to get more feedback like you asked for above.... As you can see this is how this round is: (And really there is 5 pending nations in SG) ***P.S.... Not at all blaming or criticizing SG, glad to see so many want to be there. Alliance Total Active Strength Avg Score Anarchy Infras Tech Nukes 1) Sexy Gladiators 26 25 3,318 128 62.46 0 719 44 0 2) DEFCON 1 15 15 1,504 100 36.02 0 313 54 0 3) New League of Nations 10 10 49,471 4,947 25.63 0 10,102 1,920 0 4) Total Party Kill 8 8 20,961 2,620 20.45 0 4,525 420 0 5) New Desolate Order 7 7 9,191 1,313 17.09 0 2,304 320 0 6) Ordo Paradoxia 5 5 2,178 436 12.51 0 441 72 0 7) Digital Combat Puppies 2 2 6 3 6.94 0 2 0 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewersalliance Posted December 19, 2018 Report Share Posted December 19, 2018 It would allow for more parity that's for sure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentMK Posted December 19, 2018 Report Share Posted December 19, 2018 On 7/10/2018 at 8:18 AM, StevieG said: No 6 would be plain dumb. It would be ok to try a round with capping it at 12, but I think if its always capped you are going to lose members not gain them. Sure it throws the AA prizes way up for grabs by limiting the effect of recruiting. The communities that are built out of the AAs we create and run may stick together with hard work from the leadership, essentially running multiple AAs under one umbrella to keep our communities engaged and interacting with each other. or it may just trickle out into nothing. . Some members from the smaller AAs to communicate and participate in the Wider TE Community, but the mainstay is these 20 odd man AAs, who harbour a community that is extremely interactive and communicative. Wolves and Iron can easily grow to 20 odd and that puts us at 4 AAs with 20odd. Decent really. But you would make all these AAs potentially cut a line down the middle and split into 2, so that the smaller AAs can compete for AA awards? You guys should just merge. Putting a 12 man CAP will turn it into a cutthroat game, which is absolutely fine for a round. Dont be squealing up declare down declare though. It will be no holds barred thats for sure. Agreed. A cap will just keep things even more unbalanced Imagine a AA with the best players of SG, or D1 or any of the big AAs left. That alliance would win all awards. Even more so, as they don't have to deal with inactivity. It's better to stick with the current system. The smaller AAs should instead look to merging into one big alliance. Alliance based games are about adaptation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL Bundy Posted December 19, 2018 Report Share Posted December 19, 2018 39 minutes ago, AgentMK said: Agreed. A cap will just keep things even more unbalanced Imagine a AA with the best players of SG, or D1 or any of the big AAs left. That alliance would win all awards. Even more so, as they don't have to deal with inactivity. It's better to stick with the current system. The smaller AAs should instead look to merging into one big alliance. Alliance based games are about adaptation. So its better to have 30 experts playing in one aa than 3 aas of 10 experts playing against each other? Things stay the same the game will continue to loose players....look at this round....you are loosing players and old leaders that have been around for years... But hell im all for everyone just joining one aa, that sounds like a blast to me. Al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted December 19, 2018 Report Share Posted December 19, 2018 I would like to see one round with a cap at 12 per alliance. We can always change it back to the way it has been previously the following round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne World Posted December 19, 2018 Report Share Posted December 19, 2018 do it Get people interested so it does not die Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggles Posted December 19, 2018 Report Share Posted December 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Wayne World said: DO IT! Get people interested so it does not die I'll add my support to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaznawim Posted December 19, 2018 Report Share Posted December 19, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, AL Bundy said: So its better to have 30 experts playing in one aa than 3 aas of 10 experts playing against each other? Things stay the same the game will continue to loose players....look at this round....you are loosing players and old leaders that have been around for years... But hell im all for everyone just joining one aa, that sounds like a blast to me. Al It is completely natural for every alliance to lose players over a period of time, although we have not lost anything substantial. We are being led by the same leaders and generally have the same membership that we have always had to start this round off. The thing that separates Sexy Gladiators from other alliances is our ability to retain our membership over long periods of time and to also efficiently replace if not grow our membership over time. One could argue that the fault lies with the alliances that are unable to keep their members motivated enough to keep playing tournament edition. Edited December 19, 2018 by Kaznawim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted December 20, 2018 Report Share Posted December 20, 2018 2 hours ago, Kaznawim said: One could argue that the fault lies with the alliances that are unable to keep their members motivated enough to keep playing tournament edition. One could. One is not going to, however. You did motivate me to send out a few recruitment messages. That was not my original intent when deciding to play this round but what the hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiredGun Posted December 20, 2018 Report Share Posted December 20, 2018 On 12/20/2018 at 7:55 AM, Kaznawim said: It is completely natural for every alliance to lose players over a period of time, although we have not lost anything substantial. We are being led by the same leaders and generally have the same membership that we have always had to start this round off. The thing that separates Sexy Gladiators from other alliances is our ability to retain our membership over long periods of time and to also efficiently replace if not grow our membership over time. One could argue that the fault lies with the alliances that are unable to keep their members motivated enough to keep playing tournament edition. Isn't this like your 3rd round as Sg yet you speak of "long periods of time". Heh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaznawim Posted December 21, 2018 Report Share Posted December 21, 2018 On 12/19/2018 at 6:23 PM, White Chocolate said: One could. One is not going to, however. You did motivate me to send out a few recruitment messages. That was not my original intent when deciding to play this round but what the hell. That is fantastic! You must find it in you to raise an army capable of challenging us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaznawim Posted December 21, 2018 Report Share Posted December 21, 2018 3 hours ago, HiredGun said: Isn't this like your 3rd round as Sg yet you speak of "long periods of time". Heh You're forgetting a couple. It only took us about three rounds to force D1 to disband Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.