Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lord Hitchcock

Capping alliances at 12 members

Recommended Posts

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 by Lord Hitchcock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yo

Capping is fine IMO, Even down to 6 instead of 12. lol  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by StevieG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep it as it is, no reason to cap anything at anything. Quality over quantity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
award.png
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
award.png
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
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

DO IT!

 

Get people interested so it does not die

 

I'll add my support to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Kaznawim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...