Jump to content
Squiddy

Alliance member caps

Recommended Posts

I feel as if (purely my own opinion, please list out any problems) there should be a member cap on alliances. Between 90-110 members. This would allow other alliance to be created since alliances would then become "Quality>Quantity". Alliances would kick out more inactives and non contributing members, and in turn allow those who do play the game to join. In addition, in order to become a top 10 alliance, they would have to concentrate on their members.

I feel as if there are some flaws in this but do you guys see what the main purpose is? :3

 

Annnnnnd this is my first post on the forums.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we've had the idea before

one major issue

why wouldnt alliances just create splinters with MDAPs? nothing stopping them

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel as if (purely my own opinion, please list out any problems) there should be a member cap on alliances. Between 90-110 members. 

 

This would achieve little. 

 

Although having 100+ members under one alliance's jurisdiction is quite something, nothing stops an alliance from branching out, signing MDAPs, and doing whatever the government decides.

 

Scenario:

 

Alliance 'A' reaches its member cap of x members. Alliance 'A' has a Leader, and a Regent. The Leader tells the Regent to create Alliance 'B', and thus Alliance 'A' expands its memberbase by simply shifting the 'extras' to 'B'. Sure, this plan has its inherent risks, but overall, it can theoretically work.

 

 

I feel as if (purely my own opinion, please list out any problems) there should be a member cap on alliances. Between 90-110 members. This would allow other alliance to be created since alliances would then become "Quality>Quantity". 

 

This is an artificial way of controlling politics; clear red mark.

 

 

Alliances would kick out more inactives and non contributing members, and in turn allow those who do play the game to join. 

 

That's something they should already do; IA policies often have this. Hell, I've yet to see an alliance that doesn't have this unless they're tax farming. *cough* NPO *cough*

 

 

In addition, in order to become a top 10 alliance, they would have to concentrate on their members.

 

This is already present in the current mech. An alliance needs to focus on their members, otherwise they leave; score drops. Members don't grow - other alliances take the top 10 spots. New members don't come - alliance stagnates.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi squiddy :3

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing that needs to happen in regards to alliances is getting rid of all the ones that have 0 members

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel as if (purely my own opinion, please list out any problems) there should be a member cap on alliances.

  1. This would allow other alliance to be created since alliances would then become "Quality>Quantity".
  2. Alliances would kick out more inactives and non contributing members,
  3. and in turn allow those who do play the game to join.
  4. In addition, in order to become a top 10 alliance, they would have to concentrate on their members.

 

It's an interesting suggestion and I feel like there are more than one things you want to achieve with this, so I will analyze them furter.

  1. About the first point. As in many other games, new players tend to join the top alliances just out of reflex and, indeed, in many of these games there is a cap for guilds/alliances. Looking at the current state though, I think that the top alliances already have a filtering mechanism (time-consuming application procedures, etc.), so this is not such a huge concern: many new players prefer to join an alliance quickly rather than joining a top-tier alliance.
  2. True. That would increase the quality of alliances. This is something though that the alliances themselves should try to achieve and not something that would be imposed. If an alliance has 50% inactives just for the score, it just harm itself. Forget the taxes the inactives provide: Arrgh will make sure to change their nation color to grey. :v
  3. The first two points where about the alliance itself, while this point is about the individual players. I think this is the most valid point actually: a mechanism imposed by the game to ensure that active players are rewarded and attain the position they deserve.
  4. I think that many alliances have already built great communities around them and certainly the top alliances are part of this network.

 

Annnnnnd this is my first post on the forums.

 

Welcome on board. ^_^

 

 

 

Although having 100+ members under one alliance's jurisdiction is quite something, nothing stops an alliance from branching out, signing MDAPs, and doing whatever the government decides.

 

The thing is that people are greedy, so it would actually work the way Squiddy suggests. :P

Two "brother" alliances or a mother alliance and an academy are quite different from an individual alliance. Even within alliances themselves you can see coups. And of course we have seen MDAPs being burnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that people are greedy, so it would actually work the way Squiddy suggests. :P

Two "brother" alliances or a mother alliance and an academy are quite different from an individual alliance. Even within alliances themselves you can see coups. And of course we have seen MDAPs being burnt.

 

Aye, true. It would, I assume, add a certain flavor to intra-alliance politics  :P However, my point is that this 'mechanic' can very easily be circumvented, though the execution of the circumvention will still be in the hands of the alliance leaders, and open for further faults by the alliance leader. Personally, I see the action as inhibiting to the alliance's policies as a whole. Sure, these can add more intra-alliance upheaval, but is that the game's duty to do, or is it the players?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing that needs to happen in regards to alliances is getting rid of all the ones that have 0 members

Click on the alliance to view it. It'll remove it from the game.

 

giphy.gif

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But yeah, this suggestion has been brought up and shot down more times than I can count (so like 5 times). Easy to get around, just makes a hassle for literally everyone in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with all these suggestions which are asking for admin assistance on what is the fault of the community? 

 

You want a quality > quantity alliance? Go and make one, we need more of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd be curtailing the gameplay of mass member alliances. No.

 

  

Less this

The thing is that people are greedy, so it would actually work the way Squiddy suggests. :P Two "brother" alliances or a mother alliance and an academy are quite different from an individual alliance. Even within alliances themselves you can see coups. And of course we have seen MDAPs being burnt.

More this

 

I can see why squiddy suggested it. I'd guess it came up like "if an alliance gets, say, 200 members. They win! Nobody can stand up to that and the taxes would make them unfathomably rich atleast 2x faster than anyone below them, having a cap on members would be preventing that, making it more fair"

 

But seeing how we live in a world with Syndisphere, people like their big alliances, and like signing treaties. Say a 50 member limit was set. Within a day there'd be multiple branches of every alliance, similar names, market sharing, and all in all it'd just overflow poor kurdanak with the treaty web.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

similar names, market sharing, and all in all it'd just overflow poor kurdanak with the treaty web.

I like making Kurdanak work it

 

giphy.gif?response_id=591d185a612b69adbf

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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.