Popular Post Raphael Posted October 17, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted October 17, 2019 (edited) @Alex Embrace your inner Theodore Roosevelt. My suggestion is to implement a 300 member limit on alliances. This would affect only one alliance in the game right now. While maybe a harsh measure, I think it's necessary given that the rest of your player base reside in alliances that average 30-70 members. This would require alliances with over 300 members to form "colonies" of some sort, if they wish to retain more than 300 members. More importantly, it would require trusted government for each group of 300. The past has also shown us that these "colonies" tend to form interesting political splits over time so it might open the avenue for more dynamic politics. At worst, it's a layer of red-tape to balance out the fact that we have a 1200 (and growing) member alliance. At best, maybe it'll force some kind of action. Edited October 17, 2019 by Vivec 2 12 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Vivec said: This would affect only one alliance in the game right now. While maybe a harsh measure, I think it's necessary given that the rest of your player base reside in alliances that average 30-70 members. Why isn't it instead necessary for various smaller alliances to merge or collaborate more closely? I'm curious to know why you think any burden to change should be on larger groups rather than smaller ones. Quote This would require alliances with over 300 members to form "colonies" of some sort, if they wish to retain more than 300 members. More importantly, it would require trusted government for each group of 300. The past has also shown us that these "colonies" tend to form interesting political splits over time so it might open the avenue for more dynamic politics. What past? I'm unaware of any history of colony-like administrative division within alliances that have led to meaningful political splits later on. Quote At worst, it's a layer of red-tape to balance out the fact that we have a 1200 (and growing) member alliance. At best, maybe it'll force some kind of action. Alex has said in the past that the doesn't want to encourage these types of gamey, multi-AA alliances, so your "worst" case scenario is, unless he changes his mind, off the table. Edited October 17, 2019 by Edward I 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 100% onboard with Edward here. If you limit AA sizes to 50, you'll just NPO Mk1, Mk1 and Mk3, it doesn't change anything. Smaller alliances SHOULD consolidate what they have and merge, but for a variety of reasons that rarely works, and is a cultural thing that should be worked out of people. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krampus Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 15 minutes ago, Akuryo said: 100% onboard with Edward here. If you limit AA sizes to 50, you'll just NPO Mk1, Mk1 and Mk3, it doesn't change anything. Smaller alliances SHOULD consolidate what they have and merge, but for a variety of reasons that rarely works, and is a cultural thing that should be worked out of people. Have you paid any attention to what Vivec said? He specifically said the intented limit would be 300, not 50. Which is nearly two and a half times NPO's current member count. Let's be honest here, no small alliance would merge past the 300 member mark for a variety of reasons including but not limited to just not possesing that many members, (which i would like to mention has never happened before.) Moreover, the whole point of this suggestion is to limit stuff like NPO's 1200 man alliance, not prevent micros/smaller alliances from merging. I'd suggest you re-read his suggestion with a clear mind. 6 3 Quote Inform Zigbir I have forgotten how to edit the signature field Please remind me how to do it post haste! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Just now, Krampus said: Have you paid any attention to what Vivec said? He specifically said the intented limit would be 300, not 50. Which is nearly two and a half times NPO's current member count. Let's be honest here, no small alliance would merge past the 300 member mark for a variety of reasons including but not limited to just not possesing that many members, (which i would like to mention has never happened before.) Moreover, the whole point of this suggestion is to limit stuff like NPO's 1200 man alliance, not prevent micros/smaller alliances from merging. I'd suggest you re-read his suggestion with a clear mind. Have you paid attention to what I said? No, you haven't, you just want to pretend you're more clever than you are. My post pointed out the utter futility of such a limit, something you'd have realized if you considered what people said and not how smart you are because you think you've broken their argument. 1 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krampus Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Akuryo said: Have you paid attention to what I said? No, you haven't, you just want to pretend you're more clever than you are. My post pointed out the utter futility of such a limit, something you'd have realized if you considered what people said and not how smart you are because you think you've broken their argument. Your argument doesn't apply in the first place, since you are saying smaller alliances should consolidate and merge, under a thread which is trying to prevent gigantic 1k+ member alliances from forming. An alliance with 1200 members isn't a "smaller alliance" now is it We are all for alliances merging, but this has hardly anything to do with that. Edited October 17, 2019 by Krampus 1 Quote Inform Zigbir I have forgotten how to edit the signature field Please remind me how to do it post haste! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Krampus said: Moreover, the whole point of this suggestion is to limit stuff like NPO's 1200 man alliance, not prevent micros/smaller alliances from merging. 50 minutes ago, Krampus said: Your argument doesn't apply in the first place, since you are saying smaller alliances should consolidate and merge, under a thread which is trying to prevent gigantic 1k+ member alliances from forming. An alliance with 1200 members isn't a "smaller alliance" now is it And neither you nor Vivec has offered a coherent justification for such a restriction. I can't figure out what "past" has "shown" him that administrative divisions become political divisions, and neither of you seems motivated by anything besides discomfort at size disparities between alliances. Why should size disparities be regulated in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 I like the idea, but the numbers shouldn't be a static amount imo, something using medians or averages might suffice better. Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daveth Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 (edited) In light of the Guinea Pig infestation that has taken Orbis, which renders benefits by the means of referral links to mass recruited nations that will most likely go inactive eventually once they've hit the 500 Score requirement and deposited the bonus. After that is done, I'd imagine the over 1.2k nations with 10 cities would serve nicely as tax subjects, as well as a means by which to keep a slot in the leaderboard with bloated and not necessarily active low score nations. Should they get raided despite the low score, the main alliance is likely to counter with the active percentage of the sub-alliance, making it harder for raiders and estabilishing a hegemony in the low tier. The way I see it, while the number of people in an alliance isn't really the problem here, though I believe a 300 member maximum is reasonable, GPWC in specific seems to be just the case I depicted from analysis, setting a precedent for other alliances to operate under the same premise, by which they can freely use this system to benefit themselves in a short amount of time. Such alliances should be monitored for various reasons, in order to avoid exploitation of in-game mechanics. Edited October 17, 2019 by Daveth 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Popular Post Alex Posted October 17, 2019 Administrators Popular Post Share Posted October 17, 2019 I don't really see a reason to cap alliance sizes. As was stated, all that would happen is a confusing mess of "Alliance Name 1" "Alliance Name 2" that are all allied together. To be a meaningful change, we'd also have to require some limit to the number of nations that can all be allied together through alliances and treaties, but that isn't really possible to enforce. 9 1 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooper_ Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 I don't agree with this suggestion because as I've stated previously we should explore all means possible to increase members. That being said, those members ought to be active and contributing to the game. What worries me about a 1200-man alliance like GPWC is that 90% of them aren't active and just exist as tax farms for others' benefits (whether they be intra- or inter-alliance). @Alex if possible, could you look into new means of maintaining a nation? This might warrant a separate post, but if we had a system where there was a probational period, which I know something like it exists, that requires some modicum of activity to keep a nation after like 2 months or so. I only suggest this because it seems to confer an advantage on certain populations without actually contributing to the game or even your benefit in terms of ad revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted October 17, 2019 Administrators Share Posted October 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, Cooper_ said: I don't agree with this suggestion because as I've stated previously we should explore all means possible to increase members. That being said, those members ought to be active and contributing to the game. What worries me about a 1200-man alliance like GPWC is that 90% of them aren't active and just exist as tax farms for others' benefits (whether they be intra- or inter-alliance). @Alex if possible, could you look into new means of maintaining a nation? This might warrant a separate post, but if we had a system where there was a probational period, which I know something like it exists, that requires some modicum of activity to keep a nation after like 2 months or so. I only suggest this because it seems to confer an advantage on certain populations without actually contributing to the game or even your benefit in terms of ad revenue. Inactive (gray) nations don't get taxed. There's really no benefit to keeping around inactive nations in an alliance. 2 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooper_ Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Alex said: Inactive (gray) nations don't get taxed. There's really no benefit to keeping around inactive nations in an alliance. It's more of the login once-every-few-weeks as instructed and yet don't do anything to their nations nor plan on it. I honestly don't know how to deal with it, but it's still an issue. It just seems like an exploitation of mechanics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, Alex said: Inactive (gray) nations don't get taxed. There's really no benefit to keeping around inactive nations in an alliance. Basically what he's talking about is if i recruit a bunch of old friends from nationstates and other places i've been to and say "Hey all you gotta do is login like twice a week and build exactly when i say it how i say it and that's it you don't have to do anything else, talking on discord, wars, nothin" and then i just tax them 100/100 and reap the rewards for my active members. Which he finds to be of rather dubious implication, which i do not entirely disagree with. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted October 17, 2019 Administrators Share Posted October 17, 2019 11 minutes ago, Akuryo said: Basically what he's talking about is if i recruit a bunch of old friends from nationstates and other places i've been to and say "Hey all you gotta do is login like twice a week and build exactly when i say it how i say it and that's it you don't have to do anything else, talking on discord, wars, nothin" and then i just tax them 100/100 and reap the rewards for my active members. Which he finds to be of rather dubious implication, which i do not entirely disagree with. Sure, but then they're adding a lot of potential targets to loot their alliance bank as well. But really, what do you want me to do? There's not really a good way to force people to play the game a certain way or else (be banned? Idk.) I find it pretty unlikely that that many people are willing to just blindly follow orders and completely not play the game just to benefit someone else. Surely a number of those players will actually start playing and do their own thing, and a number of them will just go inactive and stop checking in. 3 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 2 hours ago, Alex said: Sure, but then they're adding a lot of potential targets to loot their alliance bank as well. But really, what do you want me to do? There's not really a good way to force people to play the game a certain way or else (be banned? Idk.) I find it pretty unlikely that that many people are willing to just blindly follow orders and completely not play the game just to benefit someone else. Surely a number of those players will actually start playing and do their own thing, and a number of them will just go inactive and stop checking in. No, they're not...? You know that too, because of offshores. I'm not saying anything should or could be done, as i have no ideas on it myself. Just that is kind of wishy-washy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted October 18, 2019 Author Share Posted October 18, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Alex said: Sure, but then they're adding a lot of potential targets to loot their alliance bank as well. But really, what do you want me to do? There's not really a good way to force people to play the game a certain way or else (be banned? Idk.) I find it pretty unlikely that that many people are willing to just blindly follow orders and completely not play the game just to benefit someone else. Surely a number of those players will actually start playing and do their own thing, and a number of them will just go inactive and stop checking in. This suggestion provides a solid way to, in my opinion, fairly try to encourage competition among super-groups like GPWC. At worst (from their perspective) you're making it slightly more complicated for them to operate such a massive alliance. You can look at many other successful clan/guild/alliance-based games and see they all had similar thoughts on limiting members-per-group. People will naturally congregate towards the larger groups and that's fine but if you don't have any regulation then they'll become monopolies. A 300 member limit would be specifically targeting only one alliance - no one else comes close to that number. 6 hours ago, Edward I said: And neither you nor Vivec has offered a coherent justification for such a restriction. I can't figure out what "past" has "shown" him that administrative divisions become political divisions, and neither of you seems motivated by anything besides discomfort at size disparities between alliances. Why should size disparities be regulated in the first place? I'm sorry to bring up "that" game but NPO's colony NpO continues to exist to this day. A relationship that has not always been friendly, across more than one game. Proof positive that colonies can develop into rivalries that can drive politics for years to come. There are other examples in other worlds but I think the Orders are likely the most relevant and the most recognizable. A real world example would be the British colonies and their various revolts. Separate entities can evolve their own cultures and over time this can lead to a desire for independence. Emphasis on the word "can" because I don't want people to think I'm trying to doom GPWC as a community. They just happen to be the only alliance over 300 members. Edited October 18, 2019 by Vivec Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indrasi Moon-and-Star Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, Alex said: Sure, but then they're adding a lot of potential targets to loot their alliance bank as well. But really, what do you want me to do? There's not really a good way to force people to play the game a certain way or else (be banned? Idk.) I find it pretty unlikely that that many people are willing to just blindly follow orders and completely not play the game just to benefit someone else. Surely a number of those players will actually start playing and do their own thing, and a number of them will just go inactive and stop checking in. The Thing is, even if you looted them the percentage of the alliance bank is going to be so small because of member count that it wouldnt even matter if they never sent their bank out to NPO and their offshores. I Dont think anyone should be banned or anything just for being inactive drones, but maybe the member cap of 300 proposed by the false god could be beneficial, or instituting a minimum % to the alliance bank loot percentage formula somehow. Edited October 18, 2019 by Indrasi Moon-and-Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted October 18, 2019 Administrators Share Posted October 18, 2019 16 hours ago, Vivec said: This suggestion provides a solid way to, in my opinion, fairly try to encourage competition among super-groups like GPWC. At worst (from their perspective) you're making it slightly more complicated for them to operate such a massive alliance. You can look at many other successful clan/guild/alliance-based games and see they all had similar thoughts on limiting members-per-group. People will naturally congregate towards the larger groups and that's fine but if you don't have any regulation then they'll become monopolies. A 300 member limit would be specifically targeting only one alliance - no one else comes close to that number. I'm sorry to bring up "that" game but NPO's colony NpO continues to exist to this day. A relationship that has not always been friendly, across more than one game. Proof positive that colonies can develop into rivalries that can drive politics for years to come. There are other examples in other worlds but I think the Orders are likely the most relevant and the most recognizable. A real world example would be the British colonies and their various revolts. Separate entities can evolve their own cultures and over time this can lead to a desire for independence. Emphasis on the word "can" because I don't want people to think I'm trying to doom GPWC as a community. They just happen to be the only alliance over 300 members. I like your logic, but even if they're split up in-game, they'd likely use the same Discord / off-site forum and so it wouldn't really impact their community at all. I think that eventually large clusters will want to break off and form their own alliances once they have enough experience, and I don't think making them technically be separate entities in-game is really going to impact that. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted October 18, 2019 Author Share Posted October 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Alex said: I like your logic, but even if they're split up in-game, they'd likely use the same Discord / off-site forum and so it wouldn't really impact their community at all. I think that eventually large clusters will want to break off and form their own alliances once they have enough experience, and I don't think making them technically be separate entities in-game is really going to impact that. That's fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 (edited) On 10/17/2019 at 11:13 PM, Alex said: Inactive (gray) nations don't get taxed. There's really no benefit to keeping around inactive nations in an alliance. Apart from the time you are able to get to them to log on once or twice a month. when someone is inactive seven days they should be removed from any alliance, unless in VM, pretty sure that be easy to code in, this way it free more nations up to be raided. On 10/17/2019 at 11:35 PM, Alex said: I find it pretty unlikely that that many people are willing to just blindly follow orders and completely not play the game just to benefit someone else. You heard of NPO right, strongest alliance in game. Edited October 19, 2019 by Elijah Mikaelson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 Oh look another politically motivated suggestion. Realistically limiting member count is restricting game growth. You are limiting invasion communities from coming here. So it's a solid no from me. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 30 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You are limiting invasion communities from coming here. That's a bad thing? 1 1 Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 53 minutes ago, REAP3R said: That's a bad thing? It's a terrible thing. Invasion communities are the best means to expand the game and while the numbers maybe high for a while, you get an active different set of political bunch that changes stuff. Mind you, most of the older alliances you find here, are invasion themed from different worlds at different points and have been drivers of the politics for the last few years. New ones help replace that with newer stuff. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 32 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: It's a terrible thing. Invasion communities are the best means to expand the game and while the numbers maybe high for a while, you get an active different set of political bunch that changes stuff. Mind you, most of the older alliances you find here, are invasion themed from different worlds at different points and have been drivers of the politics for the last few years. New ones help replace that with newer stuff. I've seen in other games like Ark Survival Evolved that invasion communities tend to join with the intent to dominate with their overwhelming numbers like a Sherman's march type deal. I'm cynical about the purpose GPWC will serve in pnw and so I guess only time will tell. Regardless I do still support the idea of forcing communities with large member bases to expand their government and create potential diversity internally. It would create an increased risk for having so many numbers, and while NPO may feel targetted (and I can see that), I personally prefer having *more* alliances instead of current alliances growing bigger and bigger (member-wise). 2 Quote Look up to the sky above~ 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.