Jump to content

Alliance Creation Restrictions


Zed
 Share

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

There's a simpler solution to this. One that doesn't require anything but a tweak in the code, but requires a massive community wide consensus.

Step 1, raise the score required to even found an alliance. 3000 should be fine, that's around the area of c18, I was only c19 when I started my own. If you're an alliance who doesn't have anyone that big to, say, offshore, this is what you have allies and protectors and Yarr for. Make relationships and use them.

Step 2, the community needs to simply stop enabling the people you describe. When I ran a micro I made a pointed habit of striking down anything that dared breath without protection, because I knew it was only there as it was an ineffective entity needing to be dealt a death blow. There are many other micros like this that's existed and continue to exist, run by people who've failed time and time again and yet for some reason, this community supposedly so toxic and hateful of micros, continues to enable them.

Why is Nokia constantly permitted to runabout tossing players into a fire with his asinine shenanigans? Why does minesome always seem to find someone willing to enable his 3,047th attempt at pretending he matters? We don't just enable the clueless we enable those who should know better but never learn because they are never forced to.

At the end of the day, this is a community created problem, and can be solved by it. 

  While true, the single most damaging part of the problem is "black hole" alliances; alliances that are completely unable to provide a compelling gameplay experience for their members, unwilling to improve themselves, and just constantly chew up and spit out genuinely new players that don't know any better and never will have the chance to.

That's why I like this one of the OP's ideas:

1 hour ago, Zed said:

Restriction 3: Newly Created Alliances Cannot Recruit New Players Unless They Meet A Minimum Sizeable Standard

While creating a new alliance can be done by anyone who meets the above criteria, just having one person go off and and then recruit new players to the game after joining somewhere else is probably not an indicator of success. New players does not mean new members, however. If someone were to create an alliance, and then find other established players to join them, they would likely have all of the skills they need to at least pretend to know what they are doing. There should be a minimum threshold, of members and/or total nation strength, which is required to form an alliance capable of recruiting players who are new to the game, as outlined in Restriction 2 above. Alliances can be created without meeting these criteria, such as as in the case of pirates, financial services groups, pet projects like Fraggle, but those alliances should not be able to recruit players who are new to the game. This does also not restrict established players from going in and out of those new alliances, even if the alliance itself cannot recruit brand new players.

If we ensure that new players are explicitly only recruitable by established and capable alliances, then they'll be given a much better introduction to the game and will be far, far more likely to stick around and far far more capable of forming their own alliances later on. It is only addressing a symptom of the problem, yes, but you gotta put out the fire before you buff out the ashes.

Meanwhile, new alliances can absolutely come into being... if they're able to bring in at least a solid core of people that in theory at least know what a not terrible alliance even looks like. If a group of entirely new players want to come in from somewhere else and make their own alliance, they can do so by temporarily joining somewhere, then all leaving at once.

Only problem I can see with this is if all the alliances that meet the standards of recruiting new players refuse to let them go, but even then that's no different than the status quo of you beating them down for existing sans protection anyway, so it's impossible to really take any steps backwards with this idea.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While some of the restrictions are sensible others are outright fricking stupid. Maybe you want the price of credits to go up so whatever I’ll give you a pass for that one but it’s already hard for micros to recruit and restricting that is the pinnacle of clownery.You also fail to consider experienced players who want to reroll and then create a alliance. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Deborah Kobayashi said:

Things like this hurt player retention.

Things were much more fun when people could make alliances at 300 score.

 

If i had to wait to 3k to make an alliance, i wouldnt have came back, id just go to A&O when it releases.

You can raid enough cash to get to 3000 score in a matter of a couple weeks if you really wanted to, not to mention established alliances usually having great growth programs.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leopold von Habsburg said:

You can raid enough cash to get to 3000 score in a matter of a couple weeks if you really wanted to, not to mention established alliances usually having great growth programs.

So?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deborah Kobayashi said:

So?

So I think you're being a little melodramatic that the fact you can't make an alliance day 1 would turn you off and make you quit the game...again.

Edited by Leopold von Habsburg
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

There's a simpler solution to this. One that doesn't require anything but a tweak in the code, but requires a massive community wide consensus.

Step 1, raise the score required to even found an alliance. 3000 should be fine, that's around the area of c18, I was only c19 when I started my own. If you're an alliance who doesn't have anyone that big to, say, offshore, this is what you have allies and protectors and Yarr for. Make relationships and use them.

Step 2, the community needs to simply stop enabling the people you describe. When I ran a micro I made a pointed habit of striking down anything that dared breath without protection, because I knew it was only there as it was an ineffective entity needing to be dealt a death blow. There are many other micros like this that's existed and continue to exist, run by people who've failed time and time again and yet for some reason, this community supposedly so toxic and hateful of micros, continues to enable them.

Why is Nokia constantly permitted to runabout tossing players into a fire with his asinine shenanigans? Why does minesome always seem to find someone willing to enable his 3,047th attempt at pretending he matters? We don't just enable the clueless we enable those who should know better but never learn because they are never forced to.

At the end of the day, this is a community created problem, and can be solved by it. 

 

Step 1 you mention is something I didn't explicitly call out, because I wanted to give an option to people who wish to play in the small tiers but have some experience a method of doing so. I do not think I would be opposed to a higher score floor to founding an alliance though, and it is a relatively straightforward thing to implement. Whether that individually and completely addresses some of these concerns, I am not entirely sure. But I like it.

I do also concur that there is some element of a community created problem at work here.

 

22 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

  While true, the single most damaging part of the problem is "black hole" alliances; alliances that are completely unable to provide a compelling gameplay experience for their members, unwilling to improve themselves, and just constantly chew up and spit out genuinely new players that don't know any better and never will have the chance to.

That's why I like this one of the OP's ideas:

If we ensure that new players are explicitly only recruitable by established and capable alliances, then they'll be given a much better introduction to the game and will be far, far more likely to stick around and far far more capable of forming their own alliances later on. It is only addressing a symptom of the problem, yes, but you gotta put out the fire before you buff out the ashes.

Meanwhile, new alliances can absolutely come into being... if they're able to bring in at least a solid core of people that in theory at least know what a not terrible alliance even looks like. If a group of entirely new players want to come in from somewhere else and make their own alliance, they can do so by temporarily joining somewhere, then all leaving at once.

Only problem I can see with this is if all the alliances that meet the standards of recruiting new players refuse to let them go, but even then that's no different than the status quo of you beating them down for existing sans protection anyway, so it's impossible to really take any steps backwards with this idea.

 

Mid-market alliances do play a valuable role in the games ecosystem. They sign treaties on the fringes of spheres, or they create their own mini-spheres of influence, or they are able to align to multiple spheres. Some people will find more value in a smaller community of people rather than a large one. High-quality mid-market alliances would absolutely bring more intrigue and dynamism to the game, provide more options for flavor and community, and give more active leaders willing to make moves in the game. I am absolutely all for it. There are new people out there who will want a smaller community. I would like that smaller community to have more of a chance to succeed.

 

13 minutes ago, Liberty said:

While some of the restrictions are sensible others are outright fricking stupid. Maybe you want the price of credits to go up so whatever I’ll give you a pass for that one but it’s already hard for micros to recruit and restricting that is the pinnacle of clownery.You also fail to consider experienced players who want to reroll and then create a alliance. 

Honestly I have never bought, used, transferred, or redeemed a credit. Not one.

Making it more difficult for micros to recruit is part of the entire premise of the post. As another commenter stated, "Why should we be making it easier for players who don’t know what they’re doing to create alliances?"

I will concede that experienced players who want to reroll are a bit stuck in this situation. That is a fair critique. I would not be opposed to someone providing verification to Alex as to a previous nation in order to bypass some of these proposed restrictions.

 

5 minutes ago, Deborah Kobayashi said:

Things like this hurt player retention.

Things were much more fun when people could make alliances at 300 score.

 

If i had to wait to 3k to make an alliance, i wouldnt have came back, id just go to A&O when it releases.

 

I stated a bit above that mid-sized alliances are absolutely critical to this game and its ecosystem. The point of this post is not to have like two alliances in the entire game. That would be ridiculous. The point also is not to discourage alternative paths to an alliance. Do I particularly like dealing with Arrgh (or insert your own pirate alliance here)? Not really. Does Arrgh (or insert your own pirate alliance here) bring something unique, valuable, and interesting to the game? They absolutely do. Or look at an group like Taith. They bring something different and unique to the game. They aren't traditional alliances like the major powers. This game needs more of that, and it needs more competent mid-level alliances to complement the major powers which will always have an outsized say on the greater game as a whole.

But for brand new players to the game, there are many instances of "Weeb alliance #30482 that lasted 1 month", that saw brand new players come in, do some things, get bored, and leave. There was no wider interaction with the greater community. The point is for a game that isn't brand new anymore, like PnW, that without other community imports, new players need some kind of nurturing from us as a community.

  • Upvote 6

In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem.
Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cüm Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Leopold von Habsburg said:

You can raid enough cash to get to 3000 score in a matter of a couple weeks if you really wanted to, not to mention established alliances usually having great growth programs.

Don’t you think alliances would like to slow down that growth so you don’t leave. That’s what would happen if this was implemented.

10 minutes ago, Zed said:

I would not be opposed to someone providing verification to Alex as to a previous nation in order to bypass some of these proposed restrictions

Man expecting Alex too do work is honestly hilarious.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the problem with the player sink alliances, so im fine with making a credit or a test or something before making alliance, i just have a problem with arbitrarily decided score or time requirements, its up to us as a community to conduct better politics and war against these alliances (and stop protecting every bloody one swamp lite!) and maybe train them, its not impossible for noobs to learn to run an alliance quickly.

 

We really need to fix the tutorial to better explain concepts to players, but we also have to remember that some people join the game with the intention of creating something new, for me thats the only point to play, some people are fine being a cog and getting stuck in a forced grant program and tons of debt but others are not.

 

I really dont know the solution, maybe make discord mandatory to create an alliance, maybe make a test to prove some level of competence.

 

I'd prefer a city count requirement of 10 instead of a time or score requirement. While the credit thing is a good idea on the surface, this creates a problem for offshores and directly governed extensions.

 

I dont think any of these solutions will end this problem, there is also long time established alliances who fit the requirements like FARK and others that give members outdated information and are just as much of a player sink.

Edited by Deborah Kobayashi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Liberty said:

Don’t you think alliances would like to slow down that growth so you don’t leave. That’s what would happen if this was implemented.

Man expecting Alex too do work is honestly hilarious.

 

If any reputable alliance tried to slow down growth, they would first be shamed, and then second absolutely blasted by other alliances in the recruiting game. Not only that, but by limiting your new players you are deliberately harming your own alliance by either delaying their time clocks (which means they can't catch up as quickly), or you are limiting the overall potential and strength of your own alliance.

I would absolutely use it as a recruiting tool to say that I grew new players faster and more effectively than anyone else out there. The return on investment is worth it.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Deborah Kobayashi said:

I understand the problem with the player sink alliances, so im fine with making a credit or a test or something before making alliance, i just have a problem with arbitrarily decided score or time requirements, its up to us as a community to conduct better politics and war against these alliances (and stop protecting every bloody one swamp lite!) and maybe train them, its not impossible for noobs to learn to run an alliance quickly.

 

We really need to fix the tutorial to better explain concepts to players, but we also have to remember that some people join the game with the intention of creating something new, for me thats the only point to play, some people are fine being a cog and getting stuck in a forced grant program and tons of debt but others are not.

 

I really dont know the solution, maybe make discord mandatory to create an alliance, maybe make a test to prove some level of competence.

 

I'd prefer a city count requirement of 10 instead of a time or score requirement. While the credit thing is a good idea on the surface, this creates a problem for offshores and directly govern extensions.

 

I dont think any of these solutions will end this problem, their is also long time established alliances who fit the requirements like FARK and others that give members outdated informationand are just as much as a player sink.

 

I know im biased in this arguement because i like micro Wars and FA and as a raider want more targets with higher profit. 

 

I do not really want to put lower-performing established alliances on blast here, because that is not the intended point of this post. I do believe that poor-performing historical alliances are a detriment, but there is a high bar for this. NPO lost a lot of wars while they were here, and yet I would not consider them to be a poor-performing alliance. They were a major force to compete against. Granted some of their methods were found to be in violation of the game rules, and while I will not condone that I will say that just because an alliance has a losing record in wars does not mean automatically it is poor-performing. The same is true for alliances that may stay at 10 cities or whatever among their members and cause havoc in their own tier. Endless alliance growth does not always equate the best path forward.

I absolutely agree with your point on improving the tutorial. And maybe a year is too long of an initial suggestion. I threw it out like that because it was easy to measure and showed a healthy rate of commitment. There do need to be some barriers to creating an alliance besides just any Tom, Dick, and Harry just deciding they would create one because they can. That is partially why i suggested some of those requirements, as I thought they might be the most neutral to both accomplishing the task but providing options to players who wanted to do something other than just be in a Top 20 alliance.

There might not be a solution, per se, to this issue. I am proposing this not because I claim to know what it actually is, but to put out something that might be closer to solving the problem.

  • Upvote 3

In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem.
Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cüm Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Uncle Iroh said:

I mean who really cares if a micro alliance wants to form? Top alliances pretend they don't exist half the time anyways. Let people play as they want, not how the players who have been here for years want just because they disagree with what's being done.

Anyone who cares about the games health and growing the number of active and involved players does.

Good to know where you stand on that though.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first alliance was NPO. I left a few weeks later to make a shitty micro with friends. We often didn't know what we were doing but it was a good learning experience, and more importantly, it was fun. 

Seems a bit contradictory to say you want to give new players freedom, but then only suggest mechanics that do the opposite. This would serve to funnel players to alliances with strict membership requirements. 

I get that alliance hopping is annoying but that doesn't mean we need mechanics added to prevent players leaving. Do better vetting, roll them a few times, or be less careless about throwing money around. Preventing people from creating their own alliances just because t$ have a recruitment problem? 

Improving the tutorial would be great. Maybe we could also try to encourage people onto the pnw discord and have more dedicated help channels there (for various aspects of the game). Also some PNW server index which showcase communities (like news servers, banks, or ones dedicated to helping noobs)

 

 

 

 

Edited by Borg
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

5 hours ago, Zed said:

Politics and War is a game with a bit of a learning curve, a somewhat slow daily set of mechanics for average players, and a place where getting solid advice on playing the game can be difficult if you are brand new without knowing existing players. PnW also has some issues with player retention, and I think there are some changes that can be proposed to assist with this. I am proposing a series of changes to the creation of alliances to better improve the quality of community gameplay. There are numerous small micro alliances out there which take new players, get beaten up, and then leave the players frustrated. These players do not interact meaningfully with the game, and thus they quit without seeing the full capabilities of the game itself.

 

Restriction 1: Alliance Creation Should (Once Again) Cost A Credit(s)

This was something from the original restrictions on alliance creation. Credits provide a monetary benefit to Alex as content for the game, but you do not have to pay for them with real life money. Credits also have some actual price attached to them, to prevent the creation of frivolous alliances. Creating an alliance is, or at least should be, a serious venture, and thus it needs to be treated as such. Instituting a price in the form of credit(s) again to create an alliance will be a deterrent to players who do not think through the process of creating an alliance.

 

Restriction 2: Alliance Creation Should Be Restricted To Player Nations With At Least One Year Of Game Experience

Frankly, new player micro alliances do not provide much value to the game. Most brand new players (not including re-rolls) do not have the capability to immediately be successful with the mechanics of the game, or know the politics and culture of how the game operates. While I am not going to make snarky remarks about the low ability of some established alliances out there to seemingly play the game, I at least hope and assume that people in those alliances have played long enough to be comfortable with the Orbis community and the mechanics of the game. This process will take some time to learn, and so new players should be prohibited from creating an alliance until the reach a certain point of game experience.

 

Restriction 3: Newly Created Alliances Cannot Recruit New Players Unless They Meet A Minimum Sizeable Standard

While creating a new alliance can be done by anyone who meets the above criteria, just having one person go off and and then recruit new players to the game after joining somewhere else is probably not an indicator of success. New players does not mean new members, however. If someone were to create an alliance, and then find other established players to join them, they would likely have all of the skills they need to at least pretend to know what they are doing. There should be a minimum threshold, of members and/or total nation strength, which is required to form an alliance capable of recruiting players who are new to the game, as outlined in Restriction 2 above. Alliances can be created without meeting these criteria, such as as in the case of pirates, financial services groups, pet projects like Fraggle, but those alliances should not be able to recruit players who are new to the game. This does also not restrict established players from going in and out of those new alliances, even if the alliance itself cannot recruit brand new players.

 

Addition 1: New Players Should Receive Automatic Direction To Alliances Which Wish To Recruit Them

While the tutorial does encourage players to join an alliance, and there are alliance recruitment pages, advertisements, and in-game messages, there should be more guidance and funneling for players to join established alliances. An alliance like Grumpy which is not going to recruit new players does not have to be forced into this. An alliance that would be fine with new players joining but might not explicitly actively recruit (perhaps one of the pirates?) does not have to actively participate, but passively could. Alliances that wish to actively recruit will need to have the human players to do this, which encourages broader community building and active daily play.

 

Note 1: All Existing Alliances Are Grandfathered In

Have your own alliance or group now that does not meet the above standards? Great, you can keep it. I do not think it is fair to enforce alliances that do not meet this criteria currently to have to immediately comply. However, creation of new alliances, including by the same people in the grandfathered alliances, would have to be under the terms presented above. Over time, this restriction will be redundant as the number of affected players will diminish.

 

Note 2: Players Should Still Feel Free To Build Nations And Play As They See Fit

Want to stay at one city and build nuclear weapons up to the sky like Fraggle? Want to just raid indiscriminately, and do your own thing? Want to stay in an alliance as a small nation, and then when you get out form a small city raiding team with friends? Want to build a financial services alliance? Want to grow as fast as you possibly can? Do it! I do not believe there are any issues with those methods of play style. There is a variety in PnW which is good, and should be encouraged. Micro alliances with new players who do not know what they are doing, and do not engage with the game, however, do not fit something that is good for the community or game.

 

Note 3: New Players Can Leave To Join Another Established Alliance At Any Time Within The First Year

Not everything works out, and not every culture is a good fit. If a new player does not believe they have joined an alliance that fits them, they should be free to leave it and apply to be a member of another established alliance. We do not want to promote alliance hopping or trying to cheat the promotional systems of alliances, but there are times where a new player would rather try to join another community to find a better fit. That is fine, and should be allowed within reason.

 

Note 4: We Assume That If You Can Create An Alliance That You Know What You Need To Do To Survive

You probably would not create a new alliance without treaties, or know that you will actively raid, or however else you want to play the meta of the game. If you are able to create an alliance, we assume that you will know what to do and how to do it in order to stay protected, or engage with the wider community. It is true that there are some established alliances out there that are truly sorry excuses to be playing right now, but by this point if you have played the game for some time then you should at least have a bit of a clue as to what you are doing. Brand new players, for the most part, will not have this understanding.

I think we agree what makes a sensible path for success creating a new alliance and which I'd also recommend to others (and have done including on this forum), however I disagree with codifying it in the game mechanics and removing the freedom of players experimenting with alliances (whatever their apparent experience level). I also think it's unfair to frame the onus on players to avoid disrupting other players' interest in the game while simply pursuing their own interests and ambitions, such as creating a micro. Furthermore I think you may not fully appreciate why new players join micros. Lastly, I think Alex could probably do more to guide new players during their early game and that this would be a more effective way to retain players.

  • More restrictions on new alliances
    I reject the idea that the game needs to codify our shared view on the most sensible path to new alliance success as it presumes it to be indisputably superior and necessary, but it is not. Some people have relevant real world experience or experience in similar games that is transferable, or a natural ability to organise and lead, or may easily absorb and apply new information that does not require them to sit around for a year waiting for their turn. My concern is with restricting the freedom of players to play the game how they want to, not how you or I think they should. I also think this is for some players the major appeal to playing the game to begin with.
     
  • Circumventing new alliance restrictions
    There's no getting around the credit requirement, however the alliance creation itself can be circumvented by asking a friend to create it for you, or perhaps an alliance reseller industry pops-up to meet the demand of new players. So it's not a very effective measure. On another point, can nations just hit VM and pop-out a year later when they're actually allowed to play how they wanted to? Does this increase the value and likelihood of illegal account trading (more moderation problems for Alex)?
     
  • Unduly burdening returning players
    @Liberty rightly points out that experienced players may reroll or return to the game later and no longer be able to make an alliance. Your suggested fix here increases Alex's moderation load again and also may not be realistic where individuals wish to restart anonymously or no longer have contacts to vouch for them.
     
  • Why people join micros
    I think you might not appreciate that there are a lot of new players that join micros because the entry requirements are so low, sometimes it's as simple as hitting the apply button. These players were never going to join an alliance with a formal forum application, a follow-up interview via Discord, then a week long academy concluded with a series of tests or whatever variation of the application process (indeed some new players are so averse to formal processes they refuse to join an alliance at all). I kind of tested this myself when I first started Typhon as a paperless raiding alliance with no real entry requirements, at one (brief) point I believe we became the most populous alliance in the game. The point here is these were all players that had long been blasted with big alliance recruitment messaging before I ever had their ear, but they didn't want the hassle of jumping through hoops just to join an alliance. This is why micros exist. If micros didn't exist my guess is the retention rate will actually suffer even more as players averse to elaborate application processes will just stop playing even earlier. The other thing to consider is that micros constantly create accessible gov space for these new players to engage in, giving them responsibilities that seem unrealistic to them to ever achieve in large established alliances that make it feel more like a job than a game. In a way the game services players of two different mindsets, those who don't mind engaging with other players and putting in extra effort to integrate with the community, and those that just thought the sound of a nation sim sounded kind of cool and want to cruise by doing their own little thing (serviced readily by the low entry requirements of micros). The last group was never going to jump through hoops to join your prestigious alliance, and taking away micros won't change that but it might kill off a portion of the playerbase. I think that's unnecessary and a shame.
     
  • Improving guidance for new players
    The last time I did the in-game tutorial (a few months ago) it was still telling players to build farms, this needs to be revised as it seems deceptive to explain the improvement purchasing mechanics while asking players to make one of the worst raw resource improvement selections. However, I don't think it's Alex's responsibility to expand on the tutorial and explain to players how best to play the game but simply a general explanation of game mechanics and site navigation; alliances serve the purpose of guiding players and will be more responsive to changes than Alex in adapting a tutorial as gameplay styles change. However, I think Alex could try to explain to new players the larger organisation, responsibility and interaction of alliances in the game and how players can gauge their quality and importance:
    - Explain the purpose of alliances, how they work and what they might provide their members ("Yes they may tax you, but they may also offer grants, loans, guides, advice, banking etc.").
    - Emphasise the fact an unaligned nation is likely to get endlessly raided; it's not realistic to remain unaligned.
    - Why alliances go to war and generally how often.
    - Emphasise the fact alliances vary significantly so players know the right fit isn't necessarily their first alliance.
    - Emphasise some of the typical application requirements, such as using Discord or completing an interview, so that these concepts don't seem so intimidating and outline why these exist and their relationship to a focus on quality membership instead of quantity.
    - Explain the value of Discord in socialising with other players, finding useful P&W related servers (insert link to the official one) or importance for effective war time coordination in an alliance.
    - Help players understand how alliances interact with each other, what the basic treaties mean and point out the treaty web and encourage reading the forum to keep up with political happenings (which itself may translate to a player that is more invested and engaged with what's happening beyond their alliance's bubble).
    - Emphasise that war happens to everyone and it's not game over.
    You might argue these are things an alliance could explain to players, but it doesn't help that the players are trying to make important decisions about who they should join before they appreciate these points, as such Alex's tutorial and objectives are a better opportunity to communicate these points with new players and help them appreciate the actual game experience and what they should expect and how they fit into the Orbis arena. It might also be an idea to throw up a warning message on the alliance join screen when the alliance is new, lead by a new player, or does not have a protector or m-level treaty with a significant sized alliance so the player knows there may be risks associated with joining what might generally be recognised as an inexperienced and riskier start-up.

Having said all that, I think with the game being a text based, player driven nation sim with limited appeal, there was always going to be a lot of players that try it and disappear. With some improvements here and there, maybe Alex improves retention a little, but I've personally never been able to get any of my friends to stick with it. I don't like the idea of restricting how people play based on some notion of 'the right way'. I'm also unconvinced that micros simply existing causes player losses and in fact think such restrictions would cause player losses as I believe the microverse caters to a more casual playerbase that would not choose to play in a more restrictive environment.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • 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.