raise score needed to make an alliance

[Hereno]

too many alliances that can never be relevant that are full of noobs without any 100+ score nations

 

solution: make it so you need 100 score to make an alliance

 

not only would this solve this problem, but it would also help to funnel newbies into established alliances which would be better for all of us

[Toxxikation]

Bad idea. This would not foster the growth of new alliances. It will turn into a stagnant pool of alliances at the top with a bunch of members only there because they can't make it on their own and they're too weak to start their own alliance.

[glad30]

I agree with the fact that it is a bad idea. I can myself attest to the fact that my nation is weak and growing, however, it is often extremely fun and rewarding for new players to the game to see their fledgling alliance take off the ground and grow larger. Also, in the scheme of global politics, it presents larger alliances the opportunity for proxy wars and specialized trade.

[Hereno]

Bad idea. This would not foster the growth of new alliances. It will turn into a stagnant pool of alliances at the top with a bunch of members only there because they can't make it on their own and they're too weak to start their own alliance.

100 score is not a lot of score.

 

The fact of the matter is that this game has a very small player base. Ideally, yes, any group of newbies would be able to walk in and create their own alliance for their friends to dick around in. But that's not how the economics of this game work. Inevitably, there will be large disparities between the new nations and the nations who matter in the upper tier; between the people who have been playing for a year now, and who have figured everything out, and the new players who are completely ignorant as to how the game works. Right now, these groups are largely separated. We already have people who can only attack less than a dozen nations in the entire game. And it is being exacerbated by PayToWin sums of money which have created an upper tier of players among the upper tier. Simply put, steps need to be taken to grow the player base, to get people involved in alliances, and to fix the problems that always follow these seniority spreadsheet games which nobody wants to address. This can be done by funneling newer people into established alliances where they can learn the ropes and get money dropped on them from above, to be turned into useful nations.

[Geronimo]

Bad idea. Decreasing on color stock bonus must be the real reason why this idea comes up.

[Dwynn]

No... for multiple reasons. As you yourself said Hereno, 100 score isn't much. So having that as a requirement to form an alliance wouldn't really fix the problem you're attempting to fix.

 

Keeping that aside though, logistically how do you hope to implement that? Without being able to form the alliance, there's nothing for the system to check. How will it know you have 100 score or not since none of the nations would be under any sort of alliance umbrella. You'd have to have some sort of manual approval system in place for alliances, which is another bad idea.

 

#no.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Micheal Malone

[Hereno]

Bad idea. Decreasing on color stock bonus must be the real reason why this idea comes up.

it's still shitposting even if you're being serious

 

No... for multiple reasons. As you yourself said Hereno, 100 score isn't much. So having that as a requirement to form an alliance wouldn't really fix the problem you're attempting to fix.

 

Keeping that aside though, logistically how do you hope to implement that? Without being able to form the alliance, there's nothing for the system to check. How will it know you have 100 score or not since none of the nations would be under any sort of alliance umbrella. You'd have to have some sort of manual approval system in place for alliances, which is another bad idea.

 

#no.

we already have a score level in place to make an alliance

 

my suggestion is to raise it up some

 

lol

Edited November 6, 2014 by Hereno

[Greene]

Even as an alliance leader, I have to agree that alliances shouldn't be this easy to form. Maybe raise the score and add a cost to founding an alliance? If we add a monetary (or resource?) cost, then we can also reduce the prevalence of the work-around of a larger nation creating an alliance for a smaller nation. At the same time, another benefit (?) to adding a non-refundable monetary cost would be that alliances would be much less likely to set up satellite alliances, which would in turn make that war tactic of color bombing much more costly, so much less likely.

[Fox Fire]

Personally, I don't care about this, because I don't plan on making an alliance.

My concern is that this Will be highly.unattractive to New players.

Lets.say that one day, an alliance from another game decides to.join PaW...

Well, that probably won't happen. First, they would all have to join a different alliance. Then they would have.to wait around forever just for.one of them to reach 100. Then, they would all have.to leave the alliance they just joined.

I've never been a fan of the color stock bonus. It just creates problems. But hey, solution:

If you don't.like all the micro alliances floating around, let's just wipe them out.

 

Also, my nation is well over a month old and under 100. (Not that I've logged in every day, but a noob on with no idea how to build yet is even worse off).

Edited November 6, 2014 by Fox Fire

[Ashland]

Terrible, terrible idea. First of all score correlates more with age than skill. Second, you pointed out the problem yourself. You just make the big alliances bigger.

[Vincent]

If you raise the requirement to create an alliance then basically you are forcing all the newcomers to join one of the existing alliance as they cant possibly reach that requirement within the first few days.

[Ayayay]

The whole point of the 30 score limit was to prevent 100+ 1 man AA's from people who played for 5 minutes and never returned. If someone spent a week getting to 30 score and wants to create an alliance, they've earned it. Even if they go inactive after a bit they still put in more than enough effort. 

[Hereno]

Personally, I don't care about this, because I don't plan on making an alliance.

My concern is that this Will be highly.unattractive to New players.

Lets.say that one day, an alliance from another game decides to.join PaW...

Well, that probably won't happen. First, they would all have to join a different alliance. Then they would have.to wait around forever just for.one of them to reach 100. Then, they would all have.to leave the alliance they just joined.

I've never been a fan of the color stock bonus. It just creates problems. But hey, solution:

If you don't.like all the micro alliances floating around, let's just wipe them out.

 

Also, my nation is well over a month old and under 100. (Not that I've logged in every day, but a noob on with no idea how to build yet is even worse off).

 

Your nation sucks because you barely even play the game and don't participate in your alliance.

 

Terrible, terrible idea. First of all score correlates more with age than skill. Second, you pointed out the problem yourself. You just make the big alliances bigger.

 

There are no big alliances. There are small alliances and there are useless alliances.

 

The whole point of the 30 score limit was to prevent 100+ 1 man AA's from people who played for 5 minutes and never returned. If someone spent a week getting to 30 score and wants to create an alliance, they've earned it. Even if they go inactive after a bit they still put in more than enough effort.

But don't you think there is merit to the idea that the massive wealth and inexperience gap virtually smothers these alliances in the cradle?

[Ayayay]

But don't you think there is merit to the idea that the massive wealth and inexperience gap virtually smothers these alliances in the cradle?

Yes, but your suggestion is absurd. Just look at Pubstomper and what he did with The Corn Shuckers, a bunch of people who had never played a nation sim before started an alliance, !@#$ed up, learned from the community (read: SK), and then went on to become a top-tier alliance.

 

Basically, we shouldn't make it more difficult for people to create an alliance, instead we should teach them how to run an effective alliance and basic rules when it comes to wars and politics.

[Hereno]

Yes, but your suggestion is absurd. Just look at Pubstomper and what he did with The Corn Shuckers, a bunch of people who had never played a nation sim before started an alliance, !@#$ed up, learned from the community (read: SK), and then went on to become a top-tier alliance.

 

Basically, we shouldn't make it more difficult for people to create an alliance, instead we should teach them how to run an effective alliance and basic rules when it comes to wars and politics.

corn shuckers existed pre-launch

 

they were lucky enough to get a reset to re-do things after having learned the game

 

their situation can no longer happen.

 

you say we should help newbies... that is exactly what i am suggesting. by funneling them into alliances where they can learn the ropes before they try and fail to make an alliance.

[Shellhound]

"Let's help form new alliances by forcing them into big ones!" !@#$ing brilliant.

[P2K]

I agree with you should at least need to have a certain amount of money to get your alliance started in the first place. I agree with Grealind in some ways. But things do seem to be working okay.

[Ashland]

 

Your nation sucks because you barely even play the game and don't participate in your alliance.

 

 

There are no big alliances. There are small alliances and there are useless alliances.

 

 

But don't you think there is merit to the idea that the massive wealth and inexperience gap virtually smothers these alliances in the cradle?

Okay, I'm not debating the MERITS of large alliances, but... they DO exist.  That is all that is important here.

 

Hereno, I kind of get what you're suggesting, but people don't just leave alliances and found new ones for no good reason.  They're forced to quit or something.  I'm currently MoF for BoC.  Once I learn the remainder of what I have not learned, or whatever, I'm not going to up and leave BoC.  I'm going to stay in BoC and do what I'm doing now but better.

 

You seem to think Alliances are... I don't know, companies or something.  They're not.  People grow attached to them.  Do you predict any of your top tier players are going to leave you to form a new alliance?

Edited November 7, 2014 by Ashland

[Dwynn]

So what I'm getting out of this thread is Hereno is mad that people are forming 1-man alliances instead of joining his.

[P2K]

So what I'm getting out of this thread is Hereno is mad that people are forming 1-man alliances instead of joining his.

Everyone is allowed their own opinion. So if he doesn't like it he doesn't have to.

[WISD0MTREE]

You seem to think Alliances are... I don't know, companies or something.  They're not.  People grow attached to them.  Do you predict any of your top tier players are going to leave you to form a new alliance?

Yeah, I'm pretty sad that EoS is gone... 

[Hereno]

>series of ad hominems

 

you guys really have issues separating your ooc from ic, don't you?

[Dwynn]

>series of ad hominems

 

you guys really have issues separating your ooc from ic, don't you?

 

#umadbro?

[Hereno]

#umadbro?

no

 

you admittedly come across to me as a teenager, what with the try-hard shitposting, but i was also once a teenager and so i'm just sort of wishing you'd move on and discuss things seriously

[Dwynn]

no

 

you admittedly come across to me as a teenager, what with the try-hard shitposting, but i was also once a teenager and so i'm just sort of wishing you'd move on and discuss things seriously

Far from teenager, keep trying though. The problem is, I've already told you my thoughts on this. As have others, and because they are opposing views to yours you simply discount them. What you're suggesting doesn't fix the problem you claim to want to fix. In fact, it arguably enhances the problem that you're saying you'd like to fix.

 

While I agree, that there are a lot of 1 man alliances (almost half of them), part of the argument you're making is that their inexperience hampers the game. Which as well is untrue.

 

Funneling nations into established alliances isn't going to magically make them relevant as you appear to insinuate. People who want to play the game, will play the game. People who are casual, will always be casual. Forcing them to join a "more established" alliance or raising the score to create their own isn't going to change that.