Railroad New Players into joining established alliances

[Corvidae]

Basically a locked-in part of the tutorial / nation creation that displays all of the top 30 (allowing alliances to opt out of the list) and forces a new player to apply to one before continuing.

This would only be for newly created nations moving forward.

Also lock alliance creation behind nation age of 30 days. This barrier is so small yet it prevents brand new players from coming in to create a nano-sized 1 man AA then quit thinking the game is so mean and "they raided me and destroyed my nation" etc.

Basically feed new players to established groups who can train them - so they can at least see what the game is like before they simply go offline forever.

 

 

I know this is a semi-controversial thought but I think it would significantly increase player retention in the long-term.

Edited February 25, 2022 by roberts

[Changeup]

I agree with the alliance creation part, but new players should never be locked into joining a small selection of alliances. Many people are here to play with their friends or simply want to be in a small alliance.

[Schnauzerguy]

Either vastly increase the top 30 alliance rule or get rid of it. It excludes I think every raiding alliance from new players choices.

[Kalachthefirst]

I agree with not allowing nations under 30 days old to make alliances.

[Krampus]

27 minutes ago, Schnauzerguy said:

Either vastly increase the top 30 alliance rule or get rid of it. It excludes I think every raiding alliance from new players choices.

A better way would be asking the person what kind of playstyle they want to go with. A person who's more interested in citybuilding (or base building as it is called in other genres) won't be joining Arrgh, and a person who is interested in raiding/looting won't be joining TFP (where it is illegal to raid), and then letting them pick from there

I would also like to mention, forcing a new player to do something is not the way to go about doing this. If you force someone, that means the decision won't be theirs, breaking their immersion. If I was told "oi, fresh meat, shut it and go join any of these alliances" I wouldn't be that interested. Instead, if you were to use positive reinforcement to suggest them to do something, for example by giving them some kind of reward for joining an alliance, that would be far more productive than just banning the alternative. Negative feedback will always generate a much stronger emotional response (that's a psychology fun fact), than nudging the player with the carrot.

Overall though, I agree with the proposal.

 

  

Edited February 25, 2022 by Krampus

[Jacob Knox]

I agree with the proposition on not allowing new nations to create an alliance within 30 days or so, but I strongly disagree with forcing players to join any particular alliance(s), especially as part of the tutorial. What if they don't want to join any alliance, for whatever reason? Then they can't progress in the tutorial. New players who join micros/nanos may be annoying to some of you, but by God they have a right to do so and they'll learn the game one way or another. You can't force people to learn anything, especially not a particular way.

[Alex]

Players are required to join an alliance to proceed through Objectives currently, but it's not limited to the top 30

[KiWilliam]

I'd love to see literally any other change made to the Tutorial/Objectives/onboarding.

At the very least I'd rather see no change, than bad change.

I will hold my breath. At this point I'd rather see no other changes be made.

[Johnson Boris]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Players are required to join an alliance to proceed through Objectives currently, but it's not limited to the top 30

As it is, it is ok. The only thing I would add is to either change the bottom where it says "join" to saying "apply", be more clear regarding the necessity for new players to join their aa's servers or requiring new players to become members of their alliance to continue with the tutorial. The first option would honestly make a big difference since, as a new player, it is often confusing whether or not you are in an alliance the second you press join or not.

3 hours ago, Krampus said:

A better way would be asking the person what kind of playstyle they want to go with. A person who's more interested in citybuilding (or base building as it is called in other genres) won't be joining Arrgh, and a person who is interested in raiding/looting won't be joining TFP (where it is illegal to raid), and then letting them pick from there

I would also like to mention, forcing a new player to do something is not the way to go about doing this. If you force someone, that means the decision won't be theirs, breaking their immersion. If I was told "oi, fresh meat, shut it and go join any of these alliances" I wouldn't be that interested. Instead, if you were to use positive reinforcement to suggest them to do something, for example by giving them some kind of reward for joining an alliance, that would be far more productive than just banning the alternative.

I like the style part that you mention, but instead of making it about what part of the game you like more, which is hard to know for new players, you could make it about the overall vibe of the alliance. Defined with adjectives such as "heavily political", "dank" or others. 

I understand the part that you talk about forcing new players, but I'm sorry, it is necessary to join an alliance at some point, it is almost forcing if you want to play the game. This game is super hard to decipher and understand otherwise. New players should definitely be forced to join some kind of alliance

4 hours ago, roberts said:

Basically a locked-in part of the tutorial / nation creation that displays all of the top 30 (allowing alliances to opt out of the list) and forces a new player to apply to one before continuing.

I'm sorry, but as someone who worked in IA in a small aa, our IA department was decent or at least way more decent than some of the alliances in the top 30 that come to mind. Stopping at aa in the top 30 completely devastates alliances below that rank, reducing diversity and options in the long run. Big alliances are already favoured in the long run anyways due to the fact that they appear first in the alliance search tab.

[Ukunaka]

14 hours ago, Krampus said:

...A person who's more interested in citybuilding (or base building as it is called in other genres) won't be joining Arrgh...

A person that is interested in city building should still join a raider alliance first. that way they can get their 100 wars won+lost slot with 20 rounds of raiding (less if they get countered enough) and stack enough loot up in their bank to fund many of their own cities. Instead of being debt trapped in their 1st alliance even if they dont really like it, unable to leave because they cant get out of debt since they were forced to build up out of the easy money tier too early and might also have raiding restrictions on most things in the tier they were built up too.

 Other than raider alliances, academy alliances that emphasize raiding while small and then growing when they are actually ready are also fine.