Moufassa Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 In other games, an issue that tends to arise is that too many micro alliances show up. I can see this in a way here with the plethora of one-nation alliances beginning to pop up. I suggest that a (small) in-game fee be put in place to create an alliance. Not a fee large enough to break the bank, but just large enough to make someone really think that if they would like to invest in their own alliance. I think $500,000.00 would be enough to suffice. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas II Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I support this. Quote His Imperial Majesty, Tsar Nicholas II The Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias politicsandwar.com/nation/id=4918 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodo Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I see no problem with micro alliances. Many times they end up merging together and forming long lasting giants. Example: Guardian. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pax Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 There's nothing really wrong with there being a bunch of micros imo Quote <+JohnHarms> We need more feminists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I wonder if the 500k would simply be spent or if it'd be deposited in the alliance's bank. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) I support Micro alliance since they usually merge togther to form a bigger alliance. there is no problem of their existence if some of them dislike current establish alliance position. they usually disband and fate away very easily due to foreign force or being out of touch. Rather, I would prefer an alliance should be no less than 2 persons or it would disband automatically after 7days. Edited January 31, 2015 by Arthur James 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seryozha Nikanor Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO there isnt really anything wrong with these micro alliance lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I support the idea of having the $500,000 requirement, however that money should be automatically deposited into their alliance bank. It shouldn't simply disappear. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erin Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) No thanks. Big-alliance politics is kind of a drag for me for various reasons, especially IRL, and I'd rather not be forced into it on the pain of being endlessly declared on because people see me as "None" on the war range page. Besides, there really isn't anything wrong with small alliances. The ones we've got now tend to be full of lower range players who interact on their own level and have little wars and everything, which is nice. I hate having to worry about warring with someone and suddenly activating 500 different treaties with 15 major alliances that could roll me in a second :u it makes the game very sterile, IMO. Edited January 31, 2015 by Erin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 In other games, an issue that tends to arise is that too many micro alliances show up. I can see this in a way here with the plethora of one-nation alliances beginning to pop up. I suggest that a (small) in-game fee be put in place to create an alliance. Not a fee large enough to break the bank, but just large enough to make someone really think that if they would like to invest in their own alliance. I think $500,000.00 would be enough to suffice. !@#$ this idea with fire. One nation AA's cannot possibly last that long to begin with. (And I'm not even going to bother repeating my sentiments about color bullshit bonuses). Other than the stupid color bonuses which I have completely ignored since the day they were implemented, the micros are a non-issue. Who gives a shit about all the micros? If you actually do care, you should just go raid them into the ground like everyone else does. Problem solved. Also this: There's nothing really wrong with there being a bunch of micros imo I support Micro alliance since they usually merge togther to form a bigger alliance. there is no problem of their existence if some of them dislike current establish alliance position. they usually disband and fate away very easily due to foreign force or being out of touch. Rather, I would prefer an alliance should be no less than 2 persons or it would disband automatically after 7days. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO there isnt really anything wrong with these micro alliance lol And on another note: I support the idea of having the $500,000 requirement, however that money should be automatically deposited into their alliance bank. It shouldn't simply disappear. That's absolutely pointless. Then I could just create a new AA and withdraw all the money from the bank immediately afterwards and virtually nothing has changed as opposed to how it is now. Basically all that would do is make people have to click a couple more buttons. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 the 30 score thing already keeps a lot of alliances from forming, I don't know if there need to be additional barriers 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 the 30 score thing already keeps a lot of alliances from forming, I don't know if there need to be additional barriers Which I think is also stupid. I mean, who actually gives a shit if there are a million micros? Perhaps you all should do more recruiting? Or make your recruiting more attractive? Or better yet, get some actually half decent alliances in this game.... Oh wait, all the half decent people were banned or quit already.... I'm clearly in a bad !@#$ing mood tonight. Regardless... I stand by the above statement. 1 Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I support Micro alliance since they usually merge togther to form a bigger alliance. there is no problem of their existence if some of them dislike current establish alliance position. they usually disband and fate away very easily due to foreign force or being out of touch. Rather, I would prefer an alliance should be no less than 2 persons or it would disband automatically after 7days. Why you always copy what other people say? 1 Quote Peace will never be accomplished without war, but war cannot happen without peace.... or something like that idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Why you always copy what other people say? Notabot 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) Why you always copy what other people say?What? Should I say I support micro alliance bcos they don't have to follow the rules which already setup btw establish alliance? it is much better than being non-alliance, bcos they are very easy to be targeted.. which would result merging into big alliance like FSA when they are targeted.. Someone said about the merge apart, I point out the reason of existing micro alliance which would result the merging , there is no problem about it. If it does have micro alliance problem, probably setting a barrier like it must be 2 person at least or get automatically disband after 7days with 3days cooling off some sort....since 1 person of an alliance is no different than a non-alliance except you can be a general yourself, being show up on alliance list and....slightly "looked" better than non-alliance nations in raiding rule situation? Edited January 31, 2015 by Arthur James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kern Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) an idea i got while reading all your post. what about making alliance pay a fee to keep it's structure and representation on the leaderboard. the fee can be like this: starting fee + (number of members* "insert number") + (total point of the alliance / "insert number") the "starting fee" could be high enough to dissuade player to create "one player" alliances. AFAIR, the color bonus is based on the number of players and the number of alliances in that specific color. too many "one player" alliances on a given color would decrease the color bonus ( and could be abused to damage another alliance economy) so there is a need for an incentive to merge, reducing upkeep/member for larger alliance (the upkeep would increase with the alliance but would be divided on all it's member) could lead to the creation of larger alliances. the upkeep cost could be counterbalanced by the alliance tax. Edited January 31, 2015 by John Kern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Juan Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 the 30 score thing already keeps a lot of alliances from forming, I don't know if there need to be additional barriersI think micros make the game more interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moufassa Posted January 31, 2015 Author Share Posted January 31, 2015 I'm not saying micros are bad. Just that a fee of 500K (which could go into the bank) would dissuade those not serious about creating an alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erin Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Why do we need to be serious? What point will there be other than barring people from certain game mechanics because you don't like the way they play? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Which I think is also stupid. I mean, who actually gives a !@#$ if there are a million micros? Perhaps you all should do more recruiting? Or make your recruiting more attractive? Or better yet, get some actually half decent alliances in this game.... Oh wait, all the half decent people were banned or quit already.... Exactly this. In Bloc, there was a plan to get all of the micro, mini, and small alliances to form a third bloc, as opposed to the two major blocs (4chan and bronies). Wow, rude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwemyrn Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 This is a horrible idea. First off $500,000 is not a small fee at all. That's half a million. Second, it doesn't make a bit of a difference if there are small alliance, all of the alliance start out small. You have to recruit on your own terms, so if you stay small that's your fault. Quote -removed by thor- 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.