Requirements for starting an alliance

[Jefferson Davis III]

Lets face it, there has grown an OVER population of alliances, but the problem, is a population of useless ones, I'm talking alliances like ISAF, which has only 1 inactive member in it left, and others that have so little like "The Reich" who have two members with a TOTAL score of 160. Now come on, I remember when there were less than 40 alliances, that made things a little simpler , it also didn't take as much to get to the top, which made it a fun race, but things are so over crowded, and it is frankly, a waist. There should be requirements to start an alliance.

 

1. The Founder should have a score of 100 or higher on their own.

2. It costs $250,000 to start an alliance

3. If all leadership is removed from or leaves the alliance and no is left in the leadership, then the alliance automatically disbands

4. This is more of an unwritten rule but now I'm writing it, please, if your going to make an alliance, try to be active in the community.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Jefferson Davis

[Kadin]

I don't think this is necessary and I don't think it will solve the problems you've described, but at the same time I don't care either way.

 

Have at it.

[Anneal]

I don't approve of the first two rules, but yes, I think the alliance should disband if all leadership is gone or every single member in the alliance is grey. 

[Aksel]

I don't approve of the first two rules, but yes, I think the alliance should disband if all leadership is gone or every single member in the alliance is grey. 

 

This as well - no need to pay or be 100ns

[Dan77]

Agreed.  There are too many alliances, particularly inactive ones.

 

There should be a significant cost to starting one and there should be ways for them to be automatically deleted for inactivity or whatever.

[Pol Pot]

just have alliances where all the nations are inctive auto delete after a few days.

 

if somebody new comes to this game and wants to make alliance. let them make alliance without restricting them as they could do well. if it looks ugly, so what? it harms game restricing people against making alliances.

 

i do not support this

[Malakai]

Lets face it, there has grown an OVER population of alliances, but the problem, is a population of useless ones, I'm talking alliances like ISAF, which has only 1 inactive member in it left, and others that have so little like "The Reich" who have two members with a TOTAL score of 160. Now come on, I remember when there were less than 40 alliances, that made things a little simpler , it also didn't take as much to get to the top, which made it a fun race, but things are so over crowded, and it is frankly, a waist. There should be requirements to start an alliance.

 

1. The Founder should have a score of 100 or higher on their own.

2. It costs $250,000 to start an alliance

3. If all leadership is removed from or leaves the alliance and no is left in the leadership, then the alliance automatically disbands

4. This is more of an unwritten rule but now I'm writing it, please, if your going to make an alliance, try to be active in the community.

 

I like this idea.  Though I think the cost should be upped too closer to $1M

[Red Huxley]

I would like to disagree, I started my alliance around the time I started my nation. In fact, I have played more do to the fact of my alliance, met some great people and was able to get protectorate. Nothing like spending money and getting to know people, amiright? Lol

[Kastor (Old Account)]

Disagree with the first 2. We need more alliances, not less.

[Hereno]

the only one i even sort of like is #3 but currently the way that works, iirc, is that a member of the alliance has to PM sheepy and get it fixed

 

it makes sense to have that for smaller alliances but the potential for abuse is moderately high, re: throwing out all the gov and having an alliance implode

[Dolphman]

I would like to disagree, I started my alliance around the time I started my nation. In fact, I have played more do to the fact of my alliance, met some great people and was able to get protectorate. Nothing like spending money and getting to know people, amiright? Lol

 

Same.

 

Most Raid alliances fall apart within a couple of days however.

[National Assembly]

No to conditions 1 and 2 :3

[James Gordon]

All 4, 100% support. But 100 is too small. A person needs to be truly experienced to create an alliance. How about 500 points? That tells you this person is experienced, loyal and hard working. But in all, great suggestion.

[Pax]

Why? What are these one-man alliances doing? Is there a major problem caused by 1-man alliances existing? Or have we at some point arbitrarily decided what amount of alliances was too many, and what point an alliance needs to be at to exist, and who should run any alliance?

 

Do not support. Even if there are a lot of 1-man alliances that aren't doing anything, they aren't causing any harm. Let them burn themselves out - it's not like they're causing any problems.

[Spite]

Make it so you need 500 score to make one That means new players can only join established alliances, then after 2-3 months if they're desperate to have their own they can. Founding an alliance at under 500 score unless you're coming with a big community behind you (a la Mensa) is just crying to be raided by everyone in range.

[Fox Fire]

Havent we already had this discussion?

[Kurdanak]

Havent we already had this discussion?

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/4567-alliance-creation-fee/