Print Page | Close Window

How Much Should It Cost To Start An Alliance?

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=10445
Printed Date: 21 May 2018 at 02:07
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: How Much Should It Cost To Start An Alliance?
Posted By: eowan the short
Subject: How Much Should It Cost To Start An Alliance?
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2018 at 14:12
This is a continuation of my earlier poll on whether the cost of having an alliance should increase. In the poll, only 13.33% of players voted that the cost of an alliance should remain as it is.

Whilst the poll did include the option for an ongoing cost, the majority did not indicate they would like to see this and as such I have not included ongoing costs in this poll.

The options I have given do not encompass the full range so please select the closest number to what you think would be reasonable. 

-Eowan



Replies:
Posted By: Hyde
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2018 at 14:38
I think this is one of the better suggestions to come out of all these polls.

500,000 is a lot for a newb, but it can also be gifted in res donations. Increasing the price would stop a lot of new player alliances, pushing them more into established alliances where they can have help, grow and hopefully stick around.


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2018 at 16:21
100M. Right now, the bigger, older alliances don't have enough advantages. We should push new players to join those alliances by eliminating their other options. It's not fair to expect the established alliances to make themselves more attractive to new players or to spend more effort on better recruiting. I would have voted for 1 billion, but that wasn't an option.

Also, all established alliances should have to pay the new amount, or else their alliance is automatically disbanded.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2018 at 16:38
I included the 100 mil was an extreme option I expected no one to go for... I personally think it is far too high. But I don't know what others think so I added it anyway.  


Posted By: Blankit
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2018 at 16:56
Originally posted by Ten Kulch Ten Kulch wrote:

100M. Right now, the bigger, older alliances don't have enough advantages. We should push new players to join those alliances by eliminating their other options. It's not fair to expect the established alliances to make themselves more attractive to new players or to spend more effort on better recruiting. I would have voted for 1 billion, but that wasn't an option.

Also, all established alliances should have to pay the new amount, or else their alliance is automatically disbanded.


At the risk of facing in-game hostility at disagreeing here, 1b is a LOT. How does that not make established alliances that are slow and ruled by inertia? A fool's quip: It has to do with the ongoing war. You guys are certain you're the next rulers, so aren't afraid to call yourself a big alliance now. Read any of the earlier post on the blog and we can see how the narrative is of an underdog who wants exciting stuff.

I voted for 10m because it would stop newbs (like me) to make an alliance. But 1b will make even players as old as an year hesitate to make an alliance. Maybe 30m or a pres parchment is as high as the devs should consider.

Agreed with the payment for established alliances. It won't be anything for them and almost none will break due to this while also keeping new players from randomly spamming new alliances.

I repeat: This isn't hostile, just discussion. Maybe a bit passionate, but don't go sabotaging me for this!


-------------
---E ---E Now selling pitchforks at The Pitchfork -Emporium. ---E ---E


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2018 at 17:02
I suspect Ten Kulch was being sarcastic, blankit.
(I don't think he likes all the polls I'm doing because they clutter up his nice, clean, life-free forums :P )


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2018 at 18:15
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

I suspect Ten Kulch was being sarcastic, blankit.

*gasps*

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Dabrelis
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2018 at 18:24
Only thing that really would make sense would be to temporarily deposit a million of each basic in some trade hub as a prerequisite. By this it can be shown that alliance has (some) means to resource feed new recruits.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2018 at 18:25
:o oh no! 

I have clearly offended him by the sound of that horrified gasp!

A thousand apologies oh mighty ruler of a million spears, please leave my tiny account intact!




Posted By: Blankit
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2018 at 19:01
Originally posted by Dabrelis Dabrelis wrote:

Only thing that really would make sense would be to temporarily deposit a million of each basic in some trade hub as a prerequisite. By this it can be shown that alliance has (some) means to resource feed new recruits.


Basic res is easy. Offer 2:1 gold in gc with speeding and you will have a bajillion res. Gold and time are the measure of all things here.


-------------
---E ---E Now selling pitchforks at The Pitchfork -Emporium. ---E ---E


Posted By: rajput
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2018 at 20:27
In my weak sighted eyes Geek, 1Bil is too extreme and 1Mil is too low Disapprove. I voted for 100Mil... Approve
I want it to be discouraging but not too discouraging, it is always healthy to have new politics and cultures.
Btw as a trader, a single player alone can manage 100Mil a year or less.


-------------



Posted By: Silea
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2018 at 06:35
what i would like is an alliance bank area.   with quests or discoveries attached to said bank.  This would give an a reason for joining a more established alliance for the discoveries in the alliance.   But I am also of the opinion to make alliances jump thru to many hoops is not good... maybe instead an alliance has to have 5 avail people to start.  I have seen this done and it keeps the start of alliances down. 


Posted By: Dabrelis
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2018 at 08:30
I am cool with one/few person alliances though. Why not? Whatever makes kid happy...


Posted By: Grom
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2018 at 12:47
I'm gonna say at least 1B, preferably several. While it may seem a lot, it guarantees that alliance can only be started with enough/large enough accounts to make the new alliance viable.


Posted By: IKnight
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2018 at 15:43
I voted 100m. 500k gold is easy to get. For crying out loud, being a terra gets you 25m gold within a week, at least. So all the newbies make alliances and think they know what they are doing. No offense to them, there are a few good leaders among them, but it creates too many "starving alliances". 100m gold is a big price, but not impossible to achieve. So by the time you get this much gold, you should at least know "something" about Illyriad. A billion truly seems like way too much.

~IKnights


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2018 at 16:08
wow, I really didn't expect the 100 mil option to be as popular as it has been. 

This is interesting though... the median is still around the 10 mil mark but it could indicate that perhaps there could be something to be said for implementing ways of levelling up alliances in some way. A topic I did make a poll for but it got little attention. 

http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/should-there-be-a-levelling-system-for-alliances_topic10442.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/should-there-be-a-levelling-system-for-alliances_topic10442.html


Posted By: rajput
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2018 at 19:26
Me thinks Ermm We need to plug these polls on GC... 

-------------



Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2018 at 19:49
I find it amusing that people are still giving the nod to my utterly sarcastic recommendation of 1B gold.

What is the harm in having little alliances? Everyone needs a place to start. Maybe some players join Illy, form a little group, and just play the game amateur-style in the n00b ring. Their ten bucks for prestige is as valid as mine. Not everyone who plays Illyriad wants to join a chat-based personality cult, try to be a tournament champion, or become a capable warmonger. If their alliance can't supply them with unlimited basic resources, it's no big deal. Not everyone wants to prestige build to get to a certain perceived power level. Some players just play for the journey, with no real destination in mind.

When I played GoW, I can't tell you how many alliances were permanently shielded, and people just chatted about becoming warriors without ever getting there. Mostly those people just hunted weaker monsters, harvested, and sometimes bought gold and crafted unimpressive gear. They didn't even fight in kingdom vs kingdom battles. But some of those folks still paid money, and having a team of supportive muggles around them made them feel important, and cemented them into the game. So if some Illyrian n00bs make crappy alliances, give themselves overblown titles, and mint needlessly fancy medals, then maybe we shouldn't judge that harshly. Maybe that's the experience that they wanted for $10 and several dozen hours of gaming entertainment.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2018 at 20:36
Yes... given that it isn't even an option, the 1bn figure seems to be used a lot...
#BlameTenKulch

Currently, the median is 10 mil. If you spend $10 then you definitely have more than 10 mil worth of pres.

Would I judge them? No, but would I also believe the alliance was more likely to fail and if I was an alliance leader would I be less likely to consider them for serious diplomatic relationships? Yes.

This is a long term game with a lot to learn about in it so why shouldn't having an alliance be seen as a long term goal?


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2018 at 20:56
I balk at the number because in the early game, most players don't know how to get gold. People posting here seem to have forgotten the early days when 10M gold seemed like a crazy amount of money. If the requirement were directly translatable to something a new player could clearly acquire, like 100 prestige or 10000 minerals, then I think it becomes more viable. Otherwise it's just an artificial hoop to jump through.

Separately, I question the value of impeding alliance formation as a goal.

Little alliances are also used for red vs. blue skirmishes. 10M might not stop that use model for an established alliance, but 100M might.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2018 at 21:56
If a player is unable to understand how to make a gold they clearly don't know much about the game given that methods of gold creation such as trade and taxes are discussed in the tutorial. If they have prestige then they must have gone through the prestige buying page which shows how prestige can be converted to gold.

The only common methods of getting gold not explicitly mentioned are metagame ones such as terraforming.

Additionally, doesn't it make sense for alliance to cost gold rather than minerals or anything else much in the same way that in real life we'll pay money to form a corporation rather than pay with quartz?

Also, would a player who is unable to make gold really be a suitable candidate for leading a whole alliance?

Currently, alliance formation is a fairly meaningless goal- anyone can make one with ease so there's no challenge there. A slightly higher threshold for having an alliance would make it a goal. 

It could, potentially, lead to a difference there if the price was too high. But then if it was that high, surely empty alliances would become assets in their own right with the potential for being bought and sold for below the cost of forming an alliance?



Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 08 Apr 2018 at 22:25
I see nothing wrong with new players running an alliance. We don't need any additional barriers to early participation in this game.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: AdmiralRage
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 05:12
I agree with TK. Let the natural supply/demand work. There's a demand for new alliances in the game. Right now people are complaining that the supply of new alliances is too high. I'm not actually sure why they are complaining. Maybe because they have to actually try harder to recruit people? Other than that it really shouldn't affect them in any way.

Back to the point. If the supply is too high, enough new alliances will go out of business until it reaches equilibrium with the natural demand. No barriers or government intervention needed.

There could be a way to delete old inactive alliances... but again, doesn't affect anyone's gameplay at all.


Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 08:55
By allowing new players to create these 'micro' alliances we are giving them an opportunity to learn the problems and hard work that come with the job. This not only gives them a better undurstanding of the game but I think it can also have a a real life bonus in that they are more likely to consider repercusions of their actions. I tend towards support for TenK.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 11:07
TenK,
The problem with new players running alliances is that this reduces player retention. If the game had a large amount of new players coming in then that wouldn't be a problem but it doesn't.

Additionally, surely one of the biggest early barriers is knowledge, a barrier that would persist with the new players much longer if they make their own alliance. You yourself have recognised that there is a large knowledge gap between a new player and an older player and attempted to fix this situation by offering classes on the military play style in Thunderdome.

Admiral, 
In economics, there is something called a demerit good. Demerit goods are defined as 'a good or service whose consumption is considered unhealthy, degrading, or otherwise socially undesirable due to the perceived negative effects on the consumers themselves'. 

I would argue that alliances act as a demerit good beyond a certain point as though the new player may want to make an alliance indicating that there is perceived private benefit from doing that, this does not benefit the game as a whole as new player alliances are less likely to survive and the players in them are also less likely to stick around. 
In cases of a demerit good, government intervention is often needed. 

You do not understand why an increase is being proposed? Have you not read the 2 pages of comments containing why people are voting for higher prices? Not a single one has said 'recruiting is too hard, we should make it easier'. Most have talked about the fragmentation of the player base and new player retention, amongst other things.

For an efficient equilibrium to occur as you indicate would happen, you assume that players have perfect, or at the very least adequate, information about the creation of alliances, the time costs involved and the likelihood of failure. However, by definition, new players do not have this information because they are new. Therefore, their choices are not optimal ones. Would it really hurt to get them to wait until they know the game a bit more before they make a choice such as this? 

Here's how too many new player alliances effects existing players: If there are too many, this reduces player retention. This then means that there are fewer players playing the game. This reduces the dev's revenue meaning they are less likely to work on illy. Illyriad is also a social game. Fewer players reduces the number of people to play this social game with. This reduces the social aspect and arguably makes the game worse.


Tens,
Does it give them a better understanding of the game compared to being in an established alliance with vets who can teach them or at the very least, point them to resources that can teach them? If the point is to learn the problems and hard work that comes with the job, then shouldn't that happen after they have the capability to deal with said problems? 

Surely a longer wait during which they can learn the game means that they can make a better decision when they come to make it? Currently, the median is 10 mil which is hardly an insurmountable goal for a new player but is enough to get them to experience the game so they can make an informed decision.


Posted By: OssianII
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 11:09
Originally posted by rajput rajput wrote:

Me thinks Ermm We need to plug these polls on GC... 
Definitely quote of the week  Clap.

I think that the minimum amount of  500000 gold is sufficient. The game must be about having fun, before anything else.  Illy is a vast sandbox game which allows people many paths to follow to and enjoy  the game in which they would prefer to play it. However the establishment and survival of an alliance can be a very difficult task if you fail to take into account the many issues that can arise. Potential recruits should always have an idea of what they are letting themselves in for when they join a new alliance.  Therefore I recommend that we re-establish the Alliance Register which makes leaders provide the details of their alliance.  This will help leaders to establish and improve their alliances  whilst giving the community a certain amount of  transperancy

http://https://forum.illyriad.co.uk/alliance-leaders-give-us-current-details_topic7000.html" rel="nofollow - http://https://forum.illyriad.co.uk/alliance-leaders-give-us-current-details_topic7000.html

OssianII
Ghostwriter and Biographer (Ret'd) Approve


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 12:01
Could you explain to me please why a higher price would necessarily reduce the amount of fun? 

Surely having a goal you need to work towards can be a source of fun? Currently, you get an immediate payout of fun making an alliance but with no build up. If you work for something and feel like you've earned it, wouldn't that be fun in and of itself? 

Its like levelling in other games where you work for a bit and get a reward. Currently, you don't work at all which means there is limited satisfaction to be had in making an alliance. Equally, you don't want to set the goal too high as it becomes too much of a grind. In my opinion, 10 mil provides an adequate amount of difficulty to make creating an alliance a mid term goal whilst at the same time not being so far off as to not be attainable.

Also, if someone doesn't find working towards a goal fun... is leading an alliance really for them? Is Illyriad as a whole for them? This is a long term game, so why should making an alliance be such a casual and short term goal? 

I agree, a proper register of alliances would be a good idea but it needs to be more interactive than that. There needs to be a way of giving players within the alliance, or those who have recently left, a voice to say whether the alliance is actually good. Otherwise, you just have the alliance profile.






Posted By: Dabrelis
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 13:20
Do we actually have a hard proof, that guys who join smaller alliances are more likely to leave the game?
Next to my castle I have a newb who joined PLAN and has not logged in for like month. PLAN is not small.

There could be a point that some guys want to join new alliances and play a bigger role there, than go to established one and become a tiny voice there.


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 13:27
Eowan, your entire thesis is that these small alliances result in a retention problem. Where is the evidence of that? If such a phenomenon exists (which I personally doubt), then surely the devs can see that pattern. They collect considerable metrics on the game.

My gut feel--which is all you are really presenting yourself--is that limiting alliance formation would discourage just as many new players as it retains. If I joined a game with my little Steam team, and found that we couldn't even play together immediately, I would be much more inclined to quit and go find another game where we can build a team on Day 1.

You are also assuming that all players who join Illyriad are primarily limited by resources and knowledge, which in turn assumes that their main goal is to build "good" cities by your standards. I would argue that isn't the goal of many players here.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 14:41
Once again I find myself agreeing with TenK. Resource limitations is not really a factor - how many do you see in GC asking for res when they are in an alliance? For me the lack of knowledge was easily overcome by reading the wealth of guides, chatting and listening in GC and best of all (for me anyway) experimenting. Whilst there are no guides (that I know of) for leading an alliance talking and listening to others is very helpful so it is not impossible for a newbie.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 15:12
I will admit that currently, the evidence I have is anecdotal. However, I will work on some stats and present my findings (though it might take a while). 

They collect considerable metrics yet it appears these metrics are rarely looked at and may be inaccessible in some cases. I tried at length to get historical market data from them to no avail despite the fact that they were willing to supply it and if they monitored these metrics closely then how come the 2 most recent major interventions from them- the RMT issue and the death defy patch- were both player reported?

With your steam team as a case study, I have no knowledge of their existence other than that they are a) little and b) from steam. I'll assume this team has 5 players and no prior knowledge of illy and that the cost of an alliance is 10mil (its what I voted for and the current median). 

So, your steam team joins illy from steam, gets the steam prestige each which is 70 mil per player in prestige value. They have enough to make an alliance easily.

OK, but what if they don't come via steam? What if they come via the browser?

Well, the first guy turns up, gives it a go, has a fun time and invites his friends to join him. He sends them the buddy referral link and he gets 400 prestige, estimated value, 140 mil. He has enough to make an alliance easily. 

OK, but what if they don't use the buddy referral system? What if they start all at the same time?

Well, I believe that the stat for the proportion of the player base that buys prestige is about 1 in 4. You have 5 guys, therefore odds are that at least 1 of them buys a prestige scrap at the very least. Estimated value, 24 mil, he has enough to make an alliance easily.

OK, but what if they aren't pres buyers? What if they want to play for free?

Well, they ask how to make gold quickly in GC because they want to make an alliance and they get told about terraforming. They terraform for 1 week and now have enough to make an alliance.

I can go on and on like this. It takes little effort for a team of players to produce 10 mil in less than a month even without all that stuff. And if they can't wait a month for to earn their 10 mil, how are they going to feel when they find out that to fully research a city takes 18 months? What about when they find out that to have a decent sized army costs hundreds of millions of gold?


This all leads me back to one of my earlier points. In a game with such long term goals as Illyriad, why is making an alliance such a short term thing? 

If they aren't primarily limited by resources and knowledge, then the amount of gold it would cost is irrelevant. If this assumption is correct then you shouldn't care which way it goes so should be entirely neutral. Yet you still respond and argue against an increase?

You assume I am a city builder in my nature and want others to be like that as well. I am not. I am simply of the belief that a solid knowledge of Illyriad helps you make decisions to best reach your goals and have fun and the best way to get said knowledge is to be in an alliance led by people with the ability to teach it.

As a final remark, you stated in a comment on your poll about leaving the game as is that 'land claiming squeezes people into other regions, which become more densely populated as a result, then shouldn't those unclaimed regions be healthier and more active as a result?'. If increasing the concentration of players is truly good for activity, then surely more concentrated alliances are equally good. 


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 15:15
As my past post was rather long and whilst I was typing it, the point has been reiterated I shall respond again to the idea that one of the limiting factors in the early game is not resources. 

If you truly believe that resources are not a limiting factor early on in the game then why do you think raising the cost of making an alliance is a bad thing? Surely you'd believe it would have no effect at all.


Posted By: Mr. Ubiquitous Feral
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 15:19
I agree with Ten Kulch. Again. Please provide the proof that your claim is true. 

If there were to be any changes, I would like to see the following...
1) whatever amount is payed to start the alliance is deposited into the alliance coffers and made available after the membership reaches a certain number.
2) a player needs 5 cities before starting an alliance.
3) more actual Training Alliances.



-------------
I am a Machine.


Posted By: scottfitz
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 18:09
100 Million, anyone who can't easily come up with this trivial amount of gold is not ready to run an alliance.


Posted By: Queen Bacet
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 19:56
I personally for what its worth agree with Ten Kulch.
The amount allowed does allow smaller players to create an alliance and do the things they want to do. Maybe thats all they want from the game. Some maybe returning players that decide thats the way they want to go instead of joining an already established alliance, whose to say they haven't got a different play style to many of the other players.
As it stands the amount is raisable by most players after they have reached some understanding of the game and once the alliance is formed then in turn are around GC to chat and help other players surely with the state of GC lately this is a good thing.
Its certainly brought debate which is also a good thing but putting up the prices of creating an Alliance does nothing for the game in a posative light.

Another way of doing this is creating a teir system where the older bigger alliances pay more each year than the starting alliances and the gold payed goes to some kind of banking system where the gold can only be withdrawn when there is a map wide tournament so smaller players can buy equipment to enter the tournament both helping to encourage new players to take part and be competative. Also starting discusions on the use of equipmeant earlier in the game than prehaps before
This then does not eliminate new players from playing as they wish but encourages new players to be apart of the wider game mechanics. Hopefully holding new players to the game for longer and encouraging alliance training and interaction with their players at an earlier stage.
 Yes i do know alot of the good and big alliances already do this but it will encourage smaller Alliances to learn and understand the game mechanics better as they grow
How the Alliance pays for the steeper charges is down to the individual alliance either through tax or say some kind of kitty where the bigger players can pay more than the newer players so as not to impede the growth of the newer player


Posted By: Mr. Ubiquitous Feral
Date Posted: 11 Apr 2018 at 21:16
I have just completed an experiment. I started a newb alliance with a friend's terra account. I joined GC and was soon told by 3 different players that it was a terrible idea. 1 of them had a one player alliance! The only reason they could give was that it would cause me to lose interest in the game because of not learning from vets, and that i would quit and leave another newb alliance abandoned in the game. No one had a reason other than it is expected for everyone to join an existing alliance.

The problem is that they are assuming untruths. If a newb wants to explore leading an alliance, let them. It is part of the game and even in real life new organizations come and go regularly. This is a dead argument until someone can prove that the claims are true. I will probably give my newb alliance to a newb, and they can play any way they like.

I believe Eowan either had some type of profit in mind or just wanted to be heard again. 


-------------
I am a Machine.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 11 Apr 2018 at 21:40
Umm... please explain that profit motive... I can't see how I would profit at all... 

As for wanted to be heard, I posted on the forums about an issue I found interesting. Equally, you have posted on here... perhaps you just wanted to be heard.

I've been figuring out how to get the stats and it'd be a lot of work I simply can't be bothered to do. Perhaps the if the devs have been monitoring this, they could chime in with any of their findings? 

I do have some questions though that I feel that an increase in the cost of alliances would not be a good thing:

1) Why do you think that making an alliance should be a such a casual and short term goal in a game that is extremely long term?

2) How would you attempt to solve the new player retention issue in a manner that would take relatively little effort for the devs?

3) If new players do not need the support and guidance of larger and older players, why do training alliances exist?


Posted By: Mr. Ubiquitous Feral
Date Posted: 11 Apr 2018 at 21:56
You're funny, Eowan. Everything you do has a profit motive. Here are my answers...

1) I don't. Look for my previous post in this thread.

2) Its not my problem. The game is not a right fit for some and they leave.

3) They do. But a few don't want that. I like Lord Stanley, Myr, Snagglepuss, and yes, even Malek. I like TCol, which will train a player but isn't a training alliance. Notice a pattern? I like the players who are not satisfied by living in a nicely folded envelope, those who want to explore the game and try something new. Some if not most want to train newbs to be farmers and just hunt until something happens to them so they can complain about it.

I also respect your attempts to meta game. I feel that you provide a type of game play that is acceptable as long as you stay within the ToS.


-------------
I am a Machine.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 11 Apr 2018 at 22:30
Originally posted by Mr. Ubiquitous Feral Mr. Ubiquitous Feral wrote:

I agree with Ten Kulch. Again. Please provide the proof that your claim is true. 

If there were to be any changes, I would like to see the following...
1) whatever amount is payed to start the alliance is deposited into the alliance coffers and made available after the membership reaches a certain number.
2) a player needs 5 cities before starting an alliance.
3) more actual Training Alliances.


Point 1 is an interesting idea, especially if the cost were to be raised so it was more of a proof of resources test than an actual cost. 

With Point 2, surely that is a much larger barrier than anything I have suggested with cost. I do, again, see the merits of this as a way of proving capabilities but I feel it really would prevent pre-formed groups from joining the game and starting out together, such as Ten K's example with his steam group. Whether this is a good thing or not is again up for debate. 
The idea of making it a cost rather than a city requirement would be that if a group of players really did want to make their own alliance, they could pool resources to do so.

More training alliances would be nice to see but it would be hard to cause this without a dramatic increase in the number of players in large alliances causing them to need a second alliance to act as a training one.

Originally posted by Mr. Ubiquitous Feral Mr. Ubiquitous Feral wrote:

1) I don't. Look for my previous post in this thread.

2) Its not my problem. The game is not a right fit for some and they leave.

3) They do. But a few don't want that. I like Lord Stanley, Myr, Snagglepuss, and yes, even Malek. I like TCol, which will train a player but isn't a training alliance. Notice a pattern? I like the players who are not satisfied by living in a nicely folded envelope, those who want to explore the game and try something new. Some if not most want to train newbs to be farmers and just hunt until something happens to them so they can complain about it.

I also respect your attempts to meta game. I feel that you provide a type of game play that is acceptable as long as you stay within the ToS.


So, point 1 I feel is dealt with. You seem to think that a simple cost measure would not be effective enough at preventing new player alliances.

For point 2, I'd say it is everyone's problem if the number of players is falling. With fewer players, that means the revenue of the game falls leading to the game dying.

For point 3, not every training alliance encourages the peaceful farmer lifestyle. Look at what ~NS~ is pushing for to see an example of this.

I thank you for your respect but would also like to point out that I started in a training alliance. They gave me the tools and knowledge I needed to grow properly. Admittedly, I had always been interested in trade and as such had developed a working knowledge of the systems there but they told me which hubs beyond centrum were good to work in and taught me things like terraforming.

Not only that, but the training alliance gave me contacts I then was able to trade with.

Long after I had left SV, I still would regularly ping certain members of SV asking for advice and help around various issues.



Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 12 Apr 2018 at 03:03
Eowan, your argument continues to be that Illyriad will retain more new players if they are forced into "good" alliances from the start (according to your definition of "good") and taught how to play the "right" way (according to your definition of "right"). Your conclusion is to cut off their ability to form alliances as new players, without any evidence that 1. forming alliances as new players indeed causes lower retention, or 2. that forcing people through training and established alliances results in higher retention. I helped to run NS for a while, and I saw firsthand how many players just vanished after the first few weeks, even in a "good" alliance that taught them the "right" way to play.

Tweaks will not prevent the inevitable decline of Illyriad. All games fade eventually. The game feels like it has fallen below critical mass, both in terms of active accounts, and also in the vibrancy of the community. Technologically it is aimed at a shrinking demographic of older players. Over time, people will be lured by shiny new baubles and drift away. I don't think limiting the options of new players is going to slow that process.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 12 Apr 2018 at 03:38
I would say a good alliance is one that supports its players and helps them learn how to play the game. However, I would not say a good alliance helps its players learn how to play the game in a prescribed manner
I do not think there is such a thing as a right way to play the game and alliance that attempted to limit its player's ability to follow alternative play styles would not be good. I would have thought that was obvious from the various play styles I have had fun with.

According to you, its already too late. So why not tell the devs to shut off the server right now? Personally, I think rather than accepting that all things come to an end and illy's reaching its end, we should be looking at staving off that end for as long as possible. I don't think we can bring illy back to its former size but I certainly think we can keep things ticking over for longer.

Why not answer the questions I posted whilst you are waiting for the lights to go out?

1) Why do you think that making an alliance should be a such a casual and short term goal in a game that is extremely long term?

2) How would you attempt to solve the new player retention issue in a manner that would take relatively little effort for the devs?

3) If new players do not need the support and guidance of larger and older players, why do training alliances exist?


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 12 Apr 2018 at 13:18
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

According to you, its already too late. So why not tell the devs to shut off the server right now?

Because that fade might take years, and there could be fun left in the game over that time. There are valid entertainment and business reasons to keep the lights on.

Your questions:

1. Because making an alliance can be fun, and games are about fun. People tend to play games while they are enjoying them.

2. That is a very broad question. The kind of question answered by the owners in their business case, not by me in a forum post about the gold cost of founding an alliance.

3. Training alliances are one valid way to learn the game. Being self taught is another. I am not disputing the validity of training alliances, I am disputing that they are the only path to play the game "correctly".

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 12 Apr 2018 at 14:24
Quote 2) How would you attempt to solve the new player retention issue in a manner that would take relatively little effort for the devs?


Short version: Open a new server.

Long version: In my opinion this game has two big problems at the moment:

1) A lot of the long time players have experienced most of the content and/or have reached the goal they wanted to reach. Without new content, tournaments and wars are the only non-constant challenges and usually war against the same alliances gets boring after some time - thus there isn't that much content that keeps long time players motivated after some time.

2) New players join the game, start growing and then realize at some point that there are other players that are up to 7 years ahead with city development and resource/troup production and that it would take years to catch up and get to a similar level.

Starting a new, seperated server would give long-time players a reason to start again while still beeing able to play on the old accounts, players that quit might join again for the new / different experience and new players are not demotivated because everybody starts at zero.

And yes, a new server usually doesn't solve the long time issues but helps keeping players interested for a while.


Posted By: Solanar
Date Posted: 12 Apr 2018 at 17:23
I don't have firm metrics to validate that people who join all newb alliances have retention issues, but my perspective anecdotally says it is true. They aren't able to offer support via resources, advice, or sufficient activity levels to be of value to one another. It's hard enough to find full time zone activity within established alliances that have a critical mass of members. I've said in GC previously that when people give the advice to wait before joining an alliance, that my counter advice is just not to join all newb alliances, since they have nothing to offer.

That's not just illy though, the same nonsense happens in other MMO's that have low hurdles for guild/alliance/corporation/team creation. The best, most active people are made to feel guilty if they want to leave and sometimes quit the game rather than staying somewhere terrible or leaving and feeling like they abandoned their friends by moving to a better group. 


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 12 Apr 2018 at 17:48
Originally posted by Ten Kulch Ten Kulch wrote:

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

According to you, its already too late. So why not tell the devs to shut off the server right now?

Because that fade might take years, and there could be fun left in the game over that time. There are valid entertainment and business reasons to keep the lights on.

Your questions:

1. Because making an alliance can be fun, and games are about fun. People tend to play games while they are enjoying them.

2. That is a very broad question. The kind of question answered by the owners in their business case, not by me in a forum post about the gold cost of founding an alliance.

3. Training alliances are one valid way to learn the game. Being self taught is another. I am not disputing the validity of training alliances, I am disputing that they are the only path to play the game "correctly".


1) Where is the fun in a game with no difficulty or progression? Using that logic, all new players should be spawned with enough gold and troops to fight a war because they might enjoy it. IMO, working for something is what games are about, be it a campaign in an RPG working to take down the main villain or progressing in an MMO like Illyriad


2) The main thrust behind the idea of the increased cost is to increase new player retention. Discussing ideas on how to increase new player retention on a thread such as this as a good a place as any. As for it being the dev's job to come up with new ideas for the game, if I remember correctly, you argued for a stronger death defy effect after the death defy patch. Why so content with the game now?

If they didn't want our input, then why did they make this section of the forums?

3) I haven't said they are the only correct way, I am just stating that they show people recognise that a new player can learn the game much more completely from vets than new players/ no one. 


Posted By: Mr. Ubiquitous Feral
Date Posted: 12 Apr 2018 at 19:10
Eowan, will you please just write a petition and quit this thread? Start a new thread suggesting that if we all started with 50 vans and could build a max of 150, then more newbs would stay in the game. You can do something about this ingame. Start a training alliance, bring in only newbs, and teach them to want to play. Easy as that, but hurry before it costs 100 million to start your alliance!

-------------
I am a Machine.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 12 Apr 2018 at 19:29
lol,
I'd do that but as I'm double terraing, I have neither the account nor the stability to help new players properly.

As conversation is ongoing in this thread, I don't see why I shouldn't continue posting on it. Its not like there's anything else happening on the forums most of the time. 


Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2018 at 01:32
I too have noticed a lot of players that join smaller alliances in continuem abandon frequently. But I think the issue here is that the small alliances and players don't have much to do. The few things they can do are severely limited. Hunt/Craft/Trade repeat is pretty much the only thing to do in a non military account. Sure you can try making meta game stuff but without the game having any other things to do that can be difficult. On the topic of changing the cost of making an alliance, I think 5m is sufficient. 5m in disposable gold is a decent acheivement for a brand new player who didnt receive outside help. And for groups of people joining I'm sure that amount won't be hindering. 


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2018 at 03:05
I agree, there should be more for new alliances in the game... perhaps some sort of meta game league of small alliances.... with competitions and tournaments etc arranged through it.... 

I might give that a go when I'm done with my gold push.


Posted By: Dabrelis
Date Posted: 14 Apr 2018 at 12:33
I have noticed that a lot of players who join bigger alliances abandon frequently :)



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net