Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Alliance Establishment Cost Increase
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedAlliance Establishment Cost Increase
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Prometheuz View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 230 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Alliance Establishment Cost Increase
    Posted: 14 Jun 2012 at 10:57
Originally posted by SunStorm SunStorm wrote:

I could not agree more.  In fact, I had recommended an increase in the past as well.  Still, I wonder how this might affect the players who look forward to starting up their own little alliance. 

Can we find some middle ground?

Here is my recommendation for restructuring alliances:
+5o,ooo starts a 25 member alliance.
+5oo,ooo = upgrade to 50 member alliance
+5,ooo,ooo = upgrade to 75 member alliance
+5o,ooo,ooo = upgrade to 100 member alliance
+5oo,ooo,ooo = upgrade to 125 member alliance
+5,ooo,ooo,ooo = upgrade to 150 member alliance
+5,ooo,ooo,ooo more = 10 new members allowed (can be repeated up to 200 members max)

By setting up the alliance in such a way that it can be upgraded by leadership, helps to solve some of these issues.  New players can create a small little banding of friends, and with alliance tax the alliance can slowly grow as needed. 
I think that this is a shockiing idea. It seems to amount to buying success and status, in a sandbox system, rather than earning it through gameplay
Back to Top
SunStorm View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jun 2012 at 05:05
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

A major downside of escalating costs for larger alliances is that it would make it even more difficult for newer players to band together and become a force in the game.
Actually, a lower starting cost would not make it more difficult...  (Unless my logic is flawed in some way - which it may very well be.)

Originally posted by Subatoi Subatoi wrote:

Sunstorms suggestion would just make it easier for communication while being very taxing.
Exactly my point.  Thanks.  (^_^)
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
Back to Top
Subatoi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2012 at 01:43
What?

Please we can see that the Crows have gotten around the 100 member max, that isn't an attack on crow mind you its an observation.  Original crow alliance fills up, they start another one, and another one etc.

That is what happens with a lot of alliances, start to run out of room, save a few spots for veteran recruits and launch a new part of that alliance.  Sunstorms suggestion would just make it easier for communication while being very taxing.
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2012 at 01:33
A major downside of escalating costs for larger alliances is that it would make it even more difficult for newer players to band together and become a force in the game.  That might sound just fine to those of us who are established and have millions of gold, but let's not deprive the newbs of the hope (however unlikely) that they can come in and take over the place.

I'm not saying I want a bunch of noobs to take over or that I think such an outcome is likely, but I do think they should be able to try.

Sandbox.
Back to Top
Hora View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2012 at 01:04
I like SunStorms idea of upgrading alliance numbers.

I first got a shock at looking at this long row of zeros for the bigger alliances, but after a bit of considering, it could be actually done, but would be a challenge.

It also would encourage most alliances to make some use of the rather neglected tax option again (most top alliances having 0% atm...)

As an additional consequence, I can see falling market prices, as more alliances will try to make money, and money is drawn out of the game (as a counterpart to the money coming out of nothing every hour...)
Back to Top
Rohk View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 09 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 218 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2012 at 00:40
Originally posted by Subatoi Subatoi wrote:

FWIW=?



FWIW = For What It's Worth
Back to Top
Rohk View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 09 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 218 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2012 at 00:39
Originally posted by Cerridwyn Cerridwyn wrote:

I don't know a lot about how alliances and alliance controls are set up, having never founded an alliance. But I would not decrease the number of people.

What I would do is set up a Tanist role. Where the lord appoints an heir. If the lord does not log in for 30 days, the heir then owns the alliance. If there is no heir, after the lord is inactive for 30 days, the alliance automatically disbands. poof. This would lead to less alliances of 1 inactive person.

I would also like to see training alliances take themselves seriously. Learning the game is much more than just feeding resources and giving people forum links. I think it should be really about how to learn game mechanics, what is the best way to build up your cities, your military, your diplomats. Are quests worth it, etc. The more you learn, the more you are likely to stay. Just being fed resources can eventually lead to boredom.

I would not mind seeing chartered training alliances where certain standards have to be met and players in those alliances could only remain 30 days but could keep their safe flag the entire time. Then they would go out into the world better able to not just thrive, but survive.

I think there should be a good way also for people to show their alliance pride here on the forums. Maybe alliances after a certain time of stability could have a flag or a pip or whatever you want to call it and you would have a spot in your profile for 2 of them, one for each alt, and you could show with pride where you called home. The more pride alliances take in themselves and their members, the better they can contribute to the game.

But then I have a different playing style than others do.

What training alliances do that? I know in FDU that we have tournaments, guides, and active teachers in AC to help train our members and I know that some other training alliances do the same, but I know I can't speak for everyone.
Back to Top
Subatoi View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 01 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 380 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2012 at 00:36
FWIW=?
Back to Top
dunnoob View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jun 2012 at 00:19
Originally posted by Subatoi Subatoi wrote:

can i scold them for begging?  i thought i read somewhere it was discouraged but that doesnt seem to do anything.
FWIW the "begging in GC" bit is mentioned in the rules:  Repeated or bothersome begging for resources in Global Chat is discouraged.  One reason why I didn't accept invitations back in December was that I feared to get into diplomatic troubles with the Huns, unsuited for peaceful alliances... Wink  

Update (ob. on topic): +1 for SunStorm's suggestion.


Edited by dunnoob - 11 Jun 2012 at 00:21
Back to Top
Garth View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2012
Location: Somewhere, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 249 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jun 2012 at 20:54
Originally posted by SunStorm SunStorm wrote:

I could not agree more.  In fact, I had recommended an increase in the past as well.  Still, I wonder how this might affect the players who look forward to starting up their own little alliance. 

Can we find some middle ground?

Here is my recommendation for restructuring alliances:
+5o,ooo starts a 25 member alliance.
+5oo,ooo = upgrade to 50 member alliance
+5,ooo,ooo = upgrade to 75 member alliance
+5o,ooo,ooo = upgrade to 100 member alliance
+5oo,ooo,ooo = upgrade to 125 member alliance
+5,ooo,ooo,ooo = upgrade to 150 member alliance
+5,ooo,ooo,ooo more = 10 new members allowed (can be repeated up to 200 members max)

By setting up the alliance in such a way that it can be upgraded by leadership, helps to solve some of these issues.  New players can create a small little banding of friends, and with alliance tax the alliance can slowly grow as needed. 
Not a bad idea at all. I could get on board with this.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.