Alliance types

DeletedUser23238

Guest
I know I shoul write this in "Ideas", but any time I write there I get 10 people shouting format! and it annoys me to write anything in that format when it is clear what I say without it.

So, what do you think of this:
Before alliance is created it's type is chosen.
Democracy-every month it is an election who will have the founder rights, then he gives other rights to other people.
Oligarchy-The largest player gets founder rights every month and he rules the alliance
Dictatorship-What we have now, everything is done how the orginal founder says.

BTW If anybody likes the idea and rewrites this text in THEIR format and publishes it there I have no problem.
 

DeletedUser27128

Guest
Ever seen an alliance council? A group of people make the decisions. No alliance can run with just one person incharge. Also, why would you want leaders changing every month?! It destroys diplomacy, communications, everything.
 

DeletedUser23238

Guest
Coucil, lol it's alway everybody trying to guess what the real boss thinks.lol
 

DeletedUser27128

Guest
Then you are in the wrong alliance, bound to fail. Good alliances take opinions, view it from different point of views, think about it and then make a decision.
 

Varun

Strategos
I know I shoul write this in "Ideas", but any time I write there I get 10 people shouting format! and it annoys me to write anything in that format when it is clear what I say without it.

So, what do you think of this:
Before alliance is created it's type is chosen.
Democracy-every month it is an election who will have the founder rights, then he gives other rights to other people.
Oligarchy-The largest player gets founder rights every month and he rules the alliance
Dictatorship-What we have now, everything is done how the orginal founder says.

BTW If anybody likes the idea and rewrites this text in THEIR format and publishes it there I have no problem.

First of all, this idea has been suggested before and failed due to a lot of technical as well as other problems.

1. Such changing leaders would utterly destroy the alliance. No real communication would exist between the players. And the new leaders would take time to adjust to each other and each other's decisions. Period.

2. Such randomly changing leadership and alliance roles would undermine the ulterior motive of alliances, especially the idea of working together, especially with Oligarchy and Dictatorship

3. Personal feuds and revenges will become all too common with the latter removing the former leader(s) due to some long forgotten grudge.

4. Server maintenance increases since the server has to individually select some members from a large number in an alliance and give them the rights plus remove the previous ones from their posts.

5. It increases the complexity of the game which has never been the point. The game interface may become complex with more graphics and options but the basic core idea of expansion and domination is what attracts the players. Not internal conspiracy or hierarchy.
 

Varun

Strategos
Hands up.lol

But anyway it's not so bad...

;)

Seriously though, none of the ideas ever submitted were bad. They just never work out the way you want. :p

For example, the island quests was suggested by several members including a very good friend of mine on the forums called WAVEBREAKER and me albeit in different ideas. They did become popular but we never knew that they would be implemented :) Who knows your idea may be implemented in some other form?
 

DeletedUser40768

Guest
Then you are in the wrong alliance, bound to fail. Good alliances take opinions, view it from different point of views, think about it and then make a decision.

While I agree with some of what you said, I like a different approach than having a council. Much like this forum has discussion threads for all to see, that is what I like the alliance to have so we can gather feedback on different decisions. Then the leader uses that feedback, after looking at every aspect, and tries to make the decision that best benefits the team. So I am more of a fan of a dictatorial-democracy, lets people voice there opinion but at the end you joined the alliance hopefully because you have faith in the people leading the group. I don't really like councils, because then there is corruption and they start withholding information from the regular members. That and the hidden agendas that have been destroying many talented alliances in the past two world alone.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'd have to no, because there are too many complexities. You say there are 3 options, however. Democracy encompasses alot of very different sub elements, as does ogliarchy, and dictatorship, you also missed autocracy and fundamentalism from your main group lists. For example There are major differences between a Socialist setup and a Communist setup. In order to get this idea anywhere near workable you would have to have at least 10 different options. Then you will still get people saying it is too restricting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top