DeletedUser
Guest
Proposal: Improvement of Alliance/Pact system.
Reason: Easier administration and governing.
The problem with the current alliance system is that
only a pact can be formed with other alliances.
Specially the lower alliances will have troubles getting
any support, which means that new players are being met
like fodder and treated as such..
If a larger, more benevolent alliance takes them under
their wing, they can only make a pact.
There can be no absorption, or redirected leadership.
(i.e.the leader of the more benevolent and larger alliance
can't tell the smaller alliance members to do anything,
or aid in the defense by rallying troops.)
It all has to be done by hand. Creating a recipient
list is a lousy task, and even lousier to maintain.
Details
ouble layer of alliance system.
Basically founding an alliance would be the same.
But..
Any founder/leader would have the ability to join another
alliance as well.
This would allow the families to band together in a more
comprehensive alliance.
Every Alliance would have their sovereignty intact,
while gaining the option to pull together without too much
'by hand' work..
If this sound too complicated, it boils down to this:
The ability to join TWO alliances with one superceding the other.
Any forum messages of the greater alliance would be only for the
leader's of the smaller alliances who can then act on it.
Also, in case of a general alert, one smaller alliance
would contact the greater alliance, they would send a message
out to the ones underneath..
The easiest implementation I can think of is two alliance
memberships per player, but with only one of which he/she
can be leader/founder..
Balance / Abuse prevention: Although this may have a high impact
on gameplay, the difference would be little towards abuse.
(There's plenty going on below board, this would only make it somewhat above board..)
Summary: Easier governing, better gameplay
2 alliances to join: 1 alliance to be the founder/leader of, and 1 alliance to be a member of.
Note:This also allows for alliance recruiting, not just member recruiting..
The greater alliances strength would be the sum of the underlying ones as well.
There could even be a different name:
A family for the smaller alliances.
And the alliance for the greater alliance.
(That would also take away any confusion.)
(Although in light of the current system, maybe the alliance should stay the same..)
(the bigger one would be called a conglomerate alliance ?)
Also..merger/absorption between alliances would be nice as well..
(founder option only, unless the founder is no more, in which case the leaders would
have that option.)
Reason: Easier administration and governing.
The problem with the current alliance system is that
only a pact can be formed with other alliances.
Specially the lower alliances will have troubles getting
any support, which means that new players are being met
like fodder and treated as such..
If a larger, more benevolent alliance takes them under
their wing, they can only make a pact.
There can be no absorption, or redirected leadership.
(i.e.the leader of the more benevolent and larger alliance
can't tell the smaller alliance members to do anything,
or aid in the defense by rallying troops.)
It all has to be done by hand. Creating a recipient
list is a lousy task, and even lousier to maintain.
Details
ouble layer of alliance system.Basically founding an alliance would be the same.
But..
Any founder/leader would have the ability to join another
alliance as well.
This would allow the families to band together in a more
comprehensive alliance.
Every Alliance would have their sovereignty intact,
while gaining the option to pull together without too much
'by hand' work..
If this sound too complicated, it boils down to this:
The ability to join TWO alliances with one superceding the other.
Any forum messages of the greater alliance would be only for the
leader's of the smaller alliances who can then act on it.
Also, in case of a general alert, one smaller alliance
would contact the greater alliance, they would send a message
out to the ones underneath..
The easiest implementation I can think of is two alliance
memberships per player, but with only one of which he/she
can be leader/founder..
Balance / Abuse prevention: Although this may have a high impact
on gameplay, the difference would be little towards abuse.
(There's plenty going on below board, this would only make it somewhat above board..)
Summary: Easier governing, better gameplay
2 alliances to join: 1 alliance to be the founder/leader of, and 1 alliance to be a member of.
Note:This also allows for alliance recruiting, not just member recruiting..
The greater alliances strength would be the sum of the underlying ones as well.
There could even be a different name:
A family for the smaller alliances.
And the alliance for the greater alliance.
(That would also take away any confusion.)
(Although in light of the current system, maybe the alliance should stay the same..)
(the bigger one would be called a conglomerate alliance ?)
Also..merger/absorption between alliances would be nice as well..
(founder option only, unless the founder is no more, in which case the leaders would
have that option.)
Last edited by a moderator:
