Proposal Limit Shared Alliance-Forums

DeletedUser31931

Guest
Proposal:
I suggest that an alliance be limited to a maximum of 2 shared forum tabs.

Reason:
The alliance member cap is a feature that changes for each released world; it is the maximum number of players that can fit in an alliance at any given time. After world speed and revolt vs conquest, it used to be a major determinant of a world. Premades would declare the alliance caps that they were willing to join, and wait for months until the right settings appeared. Players would pick worlds based on whether they liked massive fights between the 2 or 3 big alliances on high-cap worlds, or the many smaller wars that would break out on small-cap worlds. It was an additional way that a player could directly customize his or her gaming experience to make Grepolis just the way they wanted it.

Over time, academy alliances developed, the #2 that players could join when the main alliance was full. They share all forum tabs with each other, along with reservations and discord/skype/teamspeak if applicable. Initially, these were looked at with disgust, because they are a blatant exploit. They remove the impact of the cap, and when it comes time for WWs (or domination, in the future), members of the winning alliance who aren't in the first wing don't get the crown they deserve, leaving a bad taste in their mouth, and making it less likely they will jump into a new world. Having a second tier in an alliance achieves nothing more or less than to bypass the alliance member cap that was determined when the world was created; it is and always has been a form of cheating and should be considered such. We have simply become null to their existence because they exist on every world, especially those with small caps, but this doesn't need to be the case. There is an easy fix.

All the developers need to do is limit the number of forum tabs that can be shared with other alliances to a total of two. This way, alliances could not share all their forums (which is almost always 3+) with a second alliance. It would bring back those exciting servers with 5-10 wars going on simultaneously, alliances competing with each other in every core ocean, and diplomacy that is actually interesting. The reason to still allow two shared tabs, in my opinion, is that a shared defense (and sometimes offense) tab between pacted (but not conjoined) alliances can be quite useful.

To put it simply, what the heck is the point of alliance member caps if we just let them create a second, third, (hell, gamblers on us72 has FOUR) wings???

Details:
Pretty simple...when an alliance leader tries to share a forum tab with an alliance (regardless of who), if they already have two other shared tabs (even if with a different alliance) the leader would get an error message.


Visual Aids:
N/A

Balance/Abuse Prevention:
N/A
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser51423

Guest
I like this idea. I think that it would be a very easy fix for a horrible problem when you have brother sister auntie and uncle alliances.
 

DeletedUser54192

Guest
It's an interesting idea, and one that I could definitely get behind. It would be a strong encouragement for alliances to stick to one branch, rather than spread to two branches, safe in the knowledge that they can keep all the same information spread across the two branches with no repercussions except for the inability to move threads from one tab to another.

2 tabs does seem like a reasonable concept, as it would in general allow one shared offensive tab, and one shared defensive tab. There would be workarounds (Discord in particular, with it's multiple different channels within a server, and the ability to set up read-only channels for announcements), but it should still help to discourage full-on sharing of information.

I'd just like to ask a quick clarification question: does the limit of 2 shared forums mean that any alliance may only have a total of 2 forums shared with other teams, or is it that they may have up to 2 shared forums with each alliance? (I.e. can they only share 2 forums total, or could they share 2 forums with their academy, 1 with a pacted alliance, 2 with another pacted alliance, etc.) I would assume it's the first case, but I felt I ought to check rather than move on with an assumption.
 

DeletedUser31931

Guest
I'd just like to ask a quick clarification question: does the limit of 2 shared forums mean that any alliance may only have a total of 2 forums shared with other teams, or is it that they may have up to 2 shared forums with each alliance? (I.e. can they only share 2 forums total, or could they share 2 forums with their academy, 1 with a pacted alliance, 2 with another pacted alliance, etc.) I would assume it's the first case, but I felt I ought to check rather than move on with an assumption.
I anticipated this question and tried to answer it in the main post, but let me be more clear. :)

Alliance A is in ocean 44. To their east are two smaller alliances on the 44/54 border, alliances B and C. Alliances A gets a pact with both of them, so they can focus on their enemy to the south.
unknown.png


These would all be options for alliance A:
1) One shared defense tab with B + one shared defense tab with C
2) One shared offense tab with B + one shared defense tab with B
3) One shared offense tab with both B & C + one shared defense tab with both B and C

These would not be options:
1) One shared offense tab with B + one shared defense tab with B + one shared offense tab with C
2) One defense tab with B + one defense tab with C + one announcements tab with A's second alliance
3) No tabs with B or C, but 3+ tabs shared with A's second alliance

And obviously there are dozens more possibilities that would be allowed, but I hope this helps clarify MY idea for how this could work. Of course that doesn't have to be the idea we actually vote on, however. I am very open to input.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser54339

Guest
Not opposed to the idea or the motivation behind it. I just think that major alliances would become a lot more Discord/Skype savvy as a result, with the final result that very little would change.
 

Rachel.L

Phrourach
So are you specifically limiting two shared tabs, which was was originally proposed? Two total for an alliance.
Or are you suggesting two tabs per ally, as in your example? Could be hundreds of tabs but only 2 per each pact/ nap/ sister/ academy.
These are different.

If you limit two shared tabs per alliance, a mechanic that may actually be codable, it may or may not work as you wish. The main alliance can share one tab with many others, not just one alliance. This gets around your one-for-one rule. On the other hand, it may not be the best in terms of diplo/ intel depending on the tab.

If you do two per ally, not sure this really is enforceable.

In either case, the goal you intend is good but I'm not sure you get the outcome you want. As Alex says, there are other forms of communication and multiple ways around it. But, it's a good start.
 

DeletedUser31931

Guest
So are you specifically limiting two shared tabs, which was was originally proposed? Two total for an alliance.
Or are you suggesting two tabs per ally, as in your example? Could be hundreds of tabs but only 2 per each pact/ nap/ sister/ academy.
These are different.
I think I make it pretty clear, if not in the original post then in my second one to be honest. But I am suggesting the same thing in both, that an alliance be able to have just two shared forum tabs. :) Let's say an alliance has 5 total forum tabs:
  1. Announcements
  2. Misc
  3. OP
  4. Defense
  5. General
At least three of these five tabs would have to be not-shared, visible only to members of the one alliance. If they had 6 tabs, at least 4 would have to be not-shared, and so on.

But, it's a good start.
That's the idea! Of course there is no perfect solution. There will always be alliances that create second wings and exploit the alliance cap, just as there are still players who multiaccount or use unauthorized programs. But that doesn't mean that inno shouldn't do all it can to limit both these things, right?

Discord and skype are great mediums of communication, I am a huge advocate. I do believe, however, that coordinating large attacks or defenses are very difficult to execute without a forum post up with the important details, especially in a large alliance. This wouldn't prevent sister-alliances, but it would give them the small handicap needed to even the playing field.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser54339

Guest
I think I make it pretty clear, if not in the original post then in my second one to be honest. But I am suggesting the same thing in both, that an alliance be able to have just two shared forum tabs. :) Let's say an alliance has 5 total forum tabs:
  1. Announcements
  2. Misc
  3. OP
  4. Defense
  5. General
At least three of these five tabs would have to be not-shared, visible only to members of the one alliance. If they had 6 tabs, at least 4 would have to be not-shared, and so on.


That's the idea! Of course there is no perfect solution. There will always be alliances that create second wings and exploit the alliance cap, just as there are still players who multiaccount or use unauthorized programs. But that doesn't mean that inno shouldn't do all it can to limit both these things, right?

Discord and skype are great mediums of communication, I am a huge advocate. I do believe, however, that coordinating large attacks or defenses are very difficult to execute without a forum post up with the important details, especially in a large alliance. This wouldn't prevent sister-alliances, but it would give them the small handicap needed to even the playing field.

From personal experience I think you might end up with some unintended consequences - players of value who have no intention of joining Skype and/or Discord ending up in the main alliance while those who use those channels end up in academies because of their flexibility.
 

DeletedUser31931

Guest
From personal experience I think you might end up with some unintended consequences - players of value who have no intention of joining Skype and/or Discord ending up in the main alliance while those who use those channels end up in academies because of their flexibility.
I don't see how this is a problem, or really even a consequence at all? :) Of course it's not going to instantly make academy alliances disappear, but this is a very quick and easy change for the developers to make, that could add more energy and excitement to small alliance-cap worlds. Even the slight handicap is enough to dissuade some alliances from opening second wings, even if most do so anyways.
 

Rachel.L

Phrourach
Tusc, if you were clear, I wouldn't have had to ask. No need to be rude about it.

You are so focused on being right that you don't address issues raised by manmany posts. I'll try again: a single tab can be shared by 1000 alliances. How does your solution actually stop the hugging?
 

DeletedUser31931

Guest
Tusc, if you were clear, I wouldn't have had to ask. No need to be rude about it.
No, actually, I wasn't rude about it at all the first time. Maybe this time I should be. :) Any simpleton should be able to understand the three examples I posted. What part of "This is allowed", and "this isn't" is unclear to you? There's even a picture to make it easier, for gods sake.

Limit the number of forum tabs that can be shared with other alliances to a total of two. This way, alliances could not share all their forums (which is almost always 3+) with a second alliance.
So are you specifically limiting two shared tabs, which was was originally proposed? Two total for an alliance.

Or are you suggesting two tabs per ally, as in your example? Could be hundreds of tabs but only 2 per each pact/ nap/ sister/ academy.
These are different.
I would retort that if you read the post before obnoxiously harassing its author, you would not have had to ask at all. You call me rude when I politely spent 10 minutes retyping what was already here the first time you failed to read it....? This is a thread to discuss a proposed idea, not one of the "trash talk" threads for you to feel big about yourself.

You are so focused on being right that you don't address issues raised by manmany posts. I'll try again: a single tab can be shared by 1000 alliances. How does your solution actually stop the hugging?
You also failed to read that this is not an idea to stop "hugging", or diplomacy. That is a completely unrelated issue, and something that many would argue is not an issue at all. The goal of this idea is to be a quick and easy fix for alliances with multiple wings. (I do agree with Alexander that this would likely lead to increased sky/discord usage and not prevent them entirely)
 

DeletedUser55069

Guest
I totally agree with the goal to limit cooperation - make it harder to create coalitions, but the forum sharing is not the right tool for that.
On conquest a single shared tab can be enough for maximal cooperation because live reports are available (siegebreak, conquests, CS snipe) but on revolt you would need to share 2 tabs OFF & DEF or it would be more difficult, harder work for leaders to do the same in a single tab (create and update revolt lists). - Discrepancies between battle systems.
Also not the right tool because chat clients can totally replace ingame forum and forcing that would lead to less time spent in game long term.

If you played before reservations you know how hard it was, for those who didn't: we had a forum thread where everyone had to post BB code of their targets (player name, alliance, CS time..), check the list of targets before attacking any city - fail to post lead to friendly fire so we had accidents all the time.
Now app is major part of the game and posting BB codes is still harder than reserving a city, therefore limiting reservations would force alliances to cooperate less.

Max 1-2 reservation sharing per alliance could make a huge difference, the bigger the coalition is the harder it gets to go around a limitation like this (e.g. a leader would have to manually maintain reservations for a secondary pact to make it visible for the priority pact or use oldschool reservation lists - more participants more chance for error).

Alliance bonus effects could be also divided between pacts (event, wonder bonus) - because pacts can share the higher bonus by rotation:
50% of the normal effect for alliances that cooperate with 1 alliance (shared reservation / pact / forum)
25% of the normal effect for alliances that cooperate with 2 alliances
0% of the normal effect for alliances that cooperate with 3 or more alliances
It could be even a world setting how many cooperation is allowed and percentages can be adjusted to that.

(for example #1 and #3 team are pacts and their normal event bonus would be 20% and 10%, their actual bonus could be 10% and 5%)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rachel.L

Phrourach
tusc, thank you for showing in yet another thread that you fail to play well with others
hugging/ diplomacy/ multiple wings are all all versions of the same things
i did not trash talk you or your idea but asked for clarification
i won't bother again
 

DeletedUser31931

Guest
Rachel, just look at a well articulated post like Molinillo's that shows he has read the idea in full and given it some thought. He then explains what he sees are the pros and cons, then suggests further edits to the idea. Now look at yours and tell me again you "did not trash talk." You have an issue with me in another thread, okay, keep it there. I am all for creating drama in the forums lol, in the right places I feel that they help the externals grow. But if we can get back to the actual idea... :)

Also not the right tool because chat clients can totally replace ingame forum and forcing that would lead to less time spent in game long term.
First, I agree with what you said before this quote about my suggestion being far from perfect. This wouldn't remove the issue, it would only serve to slightly discourage it (better than nothing). Now about the chat clients...I honestly think that is a good thing. I don't think inno cares about total time spent in the game (or maybe they do, but why?), they care about player numbers and gold usage. If I were to really take some time and think back on my favorite ten memories playing grepo...they are not in game. They are on skype with my mates, friends that I met through this game. These are the people I still play for, almost ten full years later. There are a lot of single player games out there, but grepolis is, and always has been, about making connections with other players. If this idea has a side effect of increasing discord/skype usage, I see that as a good thing.

If you played before reservations you know how hard it was, for those who didn't: we had a forum thread where everyone had to post BB code of their targets (player name, alliance, CS time..), check the list of targets before attacking any city - fail to post lead to friendly fire so we had accidents all the time.
Now app is major part of the game and posting BB codes is still harder than reserving a city, therefore limiting reservations would force alliances to cooperate less.
I did play long before reservations. I actually was not a big fan at first, but I agree that we have become dependent on them. This is a great idea! Do you mean that alliance A would be able to share with B, but not both B and C at the same time?

Alliance bonus effects could be also divided between pacts (event, wonder bonus) - because pacts can share the higher bonus by rotation:
50% of the normal effect for alliances that cooperate with 1 alliance (shared reservation / pact / forum)
25% of the normal effect for alliances that cooperate with 2 alliances
0% of the normal effect for alliances that cooperate with 3 or more alliances
It could be even a world setting how many cooperation is allowed and percentages can be adjusted to that.

(for example #1 and #3 team are pacts and their normal event bonus would be 20% and 10%, their actual bonus could be 10% and 5%)
This is the only part where I am a little confused. If I am understanding you right, wouldn't leaders just drop the in-game pacts a few hours before the bonuses are awarded? Other than that, I really like the suggestions.
 

DeletedUser55069

Guest
Now about the chat clients...I honestly think that is a good thing. I don't think inno cares about total time spent in the game (or maybe they do, but why?)
Don't take me wrong, it is good that players are open for communication outside the game, but when you limit communication inside the game all players can be forced to spend (more) time on chats because of their alliance structure (multiple wings, pacts). As much the game itself requires interaction with other players the forum and messages are enough and those players who don't want to socialize or aren't allowed to use chat clients (work) can be excluded. Less time spent ingame comes with less attention to ingame actions, help requests etc.

I did play long before reservations. I actually was not a big fan at first, but I agree that we have become dependent on them. This is a great idea! Do you mean that alliance A would be able to share with B, but not both B and C at the same time?

I posted 2 slightly different ideas, that can be combined too.
1. reservation sharing could be limited as a world setting (similar to your proposal). Then if max 1 cooperation was allowed, only A & B could cooperate (share reservation) with C they could have NAP but without shared reservation they would have to discuss diplomacy (better), mark territory... like old times.
2. all running alliance bonus effects would be weakened depending on the number of shared reservations / cooperation
A & B have pact, shared reservation and forum = 2x alliance limit = reduce bonus by 50%
this would not limit only discourage hugging

This is the only part where I am a little confused. If I am understanding you right, wouldn't leaders just drop the in-game pacts a few hours before the bonuses are awarded? Other than that, I really like the suggestions.
always the actual number of shared reservations would matter (like a multiplier on the base bonus effect)
so if A won the event alone but next day they pact with B (or share reservation, forum) they both lose 50% of their own bonus effects
an alliance would have to get rid of the pact, reservation and forum sharing to drop this multiplier - which might be worth temporarily for a big siegebreak... that could be prevented with a cooldown (limit repeated reservation sharing with same team)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser31931

Guest
Less time spent ingame comes with less attention to ingame actions, help requests etc.
Hmm, that is definitely true.

reservation sharing could be limited as a world setting (similar to your proposal). Then if max 1 cooperation was allowed, only A & B could cooperate (share reservation) with C they could have NAP but without shared reservation they would have to discuss diplomacy (better), mark territory... like old times.
Hmm, I don't know if it's likely they will add another world setting. There are already so many of them that, in my opinion, they start to dissuade players from joining a particular world, because there is always something to complain about. Speed and revolt/conquest used to be the main categories, and it was very realistic to wait for a speed 3 revolt, or a speed 1 conquest, etc. But now, we have players waiting for a speed 4 revolt, unit speed 3, trade speed 2, with no morale and night bonus (not on en, I know) with an 8 hour foundation time. Not saying anyone is quite that picky, but the more "choices" people have, the longer it is until their perfect world comes out.

Having said that, I really like your idea!! I think that this limiting of reservations is a great addition to the limited forums. Of course, it does not affect alliances with 2 wings, but it does heavily punish those with 3+. It's a good start.


all running alliance bonus effects would be weakened depending on the number of shared reservations / cooperation
A & B have pact, shared reservation and forum = 2x alliance limit = reduce bonus by 50%
this would not limit only discourage hugging


always the actual number of shared reservations would matter (like a multiplier on the base bonus effect)
so if A won the event alone but next day they pact with B (or share reservation, forum) they both lose 50% of their own bonus effects
an alliance would have to get rid of the pact, reservation and forum sharing to drop this multiplier - which might be worth temporarily for a big siegebreak... that could be prevented with a cooldown (limit repeated reservation sharing with same team)
Ahh, I understand what you're saying. It seems a bit complicated, to be honest...not sure if I can really picture it being implemented. It's an interesting thought though...would certainly discourage multiple wings, and hugging in general. I wonder if there is a way to simplify it a bit? Or maybe it does not need simplification at all, just my take on it.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
I'll just throw out here what I throw out whenever someone tries to "fix" an exploitable aspect of the system. You make a "fix" and everyone will just find a way around it. Someone already mentioned becoming more discord savvy. Discord sets up like a forum as it is with voice calling ability. Hell you could even make your own private forum if you wanted.

Most alliances in conquest will use the grepolife mailing lists to MM urgent sieges. Revolt I know they use it for op/defense

Less has always been more in this regard. I remember in En Theta, when there was a 250 cap one of the first alliance cap worlds. Within a month some teams already made multiple filled branches for that world. I also remember Olous when they implemented their wonder fix to get around sister branches. Within a few minutes of reading the fix, I already knew how to get around that fix and I don't think our opponents took very long to figure out the trick either.

Might as well just ditch alliance caps altogether for any remaining wonder worlds.
 
Top