removing alliances

[-Blue Moon-]

with the next round supposedly a free round I suggest that we remove the traditional ALLIANCE features or at the very least their defensive ETA advantage.

As a direct result I'd expect the 4th ETA research to be reintroduced

Compounded by the cluster attack bonus at -1 ETA and the -2 defense bonus. (making it the only non-galactic form of defence for in-cluster, but universe defence can still be useful for non-fi/co incs)

Cluster size is then mandated to (example 10 clusters, planets fitting around this structure into 10 galaxies as usual - this increases the average size of each galaxy.

As a direct result of these actions I would imagine/expect:

- people to become less bored with the current universe as it would spice up clusters (and for many other reasons detailed below)

- people without alliances will have more involvement in the game and more importantly the clusters (attacks/defence)

- the quality of alliances seems to be declining and this would switch alliance play to intel-gathering (between clusters) and battlegroups

- the alliance defence can't do anything against cluster etas (which shows we're viewing clusters>alliances) and as a result everyone WANTS to be involved in their clusters - making them much more useful.

- clusters are not being used as much as we'd hoped or in the ways intended in the past because of peoples' loyalty to alliances - this would definately kickstart it in the right direction.

- fake nicks would only be needed for those who had personal enemies (e.g. Kargool) - this would increase trust in-game and as it is a free round allow a lot of people to meet a lot of other people

- it would allow the re-forming of battle-groups which were always fun (and many alliances these days have almost turned into bg's). it adds a tactical element of only inviting those who wont give a heads-up to a cluster if they are due incomming.

- it spreads the talent of BCs and DCs around the universe, meaning that some people who are on the verge of getting into such a position of responsibility/power are given opportunities where current ability is 'lacking'

- it would rebuild the community as cluster channels would become important again, and people could make new contacts as opposed to playing with defending with and attacking with the same people round after round

- more cluster involvement means people meet new people and become involved (and most importantly for the free round it means they can help new players learn and become 'addicted')

- no alliances would mean cluster 'domination' wouldn't be a problem anymore as there would be no need for them to 'control' the cluster - although with the reintroduction of bgroups inter-cluster politics may become much more important (for example if c7 makes a BG for only c7s and they plan to hit c4 then perhaps there is scope for inter-cluster politics)

- alliances could rear their head in different ways - only through clusters - for groups who can work together but are not realistically going to guarantee their placing together (i.e. new alliances)... basically what would be the point in creating a 70man alliance spread over 10 clusters with a mathmatical average of 7 per cluster - it wouldn't happen. this would stop the same faces from playing together over and over again. (community is good, but this can be detrimental)


Obviously I've only been thinking about the pro's I'm sure there are those of you out there who can think of ways this could be a bad idea...

...Discuss! :-)
- tux

[Kargool]

First of all, to much changes between each round to give anything a viable "pa" sustainable each round. Second of all, there is many people who _WANT_ to play together as an alliance, and with the current buddypack system this is not possible if you introduce this. I think a rather high percentage of people simply wont play if they cant play with their alliance.

[HRH_H_Crab]

I can totally understand why you have made this suggestion, and maybe it should have been done long ago.

Sadly however, for me, this would be the final excuse I desperately need to stop playing altogether, and I doubt I'm the only one.

[Allfather]

You are not wanted, so you can leave without an excuse.

[Mzyxptlk]

You are arguing for a utopia. You simply cannot completely remove alliances. Maybe you can remove the ingame equivalent of them, but there is absolutely no reasonable way to prevent 60 people from getting in a channel and cooperating. In short, it's a shit idea.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by HRH_H_Crab

I can totally understand why you have made this suggestion, and maybe it should have been done long ago.

Sadly however, for me, this would be the final excuse I desperately need to stop playing altogether, and I doubt I'm the only one.

You're not.

[-Blue Moon-]

Not true, it's just soemthing you'd need to work towards. Such a change like this would be very easy. You change the attack and defence ETA bonuses 3 or 4 times and you hard code the number of clusters the same way you do the parallels then use previous code to put the 4th ETA back in - and you're done.

Now whether or not you chose to support this is what the thread is about - seeing what peoples' opinions are. We've seen already a couple of people understand why it's a good idea but probably unfeasible, and you've seen a couple of people saying that playing with those they know (via bpacks and allies) is what makes them keep playing.

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

In short, it's a shit idea.

still, i think i'd like a proper discussion rather than these quick "stfu its crap" posts --- if we learn what makes the game good we have areas we can work on.

If alliances are truely what makes everyone play (example) then we need to draw on and learn from that as opposed to removing them completely...... this forum is for drawing ideas out through suggestions.... nothing more nothing less - so stay positive

- tux

[Kargool]

The way I see it the sneakremoval of alliances have gradually been stepping up. With the beginning adding cluster eta's and also a few bigger issues currently being suggested by the muffinhead in charge (Kal).

I think that this efficently kills the game, as people wants to play in alliances, and that is the only thing that keeps the game together atm.

People should be looking at ideas on how to expand on the alliance instead of removing it.

I have put forwards several suggestions towards this over the time, and most have been said, its a good idea, but nothing have been implemented.

[SteInMetz]

The cluster you get in is random, the alliance you play for you choose to play for.

EOD

[Mzyxptlk]

-Blue Moon-, you did a good job at only quoting my conclusion, and not the reasoning that brought me to that conclusion.

[Makhil]

I'll go further and make the free round a 'no defense' game (apart from ingal def ?). ofc you could join an alliance and organise attacks, scans, fart contest, whatever... but no def.