The Merger System

[lokken]

I'd like to open a debate on this, simply because I think there was some dissatisfaction with it (from reading AD this round) and thus one worth debating.

My view is that merges shouldn't be allowed beyond the halfway point of the round. The point being is that if your alliance isn't viable beyond the halfway point of a round and you need to merge into another one, you've lost - and that's all there is to it.

On top, the current use of the merger system simply functions as a way to usurp the scoring system and makes the restrictions for recruiting members pointless. The past round has seen tags used as a way to hide score (which should instead be hidden by being untagged) or to let two 'failed' alliances become a major player, and for those who start at the beginning, I think this is an unfair thing to allow, as essentially, you are being punished for being a stable unit.

While I definitely think we should allow mergers and that they definitely have a place in the game, their use should be more restricted than it is now.

Obviously there is a major question to be debated here; do we want the game to be "fairer", or should we sacrifice that to keep people in the game as long as possible?

I think we can afford to shift a bit more to the former, although I'm sure some will disagree. I just want to see what force there is to the opposing argument and whether we need to make a change.

[Barrow|Pony]

Would there be opposition to a rule denying a merger if the resulting alliance will place in the top 5?

[K-W]

I think the merge deadline should definately be moved up, I dont however thik mergers should be restricted by rank.

[aNgRyDuCk]

well rank effecting mergers in the first half of the round are combatable, so not as much as an issue, certainly though no later than half way through would be sensible as far as alliances merging

[notsure]

While it's a nice idea Barrow - Any merge that results in an alliance gaining even a single rank, should be banned - since just because it doesn't affect alliances in the top 5/10 doesn't make it fair.

Say for example the situation where an alliance at say 16th & 17th merge and end up ranked say 12th (yes figures are hypothetical) - how is that fair to alliances ranked 12th-15th before the merge -- personally I'm against alliance merges, especially when they are penalty free, (assuming the whole only score gained while in an alliance counts towards alliance score still exists).

There are valid reasons for a merge, but the merger system is being abused for score gain, and to by pass the 72 hour wait non-counting of score situation that individuals face when they switch alliances. This leads me to the conclusion that mergers should be banned altogether - in the situations where the HC's of Alliance A & B decided joining together is the best option for thier members, then Alliance A should be disbanded, and 72 ticks later - the members should join Alliance B with the same penalties that are applied to individuals.

Ofc as someone else pointed out somewhere (sorry don't have time to find the post atm but it is a good idea) - this could be automated so that when the alliances agree to "merge" some button could be pushed, the results of which are - Alliance A is disbanded and the required number of spaces could be reserved in Alliance B - 72 ticks later the members of Alliance A are automatically added to Alliance B, unless they select some option to opt out of the autojoin....

notsure

Sorry about any spelling, gramatical or general errors - half way through moving house atm....

[Barrow|Pony]

you're right. cool.

[Amycus]

I like the idea of a merge deadline being halfway through the round. It helps alliance like it did SiN this last round, but won't allow mergers like the FO one.

[qebab]

I think a dynamic (It gets larger late in the round) scorepenalty for merges would be a better solution.

[Jester]

I think you're all* idiots. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the merger system currently. A bunch of other players feeling badly done by is not a reason to remove a feature.

* Except Germania, whose opinion seems the least influenced by lack of toys in pram.

[qebab]

Originally Posted by Jester

I think you're all idiots. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the merger system currently. A bunch of other players feeling badly done by is not a reason to remove a feature.

Hence a score penalty and not a removal of a useful game feature. Removing it after a given point in the round would be idiotic.

[Furyous]

It's simple..

You allow mergers or you don't allow them. Why piss about making some complex system of penalty incurring or rank dependant merges? In fact, that sounds exactly something the crew would spend all their time doing rather than developing the game!

The only reason for having them is to compensate for the utter shiteness of the score system that was brought in round 18. Revert back to the old score system and disallow mergers. If alliances want to merge still then their members can suffer for 72 ticks.

[Jester]

Furyous wins.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Furyous

The only reason for having them is to compensate for the utter shiteness of the score system that was brought in round 18.

I disagree simply because people who are the utter dregs of humanity (and I mean as actual people, not players of planetarion) letting themselves be recruited into other alliances, simply to stop others out of spite. I think it is an important safeguard. It leads to victory by what is pretty much mass recruiting rather than actually launching fleets to earn it. Elysium won by this method, while it was deserved, can anyone honestly say this should be the way we should let alliances win planetarion - I don't think it is.

Revert back to the old score system and disallow mergers. If alliances want to merge still then their members can suffer for 72 ticks.

72 ticks is a lot for one player, it's not a lot for a collective of them. Such a penalty is actually meaningless to the collective in the grand scheme of things, but I think any penalty such as score reduction or restriction to rank just doesn't sit well. These are complicated and quite honestly if you are going to allow mergers within a time period, they should be with minimal restriction.

The way I see mergers is that we currently have a point of no return beyond which they are not allowed. For me, looking at the way mergers have been used, this point of no return is too deep in the round and should be pulled back, because mergers, in my opinion, should not be used for the primary reason of score consolidation/accumulation.

[Furyous]

Why have mergers in the first place?

And I must say I disagree with you about the score system. But it's one of those agree to disagree situations because we hold very different beliefs about the point and/or significance of ranks.