PDA

View Full Version : "Real" Alliances



anthonywitt
09-19-2005, 09:10 AM
Mickey any more input on "real" alliances? You have a great idea and much better than "group accounts".

I would like to have seen more ideas on allainces and how to improve them. I couuld be wrong but this alliance thing may really start growing among players.

michael fontenot
09-19-2005, 10:17 AM
Mickey any more input on "real" alliances? You have a great idea and much better than "group accounts".

I would like to have seen more ideas on allainces and how to improve them. I couuld be wrong but this alliance thing may really start growing among players.

I second that...and also if this alliance thing gets implemented i think there should also be a cap on number of people in any single alliance.

Mickey
09-19-2005, 12:50 PM
Here's my initial thoughts. Feel free to comment on any of them.

1 - You won't be able to send money to someone that's not in your alliance. This should help us keep track of cheaters better. If someone creates two accounts, they'd have to make an alliance with themselves before they could send money. Therefore, we'd just have to keep a close eye on alliances rather than watching every transaction out there.

2 - A cap on the number of players in an alliance is a good idea. How many, though? 6?

3 - In terms of actual clicks, how would you create/join an alliance? Would one person "create" it, join it themselves and then invite others? Or some other way?

4 - Could people join multiple alliances, with various people on the site?

5 - Would the game do anything different to people that are allied? Would it prevent them from attacking each other?

Timmetie
09-19-2005, 01:00 PM
I'm for the idea of making alliances bonding. So no joining multiple alliances, and no attacking each other.

Lukepuuk
09-19-2005, 01:25 PM
How big is our Alliance now? About 10 people?
Should there be a maximum?

michael fontenot
09-19-2005, 01:36 PM
How big is our Alliance now? About 10 people?
Should there be a maximum?

there should be a cap to prevent one huge alliance from conquering the entire planet.

no dual alliances...one only.

cap of 6 sounds good.

An "alliance administrator" can create it then only he can add or remove other members.

inability to attack allies.

treason or espionage: of course the member is booted off the alliance and punished by the former allies but maybe something implemented from mickey also.

Lukepuuk
09-19-2005, 01:40 PM
But aren't we a little short allready with a cap of 6?

michael fontenot
09-19-2005, 01:42 PM
yeah,
but as you might know some of the members contribute nothing and don't communicate anything to the rest of us. we could stand to loose some of those guys.

Lukepuuk
09-19-2005, 01:45 PM
I PM'ed a list.

michael fontenot
09-19-2005, 02:02 PM
I PM'ed a list.


replied.

my point is that i would like to only see members in our alliance as active as we are on the game and the forums. not someone who just gets on every couple of days to play around.

War_Peace
09-19-2005, 02:07 PM
michael fontenot

I love this guy!

100% on your side...

tukamotton
09-19-2005, 02:35 PM
i agree the points mickey says except this point:

4 - Could people join multiple alliances, with various people on the site?

That smell as traidors borning :shock:

what about "satellites" in alliance to send alerts by email, messenger, etc. when armies (not in our alliance) be traveling to our cities?

Think about it ;-)

birq
09-19-2005, 03:17 PM
i agree the points mickey says except this point:

4 - Could people join multiple alliances, with various people on the site?

That smell as traidors borning :shock:


It's real-world, though. Of course you should be able to belong to more than one alliance, and there can be alliances of alliances.

Mickey
09-19-2005, 03:25 PM
That smell as traidors borning

It's real-world, though. Of course you should be able to belong to more than one alliance, and there can be alliances of alliances.

That was my thought. You probably shouldn't join more than one alliance, but why should we stop you?

tukamotton
09-19-2005, 03:29 PM
It's real-world, though. Of course you should be able to belong to more than one alliance, and there can be alliances of alliances.

Well.. then if whole earth is a big alliance.... why not change the game title to: Google Earth Alliances.

Look... Alliances is right but, compare it with world real, US in OTAN, in South America, in United Arabes, in Orientals Samurays.... that sounds real?

What about "UNO" in GEWar?

Well... is my point of view...

and excuse my english..... have fun! ;)

tukamotton
09-19-2005, 03:35 PM
That was my thought. You probably shouldn't join more than one alliance, but why should we stop you?

You right Mickey... this is a free world, and the only thing i request is have a tool to watch the alliances and everyone knows the members of them... no more..

Timmetie
09-19-2005, 04:15 PM
Dissagreed! it's not as if you make someone join an alliance, and id want some certainty that my "ally" who has his 10.000 troop army near my city isnt going to backstab me.
just dont let allies attack each other, maby even give a timer, cause in the real world, you'd have problems keeping it secret you were going to march against ur ally as well.

Dont trust nobody! Love is the key! (what the heck?)

michael fontenot
09-20-2005, 05:41 AM
good idea Tukamotton, a tool to view members of different alliances would be helpful for everyone, you would know what your getting into when you attacked any one person. joining two allianced though i think is just a disaster waiting to happen, i guess the administrator of the particular alliance can allow or prohibit alliances of thier members with others. treaties between alliances should definetly be possible but probably only temporary to achieve a common short term goal...

anthonywitt
09-20-2005, 11:21 AM
It's real-world, though. Of course you should be able to belong to more than one alliance, and there can be alliances of alliances.

What Michael and I have done is split the members into cells. Each cell has a team leader. The teams could be those that had alliance before they joined New Alliance.

anthonywitt
09-20-2005, 11:25 AM
Dissagreed! it's not as if you make someone join an alliance, and id want some certainty that my "ally" who has his 10.000 troop army near my city isnt going to backstab me.
just dont let allies attack each other, maby even give a timer, cause in the real world, you'd have problems keeping it secret you were going to march against ur ally as well.

Dont trust nobody! Love is the key! (what the heck?)

One of my members attacks one of the other members they will not only be removed of the alliance. They will be destroyed by the alliance. The alliance wiil help rebuild the members army.

anthonywitt
09-20-2005, 11:26 AM
You right Mickey... this is a free world, and the only thing i request is have a tool to watch the alliances and everyone knows the members of them... no more..

Lukepuuk is working on this issue.

anthonywitt
09-20-2005, 11:29 AM
I'm for the idea of making alliances bonding. So no joining multiple alliances, and no attacking each other.

Roger that big "T".

anthonywitt
09-20-2005, 11:31 AM
michael fontenot

I love this guy!

100% on your side...

Whats up WP? Spying? Lets have some input from you.

War_Peace
09-20-2005, 11:46 AM
Whats up WP? Spying? Lets have some input from you.

I'm fine, thanks!...

"One of my members attacks one of the other members they will not only be removed of the alliance. They will be destroyed by the alliance. The alliance will help rebuild the members army."

!!!!!!!?????????????

anthonywitt
09-20-2005, 11:50 AM
Here's my initial thoughts. Feel free to comment on any of them.

1 - You won't be able to send money to someone that's not in your alliance. This should help us keep track of cheaters better. If someone creates two accounts, they'd have to make an alliance with themselves before they could send money. Therefore, we'd just have to keep a close eye on alliances rather than watching every transaction out there.

2 - A cap on the number of players in an alliance is a good idea. How many, though? 6?

3 - In terms of actual clicks, how would you create/join an alliance? Would one person "create" it, join it themselves and then invite others? Or some other way?

4 - Could people join multiple alliances, with various people on the site?

5 - Would the game do anything different to people that are allied? Would it prevent them from attacking each other?

1.THIS IS GREAT. I LIKE KEEPING THE MONEY INSIDE THE ALLIANCE. NOW WE ARE GETTING SOME WHERE WITH THIS.

2.HOW ABOUT 4 CELL OF 6 MEMBERS PER CELL.

3.THIS IS HOW I STARTED THE NEW ALLIANCE. JUST AS YOU ARE SUGGESTING. WE HAVE PROSPECTS EVERY DAY. A CAP IS COMING FOR OUR ALLIANCE.

4. NO.

5.I DONT THINK SO IT WOULD BE TO COMPLICATED IN BATTLE. YOUR ALLIANCE MEMBERS WILL NAME THEIR ARMIES WITH THE SAME NAME. I THINK WE CAN HAVE ALLIES IN THE FORM WITH ARMIES OUTSIDE OF OUR OWN BUT COMPLICATIONS WOULD ARISE. TRACKING WOULD BE AN ISSUE.


Should there be a weekly due for each member to pay?
Will upkeep stay the same?

anthonywitt
09-20-2005, 12:02 PM
I'm fine, thanks!...

"One of my members attacks one of the other members they will not only be removed of the alliance. They will be destroyed by the alliance. The alliance will help rebuild the members army."

!!!!!!!?????????????

Let me reword. The alliance will help rebuild the member that was attacked by the traitor scum.
Is that better WP?
Oh yea dont correct me in public. .

anthonywitt
09-20-2005, 12:10 PM
But aren't we a little short allready with a cap of 6?

I think so but the final say will be Mickiey's.

anthonywitt
09-20-2005, 12:17 PM
It's real-world, though. Of course you should be able to belong to more than one alliance, and there can be alliances of alliances.We will have enough issues with moles getting into an alliance and then allow members to join other alliances. I dont Birg it could keep the interesting,

michael fontenot
09-20-2005, 12:48 PM
about traitors,
once the alliances get going we have to look at that very closely, not sure what can be done to prevent it though.

anthonywitt
09-20-2005, 01:01 PM
Well.. then if whole earth is a big alliance.... why not change the game title to: Google Earth Alliances.

Look... Alliances is right but, compare it with world real, US in OTAN, in South America, in United Arabes, in Orientals Samurays.... that sounds real?

What about "UNO" in GEWar?

Well... is my point of view...

and excuse my english..... have fun! ;)

Hey buddy alliance have been aroud for ever. They are part of war and some wars could not be won with out them. read up on WWI and WWII and coming up WWIII GEwar style.

Mickey
09-20-2005, 01:43 PM
Ok, new questions. :)

1 - I think the whole "cells" idea is neat, but more complicated than we need it to be. Therefore, let's just go with alliances as a single group, although maybe a bit larger. 8? 10?

2 - My idea on formation. A user could create an alliance any time they want, as long as they're not currently in one. They would be the "leader" of the alliance. Then, they could invite users to join that alliance, and those users would get a message to accept/deny.

3 - Users could choose to leave an alliance any time they want, or the leader could kick them out any time they want. However, no one could kick the leader out - they'd just have to leave and start their own alliance.

4 - As before, money could only be sent to your allies.

5 - Alliance information would be public, as we'd likely have a "top alliances" page to show the strongest alliances. It wouldn't make sense to show the strongest alliances without showing who was in them.

6 - You can only join one alliance at a time. Since the info would be public anyhow, it just makes sense to restrict that.

7 - You can attack members of your alliance. Seems no reason to prevent that. You really shouldn't (obviously), but you could if you wanted to.

I guess that's about it. Let me know your thoughts on those and we can start putting this together pretty soon.

Lukepuuk
09-20-2005, 01:58 PM
If we're not going to do 'cells' then we might need to be able to join multiple alliances.
That way we can do it ourselves.
Otherwise our alliance would already have a problem with funding.
If we can only give money to our allies that is.
With multiple ally joining we can make one alliance with leaders, and then those leaders can make alliances with members.

War_Peace
09-20-2005, 02:04 PM
7 - You can attack members of your alliance. Seems no reason to prevent that. You really shouldn't (obviously), but you could if you wanted to.


Some guys will like this one!... :lol: :menacing: ??...

blitzkrieg
09-20-2005, 02:08 PM
I dunno, all this "alliance" stuff just reeks of "survivor". Maybe I'm just REALLY getting sick of reality tv.

There are common goals that pop up from time to time, then the members can go their separate ways.

An alliance maybe should be watered down a little to different facets of understanding;

ie.

1. War

2. ceasefire

3. non aggression pact

4. union (together but seperate)

5. Alliance (everything shared)

and of course - No Contact, you could rate everybody (or everybody that you don't want to be no contact, those in your area)

Maybe in Alliance, you can buy an army and set it to appear at your ally's base as it is nearer to an objective.

It's late and I'm tired, I hope it makes some sense. I just don't want to see, as someone before said "google earth alliance".

aravan
09-20-2005, 02:24 PM
I think Mickey's less complicated version is the perfect way to start. Makes sense to me on all points. To take a page from rasqual - this can be done tonight - right???

Mickey
09-20-2005, 02:29 PM
I dunno, all this "alliance" stuff just reeks of "survivor". Maybe I'm just REALLY getting sick of reality tv.

We could always call them "clans" instead of "alliances". :)

Mickey
09-20-2005, 02:29 PM
To take a page from rasqual - this can be done tonight - right???
We'll see when I get home, but it might happen. We need to get it all figured out first, though...

blitzkrieg
09-20-2005, 02:30 PM
We could always call them "clans" instead of "alliances". :)

'spose

Mickey
09-20-2005, 02:31 PM
If we're not going to do 'cells' then we might need to be able to join multiple alliances.
That way we can do it ourselves.
Otherwise our alliance would already have a problem with funding.
If we can only give money to our allies that is.
With multiple ally joining we can make one alliance with leaders, and then those leaders can make alliances with members.
My only issue with this is if we have a "top alliances" section. Does your value count toward every alliance that you're in? This could lead to the top players taking Geo rewards for joining an alliance just so they get credit for their value. A decent player would end up joining every alliance, which is rather silly.

Lukepuuk
09-20-2005, 02:46 PM
My only issue with this is if we have a "top alliances" section. Does your value count toward every alliance that you're in? This could lead to the top players taking Geo rewards for joining an alliance just so they get credit for their value. A decent player would end up joining every alliance, which is rather silly.

I see your problem. Also I don't think I have an answer for that yet.
The problem is our alliance counts 13 people.
There has to be a way to 'not have to kick anyone out'.

But the problem you spoke off is ofcourse one of honor. I wouldn't let anyone in who already has 5 other alliances.
All our alliances would have similar names.
And perhaps the value should only count for the highest rated Alliance you are in. Not all of them?
I don't know. Just some ideas. Its a difficult one.

Timmetie
09-20-2005, 02:50 PM
Luke, then we'll just have to form 2 alliances that work together closely.

I actually really like the idea, but i think we should have a better way of communication. The send limit of 5, and 1 per minute, really slows such things down and doesnt help with clarity.

Mickey
09-20-2005, 02:56 PM
I actually really like the idea, but i think we should have a better way of communication. The send limit of 5, and 1 per minute, really slows such things down and doesnt help with clarity.

(thinking out loud) I could create an "alliance message page" that any alliance member could post to and only people in that alliance could read...

aravan
09-20-2005, 03:05 PM
(thinking out loud) I could create an "alliance message page" that any alliance member could post to and only people in that alliance could read...

That would be a good solution to the PM problem. Right now it is hard to have good communication within the group as a whole.

Mickey
09-20-2005, 03:15 PM
I guess we just need to decide about the single/multiple alliances per person question and I can get to work on it. The size limit of alliances and other details can be tweaked later.

I'll be honest - part of the reason I'm pushing for one alliance per person is that the coding will be much easier. However, if you all think that people should be able to join multiple alliances, then we can work through that.

Lukepuuk
09-20-2005, 03:32 PM
Luke, then we'll just have to form 2 alliances that work together closely.

I actually really like the idea, but i think we should have a better way of communication. The send limit of 5, and 1 per minute, really slows such things down and doesnt help with clarity.

But then you would have 2 alliances that cannot transfer money to eachother.

rasqual
09-20-2005, 03:53 PM
I like blitzkriegmj's taxonomy -- very much.

How about if people are able to join a maximum of one of EACH KIND of alliance? Formally, that is? And what if the terms are enforced by the game?

1. War (n/a)

2. ceasefire (I think this is implicitly just "no aggression happening," so doesn't need to be coded for either, n/a)

3. non aggression pact (enforced by the game; no attacks on each other possible

4. union (together but seperate) [not sure what to enforce here]

5. Alliance (everything shared) [enforce a lot, but I couldn't enumerate any examples just now]

This is a sticky one, Mickey. I wonder if it might be better to merely implement public records that indicate these alliances, and interpose reminders for allies when they attempt doing anything they shouldn't do under the terms of the alliances. It's certainly "real world' to break alliances ungracefully, and the consequences of that for the player are a potentially interesting "reputation" issue.

How about having all alliances be "soft" in this way -- with implicit, secret alliances still possible behind the scenes, of course (funds should be transferable to anyone! Where'd this "allies only" idea come from?) -- and have a "hall of shame" where those who break formal alliances or betray the terms of alliance are listed, with the offense and parties involved enumerated? This would be the equivalent of the U.N.'s "We express our grave displeasure" pronouncements, which though effete at least let everyone know who they'd do well to avoid trusting in the future.

Seriously. Let declared alliances and enforced warnings before acting contrary be the limit of game control of this, and open a hall of shame for offenders. Let the psychology of the game work through it all, instead of hardwiring what isn't hardwired in the real world.

Timmetie
09-20-2005, 04:36 PM
The giving money to allies only was to curve the cheating.

This makes you a prime suspect!

Mickey
09-20-2005, 06:55 PM
The giving money to allies only was to curve the cheating.

Correct. However, both Lukepuuk and rasqual have given good reasons against it, so that likely won't be implemented.

Lukepuuk
09-20-2005, 09:47 PM
Correct. However, both Lukepuuk and rasqual have given good reasons against it, so that likely won't be implemented.

I think that's better. This way even when there are steady alliances, you can still help a small player who's being attacked or attacking one of your enemies.

Mickey
09-20-2005, 11:05 PM
Alliance code in progress. Should be done later this evening...

anthonywitt
09-22-2005, 09:52 AM
Hey there Mickey could we close out this thread. You have given this to us and the request is a dead subject.

Mickey
09-22-2005, 11:48 AM
Done. :)