PDA

View Full Version : Lift the 8 player alliance limit!



rasqual
09-28-2005, 02:10 PM
Mickey is a classist advocate for the hegemony of the powerful! Keeping the little people down! An end to this tyranny, I say!

Who is with me? Grab your scythe, pitchfork, torch, or golf club and march, march on the castle, I say!

War_Peace
09-28-2005, 02:12 PM
Mickey is a classist advocate for the hegemony of the powerful! Keeping the little people down! An end to this tyranny, I say!

Who is with me? Grab your scythe, pitchfork, torch, or golf club and march, march on the castle, I say!

No he is not! Not at all... He did not do that on purpose!

rasqual, this time you are way off...

Beezer
09-28-2005, 02:55 PM
Mickey is a classist advocate for the hegemony of the powerful! Keeping the little people down! An end to this tyranny, I say!

Who is with me? Grab your scythe, pitchfork, torch, or golf club and march, march on the castle, I say!
All I have is a baseball bat. Will that work??

jduddy
09-28-2005, 03:05 PM
YO,

Power to the people!

Let the revolt begin.

Timmetie
09-28-2005, 04:06 PM
How the great ones will fall!

birq
09-28-2005, 06:05 PM
All I have is a baseball bat. Will that work??

All I have is a Super Soaker and half a box of really old Twinkies. Not very intimidating...

Timmetie
09-28-2005, 08:08 PM
it scared me.

rasqual
09-29-2005, 02:06 AM
Didn't even get a rise out of the Mick. I think he must be eating that delicious bass. A pox on his wife's domestic skills!

birq
09-29-2005, 02:09 AM
Didn't even get a rise out of the Mick. I think he must be eating that delicious bass. A pox on his wife's domestic skills!

I musta scared him off with the Super Soaker.

socrates
09-29-2005, 06:09 AM
All I have is a Super Soaker and half a box of really old Twinkies. Not very intimidating...

I got a super soaker... and my daughters used diaper.... is that enough ?

Lukepuuk
09-29-2005, 12:44 PM
I got a super soaker... and my daughters used diaper.... is that enough ?

NO to chemical or biological weapons :mad:

Mickey
09-29-2005, 05:27 PM
I got a super soaker... and my daughters used diaper.... is that enough ?
Used diapers have much less effect on me now than two years ago...

socrates
09-30-2005, 02:44 AM
run away !! run away !!.... its mickey and his killer bunny rabbit....

rasqual
10-02-2005, 07:02 AM
Ahem. The topic, folks?

Please?

With sugar, etc.?

Timmetie
10-02-2005, 07:05 AM
i think mickey got it, no more use for the topic.

It's free to be derailed.

rasqual
10-03-2005, 01:57 AM
Well, this one's a bit frustrating. I have no brief with the current top players (indeed, several are soft allies), but Mickey's stated reason for the limit was to prevent alliances en masse of top players and yet this is demonstrably precisely what has happened. More than 2 in 3 of the top 15 players are in the three top alliances.

Mickey? Seriously, I haven't heard anything on this since you acknowledged the logic of my objection to the limit. We're seeing clear empirical evidence that my a priori judgment was "a correcti". ;-)

C'mon, comment those lines so we peasants can rise against the powers!

anthonywitt
10-03-2005, 11:53 AM
Rasqual lifting the 8 member limit would not need to happen. Look at my alliance and the members that are in it. The 8 member max makes no difference.
Numbers are not an issue.

Timmetie
10-03-2005, 12:55 PM
anthony, at the moment you're right.

But with things on the horizon as sharing cities, or at the least alliance members not setting off the proximity alert this might change.

Roger Andrew
10-03-2005, 03:58 PM
I'm sure that the semi inactive 1300 members are wondering how to get into the game as they approach any city and get 5 hours work decimated in 30 seconds and 3 inches of script.

EU alliance is no more, N/A is king ..... oK you win, let's move the game onto something interesting again..... lift the membership limit to at least 20.


OR ..... extend the region with oil, cotton, diamonds ... add fish in the middle of the pacific (for ease not reality)... something

Need another change to get the game going again!

His Lord Uberdude
10-03-2005, 04:23 PM
Maybe you could set a maximum total alliance value, instead of limiting the number of people. This would allow hordes of n00bs to try something and prevent the big guys from forming the Top Players Alliance. ;) I still wanna keep NA, but if the game needs a change....

Lukepuuk
10-03-2005, 04:46 PM
I think its fine as it is. Perhaps lifting the maximum limit would be better for the smaller players though.
Our 3 alliance cells work as one so it doesn't really matter.

aravan
10-03-2005, 06:32 PM
Honestly, at this point I think the game is more challenging. If I was relatively new it would take much more strategy to take down the big guys. It took the people on the top of the list a lot of time and effort to get where they are at. It should take someone else an equal amount of time and effort to knock them off the top of the hill. It's a game of war and global domination. If the other alliances are playing smart they will become a force worthy of taking on anyone. I dont want to keep anyone from playing and the game needs to be fun, true, but I keep hearing people whine about the game not being fair and too difficult to get started. Quit whining and do something about it. Have patience, set strategy, plan, form alliances, get intelligence, build armies and go at it.

War_Peace
10-03-2005, 06:35 PM
Wow, so encouraging!...

Are you in "propaganda business"?? :lol:

Lukepuuk
10-03-2005, 07:06 PM
Honestly, at this point I think the game is more challenging. If I was relatively new it would take much more strategy to take down the big guys. It took the people on the top of the list a lot of time and effort to get where they are at. It should take someone else an equal amount of time and effort to knock them off the top of the hill. It's a game of war and global domination. If the other alliances are playing smart they will become a force worthy of taking on anyone. I dont want to keep anyone from playing and the game needs to be fun, true, but I keep hearing people whine about the game not being fair and too difficult to get started. Quit whining and do something about it. Have patience, set strategy, plan, form alliances, get intelligence, build armies and go at it.

Exactly my thought. I'd nominate you for president.

It took me a month to get this far and it should be the same for everyone.
If you start attacking everyone right away you'll probably take longer.
And it's those people you hear the most about things being unfair.

ESEA
10-03-2005, 07:27 PM
Yes Lift the 8 player alliance limit! :whine: :whine: and :whine:

Roger Andrew
10-03-2005, 08:48 PM
YOu accumulate enough GEOS to go looking for some way of suppporting you army .... the bank and an occasional Diamond mine, more rarely a cotton field, and never an oil field, (playing six weeks never found one!)

YOu create an alliance, but you have no control on the success or even if some or all will stick to it to get the GEOS.

Anyone showing any agression is named on the Forum and all the major groups are on their case ... not a chance unless this is the only activity for most of the day .... or scripting is being used to automate the Jewel gathering.

It has to have some activity for the non 300 top guys or it looses it's inmterest to the majority .... those 1300 users with no armies and little activity?

Lukepuuk
10-03-2005, 09:20 PM
YOu accumulate enough GEOS to go looking for some way of suppporting you army .... the bank and an occasional Diamond mine, more rarely a cotton field, and never an oil field, (playing six weeks never found one!)
I was able to find an oil field every time except yesterday.


YOu create an alliance, but you have no control on the success or even if some or all will stick to it to get the GEOS.

Know who you party with before going into an alliance with them.
Our alliance worked great becaus it clicked between the individual persons and we try to help eachother more then gaining Geos for ourselves


Anyone showing any agression is named on the Forum and all the major groups are on their case ... not a chance unless this is the only activity for most of the day .... or scripting is being used to automate the Jewel gathering.

Nonsense, I know of only one case here. I've been named several times, as my whole alliance. Read of dozens of names here and they're not being hunted down.


It has to have some activity for the non 300 top guys or it looses it's inmterest to the majority .... those 1300 users with no armies and little activity?
I believe the game has never had more active newcomers then the last week. Read the activity on your main gewar page and look at all the different cities occupied by different people. Lots without alliances.
My points is: This is just your opinion, and not a fact.
Start slowly as most of us have done. Go for a smaller city in the start and don't attack one of the biggest guys or alliances yet. You're bound to run into other people who might want to help you or need help.
That way most alliances are created. More resources are on the way as i've read. Jewel hunting is still the easiest way. 400 should be easy every day.
Start with defending your cities with at least 10.000 troops and you'll hold just fine for the moment.

rasqual
10-03-2005, 10:55 PM
Which implies that everyone else's posts . . .

;-)


Maybe you could set a maximum total alliance value, instead of limiting the number of people. This would allow hordes of n00bs to try something and prevent the big guys from forming the Top Players Alliance. ;) I still wanna keep NA, but if the game needs a change....
No kidding. This makes so much sense I'm gonna bribe Mickey's wife to serve 'im nothing but boiled okra until it's a fait accompli.

rasqual
10-03-2005, 10:59 PM
Rasqual lifting the 8 member limit would not need to happen. Look at my alliance and the members that are in it. The 8 member max makes no difference.
Numbers are not an issue.
Actually, I don't want to be misconstrued -- and I left my post open to misconstrual.

It's not about giving the little guys a chance to go after the big guys who're on top. It's about the principle of letting as many little guys as wish, band together.

However, I'm not sure I'm intuiting what you're implying, since I can't infer what you intend from what you said. ;-)

socrates
10-04-2005, 06:20 AM
well perhaps you could have a max number of city held... that might limit an alliance...
everyone still gets to hold a city... sort of...you've hit your max... is it worthwhile to go after the next city ? what sort of opposition is there ?

Also it would mean that players holding the top cities will be hit by those just behind them...

sort of like steps... but not quiet...

anthonywitt
10-04-2005, 11:03 AM
I'm sure that the semi inactive 1300 members are wondering how to get into the game as they approach any city and get 5 hours work decimated in 30 seconds and 3 inches of script.

EU alliance is no more, N/A is king ..... oK you win, let's move the game onto something interesting again..... lift the membership limit to at least 20.


OR ..... extend the region with oil, cotton, diamonds ... add fish in the middle of the pacific (for ease not reality)... something

Need another change to get the game going again!Wrong Roger we didnt win the new player won. We had already started giving cities we owned to the new player. The EU issue of breaking a treaty helped the new player even more because we gave them 70% of the cities the EU held.

We give the new players protection so they can grow.

Its players that take cities with massive armies and then quit playing the game. There cities become untouchable for most.

Most of the players that have been on the game for a month or more are fair game but sometimes when I attack an army and then get a PM from them I will replace thier armis and give them a city and you know some of these players. I have even helped you with your requests.So please dont place the NA in bad light because we are big.

Know this there are bigger players than the whole of the NA alliance and I think they are the real worries of this game. Stanley and Nilla could team up at any time and rule the world. I dont know Nilla but I sorta know Stanely. I dont think either one of them would stoop as low as the last world ruler and destroy the hard work of those that still enjoy playing the game even though they dont play. Like I said I dont know them that well.

By the way we could use a cell 5 and I was thinking of you and your boys. Send me a PM.

Roger Andrew
10-04-2005, 03:03 PM
I was trying to empathise with the inactive players, not the active ones.

I agree with Luukpuuk, that a level of hardwork can get you started, but without several days revue of combat and following the forum discussions can get you into a big mess of trouble ... so following our advise you go after smaller targets and the newbies go after the other newbies, especially those, not in alliances.

The big alliances can, if they want pick at the middle ground, but accumulate large sums until an agreed action (or greed) finally drives them to a major assault ... very amusing if you happen to be on-line at the time. We all need a common enemy to pull an alliance together and W_P, Nilla and Stanley have done an admirable job ... but is there sufficient satisfaction and will it survive going out of Beta?

But what else is the game good for? What can it evolve into, what other paths can be opened for alternative "life-styles" to involve others in the game?

... and finally, I would never diss the N/A, especially my Kanduhar friend; I thank him publically for his assistance. ... and I have to admire the mopping up of EU ... however it was the only effective alliance outside of the N/A cells and it was decimated at will ... is this a lesson?

Roger Andrew
10-04-2005, 05:16 PM
Got an oil well: a gusher 80/day; then a diamond mine (not yours) at 100 carats/day

All is well (oil well that is!)

That's all my puns for today!

War_Peace
10-04-2005, 05:26 PM
Got an oil well: a gusher 80/day

Yes 199 barrels 21:44:29 - October 20th, 2005
Yes 185 barrels 03:15:13 - October 19th, 2005
Yes 140 barrels 18:41:54 - October 15th, 2005

Timmetie
10-04-2005, 06:49 PM
we bow to the greatness of your oil wells!

where do i surrender?

:cool:

Roger Andrew
10-04-2005, 09:04 PM
Makes my equipment look inadequate ... I was just happy to get a gush ...especially at my age!!! ?

War_Peace
10-04-2005, 09:16 PM
Makes my equipment look inadequate ... I was just happy to get a gush ...especially at my age!!! ?

You are such a naughty old man! Go home... :P :lol:

Sperber
10-05-2005, 07:43 PM
anthonywitt - i m sorry, but your statement is terrifying far away from the reality ... :shock:


Wrong Roger we didnt win the new player won. We had already started giving cities we owned to the new player. The EU issue of breaking a treaty helped the new player even more because we gave them 70% of the cities the EU held.

i cant see what the new players won. the N/A leaves parts of europe to the newbys, they are fighting each other, because it would make no sense at all attacking the N/A ("he kiddis, here's europe, your playground, have a nice day" ;) ), the N/A holds the rest of the world, almost nobody bothers you and you get stronger an stronger .... by the way: my respect for "damonfreemanza" who countinually attacked johannesburg and almost held it for 24h ...


We give the new players protection so they can grow.

thats very nice of the N/A. really. the N/A holds 80% of the world. the new players may grow into the 20% of the world that are left and are protected by the N/A ... ? ... protected against ... who? other newbys?


Most of the players that have been on the game for a month or more are fair game but sometimes when I attack an army and then get a PM from them I will replace thier armis and give them a city and you know some of these players. I have even helped you with your requests.So please dont place the NA in bad light because we are big.

thats very kind of you. but i thought actually the big point of the game was vading through the blood of your enemies and not getting gifts from someone who is gracious because he's kind of untouchable (in a military way)... yes, the N/A is big - it has no enemies anymore that could be taken serious ...


Know this there are bigger players than the whole of the NA alliance and I think they are the real worries of this game. Stanley and Nilla could team up at any time and rule the world. I dont know Nilla but I sorta know Stanely. I dont think either one of them would stoop as low as the last world ruler and destroy the hard work of those that still enjoy playing the game even though they dont play. Like I said I dont know them that well.

have a look at the last night: stanley was crippled within hours, loosing 200k troops and all of his wealthy cities. so was the ally "European Union", so was war_peace...


By the way we could use a cell 5 and I was thinking of you and your boys. Send me a PM.

open cell 5, 6 and 7, capture all the cities of the world and restart the game ;) anthony, i dont want to offend you - most of my statements are supposed to be sarcatic :spin: but at the moment this game is boring, because its like donquichottes fighting windmills

Timmetie
10-05-2005, 08:50 PM
sperber, be assured. It wont be this easy for us for ever.

I think some of the other big players have decided we've grown too big as well. Ofcourse then one of them would be too big and it would all start again :D

but that's the fun of it right?

Sperber
10-05-2005, 08:58 PM
sperber, be assured. It wont be this easy for us for ever.

yeah, you can bet on that - just planted a new cotton-field an an oil well *silence* err, i m back, had to dry my tears ;)

Yes 678 barrels 22:55:46 - October 11th, 2005

rasqual
10-06-2005, 04:09 AM
Hey! Fools! What ever happened to the topic!

;-)

socrates
10-06-2005, 04:48 AM
Well Mickey could code the alliances so that the combined position of the players in the alliance should be above a value .... say 50; That way, the top 8 players can't be in the same alliance. if they were, the top 8 positions will give a value of 34; below our rudimentry figure of 50. Of course this minimum limit changes with the amount of players in the group...

we don't have to increase the size... but it does address the problem of having too many of the top players in the same alliance....

now, having many Alliances allied together.... I can't figure out how to beat that yet...

rasqual
10-09-2005, 10:43 PM
C:\>ping mickey
Ping request could not find host mickey. Please check the name and try again.


;-)

Mickey
10-09-2005, 11:22 PM
C:\>ping mickey

Reply from mickey: bytes=32 time=38475643ms TTL=52

I'll try to remove the limit tonight.

Mickey
10-10-2005, 03:18 AM
Ok, I think the limit is gone. If you get an error message somewhere that states that the limit is still 8, post the exact URL and error message so I can track it down.

Thanks.

rasqual
10-10-2005, 04:38 AM
Thanks Mickey.

Hey, how about the ability to withdraw invitations, though?

You know how it goes. You show that you'll accomodate one request, and we jump all over you with more. You're doomed for at least the next 48 hours now, I figure.

LOL

TheMightySquigglies
10-10-2005, 11:03 AM
Well Mickey could code the alliances so that the combined position of the players in the alliance should be above a value .... say 50; That way, the top 8 players can't be in the same alliance. if they were, the top 8 positions will give a value of 34; below our rudimentry figure of 50. Of course this minimum limit changes with the amount of players in the group...

we don't have to increase the size... but it does address the problem of having too many of the top players in the same alliance....

now, having many Alliances allied together.... I can't figure out how to beat that yet...

Yeah but they would then add an account with no armies etc.. use it every so often so it isn't removed and make sure it sits at a really high position (say 100+)