PDA

View Full Version : Paying to be in an alliace.



Lukepuuk
10-12-2005, 12:31 AM
How about if you have to pay to be in an alliance?
Now after that sentence I already hear everybody: nooo that would only be good for the big guys...we newbies have nothing....

But I'm talking about a very small percentage of what you own, and making that more if the alliance grows.
If you put it at 0.25% of someones assets, then a group of big guys would pay way more then a group of small ones. And if a lot of biggies group together, that percentage would go up. Maybe that would be fair to newbies as 0.25% of their total would be almost nothing.
But when they get big they would start paying more too.

It would give alliances of newbies a feeling of fairness perhaps?
And would maybe stop enormous alliances of big guys as they would hold little bank interest.
Just an idea.

rasqual
10-12-2005, 02:57 AM
How about if you have to pay to be in an alliance?
Now after that sentence I already hear everybody: nooo that would only be good for the big guys...we newbies have nothing....

But I'm talking about a very small percentage of what you own, and making that more if the alliance grows.
If you put it at 0.25% of someones assets, then a group of big guys would pay way more then a group of small ones. And if a lot of biggies group together, that percentage would go up. Maybe that would be fair to newbies as 0.25% of their total would be almost nothing.
But when they get big they would start paying more too.

It would give alliances of newbies a feeling of fairness perhaps?
And would maybe stop enormous alliances of big guys as they would hold little bank interest.
Just an idea.

We Americans barely pay our UN dues as it is. If you want the game to be realistic, ya can't go there, man. ;-)

But let me toss a stone in the calm water of your reflection -- what's wrong with big alliances (your comrades mumble "hear, hear")? Is there anything wrong in the real world, with big alliances? I don't think so -- not obviously.

But we're only seeing alliances in a sense of "we're all together." However, that's not necessarily the limit of collaboration, agreement, and concord in the world. There are myriad treaties that have been ratified by countries otherwise at odds. And there are many strategic alliances in the world whose member states are NOT all signatories on various treaties with varying social, political, and economic implications. Thus, there are "para-alliance" issues that could limit the cohesive power of static alliances -- member states might differ on a number of OTHER issues.

So what would happen if, in the GE game, various treaties were posted and signatories ratified them? Just now, alliances are "dropped in from space" in the sense that they have little rhyme or reason. Imagine if NATO had been as random as some of the alliances in GE. Think of what it stands for. It's bloomin' geographic! And yet geography is hardly a determinant of ANYTHING in this game. In Google Earth, geography is barely a determinant of anything -- except how long it takes armies to get to places. Go figure! (Yes, Mickey, you can take this as a gentle critique of progress thus far on several geographic concerns I've urged in the past) But I digress -

Imagine if there were countercurrents of mutual concern that transcended the random alliances currently in play. Alliances would themselves have evident -- not just latent, but evident -- fault lines. Other alliances or free agents could identify these and seek to exploit these, or leverage stresses in an effort to destabilize or foster disequilibration, leading to new stabilities following periods of chaotic flux. And so forth, blah blah blah.

Lukepuuk
10-12-2005, 12:18 PM
lol, it wasn't really meant to be realistic, it was meant to help the smaller players who can't fight a big alliance.

If everything would have to be realistic, then the interest rate on the bank should be more for the rich then for the poor...we can't do that can't we?

reklats
10-12-2005, 01:24 PM
Well in the real world, a big alliance isn't a problem because it reduces aggression but in a game where the fun is the aggression, big alliances hinder our enjoyment potential ;)

js3486
10-13-2005, 08:53 PM
How about if you have to pay to be in an alliance?
Now after that sentence I already hear everybody: nooo that would only be good for the big guys...we newbies have nothing....

But I'm talking about a very small percentage of what you own, and making that more if the alliance grows.
If you put it at 0.25% of someones assets, then a group of big guys would pay way more then a group of small ones. And if a lot of biggies group together, that percentage would go up. Maybe that would be fair to newbies as 0.25% of their total would be almost nothing.
But when they get big they would start paying more too.

It would give alliances of newbies a feeling of fairness perhaps?
And would maybe stop enormous alliances of big guys as they would hold little bank interest.
Just an idea.


Umm and where would the proceeds go? Who would determine the direction of the Dues? AS an American I can not stand the fact we Have the UN in our country and Pay millions in Dues and have little to no influence on how it is spent. Please let us not replicate the UN!!

Lukepuuk
10-13-2005, 09:20 PM
Thats not the idea...the idea is that newbies making a big alliance would have an advantage over big guys having a big alliance.

js3486
10-13-2005, 09:44 PM
Thats not the idea...the idea is that newbies making a big alliance would have an advantage over big guys having a big alliance.

No offense Luuk but I don't think your looking at the big picture. In every alliance there evolves a Hierarchy. Currently the "master" has the power to KIck out and invite or evene disband. What if this guy got the idea to put the allotments in his own account and did that or the alliance did nothing more than logging daily to collect theri "welfare check" amassing large fortunes to take them to a warrior status within hours. Once agian potential abuses through this system could occur. INcluding one person deermining how the funds were spent. It is a slippery slope we should not attempt to climb..

Jeremy