Alliance domination

[WaywardTraveller]

I'm concerned about the ability of a single alliance to dominate the game.

If an alliance gains complete control, what becomes the point of the game?

There is a bit of a snowball problem in that the bigger an alliance gets, the more attractive it is for a lot of people to want to join. It's nice to be on the winning team, but hat about when that team becomes the only team?

One of the big problems, as I see it, is that as an alliance gets bigger, the inherant advantage to the alliance keeps going up. As they gain more cities, their inherant advantage also keeps going up. This is not very much like the real world where it typically gets harder and more expensive to manage and spread control the bigger a power gets.

I think this is already a serious balance issue, and could turn into a game killer issue if not addressed at some point.

Another side effect of this which is driven purely by psychology, is that the little guy usually won't want to take on the big guy. So what happens is what is happening right now where hardly anyone will attack the big alliance (NAR at the moment), but rather continue fighting amongst themselves, which makes it easier and easier for NAR to take it's time and pick off the little guys one by one with no real expense incurred.

Thoughts?

(BTW, this isn't about NAR. I'm actually glad NAR is so huge right now as it demonstrates this point very well. I would really hate to see this game just disappear in a few months because total control had been gained making it pointless)

[Lukepuuk]

Ah yes, a point i was trying to make on our own public forum.
The problem we meat is that there is no way of stopping alliances.
Even a maximum limit didn't stop it.
But the problem might solve itself...people don't seem to attack us less, but even more. Trying to bring the biggie down.
But if a team really works together, they can help eachother and maybe eventually own the world(would take a lot of time).
But the game is still in beta...a couple a hundred active players perhaps.
In the future you're talking about thousands of people i hope and then it would be difficult to hold down all those cities.
Also its no fun for a big alliance.
Before previous reset, there was a point where we saw people didn't play as much anymore because we owned most of the planet...so instead we started giving cities away to newbies. To make sure the game wouldn't become boring for us as well.

Eventually the problem always stops itself, though we haven't had the time to really put it to the test now.

Another solution for players would be to join several versions of the game. So you could actually choose an earth where the NAR doesn't exist ;). How about that?

[tony bennett]

MAybe the answer is to give better rewards to those who are not in an alliance.

[WaywardTraveller]

Good points, and I believe (hope) that for the most part you are correct about how it will play out.

However, I still think there should be _some_ cost associated with an alliance.

Idea!

What if to have an active alliance, you had to have a city under your control, and you had to create an 'alliance headquarters'. Once done, you'd now have a home base for your alliance, and your alliance becomes active.

Of course, the point being, that you now have to defend your alliance. If someone takes your alliances home base, your alliance becomes inactive.

This would make it cost something to operate an alliance, but wouldn't be prohibitive at all. It would also make it possible to bring alliances down.

Hm, I'm really liking this idea actually! Nothing drastic, would add another fun element to the game, and would provide a non-intrusive way of preventing total alliance domination!

Thoughts?

[Lukepuuk]

Yes I think it's quite impossible.
Sorry.
Biggest alliance would just keep attacking headquarters of other alliances.
That way new alliances will stay inactive.
The thing is to avoid central points to hit as thats what the big guys will attack then.
Paying to be in an alliance would be an idea, but alliances with newbies would be hard to form then.
As i've said before, theres no way of stopping it. The NA was an active alliance before the option alliances were there so they would just dismember their alliance and keep going as they did before and therefor would have an advantage over other alliances.
Now...tell me honest, you didn't think of that idea did you? ;)

[WaywardTraveller]

Yes I think it's quite impossible.
Sorry.
Biggest alliance would just keep attacking headquarters of other alliances.
That way new alliances will stay inactive.
The thing is to avoid central points to hit as thats what the big guys will attack then.
Paying to be in an alliance would be an idea, but alliances with newbies would be hard to form then.
As i've said before, theres no way of stopping it. The NA was an active alliance before the option alliances were there so they would just dismember their alliance and keep going as they did before and therefor would have an advantage over other alliances.
Now...tell me honest, you didn't think of that idea did you? ;)

I don't think it's as clear cut as that. I think there is a workable solution in there. First, having your headquarters attacked would not be so drastic. For the attacker, it's just a city that happens to also be the home base of an alliance. Second, in the case of having your headquarter city lost, that doesn't destroy the alliance, it just means you need a new home base. Additional rules could make this more solid. For example: You can not move your headquarters unless you loose your headquarter city. Along with that, alliance headquarters are not advertised. You only find out once you attack the city containing an alliances headquarters. That way a big established alliance couldn't just target alliance hq's. Also, a big alliance couldn't just move their hq from city to city, making it possible to attack a major alliances city.

What do you mean I didn't think of that myself?

Anyways, I do not agree that it is hopeless and impossible. Rather, I believe there is a solution, and not only is one possible, but one is required to ensure the future of this game.

It is the only real point in the game that there is no balance. It's really that simple. Alliance features simply need balance, that's all.

Nothing is impossible :)

And I'm not quite sure what you meant, but I do tend to think for myself and this idea is indeed mine.

[cowtreky]

On the point of an alliance cost perhaps it should on a sliding scale. The more people that join an alliance the more it will cost on a per person basis.

Even though the NAR was in existence prior to alliances, it was the illusion for me when I first joined that I could be dominent power. (Till I found out otherwise).

When it comes to stats, seeing your alliance a close second, third, and so forth gives going after the next bigger guy new meaning.

Keep alliances no more than 10. Everyone still makes allies anyways if they talk.

[Lukepuuk]

It still didn't answer my question:
Big Alliances who own their own forum would just dismember the alliance officially and go on as they did before, but now with an advantage over the official alliances.

[cowtreky]

It still didn't answer my question:
Big Alliances who own their own forum would just dismember the alliance officially and go on as they did before, but now with an advantage over the official alliances.


Because we are online we need to use use the honour system to a certain extent. Do you believe that their are enough hounerable players within the NAR to help make this happen? Or is everyone just blowing steam on this forum?

[His Lord Uberdude]

As for NA: we aren't taking new members, as far as I know, which somewhat alleviates your concern, for the time-being.

As to the future of the game, this could be a real problem. I can't think of any real good solution...

Creating an alliance cost that goes up with increasing value just doesn't make sense. We're taxing the successful more because the little guys can't get in? If anything, better players and better alliances should become more profitable as they get bigger. I know this is sounding bad coming from an NA member, but it's true. Think about it.

Finally, it's not impossible to beat NA. I mean, anyone recall the UN? They managed to top us for several days until internal hemmoraging blew them apart. ;) It's not impossible to beat a big alliance.

[cowtreky]

Finally, it's not impossible to beat NA. I mean, anyone recall the UN? They managed to top us for several days until internal hemmoraging blew them apart. ;) QUOTE]


LOL:lol: :lol:

I know I was one of them:lol:

[Lukepuuk]

Because we are online we need to use use the honour system to a certain extent. Do you believe that their are enough hounerable players within the NAR to help make this happen? Or is everyone just blowing steam on this forum?

Yes i do believe that.
We don't just talk about the game but really become friends and talk about life and stuff.
That aside, alliances would be just as easy without the option if an alliance has it's own forum. And it worked brilliantly for the NA.

[Timmetie]

Right, i say this just for the sake of the game.

A rather small alliance could hurt us, just take a city, defend it with their lives, making it cost to much for us, and then dont insult us through PM's (honor will always win from financial need) and you've got yourself a city..

I know ive supported the neutral players, and i know i've been attacked by multiple people at once. So it seems to work fine.

The problem with the UN was, that they were a bunch of unorganised, agressive, insulting -not so kind persons-. A real alliance could work..

i mean ive always been yelling that city owners should have more advantages, they still dont. so at the moment, a NAR member, is almost equal to some random noob.

which i hate, but in the current system its foolish to yell that things are unfair, UN had more players then us, and we beat them. often. and good.

which leaves us with the fact that we're just better players then you all, and you should form even bigger groups to defeat us! believe me, thats what i'm waiting for, and what i got over the last few weeks.

[WaywardTraveller]

These are all reasons why all I think that need be done is to introduce some sort of penalty of some form to make it harder to retain a huge percentage of the cities.

Think about how this works in the real world: It's somewhat simple to put together a very powerful force, and a good amount of control can be enforced, to a point. HOWEVER: The bigger the area trying to be controlled, the harder it is to retain that control.

Unlike in GEWar, in the real world it gets HARDER the bigger you get (at a certain point). In GEWar it get's easier, or at the very least doesn't change.

I think this could be solved without imposing any artificial restrictions or payments on alliances.

[Lukepuuk]

2 months ago it was difficult to hold large cities for long but people nagged to mickey so much that he made it easier by putting the city tax reward up. Now you want to turn that back?
And again...please don't bring the alliance payments and such as alliances are just as easy without the alliance option use...so then you would only punish people using the option.
It's just not as easy as that, sorry.

[WaywardTraveller]

2 months ago it was difficult to hold large cities for long but people nagged to mickey so much that he made it easier by putting the city tax reward up. Now you want to turn that back?
And again...please don't bring the alliance payments and such as alliances are just as easy without the alliance option use...so then you would only punish people using the option.
It's just not as easy as that, sorry.

I didn't suggest alliance payments, actually I just stated I didn't think there should be any.

As well, I did not suggest changing city tax rates. Not sure how that came up.

[Timmetie]

so you propose what?

[WaywardTraveller]

so you propose what?

I've got nothing I guess.

Though I still think there is something in the idea of forcing alliances to have and defend a home base.

[Roger Andrew]

How about slowing larger armies down ... REal war is small armies reacting quickly but larger forces require time to co-ordinate support and supply chain... SO the recon units at 100 fly about as now, but any army over 500 half speed. Then larger armies will be obvious, but fly byes of 20 x 500 will be almost as obvious, but at least Stronger Alliances will be able to co-ordinate attacks in force ONLY IF there is communication and introduces the balancing of ETA's of small and large forces.

I'd prefer a "cost of transport" factor, but that is a nightmare for Micky.

[socrates]

Looking back at all the post, the most brilliant suggestion comes from Roger Andrew. This is a brilliant plan
Inevitably its still up to mickey ... and he's got a dayjob and a life...
so lets be patient, he'll get to it sooner or later...

In the meanwhile, to all those prospective people who want knock NAR down... Plan; take your time and cooperate with each other...

Remember ... united we stand, divided you fall...
nyahhahhahahah :lol: sorry.. couldn't help myself

[speedfreak227]

i think limiting the size of an alliance and making oney transfers available only to alliance members would be a good start.

you should also only be able to join an alliance once per 2 weeks or something to prevent people from switching in and out for cash tranfers.

comments?

speedfreak227

[Lukepuuk]

i think limiting the size of an alliance and making oney transfers available only to alliance members would be a good start.

you should also only be able to join an alliance once per 2 weeks or something to prevent people from switching in and out for cash tranfers.

comments?

speedfreak227

Yes I have a comment....instead of building an economy that would be going one step back again.
The easiest way is to take options Mickey coded away from the game, but that doesn't mean its the best way.

[anthonywitt]

Yes Lukas I aggree with you and would futher state that the first beta and what came with it is still the best.