50% Govt Tax for Shipjumpers + bring back decent solo option

[Hobbezak]

If a player leaves, there is enough time to steal 50% of his acres without any sort of possible defence, so I think you got your tax system right there.

Unless the leader of the alliance you join asks his Enmity buddies to piggy our ticks (despite them supposedly not working together).

Correct, but that doesn't change a thing for whoever left (and this tax would be used as a deterrent to leaving, not as some sort of compensation for the alliance). If the player himself would have asked anyone to piggy, it'd be mutually agreed attacking which is, apart from being almost impossible to prove, also against the EULA.

 

[CFalcon]

An alliance doesn't give you troops, land or funds. You help eachother out in defence (and it works both ways there), but at least in my case, the alliance didn't play my account afaik.

There is a big doubt in my mind that you would have made it into top 10 as a solo robot. So the alliance GAVE you more than you would have been able to get by your own. Sure you defended them and they defended you with the intent of increasing the goods inside the alliance but the point is from their view they defended a waste and from your point you gained more than you would have on your own.

Wow, you're normally pretty sharp DS, but you're way off here.

Let's say I'm a member of an alliance, 1/20th of it's force. Let's be generous and say it's a pretty good alliance. I defend them, they defend me, I prank them, they prank me. Each of them is receiving as much from me as I am receiving from any of them. At what point do I owe any of them anything?

Yes the alliance has invested time and effort in increasing my rank for the good of the alliance, but I have also invested time and effort in increasing everyone else's rank. They defended a waste of time??? You could say that I defended a waste of time too. Or you could look at it properly and notice that we each defended each other, and while we were together we each benefited from each other. By saying waste of time you're assuming that as a member my only function is to grow and be defended by them for the score taking at round's end. You're completely ignoring that I have been helping them all through my time there.

Assuming I'm a half decent member, somewhere around average for that alliance, then neither of us are in debt to the other. Or are you saying that when I leave an alliance I'm allowed to deduct from that alliance all the troops and land that I've helped to defend??

And if I'm an under-performing member who does actually owe the alliance something, then that alliance is probably better off getting rid of me. It's not in their interest to disencourage me leaving.

It's true that as a solo I would probably not do as well, but that's a completely different issue. That's the imbalance between alliance and solo play, and it has nothing to do with my alliance in particular.


Why does this game have such a problem with people leaving alliances? I've given up my time to assist your alliance, and now you want to punish me when I decide I don't want to any more?

Yes there are reasons to want to stop spies etc. but the way to tackle that is not a blanket measure like this, indiscriminately punishing anyone who leaves an alliance for whatever reason.

 

[DarkSider]

My disgusts comes from many rounds ago .. can't remember exactly when but the scenario was something like:

Early wars between top allies, one said to be SQ robot getting defended all the time and he just sat on lots and lots of land and just made a shitload of funds when he didn't deserve any of that, the alliance put almost 100% effort into them with massive late night calls to get the members online and defend the acres. They start *****ing at him for not buying up and defending, he leaves and joins the other alliance they're at war with, plants and buys a super imba army that totally changes the flow of the war.
You can find arguments against my views but you can't deny such a scenario totally sucks and shouldn't happen

 

[CFalcon]

You can find arguments against my views but you can't deny such a scenario totally sucks and shouldn't happen

Yes that really does suck, and if you proposed a fair way to deal with that situation then I might well support it, along with a fair few others.

But you can't say "bad things happen sometimes, so punish everyone!". That doesn't do the game any good.

 

[Alcibiades]

You can find arguments against my views but you can't deny such a scenario totally sucks and shouldn't happen

Yes that really does suck, and if you proposed a fair way to deal with that situation then I might well support it, along with a fair few others.

But you can't say "bad things happen sometimes, so punish everyone!". That doesn't do the game any good.

win. I see no reason to punish everyone because of the actions of a few.

 

[DarkSider]

Lose
Sure the alliance took some profit while the player was inside but it was a waste of a space in the end. The same spot could have been used by a player who did the very same helping and got the same help in return, who grew to same size and strength but will keep using the land and troops he has in the benefit of the alliance.
You can get a quick idea if you will integrate in this alliance or not and if you wish to leave you should do it without big penalties, but if you stay in it for long time and leave (going to the enemy since each alliance plays for itself or should) this alliance shouldn't fight the troops they fought for so long to protect (at least not all of them).
Something along the lines of days in alliance * 3 with a maximum of 50% of all your land troops funds seeds plants should make players have a good thought before backstabing their mates. And if it's worth the looses by all means do it. But atm it's just too easy to be breast feed and then go search for another warm bed.

Hurt many because of a few ? What exactly are you talking about ? Hurt many players who are leaving their alliance because of a few what ? Many or few who decide they are better in another place after occupying a spot for long time in an alliance shouldn't get a free plane ticket imo, doesn't matter if they are in rank 1 alliance or rank 20. So many talked about how good old times were with allies sticking together round after round, with cores beeing formed but when a suggestion comes to improve *team play* you promote backstabing your own alliance and jumpshiping.


Edit: Just to give you a rl example:

A small football club getting this kid in and training him and the kid wins games for them while playing in the team. It's the same you help me i help you as we have in our discussion above, when the kid makes 20 years he decides he is better at a bigger club. Now you want their old club to say: Oh ok bye, we helped eachother so it's ok. While we know in fact it's : You want to go, sure no problem, we'll put a price on you

 

[aGit]

A small football club getting this kid in and training him and the kid wins games for them while playing in the team. It's the same you help me i help you as we have in our discussion above, when the kid makes 20 years he decides he is better at a bigger club. Now you want their old club to say: Oh ok bye, we helped eachother so it's ok. While we know in fact it's : You want to go, sure no problem, we'll put a price on you
__________________

tbh, thats a shitty comparison. and i'm sure you know why.

 

[Polo]

Edit: Just to give you a rl example:

A small football club getting this kid in and training him and the kid wins games for them while playing in the team. It's the same you help me i help you as we have in our discussion above, when the kid makes 20 years he decides he is better at a bigger club. Now you want their old club to say: Oh ok bye, we helped eachother so it's ok. While we know in fact it's : You want to go, sure no problem, we'll put a price on you

Bushtarion players sign contracts?

 

[Alcibiades]

Hurt many because of a few ? What exactly are you talking about ? Hurt many players who are leaving their alliance because of a few what ? Many or few who decide they are better in another place after occupying a spot for long time in an alliance shouldn't get a free plane ticket imo, doesn't matter if they are in rank 1 alliance or rank 20. So many talked about how good old times were with allies sticking together round after round, with cores beeing formed but when a suggestion comes to improve *team play* you promote backstabing your own alliance and jumpshiping.

I think you misunderstood me.

You are hurting those players who want to leave for a genuinely good reason because of the actions of a minority few who you want to punish for 'shipjumping' or 'backstabbing'.

I don't think you should remove the option of backstabbing someone. There is no logical or sane reason to punish someone for leaving an alliance for whatever reasons. There don't need to be game mechanics for every single little thing.

People shouldn't be forced to play in an alliance they don't want to play in simply because if they leave they'll lose 50% land/plants/seeds/funds whatever. It's just plain wrong to even think about doing that.

As for backstabbing someone.... there shouldn't be any limitations on that being possible. Not... at all. Just no. All you would do with that kind of rule is encourage the top alliance (the most likely people to split/backstab) to stick together, block the secondary alliances from growing/planting/fighting and force them to play a stale, stagnating round. ReRR would almost certainly not have left RaRR this round if we knew we were going to lose 50% income/seeds/plants/troops/land. And then people would be *****ing and complaining about another stagnant round.

If anything, make the time you cannot be defended upon joining another alliance longer so that you have more time for revenge other than the 90 minutes.

As CFalcon said, usually you're sharp DS, but in this circumstance you're miles off imo. I really don't see the need to punish those who leave alliances; kill them ingame, don't bring in another set of game mechanics.

 

[DarkSider]

"

You are hurting those players who want to leave for a genuinely good reason because of the actions of a minority few who you want to punish for 'shipjumping' or 'backstabbing'.

I don't think you should remove the option of backstabbing someone. There is no logical or sane reason to punish someone for leaving an alliance for whatever reasons. There don't need to be game mechanics for every single little thing.

"


There is no difference between 'leave for a genuinely good reason' or backstabbers. If the leader is a moron or some members smell or whatever else "good reason" you have to want to leave the alliance they still had an impact over your company the longer you stayed in the alliance.
Punish someone for leaving an alliance ? Think at it as a divorce, you want to leave you can, and you should leave with what you earned. You don't earn the control over 100% land and 100% troops, the longer the alliance had an influence on your growth the less those are YOUR troops and more are alliance's troops. And don't bring the legal stuff arguments irl or that joining an alliance doesn't mean you merry it, it's just easyer to argument giving some examples
Bottom line is alliance play should be a team play where you dedicate yourself to the team, and this is imo at least an interesting idea to make members want to put effort into helping their team through good and bad moments instead having an easy plan B of leaving at first sign that things don't work as they want.

While i can see this suggestion in particular didn't got as much positive feedback i still think the general idea of making members want to be more loyal to an alliance should be encouraged, even with ingame mechanics.
Afterall why the hell would i join an alliance if there is a good chance after several sleepless nights to defend one or more members they decide they want some extra fun then leave and kill me ?

 

[harriergirl]

Oh FFS, there should be a tax or penalty for leaving an alliance. No you shouldn't have to quit or delete or start completely over, but seriously the very meaning of the term alliance suggests a smidgeon of loyalty. Taking a tax when status changes is one of the best options I've heard tbh.

@Hobbes, you were asked to give Garrett 24 hrs to deliberate some decisions that had to be made. You chose to jump anyway, and that is why you suck. Not that you didn't agree, but that you chose the easy way out.

 

[Alcibiades]

Ok, it seems I’m guilty of waffling too much as usual.

In my attempt to fully explain the reasons behind my suggestion, I’ve probably clouded my overall intention/suggestion a bit.

So whilst I’ll take on board the comments to date, and have to admit I agree with what people are saying mostly (though a few over-generalisations maybe), I would also like to clarify a couple of points that seem to have questions about them and maybe that will make my overall intention clearer… in fact I’d prefer discussion on the issue I raise about how to improve, provide incentive to stick together, rather than just saying no to what I suggest as a possible solution (it was all I could come up with tbh and just didn’t want to make a gripe thread);

Pardon me for not seeing this post sooner. Don't know how i missed it

Anyway, I digress yet again… back on topic;

1. This is not a suggestion to FORCE people to stay with an ally, but ENCOURAGE an ally stick together…. Leaving an ally should be a last option, not the first option as some people seem to take time and time again.

It may not be a suggestion to force people to stay with an ally but i have a feeling that will be the unintended side effect. maybe it's just me and the allies i've been in, but i don't notice a lot of people leaving willy nilly. It's mostly people getting kicked for inactivity and being replaced.

2. Yes this penalty could be avoided with Leader permission (i.e. should be no penalty for people who get leaders permission to leave) – but limit how many can be kicked to avoid the penalty per hour or something – following on, if a leader kicked a member, then ofc no penalty is set (I think the kick/rape would be penalty enough lol)

I like the idea of the 50% tax being able to be waived in certain circumstances. I thought it was to be applied across the board and that i would not have supported. As it stands i'd be more amenable to the suggestion if it could be waived.

3. Yes there is a risk that someone doesn’t like the ally they agreed to join and is not allowed to leave without penalty….and feels stuck. But I think most would take a 50% cut of value over complete restart imo, especially later in the round when more dev’d up. But really I don’t see this as a problem, and if happened to me I would put it down to MY poor choice of ally to join, and move on. Also as I said, it was more about promoting staying in an ally and making the decision to leave harder than it currently is, then trying to force people to stay where they really don’t want to be.

I'd prefer to see something like an incentive to remain within an ally, rather than punishment to stop people from leaving. either advantages conferred from having HQ bonuses (i.e. with the further development of an HQ you could get bonuses to troops etc). Just theorizing there with that solution since people seem to want constructive criticism, not just criticism. Gameplay mechanics aren't my strong point; but critiquing ideas is.

I would very rarely blame myself for choosing a shitty ally. What if you just joined the first ally you were accepted to (as a newbie) and then quickly learned you weren't getting along due to a crazy leader, bad allymates or whatever, then you will be forced to lose 50% of your value due to making a mistake? So in essence you're punishing someone for making a mistake?

have to think of new players in this circumstance, not just players who should, as you put it, 'know better'.

4. In relation to Azzer’s question about a player potentially doing “something destructive (like leak all the alliances info) to try and get themselves kicked/ruin the alliance they wanted to leave?” – isn’t this the same thing that currently happens anyway when people get upset with their ally? I would say it’s the leaders job to manage his players. So, if someone requested to leave the ally and had a decent reason and was declined, I’d say it’s a bad leader that brought it on themselves, not the mechanism itself (whatever that may be).

You might, in this circumstance, encourage someone to spy/do something destructive if they are punished for leaving an alliance. If the leader doesn't agree and forces the 50% tax then the chances of them doing something 'destructive' increases exponentially in my eyes. If i was upset at my leader for whatever reason, and left without being taxed, i may or may not take action to the detriment of that alliance. But if i was not allowed to leave peacefully without being taxed, then i would almost certainly go out of my way to **** them over. I can't speak for everyone, but the get the feeling the majority of players would feel that way.

5. Alci I totally agree with you in fact… loyalty must be earnt! But I don’t see my suggestion as something that goes against that principle. I see it more as a deterrent to being a ruthless ‘solo’ player masquerading as an ‘allied’ player (for lack of a better term).

Forcing someone to be loyal to an alliance or they will be taxed 50% of their value or whatnot is forcing loyalty. It is not being earned. I have no problems with trying to deter the ruthless kind of solo playing you're describing but I do not think this is the appropriate way to do it. You could do something to make alliance play more team oriented, i.e. force them to have to work with their mates. Forcing someone to play in an alliance or they'll be punished is just going to have a really negative feedback imo.

6. Again Alci, “i do not, and will not agree to the punishment of members who wish to leave an alliance ever.”. I agree with this statement to a point and this is where I think people may be getting misled with my initial post being so long. I am not for a blanket/broad mechanism that would apply to everyone leaving an ally in all circumstance every time. In fact in a perfect world I would love to see it never actually get used, and Leaders treat their players with respect and let them move along when they want… this is about deterring the people who do bail on their ally with the pure intention of giving their original alliance grief (e.g. waiting till people are mostly offline then leaving and killing them etc) –

At first, as you suspected, i thought you meant a blanket mechanism which really isn't a good solution as you admit. The leader (and those members with the power) who are allowed to 'waive' the tax is a nice step towards solving my issues with that. But as i've stated several times, I don't agree with the 'stick' solution to making allied players stick together. The 'carrot' beats the stick every time. You shouldn't make assumptions on a 'perfect' world, because the world isn't perfect, and things/mechanics/players will get abused.

7. Another example of how to tweak it could be, make it an alliance option the leader has ability to set at start when creating the alliance and not a Govt intervention thing (lol yeah I’m talking rubbish now, but my point is that there has to be a way of making it palatable – making it a positive change rather than negative) – e.g It could be seen as a good recruitment selling point for a leader trying to get a new group together.

Hmm, i'm not sure i fully understand what you mean here. Would you have that they set the leaving tax at 15% and then they can't change it again for the remainder of the round, so their selling point could be 'Hey we only have a 15% tax' kind of thing?

8. Finally if I could address Azzer’s analogy… yes there is no country that prevents immigration to promote loyalty/patriotism, but if you bailed on your country and sold government secrets, are you saying there would be no repercussions? You still need a ‘passport’ in most cases? Would a highly ranked US Nuclear scientist who defected to Nth Korea be able to do it scott-free. I’d say not, and go so far as to say assets might be frozen, monitoring put in place etc. I’m guessing ofc, I’m not even American, but it would be fair to say with the anti-terrorism sentiment around the globe, that it would not be as simple as just packing up and moving <- (ok, way off-topic I know and just adds to the length of my post, but I don’t like generalisations I guess)

I hate real world analogies that are tied into bush because they generally aren't accurate. To take your state secrets example, you might be arrested, killed, have a 'rendition' order given about you in which case you would be brought back to your country where you committed the crime and brought to justice.

This is analogous to being raped/rushed/killed by your ex alliance once you leave. If you emigrate from your country, there is no tax on your wealth/possessions etc simply because you're leaving. Anyways, this analogy has gotten way out of hand, it's simply incorrect. Leave the real world out of this please


While i approve of the idea of making alliances more loyal to one another, as i've said, i don't think using the threat of taxation is a good idea. This idea seems to me to be likely only to create further animosity within the alliance and create further sour feelings in allied players. I'd prefer to see incentives for remaining allied.

Oh FFS, there should be a tax or penalty for leaving an alliance. No you shouldn't have to quit or delete or start completely over, but seriously the very meaning of the term alliance suggests a smidgeon of loyalty. Taking a tax when status changes is one of the best options I've heard tbh. .

I can't help but disagree with this. I'm all for loyalty, but you can't enforce it due to negative actions. Positive solutions ftw. While i can understand your bitterness to hobbezak leaving, i don't think it should cloud your judgment here.

 

[harriergirl]

pffft, not really bitter, so much as miffed. The truth is, a tax is not an unreasonable adjustment to changing ally status. it doesn't force anything, you can still leave, and if you are a good player you can easily recover the difference, especially if you move to another alliance.

It doesn't have to be 50% it could be 25% or some other such x number, however if I get pissed and get an itch to leave, I might stop and think twice before I do a random jump.

I'm not saying it's the only solution or that there isn't a better one, but your knee jerk omg it sucks because i'm being punished isn't the reality either.

 

[Alcibiades]

But if, as you say, the tax is easily recoverable then why institute it in the first place? Those who really want to go are going to go and supposedly recover it quickly. In which case your deterrent has not done anything. However, for those who might like to leave but aren't willing to go to the lengths of losing significant amounts of score/land whatever, are essentially being forced to stay somewhere they don't like because of unnecessary game mechanics.

Those who aren't going to go, aren't going to be deterred by a tax; but by other constraints, like lack of a place to go, loyalty etc etc.

It's not so much a kneejerk reaction as an expectation that this won't accomplish it's goal, and will cause far more animosity than we need. I could be wrong, and would be happy to be wrong, but i think this is neither necessary, nor the right way to go.

As i've stated numerous times, what we should have are incentives to stick together that aren't negative. Carrots win more favour than sticks.

 

[Enigma]

Final points from me then I’m just going to leave this I think…. I could think of a million different ways something like this could be implemented, and I’m not trying to flog a dead horse, but all I really want to do is get some discussion and see if others agree there is an issue and possible solutions. And at the moment it seems a bit split.

So the main argument I hear is that what if you seek permission to leave (for a valid reason), but your Leader is a d**k and won’t let you… you then feel trapped and have to make a choice between 50% cut or deleting. Either that, or people have major concerns about implementing an in-game ‘mechanism’ that would apply to all with no flexibility.

With that in mind, I could easily see another option to offset this and still maintain my original idea of trying to encourage alliances to stick together. So my amended suggestion goes something like this;


-----------
1. If you just bail out immediately, without permission, you lose 50% - this goes to Govt (effectively out of game, not to the alliance)
2. If you obtain Leader permission (get kicked) – then no penalty
3. If Leader decides to kick you, no penalty
4. If you have tried to seek permission to leave but are declined (or know that you would be), you have the option to leave the alliance ‘publically’ with no penalty – e.g. You select ‘Leave Publically’, and an alliance log is generated “<Player1> will be leaving the alliance in <xxx> ticks" (now sure how long a delay is reasonable… but I would suggest 6-12 ticks at minimum)
5. Once you leave an alliance, you cannot return for <yy> ticks/days (whatever)
6. Maybe it is an option a Leader selects when creating the alliance (on or off, no ability to adjust) (not ideal imo, but something that comes to mind)
----------


What has prompted this amendment is that I feel the strongest resistance is coming from a perceived ‘blanket’ rule being in place that effects everyone, every time. That’s not what I was trying to achieve – it was more to make it a bit harder to jump around than stop it entirely… and more so limit the impact a small few bad apples can cause to the group as a whole.

I also want to make clear that I tried to come up with something that I did not think would change the core game either…. So whilst I am suggesting an in-game mechanism, is it really a huge change that would impact a huge number? I doubt it. Does it change the way you attack/defend/obtain targets? No

I am really interesting in hearing as any people’s opinions as I can, and hate to see this degenerate to back and forth’s between a limited few arguing that their opinion is ‘right’. EG. I am surprised (and I’ll admit a bit chuffed) that DS seems to like the idea…. But then why is he getting argued with when it wasn’t his suggestion? He is entitled to his opinion I would think? (but I thank him for being so vocal about it lol)

Alci also suggests the whole RRR split as another reason something like this shouldn’t be implemented. Well as an original RRR leftover, don’t I have the right to argue that I don’t think it should have been allowed to happen like that (just my opinion), and frankly I personally don’t care if you were all forced to stay together and have a boring finish to the round instead of what went on (that’s just my opinion though, not a ***** or gripe). Further, I’d make a leap of faith and go on to say that with the splinter group making no effort to manage their score to retain targets near the time of their defection, if they had stayed in the original RRR, the rest of the player-base would have had plenty of room to grow and battle out the lower ranks as usually does happen each round (hypothetical ofc just assuming, and the way some of original RRR were dying regularly, maybe not too).
I think your comment about a ‘stagnant’ round Alci may also be more from your own perception and being bored with no targets, than wanting to “do something good for the player-base/game in general”…. By saying the player-base would complain if RRR hadn’t split, you are in fact arguing a hypothetical, something that didn’t occur, so to then guess what the player-base reaction would be, and state it as a fact in your post is a little bemusing. Yes that may have happened, but my point is it didn’t. (and yes I agree most the player-base was happy it happened too. I love to watch a good alliance implosion as much as the next guy hehe… but would they be happy to have it happen to them is probably the bigger unknown)

Anyway, that in itself is neither here nor there… In fact I’d prefer to let the whole RRR thing go and not get in any discussion about that. I feel that while it fits the theme of my suggestion and expected it to be raised, it is not the main reason I am suggesting something like this and don’t want the fact I was a RRR member to distract from my main points. (i.e. In all the scenarios I have tried to think about, I understand the RRR incident was more an anomaly than something I think I would encounter regularly and I have no personal animosity towards anyone who was in either of the RRR alliances).

OK, OK, I had written this much then saw Alci’s latest post…. I’ve probably told you before, but if not… you rock I was getting worried you were approaching this a bit blinkered at first (thinking maybe this was an anti-RRR gripe from me disguised as a suggestion), then you go and post a thoughtful, well constructed post giving me some honest feedback – ty

Anyway all I can respond to that, is to refer back to my amendments above (does this alleviate some of the worries?) and add that whilst I would also prefer carrots to sticks, I couldn’t think of any ‘carrots’ that wouldn’t change the actual game play, or lock down alliances more than I wanted (e.g. Pure-Alliance options/ HQ bonuses I don’t think are workable as this would trap people in alliances they may decide they don’t like more than a potential ‘exit-tax’, OR, extra defend slots for alliances unchanged since round started ticking would change the whole attack/defence balance… etc). I didn’t want to change the game, just the mentality and player approach slightly I guess.

So as much as I agree that generally punishments are bad, in this case with the very limited impact I am hoping to achieve, the overall impact to the game would be very small. E.G, it is only bad for you as a player, if you yourself do something bad for your alliance… which 95% of people wouldn’t do (disclaimer: random statistic with no basis ). The way I see it, it doesn’t change the way you play the game, and it doesn’t add to any required ‘learning’ for new players.

Anyway, thanks to all that have taken then time to provide their opinions and thoughts… and I look forward to maybe even hearing more ideas people may have along these lines too (maybe not punishments though lol).

Personally I still think something “like” this could be beneficial to the game as a whole, I can also see some valid points being raised against it. I guess in summary, I still think the positives this would bring to the Bushtarion community far outweigh the negative experience a few individuals may (or may not as it could be avoided easily enough) encounter from it.

 

[Alcibiades]

So my amended suggestion goes something like this;


-----------
1. If you just bail out immediately, without permission, you lose 50% - this goes to Govt (effectively out of game, not to the alliance)
2. If you obtain Leader permission (get kicked) – then no penalty
3. If Leader decides to kick you, no penalty
4. If you have tried to seek permission to leave but are declined (or know that you would be), you have the option to leave the alliance ‘publically’ with no penalty – e.g. You select ‘Leave Publically’, and an alliance log is generated “<Player1> will be leaving the alliance in <xxx> ticks" (now sure how long a delay is reasonable… but I would suggest 6-12 ticks at minimum)
5. Once you leave an alliance, you cannot return for <yy> ticks/days (whatever)
6. Maybe it is an option a Leader selects when creating the alliance (on or off, no ability to adjust) (not ideal imo, but something that comes to mind)
----------

I like those amendments tbh, it makes me a lot more comfortable with the idea of having an alliance tax. I'm still not wild about the idea, but i'm not entirely opposed to this ^^ sort of implementation

I also want to make clear that I tried to come up with something that I did not think would change the core game either…. So whilst I am suggesting an in-game mechanism, is it really a huge change that would impact a huge number? I doubt it. Does it change the way you attack/defend/obtain targets? No

I like that core game mechanics aren't interfered with, that would've been another big opposition of mine; but the question never really arose so it's got one less stumbling block

if they had stayed in the original RRR, the rest of the player-base would have had plenty of room to grow and battle out the lower ranks as usually does happen each round [...] I think your comment about a ‘stagnant’ round Alci may also be more from your own perception and being bored with no targets, than wanting to “do something good for the player-base/game in general”…. By saying the player-base would complain if RRR hadn’t split, you are in fact arguing a hypothetical, something that didn’t occur, so to then guess what the player-base reaction would be, and state it as a fact in your post is a little bemusing. Yes that may have happened, but my point is it didn’t. (and yes I agree most the player-base was happy it happened too. I love to watch a good alliance implosion as much as the next guy hehe… but would they be happy to have it happen to them is probably the bigger unknown)

I'm usually in the rank 2-5 Alliance each round, and there is no doubt in my mind that there is usually a score cap of sorts, that prevents people from planting all their land or they run the risk of getting an uber bash from the top players who are super bored and have nothing to do. This is the form of game stagnation i was referring to. The top is bored, so they wait and wait for targets then pile on as soon as they're in range. This is generally something to be avoided if you are the unfortunate victim (as i have been many times) and so you are either forced to stop planting or to just accept a regular twice a week bash. Having a big huge alliance that will hit anyone who comes into their range is essentially building a hard cap of score that cannot be breached with any reasonable assumption of safety.

I did not mean stagnation for the top players, but the size and boredom of the top players forcing them to bash anything in range sets a ceiling of score for those below which forces them to play a certain style without having lots of troops, and prevents them (in general) from growing without fear of getting relentlessly bashed by overwhelmingly superior forces.

i'm not just arguing a hypothetical (or not intending to) but this comes from several (8?) rounds experience playing as the targets with the hard cap for the top alliance(s). To use the RRR example of this round, the backstabbing reopened what was essentially a won round (and i don't care what anyone says, barring an Act of God, RRR would never have been beaten, no resistance could've touched us; we were too good, too strong, too contactable.) If we would have lost 50% of our value, we'd have been extremely unlikely to backstab, mostly because we'd lose our main attack strength, so we'd simply have left and gotten pwned. While i must agree with your point that the RRR backstab is more of an anomaly than a routine, would you not agree that eliminating game options is a bad idea?

I'm not guessing at a playerbase reaction, there were plenty of threads/posts that complained how the round was 'over' and RRR had 'won'. This has happened in other rounds (almost every round) where people complain that the round is over, and now they have to stay out of the range of the Big Bad Rank 1 ally.

OK, OK, I had written this much then saw Alci’s latest post…. I’ve probably told you before, but if not… you rock I was getting worried you were approaching this a bit blinkered at first (thinking maybe this was an anti-RRR gripe from me disguised as a suggestion), then you go and post a thoughtful, well constructed post giving me some honest feedback – ty

Rare enough to get compliments, so my thanks there. Sorry I missed your post... got all caught up in the DS argument. You rock also!

Anyway all I can respond to that, is to refer back to my amendments above (does this alleviate some of the worries?)

Absolutely, as i posted above i quite like the amendments. It was the blanket, unalterable nature of punishing those who left (under whatever circumstances) that I objected to the most. This alterations make me significantly happier about it. I still wouldn't vote for having it implemented, but if it were it wouldn't be the end The part i like best is the elective nature of being able to leave voluntarily without leader input so they do not have the final say on whether or not the tax can get implemented. and the public warning makes it possible for the ally to get geared up to lay out some serious whoopass on the person who is leaving. Thumbs up.

...and add that whilst I would also prefer carrots to sticks, I couldn’t think of any ‘carrots’ that wouldn’t change the actual game play, or lock down alliances more than I wanted (e.g. Pure-Alliance options/ HQ bonuses I don’t think are workable as this would trap people in alliances they may decide they don’t like more than a potential ‘exit-tax’, OR, extra defend slots for alliances unchanged since round started ticking would change the whole attack/defence balance… etc). I didn’t want to change the game, just the mentality and player approach slightly I guess.

Aye i don't think those positive solutions are particularly good either. They would unbalance gameplay deeply and reveal all manner of issues too. That's why i'm a rubbish suggester, but a half decent critiquer.

While I admire your attempt to change the player mentality, this isn't something I think game mechanics can fix. Player mentalities are deucedly hard to alter. A valiant attempt, but ultimately doomed I feel.

 

[septimus]

I think the leaving "penalty" is fine as is, if you leave an ally(Unless you plan ahead and do it when noone is on anyway) you generally get raped of your land, at least, and depending on the circumstances of your leave you probably create quite a few enemies that will go out of their way to kill you somewhere down the line.

As has been said, loyalty and respect can't be forced, it has to be earned.

 

[aGit]

no, no and no. loyality is all fine and dandy, but it shouldnt be forced in any way or form. Not every single thing in this game needs to be regulated by mechanics and rules. Backstabing and betrayal ftw!

 

[DarkSider]

Backstabing and betrayal ftw!

If you like it so much would you join an alliance where you have a strong feeling you'd get kick-raped while offline so the members of that alliance have a good laugh on you ? Or it's only ftw as long as you're not at receiving end ?

Backstabing between alliances it's another thing (even if i don't quite support breaking your agreements .. i'm one of those who likes to trust and be trusted, not saying my way is better or more fun it's just my way ), but inside your own alliance shouldn't be encouraged.

And while i usually like the "carrot over stick" there are certain scenarios where one extra carrot won't do any good In a war where your contry needs you in the army if you wish to leave and join the other side or you sell army secrets to the other side you gonna get your ass whooped, there's no way you can earn the loyalty of an entire nation with carrots Same in bush i feel, alliance size is too big to have a super tight community inside the alliance, in a 5 man alliance players would feel much more attached to eachother, in a 20 man ally i can't blame the leader at all that he didn't get 19 players 100% loyal and trustable players.
I mean look at the recruitement section where alliances are quite desperate to find ANYONE decently active to join their alliance because in order to survive and do well they need as much of those 20 spots filled. There is not much room to be picky, arguments like "he should know better", "his fault for recruiting morons" and even "loyality is to be earned not demanded" when you talk about 20 ppl over the internet that you might have never seen before are unrealistic. You can earn the loyality of most of them over a longer period of time, our problem is with those exceptions who are very likely to be in every alliance.

 

[aGit]

you should quit it with the real life analogies ds. this is a browser based war-game. you cannot draw a comparioson to a war situation, or a football club.

I mean look at the recruitement section where alliances are quite desperate to find ANYONE decently active to join their alliance because in order to survive and do well they need as much of those 20 spots filled. There is not much room to be picky, arguments like "he should know better", "his fault for recruiting morons" and even "loyality is to be earned not demanded" when you talk about 20 ppl over the internet that you might have never seen before are unrealistic. You can earn the loyality of most of them over a longer period of time, our problem is with those exceptions who are very likely to be in every alliance.

alcis point still stands, you cannot penalize the rest of the community because of the acts of a few. I've been looking at the alliances on ranks 10+ and alot of these alliances are filled with newcomers and people not so familiar with the game/forums and the amount of memebers per alliance vary alot. I dont think it is feasible in any way to force people to stay with each other just because some people want to be trusted. I'mean, chances are they dont know each other but alas, if you had your way they would pretty much ahve to stick with it till the end, even if the leader was a ****!

i'm one of those who likes to trust and be trusted

Is it really trust if it is forced on you by the game mechanics?