Ally locking

[ZigZag]

I was just wondering since this round shows how effective switching players between 3 allies can be.
If Ally A declares War on Ally B Then the Allies could be locked so no player can be kicked or accepted during the duration of the war. Unless the ally was already under the limit for players in the ally then they could still accept a new member.
I think this would create more wars being declared.
Plus when you have an ally on the ropes they can no longer bring in fresh players to help.
Just a thought

 

[DarkSider]

I agree, i suggested this before ally war was even introduced ingame. If you declare war against an alliance you want to fight those 20 members not them kicking dead players and recruiting new forces all the time. At most let them kick/leave but not recruit during a war.

 

[pinpower]

Would have to be on the condition that X amount of mobs are sent (and reach a battle tick) per day or something to stop people being able to declare war on someone just to lock their alliance and then not actually attack them.

x

 

[DarkSider]

In my initial suggestion for ally wars i also tryed to cover that aspect with automatic war canceling if there is no/little damage done. Also a surrender option is needed.

 

[Elderveld]

I must say i agree whit this one, but there should defenatly be some sort of 'X ammount of damage must be don in X hours' to keep the War decleration active.


But i see alot of suggestions this round, mainly against everything TBA does atm.

 

[rooney]

thats because TBA are exploiting all the flaws/bugs etc. and making them easier to spot.

 

[Garrett]

Look. This is an over reaction.

Azzer tried to make alliances more streamlined with memberships - either completely overlooking a serious loophole and abusable situation with insufficient risk assessment, or it's doing exactly what he wants.

However if he missed it in assessing risk or unintended consequences... going to an ally lock especially with a war system that doesn't really exist... Is going to have a whole new set of unintended consequences that you haven't considered in a rush with trying to deal with a powerblock.

Right now the best suggestion "in my opinion" would be to return to leaving/joining as it was (well the application/accepting part is fine) and look at tweaking how it work and having several test cases covering many scenarios (can all be covered? no but it's a start).

Or like I said - it functions exactly how he wants it and there is a row of eggs behind you that you can suck on. Only he can say for sure.

 

[Steve_God]

The changes that Azzer implemented last week were enough to make it not worth the risk of regularly changing troops around when you have incoming, as if you swapped two players around, it means that those two players can't actually help with defence, or be defended, until after the attacks have already passed.

I also think that this suggestion could be abused if implemented; as a larger ally could declare war (if within range) and keep bashing a smaller alliance down with no chance of the smaller ally recruiting fresh blood to help out with defence.

 

[DarkSider]

The changes that Azzer implemented last week were enough to make it not worth the risk of regularly changing troops around when you have incoming, as if you swapped two players around, it means that those two players can't actually help with defence, or be defended, until after the attacks have already passed.

I also think that this suggestion could be abused if implemented; as a larger ally could declare war (if within range) and keep bashing a smaller alliance down with no chance of the smaller ally recruiting fresh blood to help out with defence.

Surrender/die under min limit and the war is canceled/mutual peace/win with what you have Just because alliance war doesn't have all the options and it's just a simple bonus thing doesn't mean this suggestion is bad.

 

[Hobbezak]

I agree, i suggested this before ally war was even introduced ingame. If you declare war against an alliance you want to fight those 20 members not them kicking dead players and recruiting new forces all the time. At most let them kick/leave but not recruit during a war.

How about the ally declaring war would be locked too?
That way you would be punished as well?

 

[rooney]

i always thought that as soon as yo declared war the other alliance also declared war back automatically anyway

 

[ZigZag]

I agree, i suggested this before ally war was even introduced ingame. If you declare war against an alliance you want to fight those 20 members not them kicking dead players and recruiting new forces all the time. At most let them kick/leave but not recruit during a war.

How about the ally declaring war would be locked too?
That way you would be punished as well?

That is the way I meant it to happen that both Allies would be locked until the war was over either by withdrawing the war declaration or by falling out of range

 

[ZigZag]

Would have to be on the condition that X amount of mobs are sent (and reach a battle tick) per day or something to stop people being able to declare war on someone just to lock their alliance and then not actually attack them.

x

I agree with this also there has to be some type of action going on

 

[willymchilybily]

i like the suggestion on the merits i'd really enjoy it lol. but have to say disagree as it will push more new players to be solo. if you get your allie locked, and you dont get defended, and cant even leave then you could welll just give up.

and if you can leave then half the allaince leaves and you still cant recruit more until enough leave to drop the allies score and end the war. I think I'd like it but the overall effect will not be conducive to increasing allied play and encouraging allied play

 

[Azzer]

I can see it being pretty abusable tbh, and ultimately infuriating. I'd rather see alternate, or more detailed/unabusable solutions, with regards to "member hopping/wings".