Alliance Politics

[DWill]

I think anything that makes this game more dynamic is something that should be looked into. Hence we should look into this.

[Weasel_6768]

I don't love the idea of splitting alliances. People will still have the same alliances in 2 names with one leader. Just make it so alliances have to make a seperate web site to run the board.

Don't think it will actually make anything dynamic. If you want to do it and hard code in these treaties so be it but I don't see it changing a lot. Same deal as word of mouth treatis :S.

Now if someone tried to get a Forces NAP I will fight that tooth and nail. That causes massive minefield and becomes the basis of a couple of alliances joining together and taking over the game. We do not have anywhere near enough of a player base to have Forces NAP's

[Thennian]

so the whole point of this is to break up crusaders as you point out in the end of your suggestion?

[N.ator]

so the whole point of this is to break up crusaders as you point out in the end of your suggestion?

it wouldnt just split up crusaders. it would also split up, system failure, armory and other alliances.

[seldum]

I dont see where it says that, Thennian?

[RandyOrsolo]

I dont see where it says that, Thennian?

Now we have a whole new war on our hands. Politics will add much more flavor to the game instead of Crusaders vs. other top alliance, that it is now has been for years.

While not specifically pointed, I think that's what Thenn is referring to.

The only problem before was you could have as many as you wanted, so it turned in to team 1 vs team 2 and that was kinda lame.

And there's the whole problem with Coded NAPs, it wouldn't really change anything but it would add an unecessary layer of complication in terms of logistics and communications. Alliances have enough trouble getting people to op with 30, having to pass on the information through two 15 man groups would just make it silly.

There's no real reason this idea should be pushed for until we have a larger player base.

[Grey]

[...]
There's no real reason this idea should be pushed for until we have a larger player base.

I've been away for a bit so I don't know: Has it been tried? I think Azool wrote somewhere in another thread that NAPs are implemented in the code, just not activated so it could be done.

Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. We keep saying that the player base isn't large enough for coded treaties but what if people don't play this particular mmorpg because it lacks that feature?

[RandyOrsolo]

I've been away for a bit so I don't know: Has it been tried? I think Azool wrote somewhere in another thread that NAPs are implemented in the code, just not activated so it could be done.

Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. We keep saying that the player base isn't large enough for coded treaties but what if people don't play this particular mmorpg because it lacks that feature?

It hasn't been tried, but IMHO treaties are a fairly minor feature so I don't think they'd keep players away just because we don't have treaties.

I mean, I can see the appeal in a Evil Empire vs everyone else game, easier for people to find action (albeit harder to find *fair* action), so I can see how I'd be wrong but I don't think I am.

[Shtoopid]

Well this could be really cool if alliances were fluid and not set in stone. There would have to be some backstabbing to keep the blood flowing or else it would get stale, quick.

[Thennian]

instead of Crusaders vs. other top alliance, that it is now has been for years.

thats what im refering to