Full Treaties

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

The whole purpose of treaties is for two separate alliance with one mutual goal to join forces to achieve their goal. There fore the alliances should be kept separate. You should never be allowed to access an allies alliance account, if they are going to help you with funds do via a shared account. I don't know how the new planet system works, but the planets of your allies should never strengthen your planets regardless of the type of treaty you have. Also I looked back in the news logs and didn't see this. When a treaty is signed it should make the news, I know this isn't SM but thats how it was in SM, and thats how it should be here. People should know who's working with who.

[Harry Krishna]

The whole purpose of treaties is for two separate alliance with one mutual goal to join forces to achieve their goal. There fore the alliances should be kept separate. You should never be allowed to access an allies alliance account, if they are going to help you with funds do via a shared account. I don't know how the new planet system works, but the planets of your allies should never strengthen your planets regardless of the type of treaty you have. Also I looked back in the news logs and didn't see this. When a treaty is signed it should make the news, I know this isn't SM but thats how it was in SM, and thats how it should be here. People should know who's working with who.

I agree with showing treaties in the news, agree with the roles and bank account sharing (should be scrapped -- too many problems).

Don't agree with the allied planets not defending eachother, that is a big part of a MDP.

Suggestion: instead of being able to view each other's message board, the two allied teams would have a shared board that only they can access via a new link that is shown once the treaty is approved.

[Page]

I like the shared board idea also - it helps solve the problem of remembering to tick don't share with allies and other stuff.

[Tyr]

This is one of the features of this beta that I really like. I'm glad this idea was investigated and brought back with some good options.


I find exploits in games, that's what I do being the gamer I am. Suggestions for the regular game would be treaty requirements for the different options based on a min/max number of traders in the alliance to promote information sharing and yet limit co-alliance domination.

[Baalzamon]

This is one of the features of this beta that I really like. I'm glad this idea was investigated and brought back with some good options.


I find exploits in games, that's what I do being the gamer I am. Suggestions for the regular game would be treaty requirements for the different options based on a min/max number of traders in the alliance to promote information sharing and yet limit co-alliance domination.

I agree, but at the same time...i disagree.

I have been a huge advocate of treaties for a long time, even before 1.5 started to be worked on...thinking that everything would balance out, even with the smaller playerbase, but I'm starting to think that isn't so.

1)With so few players, do many people even make use of the treaties?
2)We have 3 top alliances right now, if 2 of them treaty together, the 3rd has no chance at all, not enough other alliances around to be of any significant help

My suggestion (with the utmost sadness) is to disable the treaties...at least until we have a more substantial playerbase....

[Tyr]

I agree, but at the same time...i disagree.

I have been a huge advocate of treaties for a long time, even before 1.5 started to be worked on...thinking that everything would balance out, even with the smaller playerbase, but I'm starting to think that isn't so.

1)With so few players, do many people even make use of the treaties?
2)We have 3 top alliances right now, if 2 of them treaty together, the 3rd has no chance at all, not enough other alliances around to be of any significant help

My suggestion (with the utmost sadness) is to disable the treaties...at least until we have a more substantial playerbase....

That's been the problem with treaties throughout and why they were taken out I'm sure. One alliance treaty limits between small alliances could be an option. Perhaps different types of roster alliances altogether? An option of creating a 10 or 30 player limit alliances, knowing full well that if you create a 30 man alliance you get no treaties?

[Baalzamon]

not a bad idea

[JettJackson]

my personal thought on this, is with the lack of players a nap essentially can actually kill the game, because say there is 3 teams team a team b team c, if a and b nap then c has no chance because who do they nap with then
and vice versa. It was a nice idea at the time now though i think has ran the course

[Page]

Well the fact is I doubt any of the top 3 alliances would actually ally against the 3rd because it cuts down an already limited number of targets, and is pretty unnecessary in almost all situations imo. (Yes JJ, EE and VE did NAP for a short period, but that's because we suddenly needed to rebuild planets and wanted to do it in peace)

[JettJackson]

yes page, but the fact it can happen is what i dont like seeing, id much rather that they are taken out for a game or so, and see what happens then