Small Alliances

Post by **OmegaRenegade** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:15 am

Yeah arberg when did we agree? or did you just decide that everyone automatically accepts your opinion?

The benifits of smaller alliances? Well lets see right now we have 5 major alliances (loose definition of major, basically any alliance that is doing anything other than trading). Even with all those alliances full up to 30, that is still a max of 150 players of over 900. Now true most of those 900 are people that sign up and stop playing rather quickly. But still the fact that there could arguably be double the number of players in the smaller alliances.

But the question is, why dont those other alliances take a more active role then? Simple, there isnt room, and alot of them know they cant compete with alliances made up of the top players in the game (yes I am aware I am over simplifying things somewhat, I know there are good players not in the top 5) so they dont bother to try. And having more smaller alliances opens up a place for more alliances to compete, it wont just be 5 alliances dominating, but there will be jockying for position, and there will be more activity between alliances.

A few games ago the game was alot more dynamic, instead of a few top alliances competing you had 10-15 that regularly stirred things up quite a bit, I even remember a couple newbie alliances who tried busting alliances in the top 3, and I think the game was a whole lot more fun back then, it was more fluidic.

Now I know some of you out there wont see the point I'm trying to make, understandable since you are still in the alliances that are having fun, but try thinking about it this way, in every game there comes a point when the secret to success is found out, the key to dominating the game is discovered, and I think for an alliance to clearly dominate the game 3 games in a row means that key has been found, and now the game has gotten stale, its known, no matter how the map is changed, or how weapons or ships get changed, or how alliances get mixed up, alot of the challange is gone, and weapon or ship changes dont make that much of a difference to how the game is played, and I think that changing the alliances around would be the way to breath new life into the game, just like merging vet and newbie games into one open game changed the face of the game almost a year ago.

I still know alot of you out there are still not going to see what I am trying to say, but I would hazard a bet that most of you will be in those top alliances, just remember, things always look good from the top, and its very easy to miss that maybe things arent groovy all around.

Harry Krishna · Post by **Harry Krishna** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:19 am

I'm against coded treaties, period.

I was aginst the idea of limiting vets and forcing newbies into alliances, but now it sounds like the idea has changed simply to lower the membership of all alliances.

Smaller alliances might make for more diversity and more competition when you consider the entire player base is less than 1000 and the really active players number around 200. It forces the alliances which routinely have 30 members to really pick carefully the players they want on their team. And new alliances will be bound to form. I can't foresee what the ultimate result would be, but 'd be up for trying it for a game or 2.

Freon22 · Post by **Freon22** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:12 pm

OmegaRenegade wrote:Yeah arberg when did we agree? or did you just decide that everyone automatically accepts your opinion?

Al come on you should remember the last months of SM, it was all over the web board there. They were going to do away with the treaties, because if you remember HoA, TLS, and a few other was keeping two or three treaties so what we had was 90 member allinaces. You don't think the same thing will happen here.

RedDragon · Post by **RedDragon** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:25 pm

Smaller alliances will only hurt the new players. It is the nature of the game that people will try to play together with the best players. Trying to fight against 25 of the best players with 25 players is harder than 30 v 30. With a 15 man alliance only the elite will survive - you have a number of jobs that need doing and you can't afford to make mistakes if you do not have much cover. With a 15 man alliance if one of you planet builders dies - planets stop building, if one of your cash cows dies everything stops. The only thing that will happen is that it will stop planet building for anyone but the best alliance.

yamo · Post by **yamo** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:37 pm

5 top alliances? That's pretty good...no Evil Empire dominating the game? that's pretty good, too....it takes 2-3 games(18 months) for some folks to become top players...i don't see the problem with the game as it is now.

Post by **Trigek** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 8:02 pm

Freon22 wrote:
OmegaRenegade wrote:Yeah arberg when did we agree? or did you just decide that everyone automatically accepts your opinion?
Al come on you should remember the last months of SM, it was all over the web board there. They were going to do away with the treaties, because if you remember HoA, TLS, and a few other was keeping two or three treaties so what we had was 90 member allinaces. You don't think the same thing will happen here.

You mean TLS? It was TLS and SPB that was going into games with AA's, and essentially being 1 alliance. And before them it was KAOS and K!A!O!S! or whatever way they did it. HoA never entered a game with an second alliance since KoTH, which was a year before.

However, little history tidbits aside the point remains the same. The problem with coded treaties is you essentially have an alliance that will use them to get over the cap, which in turn can force the other alliances to do the same to compete.

If coded treaties are to be brought back, it needs to be done in a very limited fashion.

Just because people might not have been around for the mistakes of the past does not mean we should repeat them for their benefit.

Post by **OmegaRenegade** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 12:05 am

Hence the reason I said only one treaty per alliance, that way the largest possible "alliance" is 30 members, which is what exists now, but at the same time it does make it more difficult for these large alliances. This topic wasnt about coded treaties, I included that idea because I know its going to me more difficult for one alliance to be able to do everything effectivly. Although maybe thats not so bad...

Hate · Post by **Hate** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 2:56 pm

Trigek wrote: Just because people might not have been around for the mistakes of the past does not mean we should repeat them for their benefit.

To some people it was a mistake not to all. I enjoyed the treaty's we had in the past very much so. So cause of a few alliances that werent good enough to hold their ground alone had to abuse the treaty's everyone else has to suffer afterwards. I agree there should be only 1 treaty per alliance to make however they wish. But with only the 1 alliance.

Thauglor · Post by **Thauglor** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 3:41 pm

Anyone remember games like OS back in SM? Pretty sure no alliance apart from HoA and TE ever got a planet above lvl 30. And maybe 1 or 2 attacks on our planets all game. Of cause some people like sitting around FED killing everyone who dares leave it, but most don't. And with treaties that is what happens if the 2 top alliances decide to ally. And once they done it, lots of the other alliances will try to work together the next games. Which makes sure the top alliances have to ally to survive again. And wohoo, we are back to EE vs AF, same 2 groups fighting each other every game. We tried it and almost everyone who played back then don't want to see it again.

As for smaller alliances I totally agree with RD, when the alliances get smaller margin for error does too. Only the very best will able to do anything but trade/hunt. Which once again some like, but they can do that now and then those who don't like that kind of play can do something else.

Post by **Prince Valiant** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 6:17 pm

15 man allainces sounds good in theory but we can have 5-6 allainces right now that are good break up DC see how much more competive this gets....and arddy i actually loved using treaties in old sm....i would love to see them here but you guys are right it just becomes a 2 sided show but doesnt it anyway.