NAPS

[Infinity]

Blade, if it comforts you, two parts of EE will only have MB NAP for threads that are concerned with game mechanics and tips on game play, and perhaps a raid assist NAP but only when necessary, as I don't think we will be able to ever get enough ships for a decent PR. Devo is hoping tho for a forces NAP as well, but he won't get it as I don't want to lose targets, of course (that's why he's hoping for it).

So generally, it's left to leaders responsibility (as taking more newbies would be) and I'll do my part properly.

Canff, not a bad idea tho pretty complicated at first look. Anyway, do we have a burning problem or are you expecting a burning problem after alliance cap is lowered?

[Blade]

I'm sorry did I say EE? I swear at times you see a totally different thing to what is typed Kiky, not everything is about you. I was talking in general, the coded nap was removed after the HoA/Pale Ponies (Sorry Pale Riders) era (in SM) and I believe another simular big newbie alliance in the newbie games, I like the limits on naps according to player levels.

I also like the cap on alliance members, rather like having a ship you have a certain power level, and each player could also have a power rating, 1 for a completely new player, 5 for people like me (being a super human god like figure that I am) and maybe a 2 or 3 for people like Edge, Kiky and maybe a -2 for JJ, seriously though a player level incorporated in to the rankings when they are live (pretty sure this has been suggested, just adding to it)

[Infinity]

I'm sorry did I say EE?

No, no, you didn't, just wanted to say that cause you mentioned next round, the point was in the second paragraph - that it's left to leader's responsibility, so EE was just an example.

and maybe a -2 for JJ

lol, he won't like this

That's btw a nice and simple idea, only we need rankings to determine that stuff.

[JettJackson]

...

also if we do this 15 man alliances, i say some naps need to go, mb nap is one thing id say stays but most of the rest need to take one game hiatus

[Kahless_]

Weird.

Why did we even bother having NAPs coded into the game if in the one situation where they would make the most sense(small alliances where NAPs might be required to keep a galaxy going), we are saying "Oh no no no. No NAPS!"

So yea, i think NAPs should 100% be left in the game with the 15 cap. The fact the cap is 15 is even more reason to have them....

Guess what, it just boils down to trust. We have to trust that vets arnt just going to split in name only and continue like normal. NAPs were designed for the alliances that dont have the skill/experience so they could join forces and take down the big wigs. Problem is that only the big wigs have been making use of this.

[Edgecrusher]

Well, I have already heard some vets announcing that they are going to ally next round. Even if those treaties only concern message board access, that doesn't encourage these alliances to actually attack each other. So I agree with Kah, but especially if you have a 15 cap, then it is bullocks to allow treaties, so people can have 30 man alliances anyway. Trust the vets? No, I don't. And I think there's reason for that.

So I'd say either allow NAP's only under an alliance size of 5, or remove them as long as we have a cap of 15.

[Blade]

Well, I have already heard some vets announcing that they are going to ally next round. Even if those treaties only concern message board access, that doesn't encourage these alliances to actually attack each other. So I agree with Kah, but especially if you have a 15 cap, then it is bullocks to allow treaties, so people can have 30 man alliances anyway. Trust the vets? No, I don't. And I think there's reason for that.

So I'd say either allow NAP's only under an alliance size of 5, or remove them as long as we have a cap of 15.

#

Aye

[Kahless_]

It's a shame if we cant trust the vets..Nearly guarentees that this game is gonna go the way of the dodo.

Edge, i'm not sure if you actually do agree with me heh. Just for clarification "Small alliances where NAPs might be required" to me is 15 people, not 5

Without NAPs, chances are we are going to have 1 dominant group of 15 who decide to be selfish and fill their 15 slots with the 15 best players they can get. The other 2-3 15 man alliances who have got newbs in their group and spend half their time teaching, half their time playing won't be able to compete with this. So then there is pressure on them to get rid of their newbies and replace them with good players so they can go an kill the super-selfish alliance. Game is fun for a week, game dies, smr1.5 dies.

Leaving NAPs in allows for these other 15 man alliances with their newbies to join forces and take down the group of people who decided dominating was more important than developing.

It's up to the group of trustworthy vets who have the games best interests in mind to make it so un-acceptable for very experienced alliances to form NAPs. If enough people in these experienced alliances threaten "If we get this NAP i'm leaving the alliance", then the NAP we are afraid of would putter out and die.

So just to make it clear,

I think NAPs should be left in the game, open in every way just like they are now BECAUSE there is a cap of 15.

[Edgecrusher]

Why wouldn't you allow some newbies in? Doesn't everyone need cannon fodder?