Treaties

[Freon22]

I think everyone can see how the treaties and the 15 member alliances is working.

This is my opinion, I think that Naps should be something as followed.

Full treaty = Same as being in their alliance, cann't attack each other, can do joint Ops, can pass through each others mines, can land on each other planets. And all the other stuff that goes with a full treaty.

Defense treaty = Cann't attack each other, cann't land on each other planets, can do joint Ops, can pass through each others mines.

Non-Aggression treaty = Cann't attack each other, cann't land on each others planets, cann't do joint Ops, can pass through each others mines.

Alliance Size.

5 - 10 = Unlimited treaties.

11 - 16 = 1 Full treaty, 2 Defense treaties, 2 Non-Aggression treaties.

17 - 22 = 0 Full treaties, 2 Defense treaties, 2 Non-Aggression treaties.

23 - 30 = 0 Full treaties, 0 Defense treaties, 1 Non-Aggression treaty.

This will allow the big alliances to have a training alliance, nothing more. It also allows the small alliances to join forces to fight the big alliances. The med, size alliances can also join forces to fight to a limit.

Any thoughts, opinions?

Edit: Sorry after more thought and looking at how treaties could be abused. I would like to ajust the treaty list.

5 - 10 = 2 Full treaties, 2 Defense treaties, 2 Non-Aggression treaties.

11 - 16 = 1 Full treaty, 1 Defense treaties, 2 Non-Aggression treaties.

17 - 22 = 0 Full treaties, 1 Defense treaties, 2 Non-Aggression treaties.

23 - 30 = 0 Full treaties, 0 Defense treaties, 1 Non-Aggression treaty.

[Wizard64]

As far as I can see 15 member alliance cap has worked out fairly well so far. It's done what was intended and spread out the player base into more than 2 big alliances and the smaller ones have a better chance to compete against them because of their reduced size. The issue of vets grouping together is not a result of alliance size whether the cap is 15 or 30, its a problem with players wanting to compete and be the best and a lack of player rankings to prevent them from grouping like that.

Last round we had 2 alliances that made up the vast majority of the active players in the game. This round there are 5 alliances as it stands now that can compete for a top spot, and a few smaller alliances that can hold against an alliance of 15. It's been my opinion throughout this discussion about alliance caps that smaller alliance cap means that a small alliance has a better chance of competing rather than having to try to compete 5 on 30.

As for NAP's I've always been against them. Even in the original SM(Yes I know its not the same game) I was against structured NAPs. With a smaller alliance cap NAPs are not needed because a small alliance can compete with a larger one without necessarily having to team up with another alliance to do it. In terms of opping, there is always the option to group up in a single alliance temporarily with the sole purpose of opping for the night(Its been done many times before)

Alliance size and NAPs have changed throughout the years to go along with the rise and fall of the player base. It's something that can be set lower(or turned off in the NAPs case) from game to game dependent on the size of the player base so that the game is more competitive. There are 135 players currently in game, taking away the 24 that have either 0 exp or have just only done the first mission then 64 of the players are spread out through the top 5 alliances and another 16-20 in 3-5 man alliances that at least have the potential to do well.

Considering all that I think that 15 member alliance cap has performed well, though as I said before I don't think structured NAPs are good for the game, at the least in its current state.

[Edgecrusher]

Well, I completely disagree. Right now, the four big alliances all have treaties with eachother and function as one alliance. They are (as far as I know) in the same chat, use the same message board and some even have a force treaty. Unless someone explains to me why treaties are necessary at all, I can't do anything but suggest we remove them completely.

Training alliance? I don't need one, really, I train people within the cap of 15. Unless you stuff your alliance full of vets, everyone can.

[Kahless_]

Well that thing about them all having treaties with each other, if thats the case, then its just gonna be bad for them...Cause if they can't kill the 60 people in those 4 alliances, they are left with like 10 people in the game to chase...

I still stand by everything i said about this 15 cap. Its crap, its a selfish thing which gives the impression that things are more active "Oh wow, there is 4 alliances!!".

Heres the deal. Treaties should operate thusly:
Big alliance cap = less need for NAPS.
Small alliance cap = more need for NAPS.

Not the other way around. Only reason NAPS arnt working like they should is that stupid arrogant selfish alliance leaders think that the 15 cap is an excuse to team their vet alliance up with another vet alliance "Cause everyone else is doing it". No one is prepared to be the bigger man(or woman) and get rid of the NAPS they dont need.

The 15 cap is not the reason NAPs arnt working. The players attitudes are the problem. Win at all cost..8) sad..

[Kahless_]

BTW Edge - My understanding of why NAPs should be in the game is as follows:

Say you have 1 dominant alliance. Huge minefield, big planets, safe routes, good team work, ability to OP well. You know, untouchable..

Trying to compete against this is i dunno, lets say 2 seperate alliances. They dont take the game as seriously as the above alliance so they arnt as good at OPping, their organisation/efficieny isnt great and they cant get very good turn outs to OPs. Seperately these alliances are no competition to alliance A..But together, they have a chance to pool an impressive strike against A and bring them down..

Makes it more fun for everyone...

Thats how NAPs should work..The problem is at the moment, because players want to "win", alliance B decides "If you cant beat them, join them", Alliance A decides "Yea, we can soooo win if there is only 1 enemy alliance", so A and B NAP, and poor little alliance C is left out in the cold. Things go stale..

[Edgecrusher]

Well, I disagree. Say, alliance A, the active one, has 30 active members. Then, to be able to fight against them, you also need 30 active members. In that case, no NAP is needed, because alliance B and C an just kick out the inactives and join (like we sort of did last game to counter EE).

What we really want is that if A has 30 members, while B and C have 15 each, then A should take the responsibility to split up into two groups. The problem is, that attitude doesn't go well with the players. I proposed this when I was leading alliance A two games ago, but it got voted down, cause everyone wanted to stick together. It's a mentality issue, and it has nothing to do with capping or allowing naps. We started this game with a 15 cap, hoping that people would be smart, but they aren't, it's the same old story.

[Kahless_]

But what if its not just a case of not having 30 actives? What if you have 15 players from one timezone and 15 from the other side of the world, whereas you are playing against a team that has 30 in 1 times zone..Is crap to think you have to kick out your 15 players from another zone and fill the spots with people from you zone just to compete..

And then there is the part of newbs and that..With cap without naps, to be #1 you have 15 vets..if you have anything else you lose. Say however you have i dunno, 8 vets, 7 newbs...you want to take down gay alliance that has 15 vets and thinks they are cool cause they are #1. So, you NAP with another alliance, who maybe had 7 vets 8 newbs..So hooray, between the 2 you have 15 vets, plus a bunch of newbs who get a chance to learn the ropes.

Without NAPs, if the 2 small groups of vets who are doing the right thing by teaching people, the only way they have to take down the gay alliance of 15 vets is to kick out their newbs and join each other..becoming just as bad as the people they are trying to bring down..

Not NAPs faults they are being abused..Thats why i think the most important next update should be a user ranking system and then have #naps/alliance #'s limited via user rankings..

[Edgecrusher]

There should be no gay alliance of 15 members, although I must admit there is (are). But the fault here is with the vets, and the solution should lie there as well, not with Naps.

Bottom line is, we need a ranking system to be able to distinguish vets from newbs. Without one, any discussion on the number of vets in an alliance is pointless.

[Freon22]

I am going to say something that is not popular. "You can not trust people to do the right thing" if you could then there would be no multi and no bug abuse. If you want players to do something then you need to enforce it through codes. Calling people out does nothing but cause fights.

Saying that, you cannot tell people whom they can or cannot play with. What you can do is set limits on max alliance sizes, you can set limits on what type, how many Naps alliances can have. This is why I started this thread, read first post. By setting limits, if the max alliance size is 15, 20, or 30. They can play however they want to within the restrictions of the code.

[JettJackson]

all the more reason why naps should be deleted from the game