The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

by ian Mon May 24, 2010 11:26 pm

This is a discussion topic - nothing official or anything (though i hope it may lead to something beneficial/ more substantial).

Basically - i ll keep it swift.

The Imperium Empire, World Republic and the FIRE Empire. We are damaging the game.

If World Republic doesn't recruit new players, FIRE does. If FIRE doesn't recruit new players - The Imperium Empire *occassionally* does. Our little cold-war is resulting in the political scene of Aderan War's fast becoming a desert - with the other neutral power's struggling to find more players to expand their own influence - and with ALL the major power's - TIE included - doing their best to swing the smaller power's around to our favour to further bolster our position regarding the other power's. Noone's innocent in this - I know WR & FIRE have both been busy contacting other alliances as well.

I propose some sort of treaty - similar to an extent as to the Washington Naval Treaty in 1921 - where The Imperium Empire, The FIRE Empire and World Republic come to an agreement of some description regarding namely 2 points:

1.) Respecting the sovereignty and independence of the smaller/ neutral powers
2.) A maximum number of member's per empire.

The first point is simple - FIRE/ WR & TIE basically will mind their own business. We won't actively contact other alliances for the purpose of joining our ranks or aligning with us in order to booster our power to counter the other power. If we are contacted by a smaller alliance... fair enough. But its generally a pledge of principles/ effort - that by and large we *won't* keep trying to influence all the other powers. There will obviously be exceptions... but its generally a guideline - one which hopefully by and large would be followed and will allow the smaller power's to stay out of the affairs of the larger power's without feeling pressurred into having to intervene for fear of reprisals (i.e. i can name at least 2 alliances which have been contacted by people from all 3 alliances trying to gain their support).

Basically we ll respect the neutrality of the other alliances, and try and not do anything to change the status-quo. Let them develop at their own speed and decide their own course of action.

2.) Limitation on members. Simply put: I propose 70 per empire. World Republic has 77 currently... so they can keep those members, but shouldn't replace them anymore untill such a time as the number drops below 70. FIRE and The Imperium Empire also will cease recruitment should their numbers reach 70.

70 members per empire is a lot when you consider the size of the active game-community. Between the 3 power's thats 210 player's - a LARGE portion of the community. A limit needs to be put inplace... otherwise the main empires will just keep recruiting, while the smaller alliances will keep struggling. As the main empires.. generally we stand a more favourable position of getting new recruits simply due to our power and influence, and what we have to offer.

This is a mere idea/ discussion thread. Nothing Official. Discussion would be appreciated.

Thanks

by ¤ Angel Slayer Mon May 24, 2010 11:38 pm

I respectfully think an alliance only needs 30 members in it,
anymore than that is jusy a waste really, think of how many more alliances can grow if the major 3 didn't hog all the players, lol just my opinion, also
Empires are suppose to be a empire of multible alliances am I right?
not one giant alliance, thats not really an alliance.

by ian Tue May 25, 2010 12:24 am

¤ Angel Slayer wrote:I respectfully think an alliance only needs 30 members in it,
anymore than that is jusy a waste really, think of how many more alliances can grow if the major 3 didn't hog all the players, lol just my opinion, also
Empires are suppose to be a empire of multible alliances am I right?
not one giant alliance, thats not really an alliance.

Empire's are more than just members. They are communities and friends. I would never consider cutting The Imperium down in size simply because so many of them are my friends. I also believe The Imperium should continue a steady-expansion to its memberbase because simply put: We are one (among several) of the most effective forces on the game at training and teaching new players (those who choose to listen) on how to grow and become successful on Aderan Wars. Player's aren't forced to stay in The Imperium... they can choose to leave (as some have) and take with them the knowledge they have learnt - enriching Aderan War's gameplay as well as joining other alliances. Its just most choose to stay and become part of the community and become valued friends & members.

As for empires suppossed to being multiple alliances... conventionally they are yes. However a better definition of an empire is an empire of multiple alliances, or a single alliance matching the power of multiple alliances.

In the case of The Imperium Empire the decision was taken early on to bring The Commonwealth & The Company together under a single alliance in order to improve the communication, coordination and overall running of the Empire as a whole via a unified command chain. Since then we ve faced similar decisions on whether to integrate Fedaykin, and then later on Lords of Legends - into The Imperium Empire Alliance ingame, or whether for them to simply join the Empire but remain a seperate alliance.

In all the cases... having the alliance entities existing independently, or integrated into a single alliance would have ended up with the same result - that of the empire being run by the Supreme High Command and the Senatorum Imperialis. The only question was whether we were prepared to tolerate the disadvantages which came with consisting of seperate entities - namely having to repeat/ forward messages between the alliances & a fractured (ingame) leadership i.e. SHC member's in The Commonwealth would not be able to gain access to the logs of The Company. In peace-time it would make things such as enforcing farming policies slightly more problematic/ requiring more effort - but in war-time the effects could be far more devastating (i.e. neither leadership chains would be able to get a full-picture of whats happening, since both would only be able to see their respective alliances, and then would need to rely on summaries from the others).

It basically comes down to personal preference/ what works best for the empire's in question. For The Imperium Empire the decision was to unify the alliances and to forge a common identity - something which at the time did cause some internal issues, but which since has worked fantastically.

Its worth remembering that The Imperium Empire draws its membership from what were 5 different alliances:

- The Commonwealth
- The Company
- Black Watch
- Fedaykin
- Lords of Legends

We are now all one. Unified in the desire to see The Imperium Empire prosper and remain strong. United in our loyalty, friendship and obligations to each other. Coordinated and working together to build a legacy to be remembered.

Does being a single alliance make us any less of an empire than FIRE with its 2 alliances - New Federation and Mujengan? Will being in a single alliance make us any less of a empire than what World Republic, New Federation and Mujengan will be if they eventually decide to become a single empire? The answer is no - it doesn't. They for all we know could decide to one day merge - the choice is inevitably down to them on what they feel suits their needs. For The Imperium - it was merging to become a single alliance.

by Lord Ishurue Tue May 25, 2010 1:01 am

Well . My Idea Was The Saga of The 3 Kings .

im not one to go public with these things . I encourage players to form alliances , when I go to Recruit players into Mujengan I sometimes see new players form alliances . I immediately set them to peace and give them Raider X Raider series lists . sometimes i hook them up with UUs or ATs . I don't even count their farming breeches on my alliance .

As per not recruiting players or stopping at 70 , thats not gonna happen on my end .

When I left WR to form my own alliance ( Hachigan ) , It was just me . 3 days later I recruited Logaliff .
Now as only rank 10 alliance, Recruiting must have been hard since players could have joined , TIE ( Rank 1 ) WR ( Rank 2 ) or any of the other strong alliances . Now we are The rank 2 alliance .

our alliances are not damaging the game ,

I see the same potential in Black Dragons . they were like rank 15 . now they Surpassed New Federation . and are getting close to POHIDA and are currently rank 6 .

The Saga of The 3 Kings is to maintain balance and add an era of a 3 way political standoff .

Basically Mini battles happen , cuz a full scale war by 2 kings will result in the 3rd king destroying the weakened Victor .

but some of the people i contacted about it , had mixed views on it . so i left it at that .

by Nomad Tue May 25, 2010 1:25 am

I'm courious as to why you assume the "3rd" king would crush the victor? Who says they would not destroy the loser instead?

another failed line of thinking is the fact that a already beaten up alliance means an easy kill. They have less to lose, and the attacking force will be facing more losses if they have overpowered strikes.

I see both sides, I do feel the "power house" alliances are causing harm, but not to a great extent. A small playerbase is the worst part to me. I think for the most part the top alliances hold their power very well.

by Miglow Tue May 25, 2010 8:58 am

I think an artificial limit in the long run would hinder the game more than help it. A group's size will naturally balance itself out. If a group is too big and isn't managed properly then people will either leave or go inactive.

I'm courious as to why you assume the "3rd" king would crush the victor? Who says they would not destroy the loser instead?

I remember while playing Goldeneye (or any other multiplayer shooter for that matter) it was always really frustrating to be going all out in a duel with someone only to have a third person walk in and basically wipe out both of the other players while they were both weakened and distracted. It's not quite the same as AW but that's what I think Ishurue was getting at.

In the case of wars on AW the winner is the one who has the most growth and least amounts of loss. So in some ways the victors in any war will be those who do not fight. (that is unless somehow in a war one alliance comes out with more resources than they did going in, which is highly unlikely from what I've understand)

by Manleva Tue May 25, 2010 11:08 am

well I'm sorry Miglow but I will have to disagree with you as I think that the three largest alliances are to large for the current player base.

Of concern is the number of new players who join but quickly become inactive. While there will always be those that will join and leave because the game is not what they are looking for I also believe that there will be a good percentage that are not staying because of the three largest alliances. These three alliances / empires are the only ones to have published farming policies. Policies that are possibly confusing to new players and also give the impression that any breaches will be heavily punished and in many ways give the impression of conform to our rules or go away and also appear to be in conflict with a game that has the word War in it's title.

Ian offered two ideas for discussion and both may have some benefits.

The first on a treaty between the three largest may work in some way but need to be written much better than any of their current farming policies and care would need to be taken so that they do not give the impression that they are trying to dictate to the rest.

The second on limiting the size of alliances also has merit. While I can see advantages organizationally for large alliances I think that Angle Slayers suggestion of limiting the size to 30 would be beneficial. It allows for alliances to create treaties so that there can still be empires or families but also allows for more variation and competition. Lets face it the forum is a fairly dull place for newcomers with currently only one war that is restricted to just two players. the only other threads that reflect action within the game have been those of the Black Dragon's competitions.

Just a few thoughts but as I said earlier in the post I agree with Nomad and his concern about the small player base.

by kingkongfan1 Tue May 25, 2010 1:19 pm

honestly, I don't feel that I can speak my mind truthfully about what concerns I have due to possible repercussions that may follow... I will say this tho... there are matters that I feel need to be addressed, but without "full" co-operation from everyone, there is no need in trying to fix anything... king

by Lord Ishurue Tue May 25, 2010 9:49 pm

Nomad wrote:I'm courious as to why you assume the "3rd" king would crush the victor? Who says they would not destroy the loser instead?

The goal would be to Capture the Title & Glory of The strongest Kingdom in Aderan Wars .

So the weakened Victor is the only other King in your way , and once their crushed u win .

Both the 1st King and 2nd king will be exhausted from ST use . while the 3rd King is building up Kuwal , UUs , ATs , and STs .

Fresh King vs a very weakened one .

this was just a scenario , but the mind sets that the Saga would introduce is what are the other 2 kings thinking .

by Sandwalker Wed May 26, 2010 6:32 am

Ishurue wrote:
Nomad wrote:I'm courious as to why you assume the "3rd" king would crush the victor? Who says they would not destroy the loser instead?

The goal would be to Capture the Title & Glory of The strongest Kingdom in Aderan Wars .

So the weakened Victor is the only other King in your way , and once their crushed u win .

Both the 1st King and 2nd king will be exhausted from ST use . while the 3rd King is building up Kuwal , UUs , ATs , and STs .

Fresh King vs a very weakened one .

this was just a scenario , but the mind sets that the Saga would introduce is what are the other 2 kings thinking .

If I was Kenzu, I'd think long and hard about what you're saying.

by Casshern Wed May 26, 2010 9:56 am

would this proposal not help with the imperium's problem, the major problem they have is that in a war verus WR & FIRE (with more members) will be to WR & Fire advantage in STs and ATs as you stated yourself ian in another thread. While i see this proposal as an advantage to server as whole, i don't see why WR & fire would give away this advantage for a future conflict that seems inevitable between major powers ingame.

by ian Wed May 26, 2010 10:38 am

Casshern wrote:would this proposal not help with the imperium's problem, the major problem they have is that in a war verus WR & FIRE (with more members) will be to WR & Fire advantage in STs and ATs as you stated yourself ian in another thread. While i see this proposal as an advantage to server as whole, i don't see why WR & fire would give away this advantage for a future conflict that seems inevitable between major powers ingame.

The Imperium can recruit members and has recently begun recruiting member's again. I don't think it would help us overall though - as even if FIRE/ WR did agree... they d still have a potential of 140 members to our 70... lol. The difference to being outnumbered 2 to 1 compared to 2.2 to 1 or something isn't really going to be that great...

by Lord Ishurue Wed May 26, 2010 11:17 pm

Sandwalker wrote:
Ishurue wrote:
Nomad wrote:I'm courious as to why you assume the "3rd" king would crush the victor? Who says they would not destroy the loser instead?

The goal would be to Capture the Title & Glory of The strongest Kingdom in Aderan Wars .

So the weakened Victor is the only other King in your way , and once their crushed u win .

Both the 1st King and 2nd king will be exhausted from ST use . while the 3rd King is building up Kuwal , UUs , ATs , and STs .

Fresh King vs a very weakened one .

this was just a scenario , but the mind sets that the Saga would introduce is what are the other 2 kings thinking .

If I was Kenzu, I'd think long and hard about what you're saying.

the 3 kings is not TIE , FIRE ,and WR .

3 kings = divide the server to 3 optional sides . The idea is dead prolly not gona happen .

by Kenzu Fri May 28, 2010 10:03 am

I would not mind seing Lord Of Legends be an alliance again.
And it is perfectly ok with me if TIE has a treaty with them which will mean they are de facto one empire.

As long as I see more alliances in the game, even if they are alligned, I am happy.

It would bring much more diversity to the game, if Imperium could be a real empire, and not simply an alliance.
Superalliances are harming the game, but empires make the game appear more balanced. And the appearance is VERY IMPORTANT at least to people who are starting to play and consider creating their own alliance. Those who see there is a superalliance stronger than the next 5 alliances combined would surely be discouraged from creating their own alliance.

Therefore I would like to see 3 alliances reappear, and add their empire name at the end:
Commonwealth (TIE)
The Company (TIE)
Lords of Legends (TIE)

Sandwalker wrote:
Ishurue wrote:
Nomad wrote:I'm courious as to why you assume the "3rd" king would crush the victor? Who says they would not destroy the loser instead?

The goal would be to Capture the Title & Glory of The strongest Kingdom in Aderan Wars .

So the weakened Victor is the only other King in your way , and once their crushed u win .

Both the 1st King and 2nd king will be exhausted from ST use . while the 3rd King is building up Kuwal , UUs , ATs , and STs .

Fresh King vs a very weakened one .

this was just a scenario , but the mind sets that the Saga would introduce is what are the other 2 kings thinking .

If I was Kenzu, I'd think long and hard about what you're saying.

Don't worry, I perfectly understand what Ishurue means.
Me and Ishurue have a very good understanding of each others thoughts.

by ian Fri May 28, 2010 2:58 pm

Kenzu wrote:I would not mind seing Lord Of Legends be an alliance again.
And it is perfectly ok with me if TIE has a treaty with them which will mean they are de facto one empire.

As long as I see more alliances in the game, even if they are alligned, I am happy.

It would bring much more diversity to the game, if Imperium could be a real empire, and not simply an alliance.
Superalliances are harming the game, but empires make the game appear more balanced. And the appearance is VERY IMPORTANT at least to people who are starting to play and consider creating their own alliance. Those who see there is a superalliance stronger than the next 5 alliances combined would surely be discouraged from creating their own alliance.

Therefore I would like to see 3 alliances reappear, and add their empire name at the end:
Commonwealth (TIE)
The Company (TIE)
Lords of Legends (TIE)

Sandwalker wrote:
Ishurue wrote:
Nomad wrote:I'm courious as to why you assume the "3rd" king would crush the victor? Who says they would not destroy the loser instead?

The goal would be to Capture the Title & Glory of The strongest Kingdom in Aderan Wars .

So the weakened Victor is the only other King in your way , and once their crushed u win .

Both the 1st King and 2nd king will be exhausted from ST use . while the 3rd King is building up Kuwal , UUs , ATs , and STs .

Fresh King vs a very weakened one .

this was just a scenario , but the mind sets that the Saga would introduce is what are the other 2 kings thinking .

If I was Kenzu, I'd think long and hard about what you're saying.

Don't worry, I perfectly understand what Ishurue means.
Me and Ishurue have a very good understanding of each others thoughts.

lol, i m sure you would like to see The Imperium break apart into 3 alliances again. It is worth remembering however that the only reason The Company & The Commonwealth combined last time was to prevent another-repeat of World Republic, Lord Ishurue's & Geto-dacii's huge attack (which killed 7million miners, close to 15% of T.I.E's population at the time) against us - namely via our being one alliance, we can ensure united organisation, coordination and preparation (i.e. such as not having ridiculous amounts of killable-units) - both in peace time and war-time.

Splitting The Imperium up would hamper The Imperium's coordination & unity - a negative impact in peace time let alone war-time. Not to mention it would also mean my own influence/ ability to coordinate The Imperium would be severely hampered - something which is bound to be a big positive for those outside of The Imperium who view T.I.E policy as being my policy... as oppossed to my mainly reflecting T.I.E interests (which is actually the case).

So... overall i m afraid The Imperium's not going to be splitting into 3 power's - especially given the current Aderan War's political scenario where FIRE and World Republic are de-facto one big empire as far as any outside-party/ alliance is concerned (i.e. enforcing one another's farming policies & full defence/ support treaty - which has since become basically a full alliance - regardless of whether your attacking or defending i.e. enforcing each other's farming policy basically means you go from a defensive-stance (where both only go to war if one is attacked), to a attack stance where you actively *attack* other's. Your alliance is no longer a defence treaty.... but a full-scale one involving both attacking & defending.)

Personally i don't get why everyone's focused on The Imperium Empire - we have 53 members. Thats it. Yes those member's are a lot stronger and larger than most other's... but we are hardly dominating the server. FIRE and World Republic (O) along with the other O empire alliances on the other hand have 138+ player's in them.

Right now the only thing keeping the server *barely* balanced is The Imperium Empire. Without our existence you would be free to do whatever you wanted - something doubts about given past conduct by WR/ FIRE.

So... overall there's no way The Imperium Empire will be breaking back into seperate alliances. That would weaken our abilities - which could & would then be exploited by other's.

Divide and conquer is a very old & well known policy Kenzu - i m suprised you can't come up with something more original Wink

by Manleva Fri May 28, 2010 9:20 pm

Kenzu wrote:I would not mind seing Lord Of Legends be an alliance again.
And it is perfectly ok with me if TIE has a treaty with them which will mean they are de facto one empire.

As long as I see more alliances in the game, even if they are alligned, I am happy.

It would bring much more diversity to the game, if Imperium could be a real empire, and not simply an alliance.
Superalliances are harming the game, but empires make the game appear more balanced. And the appearance is VERY IMPORTANT at least to people who are starting to play and consider creating their own alliance. Those who see there is a superalliance stronger than the next 5 alliances combined would surely be discouraged from creating their own alliance.

Therefore I would like to see 3 alliances reappear, and add their empire name at the end:
Commonwealth (TIE)
The Company (TIE)
Lords of Legends (TIE)

It's a great idea Kenzu but to take it further
Lords of Legend (O) as you've got a few ex Lords of Legend players in your ranks also. I think the numbers are about WR 4 - TIE 9 with a few other familiar names elsewhere.

by Kenzu Sat May 29, 2010 11:41 am

ian wrote:
Kenzu wrote:I would not mind seing Lord Of Legends be an alliance again.
And it is perfectly ok with me if TIE has a treaty with them which will mean they are de facto one empire.

As long as I see more alliances in the game, even if they are alligned, I am happy.

It would bring much more diversity to the game, if Imperium could be a real empire, and not simply an alliance.
Superalliances are harming the game, but empires make the game appear more balanced. And the appearance is VERY IMPORTANT at least to people who are starting to play and consider creating their own alliance. Those who see there is a superalliance stronger than the next 5 alliances combined would surely be discouraged from creating their own alliance.

Therefore I would like to see 3 alliances reappear, and add their empire name at the end:
Commonwealth (TIE)
The Company (TIE)
Lords of Legends (TIE)

Sandwalker wrote:
Ishurue wrote:
Nomad wrote:I'm courious as to why you assume the "3rd" king would crush the victor? Who says they would not destroy the loser instead?

The goal would be to Capture the Title & Glory of The strongest Kingdom in Aderan Wars .

So the weakened Victor is the only other King in your way , and once their crushed u win .

Both the 1st King and 2nd king will be exhausted from ST use . while the 3rd King is building up Kuwal , UUs , ATs , and STs .

Fresh King vs a very weakened one .

this was just a scenario , but the mind sets that the Saga would introduce is what are the other 2 kings thinking .

If I was Kenzu, I'd think long and hard about what you're saying.

Don't worry, I perfectly understand what Ishurue means.
Me and Ishurue have a very good understanding of each others thoughts.

lol, i m sure you would like to see The Imperium break apart into 3 alliances again. It is worth remembering however that the only reason The Company & The Commonwealth combined last time was to prevent another-repeat of World Republic, Lord Ishurue's & Geto-dacii's huge attack (which killed 7million miners, close to 15% of T.I.E's population at the time) against us - namely via our being one alliance, we can ensure united organisation, coordination and preparation (i.e. such as not having ridiculous amounts of killable-units) - both in peace time and war-time.

Splitting The Imperium up would hamper The Imperium's coordination & unity - a negative impact in peace time let alone war-time. Not to mention it would also mean my own influence/ ability to coordinate The Imperium would be severely hampered - something which is bound to be a big positive for those outside of The Imperium who view T.I.E policy as being my policy... as oppossed to my mainly reflecting T.I.E interests (which is actually the case).

So... overall i m afraid The Imperium's not going to be splitting into 3 power's - especially given the current Aderan War's political scenario where FIRE and World Republic are de-facto one big empire as far as any outside-party/ alliance is concerned (i.e. enforcing one another's farming policies & full defence/ support treaty - which has since become basically a full alliance - regardless of whether your attacking or defending i.e. enforcing each other's farming policy basically means you go from a defensive-stance (where both only go to war if one is attacked), to a attack stance where you actively *attack* other's. Your alliance is no longer a defence treaty.... but a full-scale one involving both attacking & defending.)

Personally i don't get why everyone's focused on The Imperium Empire - we have 53 members. Thats it. Yes those member's are a lot stronger and larger than most other's... but we are hardly dominating the server. FIRE and World Republic (O) along with the other O empire alliances on the other hand have 138+ player's in them.

Right now the only thing keeping the server *barely* balanced is The Imperium Empire. Without our existence you would be free to do whatever you wanted - something doubts about given past conduct by WR/ FIRE.

So... overall there's no way The Imperium Empire will be breaking back into seperate alliances. That would weaken our abilities - which could & would then be exploited by other's.

Divide and conquer is a very old & well known policy Kenzu - i m suprised you can't come up with something more original

So why do you bother making a topic about making the game healthier if you continue to support TIE strategy of absorbing other alliances.

Look at World Republic for example, we are the origin of many great minds, who went further and became leaders of successful alliances, and we contributed to the diversity of alliances in Aderan Wars.

by seaborgium Sat May 29, 2010 12:01 pm

LMAO

i know 2 alliances currently. who came from within WR.

1 didn't like the way you did most things, but are still in your laps.
1 that didn't like you at all and haven't been supportive of you at all.

by ian Sat May 29, 2010 12:12 pm

It is NOT T.I.E strategy to absorb other alliances.

The only alliances to have ever joined our ranks was Lords of Legend's - and that was pretty much solely because of your allies - FIRE's - conduct. Had they not had one of their member's massed, they would never have come close to conflict with FIRE, and therefore they would never have been forced to consider joining The Imperium.

We offerred sanctuary from annihilation. Nothing more.

As for Fedaykin - they joined us after it became clear they were being intentionally mislead by other elements of FIRE and not kept informed. Again - we were a sanctuary. The reasons's for those alliance's seeking to join The Imperium Empire was not The Imperium's doing... but other's. We merely accepted their requests to join The Imperium Empire - something very different to being the reason for them joining The Imperium Empire...

As for why making this topic - i made this topic in the hope of possibly restricting the overall size of the 3 power's so that then other power's find it easier to recruit and grow, maybe resulting in more power's growing and the server rebalancing itself away from the 3power's dominating it.

Instead what your proposing is the destruction of The Imperium, while at the same time no limit to the other 2 power's. You are taking a topic which is meant to allow the 3 power's to come to a agreement to benefit AW, and instead using it to try and rally support to put pressure on The Imperium Empire to disband (literally).

That is far from what i had in mind.

As for World Republic being the origin of many "great minds" who ve gone on to become leaders of successful alliances - who? There is only one person i can think of who fits that criteria - Lord Ishurue... and World Republic was not the only power which shared a lot of their experience and policies with him - nor has he stuck to any single-existing policy, but has since built upon them and modified them to suit FIRE's need's, and created new idea's and ways of thinking.

You can not claim credit for other's people's work Kenzu. If people choose to leave a alliance to create their own alliance, it normally means they aren't happy with their existing alliance....

by seaborgium Sat May 29, 2010 1:46 pm

Ian ya forgot about black dragons, some of them were in the ranks of WR

by Manleva Sat May 29, 2010 10:46 pm

seaborgium wrote:Ian ya forgot about black dragons, some of them were in the ranks of WR

Yes some were in the ranks of WR. Interestingly their commander belongs to TIE. I came from LOL after the majority went to TIE. One has a brother in FIRE and the others are new players.

All I can really say is that at the moment the game appears to be dominated by just three alliances and I think that more apparent diversity could assist in the retention of new players which can only be beneficial for everyone.

Comments have been made that logistically it is easier to communicate to all concerned if all members of an empire are in the one alliance and I agree with this but it is still possible to organize communication with multiple alliances. Both WR and TIE have ex LOL players who are used to being in top ranked clans with a limit of 30 members and who are well versed in the processes of diplomacy between clans and organization of events on a global basis across all time zones and doing it in very restrictive time frames.

by Beldar Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:28 pm

I just think with the current ammount of active players there should be a limit on alliance number OR a building that the leader builds that costs more and more money with each level which would indirectly limit the number of players per alliance...

40-50 should be more than enough imo.

by Kira Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:34 pm

Beldar wrote:I just think with the current ammount of active players there should be a limit on alliance number OR a building that the leader builds that costs more and more money with each level which would indirectly limit the number of players per alliance...

40-50 should be more than enough imo.

yes! I do agree.
I have to admit that in other games that limit does exist.

by Kenzu Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:40 pm

Beldar wrote:I just think with the current ammount of active players there should be a limit on alliance number OR a building that the leader builds that costs more and more money with each level which would indirectly limit the number of players per alliance...

40-50 should be more than enough imo.

40-50 would barely influence any alliance, with the exception of World Republic.

But if the restriction was say 20 members per alliance, it would become more interesting. We could have over 10 active alliances and things would get more interesting.

by Magnus Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:49 pm

Kenzu wrote:
Beldar wrote:I just think with the current ammount of active players there should be a limit on alliance number OR a building that the leader builds that costs more and more money with each level which would indirectly limit the number of players per alliance...

40-50 should be more than enough imo.

40-50 would barely influence any alliance, with the exception of World Republic.

But if the restriction was say 20 members per alliance, it would become more interesting. We could have over 10 active alliances and things would get more interesting.

I doubt it would be more interesting since that would make a couple of sister alliances,training alliances or what so ever you want to call em

by Sponsored content

The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.

Re: The League of Non-Aligned Alliances.