50% Govt Tax for Shipjumpers + bring back decent solo option

[Enigma]

**Apologies for long post**
-----------------------------
QUOTE From Garrett in another thread
“heh, what i love most is when posts get followed up with 'this is just a game'

but then things like loyalty and **** get thrown out...

so either the game creates personal ties and so therefore it's not 'just a game' or near everyone in the game puts way more into it than they ever should.

tbh it's probably a little bit of both. And just like in the past few years of bush, people yelling at each other this round will probably end up in an alliance together next round.

(not saying every single person, but it happens) and in that next round either there will be a splinter in that alliance because they are still bitter, or they will forget last round and laugh and say yeah that was awesome or that sucked and move on.

so resisting #1, can we move on?”
-----------------------------------
QUOTE From F0xx in another thread
“So what do we have here. DS who prefers solo play before ally play says, "Hey ho, bring back L/F so I can mess with 20 players on my own."

You flame Alci for trying to change the game in direction which he "likes" while you are doing the *exact* same thing for years now. Not just that but XP, L/F, bounty and the different ranking system which we had some time ago has caused more damage to this game than any other change.

This is a team based game and that is the only way it can survive. If you really like the game, then please understand this. There should be no way in which one solo can compete with 20 active players.”
--------------------------------------------
QUOTE from Nickk in another thread
“Blah BLah BLah BS
Right this round has been filled with unbelievable ***** politics and BS.
Yeah Hobbe you left for your own reasons etc etc
I don't care if you did it for score/attacking/to join friends.
But let it be known that you let down all 19 members who whole-heartedly saved your ass night and day.
Not only that, you let down Garrett also who deliberately lead a FTF alliance and allowed you to join our alliance in the first place. He has devoted so much time into the alliance and you go and "spit on his face".
I am not angry at you, I just hope YOU feel some guilt after what you have done.
Sorry this just had to be said

PS good job killing me despite knowing i wasnt contactable tonight.
Aill will not die without fighting”
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
QUOTE from me, in this thread

Ok, I’d like to precede this with two points; 1/ I am not currently controlling an ID in the current round anymore, 2/ I have no plans to create an ID next round – I am planning an extended ‘break’ for a while.

These suggestions and comments are based on my time here, and not on experiences this round specifically…. But there is a theme I guess and I’m not the first to notice it as per the quotes I have included above.

But I do find it funny that the people that raise this as an issue, have no ideas/suggestions on how to improve or address it – either that or I’m too much a stoner and just can’t remember seeing it

Anyway the problem I see with this game atm, has nothing to do with units, game mechanics, tick length, ally size, perceived game unit balance issues… it is all to do with the unclear lack of direction from the creator in relation to how you go about playing this game if you want to do well.

Is it a game where you have to work with others to succeed? Or is it a game where you can play solo effectively and there is adequate reward for the time/skill put in? Or is there supposed to be a balance?

The most recent changes where by p-solo was removed seems to me that there was a clear decision that this should be an allied-based game and working with others was a key component.

With this in mind, I think no one can argue that round after round one of the most reoccurring vocal complaints, is about the things that go on to undermine this concept such as spying and betrayal and general ‘outside of game’ shenanigans that occur and have the impact of ‘hurting’ an alliance from the inside.

Yet no mechanism or thought has been put into how to reduce these things and aim to improve the sense of ‘community’ and more specifically, an alliance working together to succeed (i.e. apart from the Leader trying to keep the peace, there is nothing in place that is there to encourage people staying together).

My first suggestion would be to implement a 50% govt tax on land/troops/funds/seeds/plants/everything for leaving an alliance without leader permission (being kicked). The way I see it, this could be easily implemented and deter some spying/ally betrayal/shipjumper scenarios…. And where they still occur, reduce any INGAME damage/bad experiences encountered by the original group trying to work together.

To be blunt, with a shrinking player base, being encouraged to play allied means that where you encounter someone out to undermine your alliance, you know will have to play with that person at some time in the future, or have very limited options in where you go, to continue playing at a medium/high level. Note: Had drafted most of this post and then saw Garretts post I quoted above… and he seems to get right to the heart of the matter, but then even after identifying an issue is happy to just “move on” (sigh).

So to then play with people that you have had bad experiences with in the past, could be argued will lead to people just finding something more satisfying and positive to devote their time too.

For example, removing p-solo has given me no real option (personally) to have a reason to play out this round. AND I couldn’t be bothered playing allied again for a while after this round, and to play solo atm just seems a pointless waste of time as it is an eventual death-sentence, or at best a target for eventual raping after days/weeks of no sleep and time wasted checking with phone, setting alarms etc. So, next round for me, at this stage I’m going to go do other things, simple.

I don’t see it as a ‘dummy-spit’, I’m not making the decision because of any personal issues with players this round… more I know I could obtain more enjoyment and SATISFACTION doing something else.

I’m sure I’m not the first and won’t be the last to think along those lines.

When I started playing, I liked the fact that whilst it was a game of numbers and basic strategy, there was also a very large reliance on ‘working with others’ and generally communicating with others. Then for many reasons (inside alliance betrayal/spying, sick of playing with people not at similar activity, playing with some annoying rude people etc), I played solo for a while and loved it, and only returned to Alliance play after Rama begged me, and then a few other allies after that, but mostly under protest with the intention of retiring to p-solo again when I’d had enough.

Now it is fair to say that this is a WAR game, and bad things do happen in war, but in the real world there are also repercussions for bad behaviour. A bad guy can still be bad, but generally it is always harder.

So the simplest changes I see, is firstly for automatic Govt intervention for bad behaviour (like UN intervention/sanctions) where people play outside the ‘spirit of the game’.

A 50% tax on leaving an ally without permission would definitely make some people think twice about just betraying the alliance they agreed to join in the first place (and maybe delay how many can be kicked at a time – 1 per hour for example). This would have also changed the whole TBA issue last round maybe, as being able to so easily swap alliance members to deal with resistance was a major reason the resistance lost momentum, and Azzers mid round change seemed more knee-jerk coding at that actual behaviour than having a real purpose behind it. IE. It was implemented to stop some ‘sneaky’ play style member swapping, but does it help or promote the alliance working/staying together… NO, it just delayed the time it took to do it. In fact if I had my way, I’d also implement a rule that once you leave an ally, you cannot return to it without deleting/restarting.

My other more broad suggestion is to give people a decent solo option!!!
This could be a separate 100% solo world (1 NAP only) and no portal etc. An excellent ‘training’ ground or place for people to recharge when they have had enough of allied play – maybe it only runs for half round length (i.e. 2 solo rounds for every 1 proper round) and then leave solo as it is in the real world but with a clear understanding that you probably won’t do that well in comparison to being in an ally.

As I stated initially, I think these suggestions address most of my main concerns about this game since I started in R14 approximately. That being I see it as way too easy to sabotage another players ambitions from within, and I constantly see ship-jumpers every round and too many inter-personal issues…. Imagine a round where alliances were basically locked at start of round. Would make it eventually easier to look at ‘Alliance War’ mechanisms if the actual ID’s in alliances remained the same through the round.

So in closing, I would have been very happy to just retire quietly in my own way (and probably will return sometime in the future), it’s my love of the game and recognition of the enjoyment it has given me and the great people I have had the pleasure of chatting to during my time here that has prompted this post… in fact those that know me also know how much I hate posting in forums… but unfortunately the way I see it, if nothing is done to offset the negative experiences that are too regularly encountered, then in the long run, the game will lose I’m afraid so I had to say something

 

[Flip]

I tried reading all of that, but I got kinda lazy before i was done.

I like the idea of some sort of penalty for leaving alliances, I'm not sure about a 50% "tax" though. And I really like the idea that players can't rejoin an alliance after leaving. Also, a tax wont really help early on (or even before the round starts) spying.

I had a discussion about a second "pure solo" world, with no alliances. But the conclusion was that the playerbase is too small to really handle that, which I think is true.

As solo is now, i don't think it's horribly unbalanced one way or the other. I don't think solos should really be able to compete for top 10-25 or whatever. But you can still play the game at a high level as solo. Ofcourse it could use some tweaking, but overall I think it's (mostly) good as it is.

 

[DarkSider]

For first part : Nice idea, i always felt a disgust when a player who's troops are alive because the alliance defended them just decides one day to leave to another ally. My first thought was to take all the troops and funds away but 50% might be enough of a penality

For second part : I'm not sure what exactly is your suggestion, easyer to play solo or a separate world for solo's or you just want to play bush but without the current requirements for ally play @ top. Anyway i think i posted my views about solo and ally play enough in other threads


@ Flip Imo solo's shouldn't be able to get into top 10-20 without putting alot of effort into it during the entire round, but then again that should also be true for allied players. As much as you hate seeing a good solo in top ranks beating allied players in good alliances as much i hate inactive and/or unskilled players in good allies babysited in top ranks

 

[Flip]

I agree, I think this game really needs to keep a balance between solo and allied. Becoming a pure alliance game would be a mistake in my opinion. (this coming from a predominantly allied player who happens to be solo this round)

Solos should obviously be able to compete at the high ranks, but if someone can consistently hold that high of a rank (excluding bunker players) I'd say solo is overpowered then.

There's always going to be some crappy players in good alliances though. I don't believe any kind of game mechanic could reasonably do something about it. That's just part of the human aspect of the game.

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

TLDR

But I have seen a rather appalling lack of loyalty lately. Because really, what is to stop one from leaving one alliance for another? If they don't feel some sort of loyalty to the alliance, or some of its members, there is nothing to stop them. And I don't like it. In my mind, when you sign up with an alliance, you make an implicit agreement to stick around for the duration of the round, assuming it doesn't go entirely tits up. Imagine my displeasure when literally half of TIR, who I started the round with, left within the first 5 days. 10 members jumped ship. ****, we were still rank 6 when the jumping happened, so it isn't like we had already imploded. Absolutely disgraceful. I would be interested in seeing what options are out there to limit this sort of thing.

 

[Azzer]

What you're basically saying is the way to make people loyal to an alliance is by forcing them to be stuck with the alliance beyond their control for the entire round. Kind of like saying you can make somebody patriotic to a country by forbidding them to ever move away.

I don't get it. How on earth will that fix "loyalty" - if anything, won't it mean that those who don't like the alliance they're in and want to leave, but can't, will just delete their ID and restart, or try and do something destructive (like leak all the alliances info) to try and get themselves kicked/ruin the alliance they wanted to leave? I mean being forced to be stuck somewhere you don't actually want to be seems like a real kick in the teeth and way to generate hatred and spite, not loyalty? Or maybe I'm missing some key aspect here...

I know lots of members of alliances who are die-hard loyal to their leader, or their fellow members. And others that aren't. Loyalty should be created from respect for your fellow members, your alliance, and your leader - and it's a two way process. Individuals who cannot ever respect others, will never be loyal - so don't recruit them (and if you do once, don't make the same mistake again). And if your alliance is a rubbish alliance, your leadership style is rubbish, or you have a bunch of idiotic morons for members, don't expect people to be loyal to you.

Forcing them to stay in the alliance makes no sense to me whatsoever.

That being said there are certain things that can be modified - not allowing somebody who's been in an alliance, to rejoin that same alliance for an extended period of time - be it 7 days or less, or more. To prevent somebody leaving an alliance, hopping in to another one to spy, then hopping back to their original alliance. At the moment, the time delay on rejoining an alliance you were already in before at any stage, is 24 hours. The time between alliance joins in general can also be extended - eg cannot join any alliance for 24 hours (or more, or less) after leaving any other alliance, to help prevent people hopping around alliances like crazy (something only some mass spy would do). Or limit the number of "alliance joins" to X per round or Y per Z days or any number of limitation possibilities.

As for a "tax" on members leaving an alliance - would this apply to members that get kicked from the alliance? If so, then that's going to give alliances a way to really screw over somebody they decide they don't like/want to have fun with/recruited as a joke. If not, then what's to stop somebody that wants to leave "on mutual grounds" from simply getting the leader to kick them.

 

[Alcibiades]

What you're basically saying is the way to make people loyal to an alliance is by forcing them to be stuck with the alliance beyond their control for the entire round. Kind of like saying you can make somebody patriotic to a country by forbidding them to ever move away.

I don't get it. How on earth will that fix "loyalty" - if anything, won't it mean that those who don't like the alliance they're in and want to leave, but can't, will just delete their ID and restart, or try and do something destructive (like leak all the alliances info) to try and get themselves kicked/ruin the alliance they wanted to leave? I mean being forced to be stuck somewhere you don't actually want to be seems like a real kick in the teeth and way to generate hatred and spite, not loyalty? Or maybe I'm missing some key aspect here...

I know lots of members of alliances who are die-hard loyal to their leader, or their fellow members. And others that aren't. Loyalty should be created from respect for your fellow members, your alliance, and your leader - and it's a two way process. Individuals who cannot ever respect others, will never be loyal - so don't recruit them (and if you do once, don't make the same mistake again). And if your alliance is a rubbish alliance, your leadership style is rubbish, or you have a bunch of idiotic morons for members, don't expect people to be loyal to you.

Forcing them to stay in the alliance makes no sense to me whatsoever.

That being said there are certain things that can be modified - not allowing somebody who's been in an alliance, to rejoin that same alliance for an extended period of time - be it 7 days or less, or more. To prevent somebody leaving an alliance, hopping in to another one to spy, then hopping back to their original alliance. At the moment, the time delay on rejoining an alliance you were already in before at any stage, is 24 hours. The time between alliance joins in general can also be extended - eg cannot join any alliance for 24 hours (or more, or less) after leaving any other alliance, to help prevent people hopping around alliances like crazy (something only some mass spy would do). Or limit the number of "alliance joins" to X per round or Y per Z days or any number of limitation possibilities.

As for a "tax" on members leaving an alliance - would this apply to members that get kicked from the alliance? If so, then that's going to give alliances a way to really screw over somebody they decide they don't like/want to have fun with/recruited as a joke. If not, then what's to stop somebody that wants to leave "on mutual grounds" from simply getting the leader to kick them.

Win. whilst i hate to argue with you enigma, you know that, i would say that you can't force obedience or loyalty. you have to earn it.

 

[Flip]

I think we all just want some kind of punishment for disloyalty, if it was too big, it would obviously be counter productive, notice I didn't agree with the 50% tax thing, but something would be nice. I'm not sure what would be the right thing, if there even is one.

Also, in his post I believe he said it wouldn't apply to kicked members.

 

[Alcibiades]

i do not, and will not agree to the punishment of members who wish to leave an alliance ever.

If you want to punish them, zero their ass, or get someone to zero them. Don't have game mechanics to do it.

 

[Flip]

Hm, maybe your right. While I'm not against the idea in and of itself, I'm not really sure if it would work in this game setting, or if there would be a good way to even implement it.

I'm definitely for limits on joining and leaving alliances in general though. And anything that might help discourage spies early on.

 

[aGit]

i agree with all above who pointed out that you cannot enforce loyality.

 

[DarkSider]

That makes as much sense in my mind as saying you can't force ppl to value life and not kill the ones they piss them off for the sole reason they know a life even the one of their enemies is too precious to waste You don't kill because you know there will be punishments, you know it's forbidden and if you get caught your life is ruined.
Same should be for a member who had his back covered for 1 month and then he decides the grass is greener on the other side and takes all the troops and funds and acres this alliance GAVE to him and goes to the hostile alliance and uses those troops to attack and defend against former members.
The argument "don't recruit morons and unloyal ppl" it's very unrealistic given the size of playerbase and size of alliances. In each and every 20 man alliance there are players likely to do all this ship jumping for their own interest, and while i do agree they should be allowed to leave if they can't stand playing in there anymore i also believe a player shouldn't be allowed to leave with all the goods this alliance PROVIDED to him.

 

[Hobbezak]

Same should be for a member who had his back covered for 1 month and then he decides the grass is greener on the other side and takes all the troops and funds and acres this alliance GAVE to him and goes to the hostile alliance and uses those troops to attack and defend against former members.

I don't agree there. An alliance doesn't give you troops, land or funds. You help eachother out in defence (and it works both ways there), but at least in my case, the alliance didn't play my account afaik. An alliance is 20 players joining together because it is mutually beneficial to play together, if you yourself do whatever you have to do during the time you're together, I don't think you really owe that alliance anything after you leave.
If a player leaves, there is enough time to steal 50% of his acres without any sort of possible defence, so I think you got your tax system right there.
I've even seen people who were kicked for inactivity, lose absolutely everything (troops and land) to the alliance during that 1.5h of no defence.

 

[DarkSider]

An alliance doesn't give you troops, land or funds. You help eachother out in defence (and it works both ways there), but at least in my case, the alliance didn't play my account afaik.

There is a big doubt in my mind that you would have made it into top 10 as a solo robot. So the alliance GAVE you more than you would have been able to get by your own. Sure you defended them and they defended you with the intent of increasing the goods inside the alliance but the point is from their view they defended a waste and from your point you gained more than you would have on your own.

A player leaving and loosing AT MOST 2-3 ticks of land it's hardly a big deal, they keep all the funds, troops, and rest of the acres

or try and do something destructive (like leak all the alliances info) to try and get themselves kicked/ruin the alliance they wanted to leave?

Very valid point. Maybe when kicking you should be able to set the tax level between 0 and max (50% would be the absolute max) , but the max would also depend on the amount of time you played in the alliance, so you can't recruit a new guy, kick him in 2 hours and take half his troops away.

 

[Hobbezak]

An alliance doesn't give you troops, land or funds. You help eachother out in defence (and it works both ways there), but at least in my case, the alliance didn't play my account afaik.

There is a big doubt in my mind that you would have made it into top 10 as a solo robot. So the alliance GAVE you more than you would have been able to get by your own. Sure you defended them and they defended you with the intent of increasing the goods inside the alliance but the point is from their view they defended a waste and from your point you gained more than you would have on your own.

A player leaving and loosing AT MOST 2-3 ticks of land it's hardly a big deal, they keep all the funds, troops, and rest of the acres

50% land in my own experience.
Also to most departures, there are 2 sides to the story. If a leader makes some bad calls, you suggest that you either sit it out, getting frustrated, delete, or pay 50% tax to a leader you have issues with? Doesn't really make sense imho.

 

[Enigma]

Ok, it seems I’m guilty of waffling too much as usual.

In my attempt to fully explain the reasons behind my suggestion, I’ve probably clouded my overall intention/suggestion a bit.

So whilst I’ll take on board the comments to date, and have to admit I agree with what people are saying mostly (though a few over-generalisations maybe), I would also like to clarify a couple of points that seem to have questions about them and maybe that will make my overall intention clearer… in fact I’d prefer discussion on the issue I raise about how to improve, provide incentive to stick together, rather than just saying no to what I suggest as a possible solution (it was all I could come up with tbh and just didn’t want to make a gripe thread);

Anyway, I digress yet again… back on topic;

1. This is not a suggestion to FORCE people to stay with an ally, but ENCOURAGE an ally stick together…. Leaving an ally should be a last option, not the first option as some people seem to take time and time again.

2. Yes this penalty could be avoided with Leader permission (i.e. should be no penalty for people who get leaders permission to leave) – but limit how many can be kicked to avoid the penalty per hour or something – following on, if a leader kicked a member, then ofc no penalty is set (I think the kick/rape would be penalty enough lol)

3. Yes there is a risk that someone doesn’t like the ally they agreed to join and is not allowed to leave without penalty….and feels stuck. But I think most would take a 50% cut of value over complete restart imo, especially later in the round when more dev’d up. But really I don’t see this as a problem, and if happened to me I would put it down to MY poor choice of ally to join, and move on. Also as I said, it was more about promoting staying in an ally and making the decision to leave harder than it currently is, then trying to force people to stay where they really don’t want to be.

4. In relation to Azzer’s question about a player potentially doing “something destructive (like leak all the alliances info) to try and get themselves kicked/ruin the alliance they wanted to leave?” – isn’t this the same thing that currently happens anyway when people get upset with their ally? I would say it’s the leaders job to manage his players. So, if someone requested to leave the ally and had a decent reason and was declined, I’d say it’s a bad leader that brought it on themselves, not the mechanism itself (whatever that may be).

5. Alci I totally agree with you in fact… loyalty must be earnt! But I don’t see my suggestion as something that goes against that principle. I see it more as a deterrent to being a ruthless ‘solo’ player masquerading as an ‘allied’ player (for lack of a better term).

6. Again Alci, “i do not, and will not agree to the punishment of members who wish to leave an alliance ever.”. I agree with this statement to a point and this is where I think people may be getting misled with my initial post being so long. I am not for a blanket/broad mechanism that would apply to everyone leaving an ally in all circumstance every time. In fact in a perfect world I would love to see it never actually get used, and Leaders treat their players with respect and let them move along when they want… this is about deterring the people who do bail on their ally with the pure intention of giving their original alliance grief (e.g. waiting till people are mostly offline then leaving and killing them etc) –

7. Another example of how to tweak it could be, make it an alliance option the leader has ability to set at start when creating the alliance and not a Govt intervention thing (lol yeah I’m talking rubbish now, but my point is that there has to be a way of making it palatable – making it a positive change rather than negative) – e.g It could be seen as a good recruitment selling point for a leader trying to get a new group together.

8. Finally if I could address Azzer’s analogy… yes there is no country that prevents immigration to promote loyalty/patriotism, but if you bailed on your country and sold government secrets, are you saying there would be no repercussions? You still need a ‘passport’ in most cases? Would a highly ranked US Nuclear scientist who defected to Nth Korea be able to do it scott-free. I’d say not, and go so far as to say assets might be frozen, monitoring put in place etc. I’m guessing ofc, I’m not even American, but it would be fair to say with the anti-terrorism sentiment around the globe, that it would not be as simple as just packing up and moving <- (ok, way off-topic I know and just adds to the length of my post, but I don’t like generalisations I guess)

As for my opinion on solo, yeah I’m coming from a purely selfish POV. That being, I used to play p-solo, so now at a stage where solo was looking the best option, I miss what I used to have (the –1 mob return was gold and is probably the thing I’d miss the most going back to solo now), so to be honest, I couldn’t be bothered returning to solo try it again I guess is what I am driving at… and that’s pointless and detracts from my main reason for posting in the first place, the whole alliance ‘experience’ – so ignore the whole ‘solo’ bit from me is for the best

 

[aGit]

That makes as much sense in my mind as saying you can't force ppl to value life and not kill the ones they piss them off for the sole reason they know a life even the one of their enemies is too precious to waste You don't kill because you know there will be punishments, you know it's forbidden and if you get caught your life is ruined.
Same should be for a member who had his back covered for 1 month and then he decides the grass is greener on the other side and takes all the troops and funds and acres this alliance GAVE to him and goes to the hostile alliance and uses those troops to attack and defend against former members.
The argument "don't recruit morons and unloyal ppl" it's very unrealistic given the size of playerbase and size of alliances. In each and every 20 man alliance there are players likely to do all this ship jumping for their own interest, and while i do agree they should be allowed to leave if they can't stand playing in there anymore i also believe a player shouldn't be allowed to leave with all the goods this alliance PROVIDED to him.

you still cannot, and should not force someone to stay in an alliance that he or she does not want to be in. There are alot of scenarios where leaving an alliance has other justifications than just betrayal. and after all, betrayl is a tactic as well, this being a war game and all, i dont see why we should limit the options by someones moral code.

a product is perfect NOT when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away. and it is small and useless additions such as these that make the
game too compilacted and steepen the lurning curve ( not only bushtairon, but a number of other games as well)

 

[DarkSider]

you still cannot, and should not force someone to stay in an alliance that he or she does not want to be in.

I posted players should be able to leave if they want, but like Enigma i think the thought of leaving the alliance shouldn't be the first and departure shouldn't be as smooth for the individual and a probable big troop & land loss for the alliance.
You can leave if you want, but as i suggested if you are old timer in the ally and most of the goods your company posses come from your alliance defending them, you shouldn't be able to leave with all of them without their blessing

 

[aGit]

and what if you dont get that blessing? just continue like nothing happened? no, im quite sure that at that point the would-be shipjumper would start to not defend, to be a general nuisance in the alliance or even espionage. i would imagine the relations in the guild to be somewhat sore if you "forbid" one of your members from leaving.

bottom line being, if he wants to leave, he is no good to you anyways.

 

[tobapopalos]

If a player leaves, there is enough time to steal 50% of his acres without any sort of possible defence, so I think you got your tax system right there.

Unless the leader of the alliance you join asks his Enmity buddies to piggy our ticks (despite them supposedly not working together).