Final points from me then I’m just going to leave this I think…. I could think of a million different ways something like this could be implemented, and I’m not trying to flog a dead horse, but all I really want to do is get some discussion and see if others agree there is an issue and possible solutions. And at the moment it seems a bit split.
So the main argument I hear is that what if you seek permission to leave (for a valid reason), but your Leader is a d**k and won’t let you… you then feel trapped and have to make a choice between 50% cut or deleting. Either that, or people have major concerns about implementing an in-game ‘mechanism’ that would apply to all with no flexibility.
With that in mind, I could easily see another option to offset this and still maintain my original idea of trying to encourage alliances to stick together. So my amended suggestion goes something like this;
-----------
1. If you just bail out immediately, without permission, you lose 50% - this goes to Govt (effectively out of game, not to the alliance)
2. If you obtain Leader permission (get kicked) – then no penalty
3. If Leader decides to kick you, no penalty
4. If you have tried to seek permission to leave but are declined (or know that you would be), you have the option to leave the alliance ‘publically’ with no penalty – e.g. You select ‘Leave Publically’, and an alliance log is generated “<Player1> will be leaving the alliance in <xxx> ticks" (now sure how long a delay is reasonable… but I would suggest 6-12 ticks at minimum)
5. Once you leave an alliance, you cannot return for <yy> ticks/days (whatever)
6. Maybe it is an option a Leader selects when creating the alliance (on or off, no ability to adjust) (not ideal imo, but something that comes to mind)
----------
What has prompted this amendment is that I feel the strongest resistance is coming from a perceived ‘blanket’ rule being in place that effects everyone, every time. That’s not what I was trying to achieve – it was more to make it a bit harder to jump around than stop it entirely… and more so limit the impact a small few bad apples can cause to the group as a whole.
I also want to make clear that I tried to come up with something that I did not think would change the core game either…. So whilst I am suggesting an in-game mechanism, is it really a huge change that would impact a huge number? I doubt it. Does it change the way you attack/defend/obtain targets? No
I am really interesting in hearing as any people’s opinions as I can, and hate to see this degenerate to back and forth’s between a limited few arguing that their opinion is ‘right’. EG. I am surprised (and I’ll admit a bit chuffed) that DS seems to like the idea…. But then why is he getting argued with when it wasn’t his suggestion? He is entitled to his opinion I would think? (but I thank him for being so vocal about it lol)
Alci also suggests the whole RRR split as another reason something like this shouldn’t be implemented. Well as an original RRR leftover, don’t I have the right to argue that I don’t think it should have been allowed to happen like that (just my opinion), and frankly I personally don’t care if you were all forced to stay together and have a boring finish to the round instead of what went on (that’s just my opinion though, not a ***** or gripe). Further, I’d make a leap of faith and go on to say that with the splinter group making no effort to manage their score to retain targets near the time of their defection, if they had stayed in the original RRR, the rest of the player-base would have had plenty of room to grow and battle out the lower ranks as usually does happen each round (hypothetical ofc just assuming, and the way some of original RRR were dying regularly, maybe not too).
I think your comment about a ‘stagnant’ round Alci may also be more from your own perception and being bored with no targets, than wanting to “do something good for the player-base/game in general”…. By saying the player-base would complain if RRR hadn’t split, you are in fact arguing a hypothetical, something that didn’t occur, so to then guess what the player-base reaction would be, and state it as a fact in your post is a little bemusing. Yes that may have happened, but my point is it didn’t. (and yes I agree most the player-base was happy it happened too. I love to watch a good alliance implosion as much as the next guy hehe… but would they be happy to have it happen to them is probably the bigger unknown)
Anyway, that in itself is neither here nor there… In fact I’d prefer to let the whole RRR thing go and not get in any discussion about that. I feel that while it fits the theme of my suggestion and expected it to be raised, it is not the main reason I am suggesting something like this and don’t want the fact I was a RRR member to distract from my main points. (i.e. In all the scenarios I have tried to think about, I understand the RRR incident was more an anomaly than something I think I would encounter regularly and I have no personal animosity towards anyone who was in either of the RRR alliances).
OK, OK, I had written this much then saw Alci’s latest post…. I’ve probably told you before, but if not… you rock
I was getting worried you were approaching this a bit blinkered at first (thinking maybe this was an anti-RRR gripe from me disguised as a suggestion), then you go and post a thoughtful, well constructed post giving me some honest feedback – ty
Anyway all I can respond to that, is to refer back to my amendments above (does this alleviate some of the worries?) and add that whilst I would also prefer carrots to sticks, I couldn’t think of any ‘carrots’ that wouldn’t change the actual game play, or lock down alliances more than I wanted (e.g. Pure-Alliance options/ HQ bonuses I don’t think are workable as this would trap people in alliances they may decide they don’t like more than a potential ‘exit-tax’, OR, extra defend slots for alliances unchanged since round started ticking would change the whole attack/defence balance… etc). I didn’t want to change the game, just the mentality and player approach slightly I guess.
So as much as I agree that generally punishments are bad, in this case with the very limited impact I am hoping to achieve, the overall impact to the game would be very small. E.G, it is only bad for you as a player, if you yourself do something bad for your alliance… which 95% of people wouldn’t do (disclaimer: random statistic with no basis
). The way I see it, it doesn’t change the way you play the game, and it doesn’t add to any required ‘learning’ for new players.
Anyway, thanks to all that have taken then time to provide their opinions and thoughts… and I look forward to maybe even hearing more ideas people may have along these lines too (maybe not punishments though lol).
Personally I still think something “like” this could be beneficial to the game as a whole, I can also see some valid points being raised against it. I guess in summary, I still think the positives this would bring to the Bushtarion community far outweigh the negative experience a few individuals may (or may not as it could be avoided easily enough) encounter from it.