Jump to content

  •     

Photo

Alliances Live!™

alliances politcs war economy

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Asterios C

Asterios C

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 27 January 2014 - 02:39 AM

As the New World anxiously holds its breath over how the cards will be dealt in this new reshuffle of Alliances, I think it's really time to get this age-old, player-introduced concept truly LIVE! and hardwired into game mechanics.

1. Alliance Membership
Nations can sign MPPs with nations in the same alliance at a lower cost, but sign MPPs outside their alliance at a higher cost.

2. Alliance Roster Cap
Alliances can have as many countries as they like on their roster as long as all of them accumulatively do not exceed a given Country Power score. This way super-powers cannot simply band up together and smother all other communities. In the event that already member-nations of a given Alliance grow substantially in Country Power score thus exceeding their Alliance roster cap, the member-nation that most recently joined the Alliance will get evicted and the procedure should continue in this fashion until the remaining member-nations Country Power score is in compliance with the cap.

For example, an Alliance X is set up with a 20.000 Country Power Roster Cap consisting of Country A (5.000), Country B (12.000) and Country C (1.000). Country D (1.000) can freely initiate procedures to join Alliance X, since with it joining, the Alliance would total 19.000 Country Power score, still in compliance with the Roster Cap. Country E (5.000) cannot initiate said procedures at this time. On the event that Country A grows in power and is now at (7.000), Country D that most recently joined the Alliance is evicted. 

Roster Cap can be expandable for a price in gold or certain Alliance Achievements.

3. Alliance Recruiting Policy
Alliances via their Alliance Leader can set their own Recruiting Policy. This includes both regulating mode of admission (free, invitation only, closed) and lowest Country Power score needed for entrance -on analogy with the already existing system in operation for MUs and their Commanders.

4. Alliance Type
Alliances via their Alliance Leader can select an Alliance Type: Offensive | Defensive | Economic in accordance with their strategic plans. Alliances can toggle between Types for a price in gold but suffer a debuff period between toggles.

A. Offensive Alliance
+10% in influence when Attack
-10% in influence when Defend
+5% Determination build-up time (Determination of occupied territories by countries of the Alliance builds up quicker)
-50% in Declare War cost (or Airstrike cost, as suggested in pm correspondence by Mercurius100 )
...

B. Defensive Alliance
+10% in influence when Defend
-10% in influence when Attack
-5% Determination cool-down time (Determination of newly freed territories of countries of the Alliance cools down quicker)
-5% RW support cost
...

C. Economic Alliance
-10% in influence when Attack
-10% in influence when Defend
Allied territory counts as route to capital
+10% in taxes levied
...

D. Type Toggle Debuff
-10% in influence when Attack
-10% in influence when Defend
+5% Determination build-up time (Determination of occupied territories by countries of the Alliance builds up quicker)
-5% Determination cool-down time (Determination of newly freed territories of countries of the Alliance cools down quicker)
-10% in taxes levied
...

I think this will bring back strategy and finally strike a death blow at alliance bipolarism. Feel free to add you ideas or criticisms.


  • Tautas11 and Majester like this

#2 Liam J. Gallagher

Liam J. Gallagher

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 92 posts
  • LocationNorth Of the Border

Posted 27 January 2014 - 03:10 AM

I agree only because Mercurius100 agrees


4tho.jpg


#3 Shiina Sayane

Shiina Sayane

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted 27 January 2014 - 04:47 AM

Dont support

This too complicated and we know players hate complicated gameplay (V2 failed and many complained too difficult to understand) not to mention that this is unrealistic(limiting allience by country power).

Also hard to find a way where country power realisticly defined



#4 Asterios C

Asterios C

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 27 January 2014 - 01:09 PM

@Liam J. Gallagher

Meaning you didn't read it through? Or just not your cup of tea?

 

@Shiina Sayane

Country Power is already a score listed in the Rankings and there is a formula for its calculation. As it is, it only determines Empire status.

 

If by unrealistic you mean it does not work that way iRL, it's not exactly a valid concern from where I stand. If you mean impractical, difficult to implement, then it is indeed something worth considering.

 

You can't actually have a strategy game without options and options make things complicated! It is of course better if you can pull off a tiered system of some sort where everyone can choose the amount of intricacy they can handle -but I believe my proposition on Alliances can work that way as well,

One-button gameplay is not exactly my definition of fun or invlovement. Anything that would make people think before acting, anything that a player could do that a bot couldn't is a step in the right direction for me!

 

Thanks for commenting. :) 



#5 AntrikosA

AntrikosA

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • LocationMacedonia

Posted 27 January 2014 - 05:15 PM

really nice proposal


Loved by many, hated by more, envied by most, respected by all.


#6 tommot

tommot

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1542 posts
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 27 January 2014 - 05:19 PM

So far i see no reason why this could not work.

It could also revamp the dying alliance system that is currently in place.


18 times Congress member

1° time Country President
Party President of the Belgium for Belgians party (1X) and the All TOgethers party (5X)
The BoDi award for media - day 1840 - 3 December 2012

The BoDi award for media - day 2813 - 3 August 2015
Immigration Officer - day 1806 - 30 October 2012 Until day 1849 - 12 December 2012
Minister of Foreign Affairs - day 1874 - 06 January 2013 Until day 1905 - 06 February 2013
Secretary of Media & FUN - day 1994 - 6 May 2013 until day 2055 - 6 July 2013

former Minister of Home Affairs 
Belgium Forum administrator - day 2058 - 9 July 2013 until(still appointed)

For more info, look at my wikipage


#7 Shiina Sayane

Shiina Sayane

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted 28 January 2014 - 09:15 AM

 

 

If by unrealistic you mean it does not work that way iRL, it's not exactly a valid concern from where I stand. If you mean impractical, difficult to implement, then it is indeed something worth considering.

 

 

Yes I meant its hard to implent because no matter what you do players always will find an exploit.

Also I am sure that you followed history of erepublik and understand that only 2 side can exist in game.

For ex like Terra+Eden vs ONE

CoT+TWO vs Eden

TWO+old Eden vs Two

I mean there is no point trying to restrict players because things always be like this there is enough evidence from the past

A alliance vs B alliance



#8 Releasethe Krakken

Releasethe Krakken

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 593 posts
  • LocationSouth of the clouds and north of the wind

Posted 28 January 2014 - 10:10 AM

I dont think alliances is such a big problem or even their size. What I always thought is that we should lift the restriction on only border NE and make every country attack-able by any other country.  For example Ireland is a classic example.  If they join the Euk in an alliance and Canada later join them as well they have no attacking options.  Both of these countries also aint really good options for NE's..


mh4l.png

 


#9 Asterios C

Asterios C

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 28 January 2014 - 12:47 PM

@ Shiina Sayane

Allinace A vs Alliance B is what eRepublik history mandates, true. But hey, this is what this "customization" options is meant to do, make you think does it really have to be this way, or I can benefit more from something smaller and more agile? MMPs signed now around the New World aren't exactly black and white anyhow

@ Releasethe Krakken

I think that's what an Airstrike is supposed to do, lift the border restrictrion! Now Airstrikes are too damn expensive because the world is in two solid blocks and you have 20 allies or something blostering your requirement numbers skyhigh and out of your reach. Plus there isn't really any point in attacking territory you cannot connect your country capital to and you cannot abadon your original territory either because of the taxes thingy. But get in an Economic Alliance that will secure you a route and boom you may wanna fly hard to reach that Resourse half across the world!   



#10 Releasethe Krakken

Releasethe Krakken

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 593 posts
  • LocationSouth of the clouds and north of the wind

Posted 28 January 2014 - 03:20 PM

yes but it is so temporary and require so much from a country.  do we need borders in RL not exactly so why this limitation that basically kills of the military module for so many countries.  there must be a reason why you do something as to the opposite.  so why only land and sea borders vs no borders  ATM a big country attacks a small country and wipes them for months then they recover and then just pursue peace as they cant beat any opponents.  ITS SIMPLY BORING.


mh4l.png

 


#11 Shiina Sayane

Shiina Sayane

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted 28 January 2014 - 03:31 PM

yes but it is so temporary and require so much from a country.  do we need borders in RL not exactly so why this limitation that basically kills of the military module for so many countries.  there must be a reason why you do something as to the opposite.  so why only land and sea borders vs no borders  ATM a big country attacks a small country and wipes them for months then they recover and then just pursue peace as they cant beat any opponents.  ITS SIMPLY BORING.

 

Lol I guess you want to attack weaker country 1000 km away .....Guess what thats why airstrike was intended,if your country too greedy or too poor to afford it tough luck!

 

 

@ Shiina Sayane

Allinace A vs Alliance B is what eRepublik history mandates, true. But hey, this is what this "customization" options is meant to do, make you think does it really have to be this way, or I can benefit more from something smaller and more agile? MMPs signed now around the New World aren't exactly black and white anyhow

 

 

I dont like the idea of the system which will be exploited anyway because we all know the nature of players after years of play you look how to gain profit and choose accordingly(meaningless stalemate battles with equal alliemces not fun nor have any meaning).

 

Also as I heard there are few very bad clone of erepublik however all have the same thing whit alliences a super allience dominates all why the other allience very weak

Why is that?

As said people want to play this way they dont want balance!



#12 Asterios C

Asterios C

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 29 January 2014 - 03:47 PM

Total domination of one Alliance is a state of Balance as much as nothing really changes! 

I sense a kind of why-bother attitude in your comments and I can see where it is coming from, but then again why bother play altogether in that case? 

 

Also, as far as I can gather your main objection is with the Roster Cap suggestion. That was put in so there are more incentives to actually go for a multi-polar alliance structure, where Type advantages and disadvatages will be more eloquently articulated. While I'd rather have it as well, it is by no means a must-have feautre. What about the idea of Alliance Types on its own?


Edited by Asterios C, 29 January 2014 - 03:48 PM.


#13 Shiina Sayane

Shiina Sayane

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted 29 January 2014 - 05:11 PM

What about the idea of Alliance Types on its own?

 

I like that idea very much since I mostly play rpgs and do miss that here in erepublik there is no real choice in anything,specializing would be cool.

I remember there was an idea which proposed to let players specialize in military/economy/media 

Military + 20% influence in battles(but not counted towards rank)

Economy + 20% bonus production

Journalist Ability to publish articles in every country + free travel twice/day

 

But unfortunately admins didnt considered.

As I remember the reason was " too complicated and want every players to have equal chances at everything"

So based on that the chances it wont happen.....



#14 tommot

tommot

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1542 posts
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 29 January 2014 - 06:26 PM

The idea is very appealing, but as it already was pointed out, it might not be so easy to implement nor to keep it working on the long term.


18 times Congress member

1° time Country President
Party President of the Belgium for Belgians party (1X) and the All TOgethers party (5X)
The BoDi award for media - day 1840 - 3 December 2012

The BoDi award for media - day 2813 - 3 August 2015
Immigration Officer - day 1806 - 30 October 2012 Until day 1849 - 12 December 2012
Minister of Foreign Affairs - day 1874 - 06 January 2013 Until day 1905 - 06 February 2013
Secretary of Media & FUN - day 1994 - 6 May 2013 until day 2055 - 6 July 2013

former Minister of Home Affairs 
Belgium Forum administrator - day 2058 - 9 July 2013 until(still appointed)

For more info, look at my wikipage


#15 Asterios C

Asterios C

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 30 January 2014 - 09:06 AM

They coded in terrain advantages and citizen weapon specialization in V2! "Difficult to implement" meaning some programmer would have to scratch his/her head over code, when it his/her job to do so, shouldn't be players concern. Players are lured here with the promise to shape the New World, are we not?



#16 Shiina Sayane

Shiina Sayane

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted 30 January 2014 - 01:37 PM

They coded in terrain advantages and citizen weapon specialization in V2! "Difficult to implement" meaning some programmer would have to scratch his/her head over code, when it his/her job to do so, shouldn't be players concern. Players are lured here with the promise to shape the New World, are we not?

 

Difficult to implent right because in V2 Tank was OP the rest was useless or close to it.



#17 Cika Nikola96

Cika Nikola96

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts
  • LocationeBelgium / Serbia

Posted 31 January 2014 - 11:34 PM

Nice one! :)


 

PROUD eBELGIAN - PROUD rlSERBIAN

Plato sucks!!!


#18 Tautas11

Tautas11

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts
  • LocationLithuania,Vilnius

Posted 19 March 2014 - 10:51 AM

 I read a topic in forum's 'Alliances' subgroup - "Beta Alliances" and I really liked Zordacz replay in it about that there are no implementation of alliances in the game mechanics, except the info page about each alliance structure. After that I tried to look for topics related to this matter and found  this topic, which I think is great starting point for thinking about implementation of alliances into game mechanics.  I really agree with Asterios C and  his ideas of including alliance into game mechanics.  So that‘s why I want to renew this topic.

 

I think all of you agree with me that "alliance" is vary important thing in erepublik game. But now alliance is built only by players itself -there is no game mechanics in it at all. How come such important thing isn't implemented in game mechanics?

Talking about alliances, players itself try to control alliances power, so that it would be fun and not too one-sided. That‘s why strong, powerful alliances go down and new arise. Recently, the game in eworld was extremely boring, because CoT alliance was finished and domination of TWO was boring for most of eword citizens. That‘s why finally TWO alliance was down and 2 new main powers arise. But should game developers leave such important thing as alliance only to players and not include it in game mechanics?

 

My point of writing is that we, players, could try showing our will about game changing, give ideas to developers about it and players, who will participate in 4th International eErepublik meeting on 12-15 June in Istanbul, even could start a discussion about including alliance to game mechanics.

 

Personally  I divide possible alliance  implementation to game mechanics into 2 subgroups  - penalties and bonuses.

 

Penalties

 

Asterios C tried to think about how it would be possible using game mechanics to stop from emerging one too dominant alliance and  suggested idea he called „Alliance Roster Cap“ - it is limitation based on country power. For example, limitation is fixed to 10,000 power – it means that then this limit is reached no more countries can be invited into particular alliance. But this idea is tricky thing....
First of all, because country power changes. Countries could try go over mechanics by reducing their power before joining alliance, also they can boost they country power by conquering other countries later anyway.
Another thing is that even it would be limitation by country power - it would be possible to ally together by separate alliances A+B+C anyway – 3 alliances as 1 power.

 

Possible solutions

For the first part we could think about better limitation alternative – country power, total amount of citizen or something else.We must  deal with possible changing of country power,citizen amount or other thing that is chosen for limitation and not let go unpunished for going beyond fixed limitation. For example, 10, 000 country power is limitation for alliance and after that no new country can join it, but it is possible that countries' powers that already in that alliance would increase. And it is even possible that this change could be vary huge. So in my opinion best solution for that - is penalty. Game developments could think about how much each additional country power point would penalize that alliance. That could be penalty to damage made in battle and so on.

 

For other part - to reduce impact of A+B+C alliances joining in one power, there also could be penalty or prohibition system. Firstly, it could be possible to have only limited amount of MPP with countries that do not belong to that alliance. Secondly greatly increase cost of MPP for non –alliance countries.

 

the_conspiracy_to_rule_the_world_FRONT.j

 

OK, so now imagine this: we have alliance, which size is limited by country power (or something else) and trying to do some tricks or becoming too powerful is no good at all, because of penalties that will appear after surpassing fixed alliance limit. Grouping between different alliance like now would be possible, but using game mechanics it is possible to greatly burden this try of ganging by limiting MPP amount number and greatly increasing its cost with non–alliance countries. So it would be like now, but with some penalties that stops from being too dominant, too big, too one sided.


Edited by Tautas11, 19 March 2014 - 01:27 PM.


#19 Tautas11

Tautas11

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts
  • LocationLithuania,Vilnius

Posted 19 March 2014 - 11:06 AM

BONUSES

 

Second part of alliances mechanics could be –alliance bonus. It could be simple bonus type like cheaper MPP cost with alliance members or it could be even much more interesting alliance bonus:)

In eworld alliances are military type, but in real world there are more alliance types, not only military. For example:

(EconomyThe European Union (EU) is an economic and political union (alliance) that includes its laws, economy, politics, shared currency and free trade.

image.jpg

(DefenceNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an intergovernmental military alliance. NATO is committed to the principle that an attack against one or several members is considered as an attack against all. This is the principle of collective defence, which is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

image.jpg

 

(OffensiveAxis Alliance is military alliance during second World War between Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. This alliance was formed to invade other European countries.

image.jpg

 

By previously mentioned penalties we restrict from appearance of one dominant alliance. Now with the help of bonuses (different types of alliances) we can make each alliance more unique.

 

During alliance creation it is chosen that path alliance going to take – economy, defence, offence. Alliance don‘t get status as functional alliance and don't get any bonus till at least 3 different countries join that alliance. Country can join only 1 alliance. And if some countries-members leave alliance and there is less then 3 countries in particular alliance that alliance lose functionality and bonus till it would be at least 3 countries in it. Joining alliance is only possible by invitation of country that created alliance, but once some country join alliance it can‘t be kicked out by creator country and the only way for that country to go out of alliance is by leaving itself.

 

And bonuses.... I think game developers could think of many bonuses for each alliance type, but as for us – lets‘s give ideas for them about it.

Firstly, we should think if bonuses in alliance would be instantly like damage bonus attacking(offensive alliance), bonus defending(defence alliance) or free market(let buy and sell in all alliance counties) and % in higher production rate (economy alliance) or it should be some fun system to get alliance points and with it get alliance skills. Alliance points can be get by donation or by some interesting system that includes alliance members players - like doing daily alliance mission.

 

My thoughts of  possible alliances bonuses.

 

Possible Economy alliance bonus

* Free market - let buy (without traveling) and sell in all alliance counties

* % in higher production rate 
* Cheaper travel among alliance members 

 

Possible Defence alliance bonus

* % Damage bonus defending

* % Cheaper RW support
* Cheaper travel among alliance members

 

Possible Offensive alliance bonus

* % Damage bonus offensive

* Cheaper Airstrike
* Total domination - get one extra campaign point in battle while attacking if all divisions dominate and get max amount(11) of campaign points in that battle.


Edited by Tautas11, 19 March 2014 - 11:22 AM.


#20 tommot

tommot

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1542 posts
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 20 March 2014 - 06:03 PM

NICE

 

Rattle the bag!!! :D


18 times Congress member

1° time Country President
Party President of the Belgium for Belgians party (1X) and the All TOgethers party (5X)
The BoDi award for media - day 1840 - 3 December 2012

The BoDi award for media - day 2813 - 3 August 2015
Immigration Officer - day 1806 - 30 October 2012 Until day 1849 - 12 December 2012
Minister of Foreign Affairs - day 1874 - 06 January 2013 Until day 1905 - 06 February 2013
Secretary of Media & FUN - day 1994 - 6 May 2013 until day 2055 - 6 July 2013

former Minister of Home Affairs 
Belgium Forum administrator - day 2058 - 9 July 2013 until(still appointed)

For more info, look at my wikipage






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: alliances, politcs, war, economy

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users