Alliance Cap

[DeletedUser]

1. Due away with it.
2. Make it so players can send application to join vs Alliance members inviting or you can have both.

 

[DeletedUser]

1) The alliance caps are here to stay. The Developers are even working on a plan to disallow Academies. The 25-50 member alliances are what they want.

2) As for the applications, you can state in your Alliance profile that you are accepting applications to join your alliance. You do not just have send out invitations.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree with the developers. The smaller alliances are more fun, more active, build better comradery and it will require far more diplomacy.

Applications can be done via in game messages, no need to spend time coding something like that, in my opinion.

 

[DeletedUser]

how can you stop academies?

i quite like the capped worlds
until a big alliance from another world jumps in and creates 5 brother alliances that have all shared forums and so are essentially one big alliance with 5 times the cap
i quit a couple of worlds where that happened

 

[DeletedUser]

I do not know how they plan on implementing the prohibition, I just know they are working out a way to do so.

 

[DeletedUser]

you can't remove Academies unless you remove packs and shared forms, the only way you can tell if some alliance has a academy is if they say or you read there forums since they could just make an alliance and not say it a academy and just a random alliance that you ally too. I say to remove cap since making 2 alliances is the same as having doable cap.

 

[DeletedUser]

i wold love a cap at 25 or so but to get rid of academies you have to get rid of the shared forum and nobody wants that. maybe you could try and limit it to one shared forum for each alliance?

 

[DeletedUser]

or maybe you can make alliance member limit 10 :0. That should be pretty interesting

 

[Evony]

I do not know how they plan on implementing the prohibition, I just know they are working out a way to do so.

I cannot see how this could be done. EVEN if alliances can't team together or communicate with forums, they will simply create forums using other services or web sites, just like we do now for CHAT because the chat feature in Grepolis is still not good enough.

Can you guys go check out the chat system used in the game EVONY because it is much better. It really encourages players to stick around.

If there's no one in your alliance to chat to ... you just go to chat with the world...

 

[DeletedUser]

smaller alliance limits better

I agree that smaller alliance limits are better.......I for one spend way too much time on alliance administrative duties rather then playing and enjoying the game.

I have been very close to quitting altogether a number of times - good think I have an addictive personality and my addition is grepolis (not drugs).

The developers should concentrate their efforts on streamlining the tedious administration duties/functions (good example is the farming modification).

Smaller alliances would help.....

 

[DeletedUser]

if you want smaller alliances and no Academies then have a world with no alliances but then people still team together using anther chat or even a whole alliance comes to this world and uses there forums on the other world.
The alliance cap it useless so put it in the bin. There will always be Academies if there a alliance cap. it just pointless.

 

[DeletedUser]

I cannot see how this could be done. EVEN if alliances can't team together or communicate with forums, they will simply create forums using other services or web sites, just like we do now for CHAT because the chat feature in Grepolis is still not good enough.

Can you guys go check out the chat system used in the game EVONY because it is much better. It really encourages players to stick around.

If there's no one in your alliance to chat to ... you just go to chat with the world...

I would love to be able to chat with the whole world.

 

[Evony]

Glad you like the farming modification.

I recall suggesting that one!

 

[DeletedUser]

how about we make things really interesting by allowing an individual player who wishes to create an alliance to be able to choose what ever size his alliance can grow to!!!
Let me explain before you flip me off haha. What could be implemented is a town building for example "Embassy". With every upgrade of the embassy you would earn diplomacy points towards your kingdom. Without a certain amount of diplomacy points you can not create OR join an alliance (maybe the cost of five or three diplomacy points for either creating or joining). Also diplomacy points would determine how many players you can invite into your alliance. so lets say 1 diplomacy point equals one member you can have. With creating this new building you can now place the Alliance and alliance forum tabs INSIDE the "EMBASSY" building. This would free up space for something else on the left bar. Needless to say that if a player wants to be the leader of a huge alliance they would need to invest in there high dreams to rule a mighty empire which what cost a lot of resources and time in the long run!
But for those who just want to join an alliance diplomacy points could come in handy for other reasons as well. right now we can send troops in support mode to other cities be it whether they are ours or not. But what if we implement a new feature called for example "station troops and/or fleets". At the cost of a lot of diplomacy points, perhaps 10 or 12, players can now send out "military treaties" (military treaties would cost Diplomacy points to accept, perhaps half as much than what it would cost to initiate one) which would allow players to station troops or war fleets in another players city, only one city per treaty!. The benefit would be that instead of just supporting a city now you would be able to use a city with which you have a treaty with as a launching point to attack near by prospects. This would make it harder for players to respond defensively I know but you can also implement a new feature called "Occupy" to balance things out.
any attacks launched from a treaty launch point can not conquer towns but can "occupy" towns the difference would be that an occupied town would remain under the original players full control with the exception that now the occupying player would now be earning a percentage of your hourly resource gains. The player being occupied can also have that town liberated by allies or self. Also a player that has occupied a town would need to leave units there to ward off a rebellion which if were successful would free the occupied city. The amount of units that are left behind to occupy the city would be at the occupiers discretion. However it would cost twice as much "gold" per hour for a player to financially support his occupying forces. for more details on "gold" implementation refer to my thread My citizens are crying out "tax me pleeaase", under suggestion forum.