Alliances

[Miq]

Ave,

I wanted to success a slight change in how all the alliances work. Considering that now the kings have ultimate power over the alliances i'd like to see that the the allies can escape a land. That is the leader can start a escape and would require for example 50% of the members to agree to run. The ally in it's fullness can run to any land or become landless (getting hostile land penalties anywhere) but getting an ok from the new land king is a must as he can excommunicate you.

Along with that the sceptres of excom. should get a timer of say 24h so that the alliance leader has some time to organise a escape if he so manages. (the timer should also be on leaving the land so that the king would have a chance of enforcing his will. but i haven't really figured how yet)


I think that would help the loyalty (not the loyalty points) of players one way or another, and also force kings to manage his alliances better if he wishes to keep them.


Also the kings in my mind should not be members of big alliances. So i'd success a small alliance for each king called the Court or the Throne (with something like 2-5 seats).


Feel free to disagree.

Miq

[Grido]

If you recall with the Princ thing and Loreroot, there was the option declared that if enough of the alliance supported Princ then they could shift their land allegiance. I dont believe there would really be another situation type that would call for it, but i'm pretty certain that a request sent to Mur would be answered if it could be confirmed that the majority of alliance members wanted the change, and the recieving king accepted.


Why should they not? It increases the strength of the land if the king is in direct communication with their subjects, at least in part.

[Firsanthalas]

With respect Miq, but you are waaaaaaaayyyyyy off. For starters some Alliances are LAND Alliances. The Guardians of the Root, Sentinels, GG, KOB. How could you have the Knights of Bell leave MB and decide to protect Necrovion say?
Also, there is already very little a king can do to actually exert any control of citizens. Sure he can toss them in jail, but only with good cause. What he can't do though is stop people leaving. If you want to throw in that an entire alliance can leave, then what is the point? And I am the one that offered an alliance the option to leave. But just having them have to option to walk out because they feel like it? Nuts I say.

[Yrthilian]

I can see why you might suggest such a thing but i have to disagree with you Miq.

In regards to alliance you have to look at it from a structer point of view

In this as with any land the alliance has the option to remove the king if they feel that strong about it.
Why would an alliance wish to run. They just need to start a revolt agenst the king.

Look at the case of Golemus King v Grido
Grido felt strong enough to call to have the king (me) removed.
This is how the voteing system came to beeing. In that action the king was almost removed in this case it was very close.
If Grido had won the king would have been removed and new one in his place.

That is just an example of what can be done.
Any alliance can do the same if the believe they have a good enough backing
This is a better option than punishing the alliance by removing it from the land any alliance leader that took that option
would not be doing so for the good of the alliance. It would be better to stand and fight. That is what make the alliance
what they are the personalities that clash.

In the case above i fully believe that with the revolt This made Golemus stronger and work together in a better way.
I would not see any reasion for an alliance to walk way from a land. But if they did wish to do so it would be better to
stand up and say so to the king if the leader has the backing of the alliance to do so. I am sure if both parties invloved
agree and both parties message Mur that is would happen. This would be a better option i believe.

Sorry i have gone on a ramble and will stop as i will just repeat myself over and over
This is just my opinion on the subject.
Have fun
Yrth

[Miq]

Firs, the fact that they are land alliances does not mean that they are for granted. You'll become a king without an army. You can always buy an army or create a militia. This is why i also suggested an king only alliance. (i got most of this idea when you wrote that you might ask the savelite alliance removed).
Yrth and Grido have a better point here but I for example don't see why Mur should be involved in everything. Princ could have asked Mur to move it and vote in alliance. I'd just think it much more beautiful if the mechanism would be in the game not in the god.

I know this might create a big mess but in the end it would make the politics more intricate and people more careful leaving alliance just for some gain.

Miq

[Jubaris]

[quote name='Miq' date='22 August 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1282431878' post='66752']
Princ could have asked Mur to move it and vote in alliance.
[/quote]

since I am now like an example of everyone in these situations I see fitting to respond.

I haven't asked for Savelites move to another land for much reasons. Aside taking care of other factors (like for example, getting acceptance of King of my 'new' homeland to transfer a new alliance), the main problem was that I was told that I cannot ask for a move of an alliance simply cause Marvolo was the official leader (since I got booted in such a fine manner, he received it by default as a second player with most loyalty) and I don't have no legitimacy to do that (however that absurd sounds).
Not to mention that I had the support of the whole alliance, except Maftbp (who is btw inactive 99,9% of time, I don't think any of you knows the dude) who joined Marvolo.

Alliances are groups, and should be allowed to go wherever they want as ones (with that provocing political issues or not, you cant stop them from moving in essence), the only illogical thing is for Necrovion sentinels to abandon Necro, guerrila golemicarum to leave GG, GoTR to leave LR, KoB to leave MB. Those are the alliances that have strict roles towards their lands.

[Shadowseeker]

Which in return would be a much much greater loss.

The one thing that's a problem with this..once someone steals an alliance, they can shift lands as they like if the kings accepts.

[Jubaris]

so what's problem with that?
eventually someone wouldn't want to accept the land-hopping alliance (ooo, a new term for MD ) as generally no one likes alliance hoppers.
In essence someone joins an alliance (as an alliance joins a land) which he/she/it wants to stay in but you can't force that someone to stay there.

Some alliances aren't defined as guilds, but are defined by its people, and thus have no obligation to stay in one land if the people want out of it.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Rhaegar Targaryen

[Shadowseeker]

I'm just pointing out the trouble..

Imagine, someone takes LotR, GG, and Necro and shoves them into MB. (example) Don't you think thats a tad too abusive? All he would have to do is invite some henchmen, who agree to move. Done. It would cause great imbalance in case of wars.

[Prince Marvolo]

@Rhaegar: if you had the whole Alliance behind you, then why didn’t they DO anything? If Maftbp is inactive, why was he the only one who actually TALKED to me?

Stop it… just STOP ok?
This whole pointless discussion is your word against mine. And I dont think people really Care about it

So please, STFU! (Edit: If you don't liked that - then I meant; Stay Tuned For Umbrellas... ok?)
But yeah, why do I even care to tell you? Not like you're going to listen... You never do

_________________________________

@ Miq: because you are referring to the Savelites: What do YOU have to do with it? Do you know ANY other alliances that want to leave their land?

No

This whole idea is pretty pointless really… because no one WANTS to move, and the Savelites won’t move either.

If you are talking about that Rhaegar could move it…
1 word: History

Edited August 22, 2010 by Prince Marvolo

[Jubaris]

[quote name='Prince Marvolo' date='22 August 2010 - 11:40 AM' timestamp='1282470055' post='66771']
@Rhaegar: if you had the whole Alliance behind you, then why didn’t they DO anything? If Maftbp is inactive, why was he the only one who actually TALKED to me?
[/quote]

cause they decided to move on, most of us went in opposite directions as you may notice. Don't lie please, number of them complained how by the time they logged in in MD, they received the message, but your action was already done.

[quote]
Stop it… just STOP ok?
This whole pointless discussion is your word against mine. And I dont think people really Care about it
[/quote]

my word against mine? I think it is quite clear that you had only maftbp, in difference to what was left of Savelites Church before you. (and I can bring some evidence of their opinions without any issue, if you wish it so)
I don't say this cause I'm trying to win some sympathizes, but cause Miq mentioned that ---MAJORITY--- of alliance opinion should count.

[quote]
So please, STFU!
[/quote]

watch your language. These are public forums.

[quote]
But yeah, why do I even care to tell you? Not like you're going to listen... You never do
[/quote]

redirect your frustrations to my personal inbox, thank you.


[quote]

_________________________________

@ Miq: because you are referring to the Savelites: What do YOU have to do with it? Do you know ANY other alliances that want to leave their land?

No

This whole idea is pretty pointless really… because no one WANTS to move, and the Savelites won’t move either.

If you are talking about that Rhaegar could move it…
1 word: History
[/quote]


By Savelites you meant your alt SageMCquincy, the last standing one? or there is some other reference you were aiming with that "Savelites" won't move.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Rhaegar Targaryen

[Firsanthalas]

Rhaegar, that is a load of toss. The Savel alliance people by and large said zip. The option was given publicly and still nothing. You didn't have support, except perhaps from a minority even within your own alliance.
Also, we had a discsussion about the fate of the Savels long before any public fall out between us. You had taken up residence in the Temple in Tribunal lands and the idea of the Savels leaving Loreroot was discussed. You yourself informed me that the Savels would never leave Loreroot because they were Lorerootians through and through.
When I was elected as king however, that opinion seemed to change. Suddenly you and some of the Savels seemed to think that you were not citizens (in that at the very least you didn't have to acknowledge the king).
So, when things turned nasty I again put the offer on the table. Something, which I consider to be a hugely magnanimous gesture.
The fact that the move never happened shows that you didn't have the support that you constantly waffle on about and that you were also incapable of mobilising the alliance.
Have some dignity and accept that you were wrong and try not to repeat that mistake again. And while you are at it, stop ridiculing and disrespecting people because they didn't take your side. You were wrong, you shouldn't be blaming those that didn't jump into the fire with you.

[Chewett]

If you want to keep complaining i will split this topic. Otherwise lets keep ontopic and marvolo dont use words like STFU

[Shadowseeker]

This is said as a mod:

This is a topic about alliances, not about you Rhaegar, nor the conflict between you and Marv.

You were allowed to toss your cents in, but if this goes more offtopic I'll add warn lvls,/delete posts/do the stuff mods generally do when cleaning up.

[Jubaris]

noted
just one important note and I'm through with responding to offtopic: Firsanthalas I didn't try to move it, cause I didn't had a land to transfer it to - It cannot be in Necro, if it goes into GG it would create a lot of mess since we have a history of relations, as you and Yrth have history of relations, and Marind Bell doesn't like the "Church" part. It is a large subject that cannot be resolved over night. If it goes away from mainlands, who to contact to give accepting welcome? Mortal human compromises aren't exactly what followed the course of these events and naturally I don't expect favors/sympathizes from Mur (sshhhh, he wants to beat me up ) so I have to work with what I have.

[b]note to moderators: I didn't want to involve emotionally compromised people into the topic, I wanted to treat this topic seriously and objectively, let's face it, Savelites incident IS a precedent in Magic Duel's history, and has to be used as the only practical example for this topic. (not cause it was well liked, or cause feelings got hurt, but cause it showed ability of kings, cause it shows what happens if majority of the related thinks one thing and the powers think the other thing)
[/b]


offtopic of ontopic: shhh, Shadow, it is not LoTR, it's LR (I made a typo as well, but I noticed it soon after )
ontopic of ontopic:

invite some henchmen... who would do that? since leader, the one who controls the invites, joined that land that majority wants (if a leader doesn't want to move to that other land, and majority wants... it's a mess, but that leader would be replaced by someone who wants I guess. In any case let's assume that the leader is a sympathizer of the land where alliance is at the moment).
Democracy shouldn't be that much applied. "Level of trust" needs to be gained of members to be able to decide, to avoid invites for votes, how, well not by automated system since those get abused but by some human factor. Usually, people who really make one alliance are known.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Rhaegar Targaryen

[Shadowseeker]

Er..I think you still dont get the case I mean.

Example, I get invited into Necro sentinels, gain leader, kick everyone out.

Request to move to GG which is accepted. YOu think that's a good idea?

Even if mur makes it so that 10 people have to agree to the moving..I just invite 10 people from GG, who then vote yes.

Big mess.

[Chewett]

I dont think this needs to be mechanic based. It should be Mur based just like the savalites. That stops issues such as the ones Shadow is pointing out.

[Jubaris]

yes, like I mentioned Chewett, that human factor, which falls down to Mur

Shadowseeker, that is a danger without or no alliance moves, your "enemies" can disband your alliance, whether they move it or disband it they get political issues with the land's authorities.
That's why moves, and not just moves but disbandment too (nature is same, doing something without consent of the King and more importantly, alliance members), should be stopped by that Mur human factor (which happened number of times I believe, tho I am not that known about all the examples that happened to be)

The most biggest issue about it is how to establish a stabile contact with Mur. perhaps a special panel for messaging of this cases should be made (with heavy warnings not to abuse it for different kind of messages )

and also I believe that there are some alliances that aren't defined by it's people, and that they cannot move as an alliance but separately if they want (already mentioned above)

[dst]

I have a question: why should Mur interfere? If I remember correctly (but my memory is not that faithful anymore) he interfered just once (DS thingy one year ago) and that just because the Role Leader asked him to (you know...the one time privilege Role Leader have...).
IMO if an ally falls and it is disbanded then Mur should not interfere. It's the survival of the fittest.

[Miq]

[quote name='Prince Marvolo' date='22 August 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1282470055' post='66771']
@ Miq: because you are referring to the Savelites: What do YOU have to do with it? Do you know ANY other alliances that want to leave their land?

No

This whole idea is pretty pointless really… because no one WANTS to move, and the Savelites won’t move either.

If you are talking about that Rhaegar could move it…
1 word: History
[/quote]

If no one wants to move then why the concern. I had no intention to make this a argument over savelites and princ. This is something that i feel would be a nice new addition to the game.


SS why should it be so easy to overthrow a leader? Burns atm has 29k loyalty thats not exactly easy. If the other leaders go out of the ally to use regen or i don't know what and thus lose points it's their and their kings fault same if the leader can't control who comes in his alliance..... That is exactly what i would like to see. People working to keep what they have.

Miq

[Shadowseeker]

Give me one to two months (which is a short prep time in MD), and the will to actually bother doing it for proof..and i'll be past that value. Burns is one of the most active fighters in realm...do you think many alliances can match up to it? Add alt abuse and/or several people fanning the flames and it could even be weeks.

You also ignore the issue of guilds, which are not supposed to be fighting related.

Surely it encourages the keep what you have mentality, but isn't it a bit pointless to have alliances shifting like this? They are part of the land, not some trophies you can shuffle around just because you wish to.

Wars? Pah. You enter an ally, kick everyone, move the ally to your own land? I don't think thats...a very good game, because it would cause a big amount of hectic activity of such plots.

Sure, it depends on how you see it. But an alliance does have a role, what would GoTR do in GG for example? It's a bit pointless if you ask me with some.

Edit: Oh and..not to mention it puts a hold on recruiting for a long time. Do you want to invite new people when they may be alts?

Edited August 22, 2010 by Shadowseeker

[Firsanthalas]

Bottom line. If the response of an alliance is to simply run away because they have an issue with the King, then they shouldn't continue to exist at all. In particular, the duty of a land alliance is to protect the land. If that means protecting it from a terrible king or queen, then they should do that. Running away is a gross failure in that regards. Furthermore, there is an already awful lack of loylaty within MD (Im not talking about the stat). If you want to start a system whereby people can up sticks and leave en mass, then there really is little point in having alliances or citizenship at all.
If an alliance feels a king is wrong, then they should stand and fight for that belief and the king should either take note of the fact that an entire alliance is rebelling and consider that perhaps there is good cause or he should put it down. Having multiple alliances in a land is even better, becuase it allows for more than one to band together. If the leader of an alliance takes issue with the king and has little or no support from his fellows, then he needs to go. That is the way it currently is and I believe that is the way it should stay. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

[Chewett]

[quote name='Firsanthalas' date='22 August 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1282484378' post='66788']
Bottom line. If the response of an alliance is to simply run away because they have an issue with the King, then they shouldn't continue to exist at all. In particular, the duty of a land alliance is to protect the land. If that means protecting it from a terrible king or queen, then they should do that. Running away is a gross failure in that regards. Furthermore, there is an already awful lack of loylaty within MD (Im not talking about the stat). If you want to start a system whereby people can up sticks and leave en mass, then there really is little point in having alliances or citizenship at all.If an alliance feels a king is wrong, then they should stand and fight for that belief and the king should either take note of the fact that an entire alliance is rebelling and consider that perhaps there is good cause or he should put it down. Having multiple alliances in a land is even better, becuase it allows for more than one to band together. If the leader of an alliance takes issue with the king and has little or no support from his fellows, then he needs to go. That is the way it currently is and I believe that is the way it should stay. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
[/quote]

What about if a king decides he doesnt like what an alliance is doing. Bans the leader and then the rest of the alliance goes "we will not rebel because he will ban us to" Alliances cant really do very much against a king. Because as mur said ALL bans will only be taken into account once they have used their amount up. So basicly kings can do wtf they like as long as they dont use their ban amount up. Where a king can ban people, what can the alliances do?

[Atrumist]

I think that the whole point of Miq was to point on the possibility of alliances to be transfered. However you are speaking about morality of that move which is different issue.

But it seems that the opportunity for freedom is scary for some of you and you are calling yourself on some kind of land patriotism and ethics.
Make this feature possible and we will see what happen , if some allys move to other lands then the truth will emerge on the surface, this allys weren't so coherent with their main lands. If alliance are made to be destroyed then leave it. You are not making this game interesting by putting boundaries, but by destroying them.

Some of you think that this will cause chaos, but tell me does laws stopped criminal, or marriage adultery?
So please don't try to sell justice with your funny replies like what will be if 'grandmamma has guts' (would be grandpappa?) and leave the human sanity and conscientiousness to judge is it ok to change its surrounding or not, but don't take away the chance to consider that option.

[Yrthilian]

[quote name='Chewett' timestamp='1282486750' post='66791']
What about if a king decides he doesnt like what an alliance is doing. Bans the leader and then the rest of the alliance goes "we will not rebel because he will ban us to" Alliances cant really do very much against a king. Because as mur said ALL bans will only be taken into account once they have used their amount up. So basicly kings can do wtf they like as long as they dont use their ban amount up. Where a king can ban people, what can the alliances do?
[/quote]


Sorry but you know as well as we do if enough people complain action is taken to look into
thoes matter. If a King does do as you state all it takes is for a mass complaint to Mur about abuse of power
In this the king would be checked for such abuse.

As was also mentioned if the king was just to ban someone because he does not like what an alliance is doing that
is NOT a valid enough reasion to ban the leader. Also that ban would have not reall effect as the leaders backers
would and should back him.her up even at the treath of a ban. If anything it would just increase the case agenst a king
if they were stupid enough to use such an action.

The alliance can do plenty to the king as was attempted back when the first vote system was used for the kingship.
That system was created for such a matter and has been used to elect most of the kings now in place.

Look it is like this the idea to have an alliance run. comon now that in its self is a bad idea. If the whole alliance
as i said before feels strongly about moving from a land to another you have to have the mur factor. As in Mur assists the move
in the backend of the system. That is all that would eb required of Mur. Not the desission to allow it but to make the action happen
as it would make no diffrent if the alliance states it is now part of another land the king would have the ablity to still affect the
alliance and the people of that alliance would still be under some control o the king in that it is the mechanics of the system.

The land alliance should never look to move to another land. If they have that big an issue then the only action of that allians should be to remove the king not run away. All the main alliances are military alliance it would not be the nature of thoes alliance to run.