#334069 - 05/08/12 04:30 PM
Re: Alliance rules/guidelines.
[Re: Smacku]
|
![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img673/3158/ty5xs5.png)
Registered: 05/14/08
Posts: 4519
|
Hypothetically if all this is agreed upon by the majority of alliance leaders, when and how would it be forced into effect?
I am on board with these suggestions too.
_________________________
![](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xq1uAN_20iU/V213v1vMXnI/AAAAAAAAANs/OZ12Rq7cA7Q1D3AK9lETgBtMpN-sPNoJwCLcB/s1600/GoodkidMMA.jpg) Gaylords is my camp Policeman of the shoutbox TLCS
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#334174 - 05/09/12 03:10 PM
Re: Alliance rules/guidelines.
[Re: Teshore]
|
Registered: 07/01/10
Posts: 1272
|
If there were a reduction in cap to the size that you are suggesting, 12-15 members, how would we determine who is cut from an "oversized" alliance? Would there be a grandfather clause in there, would you people decide for me, or would I have to make that decision? The cap for active members shouldn't be under twenty.
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#334176 - 05/09/12 03:10 PM
Re: Alliance rules/guidelines.
[Re: Smacku]
|
Registered: 07/01/10
Posts: 1272
|
I think 20 would be a good compromise, if we are going to consider it at all. Seems that we agree.
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#334179 - 05/09/12 03:15 PM
Re: Alliance rules/guidelines.
[Re: Malas]
|
Registered: 03/27/09
Posts: 4277
|
Max cap should not be implemented at all
_________________________
Peace and love here
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
Registered: 07/01/10
Posts: 1272
|
As long as we're discussing a change in the alliance guidelines,
Can someone explain to me the purpose of the one-week penalty wait when someone jumps ship to another alliance?
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img203/5182/fa3.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img839/2388/wd.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img855/9451/mmoc.png)
Registered: 09/13/10
Posts: 9501
Loc: PA
|
Anyway the cap is still just a dumb idea because its only to appease people that are afraid of losing events. That's the sole reason and there is no merit to it.
The only reason a cap has ever been discussed is to encourage more Alliances, and that's the only real reason. I don't think anybody is afraid of losing events and I don't really see how a cap would give them any advantage in winning anything. One of the main reasons there aren't more events (speaking only for myself) is because of the small number of Alliances. I really hope this thread doesn't turn into a arguing thread, because that's not going to get any of us anywhere. Whenever this topic comes up it seems like MoD takes it as a personal attack on them, I hope yu guys don't think that anybody wants to break up your team or try and hurt any of the Alliances. With any luck this game and forum will continue to have a little resurgence and maybe with a few guideline tweaks the Alliance situation will be better than ever. This thread isn't only about a cap, it's about suggestions that any of us think will contribute to making it more fun for us all. And for Malas, whenever the cap issues was brought up before, it's been said that all members of the current Alliances will be allowed to stay, it will only effect new members. You brought that up in the sb yesterday and is the only legitimate reason to capping alliances. I respect your thoughts on it for sure and i like you want to see more activity and alliances and sweet events w/ a bunch of teams or just competitive cool events in general. We had a great set up last time we did G4G but some people got butthurt with the results and didnt follow through w/ the WAC. I can name each coach that MoD used for the last G4G that we won and it was the same number of coaches if not less then the vet alliances had that were active (THC was fairly dead if i remember right). Most of MoD is smaller tier camps lookin to get better and to have a grip of those in an alliance is a good thing. If we chop off all our rookies are they gonna go form their own alliance and be a feeding team for a future event? That would be pointless. I mean people can come and go as they please so if thats what they wanted to do then by all means go start a new one up. I'll post a thread in our sub forum requesting anyone that wants to leave to start a new one after i'm done typing this if thats what the point of this is. But if we are stacking a giant group of kick ass coaches who are efc gods well then i'd agree with the argument and to stop that from happening in the future...sure capping is a good idea but for activity sake and getting comfortable w/ the forums and community and learning the game well capping works against that.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#334186 - 05/09/12 03:29 PM
Re: Alliance rules/guidelines.
[Re: Teshore]
|
Registered: 07/01/10
Posts: 1272
|
It use to do more with events being thrown. So someone couldn't drop an alliance and join another for the benefit of an alliance event.
I think certain situations it's dumb, or maybe cut it to 2 days or something I agree with this. Either cut it down a few days, or get rid of it.
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#334205 - 05/09/12 03:59 PM
Re: Alliance rules/guidelines.
[Re: Teshore]
|
![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img203/5182/fa3.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img839/2388/wd.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img855/9451/mmoc.png)
Registered: 09/13/10
Posts: 9501
Loc: PA
|
some of what you say is true, a lot of it is false.
doesnt matter, i gave my opinion. that is all. You are the one calling for a small alliance so what exactly is false? I seriously want to know cuz if i hear a good reason i will jump to the other side on this and be all for it. Wun's reasoning is good but its not enough when there are more positive factors in what we have going on w/ a big number. If you look at the rosters TC has the strongest alliance P4P. THC has the biggest number of really good coaches. TLCS is right behind them. DBA is a desolate desert w/ some active no namers. TTT is fucking dead w/ 1 amazing active coach. MoD has like 4-5 vets w/ a grip of semi active rookies. Wdoa has a large number of active guys who are somewhere in between rookies and vets. By this current status i would think that THC has the advantage when it comes to having the most to choose from for an event. So maybe this is directed at them?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#334228 - 05/09/12 05:19 PM
Re: Alliance rules/guidelines.
[Re: Smacku]
|
Registered: 03/27/09
Posts: 4277
|
Then what about minimums? It can be the same thing for TTT and DBA. Maybe they only want 3 members? Is it fair to say "no cap", but at the same time say "there should be a minimum"? I don't think we should have one w/o the other. 20 members is a lot. Is that not a good compromise? Now, minimums demand activity. No activity no point in having an alliance. if they want that then do not say no medals for them not fielding teams in an event, that is corny.
_________________________
Peace and love here
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#334285 - 05/10/12 06:27 AM
Re: Alliance rules/guidelines.
[Re: Smacku]
|
![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](../../troph/3.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](../../troph/3.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](../../troph/3.gif) ![](../../troph/3.gif) ![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](../../troph/3.gif) ![](../../troph/3.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img27/4147/q31p.png) ![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](../../troph/3.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img829/4271/vus.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img20/7017/4k3d.png) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img829/4271/vus.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img673/3158/ty5xs5.png) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img661/6039/RE9gHz.png) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img829/4271/vus.gif) ![](../../troph/3.gif)
Registered: 05/26/08
Posts: 5913
Loc: So. Cal.
|
After really thinking about it, I have determined an attempt at changing the rules is pointless.
There should have been a min/max cap from the beginning.
Q: Why minimum cap?
A: 6 is the number required to start an alliance. Why 6? Because it was considered the lowest number of coaches required to enter competitions, and 'cause 3 people ain't much of an alliance. The rule should have read "an alliance must maintain a minimum of 6 active coaches to remain open. Less then 6 will be disbanded.". The alliances were never supposed to be MMArmy Facebook. If the alliance is only together so the retired members can socialize it should be disbanded. If you want to socialize send PMs.
According to the rules:
"10) Really, what’s the point of this?
Alliances are an easy way to bring players from the early stage of just starting the game to coming to the forums and learning more about how to play the game to becoming active and serious members, as well as making it far simpler for an existing camp to mentor a newer one… and give some incentive for doing so.. Alliances would make the organisation of some of the existing tournaments and the like far easier."
If you're not doing this, or internal alliance stuff, or inter-alliance stuff, or even playing for that matter, why do you need to have an alliance? They should voluntarily disband IMO, however, Chachi will never agree to a new rule disbanding TTT or DBA by force, just like MoD will not agree to any rule that puts on a max cap.
Q: Why a max cap?
A: A max cap would have made it necessary to create more alliances for everyone who wanted to be in one.
This is the realization I had last night:
Implementing a max cap would create more alliances but it would have to be drastic. I'm thinking a cap of 8-10. Not only that, but we would have to refrain from "grandfathering". We would have to force ALL of the alliances to shed players. That means EVERY alliance would lose not only newbs but established vets as well. I can guarantee 100% that the members that were shed would form their own alliance(s) out of necessity. A cap of 20 is like no cap at all. It would have to be low. We already know how MoD would feel about this, and I suspect some of the other alliances would feel the same. Again, this should have been there in the beginning.
We will never agree on these types of changes.
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#334287 - 05/10/12 06:38 AM
Re: Alliance rules/guidelines.
[Re: Smacku]
|
![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img203/5182/fa3.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img839/2388/wd.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img855/9451/mmoc.png)
Registered: 09/13/10
Posts: 9501
Loc: PA
|
After really thinking about it, I have determined an attempt at changing the rules is pointless.
There should have been a min/max cap from the beginning.
Q: Why minimum cap?
A: 6 is the number required to start an alliance. Why 6? Because it was considered the lowest number of coaches required to enter competitions, and 'cause 3 people ain't much of an alliance. The rule should have read "an alliance must maintain a minimum of 6 active coaches to remain open. Less then 6 will be disbanded.". The alliances were never supposed to be MMArmy Facebook. If the alliance is only together so the retired members can socialize it should be disbanded. If you want to socialize send PMs.
According to the rules:
"10) Really, what’s the point of this?
Alliances are an easy way to bring players from the early stage of just starting the game to coming to the forums and learning more about how to play the game to becoming active and serious members, as well as making it far simpler for an existing camp to mentor a newer one… and give some incentive for doing so.. Alliances would make the organisation of some of the existing tournaments and the like far easier."
If you're not doing this, or internal alliance stuff, or inter-alliance stuff, or even playing for that matter, why do you need to have an alliance? They should voluntarily disband IMO, however, Chachi will never agree to a new rule disbanding TTT or DBA by force, just like MoD will not agree to any rule that puts on a max cap.
Q: Why a max cap?
A: A max cap would have made it necessary to create more alliances for everyone who wanted to be in one.
This is the realization I had last night:
Implementing a max cap would create more alliances but it would have to be drastic. I'm thinking a cap of 8-10. Not only that, but we would have to refrain from "grandfathering". We would have to force ALL of the alliances to shed players. That means EVERY alliance would lose not only newbs but established vets as well. I can guarantee 100% that the members that were shed would form their own alliance(s) out of necessity. A cap of 20 is like no cap at all. It would have to be low. We already know how MoD would feel about this, and I suspect some of the other alliances would feel the same. Again, this should have been there in the beginning.
We will never agree on these types of changes. Well said. Funny enough i think 10 is better than 20. The whole point on limiting an alliance is to spread the wealth of not the rookies but the established coaches so forcing alliances to drop top guys would be good for building new alliances. But the way its set up now its just friends or helping new guys or trying to put the most dominant coaches together. I see where this is heading. lol
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#334297 - 05/10/12 07:14 AM
Re: Alliance rules/guidelines.
[Re: The Hatchet]
|
![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](../../troph/3.gif) ![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img33/9039/jq4.gif) ![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif)
Registered: 01/10/09
Posts: 4777
|
Any type of event schedule or committe isn't gonna work, at least me and/or my events won't be involved. You guys are of course welcome to start and run any new events you want, but I'm not going to be told when I have to run any event. I do mine for everybodies fun, when it's convienient to me, when it fits into my life's schedule, when I think all the alliances are strong enough to field teams, etc. Like I said you guys can decide to do whatever you want, but I won't be involved. Besides that, I think it's a dumb idea in its entirety. The lack of events isn't because of a lack of schedule, and a schedule isn't going to create alliance activity. And people are going to put on events whenever they feel like it, whenever they feel creative or inspired. You can't be trying to force people to volunteer their free time
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img829/4271/vus.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img203/5182/fa3.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img33/9039/jq4.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img203/5182/fa3.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img910/1583/NbHiWw.png) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img673/9117/AHLgi0.png) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img203/5182/fa3.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img203/5182/fa3.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img829/4271/vus.gif)
Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 4996
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img33/9039/jq4.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](../../troph/3.gif)
Registered: 07/29/11
Posts: 5027
Loc: PA
|
Any type of event schedule or committe isn't gonna work, at least me and/or my events won't be involved. You guys are of course welcome to start and run any new events you want, but I'm not going to be told when I have to run any event. I do mine for everybodies fun, when it's convienient to me, when it fits into my life's schedule, when I think all the alliances are strong enough to field teams, etc. Like I said you guys can decide to do whatever you want, but I won't be involved. Besides that, I think it's a dumb idea in its entirety. The lack of events isn't because of a lack of schedule, and a schedule isn't going to create alliance activity. And people are going to put on events whenever they feel like it, whenever they feel creative or inspired. You can't be trying to force people to volunteer their free time Events on the alliance calander would be run by whoever has the time to do it. The rules of the events are set up already so its just a matter of keeping track. If someone does not want their tournament involved it would be taken out of the rotation and replaced with an event of similar rules. The tournament could then be run at it's creator's will and whoever would like to compete can.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
![](http://imageshack.com/a/img829/4271/vus.gif) >
Registered: 12/18/08
Posts: 1381
|
I have alot going on right now ha, training to not get punched in the face is an understatment when it comes to "alot going on". when is the fight, soon correct?
Edited by Bonedaddy (05/11/12 07:46 AM)
_________________________
![](https://s26.postimg.org/yyq1rpqnt/bone-12.jpg) The Simyard Fight Team, you can ban us, but you can't beat us
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
![](../../troph/2.gif) ![](../../troph/1.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img203/5182/fa3.gif) ![](http://imageshack.com/a/img855/9451/mmoc.png) ![](../../troph/3.gif)
Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 2565
Loc: U.S.A
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|