Yarold - Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:51 am Post subject: Dynasties {hope Bella wont get very angry} Over the past few months it has been really good to see the creation and rise of a lot of new dynasties. There are a lot more users and the site has become a lot more fluid. However with current dynasty ally system it is near impossible for any new dynasties to even have a chance of getting anywhere. The new one is based on members that allied dynasty have. Instead of allying with 4 dynasties you can now create allies with total of 300 members(, atm limit is set to 400 to give you some time before puting it in effect somewhere around sunday reset). With that change I also decided to lower dynasty members limit to 60. Suggestions welcome Edit: numbers may freely change. Edit: skip reading to http://yarold.eu/phpBB2/v...p?p=22253#22253 Top Cat - Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:20 am I CAN PUT THIS INTO ONE WORD NO! spurs-talkers - Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:23 am Going from 100 -> 60 in one fell swoop seems pretty extreme. bella - Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:26 am LOL I'm not angry. Hmmm so with dynasties having a maximum of 60 members, 300 means each dynasty can now have a minimum of 5 allies (assuming each of those has the full 60 members) or more if they are smaller dynasties. I'll wait to see how this works, but I'm not really sure it is going to solve the problem. Might make things more interesting though. 
Thanks for looking into it. ppj2005 - Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:27 am Hmm, based on your reasoning, if you can call it that, I presume that membership is falling on the site so that is why you foresee that all the small dynasties are doomed? My thoughts are to leave the dynasty system alone. There are problems within some of the failing dynasties that have nothing to do with numbers. bella - Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:32 am Presume all you like. I have concerns about the way the site is headed, which are shared by the other admins. We'll trial this new system and see if things improve. We are always open to suggestions as to how we can make the site better. OSHAGuy - Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:38 am New changes to the site.... Faster.... so far the only thing I have seen that has been better. I haven't played lotto since it was changed.... Was easy to play w/o hurting my city before. So let me get this straight... You're gonna drop the membership now in Dynasties??? Who gets booted? Seems to me in 2 words... this *******. Yes this is my 1st post.... I never felt like it was important to before... Rebecca - Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:46 am I have to kick 40 LOYAL members out of my dynasty? What kind of a reward is that for doing so well and making good alliances? Top Cat - Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:53 am
we have always had up to 100 members , evan when the site was down for up to a week and through all that time when it was slow as ****** , our members stayed loyal to this dynasty and the exchange as a whole , and this slap in the face is the thanks thay get , 
lowental - Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:55 am THIS IS NOT OK! there are many dynasties which have over 60 members. they are ONE group and they want to stay together! take a look on RMV or MMC MOB! secondly they worked really hard to get those members. with this update you would destroy a part of their work and their community! please dont do that! 
superbeepy - Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:07 am This doesn't seem very fair ... Why should we get kicked out of Dynasties like that? What about people who really like theirs? I'm new to mine but I like it - what about those who've been there so long? Why should people be forced to choose who gets to stay and who gets to go? Why the change all of a sudden? It's just not fair. 
phlaim - Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:20 am Bella didn't get angry, but everyone else appeared to be. 
Valldal - Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:22 am It looks to me after reading this top messages several times,that the brilliant ADMIN in Gamers Alliance have difficulties finding friendly dynasty's with lotsa!! members,so now they need to do this.Only 300 dynasty-members would probably be a lot more dynasty-links for them,then what they get today,so at bottom line....the ONLY dynasty that benefit with this brilliant idea....are themselves. I was planning to buy more credit soon,but after reading this post I might drop it.If our ADMIN could do something real positive for this site (to make things improve and better) I would recommend you to give the dynasty-members an opportunity to create an ignore-list to "surthen" links.I'm sure by doing that it would solve yours and Gamers Alliance biggest problem,a problem which have been lurking around for a long time. bella - Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:27 am
What are surthen links? Gail - Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:39 am Well, I don't understand why this is necessary--I am happy with the dynasty I am in and the way it is. I am not angry just sad as to why certain changes seem to be up. May I ask why this decision is being made? Thank you. Valldal - Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:41 am Maybe you don't use that word in Sydney,Down Under,but I'm sure people in UK and Scandinavia would understand it.To your information I could also use the word "some" By giving you this information,I hope everything is a lot easier for you to understand. activist - Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:44 am A very sad and manipulative way to try to help Gamers Alliance achieve what it has never been able to achieve,namely- a loyal and dedicated following.Maybe you should spend more time looking in the mirror. Esperdome - Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:03 am Yarnolds is working better than ever the way it is. Chopping up dynasties will anger many and could easily have a negative effect on Yarnolds. Please, only positive changes. Top Cat - Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:32 am
I lead a dozen people across 3 dynastys into the 600 club last night , how much more do you think it can improve , under this proposed change 600 would be impossible , be lucky to get close to 400 , hurting the exchange as a whole , but helping the dynasty with all the admins in , How about this for a proposed change , " no dynasty should be alowed to have more than one admin in it " fred007 - Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:59 am This is definitively NOT a good idea! chardonnay - Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:26 am I see this as very unfair on the hard work some have put in to their dynasty. Surely there is a better way to help the small dynasties. MMC Mob was small once too remember, and very few of the big dynasties at the time were interested in helping MMC MOB with an alliance. When I joined our daily average was around 40 and we were about 6th biggest with only one big allie. Just look at Mini Ming dynasty for a more recent example. Bosh had only one member (bosh) for one to two weeks, then slowly started growing, a couple of months later it's big enough that MMC Mob have now allied with them! So with hard work it can be done. Another example is the Untouchables, fattynoob and team got that back from the brink of extinction just last month. shumadija - Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:27 am My vote goes against this "improvement". That rule is good for gamers who switch dynasties so often, but not for loyal ones. For success rules is matter. Fair and strong dynasty rules guarantee success of dynasty, with or without strong allies. I think that MMC Mob have stronger rules (boot under 300 clicks), and that is one of steps for good positioning, but not hidden links in small dinasties. parafron - Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:28 am My opinion is that with the proposed change of 60 members per dynasty the dynasties are going to be even more elitist. Already some dynasties impose some kind of lower click limit to let somebody in. I joined real mini village because I sought a dynasty that was relevant to my game (myminicity). I didn't even know what a dynasty average was. The dynasty tolerated me while I was a newbie and hadn't found out how to get a better average. Some competition among dynasties is good, but the feeling of belonging to a group is more important to some people than averages. I hate to loose some friends from the dynasty in the future, just because they couldn't catch the imposed high click limit. I'd propose to increase the allowed number of dynasty members, in order to increase the numbers of freedom degrees for dynasty emperors! Is it better to have more people for a better average or is it better to lower the number of members and impose strict click limits? How many should I let in? 50? 70? 150? 200? Both models are in effect now! Pigu - Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:32 am
bailey - Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:38 am without reading every reply, sorry but i did read most, i feel that the changes made have been for the benefit of all those are serious, this new one is a little weird but i am willing to support it for the time being, i suppose that if we didnt end up being so dominant then this may not have happened, but then with less to click it will perhaps make it even more difficult to keep averages and get the clicks that we are needing gl in this but i reckon once the dynasties start to really get going that it could be moved up to 80, cheers Prlek - Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:39 am I don't like that. We all worked really hard for that average and to get loyal members who do click other links and don't hide theirs and i feel that new rules change that all. Is not fair to our members, who work good too but can't get the highest average to kick them out. It's not fair at all. Limit of 100 members is reasonable one for me and it shoud stay that way. MUSHpark - Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:41 am Post subject: Re: Dynasties
So this sounds like a good thing?
But you just said there was the creation and rise of a lot of new dynasties! You can't have it both ways. And this is also completely false. Two "new" dynasties started in the last couple of months, REAL MINI VILLAGE and Just4Fun, are among the top ones.
Hey, that's great to allow more small dynasties to join together. This is a positive change.
Huhwhat? This seems like a direct assault on the leading dynasties which have nearly 100 active members. This gives the impression that the site admins' dynasties can't compete so they're changing the rules to make themselves more competitive.
Suggestion: Don't make the leading dynasties kick out 40% of their membership. Sure, make it easier for smaller dynasties to be competitive but don't knock down those which have been successful. If MMC Mob is forced to kick 40% of their membership, I'll volunteer to go, as I'd leave Yarold's completely. Kristiina - Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:22 am Let me get it right. You really mean that Dynasties should kick members on Sunday? And how's that supposed to be fair to anyone? If this really happens, I will seriously reconsider if I want to be around anymore. turdkey - Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:25 am I have not been with Yarolds that long and am currently moving between a few teams to get to know what they are like. Reading further up the thread I think it would be harder for people to switch dynasties as the top teams would become a closed shop, both in membership and allies. I do not envy the Dynasty Emps when they have to cull their teams and make , albeit unintentionally, enemies. Will they all switch or just throw in the towel and leave Yarolds? It is never a good option to limit a member's choices as this leads to ill will and I think lost memberships. Why not ban the top four dynasties from being allied with more than two of the number? bella - Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:39 am It's really not about Gamers Alliance. I'm uncomfortable with there being 5 "super" dynasties who only ally with each other (which is the way it seems to be heading again). I'm sure if people take a step back they will see that ultimately this isn't the best direction for the exchange to take. Maybe 60 members for each dynasty is too low, I'm not sure. One thing though is that it would lead to the creation of more new dynasties and give more people the opportunity to be leaders. I don't see why there can't be some constructive debate about this moving forward. This is not a personal attack on any one individual or dynasty. There is definitely room for some discussion and we don't all have to agree. Braat - Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:43 am not good....really....i am against this change, the major arguments are already given in this thread edit: oh. And I want you to consider: The international mmc alliance is new....very new, became fifth best dyn and got the greatest Dyns as allies.... hey! RicketyCat - Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:44 am I'm very sorry that there are some dynasties that seem unable to create or maintain relationships with allies. Why punish the rest that can? There are some in the dynasty exchanges that are consistently clicking 450+ links a day. Is this why this will be implemented? Because there are some who are clicking many LINKS on a LINK EXCHANGE site? The statement that there could be 5 allies to every dynasty for up to 300 members is interesting given that there are currently only 5 dynasties with 60+ members. Yarold, this is your site and you can set the rules however you want them, however I suggest you listen to the people who use your site on this one. Limiting the number of links available to your users is like asking them to leave - really bad for business. Rebecca - Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:47 am We're not kicking anybody. The admins can personally explain to the 40 that they pick why they did it. It's been a long hard road building our dynasty and our alliances, and so many friends have been made. Top Cat and I made the decision a long time ago that we will not rip apart our dynasty for the sake of numbers, but apparently numbers are more important to you. I have put in so much time here, and this is just petty. Itsami - Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:52 am As far as I can see it, we got 3 dynasties with 60+ members and RMV with almost 100 members. 
I'm not in favor of that idea to cut down the number of members, but I'm not against it though. Surely the smaller dynasties have a better chance and the ranking is more "balanced", and this is good for them. But, as already mentioned, it forces many loyal and good members and friends to leave their dynasties (which noone can support). But if the restiction to 60 members became a rule, then the dynasties over 60 should get adequate time to "downgrade" their numbers. (i.e. a dynasty with 100 members should have a larger period to get to 60 members then an dynasty with 61 members). And adequate doesn't mean just over the night. So it is a bit more moderate for them (nevertheless it is not good for them). Just to be a bit diplomatic 
But I'm not the one to decide, luckily. Roman - Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: Re: Dynasties
Very positivie
I absolutely DISAGREE Just take a look at the International mmc Alliance. Our Dynasty is just a few weeks old, but with enthusiasm, fun and hard work we got fifth strongest Dynasty in such a short time. Our Ave/day rised in just 1 month from 31 tp 163! So NO, it is simple to get up, you only have to work hard! So let it be as it is, since your biggest comment (see above) is not correct! Thanxs Roman aka Eurul Divan - Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:22 am Limit of 60 is no good!!! Minimal 120. Our dinasty have 99 members now! With one peasant... Divan... bella - Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:23 am Eurul - your dynasty now has 5 allies instead of 4. Your dynasty is a good example of how this can be of benefit. funhippie - Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:33 am I haven't been a member of this site for very long. Less than two weeks. I know nothing of dynasty history here. I do know that I have felt very welcomed by the dynasty I joined as referred to me by a friend in a different dynasty! I have read every post so far and I see a lot of very upset people. Is this really going to improve anything? Why not start with a gradual change like a 90 person limit and give a month for the larger dynasties to naturally lose those 10 extra and not be able to take on new members. Too much change too quickly will only end horribly. And I am certain with a decrease in overall members and purchased clicks. Roman - Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:44 am
Yes, Bella I know! I justed wanted to disagree Yarolds comment. I also want to comment, that this change would be positive for our Dynasty but very negative for bigger Dynastys. I just think what I would feel as an emp or shogung of a Dynasty with 100 members ...... Ferrari - Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:47 am I agree we have to find a way to help small dynasties, but I disagree with the members limit to 60. Just4Fun is a family ♥ and you can't expect me to kick family members. Please reconsider. ♥ Ferrari ♥ MorzweN - Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:01 am It doesn't sound good to me 
ppj2005 - Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:13 am okay, you wanted a suggestion... If your aim is to keep 5 dynasties from closing a circle that keeps other dynasties out.... You can limit the number of alliances that can be shared among dynasties. Allow the dynasties to share only 3 alliances or even 2. After that require that they have a different dynasty. There is no need to reduce the number of people in each dynasty. Already our rules in MMC keep us close to but above 60. Just4Fun also stays close. The only dynasty really affected in large measure is Real Mini Village. So what do you gain by forcing 40 of their members out? 40 members divides into small numbers with the remaining dynasties. You will not have improved anything for the smaller dynasties. Your plan of 300 members really does not affect the current alliance structure either. We can keep the group of 5 with 60 members each. As I said before, you will force 40 out of real mini village and the rest of the members can distribute to IMMC. What again have you accomplished? I think the idea of letting all the small dynasties ally together is great! That will surely help them grow... but it seems to me that is a solution in itself without going to more drastic measures to hurt some of the dynasties. What is your goal and objective? As pointed out by others, you have some conflicting statements when you say things are going well, but then say they must be changed. You want to change things without knowing how the new alliances will affect anything. Why not give that a trial instead of a knee-jerk reaction on the day it is formed? Be reasonable. State the real purpose and deal with the real problem, if indeed one does exist. If one does not exist, let things be. Ferrari - Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:25 am
I totaly agree with you!!!!!! tusseries - Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:32 am I don´t want to see RMV broken, it´s a nice family with a hundred people working hard everyday. Who must leave the dinasty? sks - Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:34 am wow....really really great!!! after many nice updates like limits or counting clicks now coming the best one.... are you working hard to be better than others? nice we will punish you for that! let's come together into grey average.... what's that?? way to communism!! ("my neighbour has nice cow....but i won't to have such my own....i want his one will die....") bah
sks p.s. this is a problem: "Error, one of frames didnt load (0)"........... not number of members in dynasties..... roywilly - Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:39 am Post subject: War? Hi to all! By decreasing the numbers in our dynasties, you force us to kick many of our friends. This would probably start a little war between the admin and the users of this site. This would without any doubt, lead to lots of people leaving us. Not good at all. Please reconsider, and try to find other ways to make small dynasties grow. RoyWilly RMV Ferrari - Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:43 am
Yes my dear shogun slavia , thats the way it goos  but i am sure we find a solution.
Metalteo - Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:54 am A change to dynasty allies has been made. There's no longer a limit with 4 allies. You can have more then 5 allies now, but the total amount of members from own dynasty and allies can not be higher then 400. Check out the dynasty allies page to see how it works. I hope everyone can live with this change. lurchman - Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: changing dynasty system Dear Yarold, I think it is not a good idea to play "god" and take the world in hands and shake it to see what will happen only because you do not like what you created. Also I wonder how you can take such a decision without involving the members before. At least you could ask or do a poll. But just anouncing it a clear NO GO from my side. Cheers lurchman
Braat - Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:03 am that sounds better. Thanks Dannic2002 - Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:05 am
These opinions might not even get taken into consideration but I'll have a go at voicing them. Yes I do see how it might be a problem for new dynasties to set up, but I thought the meaning of the site was for a link exchange so people can visit other peoples links. Does it really matter with the size of the dynasties or allies, just as long as we click other links? I share the same view with the leaders of my dynasty and support them entirely. Dan DemonicJ - Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:06 am What has happened hasnt been because certain dynasties want a monopoly. Its happened because of crap politics. eg, GA wouldnt ally with irish italian mafia or just4fun. Crazy clickers wouldnt ally with just4fun. MMC wouldnt ally with crazy clickers because they wouldnt ally with just4fun etc Im sure you get my drift. But now we have a few dynasties that are willing to work together & we are now the ones that have to make sacrifices because of petty politics. If the so called hard done by dynasties actually worked for the benefit of the site instead of keeping personal agenda's this situation would never have been able to happen. So instead of crippling dynasties & people that can work together, would it not be better for those other dynasties to resolve their issues & start sharing the toys in the sandbox?? Ferrari - Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:15 am
Exactly 
xron - Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:36 am I've read this thread several times now and I still can't understand how an arbitrary 60 member dynasty limit helps anyone in the end. If there are problems now, how does splintering existing dynasties improve the problem(s) you're trying to solve? Especially since these issues haven't been openly named or discussed among the dynasty leaders or active clickers who bothered to join a dynasty and check the forum? Judging from the various reactions here, that's how it appears to me anyway. If you think breaking up working dynasties up will mean there will be more leaders for smaller dynasties I think you'll be sadly disappointed, because leaders appear only when they're needed and there are enough new people to support a healthy new dynasty, not by fiat. Also, a new dynasty will grow only when like-minded people coalesce into a community.While it's true that there is a lot of work leaders do that many regular members don't see (or care to know) that's needed to maintain and grow the dynasty, once a dynasty becomes established, regular members as a whole begin to hold the community together too, because they've found their home. So, how does removing members from their dynasties help other dynasties grow or become stronger even if the evicted members move over? That's a whole lot of disruption and frustration. I can't speak for others, but this site would become much less appealing if I was forced out of RMV. I make the time to come here because I like the people there. I keep my average up the best I can out of loyalty and because of the hard work and time everyone has invested into growing the dynasty since I joined back when it was in 5th or 6th place. Also, I don't have to tell any Admin or emp/1st that there's even more work involved in attracting dedicated members, and working with other leaders to form good alliances. Sometimes it's so much {thankless) work that it's hard to justify the time and effort at times until you see how far you and your community has come, so why reward all this hard work and dedication by forcing them to choose who stays or leaves? If you want stronger dynasties, let the people who have become successful in growing their dynasty mentor the newer emps/1sts. I've read and been told that it's been done in the past. RMV and some of the groups that came after are proof that larger dynasties do help incubate new ones and do remember the help they got when they were not so big themselves. Now, if you're a smaller or medium dynasty who is having trouble keeping or attracting alliances it might not be because you are smaller but because you both need to work together better. Do your members keep your links hidden? Do you remember to keep rivalries friendly with your allies? Your allies remember when you help one of their own members just as you would your own. Finally, like in any extended family there are misunderstandings that crop up from time to time. If you think everything is fine otherwise, maybe it's time to talk to your allies to clear the air. After you talk to your allies, take a look to see if your own crew has a clear sense of what you want them to do and welcome any constructive criticism from them. Same goes for Admin / Dynasty relations. Edit: How about some Admin carrot to get all those pages and pages of non-dynasty members to join? purplemkayel - Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:44 am I like the idea that you can have more than 4 allies and that the number of allies is only restricted by the upper limit of total alliance members. Nice change
I think I understand why lowering the dynasty member number may be a good idea... as excited as everyone was when it was raised to 100, currently there really is only 1 dynasty that stays up around 100 members. In my opinion dropping dynasty membership to 60 and ally membership to 300 is a little extreme. If a drop is required, I would suggest an initial drop to 80 dynasty members and 400 ally membership, with a 'wait and see' attitude. With a little sharing of members around the 'top dynasties' will keep their membership fairly intact and the smaller dynasties will still get a chance to grow and show what they're made of. A dynasty becomes a little like a family and allies like an extended family, so I feel for the dynasties affected negatively by this change. Just my humble opinion
DemonicJ - Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 am purplemaykel, how are you going to like the new change when your only allowed to have 300 members total in you dynasty & allies?? Roman - Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:05 am
it's 400! purplemkayel - Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:22 am
DemonicJ, I did say
In other words I don't like the idea, more for the affect it has on the current large dynasties, rather than any future affect on The Untouchables, because the affect is in the future. I'm just one member posting my opinion. NoT City - Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:29 am Well i think it's not fair for new members of a dynasty! They have to show what they are able to click a day. But if a dynasty got only 60 Slots it's rarely impossible to join, because 59 Slots are stuffed with the old folks! DemonicJ - Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:47 am
It is 400, but the site owner is talking about reducing it to 300!! phlaim - Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:58 am
Maybe the extreme protests in this thread made some effect. Roman - Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:01 pm
Well Metalteo wrote:
Hmm.... don't know now, what's correct now
DemonicJ - Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:12 pm
This is from the yarolds chat. Stan is yarold! [19:43] <Stan> Frank: it will be cut to 300 by tommorow Darrel - Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:13 pm Hm, I think that now the site is PERFECT, it is fast, and has some new changes which make it more useful (like the removing of the timer of the minicity.in links). But reducing the Dynasty member limit will be bad for many people (me , too, cause I'm just a peasant in the Dunasty). Roman - Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:16 pm
Thanxs for the Info DemonicJ!!! Ok, anybody knows what tomorrow reset then happens? We now have 386. So some alliances will automatically be cut tomorrow to reach 300? Hmmm......... DemonicJ - Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:18 pm
Yes & the great news is that the site will randomly drop an ally!! so much for free choice! Roman - Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:22 pm
*lol*, how funny
What a big theatre. So DemonicJ, perhaps tomorrow we are not Allies anymore, perhaps we are, let's see. DemonicJ - Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:27 pm Mate who knows, I dont have control over who stays allied with me anymore by the looks of it oshkoshbosh - Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:37 pm Just for the record - my vote is: 100 limit per dynasty, and 400 limit for an alliance, 1 admin. per dynasty... jamiroquai_chic - Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: Idiotic proposal Why on earth is this being proposed??? I think I speak for many people when I say this is ridiculous! EVERYONE in MMC has tried so hard to raise our little family, call that sad or pathetic but as a group we all try so hard with what time we have. I am sure its the same with other Dynasty groups. So how can you ask us to reduce our numbers?? To be perfectly honest I don't see where there is a problem at the minute with how things are. If new dynasty groups cannot get the numbers for their own groups it is their problem, why make them in the first place when you can join a stronger group?? That group are guarenteed to help you! If people decide that they wanna make a dynasty.... make one. But why disrupt what we already have for the sake of a number of new groups that we don't know are serious or going to last. If you wanna take a look into something and change something why don't you make a new dynasty.... Make one for all the people who join a dynasty who hide their bloody links because they are the ones who are a pain in the arse, and do not let them have allies, or even better still, DON'T LET THEM IN ONE, BAN THEM. If these people were banned and stuck to the normal Link Exchange you wouldn't be stressing about reducing the numbers to 60 a group because they wouldn't be messing ours up!!! Sorry for stressing but I just think this is a stupid decision. Feel free to shout at me if you think I am out of order, I don't care. Least I've said my piece and given you my point of view. Lucy. DemonicJ - Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:56 pm Unfortunately you dont speak for all people. The only ones "whinging" are members of the biggest dynasties apparently. ppj2005 - Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:01 pm And because we are from the big dynasties, our opinions don't count. jamiroquai_chic - Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:07 pm Not fair though is it Yarold - Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:11 pm A break to think about it, as last pages dont have anything adding to case (with 1 exception). DemonicJ - Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:12 pm
Think long & hard my friend Yarold - Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:10 pm I finally decided to change limits to:
Instead of random breaking one, only proper info will be showed when accepting new members to dynasty. Minor changes to dynasty allys page: - can send only 1 request at time - proper warrning is showed when trying to send request to dynasty that cant accept it, so you have chance to know if its possible. Open to suggestions again. sebastopol-ca - Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:45 pm I just love reading some"healthy, loving discussion" and glad that I can voice my "minority" opinion openly without fear of being flamed. I like all the changes that have been going on here lately, and send my thanks to the Site Admins for their hard work. Not an easy task to keep 100% of the membership happy 100% of the time, but you seem to be getting closer to it . And the fact that your open to change, which everyone hates, is also a plus for you all. I look forwards to seeing how this new change helps out the small guys. Thanks again Admins. activist - Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:09 pm YAROLD i wish you would add something to the case as not ONE person agrees with your original argument for change. Put that in your pot and stew it. turdkey - Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:20 pm Is it possible to only allow top 5/6 teams to ally with only 2/3 of their number? That could spark the change in dynamics you wanted to achieve Yarold, possibly. If not have you removed the 5 team ally rule which would benefit all the smaller teams? Whatever you finally decide it's fine with me as I don't pay for this site and sometimes tough decisions have to be made. 
red oak - Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:54 pm It seems that numbers are thrown around, changed at whim and after reading the entire thread twice I am not able to find one single reason WHY are those numbers tossed around at all? What was wrong with the existing system? What exactly you are trying to 'fix'? Why is 400 better than 350? There are contradictory arguments on both sides, as to what would be 'better'... better for what, better for whom? For dynasties, clickers, games we play, Yarold, egos,.. ? I don't think that there is a clear understanding what the heck we are talking about... You're asking for suggestions? Suggestions for what? You need to provide a simple reasons for needed changes, some ideas what you're trying to achieve, than you might get some meaningful suggestions... and not pages and pages of emotional drivel red Metalteo - Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:19 pm
What we want to improve is easy for you to see on your own dynasty allies page.
This is done to help smaller dynasties, to get a better dynasty exchange. Before this change your allies were limited to 4. that would be 133 members the dynasty exchange. there's no longer a limit on how many dynasties you can can ally with. This is an improvement. MUSHpark - Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:21 am
Thank you for listening to our feedback, Yarold! I think this will improve the site and respect the current dynasties who have worked hard to get there. rhicat - Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:05 am Being in a small dynasty, I'm liking this change. If a small dynasty isn't allied with at least 2 of the Big 5, it can be a struggle to earn dynasty clicks and keep your average up. Especially for new peasants who are still learning the ways of the site. But I can see how the top dynasties would be resistant to this change. The system as it exists is working well for them. Not so great for us little guys
ppj2005 - Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:08 am
Rhicat, the solution was allowing all the smaller dynasties to band together. That way people too independent to work within the structure of another dynasty can go and find support among like minded people. I have no problem with that. I thought it would be rather funny if 350 individuals formed their own dynasties and allied together. I supported that. The "big" (big for our averages not our numbers) dynasties will live with the 350 or any other number passed down to us, because we must. We will adapt and grow. If we must put out extra links to sustain our numbers, we will. The nice thing about belonging to the dynasties like ours is that we have few inactive members (negative credits or hidden links). If the number is not going to drop to 300 and we are not going to be restricted to 60 members, it is much easier to adapt. If the last word about the 100 and 350 was the last word, then I thank the admins for giving a little. stompi - Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:31 am I am fine with that and this solution should work for the big dynasties, too. At least at the moment it is an improvement for them, too. (for example: mmc mob and allies = 327 members and we could make alliances with smaller but active ones now, too. Though only 23 members more, which means that we can´t do that effectively without booting an existing alliance) But I see one problem: What happenes, when dyn+allies have 340 members and the next day 20 join the dyn+allies? It is normal in big dynasties, that there join many new members, but leave or get kicked out, if they can not click enough. ppj2005 - Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:33 am We are working on a solution to that stompi, so you will not have to worry about having your place in our dynasty - not that you ever needed to worry. stompi - Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:07 am I didn´t worry for my place
But automatically deleted alliances wouldn´t be so good for dynasties, too. But with nothing changing at the 350 mark, all would make up to 500, so there has to be something. I just have no good idea for that, at the moment. But I am sure that someone will find a solution. Maybe that you can´t make new ones to peasants, when 350 is reached and have 2 days time to go below 350. And if you don´t come under 350, the smallest allianced dynasty will be canceled. ppj2005 - Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:11 am There is no automatic deletion of alliances. The way it worked yesterday was that when someone you are allied with exceeds their 350, you can no longer take new members. They said earlier in the thread that no one would be randomly gotten rid of. So even if your alliances total less than 350, if someone you are allied with exceeds 350, you cannot recruit. DaBabes City - Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:15 pm Post subject: Re: Dynasties "it is near impossible for any new dynasties to even have a chance of getting anywhere." I'm the owner of one of those new dynasties, and I'm no whiney butt! Our large dynasties got that way through lots of perseverance and hard work on all their member's part. My dynasty should do the same or be kicked to the curb on the basis of our individual effort. I say let the big dynasties rock and roll!
randyman666 - Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:26 pm NOT GOOD!!!!!!!!! Metalteo - Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:32 pm It would be nice if users would read the whole topic, before they reply to only the first post. This discussion was already dead and since nothing constructive is being add it's closed. |
