Alliance War

  • David the First
    David the First
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Jul 2011 Posts: 1,659
    An enhanced Alliance system is being developed to provide greater incentives for teamwork and organized combat. Alliances will have the ability to set "postures" between one another ranging from Allied to War. Here we will describe the current plan for "War":

    An Alliance can choose to instigate a war with one other Alliance once per week. War is a mutual posture meaning that both Alliances are set at "War" with each other when war is declared. The target Alliance has no chance to avoid War although they can sue for peace after it has started. Only the Alliance Leader has control over setting Alliance postures and starting a War.

    While an Alliance can start only one War per week they can be the target of other Alliance Wars and so could be participating in multiple Wars.

    • Now is the time to suggest ideas to extend the Alliance War feature! We are particularly interested in feedback around the following:
    • War bonuses: special bonuses that are generated from combat between warring Alliances.
    • Victory Conditions: what factors are used to declare a winner.
    • Fair Fights: how to stop large powerful Alliances picking on much lower Alliances.

    just curious how did poland stop germany in ww 2
    King David Level 57

    winner of dreads,barracudas,goliath,strike cruisers,dread x, battle ship, excetera excetera add nauseum

    sectors visited 32 268 415 479 481 484 402 home sector 67
  • snowman
    snowman
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Jun 2011 Posts: 110
    i'd sugget an officers system 4 tiers 1 admirial 2 vice admirials 4 commodores 8 lords each level with certain privalages

    Now the power hungry baby kissing desk clerks come out of the wood works: Politicians

    The first step toward the end of Battle Pirates
    id 2262 alpha player / Level 85
  • Tanner Coleman
    Tanner Coleman
    Greenhorn
    Joined Nov 2011 Posts: 14
    Give the alliances levels based on how powerful they are and go so they can hit 5 or 10 levels above or below them. And you should make it so you can request help from another alliance
  • OldGrumpyKillerKoala
    OldGrumpyKillerKoala
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Apr 2011 Posts: 252
    hOPE THAT YOU HAVE CONTROL OF THIS BEFORE YOU RELEASE- THEIR ARE MANY SOLO PLAYERS IN THIS GAME. wE MAY ASSIST OTHERS AT TIME BUT WHY SHOULD A 'GANG' GET BENEFITS OVER INDIVIDUALS.
  • OldGrumpyKillerKoala
    OldGrumpyKillerKoala
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Apr 2011 Posts: 252
    sorry did not realise caps lock on Apologies
  • Ninefingers
    Ninefingers
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Sep 2011 Posts: 359
    An enhanced Alliance system is being developed to provide greater incentives for teamwork and organized combat. Alliances will have the ability to set "postures" between one another ranging from Allied to War. Here we will describe the current plan for "War":

    An Alliance can choose to instigate a war with one other Alliance once per week. War is a mutual posture meaning that both Alliances are set at "War" with each other when war is declared. The target Alliance has no chance to avoid War although they can sue for peace after it has started. Only the Alliance Leader has control over setting Alliance postures and starting a War.

    While an Alliance can start only one War per week they can be the target of other Alliance Wars and so could be participating in multiple Wars.

    • Now is the time to suggest ideas to extend the Alliance War feature! We are particularly interested in feedback around the following:
    • War bonuses: special bonuses that are generated from combat between warring Alliances.
    • Victory Conditions: what factors are used to declare a winner.
    • Fair Fights: how to stop large powerful Alliances picking on much lower Alliances.

    Not reading through all the other posts (yours is what matters in the thread, Swag)...I would start with the following:

    First and foremost, war bonuses....having a ranking system alone will be almost enough to entice alliances to participate. What better honor to say you belong to the top ranked alliance in BP? But you need to sweeten the pot some so the bonuses, imho, should be something that illustrates the power rather than enhancing it more or you will end up with alliances that will get too strong to topple. Bonuses could include the ability to change fleet colors, add some recognition tag on the outside of the base, maybe award random bp to each participating member of a winning team. Please for the love of god don't go giving out ships and extra towers .... would make winning teams too OP fast.

    Victory Conditions: Should be simple...team that loses the most OP's in a certain time frame loses. Yeah we go for bases for the wh...and the OP if time, but it is the OP destroyed should be the deciding factor in a war.

    Fair Fights: You all need to have brackets based on teamsize first and foremost...most games do a fixed team size (1-10, and no more than 10) or groups (ie 10,20,30). Once an alliance goes over 20, they join the 21-30 bracket. As far as making it fair, you need to have it so that using a standard deviation that the alliance mean base levels are within +/-2....but, all bases once you go to war can be hit between the two alliances (so +/-5 levels are out for the warring alliances.) This will promote teams to recruit and stay within a certain range with joining players.
    Nobody has said that all players are (or should be) equal. By very definition, a player that is a level 33 is NOT equal to a player that is level 32.
  • sandhill
    sandhill
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Nov 2011 Posts: 1,700
    Just MHO but I think this is the worst idea that has ever been suggested in this game. We're doing just fine without any Alliance system. Plenty of Alliance, clans, gangs and families in the game now. We don't need an ability to declare war on anyone forced on us. this sucks in so many ways.
    player ID 56643, start date 28 march 2011.....Lvl 103.... BLACK PIRATES FOREVER
  • Rufi0
    Rufi0
    Incursion Leader
    Joined May 2011 Posts: 1,270
    sandhill wrote: »
    Just MHO but I think this is the worst idea that has ever been suggested in this game. We're doing just fine without any Alliance system. Plenty of Alliance, clans, gangs and families in the game now. We don't need an ability to declare war on anyone forced on us. this sucks in so many ways.

    No1 is forcing you to use the alliance system. You don't like it. Don't use it. Easy
    User ID is: 152094. Windows 7. Flash 11.3.31.230. Google Chrome
    VIDEOS >> http://www.youtube.com/user/Rufi054
  • HellFireX22
    HellFireX22
    Greenhorn
    Joined Mar 2012 Posts: 8
    will there be an alliance registration? once registered to an alliance, will their be voting options for selecting alliance leader? will all of this be utilized in the "hall"
  • Jack_M
    Jack_M
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Aug 2011 Posts: 228
    really dislike this. pirates are not meant to be governed.
    Jack
    Level 52
  • wesker
    wesker
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Sep 2011 Posts: 5,473
    Jack_M wrote: »
    really dislike this. pirates are not meant to be governed.

    they already are why not make it easer for us to do that
    Decimate the Weak

    Ships Won: who cares you will see them :D 
    BP-ID: 1824740....lvl 72

  • Barabbas
    Barabbas
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Mar 2011 Posts: 844
    I like fighting alliances by myself, so how is this gonna work?
    Barabbas 
    48159
  • Kayo Callagan
    Kayo Callagan
    Potential Threat
    Joined Jan 2012 Posts: 37
    I like the idea of base lvl average and number of players in some ratio to determine alliance lvl. Also we need breathing room..........
  • bigbite
    bigbite
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined May 2011 Posts: 248
    we need some kind of rule of the number of members in the alliance war so the war would be balanced
    (Prevent a situation one side has 50 members and the other side has 20 members).
  • Kickass BDS
    Kickass BDS
    Incursion Leader
    Joined May 2011 Posts: 1,426

    While an Alliance can start only one War per week they can be the target of other Alliance Wars and so could be participating in multiple Wars.

    • Now is the time to suggest ideas to extend the Alliance War feature! We are particularly interested in feedback around the following:
    • War bonuses: special bonuses that are generated from combat between warring Alliances.
    • Victory Conditions: what factors are used to declare a winner.
    • Fair Fights: how to stop large powerful Alliances picking on much lower Alliances.

    1. alliances are given a size based on the levels of its players. we can use a similar system to the one already in place for pvp, although i think it will have to be a larger gap than 5 up and 5 down. using a scale system would prevent huge alliances kicking the snot out of small guys. it would also give the small alliances a chance to grow.
    2. victory conditions...which ever side has more victories over the other wins. points awarded using the same method used in the base invaders raids....points for damage inflicted. this would include bases and ships.
    3. new leaderboard posting alliance results.
    4. special bonuses....i really dont think we need any. bragging rights are enough.
     Kickass (BDS)  
    Sector: CURRENTLY PLAYING "another game" (name redacted because of a forum mod's threat of a ban)............... because Battle Pirates Devs DO NOT LISTEN and REFUSE to do what is NEEDED  to put Battle Pirates back on track.
     ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
    Youtube:

     -------------------------------------------------------------------
  • ANGRY-VENOM
    ANGRY-VENOM
    Potential Threat
    Joined Mar 2012 Posts: 27
    YES, need to go by players lvl's & avg them from alliance's! alliance with 10 lvl-30+ players can't declare war on alliance with only 2 lvl-30+ players!!! winner might be who grab's most res or the loser will is who calls truce 1st...war bonus's of course get new weapons, blueprints, specials, armor, walls, land or even new ship of some kind! My alliance is new & still weak but growing so sounds great but sure hope U get it right B4 implementing this new strategy to the game!!! Also great idea would be to make all members of alliances sign something showing there in that alliance for others to C on world MAP! need a ranking system aswell...ranked by exp points of all players flt's!
    COBRA alliance rocks!
    -:mad:
  • AlphaOmega187
    AlphaOmega187
    Potential Threat
    Joined Jun 2011 Posts: 45
    First things first, you all need to get the alliance mode up and running in the game............... Just a thought.
    WAR_LORD_ALPHA187 Founder of the WAR_LORDS in 256.
  • rummrunner24
    rummrunner24
    Potential Threat
    Joined Aug 2011 Posts: 67
    The_Jerk wrote: »
    This is interesting. I just watched 7 players clear an alliance of over 50 members in a weeks time.

    7 actual real players? Or one with 6 alts?

    Agree with others who have suggested flags, colors... some way to differentiate between alliances. Also agree with the need for neutral.

    As for new people in sector who don't come in with an alliance or neutral flag/color, need a way to designate "neutral but under suspicion".
    BYM User ID is: 13191755
    Mac 10.6.8
    Chrome | Flash Player 11.2.2.02.229
    ISP: ATT/SBC DSL on Apple Airport wireless
    Per speedtest.net: Ping 37 ms / Download Speed: 0.65 Mbps / Upload Speed 0.31 Mbps

    BP User ID: 1692555
    Rest in peace, Steve Jobs. Thank you for everything.
  • ScurvaceousScab
    ScurvaceousScab
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Aug 2011 Posts: 224
    I think a handicap feature which will balance out the number of players in a particular alliance versus the points gained should be in place.....this could factor in levels of players as will basically making it an even playing field for lower level players......bonuses for low versus high level players....victory versus loss tallies could be the basis of the points......this is all dependant on the type of attack.....fleet versus fleet-win loss tally.......base attack percentage of damage (some way of factoring weapon types e.g. siege which are almost unstoppable).....just a few thoughts I thought I might throw out there.......

    Thanks again Kixeye a brilliant game which is always growing......


    ScurvaceousScab
    Level 30
    Original sector:50
    ScurvaceouScab
    User ID:145***
    Joined 8th of March 2011
    Born in sector 50 

    Genuine black water player who was there at the start.......
  • FinalShadow
    FinalShadow
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 3,946
    Rufi0 wrote: »
    Victory conditions:

    I think that alliances and alliance wars should be scored based on a points system.
    For example when you declare war on another alliance. There should be a score page divided into 2 columns, with the wins and losses showing on both sides.
    Offensively:
    • OP I/II/III/IV/V = 4/8/12/16/20 points
    • Each Warehouse = 5 points
    Defensively:
    • Successfully defending a base attack without losing any OP/WHs = 1 point
    • Every attacking ship sunk = 1 point

    i think that its very important that the defending player get points for a good defence. Giving them 1 point every time the enemy enters their base without taking warehouses, gives them credit if the enemy needs to use multiple base attacks to prep.

    On the other hand it also provides an incentive for attacking players to get through with the minimum number of attacks, and discourages practices such as dock and research trolling. At the same time you don't want the penalty to be too high so as to discourage base attacks. 1 point seems like a good number.

    Likewise fleet battles should also score points, albeit less than base attacks. I propose a 4 tier system of scoring base on the hull class sunk.
    • Lightweight (Gunboat, Longboat, Predator Sub, Marauder, Battle Barge) each sunk = 1 point
    • Middleweight (Battle cruiser, Stalker submarine, Sea wolf, Leviathon, Sea Scorpion) each sunk = 2 points
    • Heavyweight (Battleship, Floating fortress, Hammerhead A/B/C) each sunk = 3 points
    • Super heavyweight (Dreadnought) each sunk = 4 points

    The key point here is to balance it so that spamming wave after wave of instant repair subs does not become overpowered, while at the same time if a smaller guy does manage to take down a large hull then they are rewarded accordingly.

    Both teams should have arbitrary point "goals", set out at the beginning of the war, which must be achieved in order to gain victory.

    Fair Fights

    Alliances should level up based on their alliance victories, much like an experience system. Like say 10 alliance wins to reach rank II. 25 alliance wins to reach rank III etc etc.

    In order to keep things fair between bigger and smaller alliances the point goals should be based on the alliances rank.

    For example:
    • Rank I alliance requires 1000 points in order to declare victory
    • Rank II alliance requires 1200 points in order to declare victory

    War bonuses

    I think that alliances should be rewarded based on both their alliance rank and their alliance loyalty.

    Alliance Rank
    I would like to see alliances rewarded with battle pirates credits when their alliance levels up. The amount would be scaled of course based on the rank.

    Rank I --> Rank II = 20 credits to all alliance members.
    Rank II --> Rank III = 50 credits to all alliance members. etc
    It would provide a real incentive, and fire up a LOT of wars.

    It might seem like a lot of credits. But when you consider most alliances will only have 1 war going per week, then it seems very reasonable.

    Alliance Loyalty

    To ensure that alliance members are rewarded for their individual contributions to the alliance wars, i think they should be given loyalty points, whenever they score for their alliance.

    During alliance wars:
    Fleet V Fleet victory = 1 point
    Base attack victory = 5 points

    As players accrue more and more loyalty points, they should be able to unlock new ship skins, paint jobs, flags etc. This would be a great way to designate different ranking members of alliances. Something to show off, without tipping the game balance. Obviously if they change alliances then their loyalty points should be reset back to 0.

    Feel free to PM me Swag if you want to talk in more detail. I have a lot of ideas.

    Cheers
    LOVE IT!!!!!!!!

    but one major no no

    kixeye cant distribute gold
    I think this would be awesome :D MAKE IT KIXEYE. OR I'LL HUNT SWAG AND SHAVE HIS BEARD. :cool:
    http://forums.kixeye.com/threads/200004-Player-Versus-Player-Skill-Raid
    PLEASE VIEW THIS BEFORE POSTING↓
    http://forums.kixeye.com/threads/190072-Wishlist-What-NOT-to-wish-for
    Proud fellow member of The Cult of Swag!!!. Faith level: Orange beard: Demi-Swag
  • BALLAST
    BALLAST
    Potential Threat
    Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 67
    1 Leader and your crippled... 3 leaders so someone is online at the time or very soon with each being out ranked by a founder or whatever seems most logical.
    User ID is: 191,259
  • Dogued
    Dogued
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Dec 2011 Posts: 267
    An enhanced Alliance system is being developed to provide greater incentives for teamwork and organized combat. Alliances will have the ability to set "postures" between one another ranging from Allied to War. Here we will describe the current plan for "War":

    An Alliance can choose to instigate a war with one other Alliance once per week. War is a mutual posture meaning that both Alliances are set at "War" with each other when war is declared. The target Alliance has no chance to avoid War although they can sue for peace after it has started. Only the Alliance Leader has control over setting Alliance postures and starting a War.

    While an Alliance can start only one War per week they can be the target of other Alliance Wars and so could be participating in multiple Wars.

    • Now is the time to suggest ideas to extend the Alliance War feature! We are particularly interested in feedback around the following:
    • War bonuses: special bonuses that are generated from combat between warring Alliances.
    • Victory Conditions: what factors are used to declare a winner.
    • Fair Fights: how to stop large powerful Alliances picking on much lower Alliances.

    About time!

    Last point first: Fair Fights
    Once there is a ranking system in place I think you'll find that the instances of a large alliance declaring war on a small group will be very few and far between. With a clear rankings system it will become a pride issue; why would we attack an alliance 50 ranks below us when we can beat the guys above us and move up! Look to other games with working alliance functions and you see that it's usually the smaller lower ranked groups that pick a fight with larger groups where the top groups fight amongst themselves for the glory of being #1.

    Victory Conditions
    This all depends on how you plan on "declaring war". If it means that any member of the opposing alliance is fair game regardless of the +-5 level rule then points per OP would be a good start. If you leave that rule in place then it needs to be a combined points system based on ships & bases.

    War Bonuses
    Giving away ships/specials/weapons would be great but would totally unbalance the game. Whatever bonus is given it needs to be a consumable bonus given to each "active" member (ie a player who logged in during the war) of the winning alliance. Bonuses such as resource crates, gold coins, 24hrs 1/2 repair time are all reasonable rewards. Perhaps if you are really concerned about higher ranked alliances bullying smaller ones, offer one type of reward (resources) for any victory plus another type of reward (coins) for beating a higher ranked alliance.

    As for a few of the other comments I have read, I think you are all freaking out about something that should be seen as a blessing. For those who are not in alliances, there will be a side effect that you will probably be left alone more often as the alliance players focus on the wars. You're not suddenly going to see 40 players outside your base demanding you surrender!
  • spongebob_killed
    spongebob_killed
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Nov 2011 Posts: 584
    lol it was a joke mate but if you want we can set up a war
    i no it was i was joking to but aa we can just test ixeyes new crappy bug cant we
    spongebob_killed_u
    lvl55
    Alliance- none
    goliaths rock
    so do my cruisers ask 283 :)
    Wheres my cookies and milk :)
    how to solve lag stop wacthing them film u no what films im on abwt the 1s ur mother would be discrased to find u wacthing :p
  • NuclearFallout
    NuclearFallout
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Aug 2011 Posts: 8,431
    i no it was i was joking to but aa we can just test ixeyes new crappy bug cant we
    yeah we could hehe and how's your base doing???
    "Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men."
    - John F Kennedy 

    "If you're explaining, you're losing"
    Ronald Reagan

    No I'm not a moderator
  • Hast at work
    Hast at work
    Master Tactician
    Joined Feb 2012 Posts: 2,308
    Has there been any discussion on how to avoid "friendly" alliance wars? Especially if points and plaudits are given out based on this system.

    What is to stop two friendly alliances to just pack their turrets at the back of their bases and just give each other free hits back and forth in some quiet sector?
    Base Name: Praetor [Locust]
    Current Level: 63 Current Sector: Pansyland
    Raid Hulls: All of them, yes, all of them.
    Oh and we didn't do it for money.
  • Alan de Great
    Alan de Great
    Greenhorn
    Joined May 2011 Posts: 25
    I've always thought it would be great if you could put your fleet at Gaurd on an alliance mate's base.
  • Rasta
    Rasta
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Sep 2011 Posts: 115
    BALLAST wrote: »
    1 Leader and your crippled... 3 leaders so someone is online at the time or very soon with each being out ranked by a founder or whatever seems most logical.

    Crippled? REALLY? You can actually think for yourself ya know. You don't need a leader with his hand up your arse making you a puppet do you?
  • CUCBN
    CUCBN
    Potential Threat
    Joined Aug 2011 Posts: 39
    Delete turned off on this thread??
  • Alexander Schneider
    Alexander Schneider
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Aug 2011 Posts: 382
    What about the sectors that don't need alliances to work together?
    IN 337 WE TRUST! :pokey: - French do it betteR -
    exile L59 sector: 44
    User ID: 1059095 w7//chrome/firefox last flash.
  • CUCBN
    CUCBN
    Potential Threat
    Joined Aug 2011 Posts: 39
    CUCBN wrote: »
    Delete turned off on this thread??
    Not reading through all the other posts (yours is what matters in the thread, Swag)...I would start with the following:

    First and foremost, war bonuses....having a ranking system alone will be almost enough to entice alliances to participate. What better honor to say you belong to the top ranked alliance in BP? But you need to sweeten the pot some so the bonuses, imho, should be something that illustrates the power rather than enhancing it more or you will end up with alliances that will get too strong to topple. Bonuses could include the ability to change fleet colors, add some recognition tag on the outside of the base, maybe award random bp to each participating member of a winning team. Please for the love of god don't go giving out ships and extra towers .... would make winning teams too OP fast.

    Victory Conditions: Should be simple...team that loses the most OP's in a certain time frame loses. Yeah we go for bases for the wh...and the OP if time, but it is the OP destroyed should be the deciding factor in a war.

    Fair Fights: You all need to have brackets based on teamsize first and foremost...most games do a fixed team size (1-10, and no more than 10) or groups (ie 10,20,30). Once an alliance goes over 20, they join the 21-30 bracket. As far as making it fair, you need to have it so that using a standard deviation that the alliance mean base levels are within +/-2....but, all bases once you go to war can be hit between the two alliances (so +/-5 levels are out for the warring alliances.) This will promote teams to recruit and stay within a certain range with joining players.

    Agree witheverything except dropping +/-5 level base attack. Otherwise, simple scoring and the rewards don't lead to unbalance...nice. Trying to add points/take points for multiple things starts to get complicated.

    One alliance, one "leader" for admin purposes. Call it something else if you want to. Most alliances don't have one leader, and they still manage to stear themselves around well enough. Keep it as simple as possible: it'll get complicated without any official help.
This discussion has been closed.