Alliance War

  • bees
    bees
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Dec 2011 Posts: 1,999
    Sultan714 wrote: »
    All fine and dandy Swag. But how about you guys actually remove the lvl 4,5,6,7,8 bases that are ALL OVER the friekin' map, so alliances can actually move close to eachother. If you want to get serious about alliance features, DO THIS FIRST for F's sake.

    why they are players too!
  • andyedm85
    andyedm85
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Nov 2011 Posts: 109
    :lol:
    yay born to be 90 should be against all of sec 89 and we would win !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    how can u win when you cant bubble buddy each other to save your ****! :p

    Irish Rage
    Sector 89
    Don't like my gate, Don't **** swing on it... 
  • Reprisal
    Reprisal
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 498
    At last an end to NO HITTING IN SECTOR .................. ? oh I do hope so lol
  • OrcwarriorHH
    OrcwarriorHH
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Mar 2012 Posts: 180
    and when you go too war whit a allianse you dont now if that working whit other allianser the so a allianse can get busted hard and loose and some player in that allianse can quit so whit other players so for low levels in a allianse bub buddies are need too get the lower true the fight whitout loose that player
  • OrcwarriorHH
    OrcwarriorHH
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Mar 2012 Posts: 180
    and remove all dead and inactive bases on the map so you get the space too a allianse war some sectors are att max you cant move in
  • Captain Slacker
    Captain Slacker
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Nov 2011 Posts: 232
    Here is my idea to go along with the "Alliance" feature. Is the ability to be able to "guard" your allies bases by being able to click on "guard" base like you can with your own base but be able to "guard" your fellow allies base if they are in your alliance.
  • sweetlips
    sweetlips
    Greenhorn
    Joined Aug 2011 Posts: 5
    Artillis wrote: »
    What I think would be best to prevent this from happening with this feature is give the smaller alliance a buff. For example, use like the average level for the alliances to determine the difference, and the smaller one may get like a buff in armor on thier ships or a buff in damage. This way it would make it fairer I think.
  • sweetlips
    sweetlips
    Greenhorn
    Joined Aug 2011 Posts: 5
    If u count in number of members .... They could be small in member but High in levels an alliance say of 20 members could all be level of 30+ In which case they would not need any buffers. Then you could have an Alliance high in member but low in levels. I think that in setting up for Alliance Wars that there should be prememtors such as number of members and average levels. Honest players will tell the truth and cheaters will lie but you will be able to see this when it happens, and when they cheat penalize the cheaters.
  • RTyst
    RTyst
    Greenhorn
    Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 2
    Blueprints as rewards or a lot of resources.
    The total ship health of those participating will determine the winner.
    Common level should determine the fair fights.
  • MadGuppies
    MadGuppies
    Greenhorn
    Joined Mar 2012 Posts: 6
    After playing evony and other online war games, I feel kixeye should be careful on this one. I think the alliance feature it s good idea and would work because mainly it is already in use by the many of the active players now using scype, facebook and so forth. But before making it a part of the game, Size of the alliance shold be looked at closely. I fell that alliances should be small, we are pirates, not nations. 20 members alliances at most. This add several dynamics to the game. Most current alliances would have to break apart. The lone wolfs in the game could stay lone wolfs. The large levels could be kept in check. Of course alliances could stay friendly with each other and gang up on other alliances, but it would be more difficult for them to do this.

    I quit evony, because the alliance system they had in place, it was too easy for 3 large alliance to become allies and take over entire server. You have no choice but to join one of the feeder alliances. This left little to attacked.

    Many small alliances will keep the action going, fueds will start between friendly alliances, but more importantly it will make alliances remove and add members. Keeps the game fluid.
  • CEZccq
    CEZccq
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Jan 2012 Posts: 109
    just wondering what will happen with players not in alliances? can an alliance gang up on that person? or would there be something preventing that?

    also, this thing of 'declaring war' are you saying that without a declaration of war, members of an alliance wont be able to hit bases?

    for instance, player A robs player Bs salvage.. player B wants to attack player As base.. will the alliance of player B need to declare war on A for that to happen? or can B attack A at their leisure still?
    I get around.
  • DannyBoy_CG
    DannyBoy_CG
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 149
    love the idea, can't wait to learn more about it.....
  • Richard.Barton
    Richard.Barton
    Greenhorn
    Joined Mar 2012 Posts: 17
    I agree with this in some ways, the only thing I do not agree with is that the size of the Alliances should not matter in any way at all. This is a game of war, and just as war is today, each "Alliance" is either large, or small. Every war "clan, country, or what ever it may be, is either small or large. With war an army, alliance, military, militia; either gets larger with new recruits, or it gets smaller as that group of people is killed or moves on with their life.
    There should not be a sanction on the size of the Alliance!!
  • Remco Volatile
    Remco Volatile
    Skilled Warrior
    Joined Apr 2011 Posts: 353
    It is not uncommon to limit "clan" sizes.
    Lets say a BP clan can have max 20 members.

    The larger alliances already have split up in teams, you rarely find those as 1 group in 1 sector (try finding free space to relocate...).
    And if the larger ones do go to war it could be 3 clans vs 3 clans. No big deal.

    With the clan-limit, you could also limit the max. number of war declarations to prevent massively outnumbered clan/alliances
    from a pointless and easy beat-down.

    Reading the very generic idea from kixeye and many many posts I hope kixeye delays this feature. I really don't think this change
    can be sqeezed in together with the other projected changes.
    Your happiness is our primary objective and everything that we do to improve the game is aimed at increasing it.
    robertg wrote: »
    ah ackabar and dredbull, kings of the trolls in the frontline together.
    all go to sleep, there is nothing to worry about, game is just fine, you just need to change all your settings to reduce lag a bit, offcourse all the new players will understand that and do that at once to play this wonderfull game.

    doesn't play anymore, former userid : 59919
  • meykeru-sensei
    meykeru-sensei
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Feb 2012 Posts: 161
    This is actually a nice touch.
    Alliance members being unable to harm each other's fleets would make it easier to spot a friend or foe,especially out-sector.
    No more sneaky in-sector hits too;when you are in alliance,no hitting friendlies,and no double-crossing.

    Also,this is how the 'no friendly bubble' could be solved.
    Allies cant attack base,so cant bubble.
    And if there would be a cooldown on joining/leaving an alliance as there is on relocation,there cant be any exploiting by quickly leaving,bubbling and rejoining.

    just my two cents.
    Kixeye doesn't want to give coiners a too big advantage.
    :lol: i cant stop laughing

    -Coming Soon-
  • general__hawk
    general__hawk
    Potential Threat
    Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 96
    to avoid unbalanced wars you can rate the alliances on a level scale say 1-10 and only allow alliances to declare war on say a lvl 1-2 below there level that would make it fair
    Level: 39
    Clan: Reapers/AP
    Current Sector: 191
    Prizes won: All but original Viper
  • OrcwarriorHH
    OrcwarriorHH
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Mar 2012 Posts: 180
    RTyst wrote: »
    Blueprints as rewards or a lot of resources.
    The total ship health of those participating will determine the winner.
    Common level should determine the fair fights.

    and if you dont need res and have all blue print?????? what you then get??????
  • salvage
    salvage
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Dec 2011 Posts: 105
    War bonuses: give the winner a cool color scheme to choose from for their alliance members! :)

    Victory Conditions: percentages of wins would be the obvious answer, maybe between levels being fought.

    Fair Fights: how to stop large powerful Alliances picking on much lower alliances: good luck with that! unless you really do find a way to implement lvl vs lvl fighting and deduct points for it. (although a lvl7 has easily taken out a lvl33 in fvf... so maybe player level is the only option)

    does this mean you are going to implement alliances? give them all a cool color or give them their own comm. or allow them to guard bases and ships of other alliance members?
  • capitqain_d
    capitqain_d
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Jan 2012 Posts: 235
    lol...5 out of 6 posts about Base Bombers...

    I think there should also be an option to mark other alliances as allies in a war and count their victories together

    Totally agree this could help smaller alliances on the fair fight issue if they are allied with a more powerful one.
    LVL 25 (THE HARD WAY) Alliance IDA name: RAIDER_IDA
    SECTOR 140
    IDA LEADER "Don't be fooled by my level just because I'm leader doesn't mean I"m the biggest"
    Seectors visited 370
  • Born to be 90 alliance
    Born to be 90 alliance
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Feb 2012 Posts: 228
    andyedm85 wrote: »
    :lol:

    how can u win when you cant bubble buddy each other to save your ****! :p

    Irish Rage
    Sector 89

    i dont friendly bubble and non of us can with the future changes to it

    nathan
    sector 90
    DarkEnigma
    Lvl41
    sector 21
    sectors visited:90,89,280.475,212,121.401(thx to kixeye)
    http://www.mindistortion.tv/iwantyoursoul/?i_am=DarkEnigma1999
    my youtube channel:http://www.youtube.com/user/darkenigma1999?feature=results_main
  • Adam Hunter
    Adam Hunter
    Greenhorn
    Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 7
    Yeah have 2 or 3 leaders and at least 1 founder with the option for the first "founder" to promote people to "founder position". Or have secondary leaders, like officers or lieutenants with lesser powers to leaders but more than the leaders.

    Definitely have option to make allies as well as enemies.

    Winning conditions either:
    1. a quota of resources stolen from enemy bases
    2. a select number of ships sunk and base SUCCESSFUL base hits per alliance member
    3. resource quota and ship/base victories.

    Surrender options:
    1. give amount of resources to the other alliance (the other alliance gets a message and inserts a demand of resources to allow surrender. surrendering alliance members can all send resources to total the demand) e.g. demand is 10 million resources, player x sends 5 million player y sends 5 million, quota met, surrender accepted.
    -demand not allowed to be stupidly high-

    Thoughts on suggestions? :)
    PrinceOfDeath
    Level: 31
    Raid ships: Goliath, Strike Cruiser, Interdictor
  • axent13
    axent13
    Potential Threat
    Joined Sep 2011 Posts: 48
    War bonus idea: Maybe there needs to be a new key resource that you win and it is used to build new features, hulls etc. Going to war to get the current resources doesn't seem like much of an incentive as there are plenty of ways to get them already.
    " I want to punch all in the face that participated in this."
  • Hellspawn
    Hellspawn
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined Sep 2011 Posts: 988
    Vafanculo wrote: »
    I think an in-game alliance function is long overdue.
    I disagree with everything else in your initial post. Here is a detailed explanation:

    You are WAY over thinking this.
  • Dark_Matter
    Dark_Matter
    Strike-force Captain
    Joined May 2011 Posts: 918
    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

    I so +1 this. Terms to the war would be great to have.
    Battle Pirates: The Aldierus Chronicles<---Click Here

    My Base Doesn't have to be the Best. It just has to be a harder target than yours.

    Putting a Memorial in an enemy sector is like putting a big red shiny button in my face saying "DON'T PUSH"
  • snowman
    snowman
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Jun 2011 Posts: 110
    Please keep in mind the forums in general have a minority of bp players posting. Further, on a specific thread,.... even less

    Most players in the game don't even get on sector comms that much.
    They go about their business mining, salvaging, hitting bases, and building awesome bases and ships, with NO CARE what other players are saying.

    Personally I won first in the last two raids hitting the mini drac bases BY MYSELF with better success then the recommended coordinated attacks.

    The point is, if this new alliance feature puts the silent majority at a disadvantage (not having the cool toys/benefits that an alliance has) these will quietly stop playing... as quietly as they played.

    Be very careful in implementing this feature, or you will loose much business.
    id 2262 alpha player / Level 85
  • Alice Bousman Curtis
    Alice Bousman Curtis
    Greenhorn
    Joined Jan 2012 Posts: 2
    what about those that don't belong to alliances. this is just another way for the big guys to get bigger and better weapons. i don't think they should be rewarded. let them war if they want to but don't reward.
  • Studmuffin255
    Studmuffin255
    Greenhorn
    Joined Mar 2012 Posts: 5
    Don't enter battle if you will gain nothing from winning. "The Dessert Fox" Rommell
  • Studmuffin255
    Studmuffin255
    Greenhorn
    Joined Mar 2012 Posts: 5
    Ore you will encourage the silent ones to be more active.
    snowman wrote: »
    Please keep in mind the forums in general have a minority of bp players posting. Further, on a specific thread,.... even less

    Most players in the game don't even get on sector comms that much.
    They go about their business mining, salvaging, hitting bases, and building awesome bases and ships, with NO CARE what other players are saying.

    Personally I won first in the last two raids hitting the mini drac bases BY MYSELF with better success then the recommended coordinated attacks.

    The point is, if this new alliance feature puts the silent majority at a disadvantage (not having the cool toys/benefits that an alliance has) these will quietly stop playing... as quietly as they played.

    Be very careful in implementing this feature, or you will loose much business.
  • H4YDEN
    H4YDEN
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Oct 2011 Posts: 1,219
    There should be more than 1 leader option in the alliance
    H4YDEN
    Sectors Visited 11, 14, 61, 95, 96, 102, 103, 105, 112, 125, 128 138, 139, 144, 151, 181, 190, 191, 192, 222, 223, 232, 240, 307, 310, 314, 367, 379, 381, 394, 437, 445, 467, 476
    Started playing 21st October 2011
    Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/H4YDEN0503
    You don't need drac hulls to be good at this game, you need a brain 
  • Bob Wolfe
    Bob Wolfe
    Potential Threat
    Joined Mar 2012 Posts: 47
    i think the alliance that losses the war gets 48 hours 1/2 speed repair time [slower] and winner double speed repairs and or winners fleets that were used in battle go to elite status
This discussion has been closed.