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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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"
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).
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.
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!
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.
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.......
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
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.
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.
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!
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
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:63Current Sector:Pansyland
Raid Hulls: All of them, yes, all of them.
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?
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.
just curious how did poland stop germany in ww 2
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
Now the power hungry baby kissing desk clerks come out of the wood works: Politicians
The first step toward the end of Battle Pirates
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.
No1 is forcing you to use the alliance system. You don't like it. Don't use it. Easy
VIDEOS >> http://www.youtube.com/user/Rufi054
Level 52
they already are why not make it easer for us to do that
Ships Won: who cares you will see them
BP-ID: 1824740....lvl 72
(Prevent a situation one side has 50 members and the other side has 20 members).
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.
-:mad:
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".
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.
Thanks again Kixeye a brilliant game which is always growing......
ScurvaceousScab
Level 30
Original sector:50
User ID:145***
Joined 8th of March 2011
but one major no no
kixeye cant distribute gold
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
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!
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
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?
Current Level: 63 Current Sector: Pansyland
Raid Hulls: All of them, yes, all of them.
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?
exile L59 sector: 44
User ID: 1059095 w7//chrome/firefox last flash.
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.