FIVE - If war is declared on a alliance, and say 50% of the alliance that war was delcared on relocate out, it will penalize that alliance. How a penalty is will apply will be on a score. A score of 100, Means players have always stuck it out and fought to the end(win or loose) This score will reflect "Respect" or said alliance. If alliance members relocate out, they are penalized based on the percentage of the members that have left. That percentage will take away a equal amount to Respect Score. Relocating members in, will up the respect. These numbers are based on the TOTAL number of said alliance. I can clarify more if KIXEYE wishes.
I don't think that will work... There is a potential for abuse. I think that if you enter a war, relocate should be disabled for everyone involved for the duration. Otherwise, you could circumvent the "respect" score, by having 20 low level people in your alliance in sector, bait someone into war, then relocate all 20 lower levels out, and relocate the other 20 higher level players in, thereby negating any "respect" score difference, and stacking the deck in your favor. If alliance wars must be accepted by both parties, then relocate should be disabled for the length of the war. And if they DO decide to disable relocate for the whole war, then both parties MUST be required to accept the war to prevent one alliance from effectively holding another hostage and preventing them from relocating when they want to.
I dont really understand this.And not sure if i like it .because if anyone attacks my alli it wont be a week war it will be untill they move ..even if we have to lvl the whole sector....one thing you dont do is attack my alli period.....
What if someone attacks your spelling and grammar?
For bonuses to the victor, I don't think that any blueprints or boats or anything like that should be given. Someone else already said this as well, but I agree. The prizes should be aesthetic, or limited to resource awards. Otherwise, no matter how much you TRY to control it, people WILL find a way to abuse the system and go back and forth to gain advantages. IE, if the bonuses are a blueprint, two alliances WILL find a way to go back and forth to get that blueprint. Don't turn it into that. Make the prizes so that they have no real effect on the strength of the players. Ship colors, flags, tags, base decorations, something like that. But PLEASE don't give out special weapons, or ships as prizes. Too much potential for abuse.
Also, the same can be said about the suggestion for trading blueprints or anything else amongst alliance members, or other players in general. Entirely too much potential for abuse. All it takes is ONE hacker to hack up some blueprints, then trade them to other non-hacker players. The hacker may be banned for it, but the non-hackers will have a defense. "I didn't hack, and I didn't know the guy I traded from was hacking!"
As for the method for preventing large alliances from harassing smaller ones, I was thinking along the same lines as a few others, regarding the Alliance average system... First, there must be a reasonable limit to the number of players that can be in an alliance. Then, take the number of players in the alliance, and their respective levels, and come to some number based on that, whether it's an average, or a total of some sort. Like, if you have 20 lvl 30 players, their Alliance number would be 600, and prevent them from attacking attacking an alliance of 20 lvl 20 players whose number would only be 400. But for that system you would have to still consider the number of players in the alliance as well as the number, as 20 lvl 30 players= 30 lvl 20 players.
Also, I like the concept of points values for bases for determining victory, but that can't be the only factor. There has to be something to stop higher levels from warring with lower levels, because I don't care how many points you assign to a lvl 30 base's outpost, a lvl 25 will never get those points. Again, sorry for the wall-o-text.
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.
What about us who are solo players? This will be unfair for those who wanna play alone and don't wanna bother with alliances and rules. KIXEYE don't forget the biggest CC players are solo players and i guess you dotn wanna lose them?
What about us who are solo players? This will be unfair for those who wanna play alone and don't wanna bother with alliances and rules. KIXEYE don't forget the biggest CC players are solo players and i guess you dotn wanna lose them?
Its simple, just don't take part in the alliance wars
Its simple, just don't take part in the alliance wars
if the allaince wars will get rewards this is **** up. Then they should also give bigger rewards to those who got balls to fight alone and don't hide in a alliance as a wuzzie. Can rename this game to Wuzzie Pirates if they add this alliance future!
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.
and in some sector the hole sector is 1 allianse how you fight that????????????????
agree with Bees - No special ship, blueprint that not available to solo. Give the gang bangers little daisies to decorate their ships and bases. If not capable of standing on their own two feet why compensate for hyena pack techniques.
I think an in-game alliance function is long overdue.
I disagree with everything else in your initial post. Here is a detailed explanation:
"An Alliance can choose to instigate a war with one other Alliance once per week."
-War and the politics that surround it are fluid. There is no reason to limit how often anyone can change relations with anyone.
"War is a mutual posture meaning that both Alliances are set at "War" with each other when war is declared."
-Was is not always a mutual posture. Alliance A can be at war with Alliance B while alliance B runs or refuses to fight. I understand the thinking behind this but it is not necessary. Set relations are set relations.
"The target Alliance has no chance to avoid War although they can sue for peace after it has started."
-Duh. And "sue for peace" is a paper shield, another unnecessary function. Alliance leadership can negotiate relationships (that are fluid!)
"Only the Alliance Leader has control over setting Alliance postures and starting a War."
Ok so I lied. I am ok with this. There needs to be one boss.
"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."
-Again, fluid real-time postures.
"War bonuses: special bonuses that are generated from combat between warring Alliances."
-One step at a time. Introduce Alliances and group combat then worry about bonuses and rewards. Too much of this will further imbalance the game and give you a migraine. The only feature I can reasonably see being added is a bonus to being in an alliance. Allow up to five friendly ships at one time(one per level of your OP) to guard your base. That alone adds so many options for helping your friends both in a defensive posture or in real time fending off an attack by continually replacing fleets guarding your friends base during an attack. The wars just to get to someones base will be epic
"Victory Conditions: what factors are used to declare a winner"
-It is war. There is only one answer to this and it is the same as in any war. When one side surrenders, or a mutual treaty is agreed upon.
"Fair Fights: how to stop large powerful Alliances picking on much lower Alliances."
-War is not fair. In fact, the entire goal of war is to gain an unfair advantage. The premise of your game is battling pirates.
*Here is where I get on my pedestal and mention things I think are broken. I have been in the profession of arms for over ten years and been gaming since it was just a pen, paper, and a game master so please take note.
-If you want to address the strong picking on the weak you need to remember how your leveling system scales. It is exponential. A five level difference is huge. Allowing attacks on player up to five levels above you is fine. Allowing attacks on players up to five levels below you is sadistic. Up to two levels below you is sufficient to ensure the more developed players are fighting amongst their peers and is as fair and you can make it. Problem solved. You can not balance a fight between an alliance of 10 vs. an alliance of 50. Don't try, everyone will hate you.
-Allowing only a few, lets say four per sector, to gain significantly stronger ships completely ruins the experience for everyone else. It is understandable to reward the strong (and rich) few with these ships before everyone else. But after a few weeks if everyone else is not allowed to develop the same ships there is a disturbingly uneven battlefield which leads to exactly what you are trying to avoid in this statement. I have personally lost a lot of of enthusiasm for the game recently due to the growing imbalances that I am helpless to correct. The only thing that makes a game worth playing is having a fighting chance. Please stop eliminating this aspect.
Other notes:
-If you are going to have alliances and alliance leaders you will need a secure messaging system complete with broadcast messages to the entire alliance and possibly private alliance forums or chat. I suggest you start with an outside-the-game html based messaging system like the battle log and encourage each alliance to use their Facebook group for chat.
-Alliances should have a few ranks. A leader or "Captain", first mate, buccaneers, deckhands, etc.
-Money talks. Winning gold will motivate people. They will like spending it, and then want to buy credits.
-Instant fleet repairs? Instant upgrades? Come on, why don't you just make an "I win" button and auction it off? It would be simpler than writing all the game code... How bout speed ups of 25, 50, and 75% (MAYBE 90%) priced accordingly. Allowing anyone willing to blow more cash than the other guy to instantly get their stuff back is demoralizing. I understand that games today rely on a pay-per-play or continuous income fee schedule, and I understand that instant gratification is a hot seller, but you are sacrificing the integrity of your game. Also understand that there are many games out there under $100 dollars that are, lets say, more than you can get from any flash based Facebook game... The cost of doing business at higher levels is absurd. Costs have to be prohibitive enough to discourage instant win freaks, but affordable enough so that players spend money. Please consider boosts and % speed increases rather than instant win products. I have seen them be very successful (even in very bad Facebook games) while at the same time not alienating the player with a modest budget.
I like your game. I do not like the direction it has been going. I ask you to consider implementing major changes at a pace that is manageable. Almost everyone wants an in-game alliance. Please do not over-think it. This is a Beta experience and nothing will be completely right the first time. The combat system is fine how it is, adding a flag or a label that people can associate with their group will make a lot of people happy. Adding one feature that allows one to help their friends by guarding their bases will win you lots of love.
Thank you for considering my proposals. If you do find any of them beneficial I do accept gold as a token of appreciation
A suggestion - dedicate say 6 sectors as alliance battle grounds- the two factions relocate there for 72hours- kill each other to their delight. That way not interferring with the home sectors- comms not jammed with cudos claiming crud and winning alliance - last standing. No resources (or no regenerating) in these war sectors so it will be real- war is a diminishing act.
These sectors can have their own server so not effect to everyone else.
On the alliance subject, every year could be alliance competitions like a raid. Best 4 or 6 alliance players from each alliance Relocate to a given sector, then go into a 'base' like the raids now and fight it out, once out of comp relocate comes back and you leave. All fights are allocated and watched by kixeye, weapons are disabled outside of the base arenas.
OOPs this is a wishlist thing... i will do it there also.
Now you can luxuriate in a nice jail cell, but if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet: I will end you.
Another thing, if it is Auto tagged we are part of an alliance, can we get a free namechange as alot of players have alliance tags and this will no longer be necessary.
Now you can luxuriate in a nice jail cell, but if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet: I will end you.
Another thing, if it is Auto tagged we are part of an alliance, can we get a free namechange as alot of players have alliance tags and this will no longer be necessary.
HAHA you want to get something free? I guess you play the wrong game! and in the future with all these new changes if you don't use CC this game won't be playable for you.
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.
Excellent idea. Been waiting a long time for this. Here is my opinion on your questions you've asked us:
1. War Bonuses: Small. Very small. Something around 1 free hour of repair time, or one free resource crate per alliance member that took part in the war. Wars are already everywhere in battle pirates.
2. Victory Conditions: Total "points." Resources or damage done could be used to score points. As higher level attackers and defenders will score more points because of higher values, use a weighted system. A level 25 can earn twice as many points as a level 30. I can't break down the numbers very well, but some calculations should be done of what an average lvl 25 brings home in a base attack, or average lvl 25 puts out in damage in a base attack should be made equal in points to what an average level 30 player can do with a multiplier of some kind.
3. Fair Fights: When an alliance is at war with a rival, they can no longer attack a low level player's ship (+/- 5 levels) that is in the mining state. Also it would help reduce low level players from being "snuffed out" of the game. Resources will be needed to continue fighting, so a small amount of protection from one alliance crippling the other would make it more fair. Motionless ships at sea should still be fair game for any player.
Protective bubble's duration should match repair time once repairs have started. You are at war, there is no safe place. But this is a video game, and we do want to play fairly. So keep the bubble, but it is only up while repairs are underway. While an alliance is not at war, bubble durations are as normal.
Players do not have to sign in and click repair to start the process. As soon as the bubble is up, repairs start immediately. This is to keep up a spirit of a war and keep the action flowing. This will also keep resources being exchanged and reduces the need of a large victory bonus.
Just a few of my thoughts that i think would make alliance wars very fun and interesting
Edit: One other thing I would like to add to this is I think the alliance war feature should be an End-game feature. Level 25, or even possibly up to level 28 should be the minimum level for taking part in the war. This gives lower level, new players something to strive for and look forward to. Also these newer players have a lot to concentrate on to just learn about playing the game. While I'm sure the average low level player would have fun taking part in the war, having them crawl before they can walk will help make the war experience much more competitive and exciting.
Im lovin this idea........lets not have to many extra rules/conditions, just 1/2 to 1/4 repair times for fleets (to keep it a bit fairer for people who carnt afford to pay to play). and base repair starts as base bubble comes up to keep things movin...... i dont think a lower lvl player should receve more points..make it the same for everybody (it is about the strongest clan not the clan with the most members)
HAHA you want to get something free? I guess you play the wrong game! and in the future with all these new changes if you don't use CC this game won't be playable for you.
LMAO, never hurts to ask, hell im still waiting to attack drac bases, lol. Oh, and Platinum Mastercard baby... but the interest rate is for schmucks !!
Paypal... way to be.. quickerly... btch :cool:
Now you can luxuriate in a nice jail cell, but if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet: I will end you.
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.
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.
I posted my idea in wishlist section so copy and pasting it here.
Just an idea to make the game more interesting
Many of us have been waiting for the draconian bases to be attackable.. as well as the alliance feature to be implemented in game. Like many in this game, I run an alliance of over 60 members with a fb group page. Here's a couple things that i believe will give this game a new dynamic to the game play especially for those of us in an alliance...
1. Implement the alliance feature
a. make it so that alliance members can transport resources to each other
b. Alliance members can guard each others bases (maybe with limitations?)
c. Alliance tag would be automatically added when a player joins an alliance rather than having to pay for a
name change.
d. give the founder of the alliance the ability to make titles for promoting members to and the ability to set
Permissions for each title
e. Include the ability for alliances to either be enemy, allies, or NAP'd (NAP= Non Aggression Pact)
2. attackable Drac bases
a. I would like to see these to be something that alliances can take control of
b. the alliance that wins control of the drac base recieves certain bonuses for there members that reside in the
sector of the controlled base (bonuses would vary for each drac base)
i. bonuses could be something like 25% bonus to attacks against enemy alliance, 25% bonus to defense
against enemy attacks, 25% speed bonus, etc (these are just some suggestions, not necessarily need to
be 25%)
c. Other alliances could try to take control of the base from an enemy alliance and thus gain the bonus for there
alliance should they win.
a few suggestions
1.) alliance damage dealt divided by repair time = highest damage to repair time wins this way the most efficient killers will win irrespective of the size and strength of the alliance.
2.) there could me a yeild option that way all alliances will have the option to yeild to the rule of BB!!!
3.) Resources looted or lost could also be incorporated into dmg vs rep ratio equasion
1. alliances need to be able to help each other. they need to be flagged and have privet comms.
2 when war is declared a alliance member can join the fight if the player is off line. weather the player is off line or not is only viable to the alliance members.
3 intersect need to be added- this is were you can tag a moving fleet for attack and as soon as it stops and you are within 30 sec the fleet will be attacked what ever base/fleet it was going after cant attack its target.
4 when war declared there be 5% more can be gained in resources for attacking a foe base. Ships can hold 550% capacity. the victor can gain 5% faster repair times.
5 victory is declared- when the foe faction surrenders by asking for the surrender conditions.
three option are given
1 surrender 20% of all alliance resources to be = distributed to winning alliances
2. all fleets destroyed- all fleet of losing alliance will be destroyed and return to base
3 tie- neater will give in the week time both alliance will declare tie at which time the can go for a continuation of war. for 1 more week at the end of that week the game will take total win/loss to decide the winner. losing alliance will get option 1 or 2 for them to decide how to pay the victor.
5 bulling from larger alliances- this is going to be a hard. start a section in the support section for request for parlay. when that is asked for some one can review how meany times an alliance has attacked the alliance asking for parlay. A way can be place where they are temp blocked from attacking or declaring war for bulling. the leadership is notified after 3 bulling charges and posted and found to be true the alliance is remover and leadership is blocked from making a new alliance.
1/2 Repair time is more then enough to keep the game in check!!
if raids are going to happen every month then fleets should be able to be built in a month!
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.
So after reading this again it looks to me like KIXEYE really has NO idea of how this Alliance idea will work.
But I do notice some points
1. Looks to me like this may be a move towards limiting group attacks on sectors by strong Alliances...catering to the whiners who don't like sector invasions
2. Again catering to whiners that don't like "No-IN-SECTOR-HITS" sectors (of which there are several mods who don't like these sectors)
3. By removing the Bubble defense and adding the alliance feature KIXEYE is going to try and force some people into fighting wither they want to or not
I think we need to see a lot more of KIXEYE's ideas about this feature before we waste our breath on it. like how many members in each alliance, will there be lvl restrictions on members of each Alliance? Lots of Questions and not much information
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 aWar. this is the dumbest part of the whole statement
Will every player be required to be a Alliance member, If not why should Alliance players be allowed extra points or bonuses. What I'm seeing here is use this feature or fall behind in points and bonuses same as if you don't play the raids "no play no goodies". And having never said this before "Just more unbalancing of the game to suit a minority of whiners".
player ID 56643, start date 28 march 2011.....Lvl 103.... BLACK PIRATES FOREVER
It's called Democracy, Stalin, one person formally makes the call, but the three of you take a vote.
I don't think that will work... There is a potential for abuse. I think that if you enter a war, relocate should be disabled for everyone involved for the duration. Otherwise, you could circumvent the "respect" score, by having 20 low level people in your alliance in sector, bait someone into war, then relocate all 20 lower levels out, and relocate the other 20 higher level players in, thereby negating any "respect" score difference, and stacking the deck in your favor. If alliance wars must be accepted by both parties, then relocate should be disabled for the length of the war. And if they DO decide to disable relocate for the whole war, then both parties MUST be required to accept the war to prevent one alliance from effectively holding another hostage and preventing them from relocating when they want to.
What if someone attacks your spelling and grammar?
Also, the same can be said about the suggestion for trading blueprints or anything else amongst alliance members, or other players in general. Entirely too much potential for abuse. All it takes is ONE hacker to hack up some blueprints, then trade them to other non-hacker players. The hacker may be banned for it, but the non-hackers will have a defense. "I didn't hack, and I didn't know the guy I traded from was hacking!"
As for the method for preventing large alliances from harassing smaller ones, I was thinking along the same lines as a few others, regarding the Alliance average system... First, there must be a reasonable limit to the number of players that can be in an alliance. Then, take the number of players in the alliance, and their respective levels, and come to some number based on that, whether it's an average, or a total of some sort. Like, if you have 20 lvl 30 players, their Alliance number would be 600, and prevent them from attacking attacking an alliance of 20 lvl 20 players whose number would only be 400. But for that system you would have to still consider the number of players in the alliance as well as the number, as 20 lvl 30 players= 30 lvl 20 players.
Also, I like the concept of points values for bases for determining victory, but that can't be the only factor. There has to be something to stop higher levels from warring with lower levels, because I don't care how many points you assign to a lvl 30 base's outpost, a lvl 25 will never get those points. Again, sorry for the wall-o-text.
What about us who are solo players? This will be unfair for those who wanna play alone and don't wanna bother with alliances and rules. KIXEYE don't forget the biggest CC players are solo players and i guess you dotn wanna lose them?
if the allaince wars will get rewards this is **** up. Then they should also give bigger rewards to those who got balls to fight alone and don't hide in a alliance as a wuzzie. Can rename this game to Wuzzie Pirates if they add this alliance future!
and in some sector the hole sector is 1 allianse how you fight that????????????????
I disagree with everything else in your initial post. Here is a detailed explanation:
"An Alliance can choose to instigate a war with one other Alliance once per week."
-War and the politics that surround it are fluid. There is no reason to limit how often anyone can change relations with anyone.
"War is a mutual posture meaning that both Alliances are set at "War" with each other when war is declared."
-Was is not always a mutual posture. Alliance A can be at war with Alliance B while alliance B runs or refuses to fight. I understand the thinking behind this but it is not necessary. Set relations are set relations.
"The target Alliance has no chance to avoid War although they can sue for peace after it has started."
-Duh. And "sue for peace" is a paper shield, another unnecessary function. Alliance leadership can negotiate relationships (that are fluid!)
"Only the Alliance Leader has control over setting Alliance postures and starting a War."
Ok so I lied. I am ok with this. There needs to be one boss.
"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."
-Again, fluid real-time postures.
"War bonuses: special bonuses that are generated from combat between warring Alliances."
-One step at a time. Introduce Alliances and group combat then worry about bonuses and rewards. Too much of this will further imbalance the game and give you a migraine. The only feature I can reasonably see being added is a bonus to being in an alliance. Allow up to five friendly ships at one time(one per level of your OP) to guard your base. That alone adds so many options for helping your friends both in a defensive posture or in real time fending off an attack by continually replacing fleets guarding your friends base during an attack. The wars just to get to someones base will be epic
"Victory Conditions: what factors are used to declare a winner"
-It is war. There is only one answer to this and it is the same as in any war. When one side surrenders, or a mutual treaty is agreed upon.
"Fair Fights: how to stop large powerful Alliances picking on much lower Alliances."
-War is not fair. In fact, the entire goal of war is to gain an unfair advantage. The premise of your game is battling pirates.
*Here is where I get on my pedestal and mention things I think are broken. I have been in the profession of arms for over ten years and been gaming since it was just a pen, paper, and a game master so please take note.
-If you want to address the strong picking on the weak you need to remember how your leveling system scales. It is exponential. A five level difference is huge. Allowing attacks on player up to five levels above you is fine. Allowing attacks on players up to five levels below you is sadistic. Up to two levels below you is sufficient to ensure the more developed players are fighting amongst their peers and is as fair and you can make it. Problem solved. You can not balance a fight between an alliance of 10 vs. an alliance of 50. Don't try, everyone will hate you.
-Allowing only a few, lets say four per sector, to gain significantly stronger ships completely ruins the experience for everyone else. It is understandable to reward the strong (and rich) few with these ships before everyone else. But after a few weeks if everyone else is not allowed to develop the same ships there is a disturbingly uneven battlefield which leads to exactly what you are trying to avoid in this statement. I have personally lost a lot of of enthusiasm for the game recently due to the growing imbalances that I am helpless to correct. The only thing that makes a game worth playing is having a fighting chance. Please stop eliminating this aspect.
Other notes:
-If you are going to have alliances and alliance leaders you will need a secure messaging system complete with broadcast messages to the entire alliance and possibly private alliance forums or chat. I suggest you start with an outside-the-game html based messaging system like the battle log and encourage each alliance to use their Facebook group for chat.
-Alliances should have a few ranks. A leader or "Captain", first mate, buccaneers, deckhands, etc.
-Money talks. Winning gold will motivate people. They will like spending it, and then want to buy credits.
-Instant fleet repairs? Instant upgrades? Come on, why don't you just make an "I win" button and auction it off? It would be simpler than writing all the game code... How bout speed ups of 25, 50, and 75% (MAYBE 90%) priced accordingly. Allowing anyone willing to blow more cash than the other guy to instantly get their stuff back is demoralizing. I understand that games today rely on a pay-per-play or continuous income fee schedule, and I understand that instant gratification is a hot seller, but you are sacrificing the integrity of your game. Also understand that there are many games out there under $100 dollars that are, lets say, more than you can get from any flash based Facebook game... The cost of doing business at higher levels is absurd. Costs have to be prohibitive enough to discourage instant win freaks, but affordable enough so that players spend money. Please consider boosts and % speed increases rather than instant win products. I have seen them be very successful (even in very bad Facebook games) while at the same time not alienating the player with a modest budget.
I like your game. I do not like the direction it has been going. I ask you to consider implementing major changes at a pace that is manageable. Almost everyone wants an in-game alliance. Please do not over-think it. This is a Beta experience and nothing will be completely right the first time. The combat system is fine how it is, adding a flag or a label that people can associate with their group will make a lot of people happy. Adding one feature that allows one to help their friends by guarding their bases will win you lots of love.
Thank you for considering my proposals. If you do find any of them beneficial I do accept gold as a token of appreciation
-the one, the only "V"
These sectors can have their own server so not effect to everyone else.
actually when i reported a problem kixeye gave me 150 gold which are equal to fb credits
Mr Swag... (love you about the sub thing, hate then ****)
Don't really have to over complicate things, that is sucky. For a reasonable way to see how an alliance works.... look at EVONY.
For the ultimate way to see how an alliance works... look at EVE online.
Now you can luxuriate in a nice jail cell, but if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet: I will end you.
OOPs this is a wishlist thing... i will do it there also.
Now you can luxuriate in a nice jail cell, but if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet: I will end you.
Now you can luxuriate in a nice jail cell, but if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet: I will end you.
HAHA you want to get something free? I guess you play the wrong game! and in the future with all these new changes if you don't use CC this game won't be playable for you.
Excellent idea. Been waiting a long time for this. Here is my opinion on your questions you've asked us:
1. War Bonuses: Small. Very small. Something around 1 free hour of repair time, or one free resource crate per alliance member that took part in the war. Wars are already everywhere in battle pirates.
2. Victory Conditions: Total "points." Resources or damage done could be used to score points. As higher level attackers and defenders will score more points because of higher values, use a weighted system. A level 25 can earn twice as many points as a level 30. I can't break down the numbers very well, but some calculations should be done of what an average lvl 25 brings home in a base attack, or average lvl 25 puts out in damage in a base attack should be made equal in points to what an average level 30 player can do with a multiplier of some kind.
3. Fair Fights: When an alliance is at war with a rival, they can no longer attack a low level player's ship (+/- 5 levels) that is in the mining state. Also it would help reduce low level players from being "snuffed out" of the game. Resources will be needed to continue fighting, so a small amount of protection from one alliance crippling the other would make it more fair. Motionless ships at sea should still be fair game for any player.
Protective bubble's duration should match repair time once repairs have started. You are at war, there is no safe place. But this is a video game, and we do want to play fairly. So keep the bubble, but it is only up while repairs are underway. While an alliance is not at war, bubble durations are as normal.
Players do not have to sign in and click repair to start the process. As soon as the bubble is up, repairs start immediately. This is to keep up a spirit of a war and keep the action flowing. This will also keep resources being exchanged and reduces the need of a large victory bonus.
Just a few of my thoughts that i think would make alliance wars very fun and interesting
Edit: One other thing I would like to add to this is I think the alliance war feature should be an End-game feature. Level 25, or even possibly up to level 28 should be the minimum level for taking part in the war. This gives lower level, new players something to strive for and look forward to. Also these newer players have a lot to concentrate on to just learn about playing the game. While I'm sure the average low level player would have fun taking part in the war, having them crawl before they can walk will help make the war experience much more competitive and exciting.
LMAO, never hurts to ask, hell im still waiting to attack drac bases, lol. Oh, and Platinum Mastercard baby... but the interest rate is for schmucks !!
Paypal... way to be.. quickerly... btch :cool:
Now you can luxuriate in a nice jail cell, but if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet: I will end you.
go seawolfs
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.
Just an idea to make the game more interesting
Many of us have been waiting for the draconian bases to be attackable.. as well as the alliance feature to be implemented in game. Like many in this game, I run an alliance of over 60 members with a fb group page. Here's a couple things that i believe will give this game a new dynamic to the game play especially for those of us in an alliance...
1. Implement the alliance feature
a. make it so that alliance members can transport resources to each other
b. Alliance members can guard each others bases (maybe with limitations?)
c. Alliance tag would be automatically added when a player joins an alliance rather than having to pay for a
name change.
d. give the founder of the alliance the ability to make titles for promoting members to and the ability to set
Permissions for each title
e. Include the ability for alliances to either be enemy, allies, or NAP'd (NAP= Non Aggression Pact)
2. attackable Drac bases
a. I would like to see these to be something that alliances can take control of
b. the alliance that wins control of the drac base recieves certain bonuses for there members that reside in the
sector of the controlled base (bonuses would vary for each drac base)
i. bonuses could be something like 25% bonus to attacks against enemy alliance, 25% bonus to defense
against enemy attacks, 25% speed bonus, etc (these are just some suggestions, not necessarily need to
be 25%)
c. Other alliances could try to take control of the base from an enemy alliance and thus gain the bonus for there
alliance should they win.
But I didn't start playing Battle Pirates to play well with others.
For those that will go rogue, please do not make this hurt our game (make us miss out on valuable assets in the game).
1.) alliance damage dealt divided by repair time = highest damage to repair time wins this way the most efficient killers will win irrespective of the size and strength of the alliance.
2.) there could me a yeild option that way all alliances will have the option to yeild to the rule of BB!!!
3.) Resources looted or lost could also be incorporated into dmg vs rep ratio equasion
1. alliances need to be able to help each other. they need to be flagged and have privet comms.
2 when war is declared a alliance member can join the fight if the player is off line. weather the player is off line or not is only viable to the alliance members.
3 intersect need to be added- this is were you can tag a moving fleet for attack and as soon as it stops and you are within 30 sec the fleet will be attacked what ever base/fleet it was going after cant attack its target.
4 when war declared there be 5% more can be gained in resources for attacking a foe base. Ships can hold 550% capacity. the victor can gain 5% faster repair times.
5 victory is declared- when the foe faction surrenders by asking for the surrender conditions.
three option are given
1 surrender 20% of all alliance resources to be = distributed to winning alliances
2. all fleets destroyed- all fleet of losing alliance will be destroyed and return to base
3 tie- neater will give in the week time both alliance will declare tie at which time the can go for a continuation of war. for 1 more week at the end of that week the game will take total win/loss to decide the winner. losing alliance will get option 1 or 2 for them to decide how to pay the victor.
5 bulling from larger alliances- this is going to be a hard. start a section in the support section for request for parlay. when that is asked for some one can review how meany times an alliance has attacked the alliance asking for parlay. A way can be place where they are temp blocked from attacking or declaring war for bulling. the leadership is notified after 3 bulling charges and posted and found to be true the alliance is remover and leadership is blocked from making a new alliance.
1.who causes most damage too enemy fleets/who loots the most from the enemy
facebook credits instead of using google search browser)
http://www.4loot.com/?id=354223&src=em
Reach 1,000 posts[]
Grow beard and dye it like swag post pic to forums[]
Win a Raid[X]
complete all blueprints[]
Maybe the Leaders should have a different Color Name Tag ......showing who the Alliance Leader is.
WC -- LVL - 33
Sectors : Home Sector 232, Visited - 11, 63, 149, 163, 176, 205, 232, 260, 302, 414
Toys - Dread X, Interdictors, Goliaths, BS, Cudas, SS A, HH A, B, Halos, BC, BB A, BS, Juggernaught, LC, LC X, Destroyers, Frigates, Corvettes
So after reading this again it looks to me like KIXEYE really has NO idea of how this Alliance idea will work.
But I do notice some points
1. Looks to me like this may be a move towards limiting group attacks on sectors by strong Alliances...catering to the whiners who don't like sector invasions
2. Again catering to whiners that don't like "No-IN-SECTOR-HITS" sectors (of which there are several mods who don't like these sectors)
3. By removing the Bubble defense and adding the alliance feature KIXEYE is going to try and force some people into fighting wither they want to or not
I think we need to see a lot more of KIXEYE's ideas about this feature before we waste our breath on it. like how many members in each alliance, will there be lvl restrictions on members of each Alliance? Lots of Questions and not much information
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. this is the dumbest part of the whole statement
Will every player be required to be a Alliance member, If not why should Alliance players be allowed extra points or bonuses. What I'm seeing here is use this feature or fall behind in points and bonuses same as if you don't play the raids "no play no goodies". And having never said this before "Just more unbalancing of the game to suit a minority of whiners".
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