Alliances

[adminGary]

I've been getting a lot of request about alliances. So I thought I would take a minute to shine some light on them.

At this point in time, I cannot confirm one way or another if alliances will be in the game.

If we do implement an alliance system. There won't be a bonus to being a part of an alliance.

I imagine at this time, alliances will just be a tag placed infront or after your name. Future updates may have more alliance support features, like an ingame alliance wide messaging system and ranking system.

We might even take it as far as requiring a monthly fee (naq) to keep the alliance recognized by an alliance charter. (there could be taxes on members to support this fee). It all depends on how people respond to the ideas put forth.

[semper]

fair enough.

I dont think many of us would ask for more than a tag, a button to say accepting members or not, a button to kick people and finally an ingame alliance ranking system. Absolute bare minimum for an alliance system in game.

I think you should have a maximum number of members, around the 30 mark to stop complete exponential growth.

[Nigatsu_Aka]

I say no for alliances, but if you do alliances, do not set a fixed cap for maximum number of members.

Make it variable: the stronger an alliance is, the more members it can accept. During wars this will be fun, cos alliances will loose members when they loose power. This will prevent long boring wars with statless accounts. And make it so that if an alliance has less than 5 members for a week, it is disbanded automaticaly. Send a message: "The 4 races council do not recognise your group as a valid alliance and forced you to disband" - or something like that.

[Juliette]

idea

Sounds good.

Just one question; the tag you get, is it through acceptance by the alliance leader, or does one set it themselves (like currently in Ascended, if you're familiar with that)?
The latter would be a pain with people getting tags of alliances they don't belong to etcetera.


@Semper: 30 is way too many.. start off at 10, work your way up buying expansion slots for your alliance; perhaps intertwine that whole expansion thing with the 'fee' that's bouncing in Gary's head? The larger your alliance, the higher the fee required to be a member?


Like Nigatsu though, I am positively inclined towards not having alliances in the game. Just for the record.

[semper]

ah yes... a good idea lois.

The one thing I will say though is, alliances are inevitable. The strong always stick together so they dont lose their power.

So you might as well have tags at the ultimate least.

[Cole]

There *has* to be alliances ingame, as they will exist anyway tag or not, so why not introduce them ingame as well?
As for adding a cost for extra members...why not.

[Su]

As many has said before, you will not prevent an alliance from existing, nor prevent people from being in one with a member cap. All that will do is create secondary and third alliances. Adding alliances in a game create more role play as well as more goals to strive for. I feel this is a good thing and having a ranking system for alliances is a must.

I do not think we should cap alliances what so ever.

A tax on alliances is a good idea.

Idle alliances = annoying.

[Manetheren]

Well I think there is more intrigue without tags.. easier to get moles in several alliance without ingame tags.

[Nigatsu_Aka]

Well I think there is more intrigue without tags.. easier to get moles in several alliance without ingame tags.

Exactly my thought.

Alliances can exist without an ingame tag. And this will not stop roleplaying at all.

[Skunky]

race only alliance LOLOL

**
with alliances can the rank be based on ME ( if we get it. don't have ME ranked though....)

[Lore]

As stated, you wont stop alliances from forming, actually they already have.

The "Tag" is irrelevant tho. You want a spy then let him in your alliance forums but not as a member of the alliance.

I like the alliance fees, No need for an Alliance bonuses

The ONLY bonus I might consider would be a trade bonus of some kind, but as we dont know what the trade system is then we wont talk about that yet


PLEASE Dear God NO ME,,,,,,,completely worthless information.

Make it so the accounts can see it only, not public, not ranked.

[Manetheren]

PLEASE Dear God NO ME,,,,,,,completely worthless information.

Make it so the accounts can see it only, not public, not ranked.

I second that.

[semper]

As stated, you wont stop alliances from forming, actually they already have.

The "Tag" is irrelevant tho. You want a spy then let him in your alliance forums but not as a member of the alliance.

I like the alliance fees, No need for an Alliance bonuses

The ONLY bonus I might consider would be a trade bonus of some kind, but as we dont know what the trade system is then we wont talk about that yet


PLEASE Dear God NO ME,,,,,,,completely worthless information.

Make it so the accounts can see it only, not public, not ranked.

Took the words right from my mouth. Literally lore... lol.

[Arcturus]

PLEASE Dear God NO ME,,,,,,,completely worthless information.

Make it so the accounts can see it only, not public, not ranked.

I second that.

Third

I like the alliance fees, No need for an Alliance bonuses

The ONLY bonus I might consider would be a trade bonus of some kind, but as we dont know what the trade system is then we wont talk about that yet

Alliance fees are a good idea to make sure alliances stay alive and active in game. However, I do believe that the method of payment should be handled entirely by the alliance outside of the game on their forums. Consider it a permanent activity check. Then again that would require some type of ingame player to player trading system.

[Juliette]

Fourthed.. or whatever.

(Disagree with Arc's idea on fees.)