Jump to content

Photo

Alliance Wars - Potential Overhaul

alliance wars targets

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
108 replies to this topic

#41
Sgt_Garthy

Sgt_Garthy
  • 2 posts

Alliance (possible) Fixes:

Instead of more raiding rewards, Why not add a defence reward?

Every Failed attempt will contribute towards your reward.

 

Alliance Join Cooldown.

Allot of players (if raided allot) will kick their members to eliminate them from the war.

 

I'll leave it simple and short.

Your welcome to correct this information if deemed a neccecity.


  • 1

#42
Deadzoner

Deadzoner
  • 75 posts

Con and Sev, since white flags are removed, do the white flags buyers get compensation for fuel or exchange another book since the white flag buyers spent fuel to buy the white flag book. Thanks for responding in advance.

 

Cheers,

Deadzoner


  • 0

#43
hershelwise

hershelwise
  • 300 posts

Con and Sev, since white flags are removed, do the white flags buyers get compensation for fuel or exchange another book since the white flag buyers spent fuel to buy the white flag book. Thanks for responding in advance.

 

Cheers,

Deadzoner

 

This is what Con said:

 

Things we have ruled out:
- Removing the white flag.

 

Meaning they are NOT taking away the White Flag :)


  • 2

#44
Deadzoner

Deadzoner
  • 75 posts

This is what Con said:

 

Things we have ruled out:
- Removing the white flag.

 

Meaning they are NOT taking away the White Flag :)

Whew, I thought they really remove the white flag. Luckily, white flags are not being removed. Thanks hershelwise for clearing my doubts. :pp


  • 0

#45
Lefty_Grimes

Lefty_Grimes
  • 290 posts

In regards to trashing, could we just reduce the amount of resources/components needed to repair buildings? For DMU players, a wrecked Compound is fixed in about 15 minutes. For non-DMU players, a wrecked Compound means scrambling to loot more resources and nails/bolts/wire. A few wrecks in a row and the games stops being fun.


  • 0

#46
joeIII

joeIII
  • 429 posts

Points for defending sounds awesome, but what about disconnects?  If you don't give defending points on 'losing' a raid via disconnect, there's a huge impetus to refresh the browser rather than lose.  If you do give defending points, that's a big disincentive for folks that have stability issues with the game (about 1 in 3 of my raids end in a flash crash, usually at the start or exit). 

 

Something needs to be done to make defense worthwhile in the new system.  But I don't know if the game is stable enough for defending points to be the solution.


  • 1

#47
carloscar

carloscar
  • 47 posts

Even if you limit the number of alliance members per alliance, I don't think they will follow what you want and start attacking each other for some fuel or rewards.

 

Instead what I think it will happen is that they will create a lot of other alliances and collaborate between they so they always camp on the first positions on the wars and not attack each other.

 

What about putting a weight to the raiders to avoid them from camping like this:

 

If a raider gets a lot of points and for several weeks his weight increases so much as he becomes as good as 5 players.

 

raider1 is very good at raiding so he weights 5 players

 

raider 2 is a regular raider not so bad so he weights 2 players

 

raider 1 sucks at raiding so he weights 1 player.

 

so if many good raiders get together in a single alliance their number of members will be reduced.

 

This would also help with the overpowered alts.

 

after a set amount of time his weight decreases to 1 player again.

 

This is just an idea that it was on top of my head.


  • 1

#48
Lefty_Grimes

Lefty_Grimes
  • 290 posts

While limiting alliance membership may not increase the total pool of targets, it will increase the pool of targets for individual alliances.

 

For example, let's say Example Alliance 1 (EA1) has 40 members and scores 2,000 total points on average in a War Round. Should the member count be reduced to 20, then 20 of those members will be without a home. Let's say those 20 orphans create a new alliance, Example Alliance 2 (EA2), and take 1,000 total war points with them. Considering that both alliances would score around the same number of points,  EA1 now has 20 more potential war targets. Members of EA2 now have 20 more potential war targets.

 

While this example doesn't take into account the level differences between members of the fictitious alliance and how many members fly the White Flag, it stands to reason that if every warring alliance halves themselves, they would have potential access to a number of targets equal to half their current membership. This could also drastically shake up the leaderboard, which may open alliances up to potentially even more targets.


  • 0

#49
aurara

aurara
  • 88 posts

Thanks for the posts and for the topic (really love how the team takes so much player feedback).  I read through the suggestions and just refining an option:

 

The game supporting two types of PvP (Raiding) at the same time.

 

1 - Normal, non-Alliance PvP.  Same as it is now.  You pick your target, you go in, kill their players, take their stuff, and trash their place (pretty much grief them for whatever reason).  White Flag will work as normal.  No War points are accumulated.  Nothing has changed. 

 

2 - Alliance PvP.  This is what will change.  If you have a White Flag equipped and you are in an Alliance, you can't attack (so you can't be attacked normally outside of Alliance PvP, the previous version of PvP mentioned above).  However, you can be attacked (please continue reading before getting mad) if you are selected from the random generated targets (continue reading).  Players without a WF and in an Alliance, can now randomly generate 5 targets from any other Alliance members (targets can be refined according to your alliances score or whatever) every two hours to choose from.  Once you choose your target from that list, you attack them and get points (similar to the island) for completing certain objectives: stealing the flag, looting their stuff, killing their players, ect.  There's a max amount of points that you can get, say 30.  Also, you can have points reduced for loosing players, for length of time, taking a certain amount of damage, etc.  Once you have completed the Alliance PvP raid, your points are added to your alliance score and then the compound is reset.  Yes, reset.  Besides points, nothing happens to the compound.  Nothing is destroyed, no players are hurt, nothing is stolen.  It's as if nothing really happened.  The defending player logs on, gets a report, and their compound is unaffected.  As others pointed out, defenders could obtain points too.  The items "stolen" during a raid happens in a set amount too.  Say each time you loot a container you get exactly 50 wood, 10 FUEL, or 25 water.  Not the percentage of items in there or the full amount of FUEL.

 

I think this gives people what they want (there will always be Alliance targets to choose from) without completely changing what some players may currently enjoy.  Players in an alliance with an equipped WF may not like having their compounds attacked (but nothing actually has been taken or destroyed), but you can add that attacking player to the bounty office or have players in your alliance take revenge for you by attacking their compound in the normal fashion and completely injure their players, steal their stuff, and destroy their compound.  This would reduce the chances that you'd be attacked again.  You can just delete the report too since it really didn't affect your compound.  Thanks for reading.


Edited by aurara, 06 October 2015 - 06:13 PM.

  • 0

#50
billgfjhghghghgh

billgfjhghghghgh
  • 148 posts

Con i got a question ..If you make it so you get points for defending and that defender gain points if he get trashed...wouldnt that be easy to exploit like : you got an alt in other alliance and you attack your alliance members trash them or fail them so they gain points ...?


  • 0

#51
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 812 posts

Con i got a question ..If you make it so you get points for defending and that defender gain points if he get trashed...wouldnt that be easy to exploit like : you got an alt in other alliance and you attack your alliance members trash them or fail them so they gain points ...?

I think he meant defending the alliance flag.


  • 0

#52
Sev

Sev
  • 553 posts

Con i got a question ..If you make it so you get points for defending and that defender gain points if he get trashed...wouldnt that be easy to exploit like : you got an alt in other alliance and you attack your alliance members trash them or fail them so they gain points ...?

 

Whilst this is a potential problem, by having the match making system as the only way to get a valid target you won't be able to easily find your alt in the first place.  

 

Also, I am looking into the possibility of white washing the results so that any alliances you have alts in won't ever appear in your list.  Either that or they will be worth less points.

 

This could be a problem for those people that share computers / accounts as they will find it harder to get points / targets, but I think the pros will out way the cons.  They can always join the same alliance if they want.



#53
THE CAMANDO

THE CAMANDO
  • 49 posts

Mate anything you can do to increase the target list would be greatly appreciated,,,,the death of this game for me is the lack often of any targets to hit,,,,,  i also dont think you need to reduce alliance size but i reckon look at giving individual players a ranking based on their raiding history  that could include their bounty successes as well to formulate their ranking score and make them available to us if they ranked similar to us...  so take out the importance of alliance ranking and make it more player versus player in term of performance and skill !!!     many good raiders are in soft alliances who score little hence no point for us to raid them or they never available b/c they not in top 40 alliance.(yet these raiders get high points if they are able to raid us)


  • 1

#54
Max1144

Max1144
  • 416 posts

------ Automated match making system looks like a brand new way to do pvp.

- More targets:  yeah, needed a lot

- Less time spent searching for targets - also very very welcome

- Almost no chance of exploitation / flag swapping - also good, but I think marginal. You guys are tracking that, right? :P

- No griefing / harassment - Well, that is the part I am going to miss out on. Having the ability to attack choosen targets once they pissed You off in chat..

- No "holding" of targets - It is only a side effect of the current system. People did this because there wasn't enough targets open that were worth good points. Top1 alliance is worth ( depending on point gap) 16-20 points to 2nd/ 3rd alliance, while almost all other allinaces are worth around 7-8.

- No "hiding" in lower ranked alliances - When the war boxes were introduced they did increase the number of ppl raiding, but only in a statisctical way. Thing is it is way easier to get 300 in alliance with 1 raider then in activly raiding alliance. You get more targets AND more points for the same targets. For this reason ppl that raid just for the war box prefer to stick to one man alliances.

 

- You can't attack whoever you want. - Well I can totally live with that if I have a few open targets each time I open the game.

- The retaliation system would have to be go / be reworked. -What about the neighbours list? Does it have to go too? Cause it could stay and we could attack back from there.

- It will take some time to implement. - Well, island was worth waiting for... so I hope this one will be too.

 

------ Other possible changes:

- Lowering the number of players that can be in an alliance - down to perhaps 20, maybe 10 on kong / yahoo. - It doen't make much diferent with automated match making so I am betting You are planning to use it along with current system..... but how is it supposed to help? I have 6 page of possible alliance targets and less ppl in those aliances means less potential targets. You probably noticed that even top raiding alliances don't have that many active members - even at 20 capacity they would still go with the same pace.... I honestly have no idea what is this change supposed to fix/ prevent/help.
- Decreasing the chance of being hurt in defence - Would that mean less protection time? This change might get in some non-dmu users to raid as meds are problematic for them.
- Increasing the strength of buildings - What buildings? Increasing how? Might be good or bad.. kinda depends on what You want to do specificly.
- Awarding points for successfully defending against a raid - not a bad idea, but overall marginal in the whole lack of targets / active raiders problem
- Losing some points for losing a flag - same as above
- Refreshing the alliances / personal rewards - how is that supposed to work? I mean if I am in top3 alliance and we have 3k war points half of the round. I can't find no targets so I refresh... but then my list is filled with alliances that have very low points and possibly all of the targets there are worth 0 pts... Assaigning pts would have to change before implementing this.
- Bonus points for downing attackers, even if you lose the flag - also  marginal
- Participation points - eg: 5 pts for attacking / being attacked. - as above
- Defence bonus - get points when your buildings are destroyed (trashing would give points away) - as above

 

------ Minor edit

- Adding in a 'recruiting' chat room - specifically for people recruiting, like how the trade rooms are for trading... - That is a bad idea, trade high is already dead enough, recruit channel would be EMPTY. Besides, ppl can recruit in trade / normal chat... so is there really a need for such channel?

 

------ Topic that weren't raised and I think could be addresed too:

- Alt raiding - many ppl still choose to make an alt when the hit higher level, I think the best way to make points should be to level up to 55 and then raid. Currently it is the other way around and due to that ppl literaly avoid leveling up. Reasons are:

- easier to find targets for low level accounts

- there are many more unexperienced players at lower levels

- guns/gear are way cheaper then those for high levels

I think the raiding for low level / mid level players is a good idea, but I don't think that they should be able to compete point wise at all.

 

- Fuel raiding - this is the part of the game that I really enjoy. Looting generators that have fuel inside. Will there be some kind of neighbour list where I could find possible targets and visit them again after some time?

 

------ Summary

I am really glad that we are finally talking about raiding, that being said I think You should decided which way You want the changes to go. Some of the changes suggested above go one way, some go the other way, so to sum it all up do we want:

 

1. More targets in general

- autmated match making system

- making another war tab with targets picked upon Your score, for example:

http://forum.conarti...additional-tab/

- there is this crazy idea I saw in other game - making ghost attacks - for example, once someone logs of he can be attacked 3 times, but only the first attack counts.. it does take away the pleasure of trashing cuase You don't know if it will count, but on the other hand - You get x3 targets just like that.

 

OR

 

2. More raiders partictipating in ranked wars instead of going for war box

- Giving fuel to more alliances that rank high - was suggest a lot of times. Right now we got only 3 ranked places.. how about making it top8? ( first page basicly) It would definatly be more intresting to see 5 more alliances competing and probably there would be a lot more rotation then it is now in top3.

- Bringing in some other form of a raid reward - right now it takes a lot of effort to be top3 and the rewards are really small, given that ppl usually speed up to get enough points.

 

OR

 

3. More players joining the raid community, vast majority of them being non-dmu

- Making ammo boxes more common - adding two extra ammo boxes in each war box.. or some other way

- Decreasing the chance of being hurt in defence

- Less cost to rebuild


Edited by Max1144, 07 October 2015 - 11:12 AM.

  • 2

#55
blueheros

blueheros
  • 3 posts

Just to make this clear, the idea behind this is to spread out the players who are in Alliances. With an automated matchmaking system, if everyone is in a small number of alliances, it makes the target options much smaller. But, if they're more distributed, there's more viable targets available because they're not all stacked into one alliance. 

Dear Con,

 

According to your explanation, I understand as follows:

 

For example,

If there is 40 members of teams A,B,C,D,E, they will be separated down into 20 members teams A1,A2,B1,B2,C1,C2,D1,D2,E1,E2. So, there will apparently look like more targets. But, in reality, it seems don’t make to increase targets.

 

Let assume I am an average raider in team A and later in team A1 after separated.

I think due to breaking down into smaller alliance, it will not help me to get more targets. Because, although teams (B to E) is separated as more alliance teams (B1 to E2), the number of available member targets will be same for me whether they are in same big team or different small teams.

 

The only extra targets I can get is around 2-3 players (excluding white flag player & a bit higher lvl player of me if I am mid-lvl) of similar lvl around me which is separated into team A2 (which are my old alliance members in original team A). And those 2-3 members will also be under attacked by other teams (B to E) same as usual before seperation and in most of the time, they will be under protection shield.  So, I may only have a chance to attack them once per player per week if I am lucky.

 

So, as per update on breaking down into small alliances, I understand like the following changes/unchanged will be happened.

 

(1) If I am in big alliance, I will get 2-3 extra targets (possibly have chance to attack once per player per week). So, in short, total 2-3 attack chances per war round. And these extra targets will be my old teammate and probably I may not willing to attack them.

 

(2) If I am in small alliance, there will only have same target numbers because it will not make difference for me whether my targets are in same big alliance or small different alliances. But, separating my opponent big alliance may lead to lower their alliance rank a little bit and it will only result me getting less points than before separation when I raid same player (former big alliance member).

 

In short, only a member (raider only) from a big alliance (around 40 members) can only get total 2-3 extra attacks per war round to his former teammate. I didn’t see any difference due to this change in limitation of member number as far as I understand. And beside, there maybe other possible negative outcomes as stated by other people posts.

 

Total Effectiveness

 

(1) Out of all active alliances, 20% of alliance is big alliance (around 40 members) and 80% of alliance is small alliance (around 20 members or less). So, it will only get extra targets of 20% of active alliances.

 

(2) Out of remaining 20%, 80% of members are non-raiders (White Flag, non-raiders and player who do only revenge raid & bounty hunt) and 20% of members are active raiders. So, 20% of 20%, total 4% of players will get extra targets

 

(3) Out of remaining 4%, 2/4 of players may not willing to attack own teammate, 1/4 of players cannot attack because their extra target alliance rank is too low or too high, 1/4 of players may willing to attack for war pts. So, the effectiveness on 1/4 of 4% is 1%.

 

(4) Out of remaining 1%, 80% of time will be under protection shield due to attack by other opponents and 20% of time may have chance to raid. So, 80% of remaining 1% is 0.2% in total effectiveness.

 

This is only example calculation just to find out the theory behind which result 0.2% and it may increase up to 0.5% by taking safety factor on reality situations (which is 2.5 times increased amount). So, the grand-total effectiveness of the whole chances is 0.5% (0.005 attacks on total attacks will be increased)(which is even not 1%).

 

It will be highly appreciated if you re-consider on that the update upon member limitation. And current 50 members limitation is the best in my opinion. We can enjoy having fun in ally chat. J

 

Thank You


Edited by blueheros, 07 October 2015 - 04:08 PM.

  • 8

#56
MrSurvivor

MrSurvivor
  • 21 posts

I don't want the "participation" thing because if I think what you are saying then it would mean people can put one guy, and then quickly leave. Also, not really important, but can you do something about the damn inside corner compound bases!?

 

EDIT:

Suggestions:

 (1) Alliances should cost fuel to keep online (ex: maybe like 100 or 50 fuel a month or something) to keep alliances from cluttering and being inactive. For the automated matchmaking, each person should be given an "activeness" rating and raid people who are active, etc, so people don't get stuck raiding someone with no resources and only a flag...

 

 (2) Alliance rewards are okay as they are now but I think that there should be unique rewards just for war boxes so people have more incentive to go to war (ex: special "war" items like premium items that can only be found in war boxes, ofc around your level.)

 

 (3) It should not tell you how many points you win when you search for people to raid. Instead there should be a system-only number that it gives you and gives you a percentage of points based on how you did:

Ex: if 21 points are available

a) 7-8 points for taking the flag

B) 1-2 points for each enemy survivor down

c) Some other for doing random misc tasks? (ex: hitting a workbench? or something like that)

 

 (4) Alliance members should have an option to revenge for other alliance members of the same level?

 (5) Unimportant: Be able to raid people more than five levels above you but stil only 5 below

 

EDIT #2:

Technically if you put the "get points for defending flag" people could exploit it with the current system but if you add the automated matchmaking system there would be no problem...hopefully


Edited by MrSurvivor, 07 October 2015 - 05:50 PM.

  • 0

#57
JCBecks

JCBecks
  • 272 posts

I dig it, when's launch date?

 

:P

 

Couple thoughts:

 

- I love the idea of lowering alliance member capacity to 20-30 on FB/AG. To Sev/Con's point, this will spread raiders out among alliances. Plus, looking through even the top alliances (L1N, A0A, S0N) they don't even have more than 35 members or so most rounds.

- I honestly don't care about not being able to pick my own target. Having a target open PERIOD would be a nice change!

- I didn't see anything about dropping protection time. 8 hours is wayyyyy too long! If it's dropped to 4 hours, so you can be raided 3 times over 12 hours, 3 flags lost... not the end of the world.

- Can the top 5 or 8 alliances be worth the same amount of War Points as each other? It sucks when you're ranked 1st... they raid you for +27, but you raid them for +13.


  • 0

#58
joeIII

joeIII
  • 429 posts

- I didn't see anything about dropping protection time. 8 hours is wayyyyy too long! If it's dropped to 4 hours, so you can be raided 3 times over 12 hours, 3 flags lost... not the end of the world.

Yeah, what happened to dropping protection times!  This new system is already designed to make the least equipped players more vulnerable.  Lets go all out and increase the frequency of raids as well.

 

We'll never get to the point of addressing the real problem of pvp balance unless we get folks paying attention to it.


  • -1

#59
MAKcU

MAKcU
  • 32 posts

Dear Con,

 

According to your explanation, I understand as follows:

 

For example,

If there is 40 members of teams A,B,C,D,E, they will be separated down into 20 members teams A1,A2,B1,B2,C1,C2,D1,D2,E1,E2. So, there will apparently look like more targets. But, in reality, it seems don’t make to increase targets.

 

Let assume I am an average raider in team A and later in team A1 after separated.

I think due to breaking down into smaller alliance, it will not help me to get more targets. Because, although teams (B to E) is separated as more alliance teams (B1 to E2), the number of available member targets will be same for me whether they are in same big team or different small teams.

 

The only extra targets I can get is around 2-3 players (excluding white flag player & a bit higher lvl player of me if I am mid-lvl) of similar lvl around me which is separated into team A2 (which are my old alliance members in original team A). And those 2-3 members will also be under attacked by other teams (B to E) same as usual before seperation and in most of the time, they will be under protection shield.  So, I may only have a chance to attack them once per player per week if I am lucky.

 

So, as per update on breaking down into small alliances, I understand like the following changes/unchanged will be happened.

 

(1) If I am in big alliance, I will get 2-3 extra targets (possibly have chance to attack once per player per week). So, in short, total 2-3 attack chances per war round. And these extra targets will be my old teammate and probably I may not willing to attack them.

 

(2) If I am in small alliance, there will only have same target numbers because it will not make difference for me whether my targets are in same big alliance or small different alliances. But, separating my opponent big alliance may lead to lower their alliance rank a little bit and it will only result me getting less points than before separation when I raid same player (former big alliance member).

 

In short, only a member (raider only) from a big alliance (around 40 members) can only get total 2-3 extra attacks per war round to his former teammate. I didn’t see any difference due to this change in limitation of member number as far as I understand. And beside, there maybe other possible negative outcomes as stated by other people posts.

 

Total Effectiveness

 

(1) Out of all active alliances, 20% of alliance is big alliance (around 40 members) and 80% of alliance is small alliance (around 20 members or less). So, it will only get extra targets of 20% of active alliances.

 

(2) Out of remaining 20%, 80% of members are non-raiders (White Flag, non-raiders and player who do only revenge raid & bounty hunt) and 20% of members are active raiders. So, 20% of 20%, total 4% of players will get extra targets

 

(3) Out of remaining 4%, 2/4 of players may not willing to attack own teammate, 1/4 of players cannot attack because their extra target alliance rank is too low or too high, 1/4 of players may willing to attack for war pts. So, the effectiveness on 1/4 of 4% is 1%.

 

(4) Out of remaining 1%, 80% of time will be under protection shield due to attack by other opponents and 20% of time may have chance to raid. So, 80% of remaining 1% is 0.2% in total effectiveness.

 

This is only example calculation just to find out the theory behind which result 0.2% and it may increase up to 0.5% by taking safety factor on reality situations (which is 2.5 times increased amount). So, the grand-total effectiveness of the whole chances is 0.5% (0.005 attacks on total attacks will be increased)(which is even not 1%).

 

It will be highly appreciated if you re-consider on that the update upon member limitation. And current 50 members limitation is the best in my opinion. We can enjoy having fun in ally chat. J

 

Thank You

+1


  • 2

#60
RainbowDashBeat

RainbowDashBeat
  • 14 posts

Personally, I'm happy with the alliances the way they are now, I don't really like the overhaul


  • -4



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: alliance, wars, targets