Jump to content


Opt-out For War Task Donations

alliance tasks donations

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic


  • 16 posts
Hello everbody,
I want to suggest creating the possibility for a opt-out from war tasks and the alliance donations donations. A similiar suggestion has already been made here.
The idea is quite simple... An alliance member can for himself and (or?) the leader can for the members activate something like a vacation mode, it works similiar to the "enlisting" status: The member with that status can neither donate (and doesn't increase the final amount of resources needed to complete a task) nor profit from alliance boosts. This member can't score war points for the alliance too - but maybe his banner can still be taken by other alliances.
So the organization of alliances boosts would basically work like the organization of a picnic: When a member of your group tells he can't take part in the picnic, you simply bring less food for the one person less - so fewer resources have to be spent - and there will still be enough food for the ones taking part in the picnic.
Right now, the war tasks can be demanding and the alliances constantly have to struggle to complete their tasks. So in many cases, even valuable and very welcome members have to leave the alliance, when they can't play or can play less for a limited time, because they have exams for the next two weeks, they're moving to a new city, they got a new job and so on. In this time they won't be able to cope with their share of the donations...
According to my experience, that happens quite often - and it's very discouraging for both the member and the alliance as a whole. It either seems to result more often than necessary in members quitting the game completely, because they lost contact.
With a vacation mode, the alliance could keep members for some time. The members had something to come back to, even if they had to stop playing for some time. Or, if they just can play less, can still take part in the alliance life for the time they manage to play, without having to have a guilty conscience because of missed donations.
This vacation mode can easily be restricted, if that seems better for some reasons: For example an alliance only can have a certain amount of "inactive" players or the status has a time limit.

  • 6


  • 817 posts

Easy +1, initially thought this to be a cop-out idea for non-donators, but after reading further, this would be a huge addition to the game.


Perhaps just a privilege only to be  granted by the top 2 ranks in the alliance.

  • 0


  • 3,179 posts

Good idea in theory, but I dunno, seems like ti might be more coding by Con than it's worth.   If the alliance can't/won't "carry you" while you're on vacation, then you can self police by leaving the alliance and rejoining when you come back.   If you came back mid-round, you'd still be in enlisted mode, so there's literally no difference (mechanically) between this and leaving the alliance and rejoining.


I understand the appeal of keeping "dormant" members.  I kept the former leader of my alliance for nearly a year after he stopped playing, and many other "valued" members for long periods as well, but it it does little to keep them -- sure they may come back, but even with them still in the alliance i doesn't keep them.   If fact i found that carrying dormant players had the opposite effect -- players would leave the alliance as they felt it was dying/dead (even with us completing the tasks with no issues).      




Generally speaking.....


Graphics changes are easiest as they're purely cosmetic.

New gear/weapons/components are easy as they're just adding to the database of items. (not counting balance issues)

New locations are not overly difficult (provided you use existing artwork/mobs)

Behind the scenes tweaks on the other hand can be hard, even for the most seemingly minor additions.  Manipulating the games code means lots of checks to make sure there are no conflicts.   Changes to the code can sometimes produce unexpected and completely unrelated effects (the update that caused that was the one that changed the infected bounties from a 24 hour timer).

Large scale changes to combat systems, alliances, wars, etc. are of course the hardest, and prone to cause the most damage (i.e. bugs).




I'm not saying this is a bad idea, I just think it's more trouble than it's worth.

  • 0


  • 16 posts

I was hoping the code of the similiar enlisting status could maybe serve as a base for further work.


It's of course possible already now to sustain an alliance. But it's hard, especially if you try to take in new members and newer players too in order to support them... And still want to complete the war tasks, which some alliances seem to have abandoned already.

With new members you basically never know - I tend to give them a chance to play in an alliance, and often end up having to kick them one or two weeks later, because they can't cope with their share of the donations. That's of course a burden for the alliance's war tasks, but it seems to be the necessary price to keep an alliance alive by recruiting new members. Newer players (with lower levels too) are an additional burden too, in spite of all help and tips in most cases they still need some time to find their personal strategy to cope with the donations.


I'm not sure if there are significant differences between Kongregate and the AG / FB server. They latter has more players, but faces the same problems, I'd say.


So the inactive status would help to cope with the irregularities of an active alliance and relieve the pressure especially for those alliances that try to be open and supportive, and thus einrich the game.

  • 0

Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: alliance, tasks, donations