Alliance Change Idea

[Lazuli73]

Phew, that was a lot to read. Well, might as well drop in my two cents. Can't hurt, can it?

As many of the veterans know I am not one for PvP, I don't come to Loka to fight. I have Hunger Games for that. I fall into a very small niche of veteran players who don't actively participate in Conquest, so I am not fully aware of its technicalities. Based on what I've read and my personal experiences I beleive the root of the issue is the progression of growth over time.

Let me explain. When this new world became live, the already established veteran groups went off in opposing directions since it was pretty much a huge land-grab. Within the first few days strong groups, for example Zor and whoever fallows him, already established a town, had a lot of mined resources, and maybe a few t-gens. I'll be honest I don't remeber the first few days very well since I was off doing my own little thing in the jungle like the hermit I am.

Veteran groups like Zor's were organized like the Thrid Reich and were ready from the word go. This level of preparation only comes from literal years of Lokan experience, which has its advantages yes, but to the eyes of a new player, it's rather daunting.

I'm not really suggesting a solution, since what I have to offer is highly unlikely anyone will agree with me. If by chance we wipe everything and start fresh, no towns and whatever, we make resource collection have a limited quota that cannot be surpassed until a town has reached a certain level.

As an example a young town, or even a nomad, can only collect say a stack of iron ore, thirty two gold ores, and four diamond ores a day. This would essentially nerf the experienced Lokan's from massing a hoard of diamonds and gear before everyone else can even register what happened. It came as a shock to me when I heard Zor had amassed a stack of diamond blocks within three weeks, when I, living as a nomad, had maybe four.

Probably part of the problem the server faces is the intense whiplash of seeing the entire northern continent covered in blue. Most people, I find, play Loka with an "all or nothing" mentality. If we can't be the best, why bother? Again I fall into a minority of people who just want a pretty town and watch the blood bath from their beach chair.

As for the Wiki issue, the compliant is very valid. The Wiki has been neglected to waste away for a very long time. To my memory I only heard of the Wiki being regularly updated when Jedi took an interest in updating it and editing it. I can see why poeple would be unhappy with the lack of up-to-date material. Even the lore pages seem emaciated with a lack of detail.

Editing is one of the most time consuming tasks one has to deal with. Updating the Wiki is nothing but editing and can be a bit overwhelming. A few weeks ago Jedi spent hours combing through it, deleting pages that were utterly useless and added nothing to the Wiki. The staff members are spread so thin that one can see why less important things, like updating the Wiki, are often pushed aside.

Sorry I wasn't able to provide anything of real substance to the conversation. Hopefully we can iron out more of the wrinkles soon. Loka is something that evolves with time, and people need to evolve with it.

 

[Jedoi]

Editing is one of the most time consuming tasks one has to deal with. Updating the Wiki is nothing but editing and can be a bit overwhelming. A few weeks ago Jedi spent hours combing through it, deleting pages that were utterly useless and added nothing to the Wiki. The staff members are spread so thin that one can see why less important things, like updating the Wiki, are often pushed aside.

Don't listen to her William. *covers the wiki's ears* You're a good wiki and I very much enjoy editing you. You're not less important and I'd never push you aside!

 

[Cryptite]

After some discussion with both Mag and planzorg, etc we think we've figured out what the real underlying issue is with our system. In effect, planz is right that Alliances are too strong. The intent was Alliances granted towns advantages in Conquest along with the combined chat channel, larger community, etc. However, the system of Conquest really caters heavily towards Alliance given that they act like a single town, but with the ability to place multiple inhibs, use multiple different beacons (for more reinforcements), and have the combined strength. Where this fails is when the numbers of actual players are equal between two forces, but because one force is an Alliance, they get more perks.

In the end, the system should really just be cognizant, in some way, of how many people are involved with doing Conquest Activities. The example we came up with to prove its unfairness is the following:

• The Isle has, let's say, 6 players that they've been doing fights with.
• Elysium (the alliance) also has 6 players actively doing Conquest battles.
• However, the 6 Elysium players are actually sets of 2 people in three different towns.
• Because Elysium is an alliance, they get three inhibitors, three beacons, but one strength.

That's unfair when it's really 6v6. If it's 6v6 and one side is an Alliance, they shouldn't get the extra perks, and that's where the problem is. We'll be addressing this soon, certainly by January. Alliances should still exist and have perks but they shouldn't be arguably required to win Conquest. If an Alliance gets a unified strength value, then they should act like a single town as well.

 

[Ajaxan]

As a side note, I just want to express my appreciation to the community. I know in my last message I expressed some frustration towards it but in general this is still one of the more open and accepting communities I've found in a long time. Loka has unique gameplay and a very fun group of people. I'm looking forward to staying involved and helping out where I can.

 

[MrAlchemy]

*The sky above turns ferociously dark and small powdered white flakes whip into the crackling air, falling from above. You open your mouth and one lands on your tongue. To your surprise it's not snow, it's SALT*

So what benefits are you going to add to balance out the power you are taking from us? By this logic, many towns who are not in an "official" alliance could easily take down those towns who are, because they are not restricted in the placement of inhibs. We could break up Vanaheimr into an unofficial alliance, not attack each other, and retain our abilities to place an inhib per town. (see where I'm going with this?)

It would be ever so gracious of you to provide something in return for nerfing ( that's right I said it! nerfed! ) alliances in this manner. Perhaps an alliance specific territory building that provides a benefit that non-alliance towns would have a hard time competing with (perm strength II against attackers who arent in an alliance?). SOMETHING...

If one loses power for unifying, why would one choose to do so in a game of RISK? Why would anyone unify, if in doing so it would stifle the strength of all the towns that participate in the alliance?

By this logic: Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Egypt unofficially ally with each other behind closed doors, and attack the EU, officially allied countries. The EU may only counterattack once while three tiny countries can attack consistently and continually unabated by silly rules that the alliance is slave to. The EU must wait much longer to do 1/3 of the damage these tiny countries can do in 1/3 the time, even if the EU has 14 countries in it!

If you intend on tying my hands behind my back for a fight, you better as hell give me spiked shoes or I aint fighting at all...

*The sky opens up and a lush vivid blue drawn by the hands of Bob Ross himself sweeps across the horizon as the salty storm departs.*

 

[Leasaur]

I may be mistaken, but the multiple-inhibs feature an alliance has is there to /encourage/ towns to form alliances?

 

[Ajaxan]

So I agree and disagree with this idea. I agree because:

In this scenario the town of the Isles has an army 3x the size of the three towns it's fighting against and it sure as hell should be a fair fight then. I tend to agree that giving power to alliances simple because they are alliances makes no sense. Two towns both with 5 people shouldn't be stronger than a town with 10 people for no other reason than those two smaller towns are in an alliance together.

I disagree because

Now, towns are encourage to disbanned alliance in an attempted to build more inhibitors. This isn't what we want either because if alliances offer disadvantages then people will just say no to them altogether.

Here is my solution.

So I small change that goes in the direction of what you're thinking Crypt. It takes three (or two, perhaps even five!) people to build an inhibitor. So your alliance must have three (again this number can change) members online to build one. Those players can't build another one until their current one is finished doing its thing. Now those three players can be a part of different towns as long as their towns are in alliance. This evens the playing field because now a massive single city can have multiple inhibs if they have the players but being in an alliance is also encouraged because you can work together with your allies to start an inhib.

 

[MrAlchemy]

Alliances: Lose more territory points when attacked, can only attack once.
Rogue Nations Acting As One: Lose less when attacked, can attack multiple times.

Just to clarify for the tldr; crew.

 

[Ajaxan]

Alliances: Lose more territory points when attacked, can only attack once.
Rogue Nations Acting As One: Lose less when attacked, can attack multiple times.

This is a rather one sided way to look at it. Especially since it doesn't look like any concrete decision has been made concerning this. Crypt simply said that things need to change to give alliances advantages based more on their numbers as opposed to their status as alliances. In reality alliances were just an agreement to work together. Isn't that what alliances should be?

I didn't know about the lose less points/lose less points thing though and I agree that that should be dropped. I can imagine this mechanic was mean to protect smaller towns from larger alliances and give them a fighting chance in the standings, but it should be implemented around towns numbers and level and not on alliance status. That way a massive town that doesn't join an alliances doesn't get benefits from it but the actual small towns do.

 

[MrAlchemy]

In reality alliances were just an agreement to work together. Isn't that what alliances should be?

To this point I completely agree, which is the exact reason I'm a tad salty at the proposition that we'll have power taken away from us simply based on our "agreement to work together".

 

[Cryptite]

I'm not sure where the idea came that we were going to make it advantageous to disband Alliances, but after some discussions, here's what we plan to do. Yes, they're a nerf to Alliances, but Alliances are OP. Also Magpie was involved so it's inevitable :>

• Both single towns and Alliances can place up to 3 Inhibitors at any one point in time. Each are treated as a single unit so they are both subjected to the same limits.
• The maximum attacks-per-day is limited to 10 for both single towns and Alliances (so this is unchanged for alliances, but increased for single-towns). The total number attacks you get is Total TGens / 3.

And that's it. Essentially, since we give an entire Alliance one strength value; they're basically treated as a single unit. Giving them more inhib attacks is pretty objectively unbalanced from a game-design standpoint.

The thing is, despite these changes, an Alliance is still more powerful for a few reasons:

• Combined communication/coordination between towns. This is minor, sure, but it still can matter.
• An Alliance is, most of the time, going to comprise a larger force. It's just not very likely that we're going to get some megatown of 20 active pvpers. It's absolutely possible, but 90+% of the time, an Alliance is more people than one town alone.
• As a result of this, the Alliance will have the advantage of strength in numbers, and that's a big deal in a fight!
• Finally, each town in an Alliance will still be able to individually use their beacons to return to fights. What this means is that Alliances are going to be able to provide reinforcements to a battle more frequently than the solo town as they have but one beacon on the 5 minute timer.

It'll still be advantageous to be in Alliance, but it'll no longer guarantee victory in an equal conflict. If you bring more folks to the fight or you're overall better at pvp, you'll probably win, and whether Alliances exist or not, that really should be the case.

 

[Ajaxan]

• Both single towns and Alliances can place up to 3 Inhibitors at any one point in time. Each are treated as a single unit so they are both subjected to the same limits.

• The maximum attacks-per-day is limited to 10 for both single towns and Alliances (so this is unchanged for alliances, but increased for single-towns). The total number attacks you get is Total TGens / 3.

Unfortunately this does encourage people to disbanned their alliances. they'd still work together, but they'd just not be in an alliances. Basically now an alliance losses power they could have more of by being separate. So for instance, if the northern alliance disbanned but still worked together they can now have 12 inhibs at a time and take up to 40 tgens down per day. Which I bet isn't what you want at all.

So I'll re-recommend my point that it should be based on players:

It takes three (or two, perhaps even five!) people to build an inhibitor. So your alliance must have three (again this number can change) members online to build one. Those players can't build another one until their current one is finished doing its thing. Now those three players can be a part of different towns as long as their towns are in alliance. This evens the playing field because now a massive single city can have multiple inhibs if they have the players but being in an alliance is also encouraged because you can work together with your allies to start an inhib.

This system works because it means even a single town can be more powerful if they have more players which was the original complaint in the first place.

 

[Cryptite]

Unfortunately this does encourage people to disbanned their alliances. they'd still work together, but they'd just not be in an alliances. Basically now an alliance losses power they could have more of by being separate. So for instance, if the northern alliance disbanned but still worked together they can now have 12 inhibs at a time and take up to 40 tgens down per day. Which I bet isn't what you want at all.

We'd have to have some pretty staggering numbers of players, TGens, and the like if they wanted to run 12 attacks at a time. Even in our most populated, active days, we only had maybe 4 inhibs running in one of the biggest alliances at the time and even that didn't last very long.

Your point applies to an edge-case, and we can't always plan for edge cases, especially if satisfying those means impairing the majority-case. It's a basic Triage call, really.

Additionally, if towns wanted to disband to really get bigger numbers of attacks going, now they're separate and now your two separate-but-cooperating towns are individually fighting for their own strength and each is damaging the others ability to possibly earn Capital. Remember that some Capital policies apply to an alliance. This means the winning, separate town gets the spoils of war, the hall at spawn, etc.

Finally, if somebody did try to pull something like that off, it sounds like we should not only have the daily attacks limit, but probably also a limit to the number of times a town can be attacked. We don't want any situations where a town's full territory can be annihilated in one day.

As for your inhib suggestion, keep in mind some of our players have 5, 6, 7 alts total and they will absolutely use them if they have to in a situation like that. If it turns out that the 3 inhib number we've come up with is too little or too much, we can always adjust the number, but forcing numbers of players to log on just to start a 30-90 minute timer seems pretty lame.

 

[MrAlchemy]

It sounds like we should not only have the daily attacks limit, but probably also a limit to the number of times a town can be attacked.

Bad idea, as it is easy to replace lost t-gens quickly. This would make those with many t-gens nearly invincible as they could never be whittled down with active placement of new t-gens in a frequent manner even after massive invasions.

I suggest something simple, a mind bending removal of the x-factor... Remove shared strength totals... What if each town regardless of being in an alliance had it's own strength points. This would spur inter alliance competitions, and I'm sure drama would ensue causing things to heat up over time, especially if more than one town in an alliance really really wanted to be capital.

 

[Cryptite]

it is easy to replace lost t-gens quickly

That's a good point.

Remove shared strength totals...

That would remove any reason to be in an Alliance except for a common chat channel...

Considering the way Conquest has run since the new world, these changes effectively have zero impact on Alliances. Nobody's been putting more than 3 inhibs down at a time and I'm not sure anybody's actually hit the 10-a-day attack cap yet. These changes are really just a a buff to single-towns. Alliances are still strong; they're just not as overly powerful over single towns anymore.

This also means more people can play Conquest in the future since the sight of a big alliance no longer means it's over before it began. We want more people in the system!

 

[Wolfegger]

I saw yesterday more attacks by the Isle. How have they been doing in gaining points?

 

[Cryptite]

I saw yesterday more attacks by the Isle. How have they been doing in gaining points?

http://lokamc.com/townslist or /g t ranks in-game

 

[Wolfegger]

Not too far from taking the lead. Hmmmm.

 

[MrAlchemy]

Not too far from taking the lead. Hmmmm.

Are things truly broken that we need to apply such a drastic change to the way conquest works? Cant we see how this game of RISK plays out for a while before we go and change the foundations of what it is as of right now?

 

[gabrosen]

Are things truly broken that we need to apply such a drastic change to the way conquest works? Cant we see how this game of RISK plays out for a while before we go and change the foundations of what it is as of right now?

Ok I totally agree with MrAlchemy on this subject, I'm not a new player, but I'm still learning. I hate the fact Isles (a new town) Is changing the rules of this big game of "risk", I think that because of a couple of people that are new say its not fair, you should not have to change it. Though I do understand on where they are coming from, we all went through the same things when we where new to the server, I Love you planzorg1 and friends but its just, you have to sacrifice time and effort to actually achieve something great, and I believe you have the ability to do so. Good luck and have fun!