View Single Post
Unread 22 Jul 2008, 22:10   #12
booji
a bucket
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 1,073
booji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to beholdbooji is a splendid one to behold
Re: Alliance Flags, (New) Battlegroups, and in-game politics system

I dont like the idea of separate groups not being able to ever hit another group, wont it lead to stagnation within the alliance bloc? either there will be a problem with too few roids or there will be a problem with bigger alliances bashing the smaller alliances - this will be a particular problem if U are working on the idea that alliances will mostly be defensive as in reality the alliances for the less dedicated players may become hell to play in.
would it not make more sense to allow the alliance group players to have a certain number of times they can hit non alliance players per week? say they can hit battle group members twice a week and non aligned twice a week.
if you are intending to keep the old galaxy system intact (I dont see anything about it in your post) it might cause problems that there will not be the possibility of gal raids as alliances will only be able to hit half the targets in a galaxy making it very easy to defend.
in this instance I suspect it might make more sense to go with the idea suggested before that alliances should each have their own galaxies which in turn leads to the problem that it is difficult to move from one level to the next as you don't get to know ppl in the other levels.

I am not against the idea itself however I think it needs to be more fluid with it being relatively easy to move from group to group or else we will simply get into a similar problem we have now just on more levels. people who are being bashed in the alliance group (even perhaps whole alliances) need to have some way to drop out of the system rather than being reduced to the role the bots in 1:1 have now... or else we will have more experienced players leaving!

if all free accounts remain in group C then they will be missing out on a large part of the game, I dont think its a good idea to so much reduce their options, some ppl who would normally be alliance players may well not want to pay for the game for some reason (such as kargools protest at the removal of the support planet rule in r25). Without giving these ppl the potential to experience all aspects of the game then there may well be some who would like the alliance playing and never get a chance and leave without experiencing it.

apologies for only throwing up problems rather than thinking up solutions for them, but as I am sure U understand your concept much better than I do its probably easier for you to do!
__________________
Proud to have been TGV!
aargh! died in Jenova! | idled in ROCK | disappointed in Audentes | been Roguish | p-p-previously a p-p-p3nguin
Ascendancy

Otterly an Otter.

Last edited by booji; 22 Jul 2008 at 22:39.
booji is offline   Reply With Quote