- Will there be a limit on members that can join an alliance.
- Will alliance chat have all chat history visible (similar to global), chat history visible within the past xx Hours (24 or something), or will chat history only be visible for messages posted after you log on.
- Are there any planned features or possibilities of alliance members sharing some form of radar vision?
Shared vision is planned but we have to keep it quite limited because it has big performance implications. Hence the idea of tying it to a single player e.g. the Spy role.
I’ll have to get back to you on the other two points but I believe there will be a limit on members per alliance, at least initially. In the post we also discussed the possibility of tying the limit to an alliance headquarters.
Thanks for the quick reply. Just to follow up.
I don’t overly like the idea of an alliance headquarters until the game gets more features allowing such a vulnerability to be better protected, however if I understand correctly, if it were to be implemented, it wouldn’t be until a stage 2+ of alliance features so things might change by then.
Does IDA have a number limit in mind for members per alliance? I can understand the reasoning on having a limit but I’ve personally found regardless of the genre, anytime alliances have limits all that happens is you see, for example, [AE1] [AE2] [AE3] [AE4] … and so on.
Its unfortunate that shared vision causes performance implications so it has to be limited. I understand this won’t release with the initial batch of alliance features but if it is limited to a player, e.g. Spy, then I think it would make sense for the alliance leader to also have vision since it doesn’t make sense for a player to have more vision than the leader of the alliance.
Also since I forgot to bring it up earlier:
I understand we have the Play with Friends feature, however, because it doesn’t stop other players from spawning nearby, it forces players to share or fight for systems. Are there any plans allowing for players, specifically alliance players, to spawn next to each other? At the moment, most alliances try and sync joins to do this but it’s far from a perfect method.
Space is huge! It can take weeks to travel between players in your alliance. I know that this is a planned feature, but with alliances scheduled for release at the end of the month, are there any updates on the progress of wormholes?
Very excited to have alliances
As for roles, I’d to be able to have more than one consul (or a new role, can be called officers (name can be whatever) that can also manage members
As for shared vision, will it be limited, or will everyone be able to see everything they see (aka mines when a mine detector/sweeper is on, cloaked fleets when a cloak detector is on… Etc)?
The treasury idea is really cool, I can see it opening doors to lots of features
Perhaps alliance grade tech and buildings that require gold to be purchased or built using gold from the treasury
Like for example if there is a member limiter (the HQ building) , it can be upgraded using gold to enable an alliance to have more members
Purchasable bonuses that can be bought via the treasury to give bonuses that apply to all members
2-4 extra fleet slots?
A very small gold income bonus
There are plenty of ideas that can come out of it really
I really like it
“To join an alliance a player must be invited by the Leader or Consul”
I think there needs to be a way for a player to “apply” to an alliance with approval required by the Leader or Counsul.
Yeah going to need to know the limits for sure, well before the release, to make plans.
I 100% have to recommend that ALL roles that can have full sight of the entire alliance have the ability to turn it on and off, before you implement this.
As for those that can see everything, I would suggest instead of tying it to a specific role, instead allowing for the leader to give it to different people up to a maximum of like 5 people, or whatever you feel is the limit needed.
As for the treasury and alliance buildings, I love big alliance projects, and I would love to be able to help out members that need extra credits or resources.
And how are wormholes coming?
great glad this is getting added at last.
i feel like that spy role in the guild who ever got it would have tons of power/control as this would allow if there the same race as another player to insta share ships and other things could be done to set up fobs super fast across the galaxy also what type of vision would he have? would he see cloaked fleets of hostile players? this could be a alliance timed ability that would be unique to the spy role. or this player can deploy a probe in a area to scan for mine fields/cloaked ships and other things.
another role that would be nice to see is a logistic role. that would have the ability/es to warp from the HQ or another point res from the HQ or the star to another area in the form of an alliance cargo vessel has be be researched in the HQ that has its own little tech tree of sorts for the different roles.
my question is this hq building could it be like a simi moving object in the game that is like a fortress of some sort that would need baron to build and some farsu as well as there will be guns as it can/could be attacked thinking turrets would be best or ODS one of the two. this building would be about as big as one of the suns in the building. and if worm holes are added this could be a way to limit the amount of WH in the game tie it to the lvl or ability of the hq also where the gold would be kept for the alliance to use and upgrade its ability to function. this would work better with the new line of tech power we are getting in the new servers as a player can choose what part of his own TP goes to the alliance bank.
What would be the difference of calling those positions “spy” or some other word? He’s stated it’s limited now because of the issues related to performance, down the road I’m sure the number would be opened up to allow more. What difference does it make what you call the position within the alliance? For programming purposes they’ll need to tie it to some sort of “role”. I’d agree that Leader and Counsul should have the same privileges.
Rip solo players if alliances get game boosts or benefits enhancing players. What’s the offset to maintain fair play?
And looking forward to an alliance of alts set up so that one account can be over watching everything. Sure no one’s going to abuse the spy role…
Some points to consider:
#1. Shared visibility is very important for the cooperative aspect of an alliance. I understand that performance is an issue, but consider limiting it to groups within an alliance. Tie it to an officer role where the officer can share vision with X amount of people and them only. That way you can compartmentalise the visibility and hopefully avoid the performance hit. It also allows for alliances to create smaller compartments of players in close proximity to each other with shared vision for better cooperative gameplay. This also gives smaller alliances an advantage as they can perhaps fit all their actives in one such visibility compartment group or have to manage less of them. For this reason no role, not even the leader, should have complete visibility of the entire alliance.
#2. Shared border. We need to see the borders of the alliance space at all times. Even if we don’t have full visibility of the contents of said borders as by point #1 above. This can be expanded on for a future diplomacy layer to the alliance feature as well where you can see the borders of allied alliances and can add a “fog of war” effect on the border for a hostile alliance as you discover it. Gives more texture to the galaxy map at little performance cost and creates a more strategic overview for every player giving them the sense of being a small part of something larger than themselves, without limiting that to a single spy role.
Example of borders from the game Stellaris. Imagine only the borders there and everything inside of them hidden except for the visibility of your own planets and the shared visibility of the few people in your shared vision group.
#3. Alliance roles. The leader is a given. Add a sub leader role below that, allow us to assign several sub leaders, to give the ability to have people on site to invite new members or do alliance level administration during all time zones. Not all alliances will have vampire leaders without the need of sleep or a life Then below said sub leaders add the officer roles mentioned in point #2. So Leader -> sub leaers (x amount) -> Officer (amount based on how many compartmentalised visibility packs you want to make possible to create) -> Members -> recruits. Where recruits have limited view of borders, alliance information etc until they have proven themselves and are promoted.
Best system would be to add functions as boxes you tick to create your own roles. Example image below on a rank management system stolen from the now dead game starfall online.
#4. Cooperative contribution layer. The alliance feature could use a cooperative or collective contribution layer of its own to give members a common goal to contribute to their own alliance. For example an alliance specific tech tree controlled by the leader/sub leader roles, but visible by all above rank of recruit, where members can invest resources, Tech points or similar towards a common research goal to advance it gradually. With diminishing returns to avoid exploits of people creating a thousand alts to boost the alliance. It should take a lot of time and effort to advance. The different alliance features can then be added to this tree and unlocked through it. Availablity can be balanced as well based on this. Examples of items on the tree could be:
- *Rise member cap
- *Increase some form of alliance wide bonus.
- *Operations (Assign a mission to one or more Officer lead group with an incentivising reward from the alliance stores waiting at the end based on contribution) Could for example be to defend a part of the alliance border for X time where reward is based on time vs kills. Could also be the order to take certain star systems or hunt ships of a particular enemy with bounty payment for kills from the alliance.
- *Doctrines (alliance wide missions) Similar to operations but alliance wide. Possibly broader and more long term.
- *Edicts and edict slots (Dynamic alliance wide bonuses set by the leader or sub leader. Only X edicts can be active at the same time). Means an alliance can focus on a couple of things of their choice based on their current goals but due to the slots being limited they cant have all bonuses active at the same time.
- *Size of alliance research pool and ratio of the diminishing returns.
- *Amount of officer positions available to create compartmentalised shared visibility groups. Size of said groups.
- *Alliance structures and their levels. Like HQ, Wormhole gates and such.
To yet again steal ideas from a now dead game heres how the unfinished alliance tree from Starfall online alpha looks like before they canned the project as an example of this. To note, it should be one thing unlocking a structure cooperatively like a wormhole gate like described above, but actually building one should also be a cooperative task by the alliance over time and not an instant spawn ability.
Will there be a way for Alliances to form treaties with each other, at the Alliance level?
There could be different levels of alliance vs alliance treaties. Could have neutral or friendly for example.
Looking forward to this update, long overdue. I’ll take anything at first.
These types of things can be made to be expensive especially if the resources are required to be brought to a particular destination where travel and other hazards can be quite problematic. If research is also brought into play (items must be researched before constructing) and a player can either research something for themselves or help with an alliance research, being in an alliance also becomes expensive, but imo, an infinite research tree should come first imo.
I mean yes, it’ll make it much easier for a single player to watch all of his accounts at once, but his game will seriously suffer for it in the short term and in the long term, the devs need to do something to address the larger issue of alting.
Also, I feel this post maybe helpful. It is in regards to shared vision between alliance members.
Edit: I just finished reading Aletheides’ post and noticed we said a few of the same things.
Nothing is prohibitively expensive. If they add in a treasury you can fund a players extra costs with ease. Much like a group of alts in a side alliance used for map vision another alliance group can be used to create funds to dump in a alliance dedicated to fighting. There are many loopholes/exploits in play here.
So that it isn’t tied to a role, when you need someone with a different role to use it.
It being something you can assign to any role, rather than a role itself gives it more versatility.
“We’re considering other roles too with corresponding bonuses e.g. Warlord (increased fleet limit or something similar to increase their ability to wage war), Treasurer (members could optionally or be required to pay credits to the alliance which the treasurer could distribute as needed), and Spy (related to shared visibility) – but we don’t have anything concrete yet and wouldn’t implement them for the first version.”
This will discourage solo playing. There should be no additional bonus just for being in an alliance period. The alliance itself provides the bonus because the have the ability to operate and coordinate together, no additional bonus is needed. Shared visibility can be given to the Leader and his Counsul without the need for a separate role to make this happen.
I would like to see major alliance projects.
Again, I will mention that there can be alliance focused servers, and solo play focused servers.
Can be and will be are two different issues. That may be a long time down the road, the alliance features are coming soon. If they segregate the servers then they can implement more alliance only features. Until then they are losing solo players by giving alliances unnecessary bonus.
@joe Can I create a solo alliance and give myself all the roles? Then it would be fair. Especially the “warrior” role.