I’m concerned most options here are binary. Seems a lot of these changes are to help programming easy. We need more complex options to deal with the complexity of things we work through in the game. For example, either you are in a single alliance or not seems to be a bad choice we as players have to subscribe too. There should be a variety of categories available to support the complexity of alliances in place…come to aid, no hit, neutral, etc
First is that not all alliances that are in place are necessarily good for the long term development of the game. For example if you have everyone boiled down into 6 big alliances of which all but one have no hit agreements, you have some terrible stagnation.
Second thing is that I personally think alliance tools will evolve to a point where you can’t imagine the game without them. But we have to start somewhere, and we can’t solve world hunger in the first release. I also think it’s very important not to introduce more bugs as atlas has had a rough start.
So I would ask you if you have any other examples beyond alliance size?
On the topic of alliance size and limited interactions between alliances, I don’t think anyone is closed to making reasonable adjustments. That’s half of the reason why it’s posted on the forums and not directly released I believe.
Officially added free passage. Also added a line item about alliance chat (that I’d forgotten to include before, but should be helpful!).
Alliance chat would be nice, i hate using Line. Wish players here would use discord instead
I like Discord on PC, but I find it klunkier than Line on mobile. Of course in-game chat is the least advanced of the three … but it does have the advantage of being able to keep the right set of people (e.g., alliance mates) in contact and up to date (and able to chat without closing the game). But I digress …
So who would be in charge of improving the in game chat then?
People have been asking for an in game translator for forever and a day.
Let’s talk about that elsewhere :).
I was attempting to find out the elsewhere (or who-elsewhere) it should be discussed.
I guess I prefer discord for the simple fact that it’ll be nice just to have all my chats together rather than having two different chatting apps.
Perhaps a new thread on the General forum? It seems like a topic that would interest many players!
I quite like the idea of these flying prims, but I’m a little concerned about a few aspects of this, and would encourage PG to reconsider some of their plans here:
1 limiting the size of alliances so extremely - some teams are in longstanding alliances/no hit agreements and this is going to cause some major issues. Also some smaller teams have less formal no hit agreements with their neighbours. Teams are more likely to group together with their formal alliances so this will highlight the smaller weaker teams as target to conquer. Surely restricting teams to one small alliance in atlas is going to benefit the bigger stronger teams rather than evening the field?
2. Assuming most teams have direct access to neutral territories. This is simply not the case. Both my main and my alt team have territories with no direct access to nml or neutral territory. This has the potential to isolate teams and make them sitting ducks to attack.
3. I note that you mention that team portals will remain (for now). For many teams these portals are essential, in please do not get rid of these team portals in future updates. They are needed for many teams with territories dotted around the map.
4. Taking away the ability to change course - this is just going to get irritating.
1 - You can continue to maintain informal alliances / no hit agreements! We may increase the cap in the future, but need to start small and conservatively.
2 - If you’re isolated from the neutral territory, you will only be fighting with your neighbors. New neighbors could show up over time, of course.
4 - There are technical constraints. We might eventually let you go back to where you started though; but this is not currently planned. Travel is much faster, and we’re adding an option to confirm movement to mitigate this.
I actually think limiting the size of alliances will encourage a more competitive environment, honestly there is no reason why there should be more than 10 teams in one alliance. As of right now some alliances are so big that they just bully their way through newer teams.
Whats the point of allying with 40 or 50 teams? That’s just anti-climatic as f***
What are the specifics on this?
You will be able to grant passage to an alliance (similar to how you grant it to a team now) and then all players in all teams in that alliance will have passage at your cities.
No need to do it at each city, no need to add each team individually.
The team that starts the alliance is the alliance leader. Like teams, the leader will have the option to add and remove teams.
Smaller alliances are a good start, will hopefully allow more battles to happen if they fix up troop generation/caps
Tweaked free passage – teams will retain the exclusive ability to control who has free passage to their territory (except alliances mates who always have free passage in each others’ territories). Free passage will be team-wide, not per-fort.
How many teams can we give free passage to at a time?
I remember you telling me the flying primarchs were suppose to take care of the need of event portals but I don’t see how that is possible for people who don’t have alliances and aren’t near a safe zone What about people in this situation?