Alliances and their need for purpose

in many months of playing This game i have enjoyed it alot, and have followed it alot in developement and improvements. i hav though long about smething though id like to be considered. the function of the alliances
this feature seems nice and seves a small role deturring galaxies from attacking each other, but then nothing. if galaxies are on good terms the wouldnt attack anyhow, makes little difference between that and friendly. perhapse it is about time for improving it. i have a few ideas id like to be considered, as it would make alliance a function that may finally be valuelable.
first thought, many galaxies are not always active enough and members need friends to do raids or their galaxy mates cant help re-enforce them, even a friendly galaxy hates sending players over to help if they even consider it. why not mke an ally galaxy auto friendly like all imeadiate galaxy members are to players? they are technically friendly but this would actually make ‘friendly’ do something.
on another note, why not make Alliances have a little mor weight? although you might want to limit alliances to one alliance per galaxy for this, perhapse shared pillars (if one gets it the other enjoys the spoils, not a point team up). thats a good enough insentie ive seen talked about before amoungst players and i would personally love to see this possible.
now these are large ideas i am sure, but it gives value to the decision hostile nutral friend that has been nearly lost for most of the time i have played this game. i have played since december and i have not seen friendly mater or alliance ever used since the first month. there seems little point to the option when it offers nothing.

I too feel there is something there lacking in terms of play. Like being able to reinforce the members of the allied galaxy or, why not, contributing to their wonder.

I like the idea of being able to do gem raids with members from an allied galaxy and being able to reinforce them, just like you can do with friends now. Thus giving members from allied galaxies all the benefits as if they were all friends of each other.

The pillar sharing suggestion could be more trouble than it’s worth. A few questions that would need answering:

• Would an allied galaxy still be able to claim a pillar if their ally already owns one?
• If they could, would both allies receive both pillar bonuses (only combat, since the resource bonus is the same for both)?
• Is it fair for a galaxy to get the bonus from a pillar but not be assigned with defending it?
• Would the allied galaxy be allowed to repair the pillar it doesn’t actually own?
• …

Interesting thoughts, indeed. The alliance is merely just for showing off appreciation for another galaxy and to avoid members attacking themselves. What is the point? It’s much better to spend the 3 slots in Hostile/War configurations for more PvP Resources. First things first, I think instead of 3 Diplomacy slots, there should have 3 slots for Alliances and 3 slots for Hostilities. This would make it a lot more used as it won’t need to sacrifice your +50%/100% farming boost. Then the actual benefits should be thought about, for example, contributing to the allies’ Building.

One thing i also suggested was income from trade for allied galaxies. give galaxies a 50% res gain for every allied galaxy.
This would make alliances more worthwile, would improve the break even point of ressource buildings and would help mostly weaker players since they wont get most of their res from pvp (yet).

great to already have this much imput.
Atomslaya, you said there were some problems, i think i have a few solutions or answers at least to how i personally would think it should end up.
galaxies could not get a second pillar it would be a forced pass for cupons just like other pillars already can be denied.
i would hope all bonuses would be shared giving a point to teaming up in dealling with pillars and also as shared they would need shared resposibility
i dont know how easy it would be for playmage to do, however i would hope that an alliancewould be abl to share the pillar as well as defend it as one.
in addition to joint defense i expect repair to be possible by both alliance parties. also i hope this applies to wonders, but that may just be an extra perk im less worried about.

MrJ17, you mentioned multiple slots added for alliance. i like this as well and was hoping someone would mention it, however it should just be for friendly. as i mentioned earler i dont think there should be more than 2 galaxies in an alliance and if there were multiple alliances per galaxy things might be confusing. i suggest pm limits galaxies to 1 alliance. if 2 alliances were possible with pillar sharing it could lead to dual pillars and make a mess of things.

Chip, neat concept, dont know how it could work. i hope to see you elaborate, both with if multi alliances became common or if only one alliance were possile at a time. sounds interesting. my thought on it would be perhapse a joint income of both wonder incomes -10%. still thats just my personal thought on it. would love to hear more.
on a side note, great to see this many comments so soon. thank you all and all to come

@ Loki
If both galaxies would defend the pillar and the ally wouldn’t be able to take a pillar themselves, would you allow the following 2 options to be set by galaxy leadership:

• A setting which would (dis)allow any ally to attach itself to your pillar, as to not weaken your defensive position? (The ally actually holding the pillar.)
• A setting that would allow galaxy leadership to not be forced to join an ally that takes a pillar on said pillar. So your galaxy could still take the pillar of their choosing. (A ally currently not taking/holding a pillar.)

Or would you have an ally automatically forced onto the pillar as one of the galaxies in the alliance claims a pillar, whether either of the parties wishes it or not.

Originally posted by Chip56:

One thing i also suggested was income from trade for allied galaxies. give galaxies a 50% res gain for every allied galaxy.
This would make alliances more worthwile, would improve the break even point of ressource buildings and would help mostly weaker players since they wont get most of their res from pvp (yet).

This sounds nice, but it would be fairly easy for an active galaxy to get 3 allied galaxies for the resource boost just by 3 people for instance using a multi-account to take over a deserted galaxy (there are hundreds of them, ripe for the picking). So in theory, every galaxy that wants it, would have 3 allies without much trouble, even if they were all 3 completely inactive except one multi being the leader to keep the alliance setting.
It would definitely help with the break-even point of resource producing buildings yes, but I don’t know if this would be the best way to tackle that particular problem.

Well my first thoughts were a bit more sofisticated then the purposal here. I dimmed it down to the basics as a proof of concept.
There are multiple way you could tackle the problem of multiaccounting. You could make it so that you only get the trade benefit if there are at least 50% of your galaxies amount of players in the other galaxy. So if you have a full galaxy with 50 players the other galaxy must have 25% or you gain nothing from the alliance.
The second approach would be somewhat similar: your ally must have at least 50% of your galaxies power.
Both can be reasoned with the fact that otherwise they are simply to small to have a real impact on your economy.

An other approach: you only get a share whenever an ally collects ressources, but this gets a lot harder to track and to balance.

And personally i think it should not be tied to wonder, because that would favour bigger galaxies again. If its a flat 25%, 50% or whatever of your hourly ressource income it would scale with your power to a certain degree, but as higher ups tend to use pvp for res gain it would give weaker players a “bigger” advantage (not in absolute numbers, but in relation to their total income)

slaya, your flaw you point to has already been mentioned, i suggested a 1 alliance maximum and that full sharing is automatic. also having it fully shared means you actually would want comunication ad co-operation between both galaxies actively. this means that an alliance is actually an active task if you plan to use it’s full potential.
Chip, again great thoughts, i must complement that idea, i fully agree with both of those. i only hope PM gets to see some of these thoughts.your first 2 approaches seemed rather well put togeather, and your alt was also detailed, not my favorite, but well done.

In my opinion alliances just make this game even easier for the pay to win galaxies

Originally posted by Vidkid88:

In my opinion alliances just make this game even easier for the pay to win galaxies

In my opinion bumping threads that have been dead for over a month make this game even easier for the pay to win galaxies

if you will spare un-needed word nvillian, please. honestly this forum died not because it was not worthwhile, but because it was quickly brushed aside because of War of Heros. now that WoH has been around enough and is starting to settle, it is the perfect time to revisit good ideas. if yo can find a reason for Alliances that already exists and is helpful to ANY player, please share it and debunk any reason for ths forum’s existance. if you feel that this forum should not be revisited leave it alone and dont prolong it’s existance, others will keep it alive or not, you yourself made it last that much longer on here by complaining. and honestly, how can a forum (which is not connected to the activities in game, only the ideas of players in game) affect the game and make it easier for ‘pay to win players’ ?