too big Alliances

[fark24]

Off course you don't have a problem with that as you are an Elite member.

I know you directed this at me but schro had a very eloquent and thorough reply which I hope you consider reading with an open mind. I feel it addresses most of your points.

Likewise, I don't understand the tone directed at me - especially given the content of what I wrote after my first sentence. I support the current alliance size because it helps remedy a game play issue (the used market) that is not being sufficiently addressed in the game. Even if this is fixed, I also stated that the current large alliance sizes distort the alliance scoring system (which effectively makes Elite a 3rd-tier alliance). In no way am I championing the status quo. And in no way do I see how Elite is more benefited under the current system than any other alliance.

I also have no understanding of what you are accusing Elite of. I can only speak of the game world in which I play (GW # 2) where Elite is only 5th in member size (15 total). Earth Connection has 35, A Team 26, World Stars 22, Modern has 19. One Sky is equal at 15. Elite is hardly a 'wolfpack'.

Also, Elite only has 4 members in the USA. By comparison, Earth Connection, World Stars, and Sky Alliance also have 4. A Team is at 3. One Sky and Modern are at 2. Again, this can hardly be considered some wild cartel.

[Talentz]

Elite has been consistently around the longest of any alliance since the game started.

Wow, Elite still at the top after all these years?.. Speaking of which, where Sigma at these days?!


Talentz

[yearofthecactus]

The reputation of Elite and the vitriol some post towards elite is unfair and simply incorrect.

I am a member of two different alliances in different game worlds, Elite and Earth Connection. Both are good alliances and I'd recommend both for different reasons.

The key thing to note about Elite is we have a fairly strict set of rules about what you can and can't do, and an Schro said these go further than the game requires. As an alliance we actively play well within the rules, and we don't get in grief from Sami for breaking them. Any suggestion to the contrary is not based in fact, and is simply not valid as an argument (so stop it).

It is no crime to be organised, or be good at the game. If being good, and having a successful game world as a team is a problem then it's your problem.

For my part, a good strong alliance is a MASSIVE part of the enjoyment of the game. Team members become friends, and active Skype channels are 90% about random nonsense unrelated to the game. In the slow years, where's there nothing to do it's nice to think about helping others in the team with advice, plane purchases etc etc.

What would actually happen if the numbers in alliance were cut? Well alliances would simply fragment into smaller sub-groups, operating in broadly the same way you complain about. Either that, or players like myself would get bored and not have the motivation to continue. In GW2 I'm a member of Earth Connection. Without the motivation of helping the team and without the support of some of the alliance members, I've have given up trying in the 1990s. As it was I've stuck it through.

[Johan87]

Again this is not an attack.
I try to ask why we have 4 long game worlds,and all have same settings,beside the year counting.
And Elite is so deffending this,while there are plenty of players who want to play a long game world with a different setting without the big Alliances and just play the airline they like.

I know Elite is the longest Alliance in the game,but why they are not open for 1 of the 4 long worlds with different settings?

Maybe Elite only can play for beeing the biggest players,best players,and YES i like to play this game too but not in 4 worlds at same time.
I would like to be an middle sized carrier also from a nice base and not beeing slaughtered just for beeing there.
If you break Alliance size or just limit to 1 Alliance member in a country,this will also give others the chance to play a long world they want.
and not beeing cornered by the "big boys"

Congrationlations with the 15 most valuebale airliners in game world 1 beeing 13 Elite members.even first 8 all Elite.
Real good achievement,be honest:how would a game world look like if have 1 member a country?or just only 10 members in an Alliance?or profits in planes limited?guess more players will be in the game then is the case because they beeing wiped out.
And off course there are the best players inside your Alliance with alot of experiance,so if your Alliance sizee is limited wouldn't they spread round the game too?educate more players?I think it would.
I have been a member of A-team in gw2,3 and 4 and see the results of beeing in a big Alliance,also i see the running of an airliner in a different(modern) Alliance who focus on enjoy the game,and not so much result focused which give me a different kind of joy in this game.
So if even just 1 of the 4 long worlds have more Alliance limitations and more focus on your own airliner,i guess this give a nice variaty to the game.
Maybe you can call it intermediate level(too good for beginners world but not yet well skilled for the big worlds)then would be more choice for everyone.but for others it would be could more fun in the game by less dominating factors.
what is so hard on that?

[schro]

Again this is not an attack.
I try to ask why we have 4 long game worlds,and all have same settings,beside the year counting.
And Elite is so deffending this,while there are plenty of players who want to play a long game world with a different setting without the big Alliances and just play the airline they like.

I know Elite is the longest Alliance in the game,but why they are not open for 1 of the 4 long worlds with different settings?

Maybe Elite only can play for beeing the biggest players,best players,and YES i like to play this game too but not in 4 worlds at same time.
I would like to be an middle sized carrier also from a nice base and not beeing slaughtered just for beeing there.
If you break Alliance size or just limit to 1 Alliance member in a country,this will also give others the chance to play a long world they want.
and not beeing cornered by the "big boys"

Congrationlations with the 15 most valuebale airliners in game world 1 beeing 13 Elite members.even first 8 all Elite.
Real good achievement,be honest:how would a game world look like if have 1 member a country?or just only 10 members in an Alliance?or profits in planes limited?guess more players will be in the game then is the case because they beeing wiped out.
And off course there are the best players inside your Alliance with alot of experiance,so if your Alliance sizee is limited wouldn't they spread round the game too?educate more players?I think it would.
I have been a member of A-team in gw2,3 and 4 and see the results of beeing in a big Alliance,also i see the running of an airliner in a different(modern) Alliance who focus on enjoy the game,and not so much result focused which give me a different kind of joy in this game.
So if even just 1 of the 4 long worlds have more Alliance limitations and more focus on your own airliner,i guess this give a nice variaty to the game.
Maybe you can call it intermediate level(too good for beginners world but not yet well skilled for the big worlds)then would be more choice for everyone.but for others it would be could more fun in the game by less dominating factors.
what is so hard on that?

You didn't address any of the questions that I asked in my last post. I also do not agree with your opinion that Elite is not open to your suggestion - your OP asked for our thoughts on the matter and that's what we provided. I don't want to speak for others in Elite, but I have no problem with anything being tried to see what the potential outcome would be - I'm just forecasting what I think the outcome would be based upon my time playing the game.

In a way, I would say that the shift to long game worlds has actually weakened the dominance of alliances (including Elite) as the grind of playing 4 games that last for over a year each puts on quite the workload (fleet transitions being one of the main culprits). Many of our players that would usually be active in all major game worlds have reduced themselves to being active in just 1-2 game worlds at a time. Others (including myself) have chosen less ambitious HQs to balance the workload across the long running game worlds. You'll see that most short challenge games will not have an Elite presence, and some long game worlds (like GW2 right now) will have a very small showing from our crew.

[VitoNg]

In a way, I would say that the shift to long game worlds has actually weakened the dominance of alliances (including Elite) as the grind of playing 4 games that last for over a year each puts on quite the workload (fleet transitions being one of the main culprits). Many of our players that would usually be active in all major game worlds have reduced themselves to being active in just 1-2 game worlds at a time. Others (including myself) have chosen less ambitious HQs to balance the workload across the long running game worlds. You'll see that most short challenge games will not have an Elite presence, and some long game worlds (like GW2 right now) will have a very small showing from our crew.

Indeed, the game right now compared with 5 years ago, era without long gameworld, is far less crowded. In the past we have 7 airlines limit in all airport, and most major airports were filled up. The competition is crazy and mostly last until the end of them game. Comparing GW4 to last gameworld I have joined (MT6), the average quality of player dropped a lot. Surprisingly, one of my newbie friend even able out-compete a Elite member in Hong Kong.

Small alliance is not that bad, but I don't think a hard limit is a good idea to force experienced player to spread across the alliances. Rather I would think an increased alliance upkeep fee for big alliances would help alliances to control their size.

[[ATA] Hassel]

In past there used to be a fixed limit to Alliance members at 25 player.

This number was then increased to 40 members roughly 1 year ago.

With the beginning of the latest game world the maximum alliance member became dynamic, meaning the more players there is in the game the  higher the maximum limit (it started at 25 and now the maximum limit is 34)

The dynamic members idea seems like a good idea, but this solution is still very new and require tweaking and adjustment. Give it time and i'm sure the maximum limit will reach a satisfactory level

[MuzhikRB]

actually - Alliance is not a factor in the game.
the only advantage - Alliance forum.
all other advantages like fleet support can be done without alliance for core old members. because they know each other and dont need some virtual label to communicate.

for newbie - surely it is still a problem to do most things without entering any alliance, cause he needs a lot of mentoring. but thats only at beginning

at open market - it is very difficult to be in the middle. this is the most dangerous position. either you are facing and ready to hard competition or you are based in small base where is not so attractive. you cannot open in USA in big base and play a medium sized airline without too many troubles...

but... the idea of regional alliances might help such players I think.

[Johan87]

Schro,many of the Elite members have written things separatly.
But if read the start of the topic,then i ask what is the problem?
Why all long worlds have to have the same setting and then things started to role.

You didn't address any of the questions that I asked in my last post. I also do not agree with your opinion that Elite is not open to your suggestion - your OP asked for our thoughts on the matter and that's what we provided. I don't want to speak for others in Elite, but I have no problem with anything being tried to see what the potential outcome would be - I'm just forecasting what I think the outcome would be based upon my time playing the game.

In a way, I would say that the shift to long game worlds has actually weakened the dominance of alliances (including Elite) as the grind of playing 4 games that last for over a year each puts on quite the workload (fleet transitions being one of the main culprits). Many of our players that would usually be active in all major game worlds have reduced themselves to being active in just 1-2 game worlds at a time. Others (including myself) have chosen less ambitious HQs to balance the workload across the long running game worlds. You'll see that most short challenge games will not have an Elite presence, and some long game worlds (like GW2 right now) will have a very small showing from our crew.

[Aoitsuki]

Schro,many of the Elite members have written things separatly.
But if read the start of the topic, then i ask what is the problem?
Why all long worlds have to have the same setting and then things started to role.

If you have a valid, constructive solution on this topic, instead of trying to attack a specific alliance, list your idea(not in 2 sentences) and tag sami into the thread.
You should direct these question to sami, he creates the game and set the rule. Everyone else just follow and play with it.

Do note: in recent changes in alliance size + base number and super long boring world actually hurt established alliance more, and this applies to all large alliances.

Since you are at it let me ask you: what good does it lead to if you limit an alliance size to 10-15, and only 1 airline per country? Do you really think small medium size alliance will all of a sudden have a chance to dominate against their competition in LHR/LAX etc?

[Johan87]

My answer is simple.

We have 4 long worlds with same settings,as the future request are blocked,sami replied this in a mail aswell so it look like a good idea here to see how other think and feel about it.
And if a big Alliance only have 1 member in 1 country means that more players gett a good chance in countries like USA too and bring more competition to countries where now the level is lower thanks to concentration at the hot spots.
If you add for example with max10 player limit in an Alliance then this can be an extra support in the idea just brought up.
Also with more Alliances this can bring an extra battle level towards the game.(i know Alliance starters/founders all want to be the best Alliance so this make it intresting)
If you feel like long boring game then this Alliance batte can bring extra fun as you need to keep your airliner sharp to keep the points in for the alliance.

Be honest how many times in recent games did a big airliner abendend LHR because of what reason so ever?
GW4 now have Volppe(excuses if i make a type mistake)of Elite and Fresh of A-team,i believe these 2 players are not easy early stoppers and will probaly give a long fight for beeing the dominant force there.with max 10 allliance players of of these fights will come to big bases.
No,smaller alliances will not dominate LAX or LHR,but with the spread with 1 country 1 Alliance member,base choices become more important for Alliances as it become more strategic game aswell.
now big alliances like Elite and A-team(which i am a member of too)are very strong in USA with the spread out over more countries gett more intresting fights.
So do you want to fight with a big player for ATL or ATL or do you strategically base in for exmple IAD/DAl or houston and spread your chances.
with the max 600 plane rule means there will be a more devided game i think.

Since you are at it let me ask you: what good does it lead to if you limit an alliance size to 10-15, and only 1 airline per country? Do you really think small medium size alliance will all of a sudden have a chance to dominate against their competition in LHR/LAX etc?
[/quote]

[Johan87]

Sorry forgot to add is like do you go head to head with another Alliance or do you go for a base with plenty demand or maybe even go for 6 bases with about 100-150 planes for example.
more choiche.
Only europe is tricky with the open border game from 1996 or so.
So maybe can start with a 1996-2041 or so game(gw3 size game)to try out?
or just
if have 10 Alliance members in your Alliance then you are not going for 7 or 8 in europe,even if an Alliance do that then they will automatically block there own groth aswell.
Like i said before:it is a management game,so strategic base choiche will add to this very nicely i guess.
Also alliances will become more friend groups as they will prepare next game world together aswell.
as you are not going to game who can we ask to join us if you want to be a bigger Alliance.
Alliance pints added to your airliner for over all points can be an stimulance too

sorry for long msg Teadaze

[MuzhikRB]

There is no chance that limitation of Alliance size will change the game competition.
It will only be changed if game mechanics for alliance will be changed.

Why?

Simple example - I was playing WOT, massive online game. up to 1M players online.
There were Clans (similar to alliances). Member limit is 100.
What strong alliance do when they reach the limit ? YES - open another alliance with the same name.
So instead of one big Elite/Ateam/Skyalliance - you will see - Elite, Elite1, Elite2, Elite3  with the same label. it will add headache to managing directors, but from game competition  - nothing will be changed.

we need to look at the whole picture, not just at alliance limits. without adding some real bonuses from one side and limitations from other side scripted in game mechanics - alliances will not be a major factor in GW whatever we imagine to do with them.

IMHO the only way to battle mega-alliances is to script region alliances, which will have extra bonuses inside its region, but will have penalties on international and int LH flights for example. So as for USA - Elite (like example of eternal evil  ) member settling in ATL will have tough life on domestic routes if it will have good competitor from USA-region small alliance. at the same time, settling in LAX and serving international only flights - will not be a problem.
So Mega-Alliances will have to think twice while developing their strategy for GW, cause they can face strong competition from region based groups.

WBR, Eve

[josh99]

From the replies in this forum, it has become absolutely clear that we can't have open and fair discussion and suggestions without attacks of some form or another.   It is also clear that nothing is going to change in this world or game.  I am disappointed that we cannot have a civil and open thread and discussion on the subjects at hand without it getting to be an attack and counter attack, defense and counter defense.  Sure, looking around the forums, it's clear that where there are issues regarding alliances it is always either elite being attacked or being overly defensive.  Maybe there is a reason for it,  maybe there is not - maybe that's only perceived - after all we cannot possibly know 100% what the author of a particular post had in mind or indeed their mood when they wrote it -  many of those reading and writing in these forums are doing so in a second or third language and sometimes somethings may be misinterpreted or meanings slightly missed during translations. 


There is no commercial reason why anything should change in the game, not that it was even a reason for the thread in the first place,  in order for maximum return of investment game management must always keep the majority of key players happy - so Elite members and other big players, will always be listened to and those of us that are not in that key group will be relatively ignored (part of this conclusion I drawer from the fact that over 20 days I sent a message to game management and still not received a reply)

So nothing will change, things will still stay the same,  the ill-feeling that seems to permeate throughout the posts in this thread and indeed the forums as a whole will continue, sadly as part of the major reason for alliances was to foster good and co-operative social interactions it seems like  the emergence of the school yard mentality  'our gang is better than your gang, if you're not in our gang we don't like you' etc is not that far from the surface.

And whilst I have no doubt there are some with good intentions,  there are some that want to engage in free and fair competition, discourse, discussion, to play with honesty and integrity, with honour and sportsmanship, there are also those that don't  or have very different ideals of what is or is not sportsmanship and integrity which leaves a bitter taste in the mouth and a whiff of mistrust in the air, which is disappointing, but perhaps understandable.

Because of this I am out of this thread, good luck to you all.     

[Wagster]

It's not that Alliance mechanics create strong airlines, it's that Alliances recruit the best players who create the strongest airlines. That's all.

The Alliance as a group is strong because its individual component airlines are strong, because they are run by strong players.

Elite or any other Alliance isn't doing anything anybody else can't do, it's just that not many people want to do it.

I sure don't want to. I have no interest in playing in multiple huge bases managing hundreds of planes and dozens of 7 day schedules. f*** that. If the user interface was much more automated and powerful, like in the game Gearcity, then yes. But with all the manual clicking and selecting and confirming and repetition, I'll pass.

Elite players don't pass. Good for them.

[Aoitsuki]

I love how people try to say people are hostile in forum, and then they proceed to take a jab on another entity.

If you spend a minute looking at the gameworld, Elite doesn't even maintain a high member count inorder to compete. A point that OP tries to pull across right from the beginning. A-team sky alliance and other are grabbing every single airline available to boost their member count to win based on a mechanic that sami created(while there were multiple threads Elite tried to argue against sami about variable/set alliance score). Yet all of a sudden Elite is getting attacked for being too strong, don't want changes, gets favour from sami because they are a huge group of players, run hard core strategy to make the game 'not fun'.

Being in a (large)alliance does not mean you automatically become invincible, get special bonus other doesn't. And bully other anyway they want. Being in large established alliance means if you care and want, you can get advise from other more experienced player, and to a certain extend, get help in sourcing aircraft. Those airline will still get pressure from other competition, fail and bankrupt.

If you go back to 15-20 player roaster game, There is a very good chance Elite will win every game world alliance race just like they did back then.

[freshmore]

I literally cannot see the connection between having less players in an alliance and it reducing competition. The number of large airlines and competition wouldn't go down, the alliances would do exactly what Elite did years ago which is split into an Elite First team and a second alliance, which I shall call Elite(ish)!

As for making it smaller it has this one major downside, Experience is not handed down to newer players. If we went back to even 25, Elite and others would fill up on their Core member bases and the best airlines, quite often the more experienced players in the game. The would be less room for the less experienced to get into an alliance like Elite, World Connection etc.

As for coordination, I have never known an alliance coordinate an attack on an airline, if any airline has a soft underbelly and an airline can take advantage of that the competition can hurt. It doesn't matter if you are aligned or not, it's a competitive market, we take the breaks we get. We keep a collective eye on things, often noting an airline that looks weak or is about to go under. It is worth noting many airlines go bankrupt not because of alliance attack or anything, but boredom, mismanagement (I've made a few mistakes) or just not having the time to continue. A weak airline will be vulnerable to any kind of competition, if they are at a big base they will find competition from 10's maybe even 100's of airlines on all their routes.

The Game is not perfect, I think the current system is a good compromise all in all. To change the balance of the game like you desire a fundamental code change is what's needed, not a simple alliance tweak. The tweak you are suggesting would see us back to the situation years ago where an alliance has two in a Gameworld, with waiting lists again. That's not progress in my book.

[MRothschild]

I'm a real world businessman, so I personally embrace competition and less restriction on everything.  In a system like that, without artificial boundaries or limits, it is possible to achieve anything.   

[gazzz0x2z]

I'm a real world businessman, so I personally embrace competition and less restriction on everything.  In a system like that, without artificial boundaries or limits, it is possible to achieve anything.   

The tough part is to achieve fun for a maximum number of players. I never BK'd in this game, but the fleet limit, the base limit, and the planes outside HQ limit probably prevented the big boys from killing me in my first GW3. And, in last GW3, the last two rules prevented me from bullying smaller players.

Of course, my growth has been limited. I did reach the 600 planes out of base in 2025, and so late only because I was stopping myself before, not taking all possible slots, to keep some place for better opportunities(and rightfully so, a few nice lines did clear themselves). Those rules are good rules, as they allow less skilled players(as I was in the beginning) to survive if they don't make too many blunders, learn the ropes, and get better. Most online games reach a kind of equilibrium between free market and admin interventionism for keeping a maximum of players happy. It's not perfect, but I like the system as it is right now.

[Johan87]

I started this treath in the hope that atleast 1 long game world would be different from the others and see if people have different oppinions about the present system of 4 worlds with all same rule system.

Basically if disable Alliance option and the used planes can be sold with a smaller profit/lose margin,then we gett a real game which we will be fight for ourself and make the game a real battle.off course some airliners will help eachother,but cannot be possible in the big way it happens now.
I would join this kind of game as then you have to work your way trough your self,or just minimize the Alliance option.
Some airliners where not as good as they are now as they goth the help from alliances to keep there precese in a region.
How great would it be just to play 1 long game by yourself and grow an airliner by yourself.
I like this game indeed,but i also like some diversaty between gameworld.

See how many airliners are over now in gw3 which will end in a week?did someone remember with how many we started it?
Not all stopped early because of boredome,but also beeing pushed out of the game by big carriers,and yes i worked in gw3 in this system aswell.
Also some players i know from outside this game gave it a few tries in different worlds,then same thing happen again and again and they stopped this game totally as it is Always the same.
Maybe more players stay in the game then and the Administration earn some more money aswell then the the present is.
Our clients(in real life) enjoy different services which attract more clients then the smaller group staying in the core business.
Maybe this is something to think about too in this game and not stop it after 1 world try,but give it time so more people can grw into the game.
I am here for 1,5 years,not super long but playing same game again and again with same situations getts slowely boring.
So if the big Alliances want to keep the present 4 long worlds,then i ask open a 5th long world with disabled systems and you have to work yourself trough.
or a midsized game like gw3 now is.
Let's see what happens then.
playing long worlds with different settings would be awesome,right?

The tough part is to achieve fun for a maximum number of players. I never BK'd in this game, but the fleet limit, the base limit, and the planes outside HQ limit probably prevented the big boys from killing me in my first GW3. And, in last GW3, the last two rules prevented me from bullying smaller players.

Of course, my growth has been limited. I did reach the 600 planes out of base in 2025, and so late only because I was stopping myself before, not taking all possible slots, to keep some place for better opportunities(and rightfully so, a few nice lines did clear themselves). Those rules are good rules, as they allow less skilled players(as I was in the beginning) to survive if they don't make too many blunders, learn the ropes, and get better. Most online games reach a kind of equilibrium between free market and admin interventionism for keeping a maximum of players happy. It's not perfect, but I like the system as it is right now.