too big Alliances

[Johan87]

Hi,
I start to gett the feeling that the role of alliances are starting to dominate the game.
Wouldn't it be nice to limit this to max 10 or 12 players.Atleast 1 game world to see?
Maybe by smaller alliances the game will be more reliable on players skills instead of the Alliance you are in.
Also the cooperation of the players within the Alliance will be more important then now to stay at max players for points,this will be more spread out as now ony 2 or 3 Alliances can earn extra points on the max of 30-35 players.
This way there will be more Alliances,so more equal teams and if you want to win this aswell then the whole group have to work to reach this.(just like in tour the france,4x100m sprint etc)

What are you thinking about this?

Seven,SevenAIR/7 AIR

[gazzz0x2z]

Not sure. Alliances just make it easier to find a broker for big fleet switches. It's not a small advantage, but it's not game-breaking either. I easily found 210 used 737ng on the UM in 24 months - and always had the choice between dozens of birds. Without asking for help in my alliance, or outside. It's more useful when you have fleet groups not flooding the UM(like the A148), but you just need one or two strong players in your alliance. Quality makes it more than quantity. I did never need more than one broker for managing my A148, and I fly 475 of them. Not many players need more than this number of airplanes in any fleet group. Those who do are the very big boys, and tend to be conservative on their fleet choices(MD90-55, for example), which means the UM helps them a lot already.

And too many players in an alliance can be a malediction. When you have 6-7 players in the USA, and all good bases are taken, and you need to expand, your choice is very limited.

[schro]

Not sure. Alliances just make it easier to find a broker for big fleet switches. It's not a small advantage, but it's not game-breaking either. I easily found 210 used 737ng on the UM in 24 months - and always had the choice between dozens of birds. Without asking for help in my alliance, or outside. It's more useful when you have fleet groups not flooding the UM(like the A148), but you just need one or two strong players in your alliance. Quality makes it more than quantity. I did never need more than one broker for managing my A148, and I fly 475 of them. Not many players need more than this number of airplanes in any fleet group. Those who do are the very big boys, and tend to be conservative on their fleet choices(MD90-55, for example), which means the UM helps them a lot already.

And too many players in an alliance can be a malediction. When you have 6-7 players in the USA, and all good bases are taken, and you need to expand, your choice is very limited.

If you're operating a very large airline, having a number of folks able to assist you with plane purchasing is absolutely critical - anything over 500-700 planes is generally not sustainable by fishing in the used market and hoping for it to solve your issues.

In a way, the recent increase from 25 to 35 or 40 players has made alliance play more challenging in the US (and to an extent, Europe) as it increases the overhead of proactive base management and coordination.

[josh99]

I think it would be a great experiment to have a game world where alliance memberships was limited to between 10 and 15 airlines and see how that plays out.    Perhaps limiting the number of airlines allowed will share out some of the more experienced, more knowledgeable players to more alliances, rather than those players always being in the same two or three alliances.  Perhaps that would stop the dominance that a couple of the alliances have in most game worlds and make it a fairer playing field for all.  Less dominance and less members may mean it is easier for new players that join a game some time after the start or mid way through and actually be able to not only get a foot hold in a market but also thrive, which at present is pretty difficult to do for many.     

Perhaps the limiting of players in an alliance will encourage more communication between players of different alliances,  as there would be a greater need for aircraft brooking outside of an alliance.

Also, limiting the number of members in an alliance could make it easier for a more experienced player (or alliance manager)  to help a less experienced player in their alliance, as they would - possibly - have more time to share with a smaller number of members.

Its worth exploring I feel.     

[kscessandriver]

Maybe I'm the oddball, but I rarely play with an alliance. I'd venture to guess I'm probably the largest, non-allianced airline in GW2 right now. I've had some approach me about joining, but everyone would require me to give up one of my more profitable bases, and it's generally just not worth it. Sure, it might make the game a bit harder in terms of fleet restructuring (as I found out going from the Avro to the E-jets, forcing me to park roughly 50 Avro's before I could replace them), but I find it more fun.

[JumboShrimp]

Some history of the alliance membership limit:

It used to be 25 airlines per alliance.  Then, there was a period of time when the 1990s-2020 game worlds were super busy, oversubscribed, with some 600+ airlines starting the game world.  At that time, the alliances were also oversubscribed, with waiting lists to join.  So the limit was increased.

Since then, most of the game worlds have moved to very long 1960-2030, there are more games running at the same time, and player counts have settled in 300 range (fewer by the game end).  So the current alliance membership limit is quite high now vs. number of players in the game world. but I don't think there is a strong reason to change it.

[Johan87]

A: there are 3 long game worlds and 1 medium long game world but all with same settings.
  So a game world with different settings would not be a problem at all,or open a 5th game world with different settings and see what happens.

B: now with 30+ Alliance members it is easy to base 4 in 1 country easy and actually help out eachother to pressure 1 stand alone or a smaller Alliance member.
if want to keep the same % then spread out over countries and make it more fair for the other players.
there is a base player group in each Alliance so they can plan ahead and recrute other members at different countries and make it more intresting.

C: If make like a lock to 10/15 Alliance members this means there will be more players  around the world and if make the plane prices less flexible,means profits or losses made on planes are smaller then this way more players have to depent on there own skills and gett less from other players.

D: the 4th fleet penalty was made so production lines gett less congested by the big players and give other players a chance too,if i remeber corectly?
   But now planes beeing order for profit sales or for other members so actually this rule helps the better developt players over the less experianced players.
   And with less profits this will make it less interestng to buy for sale and give the players with less game time also a chance to gett earliers orders on the production line
   The max plane outside the homebase rule already have the lock on this,so just open a world where a 4th type or 5th can easy be ordered and give more of us a chance to enjoy this game.(don't say go to beginners world,as they are only 10 years,we want longer games too!!!)

E: I have the priveledge to see both side of beeing in a top Alliance and enjoy the good stuff,as it really is and also see the other side where players just want to enjoy the game but beeing bullied away by the top dogs.
So just open a game world where everyone have the chance to enjoy a long game world(even without achievements is fine aswell)as we all pay the 5 credits to gett in the game and pay the weekly credit to play,but not fun to loose your real money during the game as your competitor have the priveledge of help from the rich players but actually you have to earn it your self and if this influence wasn't there and both have to do there selfs will make it more interesting for everyone.
guess this will keep more players inside a game world then now when we start with around 600 players and end up with just 135 or so.

So with an increase in players it maybe also good to offer more different products to us then basically the same now.
This game is growing so to keep your players in there and not loose them there should be different settings beeing offered then now.
all games have same levels while here basically 4longworld's with same settings,the mini games and the beginnersworld.
So if can make a long world where you basically fly alone then this would change the present same over and over routine and make it lively again.
not earn alot of money on selling planes as this would open production lines more then now.

And if players want to be a broker then maybe give the option to start as a broker and only broke like the A1's now do.
that look like an interesting new challenge to me

[MuzhikRB]

these are only limitations to free market.

if it will be no alliances - it will be even easier, cause the core players will not stop interact or help each other. but will have no alliance regulations to follow.

buying for resale ? - it is very good. because AI brokers now are not working. Small companies cannot usually order 40+ ACs (to get 20% discount), so they are gladly buying from rich players.  sometime they pay premium, sometimes not - just PM to owner and mostly you can find a win-win agreement. because real players dont want to stuck with a lot of ACs on hand just because they put high prices.
and AI brokers just holding ACs - and not intend to earn money. i saw very popular planes sold by AI broker - 15 yo and 0 hours flight time. and only 4 years left before noise regulation will make it obsolete. yeah - good business.

even IRL there are 6 alliances. while only 3 are major.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_alliance#Current_alliances

so I would thinking about not limiting the members at all. but - change points calculation. and may be increase/add some advantages for being in it.
1. Points calculation must consider countries and continents that alliance is serving.
2. points calculation must consider players personal points.
3. points calculation must consider pax travelled.

Also we can think about adding second type of alliance - regional.
And this alliance, while it will surely have less players due original limitation (they must be based in that region) - will have stronger pax advantage for in-out region flights.
So having EU alliance alive and flying JFK/LHR - non EU alliance player will have stronger disadvantage than currently.

This, I think will add more interesting strategies not only to single player, but to alliance either and also will allow smaller alliances become stronger by holding only one region.

[Johan87]

That why i have written,not much profit or loss on planes when you sell,this wll empy more the production lines as only planes will be bought for other Alliance members if requested and also make new planes at used market more affordable.

Besides this stay a game and every long game world have the same rules.
You and me are from the same alliances so we know the advantages of this,but what if we where not?
So is time to open up a game world with different settings,there is a reason why after 2 or 3 real months many players already left the game because they went bankrupt.
It is time to give other players,who also pay money to have fun here also to enjoy this game as we can do inside our comfortable zones.
I don't say all game worlds but if all 4 long wrlds have same settings have same high player droppingthen maybe it is time for a long world with different settings so everyone can choose where they want to play.

From last summer i have less game time then i had in my previous year and my focus on 2 game worlds and give 2 game worlds the time like maybe a person can give like beeing in a fulltime job and have a family wih kids and you can see how someone with more free game time can push someone out easy and other you miss so many things but thanks to Alliance can actually can recover thanks to there help.If you don't have this i understand why only just 130-150 players reach the end of a game world and usually the big Alliance have minnor drop outs then the others.
The 2 game worlds i focused on i could race to the top to go for a games end achievement very easy(dropped present fleet and build a large new 1) and the other i build up an airliner 19 game years after game start up and be in value already in 25th spot thanks to taking good oppertunities and beside this i could have helped some friends out aswell with taking some losses.
Together with this i toke out some competition which some newer players where in and play for a few real months already and then i came and wash there airliner away like they didn't excist.
Should i be proud as i won my homebase for myself?or on the otherhand i destroyed other player(s)who was building up for months already.

So conclusion if have a long game world with different settings then there can be more variaty in choice where to play or if want to play multiple worlds then there will be variaty in gaming.

[gazzz0x2z]

If you're operating a very large airline, having a number of folks able to assist you with plane purchasing is absolutely critical - anything over 500-700 planes is generally not sustainable by fishing in the used market and hoping for it to solve your issues.(.../...)

That's just for top 10 players. As high as top 20 like me(I'll finish current GW3 16th or so), it's already no more true. Only a handful of players reach your fleet sizes, and only those starting in very big airports. With the 600 limit outside HQ, even starting in a big-but-not-that-big airport as Detroit(with one very competent opponent) was enough to prevent me from growing more. I'm just blocked in further growth.

And it just means it's a complicated game balance question. For a top 10 player like you(well, you're more top 3, btw), larger alliances are a good thing. When a player has 800 planes to replace, it's a completely different game than my 475. And big alliances are mandatory for having several production lines open for several years, just for feeding your replacement. For a top20 player like me, it's already more trouble than it's worth : base choices are far more limited, and this problem is not compensated by better fleet feeders. My need for external purchase has been rather limited.

And for smaller players, let' say small regional airlines with 10 bases in the British islands(2 in current GW3), or in Europe's low-cost airports(I did that once), it's just catastrophic. When you play that size, having a great number of bases is mandatory to avoid being vulnerable to bigger players. And more players in your alliance means less choices for adequate bases. I was not too annoyed, being in a smaller alliance, and having reached my quota with just 4 bases(JFK being totally free in 2005 was a true gamechanger for me). But it clearly means some choices of strategy are not compatible with such a big alliance size. Which means it's better for such players to be in smaller alliances like mine. They won't be blocked too much by other players, and won't need broker services at all(or for a few rare specifics, for which smaller brokers are more than enough).

When you play the big bases, you don't need a lot of them. You are so powerful that a coordinated attack against you(I just had one against me, lost a few percent of margin in 6 months), it's a mere annoyance. When you play small bases, you are far more vulnerable, and without spreading out in several bases, you can be killed by a coordinated big boys attack. And bigger alliances are really a problem : more big boys allied to gangbang on you, less possibilities to expand in interesting bases.

In other words, it's complicated.

[fark24]

I have no issue with alliance size. The rule banning multiple airlines within the alliance operating from the same base seems to keep things fair (and, in a way, probably promotes basing at otherwise neglected airports). And it is probably needed to counterbalance the dysfunctional state of the used market (which hordes 95%+ of used frames mid/late game) as I don't believe Sami is yet convinced how much this hurts gameplay and needs to be addressed.

Now alliance scoring, that should be changed. Currently, each airline contributes points to the alliance score - meaning that alliances with more members have an inherent score advantage.

I'd much rather see a system that better rewards the quality of the alliance membership - either by ranking alliances by average member score or, my preference, using only the top 10 or top 15 airlines within the alliance to calculate alliance score. Kind of how a people today would associate Star/Oneworld/SkyTeam with big airlines like Lufthansa/British Airways/Delta, etc. and not with minor members such as LOT/SriLankan/TAROM.

[Johan87]

Off course you don't have a problem with that as you are an Elite member.
How many Alliance members do you have in USA?
And didn't we all see the trent that you guys open together more flights to bases where competition is who are not in a big Alliance or stand alones and beeing taken out of business for Alliance members to grow?
That is not fair gaming and a reason why more and more people stop playing.if it would be 1 on 1 i guess the game world would have seen differently and more airliners still active in USA then the 5-1 fights which have been delivered before in different worlds.
If there would be a limitation towards alliances then other players can also play and enjoy.
I had fun in this game too,but it is getting less and less too thanks to you guys.

Yes,i enjoy my time in a big Alliance too and have the advantages of being inside a big alliance i don't want 4 game worlds with same rules and where others are bending the rules in there advantage.
It is nice to see Alliances grow but spread them out over the world then,let's see then how dominand you will be then.
So if you want to play this game then there should come a game world and named:Battle of the Alliances,then you can do your wolf pack gaming and see the result when others team up and fight at same level back.
4 long game worlds so they should be different way of gaming too.
Some of us have a family and fulltime job,but also like to enjoy this game of beeing in a bigger base,and if it was 1-1 fights they would be still in the game.

Only Elite members are fighting for to keep present system,maybe we all should ask why?

I have no issue with alliance size. The rule banning multiple airlines within the alliance operating from the same base seems to keep things fair (and, in a way, probably promotes basing at otherwise neglected airports). And it is probably needed to counterbalance the dysfunctional state of the used market (which hordes 95%+ of used frames mid/late game) as I don't believe Sami is yet convinced how much this hurts gameplay and needs to be addressed.

Now alliance scoring, that should be changed. Currently, each airline contributes points to the alliance score - meaning that alliances with more members have an inherent score advantage.

I'd much rather see a system that better rewards the quality of the alliance membership - either by ranking alliances by average member score or, my preference, using only the top 10 or top 15 airlines within the alliance to calculate alliance score. Kind of how a people today would associate Star/Oneworld/SkyTeam with big airlines like Lufthansa/British Airways/Delta, etc. and not with minor members such as LOT/SriLankan/TAROM.

[Elladan]

So far I have seen none of us "fighting" to keep current alliance rules, just few stating their opinion on the subject. You seem to have something against Elite Alliance but that's your problem not ours.

As for all those changes proposed - they would either have no desired effect or in some cases would actually bring more of what you guys are trying to remove. Just one example, what you are alluding to writing about situation in US is called "free market" and "free competition". And it happens whenever there are alliances or not as the natural desire of all entrepreneurs is to have monopoly on their market. You have no fun with it and that's fair enough, what you would like to see is a regulated market, which historically existed in real life before all deregulations. I would like to see the scream if this was ever implemented...

You would be also amazed to find how many people with families, children, full time jobs and many other responsibilities do just fine in this game, even in the biggest airports. Free time is not the only component of success.

[gazzz0x2z]

I also note that in current GW3 Elite members carefully avoided JFK, even when it was empty, leaving us mere mortals a nice profitable playground to play with. I also note that one of their members was a victim of the insane price war that struck Australia, and BK'd not long after the demise of his opponents. Which means that Elite playes, maybe, possibly, are mere mortals too. Some of them, at least.

I finally note that success is heavily dependant on opposition. When they decide to attack you, profit gets down. My profit went down from 17% to 13% within one year, just because two of my opponents, especially the big one in Detroit, decided to attack me everywhere just before the end of the game. They are probably having a lot of fun. But if I had played a less sound way, with less efficient lines, and a profitability around 3/4%, I'd be in danger. I am not, by far. So if you fear attack from the big boys(elite are not the only ones), well, begin by building a sound company. Either make your HQ a fortress, or spread out to be less vulnerable to localized attacks, or both, plus improve your pricing policy, don't do too many silly things, don't fly too long, too thin routes, make adequate fleet groups, and you should survive.

TL;DR : if other players are having better results than you simply means they are playing better than you. There are still 15 of them playing better than me(including 7 Elite), and I've got a lot to learn to reach their level.

[schro]

Le sigh.

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

He's just speaking from his own experience, though, I would tend to agree that there's not an issue with alliance size at this time, nor the basing requirements. If we go to a very small alliance limit of say, 10-15, then there would be no incentive for a core group of players to train and cultivate new members as there simply wouldn't be room. Before your time, one alliance even started a "minor league" type alliance that was "aligned" with the "major league" alliance that served as a farm team for the larger one. That was the result of having 25 airline limits on alliances. From a management perspective, the now higher limit is an absolute PITA to manage - pulling in 40 airlines in a game world that do not geographically overlap or compete unfairly is VERY difficult to do unless they're all content playing a small game somewhere in the Congo.

How many Alliance members do you have in USA?

No idea on current game worlds, but from a planning perspective, we typically limit USA to 5-6 airlines. This has NOT changed since the alliance limit has increased. In some cases we will go slightly higher, but it really depends on the consensus and ambitions of those in the US. At 5-6 airlines with even just 3-4 bases each, that pretty much covers the entire country.

And didn't we all see the trent that you guys open together more flights to bases where competition is who are not in a big Alliance or stand alones and beeing taken out of business for Alliance members to grow?

We do not actively "hunt" other airlines or coordinate for their demise. We have a set structure of route sharing that we ask our members to follow that is designed for maximum alliance revenue and passengers carried rather than that for their individual airline. Our airlines tend to identify areas where there is opportunity and continue growth in that direction. Our guidelines are FAR more conservative than game rules (game rules do not allow one airline or alliance to supply more than 200% of demand on a given route).

That is not fair gaming and a reason why more and more people stop playing.if it would be 1 on 1 i guess the game world would have seen differently and more airliners still active in USA then the 5-1 fights which have been delivered before in different worlds.
If there would be a limitation towards alliances then other players can also play and enjoy.
I had fun in this game too,but it is getting less and less too thanks to you guys.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. It sounds like you're saying that a massive multiplayer online game has too many people playing in it for you to enjoy?

Yes,i enjoy my time in a big Alliance too and have the advantages of being inside a big alliance i don't want 4 game worlds with same rules and where others are bending the rules in there advantage.
It is nice to see Alliances grow but spread them out over the world then,let's see then how dominand you will be then.
So if you want to play this game then there should come a game world and named:Battle of the Alliances,then you can do your wolf pack gaming and see the result when others team up and fight at same level back.
4 long game worlds so they should be different way of gaming too.

From my view, I do not see "wolfpack gaming" within Elite. What rules are you claiming to have been bent? Perhaps you're mistaking us for another alliance?

Some of us have a family and fulltime job,but also like to enjoy this game of beeing in a bigger base,and if it was 1-1 fights they would be still in the game.

We have families and jobs too. It does not take a ton of time to run an airline....

Only Elite members are fighting for to keep present system,maybe we all should ask why?

Elite has been consistently around the longest of any alliance since the game started. Since we've been at this a while, we have seen changes come and go to the game and have had to adapt to them over the years. We also tend to be fairly experienced players that can foresee a the potential impact of some things on gameplay that comes from having such experience. For me, when I make suggestions, it's not to forward the cause of the alliance, but the game as a whole, as bad game rule decisions are bad for everyone...

[josh99]

Gosh such an aggressive response  from Elladan,  Yep  everything people have suggested would have no effect - I wonder how you would know that before its even been tried or tested or implemented.   This thread was started just to raise the issue that giant alliance may be having a negative effect on the majority of players outside those giant alliances and to get the general views of others, it was not meant to be an attack on any alliances/airlines/players/people.    These are just suggestions for discussion and not a a lists of requests, nor a campaign for change.   

I personally know two people who have left the game because of the aggressive way Elite members have played, working together to drive away their airline competition and treated them.  I also have had other players state they would not open a base if an Elite member was there because they know how that alliance members behave towards them - sure thats their problems, not yours!   

Having run an alliance for a relatively short time I know how tough it can be to operate one with an open door policy, plus I can see things from both sides of the fence.  Its great to be in a big alliance at the top of the leader bored and getting the highest scores.  But it is also nice to be in a smaller alliance where members or managers actually get the chance to get to know their fellow players both in terms of the game and outside the game.  There are good things to be said for both ways,  but if we never try anything new,  we'll just stagnate, the big boys will stay the big boys, the rest of us will struggle to survive or prosper and each game will be exactly the same.

[schro]

I personally know two people who have left the game because of the aggressive way Elite members have played, working together to drive away their airline competition and treated them.  I also have had other players state they would not open a base if an Elite member was there because they know how that alliance members behave towards them - sure thats their problems, not yours!   

I would not say that this particular behavior is an Elite exclusive, but rather, something that tends to happen with experienced players that know how to perform an analysis of other airlines to determine the best expansion plan forward. Now, less experienced players within an alliance can always ask the more experienced players for help with the decision, but it usually goes something like this -

1. Airline wants to expand to a new base.
2. Airline has a given fleet and fleet plan, and uses that to identify ideal areas of the country for expansion (i.e. BACs are a no-sale on the left coast or north east).
3. Airline reviews competitive environment of each suitable base that does not already have an alliance member present.*
4. Airline finds the base (sometimes with help of alliance members/mentors) that has best growth potential (i.e. most unmet demand, weakest competition, etc.).
5. Airline opens base and goes to town.
6. Weak competitors often go bankrupt
7. ...
8. Profit

This will happen whether there's a 10 airline limit to alliances or no limit to alliances.

*At no point in any of the consultations that I've done over the years has used targeting a particular airline or other alliance as a criteria for determining the new base to be opened.

[josh99]

Forgive me if you thought that I had suggested that you had -

*At no point in any of the consultations that I've done over the years has used targeting a particular airline or other alliance as a criteria for determining the new base to be opened.

I meant nothing of the sort,  I meant that I have had players tell me they would NOT open a base if an Elite member was already present at that base.

[schro]

Forgive me if you thought that I had suggested that you had -

I meant nothing of the sort,  I meant that I have had players tell me they would NOT open a base if an Elite member was already present at that base.

No worries - I just tend to make that point clear as we've been accused of such things for years :-).

For players that have joined Elite, they usually tell us that they previously avoided bases with our players in them. I suppose it's nice to have a reputation, but isn't it interesting that deciding not to compete with a competitor allows them continued unfettered success without having to go through the bother of competing? I could probably go through our roster in each game world and tell you which of our players are vulnerable to new competition, as we have them in every world, just like any alliance has....

[Elladan]

Gosh such an aggressive response  from Elladan,  Yep  everything people have suggested would have no effect - I wonder how you would know that before its even been tried or tested or implemented.   This thread was started just to raise the issue that giant alliance may be having a negative effect on the majority of players outside those giant alliances and to get the general views of others, it was not meant to be an attack on any alliances/airlines/players/people.    These are just suggestions for discussion and not a a lists of requests, nor a campaign for change.   

1. I fail to see which part of my response to Seven could be construed as even slightly aggressive. Nor I intended it to be perceived as such.
2. As you might have noticed I haven't attacked any other alliances, players or airlines, just responded to such an attack by stating mere facts.
3. I have also stated my personal opinion on the subject of this thread, which I believe I have a right to. Whether you like it or not.

On this note I will leave this thread for you guys to enjoy if you like.