New Game Scenario Question

[Karl]

Would we ever consider playing a game - without alliances?

While I know that alliances provide a benefit to members, it might be interesting to see if we can go it alone for one game.

It might also be a test to see if, along with alliance benefits, such a scenario might lessen potential abuses.

[Cornishman]

Hey Karl - it's an idea - but I rather think what you'd get is a majority of the players that always sign up to one or other alliance would simply not bother playing this GW - after all, not many have the time to play in all the GWs that are available. So the result would probably be meaningless unless you could first establish that a significant number of traditional alliance players actually took part.

[Amelie090904]

Alliances as such don't offer any benefits to the player whatsoever. It's not pay to win. Every player (in an alliance or not) has the very same opportunities. Therefore, it makes no sense to remove alliances for a game world in order to make it less competitive. In fact, it would cause quite the opposite effect since there would be less basing restrictions. The typical alliance players would be free to base wherever they want which would mean that you could have several alliance players of the same alliance at the same airport (which is not possible when they are in an alliance as there is only one member per airport allowed). So let's say 2 players of "Elite" could both play in JFK. One focusses on passengers, the other one on cargo. This would normally be impossible. What you are suggesting would actually give skilled players more opportunities, and not the other way around.

Not to mention that alliances (at least "Elite Alliance", that is) are coordinating via Discord or other means of communication. Removing alliances would not change a thing. People would still coordinate privately and play as usual.

Regarding abuse, it would make things even less transparent. Thanks to alliances, we know who belongs to which alliance. We know which players/airlines we need to observe to see if they play by the rules. If you remove alliances, it involves guessing/luck to find connections between players/airlines. Abuses would be more difficult to spot.

[tungstennedge]

Would we ever consider playing a game - without alliances?

While I know that alliances provide a benefit to members, it might be interesting to see if we can go it alone for one game.

It might also be a test to see if, along with alliance benefits, such a scenario might lessen potential abuses.

I find playing without an alliance easier. What alliances offer is a great place to learn, and place to hang out and talk. Those are the only aspects of playing in an alliance that I miss. In reality, all alliances offer is protection against those alliance members from competing with you. I personally prefer less protection, and more open markets so playing un allied offers a fuller experience for me. I guess you also have less players who you can trade aircraft with, but there are still players who are willing to help you with large orders for faster deliveries and such.

[Karl]

Alliances as such don't offer any benefits to the player whatsoever.
Not to mention that alliances (at least "Elite Alliance", that is) are coordinating via Discord or other means of communication. Removing alliances would not change a thing. People would still coordinate privately and play as usual.

If this is so, how could it hurt to have a game without alliances?

[Todorojoz]

IMO alliances actually lead to more AWS activity. If they are done correctly, it becomes a group of people that you chat with about a lot of things, but definately a lot about AWS. In doing so, it keeps the game on ones mind more than would happen without it. Elite has a discord chat that I follow every day. They talk about a bunch of different things as well as just discussing how our airlines are doing. It adds dimension to a game that otherwise doesn't have it. The forums are pretty quiet overall and the AWS discord can get active, but as it is just one channel, it can at times be tough to follow.

Also, you assume that if there wasn't an alliance in the GW that people usually in an alliance together wouldn't still have that same working relationship together. As Andre mentioned, my guess is the GW would run pretty much the same, you would just have people working together but it would be harder to follow the actions.

I actually wish we would see more alliances with more activity. There really isn't much on offer overall, and I think it there were more strong alliances, we could possibly see an improvement in player engagement and the number of people signing up to play would grow. Right now we have Elite and Phoenix which have been around a while and have some infrastructure in place. But most other alliances seem to be in 1 GW and I doubt they generally have more than the in game forums for communication on top of the lack of tools that and helps that get built over time by alliance members. (I am not talking about cheating tools, just things to calculate fuel contract benefits or suggest airports, or Aircraft launch time frames and specs. Etc.)

[swiftus27]

If this is so, how could it hurt to have a game without alliances?

What gain is there without them, then?    If they don't do anything as is, why even bother removing them?

[Amelie090904]

If this is so, how could it hurt to have a game without alliances?

See my post above.

1. Abuses would be more difficult to spot.
2. It would give more power/opportunities to the "alliance people" (who usually play in alliances)
3. There is no benefit for the average player if there are no alliances (so why bother at all?)