Alliance Challenge game world - Participation query

[Sigma]

Got to thinking about this, and I think there needs to be some changes to the way games are played now, if the idea is to create a true Alliance vs. Alliance world.

Without ABCBA routes, and without the ability to base into the Top 20 airports, alliance competition is very difficult.  Interaction between opposing alliances and the ability to "call for help" is almost nonexistent, as, outside of competition based in your own airport, you can't "go after" anyone else because you can't get to them outside of a mere single route.  Even if every single member of an Alliance, out of every single base they could have, all targetted a single airline, that'd only be at most 100 routes that you could "go after" someone on.  

Ideally, I'd like to see ABCBA routes make a return, as that brings on true competition.  But, at the very least, we need to remove the Top 20 base restriction though that won't get you even 5% of the "benefit" of turning ABCBA back on.

And to eliminate the systematic destruction of airlines by Alliances moving lots of members into an opposing city and spamming all the routes at once, bankrupting the opposition, then closing the bases, I think there should be a restriction on no more than 1 member of an Alliance per airport.

[jest]

Got to thinking about this, and I think there needs to be some changes to the way games are played now, if the idea is to create a true Alliance vs. Alliance world.

Without ABCBA routes, and without the ability to base into the Top 20 airports, alliance competition is very difficult.  Interaction between opposing alliances and the ability to "call for help" is almost nonexistent, as, outside of competition based in your own airport, you can't "go after" anyone else because you can't get to them outside of a mere single route.  Even if every single member of an Alliance, out of every single base they could have, all targetted a single airline, that'd only be at most 100 routes that you could "go after" someone on.  

Ideally, I'd like to see ABCBA routes make a return, as that brings on true competition.  But, at the very least, we need to remove the Top 20 base restriction though that won't get you even 5% of the "benefit" of turning ABCBA back on.

And to eliminate the systematic destruction of airlines by Alliances moving lots of members into an opposing city and spamming all the routes at once, bankrupting the opposition, then closing the bases, I think there should be a restriction on no more than 1 member of an Alliance per airport.

I totally agree. Multi legs are a must if an alliance challenge is a go.

[MunMaRu]

My alliance are interested too 

[hong]

When this game will be start?

[chapelhillnews]

SkyNet is in the process of forming. This has always been a dominant alliance and we are looking for members who are experienced players and want to join an alliance that coordinates their efforts through extensive communication on the alliance forum. Several past game winners are in the Alliance including Jest (who is winning the current Modern Times game, Jonesy UK, who has won before as Padarn, myself, who won a North American Challenge game as Lucky 7 Airlines. Sigma is also in the alliance, as is Type45, and several other very skilled players. If you are interested in joining the Skynet team, please PM me, Jest, or Sigma. Join the winning team - apply today!

[chapelhillnews]

I totally agree. Multi legs are a must if an alliance challenge is a go.

If the multi leg routes do not return, perhaps we could at least open bases in countries other than our home country.

[chapelhillnews]

Is it possible to set up a private forum for SkyNet so that we can plan for the Alliance Challenge? I have been PMing the members, but apparently there is a limit of how much one can PM in a certain time period, and I can't PM anymore right now.

[ban2]

My ideas for this alliance battle

ABCBA allowed... needed to create alliance moves on one another

No restrictions on 2nd basing at Top20... are you going to use your 12 monthly expansion to help another member, attack another alliance or boost your own position.

No restrictions how many airlines can base at airport... Will you go for the fight in the short term or long term?

1 bankrupt and your out... last alliance standing wins.

[psw231]

 ABCBA would not be essential, all that alliances would need to do is open in the same countries as other alliances. Grow strong and profitable and take away rivals grwth potential in thier own country and then open at the rivals HQ to eliminate or marginalize them. ABCBA would be good too but this will work to.

[MattDell]

No ABCBA... unless there's a way to restrict it to domestic flights.

-Matt

[MattDell]

Have continents been discussed yet?  Which ones?

[psw231]

Have continents been discussed yet?  Which ones?

pretty much has to be 2 of Noth America/Europe/ Asia you would have to think.

[Talentz]

Well, I am not sold on the idea of bringing back continuation routes. I think the games should be restricted to 1-2 continents, hubs feature disabled, 1v1 alliance members per airport.

The goal is to defeat your opponent in a 1v1 setting. Thus I don't see how continuations play into it.


We could have something like 2 continents, 4 Alliances split between the two. Euroland and NA or Asia and Oceanic. For two small <20 player Alliances.. Africa and SA.




Talentz

[Sigma]

Well, I am not sold on the idea of bringing back continuation routes. I think the games should be restricted to 1-2 continents, hubs feature disabled, 1v1 alliance members per airport.

The goal is to defeat your opponent in a 1v1 setting. Thus I don't see how continuations play into it.


We could have something like 2 continents, 4 Alliances split between the two. Euroland and NA or Asia and Oceanic. For two small <20 player Alliances.. Africa and SA.




Talentz

Then it becomes a 1v1 game, not an Alliance vs Alliance game.

Without ABCBA, and most definitely without multi-hubs, there is absolutely no "Alliance vs Alliance" component at all.

[Talentz]

Its still holds Alliance vs Alliance value. There are potentially 25 members to each alliance. That means for an Alliance to be considered a winner, 12 other alliance members have to "win" in there given airport, besides you.

With what is proposed, continuations and hubs - you give the top end players of there respective alliance the ability to band together and systematically kill off rival airlines 1 at a time. Having 5 or so airlines working as one entity airline rampaging through airports is not what I call "Alliance vs Alliance" as well.


There has to be a middle point here...



Talentz

[Sigma]

Its still holds Alliance vs Alliance value. There are potentially 25 members to each alliance. That means for an Alliance to be considered a winner, 12 other alliance members have to "win" in there given airport, besides you.

I see where you're going, but that's a pretty weak premise as far as "Alliance vs Alliance" goes.

That's not pitting an Alliance's ability to plan, coordinate, communicate, and work cooperatively as a team and/or against one another.  That's pitting one-player against another player and tallying up whose left at the end.

It'd be like a game of basketball where all we counted were Free Throws and whichever "team" made the most at the end is who won.

With what is proposed, continuations and hubs - you give the top end players of there respective alliance the ability to band together and systematically kill off rival airlines 1 at a time. Having 5 or so airlines working as one entity airline rampaging through airports is not what I call "Alliance vs Alliance" as well.


There has to be a middle point here...



Talentz

If this is such a threat, why doesn't it happen in every game?  

We have capacity rules now that prevent this from easily occurring.  And speaking from a lot of experience even before we had the rules, even with coordinated attempts of significantly more than the top few players in an Alliance, it takes a LOT of work to take out a well-run airline in this game given the margins involved.  With the new rules and aircraft delivery delays, this isn't nearly as easy as you describe.  It would require hundreds of aircraft and hundreds more routes and many, many years just to coordinate against a single well-run airline -- that's kind of the point, IMHO.  

And that's not even taking into account the fact that, while you're doing this, someone is likely (at least they should be) doing it right back against you hindering your ability to launch money-losing flights at their fellow team-members.

[[ATA] APB Airlines]

Is there alliances that need members. I would like to give this a shot. I am in beginner world 7 and join 55% of the way through and i am doing pretty well. I think

[Knos]

Is there alliances that need members. I would like to give this a shot. I am in beginner world 7 and join 55% of the way through and i am doing pretty well. I think

Same position as tom14cat14. Would like to give this a shot as I looking to get more involved with members and the game itself. So if an alliance does need an extra member I would also be willing to participate so please pm me.

Even if I dont get into the game, I wish all the alliances the best of luck as this looks to be shaping up to be a good game!

[Talentz]

It'd be like a game of basketball where all we counted were Free Throws and whichever "team" made the most at the end is who won.

That's a loose analogy, but cute non the less. Btw, that "team" you refer too would mean that everyone in the "team" helped to win... right?

If this is such a threat, why doesn't it happen in every game? 

Seems you answered your own question. However, since we touched the on subject I'm sure your aware that the AWS Anti-Alliance competition prevent such actions as:

That's not pitting an Alliance's ability to plan, coordinate, communicate, and work cooperatively as a team and/or against one another. 

The rules state no Alliance is too:

perform any coordinated alliance-wide schemes or attacks against other single airlines or other alliances or their member airlines. Alliance airlines may not target deliberately the routes of single other airline / alliance with an effort of pushing them out of the market or forcing to bankruptcy. Normal airline management and route competition is allowed but unfair methods with coordinated, targeted and combined actions are considered unfair competition.

So while I understand where your coming from, the rules prevent us from taking full advantage of what Continuation routing truly allows us to do...


With that said, this brings me to my original question: Why do we need to have Continuation routing?



Talentz

[Sigma]

However, since we touched the on subject I'm sure your aware that the AWS Anti-Alliance competition prevent such actions as:
The rules state no Alliance is too:
So while I understand where your coming from, the rules prevent us from taking full advantage of what Continuation routing truly allows us to do...

With that said, this brings me to my original question: Why do we need to have Continuation routing?

Talentz

Clearly my assumption was that, in a world specifically designed to pit Alliances against one another, that the rule regarding Alliances not being allowed to target one another would not apply since Sami's initial post clearly states that he envisions Alliances, quote, "competing against one another."

If we assume that the rule you stated will continue to be enforced then...

1> I agree your method of pairing off and tallying the remaining airlines would work
2> I agree that ABCBA routing is not only not necessary but would likely hinder the mechanism of such a design (as well as hubs)

If, however, you view it as a world truly pitting Alliances against one another, then ABCBA routing is almost a requirement as "going after" another alliance is virtually impossible without it because you can only hit a single route against a single airline -- you could never share more than 25 routes with an entire Alliance.  You'd never be "competing" at all, save for a relative handful of your routes, which would only yield a giant stalemate in the end.

It comes down to a philosophical difference on what the game is intended to be, and that's ultimately for sami to decide.  Though I will still play either way, my interest will be significantly lessened if it's another "carebear" world to be completely frank about it.

One big downside to your envisioning of how it'd work is that, once you run your competitor out of your base, there's almost no reason at all to continue playing.  Without the ability to establish other bases or create ABCBA routes, there is virtually nothing that you can do to assist your alliance members against their competition.  So the game-world will reach a point where it starts to get fairly empty, fairly quick.  I suppose you could modify your proposal and allow restarts and the "score" would be the number of BKs -- lesser wins.  But then working out restarts so that you're once again paired off with someone else and starting simultaneously would be impossible.