Alliances: A suggestion for those not inclined to large orgs

[Jaesic]

I have been participating in some threads lately where various problems always seem to lead me to thinking that NW is slowly but surely moving the political and social structure of the game to center on the large orgs. Many small orgs are being absorbed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they are the only ones that regularly have enough people online to defend a base that comes under attack.

I have put some ideas out, got a little feedback, and would like to present those ideas on a larger scale. Hopefully, some of you will see some worth in these basic thoughts and give suggestions on how to improve the idea (and maybe how to convince FC that it is worth implementing). I will include some of the feedback I've received elsewhere in a second post following the setup of the thread.

Note: I won't deny that these ideas are primarily beneficial to small guilds... but I have put in a little bit to make it worth while being in a large guild that doensn't regularly have to rely on outside assistance to keep their base.

I have added some further elaborations to the core ideas based on suggestions (current information time/date stamp is:
0500 GMT Dec 21, 2002)
-------------------------

Set up code for a 'formal alliance' system:
1. Allow any leader to ally his/her org to another guild... and the receiving guild leader the ability to accept or deny the alliance. This alliance is a two-way agreement.
2. Give the leaders on both sides the ability to 'break' an alliance. Any towers built on the land of a former ally self-destruct instantly upon the breach of alliance. A destroyed alliance should be announced on org leaders channel.
3. Allow multiple alliances... however A&B allied and B&C allied does not automatically confer an alliance between A&C, etc.

Benefits of alliance:
1. All allied organizations of an attacked base receive comm reports when towers/controllers are attacked.
2. All allied organizations can use the grid features of controllers for organizations to which they are allied. This allows defense forces to be raised quickly and to disperse easily when the battle is completed. This also provides one of the more useful peacetime features of an alliance... ease of transportation and scouting missions on nearby enemy bases (and staging grounds for attacks on them). A skill check to use an allied controller vs. one's on org controller grid feature might be more difficult than normal (higher CL requirement perhaps).
3. Allied organizations can build towers on an organization site. These towers are labled as 'allied units' and have special conditions and limitations attached (see below). These towers provide personal bonuses to the builder and must otherwise meet all normal construction criteria (except the 'land owned by organization' check which would be also indicate true if it was owned by an allied org). This benefit allows orgs to 'share' bases up to a certain extent, since only those members who have the ability to build towers would receive personal bonuses (note: the ability to build towers on other bases does NOT confer the ability to build more towers than normally allowed based on level of the character).
4. Organization leaders are given the ability to synchronize their suppression systems with those of allies. Requires all allied leaders agreement to change this (and when done, it changes ALL gas times to match). [At this time, I'm not sure this requirement would be sufficient to keep org leaders from changing times to avoid battles... perhaps limiting this to synchronizing it by triggering 25% period on all bases in 5 min. time. Then, any change would make them all susceptible at a controllable time rather than giving anyone the chance of postponing it. Possibly, doing this might have a side benefit of reducing the time the base is in 25% by an hour?]

Limitations of alliance:
1. All alliance bonuses and abilities do not apply until the organizations have been allied for a minimum of 12 hours (12 prevents people from allying purely for a single defense time advantage and then dropping the alliance when it is over, but is short enough to prevent alliance breaking by moles from disrupting things for more than one danger period).
2. Allied organizations do not receive the contract bonuses, only the owners of the controller receive this. Thus, under no circumstances does any organization ever receive contract bonuses for more than one base of each 'type' (based on QL) ... and then only if the controllers for those bases are owned by that org.
3. Being in an alliance reduces the available contract 'points' received from all org controlled bases by twenty percent. This is a one time overall reduction. Thus, a ql200 controller only yields 160 pts for contracts... whether the organization owning the base has one ally or ten. This restriction prevents orgs across the board from simply allying with everyone without having some penalty. Organizations who are not allied with anyone will still recieve full value and be able to have higher contract bonuses. (This is the main factor in the favor of the large orgs)
4. If an organization makes an offensive strike on a base that lowers their own bases to 25%... all allied organization bases are also lowered to 25%. This is to ensure that alliances remain cooperative ventures and not simply agreements of expediancy for all parties. Also, it provides a significant difference in alliances for the defense of all members... and those alliances made for the purpose of staging/waging war.


** Allied units **
towers set up on a base by an allied organization's member:

1. May only be dismantled by the officers of the organization that owns the base or by the builder of the tower. They may not be removed by the officers of the builder's organization.
2. These towers have their local features disabled during 5% periods by automatic circuitry to prevent conflict with equipment owned by the organization controlling the site. During this time, they do not attack hostiles nor do they provide local effects. They do continue to provide personal bonuses to the builder.

An optional third factor to these allied unit type towers:
3. These towers are never considered to be owned by the organization controlling the base and are not. Thus, they can be attacked by any individual or group without the need to disable shielding as long as the proper suppression gas requirements are met. note: this is just an idea i had while putting these ideas down... I'm not sure if it serves any real value... but it would be a slightly interesting twist to strategy in fighting a base set up by allied forces.


Other notes:
In all cases, any attack on any tower or controller located on a base that the organization owns or is allied to should provide comm warnings to that organization.

Any significant attack on the property of an organization (destruction of a tower or PvP death of a member) to which you are allied should reset the alliance to a 'conditional' state that requires the leaders to reformalize the alliance. This should only be possible during 5% gas period... but allows moles to be slightly disruptive at a dangerous moment. The leaders should receive a report about the individual who is responsible for this. Ie... mole of this type is only effective once.

---------------------------

Jaesic
172 NT (rk2)

[Jaesic]

Originally posted by Kiryat-Dharin
Limitations 3 and 4 are unnecessary.

I don't think a full alliance is necessary. I just want in-game provisions for the equivalent of a mutual defense pact.

I've included further details since the original in my post that elaborate on why I thought they were necessary.

Also from Kiryat-Dharin
Limitation 3 really isn't needed, unless those controller points actually are given to the allies. Otherwise, you're still penalizing smaller guilds

As I've stated in the new post... it is, in a way, a penalty to the smaller guilds. However, I feel its necessary to give the large guilds something of a benefit for not having to ally with anyone. Otherwise, this idea could end up going the exact opposite way. Instead of everyone leaving small guilds to join the large ones... the large ones would split up into small ones that were then allied.

From Sanskrit
Would prefer a much more flexible gas control system as opposed to a highly complex allegiance system, although would support and bump most of the allegiance ideas you have posted.

I've adjusted benefit 4 to alliances a little since you saw it.. though, probably you'd like to see that separate from the alliances idea completely... and I don't know that I'd oppose that at all Still... I'd like to be able to see allied orgs adjust easily so that all of them can have synchronized times... so they can consolidate forces and defend whichever bases are attacked (they'll still be somewhat susceptible to mass strikes on multiple bases if they happen to have more than just one shared one).

There's a little more by Kiryat-Dharin too... but I'm not sure I understood his points in that, so I'll hold off on adding it here... at least until he has a chance to clarify or I get a clue

--------------------

As I've stated before.. I greatly appreciate feedback and suggestions. The more sense this all makes when the FC people eventually see it (might be a while... like... after Christmas... but thats ok... gives us a chance to work out the flaws first).

Thanks folks.

Jaesic
172 NT (rk2)

[Cemetarygate]

Jaesic, you're making this more complex than has to be. An alliance in terms of game mechanics should simply be a matter of sharing a chat channel between the aligning organizations, and sharing grid access to each others bases.

To comment on your suggestions of building towers, synchronization, time limits and attacks.

Building towers on each others sites would indicate a merger, of sort. In which case the guilds should simply merge. Also, people want alliances to help each other defend land, not build on each others land. So, the ability to build on each others land is not required and should not be part of alliances.

The ability to synchronize supressions would actually be a bad idea. If all the aligning bases went 25% at the same time then aligning forces could not focus all their efforts on one base. This would spread them out and make them more vulnerable to attack. In which case, each organization is defending their own towers again, not having any help from the members of the alliance. Therefore, I can't see any organization that would actually use this since it weakens, not strenghtens.

No time limits should be placed on alliances. (i.e. "All alliance bonuses and abilities do not apply until the organizations have been allied for a minimum of 12 hours"). Again, the purpose of the aliance is defending each others guilds. If, as in my suggestion, we are giving alligning members channels and grid access then there is no means to exploit a temporary alliance.

Only those that wish to participate in the attack should have their towers turn 25%, not every oganization of the alliance. Again, we are sharing channels and grid access, northing more.

Finally, from a coding aspect it would be much easier to code an alliance channel, and allowing each other grid access. Many of the ideas you're proposing would take too long to impliment, and we all know how many new bugs are introduced with each new set of code.

Keep it simple as some say, here's how the alliance system should work.

Alliance:
-Allow leader to create alliance. (/org aligncreate <alliance name>)
-Allow the leader to invite other leaders into the alliance. (target org leader type '/org aligninvite <alliance name>')
-Recepient can accept or deny. (click yes or no)
-Give the leaders the ability to leave the alliance. (/org alignleave <alliance name>)
-Allow the initiating leader to disband the entire alliance. (/org aligndisband <alliance name>)

Benefits:
-Chat channel between aligning guilds top 2 ranks (0 and 1)
-Grid access to and from each others controllers. (quick access to your aliging guilds towers to help them defend)

Limits:
-Cannot build on each others land. The purpose of the alliance is to further enhance defensive capablities, nothing more.
-Cannot share organizational bonus. 'Stacking' bonuses can result in alliances becomming too powerful, and could potentionally 'unbalance' gameplay. (Thinking in terms of both PvP and PvM. 'Uber' boss mobs could become a cakewalk in PvM.)
-Does not effect suppression of each others control towers.

[Turin]

Sorry, this would make players lifes WAY to easy and cannot be implimented.

[Jaesic]

Originally posted by Cemetarygate
Jaesic, you're making this more complex than has to be. An alliance in terms of game mechanics should simply be a matter of sharing a chat channel between the aligning organizations, and sharing grid access to each others bases.

I am making it more complex because... let's be blunt here... I'm tired of seeing the huge orgs absorbing the smaller ones and making an aspect of the game that we have to pay more for worthless unless you join one of those huge orgs.

A simple chat channel/grid access alliance is adding almost nothing to the system that already exists. We can already create independant channels... and usually do when there are large battles brewing. The only thing you are suggesting is the addition of allowing people to grid in quickly to defend... and you're not even putting a limitation on it... so anyone can say "hey, we're under attack, come help us. " and suddenly an alliance is formed and everyone involved can grid in.

thats not an alliance... thats simply a convenience.

Btw... opening a chat channel between org leadership and top officers is exactly opposite the reason why alliances are needed. The smaller guilds don't/can't always have those people on during certain times of the day. Reports of incoming attacks should be passed to ALL members of the alliance... otherwise, they may not respond because no one got the message.

One final note:

-Cannot build on each others land. The purpose of the alliance is to further enhance defensive capablities, nothing more.
-Cannot share organizational bonus. 'Stacking' bonuses can result in alliances becomming too powerful, and could potentionally 'unbalance' gameplay. (Thinking in terms of both PvP and PvM. 'Uber' boss mobs could become a cakewalk in PvM.)

Please reread what I proposed. The benefit/limitation balance is set up so that alliances not only cannot get more advantages than a single org holding a base... but they receive LESS.

This is not a system to make things convenient for orgs who are already large enough to hold a base except for against the largest attacks. It is a system to include the players who are not in one of those large orgs without them having to merge... a way for them to share in the capture and defense of land.

If you think people in large orgs having personal tower bonuses and org contract advantages... while people in small orgs cannot hold even the smallest bases... is not similarly unbalancing, I don't know how to convince you that this sort of alliance system is needed.

Jaesic

[Jaesic]

Originally posted by Turin
Sorry, this would make players lifes WAY to easy and cannot be implimented.

Referring to my proposal or Cemetarygate's version?

And if to mine... is that sarcasm, or a serious statement?

Jaesic

[Cemetarygate]

Originally posted by Jaesic
I am making it more complex because... let's be blunt here... I'm tired of seeing the huge orgs absorbing the smaller ones and making an aspect of the game that we have to pay more for worthless unless you join one of those huge orgs.

Which is a matter of choice. Smaller organizations, such as the one I run, choose weather or not we wish to be absorbed by larger guilds. Honestly, the advantages you've described are not enough for me personally, as a smaller organization leader, to keep me from joining the larger organizations.

A simple chat channel/grid access alliance is adding almost nothing to the system that already exists. We can already create independant channels... and usually do when there are large battles brewing. The only thing you are suggesting is the addition of allowing people to grid in quickly to defend... and you're not even putting a limitation on it... so anyone can say "hey, we're under attack, come help us. " and suddenly an alliance is formed and everyone involved can grid in.

thats not an alliance... thats simply a convenience.

Agreed, we can create independent channels. But the point of Funcom adding a channel of it's own entity is so that some player doesn't have to give up an alt on their account to create a chat bot. So, it's more than a simple convenience

Grid access is also a convenience, agreed. But a very strong advantage in tactics when you can simple 'pop out' by your allies base. Plus, again, the leaders will have to form the alliance. A little less convenient if one leader is not on to form a quick alliance if anyone is under attack. That is the disadvantage, and why it's a good reason to maintain the alliance at all times.

Btw... opening a chat channel between org leadership and top officers is exactly opposite the reason why alliances are needed. The smaller guilds don't/can't always have those people on during certain times of the day. Reports of incoming attacks should be passed to ALL members of the alliance... otherwise, they may not respond because no one got the message.

Alliance channels should be reserved to the top brass in each organization to maintain some importance among higher ranking person. Otherwise, why did we even bother promoting them to those ranks?

But, if you feel so inclined to give everyone in your organization access to the channel then promote them all.

One final note:

Please reread what I proposed. The benefit/limitation balance is set up so that alliances not only cannot get more advantages than a single org holding a base... but they receive LESS.

Read it, didn't see a need to make any such comments regarding that except "cannot share organizational bonus. 'Stacking' bonuses can result in alliances becomming too powerful, and could potentionally 'unbalance' gameplay. (Thinking in terms of both PvP and PvM. 'Uber' boss mobs could become a cakewalk in PvM.) But, if you were attempting a further respond then I will say that it offers nothing more than another reason not to form an alliance.

This is not a system to make things convenient for orgs who are already large enough to hold a base except for against the largest attacks. It is a system to include the players who are not in one of those large orgs without them having to merge... a way for them to share in the capture and defense of land.

I know your system won't make things convenient, and that's why people won't use it. The point is that organizational leaders want a system that will keep them from having to merge. Your system only further pushes them to that point.

If you think people in large orgs having personal tower bonuses and org contract advantages... while people in small orgs cannot hold even the smallest bases... is not similarly unbalancing, I don't know how to convince you that this sort of alliance system is needed.

I have to ask then, how small of an organization are we talking about?

[Cemetarygate]

Originally posted by Jaesic

Referring to my proposal or Cemetarygate's version?

And if to mine... is that sarcasm, or a serious statement?

Jaesic

A bit of sarcasm and humor directed at Funcom is how I took the statement.

Well, at least I thought it was funny.

[Jaesic]

Size wise...

An org small enough that the only real way to have enough people to hold the base would be for every single member to be on for the full 5-ish hours a day, 7 days a week.

Roughly... any org with fewer than 50 players (depending on level).

Some people might say 'tough, join a bigger org' ... but NW isn't being advertised as something only the 250+ member orgs can buy and benefit from. I'm high enough level (and I think I'm a good enough player) that I could get into those big orgs if I asked. I just don't have the inclination to join just because of NW. I also don't want to be in an org that has keeping a base safe as its only reason for existing.

As it specifically applies to the alliance suggestions I'm making: I would like to see four or five small orgs holding a med-high QL base collectively... in a situation where none of them alone could hold a base at all. OR... a couple larger orgs holding bases in different QL ranges because their member base is spread too wide to do any one range by themselves (one org holding a 150, the other a 100 or something like that)...

For those orgs that are large enough to hold a base on their own... the only thing this suggestion provides is convenience... and at a pretty high price.


Something on a little more specific note... when I talk about attack reports going to all members, I means just that... reports... not chat channels, just a message that says "Your ally, Guild X, is under attack by: JoeGimp (Guild Z)." Mybe just when the shield is disabled... maybe every time something is destroyed.

Or something similar.

--------

I don't know... maybe everyone is just fed up with NW already. Seems to be fewer wars already, guild structures have been rebuilt... and a lot of people have just accepted the fact that the people in the big guilds will have the spifffy bonuses and the rest of us should just bow down to inevitability. Those who can't "survive" without having bonuses have joined up to the big orgs... in some cases changing sides to do so (RK2 clans have a major side bonus advantage, you know).

I had expected to get some people pointing out problems with my suggestions... maybe a couple people agreeing that something (even if not specifically what i'm suggesting) needs to be done... but the lack of response completely is pretty disheartening. I expect that from FC... but not players. Didn't even get any outright flames...

Jaesic

[______________Docami]

The most anticipated PvP games are using the ORG. structure in combination with land control as support for PvP. See Shadowbane, Light and Dark, etc..

AO is half way there, just implement alliances in some way and let's get it on....

Thanks FC,

-jk

[_____Real Kinky Ityn]

One of the biggest points that has been overlooked, and the only one I'd support is the 5% gas issue. I like cemetary's communication ideas, and that should be a part of it, also the alliance should prevent allied guilds from being attacked by or being able to attack allied towers.

Otherwise, I can't say I really like any of the ideas, they make the game too easy, and give speciality guilds a wing to hide under. There are lots of small plots of land, ones that are hardly worth fighting over, and these are good spots for small guilds.

From my own experience in a small guild, it's hard to find enough defenders from your own guild often, but I can always get 10 other guilds to come help on short notice. However, if I only get 3 guys from my own guild to show, it's hard to get enough teams with our guild members in them to keep a solid defense in 5%. Still, I wouldn't cry if it didn't happen, but I'd hope alliances could keep the towers and allies from fighting it out.

[Cemetarygate]

Jaesic, of the battles I've witnessed, 250+ member guilds are relying on allies for help. Having seen this I'm less inclined to believe that size of the guild matters, since even the largest of guilds are forming alliances.

As far as one person joining a guild, a smaller organization merging with a larger organization and even larger organizations merging. All of that is based on personal preferences. An alliance system with disadvantages won't stop any of those mergers from taking place. The only way to keep organizations from merging would be to disadvantage larger guilds in some way, which I don't think anyone would suggest or want (not even Funcom.).

Regarding alliance channel. Another reason this channel should be limited is for 'unproven' members. That is, members who have recently joined an organization. Spies from opposing sides can join organizations and have access to a very important channel, even at the lowest organization rank possible, and reboardcast attack plans, and the like, to the opposing side. Giving this channel to most trusted members of an alliance is in the alliances best interest.

Regarding feedback. An alliance system is not a primary concern at the moment. Thus, the lack of feedback. Also, Funcom rarely takes part in discussions on the forums.

[Cemetarygate]

Ityn, good point. I overlooked that. Another benefit should be that 5% treats alliance members as guilded members.

[Jaesic]

Originally posted by Ityn

Otherwise, I can't say I really like any of the ideas, they make the game too easy, and give speciality guilds a wing to hide under. There are lots of small plots of land, ones that are hardly worth fighting over, and these are good spots for small guilds.

I don't see how they make the game more easy. I would think they'd actually create more "groups" capable of making a grab for a decent sized plot of land. And whether you personally think the smaller plots of land are good for small guilds or not... I've seen plenty of big guilds knock a smaller one off those plots and hand it off to someone on their own side.

As things are right now, the small guilds can only defend a plot of land as long as they can get enough friends to come help them. And while plenty of people are willing to aid in a defense... once you've lost the land, its a lot harder to get people to assist you in attacking someone else. Especially since there is nothing in it for them.

Allowing several smaller guilds to keep their identity but jointly benefit to a limited extent from a shared piece of land gives them a reason to try. Right now... they don't have that.

Without some way for them to compete against the large orgs, I personally would advocate that unless a player is in a large org... or willing to quit their current org and sign up to a big one... that they shouldn't bother paying for NW. I'm not even in the position of being a lower level unknown... I've got a reasonably high level NT and we're actually in demand for orgs involved in NW. If I wanted to be in a large org I could probably sign up for one in a heartbeat. But I should not have to do that..

I personally wasted $20 plus shipping. I'm definately going to wait until I see how things work in Shadowlands before I bother to spend money on it. I'm not claiming by any means that my suggestions are the only way to handle this. But the suggestions that are being made as alternatives to it are conveniences to those people already holding bases... they're not going to help the many smaller orgs that cannot capture and hold a base on their own... and have no way to convince other people to aid them...

and don't even start with the "why should they get a base? if they can't capture one and hold it, they suck and don't deserve one" most of those guilds are groups of people who put the whole ahead of the individual... are doing events and getting involved in RP. They're not structures of convenience and a status symbol. so, expecting them to merge with other groups or to disband and join orgs that are large enough to hold a base is just ridiculous.

[Jaesic]

Originally posted by Cemetarygate
Regarding feedback. An alliance system is not a primary concern at the moment. Thus, the lack of feedback. Also, Funcom rarely takes part in discussions on the forums.

i'm referring to player feedback, i don't expect FC to respond to anything... I'm an NT remember

[Cemetarygate]

Originally posted by Jaesic
i'm referring to player feedback, i don't expect FC to respond to anything... I'm an NT remember

My fault, I should have been more precise. When I said, "an alliance system is not a primary concern at the moment," I meant that in regard to players. Oops.

[_____Real Kinky Ityn]

Regardless of your personal reasons to want these changes Jaesic, I doubt you will get much traction.

I'm a member of a smallish guild, such as you describe. We've built a number of alliances, and we have a smallish plot in EFP that works for our high level membership and a lowbie plot for our alts and as a "buffer" so that if our base comes under counter attack during a raid we can let it fall and keep fighting without all getting flagged. We need a mid-level base, something in the 150s, but I'm leaving that to our mid-level membership to figure out. Or alliances recognize that our little plot belongs to us, so if it were to fall we'd get ample support to re-take it quickly, and would have no real problem doing so. Being diplomatic is really a big asset. I have junkie contacts in every major guild, and if we get attacked when I'm the only member on-line I can rally 30-50 players for a defense in short order.

I guess I'm saying that I am your "target" player, the one who should love your ideas, and frankly I find them cumbersome, and written from a defeatist point of view. Large guilds won't support your ideas, they want those 250 plots for themselves, and they have the resources to fill them and hold them, they don't want conglomerates of guilds holding them, and mob rules. So if you don't get support from large guilds, and small guilds offer mixed opinions about your ideas, basically your only alternative left is to go make some dev friends at funcom and buy them some beers, get them drunk and sell them on the idea. I have a lot of specific objections to your ideas, and if this idea starts to get any traction, I’ll be glad to spell them all out.

Finally, demurring to an NT defense, isn't a good choice either, after massive whines from the NT community, a lot of people don't take NTs posts very seriously, more so because of how well they do in PVP in the context of the Notum wars.

[Jaesic]

Originally posted by Ityn
I have a lot of specific objections to your ideas, and if this idea starts to get any traction, I’ll be glad to spell them all out.

Perhaps if you explain the specific objections, we'll be able to develop something less "cumbersome"... I have claimed over and over in the thread that these are just some basic ideas... and I didn't exactly spend hours putting them together.

Finally, demurring to an NT defense, isn't a good choice either, after massive whines from the NT community, a lot of people don't take NTs posts very seriously, more so because of how well they do in PVP in the context of the Notum wars.

The NT community as a whole has a very bad reputation and some of it is merited... but even with this supposed fear of NTs in PvP, I don't see any mass generation of NTs like we've seen in the past with fixers and MAs. I personally haven't designed my character around PvP, so I have a tough time considering where exactly the average NT falls in relation. I'm not convinced that the NT is the end all be all of battlefield PvP though. A team of NTs... yes. But not a solo NT. AE nukes, when used with multiple NTs bypasses the major limitation to nuke damage in PvP, the damage cap. The solo NT, however, is still significantly limited in single nuke damage and recharge time.

This is not really important at the moment. My comment about not expecting feedback from FC on this thread was mainly because FC feedback on the NT forums (or pretty much any other forum) is meager at best. Its sort of an ongoing joke for NTs and I thought the sarcasm would be amusing.

I suppose if I go through all my posts I'll find things that could be considered whiny... but I think it would be rather upsetting to discover that people are ignoring a valid point just because it is raised by an NT.

[Bionitrous]

What happens when there are eventually only 2 or 3 guilds in the game? To a lot of people that means 'cancel'. I heavily advocate penalties to orgs based on their size. The larger guilds should have to work harder to maintain what they've achieved. In-game experience proves the exact opposite to be true. We are missing the basic forces that exist in nature that work to prevent overpopulation of a species. The rat packs just get bigger and bigger with no checks against their growth. The prime example is the org advantages for the 400 member guild offering the same benefits to each and every one of their members as if they only had 25 members. The strong getting stronger, even if they are a bunch of jack holes. Eventually, even the most strong-willed become tempted to sell their souls to these groups.

An alliance feature is so long overdue, it's not funny. If I have another guild who have pledged a mutual assistance pact with us, the least we could expect is some of the obstacles to our helping each other being taken down.

[_____Real Kinky Ityn]

Yep sorry Jaesic, maybe I was a little harsh, my first account was an NT, played it up to about your level, and I really enjoyed the class, was sick of the game though and took a bit of a break. I always thought my NT was very powerful, it took me all of 45 min in one big Mort battle (back when it was 25%), to go from no title to rookie. My NT was built for PVP, those were the UVC/Ithaca days, but NTs can still do very well in solo or mass pvp, and I never felt gimped in PVM, I could solo just about anything, not as well as say engys or crats could, but had no problem getting a full set of MKII that way in about a day at level 135, and had all my nanos and most of the gear I'd ever need at 112 with the old charm/blitz methods. In fact another NT and I were the first to duet the mantis queen back when she had more HP. NT is not a very gimped class, and their endless demands for fixes are getting old. In fact in the last 4 patches there has been a lot of stealth NT love, from general PVP crit nurfs, blind fixes, AOE adjustments, new nukes, root fixes, and there will be more with black holes being looked into. And in all that I didn't even bother to mention the NP buffs, oops I guess I just did, but I guess NTs needed that like us crats need EXP saving buffs.

Anyway, I'll go through the points fast:

1. No problem with better communication.

2. Grid feature would be bad and hard to code. If say, all omni guilds decided to form an alliance then after 12 hours all of them could use any CT for grid access that was omni. This would give defenders too much of an advantage. Additionally it would be hard to support an on screen menu of all the options you could grid to. It doesn't take that long to get to any place on RK and with a few fixers in our roaming defense team we can get most places in less than 2 min.

3. Dislike the idea of sharing land, it's yours to defend, and there are lots of ways for you to defend it. To me, this seems to be a way for one ORG that hates PVP to hide behind a stronger org, and hopefully get buffs without risking exposure to PVP.

4. Other than Cemetary's point that in fact you increase your exposure by opening 2 fronts at once, when you place your CT sets the time, and people who plan attacks make these plans in advance, having the time suddenly change is unfair to the attacker. Some bases become targets of opportunity, but many are attacks that are planed 24 hours in advance.

In short most of these ideas either make the easy job of defending easier, or let people benefit from towers without exposure to the risk of PVP.

And Bionitrous, large guilds do face a lot of friction, though most of it comes from inside, as an example on RK1, Storm almost collapsed after a bad merger with Redemption (was called something else at the time but I forgot, had just left the game on my first account before the merger). It was an awful merger, where smart players met idiots face to face, to fight over all kinds of petty **** most would never imagine. In fact I doubt there is enough room for less than 4-5 major guilds for each faction, limited mostly by the size of the egos of the members. You can only get so many big heads into one guild before the dam bursts. Smaller guilds won't vanish, they will just have to be more reliant on diplomacy then larger guilds.