Originally posted by Ityn
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.
I can buy that, its even easier if you have a fixer and an engineer. Staging for fights isn't really a problem and I'll admit, this is more a convenience feature than anything else. It would benefit the younger orgs a lot... the ones without team fixer grid and yalms... but could easily become just mass transportation lines with high end orgs. To code it? actually shouldn't be that hard... the exit to controller part is already present, it would just need to check your orgs alliance list in addition to your own base list.

How to fix the possible abuse? Put a charge on it (money sink).. i don't really like this idea, but it could work. Put a limit to how many uses that can be made of this feature during a given day/week/etc. ... little harder to implement but could be based on amount of contract pts the base provides. Hmm... here's one I actually like: only activate this feature when the base is under attack. emergency protocols feature or something like that.


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.
which is one good reason to boot people from an alliance with you. if they're benefitting from the base, and aren't helping defend it... why should you lose contract pts. to have them in an alliance. this is one reason i wanted there to be some benefit for large org in all this... if the org is thinks they are strong enough not to need the alliance, they should get a benefit for taking the risk of not having immediate support.


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.
True... assuming that the allied orgs have more than one or two bases collectively. I was thinking along the lines of time commitment by players in smaller groups... if your 25% times were in synch, then everyone could also synch their online time to provide defense whereever you happened to get hit... attackers could split their forces and strike at multple locations... but the defenders could defend one place with full force while the towers slowed up the other force, then switch over. You could still lose bases... but its better than trying to defend two or three bases all with different times... only a portion of the people in the alliance would be on during the same time (unless you're "fortunate" enough to have players who are on 16 hours a day).

As to the part where all bases in an alliance go to 25% when any org in the alliance attacks somewhere... this idea is based on two thoughts: the first is that one piece of land might be collectively held by four or five small orgs... in which case, there is only the one base to risk when you attack anyway... the second part is that it means the more orgs in a formal alliance, the more bases put at risk when one org attacks a base.

Perhaps we drop the synch idea ... orgs do have some small control over when they build the controller... though if its a base capture, theres always several people lurking around trying to ninja the base.

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.
I don't know that its that easy to defend at all... every attacking force I've observed or been a part of outnumbered and was much more organized than any defenders. and with the exception of futile strikes on ql250 bases or attacks with a small handful of people that couldn't even cause enough damage to take down the controller faster than it repaired, the attackers won. I don't know if there's any way to get a report on how many attacks that are begun (and actually take down at least one tower) succeed at taking the whole base.

Smaller guilds won't vanish, they will just have to be more reliant on diplomacy then larger guilds.
I'd agree with this... more for the reason that some people won't close out their small guilds no matter the advantages offered... in most cases they're RP oriented and only PvP'ing as part of story conflicts or the occasional support effort and aren't going to be stressed out by the fact that someone else has 1k more hps than them because of towers.

But... don't you think that successful diplomacy between orgs should earn them something other than the satisfaction of helping someone else defend a base? If all of the small orgs in an alliance have a base, thats one thing... but numbers of available locations mean that people without bases at all are helping to defend too.