Jump to content
Domination: Earth

New Alliance Features?


URAS

Recommended Posts

Are there any new alliance features coming down the pipe? Currently alliances feel "stuck on," or "in-name only." I'm new to the game and, as will soon become apparent in a court martial post, I shared my game email with some friends in an attempt to really feel like I was in an alliance. I have since changed my password to protect the game's integrity, but I would love to see more alliance features such as:

1) sharing troops to protect allies

2) sharing resources with alliance members regardless of their proximity/location but at a much reduced percentage (maybe 5% of what is gathered?)

3) integrated hierarchy system (i.e. promoting Tom to General, demoting Tim for inactivity)

4) resource collection bonuses if your territory is adjacent to/touching an ally's.

5) coordinated attacks (i.e. an agreement with an ally to attack a single target with your combined troops)

Would love to hear other ideas, and I doubt this is the first time you all are hearing some of these. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to say that I would absolutely support all these things, the ability to share rss collection would give me a reason to create and be in an Alliance, and coordinated attacks would make it smart to be in an Alliance. 

As it is I also feel that the alliance portion of the game has become stagnant and behind the times (if it was ever not). 

It might be my personal feelings, when you get a group of people working cooperatively together I think they're going to be more willing to log on every day knowing that they're "a team" or someone "counting on them". 

Let us know your thoughts, we would love to expand on this dialogue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I really appreciate more alliance options/possibilities/features. There is so much potential and there are already very important alliance features within the game.

But there is one thing I also like about Domination which I am afraid could get lost or to much softened when some of your ideas would be implemented. It's keeping everything location based. At the moment a player can interact with everything within his base(es) range. This can be a very huge area and is encouraging to establish new bases all over the world. Everywhere where I have a land which is in my range and in the range of an allied player I could share resources with him via trading lands. I can attack together with allies when we both have the same enemy in range.

1 hour ago, URAS said:

sharing resources with alliance members regardless of their proximity/location but at a much reduced percentage (maybe 5% of what is gathered?)

So this one is indeed very interesting, I'd also like to have a resources share function with allies but I wouldn't be happy with the idea of allowing it regardless of the location. I'm very happy with this only possible if the two territories (base ranges) at some point overlap. You could say so that a save transport can be guaranteed. 
Imagine being in a war with two members of an alliance one south and one north of you a few hundred kilometers apart. At the moment you could prevent them from supporting each other directly when you just keep them from establishing a base within your range (an ally had to travel far to the territory of another to establish a base there in a save place).
I'd really really like to keep thing location based here.

1 hour ago, URAS said:

sharing troops to protect allies

A good idea, this can only be made via trading to share Personnel and Supplies. But here I'd also like to keep thing location based for the same reasons as previously mentioned.

1 hour ago, URAS said:

coordinated attacks (i.e. an agreement with an ally to attack a single target with your combined troops)

At the moment this would be not that useful since there are never more than 50 soldiers actual fighting on one target no matter how big the army is.

1 hour ago, URAS said:

resource collection bonuses if your territory is adjacent to/touching an ally's.

Currently if there are two allies they would both spawn resources so there are all in all twice as much resources but the are both sharing them so everyone would only get the half of it resulting in both having the same as they were just one person. BUT rounding up when sharing makes it a win-win situation. So at the end of the day there is already a mechanism rewarding allied resource collection.

1 hour ago, URAS said:

integrated hierarchy system (i.e. promoting Tom to General, demoting Tim for inactivity)

Sounds interesting but what would be the matter of ranks ?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The short answer is "yes, I do have a number of Alliance system enhancements in my task list". :)
But as @Ruvox correctly pointed out our game is very much focused on location; we are not "civilization online" and the majority of features are and always will be aimed at real-world exploration first and the remote land management second.
It is very unlikely that there will be a possibility to skip the aspect of resource collection via real-world travel due to the option of having rich & powerful allies who can "power level" you through the game (unless you physically travel with them outside of the comfort of your home :)).

But I am positive that there will be more granularity to alliance controls and some features that involve a group of more than 2 people.

Can't post any more details than that yet as I don't have them myself! :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What will ne nice IS simply à message system between players ingame. Beacause, maybe I'm stupid, but I didn't saw one. Like that people could talk about buying lands ans making alliances. And coordinated attacks and ressource sharing would be nice..

But I know that your team has a lot of work, and I wish you good luck, this is a great game that I already started to support !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See this post concerning a possible ingame messaging system:
 

On 4.4.2018 at 5:28 PM, Mr. D said:

That is pretty much why we don't have a chat system right now, to be honest! :)
The question's been raised many times in various threads, but to recap there are several issues with in-game chat system that we aren't ready to face yet; the key ones being:

  • It is indeed a significant development requiring lots of sub-features. As you've correctly pointed out, ability to manage contacts, mute/block/ignore, create channels and groups will be required; no one's really going to be satisfied with a non-configurable message box and a free-text input.
    And as it's only me developing the game right now this functionality is just a bit too time-consuming compared to some other features that are being requested more frequently.
     
  • Moderation: you may know that I've built another game published by Epic Dragon  (a browser-based MMORPG named "Flamefrost" - flamefrost.com) and that game does have a fully-featured chat box.
    Of course, an MMORPG cannot function without an in-game chat & mail, but occasionally I do wonder if it actually causes more harm than good. The number of times our new players have been discouraged from playing by spammers or malicious players (i.e. haters or fans of our competitors :)) is greater than I can remember.
    Additionally, having an in-game chat does involve certain legal responsibilities, e.g. if our in-game chat becomes a hub for arranging criminal activities we may become liable for any real-world issues arising as a result.

    So no chat can be left unsupervised and we just don't have enough people in the team to monitor a chat in DE (I'd love to do it myself, but then we'll unlikely see any development done; real-time chat moderation is a full-time job :)).
    That is why our chat is currently based within Discord, a server run by our veteran players (and they have full control over it). This approach is really helpful and time-saving for me!

A very interesting feature has been suggested in the past, which involves "message-less" communication between players: i.e. the ability to send pre-defined messages, commands or requests (e.g. suggestion to attack someone, meet in Discord etc.).
This way it would be impossible to send any offending content and no moderation or excessive development will be required.
I quite like this idea myself, but I haven't been able to finalize the details of its implementation yet, so I'm not sure when it will appear in the game.

However, as always, I'm open to any alternative ideas or suggestions. ;)

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8Another set of ideas:

1) allied troop paradrops. Self-explanatory. The greater the distance from allied base, the greater the cost.

2) Terror influence: bribe local forces of terror to attack your enemies.

3) Spy satellites. Observe all bases in a designated 50 km radius anywhere in the world, at a cost. Because the world feels too small with our limited fog of war now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...