Allies/Rivals System

[rishab17]

It would actually help quite a lot, especially when the gate holders are absent (Offline or fighting in other zone), if opponent will focus on them, that gate will inevitably fall, and all medals inside will be wasted, but if you could maintain green feet, attackers would not lower gate percent by even 0.7%. That will buy buildings holders enough time to come and collect fame before building is depleted.

Your scenario is strategical thinking, "Attack in Detail". Historically it was a strategy that never failed its user. So yeah, if your opponents concentrate their power while dividing yours. Surely they will make a progress, and not even Green Feet can help, but that was not the purpose behind it, it is as I stated above. Just a way to keep fame save until it is collected.

I don't see a problem if you lose a travel gate, so long that gate fame is collected. And if your opponent decides to supply it, it will only hold them back, as they are forced to divide their power to continue attack & maintain defend, or forget about it and lose all the supplies invested by a single drainer.

By the way ,are these features set to release if it gets fair votes in favour or its just a discussion

 

[Thround]

By the way ,are these features set to release if it gets fair votes in favour or its just a discussion

I suppose Developers are busy right now with the current Dev Shack, but of course if it gets enough support then it will be worth considering later. After all, the goal is to make this game more enjoyable and more balanced.

 

[rishab17]

It would actually help quite a lot, especially when the gate holders are absent (Offline or fighting in other zone), if opponent will focus on them, that gate will inevitably fall, and all medals inside will be wasted, but if you could maintain green feet, attackers would not lower gate percent by even 0.7%. That will buy buildings holders enough time to come and collect fame before building is depleted.

Fame collected or not ,enemies can be easily successful in taking that camp ,which we have to avoid because when they supply they will get same privileges as us so we always need to avoid them from taking it.

 

[Thround]

Fame collected or not ,enemies can be easily successful in taking that camp ,which we have to avoid because when they supply they will get same privileges as us so we always need to avoid them from taking it.

If they are equal to you in power, then you can't stop them. You lose as much as you gain.

If they are weaker than you, then they wouldn't possibly keep it for long, 10 minutes on average. Benefits will be insignificant.

 

[rishab17]

Fame collected or not ,enemies can be easily successful in taking that camp ,which we have to avoid because when they supply they will get same privileges as us so we always need to avoid them from taking it.

As an improvement ,I would suggest ,in certain cirtumstances ,ally members should have option to take permission from respective ally clan's online officer who is present at that camp to be able to drain that camp .

 

[Galaxy]

As an improvement ,I would suggest ,in certain cirtumstances ,ally members should have option to take permission from respective ally clan's online officer who is present at that camp to be able to drain that camp .

it’s simpler to give "green feet" a better use ,that is, that the portal will turn green faster if there are players defending

 

[slejd2001]

As an improvement ,I would suggest ,in certain cirtumstances ,ally members should have option to take permission from respective ally clan's online officer who is present at that camp to be able to drain that camp .

This sounds too much complicated

 

[Thround]

it’s simpler to give "green feet" a better use ,that is, that the portal will turn green faster if there are players defending

Possible, let's see what players think.

 

[.-Lobo-.]

Estoy totalmente de acuerdo con ésta idea... Quisiera que se implementara la ejecución en ésta idea... Pero aun queremos que abran los caminos de los mapas, para fácil desplazamiento, comodidad a la hora de guerra y también para cazar... En fin, me encanta la idea... <3
#GO

 

[toxicdeathxZZ]

Dang how am i gonna be able to kill my allies?

Good idea for real though

 

[LADDL]

I love this idea...

 

[Thround]

Dang how am i gonna be able to kill my allies?

Same way you are able kill clanmates, through friends duel

 

[.Onix.]

La mejor idea desde hace tiempo GG

 

[Thround]

An additional thought while discussing the idea with @DalekRaptor was brought up.

What if a clan is allied with two clans who view themselves as Rival?

• "A" & "B" are Allies.
• "A" & "C" are Allies.
• "B" & "C" are Rivals.

Results:

1. "A" players would not be able to attack "B" players & the opposite is true.
2. "A" players would not be able to attack "C" Players & the opposite is true.
3. "B" & "C" players would be able to attack each other.
4. "A" will be able to generate "Green Feet" on Buildings owned by both "B" & "C"
5. "B" & "C" will be able to generate "Red Feet" on buildings owned by either of them.

Therefore we can conclude that "A" will not be neutral, but more like Peace Keepers. They will not be able to fight, but they will be able to stop the Takeover from processing.

How to handle this outcome:

1. "A" have to break Alliance with either "B" or "C" and choose a side.
2. "B" or "C" if desire to keep the peace would accept this outcome.
3. "B" or "C" if desire to keep the war, then "B" or "C" have to break the Alliance with "A", to continue draining undisturbed, and forcing "A" to fight them.

Do you agree about this logic as an outcome of the Allies/Rivals System?

 

[- Red Tornado -]

yo si estoy de acuerdo muy buenas ideas señor thround , estoy encantado pero cuando lo añaden al juego ?

 

[DalekRaptor]

How to handle this outcome:

1. "A" have to break Alliance with either "B" or "C" and choose a side.
2. "B" or "C" if desire to keep the peace would accept this outcome.
3. "B" or "C" if desire to keep the war, then "B" or "C" have to break the Alliance with "A", to continue draining undisturbed, and forcing "A" to fight them.

it could cause still confusion i think, perhaps is better agroup the alliance in a big set as said @Xx-Tito-xX on this thread

That's not what i meant, i meant that it can be like Pirate galaxy, that when 1 clan send a request to another clan to join it's alliance then the clan that sent it will be the clan founder of the alliance, then that clan founder can send more requests to other clans, and all those clans that will accept the request will be ally with each other as well, and all of them will have 1 alliance chat which they can use together.

example:

• clan A and B create an alliance on this case alliance1
• clan C wants to join alliance1, so it is conforme by clan A,B,C
• clan D and clan E create another alliance, on this case alliance2
• clan D or Clan E can't be allie to clan A or B or C withou breaking alliance 2

and with the chats, in that way would be an alliance chat for each set. But still could work the league thing for make an aditional chat with an allie clan which is attacking the same map with you for better comunication.

 

[Slaideer..]

Since 2012 I play Dino Storm, and I totally agree. Since they implemented the system of clans, the game has left something to be desired. But I believe that with these ideas I can significantly improve the gameplay.

 

[Thround]

it could cause still confusion i think, perhaps is better agroup the alliance in a big set as said @Xx-Tito-xX on this thread


example:

• clan A and B create an alliance on this case alliance1
• clan C wants to join alliance1, so it is conforme by clan A,B,C
• clan D and clan E create another alliance, on this case alliance2
• clan D or Clan E can't be allie to clan A or B or C withou breaking alliance 2

and with the chats, in that way would be an alliance chat for each set. But still could work the league thing for make an aditional chat with an allie clan which is attacking the same map with you for better comunication.

I think it would be much better if we allow each clan to function independently, by letting them choose their own Allies & Rivals, declare war on them, then make peace with them. Restricting them to join group of clans as a big Alliance seems counter-productive, & less fun, not to mention that it gives too much power for a single person whom the rest have to follow.

I am aware that almost in most total server wars there are only two sides or let's say two big Alliances fighting each others, so for that, I suggested the League idea, which would work same as your idea, but in terms of communication only. Because if you don't choose a side and ally yourself with all clans on that side to be able to help and receive help, then you don't need to communicate with them.

 

[DalekRaptor]

I think it would be much better if we allow each clan to function independently, by letting them choose their own Allies & Rivals, declare war on them, then make peace with them. Restricting them to join group of clans as a big Alliance seems counter-productive, & less fun, not to mention that it gives too much power for a single person whom the rest have to follow.

I am aware that almost in most total server wars there are only two sides or let's say two big Alliances fighting each others, so for that, I suggested the League idea, which would work same as your idea, but in terms of communication only. Because if you don't choose a side and ally yourself with all clans on that side to be able to help and receive help, then you don't need to communicate with them.

The problem with that is than each time happend this case " "B" or "C" if desire to keep the war, then "B" or "C" have to break the Alliance with "A", to continue draining undisturbed, and forcing "A" to fight them." you will be creating an enemy to your clan and the becoming more powerful the other side. And when some clan is attacking your map you would can't recieve help from clan which had as alliance that enemy clan. At least on America servers is pollarizated in two alliance always or draining or making war or defending, i don't know which is the case on the Europa servers, but on America servers thoose changes will gonna cause confusion.

 

[slejd2001]

The problem with that is than each time happend this case " "B" or "C" if desire to keep the war, then "B" or "C" have to break the Alliance with "A", to continue draining undisturbed, and forcing "A" to fight them." you will be creating an enemy to your clan and the becoming more powerful the other side. And when some clan is attacking your map you would can't recieve help from clan which had as alliance that enemy clan. At least on America servers is pollarizated in two alliance always or draining or making war or defending, i don't know which is the case on the Europa servers, but on America servers thoose changes will gonna cause confusion.

I think there should be considered not only current situations with alliances in servers, but for future too, because today there may be 2 sides, tomorrow or after 1 year 3 and more sides. If "B" or "C" will be forced to fight not each other, but "A" too then the one clan who is alone probably is going to lose and this may cause that players from losing side may leave server or leave game at all, what isn't positive for game.

 

[Slaideer..]

I had thought that the "League" would be a general alliance, not just for communication. The best is as @DalekRaptor said, since clan ''A'' is allied with ''B'' and ''C'' and clan "D" and "E" who were neutral decided to join the alliance should be to become a big ''1'' alliance, while enemy Clans can build their big ''2'' alliance between what are already enemies of ''A, B and C''.

This is extremely important since we usually have 5 allied clans in each major alliance responsible for each map. As I said, there are almost always two big alliances fighting to "dominate the server".

But I also believe that the big alliance should not be responsible for only 1 leader, so they could create a voting tool and all the leaders vote so that the ''D'' clan can join or not the alliance with the largest amount of votes won.

 

[Thround]

I had thought that the "League" would be a general alliance, not just for communication.

A League is a "Chat" available for clans who share mutual Alliance.

since clan ''A'' is allied with ''B'' and ''C'' and clan "D" and "E" who were neutral decided to join the alliance should be to become a big ''1'' alliance, while enemy Clans can build their big ''2'' alliance between what are already enemies of ''A, B and C''.

That can still be arranged with my idea.

"A" will ally "B", then "A" will create a League for communication, "B" will join it. "C" want to join the League. "C" will ally "A", then "C" will ally "B". Now "C" can join "A"'s League that "B" is already member in. [League No. 1]

"D" will ally "E", and "D" will create a League for communication. "E" will join "D"s League. [League No. 2]


As you see, it is the same thing, but the only difference is that you did not restrict yourself to a certain Alliance.

Say that you are "X" and you want to help "Y" and "Z" but "Y" & "Z" don't like each other and don't want share an Alliance. With @DalekRaptor suggestion, you have to choose whether join an Alliance with "Y" or an Alliance with "Z" . With my suggestion, you don't have to.

 

[Thround]

but on America servers thoose changes will gonna cause confusion.

This is extremely important since we usually have 5 allied clans in each major alliance responsible for each map. As I said, there are almost always two big alliances fighting to "dominate the server".

You should never restrict yourself to one scenario, because that can always change, and even if it is the norm now, later it might not be, and then it will be a problem. Keeping your options open, and do whatever you want with it is a better choice. The current Scenario you are referring to can still be arranged with my idea.

About the confusion part, changes can be adapted, if it is interesting enough and players would support it. We don't need restrict ourselves to the old ways, otherwise why do we need updates to begin with? Maybe you prefer things stay as it is, or as how it "was". But not everyone are the same.

 

[Slaideer..]

I am aware that almost in most total server wars there are only two sides or let's say two big Alliances fighting each others...

Okay, as you said yourself, we usually have two big alliances.

Say that you are "X" and you want to help "Y" and "Z" but "Y" & "Z" don't like each other and don't want share an Alliance. With @DalekRaptor suggestion, you have to choose whether join an Alliance with "Y" or an Alliance with "Z" . With my suggestion, you don't have to.

Suppose then: We have the ''big alliance 1'' containing the clans ''A, B, C and D'' the clan ''E'' wants to join this alliance (1) so technically if he joins he will be ally of all of the alliance (A, B, C and D) not just one or the other.
Because this is what happens in practice (at least on my server) if a clan is in the alliance automatically it is allied with all the others who are in the alliance, not just one or the other clans. The same is true with enemy clans, if he is an enemy of "A" he is automatically an enemy of "B, C and D".

Why don't I see logic, if my ally is my enemy's ally, how could my "ally" help me?

This is getting confusing

 

[Thround]

Why don't I see logic, if my ally is my enemy's ally, how could my "ally" help me?

@luís.henrique1

This is exactly the point where I was trying to discuss here:

An additional thought while discussing the idea with @DalekRaptor was brought up.

What if a clan is allied with two clans who view themselves as Rival?

• "A" & "B" are Allies.
• "A" & "C" are Allies.
• "B" & "C" are Rivals.

Results:

1. "A" players would not be able to attack "B" players & the opposite is true.
2. "A" players would not be able to attack "C" Players & the opposite is true.
3. "B" & "C" players would be able to attack each other.
4. "A" will be able to generate "Green Feet" on Buildings owned by both "B" & "C"
5. "B" & "C" will be able to generate "Red Feet" on buildings owned by either of them.

Therefore we can conclude that "A" will not be neutral, but more like Peace Keepers. They will not be able to fight, but they will be able to stop the Takeover from processing.

How to handle this outcome:

1. "A" have to break Alliance with either "B" or "C" and choose a side.
2. "B" or "C" if desire to keep the peace would accept this outcome.
3. "B" or "C" if desire to keep the war, then "B" or "C" have to break the Alliance with "A", to continue draining undisturbed, and forcing "A" to fight them.

Do you agree about this logic as an outcome of the Allies/Rivals System?

if your ally is also the ally of your enemy, then the only way your ally can help you is by blocking your enemy from draining your buildings by cancelling "Red Feet" with "Green Feet". Since allies can't attack each other, then your enemy can't stop their & your ally from blocking the takeover.

The same is true with enemy clans, if he is an enemy of "A" he is automatically an enemy of "B, C and D".

This is undesired outcome, because what if your Ally doesn't want take part of problems your clan have irresponsibly started?

if a clan is in the alliance automatically it is allied with all the others who are in the alliance

This is also undesired outcome, because what if you don't want share an alliance with a clan you personally hate? now you have to leave that alliance and lose the benefits?

I promote free choice.

 

[.Shazam.]

"Because this is what happens in practice (at least on my server) if a clan is in the alliance automatically, it is allied with everyone else in the alliance, not just one or the other clans."

The same happens on my server, if the leaders choose to have a new clan as an ally you have to accept it, if you don't want to be an ally, withdraw from the alliance, become an enemy, stay neutral or make war, or stay in the alliance, the game is made of choices.

"This is an unwanted outcome, because what if your Ally does not want to participate in the problems that your clan has irresponsibly started?"

On my server this is not a problem, there are 5 dominant clans, if a clan ends up fighting an '' F '' clan all other allies help

It depends on each alliance, if it is united it is not a problem if it is unstable from the problem

 

[Thround]

"Because this is what happens in practice (at least on my server) if a clan is in the alliance automatically, it is allied with everyone else in the alliance, not just one or the other clans."

The same happens on my server, if the leaders choose to have a new clan as an ally you have to accept it, if you don't want to be an ally, withdraw from the alliance, become an enemy, stay neutral or make war, or stay in the alliance, the game is made of choices.

"This is an unwanted outcome, because what if your Ally does not want to participate in the problems that your clan has irresponsibly started?"

On my server this is not a problem, there are 5 dominant clans, if a clan ends up fighting an '' F '' clan all other allies help

It depends on each alliance, if it is united it is not a problem if it is unstable from the problem

As I have already said, you don't have to restrict yourself to one scenario. But keep your options opened. And that scenario you mentioned is still available. Clans just have to do it manually.



This suggestion of Allies/Rivals System was based on the notion that the game play became less focused about players and more focused about clans. As you as player wouldn't be able to do much without a clan.

Your alternative idea will make the game play less focused about clans and more focused about big Alliances as without one, you will not be able to declare wars or receive help or even communicate securely.

Why should we restrict ourselves to even further limitations?

 

[Faye]

Hey hey

Thanks for this discussion
Such discussion help us to understand the community And your wishes.

I write this because some players say that this is already planned as an update.

Please note that this is an idea of a GM. The devs reading your ideas very carefully. Unfortunately we can't implement all ideas, sometimes only single parts. Currently we cannot say "Yes" or "No" because our focus is on the balancing system.

But again, your discussion help us a lot, thank you so much.

Greetings Faye

 

[Andersonoliveira]

[QUOTE = "Faye, postagem: 50634, membro: 300"]
Ei ei

Obrigado por esta discussão
Essa discussão nos ajuda a entender a comunidade e seus desejos.

Escrevo isso porque alguns jogadores dizem que isso já está planejado como uma atualização.

Observe que esta é uma ideia de um GM. Os desenvolvedores estão lendo suas ideias com muito cuidado. Infelizmente, não podemos implementar todas as ideias, às vezes apenas partes isoladas. Atualmente não podemos dizer "Sim" ou "Não" porque nosso foco está no sistema de balanceamento.

Mas, novamente, sua discussão nos ajudou muito, muito obrigado.

Saudações Faye
[/CITAR]
UMA é simplesmente boa, mas tem algo que não foi bem "claro". Contudo, está pode modificar e até contribuir para nos ajudar.

Estou deveras empolgado pelas mudanças depois de um período de tempo sem atualizações. Espero e torço pela melhora do nosso jogo ( Dino Storm ) ou como os Brasileiros chamam carinhosamente de " Dino Tempestade ".

Grato pelo empenho dos(a) senhores(a).

Att,

Anderson.

 

[_Flaken_]

Something like this would be really cool.
As a result, there are alliances between clans in this DS game, but it does not appear when we come to the game part.
We would love such an update.
Being able to ally with the clan they want and be able to supply and protect the clan's buildings would really be a great convenience for us players.
As a result, I'm an Eu1 player and everyone's time clock can be different.
Such an update makes sense.