General Alliance maps

[Airport city cheat]

To the players who spend long hours sending planes out to different destinations. I understand you work hard in a competition to be rewarded with alliance map/maps.

1. How would you feel if a lower level player brought them for real money?

 

[greensmith]

It wouldn't bother me at all. You shouldn't discriminate against lazy people just because they're rich.
Cheers,
Tom

 

[drivefast99]

This whole game is about patience or money... I think Tom summed it up perfectly.

df99

 

[david smith]

my alliance cant get alliance maps , because of other alliances have played longer, And the other alliance members have between 8 to 14 members, they tend to average about several hundred thousand to several million passengers a week

 

[greensmith]

my alliance cant get alliance maps , because of other alliances have played longer, And the other alliance members have between 8 to 14 members, they tend to average about several hundred thousand to several million passengers a week

You've identified the basic problem with the Alliance Game. Those players who had the game weeks before we iOS players had it will always be in the top ranks. More members equals more passengers equals higher ranking equals more Alliance points equals more members equals more passengers ... and on and on and on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Alliance Game is a terrible idea that's poorly executed and policed.
Cheers,
Tom

 

[Alfonz Senki]

my alliance cant get alliance maps , because of other alliances have played longer, And the other alliance members have between 8 to 14 members, they tend to average about several hundred thousand to several million passengers a week

My own alliance lived only 1 week (even if every other alliance had only 4 members as well at that time), because I understood that it's easier to join a better alliance than to find good players for my one. It's even more true now. Let's face it, there is no advantage to be the leader of an alliance except pride, maybe. So, it's your decision, do you want to be pride of your alliance outside top100 or you want maps (in this case you need to join to a better alliance).
To join, you need to check the the rankings for the teams producing the same number of passengers (per capita) as you do. Check the leaders and look for a member of this forum. Write him/her a PM. That's it.

@greensmith wrote: "The Alliance Game is a terrible idea that's poorly executed and policed." It's your opinion, Tom. But if you ask GI about their revenue, they probably would say it was a great idea. Competition is a sure way to make players spend more money. For many of us, who don't spend real money (I only support developers by watching videos, which is a good part of their revenue as well, I guess) this new feature gives more destinations, more stars. I see it in this way.

 

[greensmith]

My own alliance lived only 1 week (even if every other alliance had only 4 members as well at that time), because I understood that it's easier to join a better alliance than to find good players for my one. It's even more true now. Let's face it, there is no advantage to be the leader of an alliance except pride, maybe. So, it's your decision, do you want to be pride of your alliance outside top100 or you want maps (in this case you need to join to a better alliance).
To join, you need to check the the rankings for the teams producing the same number of passengers (per capita) as you do. Check the leaders and look for a member of this forum. Write him/her a PM. That's it.

@greensmith wrote: "The Alliance Game is a terrible idea that's poorly executed and policed." It's your opinion, Tom. But if you ask GI about their revenue, they probably would say it was a great idea. Competition is a sure way to make players spend more money. For many of us, who don't spend real money (I only support developers by watching videos, which is a good part of their revenue as well, I guess) this new feature gives more destinations, more stars. I see it in this way.

I see your point. But it would have been so easy for GI to reward the average number of passengers per team rather than the total number of passengers per team. At least that would have been fair.
Cheers,
Tom

 

[M22]

I started an alliance before most android players as some got the update earlier, I closed this and joined another that started later. As long as you have good members it's still possible to get plenty of maps.

 

[AJ]

Alliance is the most difficult challenge of this game. It will take 2-3 Year's to get all S3 Plane's and star's. I would have liked if it is changed and getting Maps should get somewhat easier. But I am still happy with this as my Alliance is going good though I would have loved if Tom idea comes of Average Passengers in a team.

PS: Have one slot free in Alliance, Would love to add those player who "NEED" Alliance Map's. PM Me

 

[LAX]

@M22 & @AJ How many maps do your alliances get each week with your top 5 finishes?

 

[Agent_L]

And the funniest part is that most players that have loads of S3s - they got them from a bug, not from alliance.

 

[AJ]

@M22 & @AJ How many maps do your alliances get each week with your top 5 finishes?

Our Alliance Gets 3 Map's per week and if we rank higher then 4 or 5 based on rankings

 

[diwata]

To the players who spend long hours sending planes out to different destinations. I understand you work hard in a competition to be rewarded with alliance map/maps.

1. How would you feel if a lower level player brought them for real money?

I didn't know you could buy them with real money. I thought the only way to get them is through alliance. But of course, that doesn't say much cause I don't know much about this game.

 

[greensmith]

I didn't know you could buy them with real money. I thought the only way to get them is through alliance. But of course, that doesn't say much cause I don't know much about this game.

You can't buy them. I believe Airport City Cheat was just asking a "how would you feel if ..." question.
Cheers,
Tom

 

[Alfonz Senki]

I see your point. But it would have been so easy for GI to reward the average number of passengers per team rather than the total number of passengers per team. At least that would have been fair.
Cheers,
Tom

I'm afraid I have to disagree here. I can see 2 cases for calculating the average:
A) The average is based on the number of actual members. This would be a disaster since the paying users would not have any interest to invite anyone into their alliance, because it would decrease the average. The result would be 100 single-player alliances in the top 100. -> Total number of players getting maps every week: 100.
B) The average is based on the number of possible members (ie. 4 for a level 1 alliance). This case is not good either, because the teams could consider disbanding the alliance and start over as a level 1 one, if they feel they can't find a 5th person with high number of passengers. The result would be 100 4-player alliances in the top 100. -> Total number of players getting maps every week: 400.

On the other hand since the ranking is based on the total number of passengers the teams have interest to grow and nowadays (after about half year of operation) even 750 players can get maps every week. I think this way is more fair.

 

[Molly G]

I think it would be nice to have the alliance rankings be based on the number of members in the alliance. If you are a four-person alliance you compete with other four-person alliances. Once you become a five-person alliance, you compete with others of the same size. I feel like this would make it more fair and make it more accessible for more players.

 

[Alfonz Senki]

I think it would be nice to have the alliance rankings be based on the number of members in the alliance. If you are a four-person alliance you compete with other four-person alliances. Once you become a five-person alliance, you compete with others of the same size. I feel like this would make it more fair and make it more accessible for more players.

That would not be fair, either. Look, there are only 5 level 6 (12 members) and 5 level 7 (14 members) alliances now. Who would they compete with? In their own category? It would mean an automatic top 10 position without lifting up any planes. Should the compete with the 12 level 5 (10 members) alliances? It would not be fair to them.
Anyway it's pretty clear that if paying users see it's easier to get top20 place in the level 1 category, they will disband they current alliance and start over in a new level 1 one. It would still mean millions of passenger for the top spots....

 

[Bali Hi]

I see your point. But it would have been so easy for GI to reward the average number of passengers per team rather than the total number of passengers per team. At least that would have been fair.
Cheers,
Tom

I would suggest making alliances a limited engagement (say 6 months).

Every 6 months, the alliance will be disbanded and the alliance leader can only join another alliance (he/she cannot make a new one). This would make it a more even playing field and everyone gets a chance being the alliance leader.

 

[Agent_L]

All propositions here boil down to "remove all incentives to level up your alliance".

 

[AJ]

Rankings should be just for determining who's #1 or 2 or so on.
But to get Alliance Map's(which is the main motive of an Alliance), you have to do certain individual or certain Individual and Group Task.
Like:
Individual Quest - Complete 300 Flight in a week
Group Quest - Complete 2000 Flight's or more in a week
Only those player's in the Alliance will get Maps who have done 5% or more.
Thus there will be no competition among different Alliance and no place for cheating as well, as everyone has to come together for task not one player will be completing whole task.
More members can be added by completing group Quest, say Complete 5 Group Quest to get to next Alliance level.