Possible Alliance Recruitment Idea

[Navigata07]

@Bridogg72 you actually gave me an idea, continuing from our discussion this morning. You mentioned that the constellation alliance is a feeder alliance that brings in newer players, and I know that there are a few of those in the forum (@Dafsade also has one). Why don't we establish a bit of a recruitment system to help fill the established alliances using these feeders? This is the idea I have in mind:
1) Established Alliances will prepare their requirements for recruits
2) Established Alliance leaders will reach out to the Feeder Alliance leaders. There would be a permanent spot on the forum where all the official feeder alliances are listed, as well as their leaders.
3) The leaders would look within their alliance to see if they have any qualified candidates based on the requirements. If there are qualified fliers, the feeder alliance leader will reach out to those members and ask them if they are interested in transferring to the established alliance. It is the player's decision at the end of the day, and they can choose to stay or leave
4) Have the interested member communicate with the established alliance leader. It's an optional step, but it would be good for the recruited player and new leader to have a talk to ensure that they will be a good fit
5) Complete the transfer before the weekly reset.

Of course there will be the current method of posting in this section of the forum, so my proposal will be another method that allows the Established Alliances and Feeder Alliances to form a strong connection and allow both types of alliances to fulfill their purpose. Let me know what you guys think.

cc: @Barkmi4 (Mike) @Dan @Dafsade @Madge59230

 

[VdW]

That's what we (Air Angel) did before. When there was an opening, we asked @Dafsade if there's any of his players was ready to join according to the requirements of course.

But I'm not totally sure if Dafsade's alliance is still there, I havent seen the update for a very long time.

In the end, players come and go. It's getting really hard to recruit new players that fit the requirements. Air Angel is pretty relax with "only" 80K pax per week. Even then, it's quite tough to find new players.

 

[flyhores]

That's what we (Air Angel) did before. When there was an opening, we asked @Dafsade if there's any of his players was ready to join according to the requirements of course.

But I'm not totally sure if Dafsade's alliance is still there, I havent seen the update for a very long time.

In the end, players come and go. It's getting really hard to recruit new players that fit the requirements. Air Angel is pretty relax with "only" 80K pax per week. Even then, it's quite tough to find new players.

For a game, it is difficult for you to recruit players with constant enthusiasm and certain skills from the beginning of operation to more than 5 years. Any game is no exception.
In a PC online game, I want to make up my league， Guess how many accounts I opened? ? ?
If this game is not limited by Google account, I will also open many games

 

[Brian D]

I think it’s a great idea. @Madge59230 is my alliance leader and I know she has another development alliance. I think a great selling point for a feeder could be to say to players once you meet x standard we will link you up with the main alliances head and recommend you

 

[Anton01]

This would certainly be something to explore further. Finding qualified candidates is certainly becoming an arduous task these days.

 

[Navigata07]

Im glad you guys agree. @VdW youre right...I haven't heard anything from @Dafsade in a while in regards to his alliance. I think the first step would be to get a solid list of all the feeder alliances on the forum and their leaders. It should be easy to set things up once we have that in place.

 

[Madge59230]

Im glad you guys agree. @VdW youre right...I haven't heard anything from @Dafsade in a while in regards to his alliance. I think the first step would be to get a solid list of all the feeder alliances on the forum and their leaders. It should be easy to set things up once we have that in place.

Certainly worth exploring. Several things to keep in mind:
I run my small alliance for the guys I have in it. I’ve tried very hard to move them on, but they don’t want to go! Find that a big compliment. Not everyone wants to move....so zero pressure on people to move

Communication. How you communicate is sometimes the limiting factor. Not everyone uses facebook or messenger. Some are very anti. Forum thread is ok for some.

Expectations. I run my small group and basically am not bothered by pax numbers. My alliance members set their own expectations. If they can they do 50%, the only thing I ask is 1 task for the discipline, but as I have an ongoing recruitment problem I’m obliged to take randoms, who drop dead quick.

I think an amalgamation should be looked at and be possible of feeder alliances. I’d love to feed some of mine into Ant, but they like where they are. 🤣. Some of the problem is also the expectations of the big alliance. To stay inthe top 20 is getting more and more demanding.

Just some random thoughts.
Start a discussion between some of us, but out of public site.

 

[Navigata07]

Certainly worth exploring. Several things to keep in mind:
I run my small alliance for the guys I have in it. I’ve tried very hard to move them on, but they don’t want to go! Find that a big compliment. Not everyone wants to move....so zero pressure on people to move

Communication. How you communicate is sometimes the limiting factor. Not everyone uses facebook or messenger. Some are very anti. Forum thread is ok for some.

Expectations. I run my small group and basically am not bothered by pax numbers. My alliance members set their own expectations. If they can they do 50%, the only thing I ask is 1 task for the discipline, but as I have an ongoing recruitment problem I’m obliged to take randoms, who drop dead quick.

I think an amalgamation should be looked at and be possible of feeder alliances. I’d love to feed some of mine into Ant, but they like where they are. 🤣. Some of the problem is also the expectations of the big alliance. To stay inthe top 20 is getting more and more demanding.

Just some random thoughts.
Start a discussion between some of us, but out of public site.

Definitely no pressure. It would be an option for those who are willing to move on for their own purposes. Some other solid factors as well, that everyone involved will have to keep in mind during the process. I think we can start private discussions once we have the right people involved.

 

[simister77]

If I could add my two cents. I am on Airforce77 Alliance and glad I did. It has allowed me to grow from 15-17k pax up to 35-40k pax in about 3-4 months. I was asked 3 times if I wanted to move on, but I turned in a statue and stayed where I am. A no pressure alliance and access to acknowledge from long-term players is very helpful. I also stayed because I like the play-life balance and able to do two tasks each week, and play events at my speed. I avoided moving on, as I do not have the time to fly high pax, plus my highest plane at the moment is Eagle. Once I get to condors, then I would think of moving. But if joining of alliances that has the same focus, i would have to think hard and talk with alliance members. For now I do not plan to move from Airforce77, but love to hear of options. Cheers

 

[Brian D]

If I could add my two cents. I am on Airforce77 Alliance and glad I did. It has allowed me to grow from 15-17k pax up to 35-40k pax in about 3-4 months. I was asked 3 times if I wanted to move on, but I turned in a statue and stayed where I am. A no pressure alliance and access to acknowledge from long-term players is very helpful. I also stayed because I like the play-life balance and able to do two tasks each week, and play events at my speed. I avoided moving on, as I do not have the time to fly high pax, plus my highest plane at the moment is Eagle. Once I get to condors, then I would think of moving. But if joining of alliances that has the same focus, i would have to think hard and talk with alliance members. For now I do not plan to move from Airforce77, but love to hear of options. Cheers

I think you are the ideal alliance member and that is how alliances should work. Join an alliance, build your game and stick with them as you grow together. Alliance should nurture players. I think there are a lot of people like this, but also people who are in too much of a hurry to reach top 20

 

[simister77]

I think you are the ideal alliance member and that is how alliances should work. Join an alliance, build your game and stick with them as you grow together. Alliance should nurture players. I think there are a lot of people like this, but also people who are in too much of a hurry to reach top 20

Correct, today's players want a challenge. Race to the finish at soon as possible and then move onto another game. I recall last month a forum member indicated he reached Level 80 and said he is finished and what should he do. Some good advice from a long-time player hinted about adventure maps, and S3 planes, etc. , and the player was not aware of this area in the game.

Besides donkey kong , this game is the only game I played constantly for over 6 months. I like it. The want to be in the Top20 is there, but I know deep down, I can not handle the pressure with the current game I have. I am just trying to get through one year playing the game and collecting as many event buildings, for the second go around.

All I can say, I am glad I found this forum. So much valuable info I gained, that let's me play the game I want. thank you for allowing to share my experience.

 

[Navigata07]

@simister77 and @Bridogg72 touched on another issue that I have with the current alliance setup. Why is everyone aiming for top 20 alliances? Why to reap the benefits of course! If they are able to fly 50 to 70k while getting 3 maps and a dice bonus, why would they choose to bring their services to an alliance where you get 1 map and a business class?

One of the problems with the current alliance system is that it is way too top heavy.
Less than 101 gets one map and a business class.
Less than 51 gets two maps and a dice.
Less than 21 gets three maps and a dice.
Less than 11 gets three maps and a golden dice
Less than 5 gets four maps and a sky captain
#1 gets twelve maps and a quantum leap.
If the map rewards distribution was a bit more spread out, then the recruitment would be a bit more widespread. Getting 3 maps a week vs 1 is a huge difference. Shucks, I celebrate when I get two, as it doubles the pace.
I also think tasking would be less burdensome if people had control over the aircraft that can be used for each task. Some steps that would help include:
-Only using aircraft with a stand to determine tasking
-Lowering the cost of changing destinations. If they made the cost to change destinations only one greenie, I guarantee that they would gain more revenue from it. People would just say "its just one greenie", but those greenies add up.
-Better yet, do away with the current tasking system and find a better way to earn alliance points...maybe do it by # of pax. That way, people will focus on their own goals while they meet alliance requirements without making room for separate flights for the tasks.
The 3rd issue of course are the cheaters, but that's a whole different can of worms.

Anyway, those are pipe dreams at this point, so we just have to make due with the system that we got. I am learning a bit about the newer players though...hope to hear more feedback from them.

 

[jpm-wv]

I think you are the ideal alliance member and that is how alliances should work. Join an alliance, build your game and stick with them as you grow together. Alliance should nurture players. I think there are a lot of people like this, but also people who are in too much of a hurry to reach top 20

I agree there. I have an interesting take on it. During the entire period, I discuss, I am at level 80 I once was in an alliance where it seemed that leader was eager for to move onto a TOP 50 alliance when I wasn't. I think was running alliance that had a Task Completion requirement but he wanted me in the main alliance that didn't have such a requirement. I depended upon the requirement of 50% Task Completion because I was and still am developing my facilities. It turned an ugly mess where I got to the main alliance and I'm still grateful for booted out. At the time, I was actually under a lot of stress because of an upcoming series of eye surgeries and my anxiety was through the roof.

So I moved onto a lower level alliance that was NOT in the Top 100 Alliance, had my surgeries, and eventually got Control Tower Level 12. I had a good time there and tried to pass down what I learned. I only left that alliance a month or 2 after joining because I was repeatedly getting a weekly PAX count of over 100,000 and I knew I could do that on a regular bases, and I also wanted the Alliance Flight maps even though my priority would still be a 50% Task Completion bonus. I left the alliance on very good terms and even after joining the one I am in, I still made a recommendation to the former alliance and I wish them well. These days, I have CT13 and have repeatedly exceed a PAX count of 150,000 and I am in an alliance that is in the TOP 100 so I get one Alliance Destination a week usually.

It used to be that players would court alliances but now, I think you alliance leaders need to think about courting players (completely the opposite). And I think alliance leaders also need to realize that if a player does NOT like something, the player can and probably will take a hike and rightfully so.

You have three types of players:

1) The HAVE NOTS - these are the players that are at the lower levels and are trying to develop basic terminal facilities such as runways, airport terminals to get to say a 1,000 PAX, and may have expertise stars in the 2 digits. For them, coin and gold are GOD.
2) The HAVES - these are high end players that are at level 80, have just about every facility upgraded to the MAXIMUM level. They can get a lot of coin but there is very little they can spend it on. If a facility is NOT up to the maximum level, it wasn't worth it. Typically, these players want the black plane liveries, mystery super bonus, and probably some stuff I don't think about. Commercial buildings in their city are probably a rarity. PAX counts are extremely high.
3) The HAVE SOME, WANT MORE - these are fairly high level players and include a good number of level 80 players. Their commercial buildings are a sizeable fraction of their cities. Their goal is probably to upgrade facilities to the MAXIMUM level and money is still important although they can have very good PAX counts often exceeding 100,000 PAX.

 

[Dan]

@Navigata07 interesting thing you bring this up. It has actually been on my mind for about the past month or so. Not so much as within the forum but me having my own two alliances and use one as a feeder for the other.

I think we are all saying about the same thing. The requirements for a top 100 alliance vs a top 20 alliance are about the same, sometimes even easier in the top 20 because there might not be a task associated with the weekly alliance goals, just passengers.

We all have issues finding quality, long term players and like @Madge59230 I have a few randoms in my alliance just because I have been watching the forums and know that they are almost impossible to recruit for.

Feeding from one alliance to another I don't think will have the best outcomes. Some alliance leaders might want their alliance to move up and won't always be in the same spot to accept some or even let others go. Ultimately it is up to the players themselves where they go to and how long they stay. I think a more worthwhile option would be trading members within the alliances as the alliance leaders goals change. Ultimately that is kind of what is happening anyways by the players and not the leaders.

The changes with the liveries were about what I expected was going to happen. I know it was announced that alliance changes were coming and I am indeed looking forward to it. You already said that it was top heavy and I agree. At most 2,000 different accounts get 1 or more alliance maps weekly. And if you can get 3 or more maps each week instead of 1, why not. I am hoping that the alliance changes will weigh your passengers flown with the tasks that you have completed. 0 tasks is .25 x weekly pax flown, 1 task is weekly amount, 2 is 2x, and 3 is 3x or something similar. That would put your task orientated alliances with lower weekly totals on par with other alliances that are heavy into passengers only and not doing any tasks. It would definitely change things up and potentially change a lot of the 'regular' weekly rankings until everyone figured it out.

 

[Navigata07]

It used to be that players would court alliances but now, I think you alliance leaders need to think about courting players (completely the opposite). And I think alliance leaders also need to realize that if a player does NOT like something, the player can and probably will take a hike and rightfully so.

This. We can just pack up and go home with this statement, as that is what I am slowly realizing. It's like how the real estate market goes through phases of buyers vs sellers markets. In the days of old when players were aplenty, alliance spots were filled and rare, so the demand exceeded the supply, making it a sellers market (players courting the alliance). Nowadays, the trend is the opposite. Dependable players are scarce, but plenty of room to join good alliances, so the supply exceeds the demand, making it a buyers market (alliance courting the players). With how the game has been going, I don't see that dynamic changing anytime soon.

 

[jpm-wv]

I think we are all saying about the same thing. The requirements for a top 100 alliance vs a top 20 alliance are about the same, sometimes even easier in the top 20 because there might not be a task associated with the weekly alliance goals, just passengers.

And while you are technically correct, there's an interesting flip people may NOT be attracted to those alliances because they don't have the 50% task requirement. Even though I might wind up doing a 175,000 PAX count a week, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. In the post I made earlier, I made a reference to categories of players and I categorize myself as "HAVE SOME, WANT MORE". Now for the ultimate challenge, let's try getting an alliance of HAVES to go for a fairly reliable payer that is a "HAVE SOME, WANT MORE"

We all have issues finding quality, long term players and like @Madge59230 I have a few randoms in my alliance just because I have been watching the forums and know that they are almost impossible to recruit for.

Feeding from one alliance to another I don't think will have the best outcomes. Some alliance leaders might want their alliance to move up and won't always be in the same spot to accept some or even let others go. Ultimately it is up to the players themselves where they go to and how long they stay. I think a more worthwhile option would be trading members within the alliances as the alliance leaders goals change. Ultimately that is kind of what is happening anyways by the players and not the leaders.

The changes with the liveries were about what I expected was going to happen. I know it was announced that alliance changes were coming and I am indeed looking forward to it. You already said that it was top heavy and I agree. At most 2,000 different accounts get 1 or more alliance maps weekly. And if you can get 3 or more maps each week instead of 1, why not. I am hoping that the alliance changes will weigh your passengers flown with the tasks that you have completed. 0 tasks is .25 x weekly pax flown, 1 task is weekly amount, 2 is 2x, and 3 is 3x or something similar. That would put your task orientated alliances with lower weekly totals on par with other alliances that are heavy into passengers only and not doing any tasks. It would definitely change things up and potentially change a lot of the 'regular' weekly rankings until everyone figured it out.

I think too, there needs to be incentive for a TOP 20 alliance to complete tasks and hopefully, that might put a stop to the dichotomy that I've eluding to.

@Navigata07 interesting thing you bring this up. It has actually been on my mind for about the past month or so. Not so much as within the forum but me having my own two alliances and use one as a feeder for the other.

I think we are all saying about the same thing. The requirements for a top 100 alliance vs a top 20 alliance are about the same, sometimes even easier in the top 20 because there might not be a task associated with the weekly alliance goals, just passengers.

We all have issues finding quality, long term players and like @Madge59230 I have a few randoms in my alliance just because I have been watching the forums and know that they are almost impossible to recruit for.

Feeding from one alliance to another I don't think will have the best outcomes. Some alliance leaders might want their alliance to move up and won't always be in the same spot to accept some or even let others go. Ultimately it is up to the players themselves where they go to and how long they stay. I think a more worthwhile option would be trading members within the alliances as the alliance leaders goals change. Ultimately that is kind of what is happening anyways by the players and not the leaders.

The changes with the liveries were about what I expected was going to happen. I know it was announced that alliance changes were coming and I am indeed looking forward to it. You already said that it was top heavy and I agree. At most 2,000 different accounts get 1 or more alliance maps weekly. And if you can get 3 or more maps each week instead of 1, why not. I am hoping that the alliance changes will weigh your passengers flown with the tasks that you have completed. 0 tasks is .25 x weekly pax flown, 1 task is weekly amount, 2 is 2x, and 3 is 3x or something similar. That would put your task orientated alliances with lower weekly totals on par with other alliances that are heavy into passengers only and not doing any tasks. It would definitely change things up and potentially change a lot of the 'regular' weekly rankings until everyone figured it out.

I too think that the TOP 20 alliances should have incentives for completing the Tasks. My thought was something like, you must have a high PAX to get the Alliance Maps while also having this percentage of Tasks Completed. And if none is, you're not in the TOP allliances.

 

[Madge59230]

And while you are technically correct, there's an interesting flip people may NOT be attracted to those alliances because they don't have the 50% task requirement. Even though I might wind up doing a 175,000 PAX count a week, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. In the post I made earlier, I made a reference to categories of players and I categorize myself as "HAVE SOME, WANT MORE". Now for the ultimate challenge, let's try getting an alliance of HAVES to go for a fairly reliable payer that is a "HAVE SOME, WANT MORE"


I think too, there needs to be incentive for a TOP 20 alliance to complete tasks and hopefully, that might put a stop to the dichotomy that I've eluding to.

I too think that the TOP 20 alliances should have incentives for completing the Tasks. My thought was something like, you must have a high PAX to get the Alliance Maps while also having this percentage of Tasks Completed. And if none is, you're not in the TOP allliances.

“Top 20 should have incentives to fly tasks”

Why? If everything is 3 * why should I waste my time and resources flying there for no reason. There are places I have to fly to but rarely get them as tasks. We switched to NO tasks to keep players including me, still playing. Tasks = compulsory= boring= mass exit. More dumbing down. If you have to do tasks means alliance map flights get impossible with 100 limit. Nothing stops people doing tasks, but should be voluntary.

 

[jpm-wv]

“Top 20 should have incentives to fly tasks”

Why? If everything is 3 * why should I waste my time and resources flying there for no reason. There are places I have to fly to but rarely get them as tasks. We switched to NO tasks to keep players including me, still playing. Tasks = compulsory= boring= mass exit. More dumbing down. If you have to do tasks means alliance map flights get impossible with 100 limit. Nothing stops people doing tasks, but should be voluntary.

The idea is that each alliance would have to have players that complete Tasks and some that would give the PAX count. In this type of system, a level 10 alliance would have to have a balance of players that give a high PAX count with players that complete tasks so that everyone can get what they want. This would force players like yourself into an alliance with individuals that complete tasks that are to develop the facilities that you take for granted as a given. That would create more of a challenge for you because you have to give someone advice or guidance that is a complete 180 from what yourself as doing. Remember that there is one thing about this game that I like in you are forced to relate with people that think totally different than you.

 

[VdW]

The idea is that each alliance would have to have players that complete Tasks and some that would give the PAX count. In this type of system, a level 10 alliance would have to have a balance of players that give a high PAX count with players that complete tasks so that everyone can get what they want. This would force players like yourself into an alliance with individuals that complete tasks that are to develop the facilities that you take for granted as a given. That would create more of a challenge for you because you have to give someone advice or guidance that is a complete 180 from what yourself as doing. Remember that there is one thing about this game that I like in you are forced to relate with people that think totally different than you.

I understand your point.

But remember that it is a choice. Top alliances choose not to do tasks to get more maps. For most, getting the 50% won't help that much in term of what they get back. For me, focusing on 2 tasks while I have 3 starred them is really useless and waste of resources. I better use those resources with Sky Captain, Business Class, Comfort Class to fly to a map destination and reap the rewards there. Add helicopters too if you have them. In the end, for those top alliances: getting 3 and more Purple Maps is MUCH more important than 50% extra coins.

If you choose to do tasks and get more coins, that's totally up to you.

You can't get them all.

 

[jpm-wv]

This. We can just pack up and go home with this statement, as that is what I am slowly realizing. It's like how the real estate market goes through phases of buyers vs sellers markets. In the days of old when players were aplenty, alliance spots were filled and rare, so the demand exceeded the supply, making it a sellers market (players courting the alliance). Nowadays, the trend is the opposite. Dependable players are scarce, but plenty of room to join good alliances, so the supply exceeds the demand, making it a buyers market (alliance courting the players). With how the game has been going, I don't see that dynamic changing anytime soon.

Exactly. Given this is so, the question, how can alliances court (or sell themselves) to the right players? This is where I think it is helpful to classify players CORRECTLY. The Alliance would have what type of player are they courting and be able to write a check to such players that can be CASHED.

Another thing that can help is for alliance members to build relationships outside of the alliance. They may run into someone with things like building item trades, launches, as w

I understand your point.

But remember that it is a choice. Top alliances choose not to do tasks to get more maps. For most, getting the 50% won't help that much in term of what they get back. For me, focusing on 2 tasks while I have 3 starred them is really useless and waste of resources. I better use those resources with Sky Captain, Business Class, Comfort Class to fly to a map destination and reap the rewards there. Add helicopters too if you have them. In the end, for those top alliances: getting 3 and more Purple Maps is MUCH more important than 50% extra coins.

If you choose to do tasks and get more coins, that's totally up to you.

You can't get them all.

I understand what you are saying. One problem I have seen is this, a TOP20 alliance recruiting a player that values and the 50% bonus. That's what had happened to me. I think the alliance or the invidivual recruiting was despirit for someone to get a high PAX count. The guy thought he sell me on it, but it just wasn't taking and was asking me to assume more than I was comfortable with. The guy was a smooth talker and for a while I thought I could do it. He had initially recruited me for a Task Completion Alliance that he was heading with a support account. He then told me quit a few weeks saying that I'm going to a "better alliance" (he could've expelled me from the alliance if he wanted to). It was only afterwards that I was told that there was no Task Completion requirement. Looking back, I do NOT think this individual respected my own goals in this game and I can how that can happen in some of these TOP20 alliances when players get too overeager.

It is also easy to look down upon players that do Task Completion for the 50% bonus. I also fear that TOP20 seems to be used a status symbol by recruiters to get bodies (like the alliance should be given some special deference where players line up to brownnose the alliance). These days, if you E-Mail me wanting to join a TOP20 alliance, I'm likely to head for the hills.