Possible Alliance Recruitment Idea

[Navigata07]

@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.

All great points Dan. That pax multiplier idea is a very good one actually, and I do believe it would encourage people to do tasks.
I think the trading between alliances is something that is happening at the moment, however, I think the loyalty to alliances will go a long way and will slow down how often that would occur. My current alliance has certainly been through some down times, and those guys who have remained keep showing up week after week regardless, even though they could easily transfer to a top 20 alliance and do very well. But the loyalty is the main reason why even the feeder alliances don't usually provide a lot of members; they form a bond with the other members and watch their alliance move up the charts....especially if they have no responsibilities except to fly at their own pace. There is nothing more satisfying in an alliance than everyone working and growing together, and seeing it manifest itself in the form of moving up the ranks.
That being said, I think your point drives home the main issue....the system needs an overhaul. I dont see the current dilemma changing unless the entire system changes for the better. I hope they pull it off this year, but they have A LOT of work to do.

 

[Brian D]

All great points Dan. That pax multiplier idea is a very good one actually, and I do believe it would encourage people to do tasks.
I think the trading between alliances is something that is happening at the moment, however, I think the loyalty to alliances will go a long way and will slow down how often that would occur. My current alliance has certainly been through some down times, and those guys who have remained keep showing up week after week regardless, even though they could easily transfer to a top 20 alliance and do very well. But the loyalty is the main reason why even the feeder alliances don't usually provide a lot of members; they form a bond with the other members and watch their alliance move up the charts. There is nothing more satisfying in an alliance than everyone working and growing together, and seeing it manifest itself in the form of moving up the ranks.
That being said, I think your point drives home the main issue....the system needs an overhaul. I dont see the current dilemma changing unless the entire system changes for the better. I hope they pull it off this year, but they have A LOT of work to do.

Think GI may be busy with cars, paint jobs and other gimmicks to look at alliances or space flights.

 

[Navigata07]

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.

Well said 👏🏿. It's all about the purple maps. Just spreading those out will shake up the dynamic of recruitment. Way too top heavy at the moment

 

[VdW]

Well said 👏🏿. It's all about the purple maps. Just spreading those out will shake up the dynamic of recruitment. Way too top heavy at the moment

Yeah, the way it currently is, it’s all about the maps. For 1st rank alliance, I’m pretty sure getting 1 QL is the last thing in their mind. Haha.

If, for example, they implement your idea of exchanging purple maps within alliance, I doubt it would be so cutthroat.

Then again, I doubt GI will do anything about it anytime soon. I’d be very happy to be proved wrong.

 

[Orgulas De Brandebourg]

@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

it would be useful to include a kind of "alliance realibilty" in this recruitment system, as wel as for the alliance and the pilots.

 

[Navigata07]

Yeah, the way it currently is, it’s all about the maps. For 1st rank alliance, I’m pretty sure getting 1 QL is the last thing in their mind. Haha.

If, for example, they implement your idea of exchanging purple maps within alliance, I doubt it would be so cutthroat.

Then again, I doubt GI will do anything about it anytime soon. I’d be very happy to be proved wrong.

I actually forgot that I thought of that idea! Trading one map a week with one alliance member is not too much to ask; that would definitely ease the tension as well as put any excess maps to use. If the alliance works together to achieve their rank, they should definitely be able to share the spoils. Matter of fact, they can make trading ANY map a "special privilege" amongst alliances. Maybe tie it to the new tasking idea from @Dan. Maybe lv 3 can trade purple maps, lv 6 can trade space maps, and max level can trade all maps. Still the one map per week with only one alliance member, but this would kill multiple birds with one stone. Leveling up would bring more members, unlock more privileges, and encourage more growth as an alliance. As I said, the "all maps" trade wpuld be a stretch, but even just purple maps would be more than satisfactory.

 

[Navigata07]

it would be useful to include a kind of "alliance realibilty" in this recruitment system, as wel as for the alliance and the pilots.

Care to elaborate on the "alliance reliability"?

 

[jpm-wv]

I have gotten one thought I think might help prevent a recurrence of the issue I had had with the alliance I had mentioning earlier. This should I hope help offset some of the cutthroat pressure.

My idea would be that it should be a standard practice in Alliance Groups (alliances of alliances) to have a procedure designed to protect the rights of the player from pressure that can be exerted by Alliance leaders directly or indirectly. There is a power imbalance between a player and an alliance leader because the alliance leader may boot a player against their will and the player can suffer consequences. This is not something said but is implicit. We could take lesson from the legal system of the US. In the US, the police having a suspect in custody have to follow specific procedures to protect a suspect's rights and part of this is the ever famous Miranda warnings given to suspect prior to questioning. Those procedures work because they are followed scrupulously (the policeman has to actually read from a card even if they can recite it without fail).

The standard procedure would be this:

1. If a player qualifies for a new alliance opening and the player's alliance leader feels it's desirable that the person move, the player's current alliance leader shall NOT discuss the matter with the player.
2. The matter is immediately handed over to the alliance leader with the opening for THEIR consideration. The players alliance leader must exclude themselves from any decision about the player after presenting their case including abstaining from voting on making an offer to the player.
3. The offer WILL be Private Messaged or E-Mailed to the individual alone by the leader of the prospective new alliance leader. This message shall be in this standardized manner:
   1. The Title shall be "[name of alliance group] - [name of prospective alliance] has an opening that you qualify for."
   2. The opening text must be (without deviation), "You have the absolute unquestionable right to refuse this offer and all [alliance group] members are obligated to RESPECT and HONOR your refusal."
   3. The offer shall include the requirements for the next alliance and point out differences in requirements as well as predictable disadvantages for the player (loss the 50% bonus for example) of this requirement change.
   4. The offer may include other TRUTHFULL information that is being pitched.
   5. The closing text must be (without deviation), "You have the absolute unquestionable right to refuse this offer and all [alliance group] members are obligated to RESPECT and HONOR your refusal." This is repeated from the opening.
4. f the offer is refused, the matter can only be discussed with the player if the player specifically mentions it. The player's alliance leader shall NOT boot the player for refusing to accept the alliance offer. The refusal shall NOT be discussed unless the player specifically mentions it.

 

[Chloe11111]

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.

Why? It's not a problem finding players who don't want to fly tasks for top 20 alliances. So there is no need to burden people with tasks.

This game is about choices. If you choose to go for an alliance that has task completion requirements, you acknowledge that you are not likely going to be in the top 20. And if you want to be in the top 20, you acknowledge that most people in that alliance do not want to complete tasks. You can't eat your cake and have it too. Everybody's wants and needs change over time. There was a time I wanted the task completion (although I preferred the 100% award since I had lots of bonuses that would easily make up the difference in coins). Now, I want the alliance maps. I don't really care about the weekly bonuses. I have all my buildings built and no longer have a need for coins although I have 11m now. I don't want to complete tasks if I don't want to. I will chase the stars for the alliance destinations and work towards tower of london/eiffel tower, but that's it

 

[Navigata07]

Why? It's not a problem finding players who don't want to fly tasks for top 20 alliances. So there is no need to burden people with tasks.

This game is about choices. If you choose to go for an alliance that has task completion requirements, you acknowledge that you are not likely going to be in the top 20. And if you want to be in the top 20, you acknowledge that most people in that alliance do not want to complete tasks. You can't eat your cake and have it too. Everybody's wants and needs change over time. There was a time I wanted the task completion (although I preferred the 100% award since I had lots of bonuses that would easily make up the difference in coins). Now, I want the alliance maps. I don't really care about the weekly bonuses. I have all my buildings built and no longer have a need for coins although I have 11m now. I don't want to complete tasks if I don't want to. I will chase the stars for the alliance destinations and work towards tower of london/eiffel tower, but that's it

In other words, either eliminate tasking or give destination control to the player, for the star chasers out there.

 

[Chloe11111]

In other words, either eliminate tasking or give destination control to the player, for the star chasers out there.

Yup. It sure cuts down on passengers when you have to fly 219*80pax flights to Buenos Aires. Sure makes it harder to fly 200k pax every week

 

[Dafsade]

Hi @Navigata07 and hi others !

I love your idea ! ! And if I can help, I will do my best. Indeed, Damien Saez Alliance is not what it used to be ! Mainly because I have less time than before... BUT, my alliance could hosts, what I call, "low level players" (under 60) with a big pleasure !

During one year, it worked really great ! new players joined, improved their game with some "old" players, and then left us to join great alliance. I loved recruiting new players, and I loved when they joined great alliance !
We were in the TOP100 every week and we reached often 50% of alliances tasks whereas alliance tasks were not supposed to be reached !
I think @DeWinter is the last who joined Damien Saez Alliance, and I am pretty sure he will become a great player !

If someone would like to manage my alliance and the associated system, no problem for me ! I would love to spend time to work on it with you, but currently, it is not possible...

So, please let me know if I can be usefull ! I hope your idea will become real soon ! !

 

[Dafsade]

To do a good "training alliance", my opinion is that we need 2 or 3 good "retired" players (= players who can fly more than 100 000 pax each week but don"t mind being under TOP50) and 17 or 18 beginners who communicate and who are motivated to join the best alliances.

Then, communicate is the key, of course, to let beginers learn, and to organise launches and alliance tasks.

 

[Brian D]

GI could do something with the alliances and space launches to freshen it up. An alliance super launch where each player gets new destinations to assemble parts for a super space trip to Mars. (If you see this GI my finders fee is reasonable)

 

[Barkmi4 (Mike)]

(If you see this GI my finders fee is reasonable)

Good luck! Bloody tight fisted company they are! Won’t even return/refund what was lost at their fault 😤

 

[Navigata07]

Yup. It sure cuts down on passengers when you have to fly 219*80pax flights to Buenos Aires. Sure makes it harder to fly 200k pax every week

Its a nuisance is what it is. Think about how difficult it would be to do tasks without fuel rings or years of fuel stored up. Between the 100 item limit and the amount of fuel required to do the flights, it's not really achievable by normal means.

Slight Tangent: Matter of fact, I have the same argument even for maps, because if we flew maps based on how they originally intended (do flights without speeding up and using the map time available), we would never get anything accomplished, and it would take tons of maps to get us there at that pace. If that's the route they wanted to take, they would need to make maps easily attainable. A lot of us end up where we are because of the loopholes we managed to find and use to our benefit (this forum is the main reason for that), but if we played this game based on the original intent, our cities and fleet would not look the way they do now...far from it.

 

[Navigata07]

GI could do something with the alliances and space launches to freshen it up. An alliance super launch where each player gets new destinations to assemble parts for a super space trip to Mars. (If you see this GI my finders fee is reasonable)

Don't open all those cans of worms please. Too many things need to be freshened up in this game, but GI doesnt appear to be taking heed to all the suggestions. I can attest that they have even been spoonfed ideas directly. It's like watching someone die a slow death from poison when the antidote is right there beside them to take. It's a painful sight, because you know it can be avoided

 

[jpm-wv]

Alright, perhaps

Why? It's not a problem finding players who don't want to fly tasks for top 20 alliances. So there is no need to burden people with tasks.

This game is about choices. If you choose to go for an alliance that has task completion requirements, you acknowledge that you are not likely going to be in the top 20. And if you want to be in the top 20, you acknowledge that most people in that alliance do not want to complete tasks. You can't eat your cake and have it too. Everybody's wants and needs change over time. There was a time I wanted the task completion (although I preferred the 100% award since I had lots of bonuses that would easily make up the difference in coins). Now, I want the alliance maps. I don't really care about the weekly bonuses. I have all my buildings built and no longer have a need for coins although I have 11m now. I don't want to complete tasks if I don't want to. I will chase the stars for the alliance destinations and work towards tower of london/eiffel tower, but that's it

What is happening from what I see is that you have a decreasing number of dedicated players (attrition) and you have an extremely cutthroat competion in the TOP20. It's easy for a high level player to take first glance at my idea and say "How Dare You force us to do these flights". What I proposed a is harsh medicine for some problems such as players being underchallenged as well as attrition. But keep in mind that while you are hobbled in this proposed idea, everyone else including your competition is also hobbled. You would not do most of the flights, that's still a choice. The idea is that you would want to get people into the alliance that are still developing their facilities with the 50% bonus and you would have a stake in them having a high PAX count while completing their tasks and developing their facilities. And if you don't care, what happens is that they might leave your alliance (vote with their feet). You might have to do something like forgo a Mystery Super Bonus to do a task for the sake of your fellow alliance members. The idiom is "take a bullet for the team". And remember that the task completers may also be "taking a bullet for the team". Short-term, you think this is foolish and from a self-interested point of view, it is, but remember that eventually, these players you take a bullet for may the new players that solve the attrition problem.

What can happen in the current of affairs is you have some HIGH end players such as yourself playing against the same dwindling number of people in a cutthroat competition and you become segregated while everyone else might have little incentive to sign up for a seemingly impossible "miracle" or "pie in the sky". And you may have people that are going to talk about this and say, "Don't even bother trying" and that's a legitimate decision particularly as the "cutthroat" nature becomes extremely well known.

 

[Chloe11111]

harsh medicine

That's exactly what I look for in a game. Harsh medicine. If we come to that #quitplaying.

 

[jpm-wv]

That's exactly what I look for in a game. Harsh medicine. If we come to that #quitplaying.

And that too is a valid choice that I respect. Of course, it creates more attrition or the gradual decline as players retire and quit with NO replacement. Sometimes, it is deliberate like when a company decides to reduce staff by not replacing retiring people or people that resign. Sometimes, it's just a natural tendency.

Personally, I am NOT quitting this game or would have walked away and I wouldn't be writing this. Far from it, I actually love my current alliance, GoldenGlobe and I see attrition effecting it. That is NOT a TOP20 alliance. It's now a TOP100 alliance and I proudly contribute to this This has knock on effects where people in lower alliances such as "The Peacekeepers" lose members and have a harder time replacing them.

This is not about some falling out where ultimately, there were NO HERO (I judge myself as well as him, I made some big mistakes and I will admit that even if I don't want to think about it). But rather, it shows how brutal things have gotten. I actually might be understating my PAX count in my signature just to deter some TOP20 alliances from recruiting me and it makes sense given where I am in this game.