RP Cap for factions & RP cost to maintain alliances

  1. RP cap for factions.
    Limits the benefit of having 1000 alternate accounts and access to unlimited resources.

  2. RP cost to maintain alliances.
    There would be an initial cost to create an alliance (based on the number of faction members in each faction).
    There is a daily cost to maintain the alliance every day (prevents the proliferation of alliances for alternate accounts and massive lag bases, i.e., GG).

1 Like

That’s a pretty creative way to help control ALT accounts for sure. That would also make people think twice before making an alliance and help prevent mega allainces.

1 Like

The reality is relationships are work and it should cost resources to maintain those strategic alliances.

You got this right, but that’s interpersonal problems. RP shouldn’t factor in also. I vote no.


It DOES take work to keep it all together.


You guys seemed to be allied with a lot of people, I feel like this rule would impact you guys a lot more than it would us.

1 Like

This isn’t a “us” and or “you” thread designed around post warfare. If you don’t have something constructive contribute please don’t attempt to insight a counter productive deflection.

It would be appreciated if you contributed to the idea based on how it would affect the larger meta and the health of the server population.

1 Like

I’ll say whatever I want, however I want.
Anytime I see a thread about changing rules it’s because some salty ppl are upset that they can’t win so they try to change the thing that’s causing them to lose. If REALLY want these changes to go through then it’s going to impact you a hell of a lot more than anybody else.

But you know, your post wasn’t really constructive, mine was. So if you don’t have anything constructive to add to the conversation, don’t say anything at all. You’re just wasting everyone’s time and trying to derail the thread.

It’s not a function of “wanting or not wanting these changes.”

I posted an idea so we can have a productive conversation around creating balance to an alliance system that promotes the proliferation of zerg tactics with zero cost.

1 Like

How is it not zero cost? People still need to build their ships, fund their ammo, fuel, and pentaxid. There’s already alliance limitations on our pvp planets to limit what can be done and what can’t be. There’s absolutely no reason to penalize people simply because they’re playing with others.
And if you didn’t want these changes then why waste everyones time even suggesting it? Seems like you’re just trying to bait people into a “debate” so you can troll them on the forums.

The larger issue I have is alliance bases that can be setup in forward areas that are basically next to impossible to remove. You all might as well be one faction.

There should be cost to maintain a strategic alliance to maintain three bases in a forward area. Again, you should just be one faction based on how you’re operating - which means one base.

1 Like

I understand you may not know what you’re talking about because you haven’t been able to hold GG at all , but I assure you being in the same faction or being allied doesn’t make a difference when it comes to bases on these playfields. The cap is alliance based, NOT faction based. So it would be 3 bases regardless.

Yes, you’d still be able to have three bases, but there would be an RP cost to maintaining it in a forward area.

1 Like

For what reason? That makes absolutely no sense. You’re just taxing people for playing with each other.

1 Like

Then play in one faction if it’s a function of simply “playing with each other.”

Yes, each faction should be able to - individually - maintain a base on a forward area for free; however, when you do it in the capacity as an alliance there should be a cost.

Two major issues:

  1. Alliance bases are basically unkillable unless you have an entire server gang up on the entity.
  2. The servers simply can’t handle the combat. Last attempt the play-field crashed 9 times. So regardless of the strategic reasons there is a mechanical reason for my suggestion.

I do think people should be able to create alliances, and have bases in the capacity that you currently have - it just needs to be expensive given the plus sides.

I’m still not understanding what you’re even talking about. We had 3 TAW bases on GG. No alliance bases whatsoever, so what exactly are we talking about here? Give me specific examples of situations that actually happened recently so I can be on the same page.

  1. This is not true.
  2. This is being changed soon

If the reasoning is faction bases can’t be killed you haven’t been paying attention to GG this season. If it’s about server performance, the server is being upgraded.



1 Like

Some of us aren’t keyboard commandos. Guess I’ll go back to my ‘ignore the forums’ policy. Enjoy your popcorn.

1 Like

Please don’t go Lavatory! I’ve enjoyed reading your post and I’ve been seriously considering it as a former alliance player, and once the interpersonal issues have been worked out there’s not much in the way of stopping a good alliance steamrolling other factions. (Although I have no problem with this on GG as GG was ALWAYS built for big alliance fights).

I’m torn on your idea personally. A: I think it’s a good idea overall, but B: I’m wary of publicly backing it as it’s easy for me as a former Empy alliance player to impose my will on others but I don’t play so I don’t feel like I have the right to recommend (or not recommend) it. :slight_smile:

Do stay by though, I’ll admit i’ve been too aggressive in my posting in the past but your contribution to our little marketplace of ideas is most sincerely appreciated! It’s new ideas that keeps the blood of HWS fresh!

Best regards,
Wise. :slight_smile: