Attacking your own alliance members

2»

Comments

  • Joker117
    Joker117 Posts: 124
    It shouldn't be allowed ... It messes up the alliance score and whoever loses standings in multiple areas (that tourny and the season score )

    Also it makes for weaker alliance pts if we lose 100 for the attack and get 50 for winning we lost 50 not gained ..
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Joker117 wrote:
    It shouldn't be allowed ... It messes up the alliance score and whoever loses standings in multiple areas (that tourny and the season score )

    Also it makes for weaker alliance pts if we lose 100 for the attack and get 50 for winning we lost 50 not gained ..

    Except that within your alliance you simply notify your members and make sure you don't lose points by not attacking when they're unshielded. It's a way to gain points on each other without the possibility of losing any.

    Alice: "Hey Bob, I have you lined up and you're worth 40 points. Let me know when you're shielded"
    Bob: "Ok, I'm shielded now for the next 3 hours"
    Alice: "Ok, I've hit you. Queue me up now if you can. I'll be shielding in about 10 minutes.

    As a few alliances have shown, it's a straightforward, if not quite expensive in terms of HP, way of increasing scores well beyond what used to be within the realm of typical high pvp scores.

    I don't think they should eliminate the possibility of attacking alliance mates, because it honestly wouldn't stop the exploitable coordinated attacks. It would be nice to see someone's alliance name under their name though.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    j12601 wrote:
    Joker117 wrote:
    It shouldn't be allowed ... It messes up the alliance score and whoever loses standings in multiple areas (that tourny and the season score )

    Also it makes for weaker alliance pts if we lose 100 for the attack and get 50 for winning we lost 50 not gained ..

    Except that within your alliance you simply notify your members and make sure you don't lose points by not attacking when they're unshielded. It's a way to gain points on each other without the possibility of losing any.

    Alice: "Hey Bob, I have you lined up and you're worth 40 points. Let me know when you're shielded"
    Bob: "Ok, I'm shielded now for the next 3 hours"
    Alice: "Ok, I've hit you. Queue me up now if you can. I'll be shielding in about 10 minutes.

    As a few alliances have shown, it's a straightforward, if not quite expensive in terms of HP, way of increasing scores well beyond what used to be within the realm of typical high pvp scores.

    I don't think they should eliminate the possibility of attacking alliance mates, because it honestly wouldn't stop the exploitable coordinated attacks. It would be nice to see someone's alliance name under their name though.

    Showing alliance name under/next to ign would be an improvement. Also not charging iso to skip alliance members in pvp would be another improvement.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Just as a quality of life issue, it would be nice to see your own alliance members in a different color, or at the very least show the player's alliance name in the initial display. Also one should be able to skip alliance members for free. Penalizing us for not smashing our allies is silly.

    As for questions of competitive balance, these alliance networks create so many problems for any system that would try to regulate who you can and can't attack that it probably isn't viable without a major overhaul, and we know that's not happening. So sort of a moot point. Those who are willing to go to extreme lengths to coordinate shields and attacks and throw lots of money at the problem are going to continue to profit from the system, and there's no incentive for the powers-that-be to change that.
  • Spoit
    Spoit Posts: 3,441 Chairperson of the Boards
    Thugpatrol wrote:
    Just as a quality of life issue, it would be nice to see your own alliance members in a different color, or at the very least show the player's alliance name in the initial display. Also one should be able to skip alliance members for free. Penalizing us for not smashing our allies is silly.

    As for questions of competitive balance, these alliance networks create so many problems for any system that would try to regulate who you can and can't attack that it probably isn't viable without a major overhaul, and we know that's not happening. So sort of a moot point. Those who are willing to go to extreme lengths to coordinate shields and attacks and throw lots of money at the problem are going to continue to profit from the system, and there's no incentive for the powers-that-be to change that.
    Yeah, they'd just split out and then rejoin at the end of the tournies if they did something like that

Categories