Alliance System

Overview

This is a proposal for a new system that would allow clans to forge alliances with each other. The following is a short overview of the features this system would have, the details are discussed in their own sections further below:

  • Invite Based: Similar to the invitation to join a clan, the leaders of the clan would have to physically get together and perform a “handshake” by which one clan invites the other into an alliance and the other accepts.
  • Pairwise: An alliance is a relationship between two clans only. You cannot form an alliance of three or more clans. That doesn’t mean you can’t have multiple alliances, just that every alliance involves only two clans.
  • Capped: You can have a maximum of N allied clans, where N would have to be determined by the devs.
  • Non-Transitive: If clans A and B are allied, and clans B and C are allied, that does not make clans A and C allies.
  • Differing Degrees: Not all alliances are the same. One pair of clans might want to give each other more permissions and access than another clan. However, these permissions are always symmetrical; if clan A has certain permissions for clan B, then clan B also has those permissions for clan A.
  • Hard to Upgrade, Easy to Downgrade: Downgrading the degree of alliance or breaking an alliance should be unilateral. Upgrading the degree should be approved by both clans.

As with every other system, server admins should be able to configure aspects of this system or opt out of it completely.

Forging an Alliance

Forging an alliance is similar to inviting someone into your clan. Your clan leader has to meet the other clan leader, open the radial menu and select an option “Forge Alliance”. The other clan leader then gets a pop-up invitation to accept or decline the alliance. Upon accepting, your two clans become allies of the lowest degree. The degree can then be adjusted as desired.

Degrees of Alliance

There are 3 degrees of alliance. From most restrictive to most permissive, they are:

  • Friendship: The clans that agree to friendship are basically declaring a pact of non-aggression. This means that their followers won’t be aggressive to each other and that any PVP damage will be handled as friendly fire. Players from either clan can see their allies on the map, just like they can see their clanmates.
  • Open Borders: When two clans agree to open their borders, they are granting each other permission to open doors and gates, to place followers and set them to guard their position, to place bedrolls inside each other’s territory, and to operate each other’s trebuchets and siege cauldrons. Additionally, when one of the clans is getting purged, the other clan will receive a notification and be able to see the purge location on the map.
  • Blood Brotherhood: If two clans agree to blood brotherhood, they are granting each other access to their storage containers, such as chests, crates and cupboards. This permission is granted only to those clan members who have been promoted from recruits in their respective clans. In other words, recruits cannot access allied containers. The permission is not granted for vaults. Only a clan member (with high enough rank) can access a clan’s vault – allies can’t.

The following will remain forbidden, regardless of the degree of alliance:

  • building inside another clan’s claim
  • placing anything inside another clan’s claim, other than a bedroll
  • picking up a placeable, including bedrolls
  • demolishing buildings or placeables
  • accessing the inventory of another clan’s follower
  • accessing the inventory or operating another clan’s crafting stations
  • breaking the bonds of another clan’s follower

The alliances will have no effect on the follower cap or purge meter.

Adjusting the Degree

Only the clan leaders can adjust the degree of an alliance. To upgrade the degree of alliance to a higher level, the clan leaders must meet in person and select the appropriate option from the radial menu. To downgrade the degree or break an alliance, the leader of either clan can select an option from the “Clan” tab in the UI. Upon selecting the option, the clan leader is presented with a pop-up asking them to confirm their choice.

When an alliance is forged, broken or adjusted, all online clan members will receive a notification on their HUD.

Motivation

Why would players want this change?

On PVP servers, it would lead to interesting shifts in power dynamics. Smaller or less powerful clans might forge alliances to defend or even overthrow more powerful clans. Clans whose members have less time to play can forge alliances to help each other overcome difficulties arising from lack of time to play. A new social aspect to the game would emerge, involving diplomacy and intrigue, as opposed to pure raw power.

On PVE and PVE-C servers, the rationale boils down to strengthening the community. There are many diverse facets of community interactions that would be aided by different degrees of alliances.

Feasibility

I am aware that Alliance System has been proposed several times in the past, by different people with different ideas. I am also aware that this is a lot of work. My hope is that if we propose it enough times, Funcom might take interest and decide to implement something. I have tried to structure this proposal in a way that would offer the devs some clear ideas that they can cherry pick if they ever decide to implement any form of Alliance System. I have also tried to structure the proposal in such a way that it can be implemented partially or gradually.

All feedback and constructive criticism is more than welcome. I hope we can start a discussion and make this even better and, who knows, maybe the devs (and more importantly, the producers) will like it.

10 Likes

Excellent question! I totally forgot to add a “Motivation” section. I’ll do that.

I am not entirely sure I understand this part of the question. However, I can tell you that it’s not really my job description to calculate these things :wink: I’m pretty sure the suggestions forum is there for people to post their suggestions, other people to offer feedback and/or support, and Funcom to look at it and decide if there’s anything interesting there they would be willing to implement.

One thing I’ve already noted and is worth repeating is that Alliance System keeps popping up as a suggestion/request periodically. So yeah, there’s some interest among the players. No idea how popular or interesting it is, but it’s worth trying. As they say, you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take :wink:

Yeah, the motivation. The “why”. I’ll add that section. Beyond that, any number crunching should be done by people who need to do it, have access to the data and know how to do it. And that’s not us players :wink:

Well @CodeMage I totally agree with this…" stretches out a pale warforged hand accompanied with a friendly glint in otherwise ominous eyes "

This may kinda go against “the culling” changes due to it alleviating the need to clan up but will still have a positive impact on thrall numbers as intended by the coming changes IMO. And the freedom and benefits your system provides are very attractive to me.

I would just tweak the 3 degrees of alliance a little:

  • Friendship: Maybe being visible to the other is a bit too far for the first tier.
  • Open Borders: Yes to all but the placement of guards. Maybe visibility can be toggled on this tier
  • Blood Brothers: I like it except vault access, unless we can still lock containers which restricts access to all but your clan.

Love the 3 degree names!

:metal::smiling_imp:

2 Likes

let me guess … you’re not happy about that Follower’s Cap and you’re looking for a way out, aren’t you ?

This suggestion is not bad, I agree it would be a nice thing to implement, but this doesn’t solve the main problem: that cap is pain in the a**. Follower’s cap doesn’t have to be, it’s pure madness.

Implement that and you’ll see 1 people per server on officials.

1 Like

This would actually be useful on PvE as well. I’d love it if the thralls in my base didn’t run around like unruly children when a friend dropped by, and I’d love to allow others to place bed rolls in my taverns, etc.

That said, while I’d be content with this, I’d be more inclined to implement this as an extension of the clan system. By that I mean, while I might like and trust 3 members of clan Children of Doom, there’s 1 or 2 players in there that I’m not so sure about. Sure their leader is a good friend, and I trust their beneficent nature, but what if I’m worried that they are too nice and might give trouble players too much latitude?

In this instance, I would much rather be able to specify their leader and the other two explicitly as allies rather than white-listing the entire clan.

In terms of bedrolls, containers, etc. another ally-type mechanic would be if we gain a new flag similar to the Battle Standard but for non-aggression, a Parlay Banner.

When within radius of a clan’s Parlay Banner, players who are not members of the owning clan would be able to place bedrolls, place a chest (openable by themselves and the clan owning the Parlay Banner), and park a single thrall. While this might be a big liability in PvP, it would be quite quite a boon in PvE. PvE players would finally have a way to allow others to room in their taverns, as well as a mailbox system for when we want to exchange items with another player who can’t rendezvous with us at the same time.

Naturally, such transactions with chests should still show in the Event Log un un/authorized access.

3 Likes

Yes and no. Yes, I’m unhappy about several aspects of the followers cap. No, I’m not looking for a way out. The followers cap gave me the push I needed to actually sit down and spend time and effort on formulating this proposal, but this is something I’ve been wanting for a long time.

It’s not meant to undo the effects of the followers cap or go against it, but rather to complement it with what I see as quality of life improvements that work in synergy with the cap.

Unfortunately, the follower cap does address some real and significant performance problems. Here’s my analysis of what the underlying problems are.

While I agree that the follower cap is not the ideal solution – I would’ve preferred a follower density cap – it’s what Funcom has decided to implement and they have a strong justification for it. It will not be removed from the game in any foreseeable future. At best we can hope it’s raised to a more acceptable number of total followers.

1 Like

The short answer would be that an alliance is not something to get into lightly, and that the leaders should carefully consider each other clans in entirety and not agree to a higher degree than what they’re both comfortable with.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not dismissive of your concerns or unsympathetic to them. My reasoning on this comes from a hard lesson I’ve learned from 20+ years in software development: good UX is wicked hard. I suck at designing UI, not only because I’m bad at graphics design, but because I’m a nerd and want to offer my users all the options and toggles anyone could wish for. Turns out that it’s been proven that this is simply a bad idea. I don’t mean it’s a bad idea to make things configurable, but it is a bad idea to make that configurability something users need to interact with in order to use your software.

When I read your comment about being able to adjust permissions for individual clan members, my first hunch was “yeah, I’d love that”, which is precisely why I’m pushing back against it – because I’ve learned that this hunch is usually wrong.

I can see a couple of counterarguments to what I just wrote, so let me try to preemptively address them.

  • “The players don’t have to interact with the fine-grained adjustments if they don’t want to.” That’s true, but that replaces the UX problem with a cost-benefit problem. Every feature that gets implemented has a cost in development time, testing and QA (although given Funcom’s track record, that one is hard to write with a straight face), maintenance, documentation, etc. In game development, this is an especially important consideration: producers are adamantly against implementing features that only a small number of players will ever use.
  • “Well, then, replace the clan-to-clan alliance with a clan-to-player alliance. That way, you get all the benefits and you don’t have to implement the UI few people will use.” I think Funcom game designers would never allow that, because it basically turns into a mechanism that allows each player to be a member in more than one clan.

I like that idea a lot and would support it! I think it should be a separate suggestion, though. It can be implemented separately from alliances and if both get implemented, the devs would simply not implement the effects of the Parlay Banner in the Alliance System. Do you think you could submit it as a separate suggestion?

I have a feeling that this is coming from the PVP perspective, which is something I have no experience with – I only play PVE and PVE-C. I would welcome help with this. Could you help me understand why the visibility and placement of guards are big problems here? As for container locking, can you describe how it works in PVP? I’ve only seen the option in single player, but I don’t have anyone to play with in single player, so I don’t know the exact rules and effects.

Thanks in advance for the effort of helping me improve the proposal! :smiley:

That’s completely correct. Let me restate that I am not proposing this as a “way out” of the follower cap. It’s not supposed to go against it, but work in synergy with it. I’m hoping this would be a bunch of nice quality-of-life improvements and that it would also further enrich the social aspect of the game.

I forgot to explicitly mention the configurability and opt-out aspects of this idea. I’ve edited the original post to correct that.

I am sorry to disappoint @CodeMage but I too am more of a PvE player than anything else. I have done some PvP but quickly realized it’s way too competitive with either cowards offline raiding you or people on global chat getting so butt-hurt they wish irl death, dismemberment and all manner of colorful scenarios with rival clan’s mothers. :rofl: The fact that I suck at fighting and like pretty bases may also be a small factor :eyes:

I do however have some trust issues, you know the whole “trust no one” and “keep your friends close and enemies closer” kind of thing… which I think @Zeb picked up…

You see right through me Zeb :smiling_imp:

But I will say that my suggestions probably may have come from a PvP or maybe more a RPvP viewpoint. And I think your Motivation paragraph thoroughly convey the potential I saw with your system. The raw power play style still exists but opens up allot of new and exciting ways to play the game which intrigues me greatly.

To explain my suggestions:

  • Friendship: Friends are easy to make and happens quite often in my experience and the benefits are great but the freedom factor gets taken away a little IMPO when you see them on the map.
  • Open Borders: Yes we have slew many a beast and foe and shared spoils but don’t re-arrange my damned “furniture” :rofl:. Personally it’s just something I feel could annoy more than anything else. Also infiltrator players could exploit this seeing how easy alliances can be broken.
  • Blood Brothers: I like the freedom of access but to make a clan still a bit more exclusive I felt that there must be some things that only a clan can do which sets your system and a clan system apart.

I really think your idea is gold but one should be cautious and look at all the wonderful ways backstabbers and infiltrators could misuse the system while still giving enough incentive to not trivialize the clan system. But again these are just my opinions. :joy:

:metal::smiling_imp:

3 Likes

Just to clarify: allies can’t move your thralls or placeables or pets.

Now that is something I totally overlooked: forge an Open Borders alliance on a PVP server, put a bunch of your thralls inside the ally’s base and then break the alliance. I wonder how we could safeguard against that scenario while still preserving the possibility of helping each other with purges, for example.

The two simplest options are to: 1) leave the proposal as is and make this an issue of diplomacy and intrigue, 2) remove the ability to place your thralls in your ally’s territory. Anyone have any opinions or ideas for a third option?

Thanks for the clarification, I misunderstood.

As for the matter at hand, I would argue that solution 2 would be the safest non “greefable” way forward. To further counter me going into the CodeMage fortress and breaking allegiance with a pocket full of bombs, I would suggest Allegiances can only be broken on unclaimed land or my own claim area.

The way I see it regarding purges and alliance help, no AI thrall can make up for player controlled help. CodeMage with a lvl 20 named Warlord along with Necro and his Undead Silent legion wretch would be a formidable force for all purges especially considering the backup base defense thralls doing what they do best…basking in the sight of our glorious battle without lifting a finger! :rofl: :joy: :rofl: :joy: :rofl:

:metal::smiling_imp:

I’m still on the fence about this whole thing. On the one hand, it would make alliances safer. On the other hand, it would remove the aspect of diplomacy and intrigue. I know Conan Exiles is not EVE Online and I’m not arguing we should make it that way, but I do find it appealing that you might have to accept the risk of allying with a clan.

The way I see it, the cap is more important in PVP than PVE, which is why the Alliance System comes with trade-offs that are more meaningful in PVP than PVE.

Take for example the topic we’ve been discussing about how one clan might use an alliance to betray another. It’s something that matters more in PVP, so the clans will want to think really hard before accepting an alliance. So yeah, it mitigates some of the aspects of the clan size cap, but with risks.

That’s okay, I am not convinced either. That’s why we’re all discussing it :slight_smile:

Help me out, 'cause I don’t see how a PVE group would use the alliance to take control of the server’s resources.

Question: what’s stopping Clan Animal, Clan Vegetable and Clan Mineral from doing this anyway, without an alliance?

Is it because they wouldn’t have access to each other’s containers? You’re describing clans that are dominating the server. This means that they have enough people who play often enough that they don’t need access to each other’s containers, they can just get together and trade. If it’s hard for them to trade without an alliance, then they simply can’t put enough people-hours to dominate the server.

Is it because of coordination? My proposal doesn’t add an “alliance chat”, not does it stipulate that the allied clans share clan chat. So they would have to coordinate the same way everyone else does.

Is it because without an official in-game mechanics people won’t feel that the idea of an alliance is valid? That’s possible, but I have my doubts about just how important that really is.

An agreement really has nothing to do with an alliance. The alliance system does not allow you to define agreements that can be enforced by game mechanics. If anything, the Brotherhood alliance allows the other clan to enter your base, pick up all the resources you own (if they aren’t in a vault) and then break the alliance and leave you robbed.

We’re still talking about PVE, right?

Interesting. I didn’t envision it as giving the ability to use crafting tables, only to access their inventory. Now that you mention that, perhaps I should either clarify that or restrict the container access to chest and cupboards.

Yes, but like I said, that won’t allow them to dominate the server any more than having to periodically exchange items. If you and I can never catch each other online, it’s either because we play so little that we can’t dominate the server, or we play in time zones that are so far apart that one of us would have a pretty horrible latency.

That’s not the idea behind this. Perhaps the crafting station usage is the point of contention here. If I specifically remove that from proposal, does that do anything to shift your opinion?

Yeah, I understand. I’m just saying that it’s really not feasible to dominate those resources unless you play enough that you don’t need access to my base anyway.

All of the resources respawn. If they’re “always gone”, it means that someone is actively farming them all that time. If someone is actively farming them, they’re online. If they’re online, they can give each other stuff.

That’s just being a regular douche. On every server I have ever played, it’s a no-no to wall in or build on top of important resources. It’s not the fault of clan system, alliance system or any other in-game mechanic that Funcom doesn’t have the resources to moderate the official servers.

I totally agree. Please don’t take it as being dismissive of your concerns. It’s just that when I think of proposing something, I ask myself “Will this lower the bar for trolling, griefing and being inconsiderate in general?” If the answer is yes, then I won’t propose it until I’ve gotten rid of whatever it is that lowers the bar. If the answer is no, then I’m okay, because anything and everything can, eventually, be used to bother other people.

That being said, I would still like your feedback on the container access issue: would it be better if the proposal restricted the access only to chests?