Making a party or alliance?

[xmechwizardx]

Why don’t you add a possibility to make a party or alliance (to disable/diminish friendly fire) to go for a hunt together and maybe you can even make a special very hard dungeons that would be a challenge for groups with no thralls allowed(?) in it (it’s just an idea, not the final suggestion given). Anyway, let’s go to the point:

Well, afaik your main concern about the possible alliances on the pvp servers was that players would make those HYPER-ALLIANCES made of like 30 players or something. Well. But what if the alliance would have those limits of all players being in them capped to for example to 12 players, so that clans in the alliances could only have 6 and 6 players total, 4 and 8 players total.

The Party making system can be implemented indeed to go out (with someone out from your clan) for a dungeon or vault together. What if i told you that party system can not interfere with the game balance (and even alliances) at all? How?

So while in “the party” the game would need to treat your current party members like they are your clanmates for friendly fire and thrall hostility means exclusively. So your full damage friendly fire and thralls hostility would be turned ON for every player that you are not in a party with at the moment (including even your clanmates or alliance mates not being in the party atm) so that players do not make “hypeparties”. And it could even have more benefits than just preventing players from making “hyperalliances” and “hyperparties” !

I believe that Roleplay communities could make a lot of use from party system. They could be making f.e. 2vs2, 3vs3 tournaments with participants mixed, set together from different clans with no necessity of rotating clan members. Think about it. Wouldn’t it be cool?

[IPL_Victim]

A party or team system could be interesting, but a side effect of it could also be seen as a way to circumvent some of the future follower limits.

I’m not invested in the servers where it would be of use or be open to abuse however.

[xmechwizardx]

A party or team system could be interesting, but a side effect of it could also be seen as a way to circumvent some of the future follower limits.
I’m not invested in the servers where it would be of use or be open to abuse however.

Making the new features resistant to abuses is a developer’s buisiness i can come up to the the solution for it within just five seconds: All thralls belongs to clan/individual player and they can not commanded by any other player under any circumstances, dot.

[IPL_Victim]

the exploit i was thinking of is that players can have x number of thralls. Default is IIRC 50. Clans start with x number and add y number per player. Default +10, iirc.

So, solo players each can have 50. Two solo players combined would have 100. A clan of two is limited to 60. So, a allied group of solo nefarious never-do-wells could in practice build up a larger force of thralls to pull from while teamed or allied than a clan with the same number of players.

This is moot if the server in question doesn’t have thrall caps enabled though, so YMMV.

don’t misread me here. I think the idea is interesting.

[xmechwizardx]

allright, i didn’t consider this subject because i own a dedicated server and i would solve that on mine within a few clicks just by changing thralls/pets per player .

Yes, number of followers on official server could need tweeking in this scenario. You should have in mind that alliance and parties would not share the same buildings, workstations and thralls so having all players in one clan instead of having 10 clans in one alliance would still be more convenient.

It’s fine that you noticed that nuance.

(P.S. Oh man, i just imagined that tremendous costs of equipping like 200+ thralls, lol.)