ORCA1911

Star Conflict Alliances

Recommended Posts

Basically, I propose a more advanced social aspect for SC in a way of being able to form alliances AND having a chat channel named Alliance between those allied corps so people can arrange groups withing those alliances more easily and effectively.

 

Before any of you think of NASA alliances please think about the positive sides first and possible limits on number of corps in an alliance or something like that.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not much population for Alliances, or Content rather. For years it was more productive and beneficial for all players to band into one single group, under one tag, rather than having a myriad of 1 man armies (well expect for some period of time with Sec Con fake attacks).

 

I am kinda against alliances, I'd rather see all of those people merge into a single corporation.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1+ to Orca on this great idea. Alliances are a thing regardless of what anyone wants or thinks. Its time to get with the program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres not even enough people playing this game for them to include alliances, and all you would see are people crying rivers when the strongest corperations in the game form an alliance and take over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, xKostyan said:

There is not much population for Alliances, or Content rather. For years it was more productive and beneficial for all players to band into one single group, under one tag, rather than having a myriad of 1 man armies (well expect for some period of time with Sec Con fake attacks).

 

I am kinda against alliances, I'd rather see all of those people merge into a single corporation.

But imagine NASA-ST0RM alliance, 500 man stronK :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Tillowaty said:

But imagine NASA-ST0RM alliance, 500 man stronK :D 

every left players will left the game if it happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tillowaty said:

But imagine NASA-ST0RM alliance, 500 man stronK :D 

 

This was what i meant with my comment lol, and my comment also includes Endeavs answer to your comment 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, EndeavSTEEL said:

every left players will left the game if it happen

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Elusif said:

why not

Why would 80% of veterans in one alliance make ppl leave?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, xKostyan said:

There is not much population for Alliances, or Content rather. For years it was more productive and beneficial for all players to band into one single group, under one tag, rather than having a myriad of 1 man armies (well expect for some period of time with Sec Con fake attacks).

 

I am kinda against alliances, I'd rather see all of those people merge into a single corporation.

 

I have no good argument to counter this other than good intentions. :)

 

2 hours ago, xXConflictionXx said:

1+ to Orca on this great idea. Alliances are a thing regardless of what anyone wants or thinks. Its time to get with the program.

 

Well thank you for the support :D

 

2 hours ago, DeathWasp said:

Theres not even enough people playing this game for them to include alliances, and all you would see are people crying rivers when the strongest corperations in the game form an alliance and take over. 

 

Maybe that sparks some competitiveness to take them on, there are more endings besides the tragic ones.

 

1 hour ago, EndeavSTEEL said:

every player left will leave the game if it happens

 

Sometimes that's a good thing too, may trigger changes for the better lol

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only alliance there is, is the lovestory between starconflict and Gayjingles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oregyen said:

The only alliance there is, is the lovestory between starconflict and Gayjingles.

No condoms required, I guess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't this its the right time for alliances. The game almost has no playerbase. The alliances would be a nice extension of pvp but the devs killing the pvp so first they should make pvp great again.
I think devs never had a clear vision what they want to do with SC. I think they should select a target market and make the game good for the target. PvE, PvP, OS, Coop i don't even care what they chose but they should chose one and build the game for the target, because they are failing to make everybody happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gizmomac said:

I don't this its the right time for alliances. The game almost has no playerbase.

 

0CSluGF.png

DwqcqWX.png

 

1757 all time peak a year ago down to less than 1000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah because its not like we pointed out numerous times that not everyone uses steam, well, feel free to keep trying then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not just look at the steamchart, rather the weekly leaderboard, max. PvP efficiency. There are currently about 6300 players present. "Huge" number. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SuDoKu said:

Do not just look at the steamchart, rather the weekly leaderboard, max. PvP efficiency. There are currently about 6300 players present. "Huge" number. 

Give 'em 10k pvp weekly players.

Half of them play <10games/week.

Have to spread rest on all dem time zones and 5 queues and we end up with infinite 3man squad queue :D 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's any of this of any relevance to the topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, xXThunderFlameXx said:

Yeah because its not like we pointed out numerous times that not everyone uses steam, well, feel free to keep trying then.

yeah.

and you believe this is a valid counter argument? like... seriously?

 

 

 


this is what you tell yourself, not to face the facts, that even if its just a slice of the cake, every slice is representative of the whole.

 

steam is just the only service which has these nice transparent charts.

now if steam would decline in user numbers, it might not be representative; if steam would be only catering a special audience, it might not be representative; unfortunately, neither is the case;

and even IF steam users were just a random minority, which they aren't. I bet they are even still the majority.

 

i know even intelligent people get blindsided; I even know, some use their denial and anger to actually fight against "negative reviews" on steam, like this would be some unfair witchhunt against their beloved game (which they dont play, for "other reasons", as they keep telling themselves). I admire this loyalty and (wasted) energy of course. I even sympathize, or give the benefit of the doubt, that maybe steam users are declining, but other sources still have some little growth; but it won't help, the steam charts are representative after all, and the argument, not everybody uses steam, is utter and complete nonsense in this debate.

 

and even if we just say "they are just representative of steam users", so a growing, world wide number one market, which will possibly even take over the other slices of the cake in the future, the numbers should actually at least stay somewhat stable. in fact, even at too slow growth over years, it should be alarming.

 

critics aren't enemies, otherwise, they wouldn't be writing. your real enemies, besides taking advantage of it, do not care if you fail. critics do. the real enemies are people who are participating in the collective denial, so they do not have to face their own individual dissatisfaction, or even proactively push you to do the wrong things out of selfish reasons. and then there are the people who burn out, and write the really hateful negative reviews at some point, when the narcissist rage sets in.

 

it is by the way the same argument as

 * forum users are not representative of the population

 * people from some continent or part of the world are less representative of the population

 * "our game is a niche game which is why we dont grow"

or any other attempt to deflect blame for bad efficiency of the current development strategy to outside factors.
 

 

 

1 hour ago, ORCA1911 said:

How's any of this of any relevance to the topic?

imho it is slightly relevant, as the proposed alliance function would need some active playerbase; besides being proposed many times, it could have done a big difference, when there were enough healthy mediums sized corporations around to actually make it work.

i am still happy if they implement this at some point - but atm. i agree, that it would probably be counter productive, and only benefit a few, and even become the next scapegoat. and i would love to see a really good implementation, instead of one of those self fulfilling prophecies we have witnessed over the years, where good changes were dismissed, because other changes made them unviable; or held back so long, until it made no sense to introduce it. like introducing SCL. Or bringing back squads, but limiting game rules so ridiculously, that playing in squads becomes totally counter intuitive, or spreading information, like squads are truly responsible for the loss of fun in the game, carebearing a generation of pilots, which learn pvp rules after grinding to t5 - while introducing rewards for teamplay came way too late, and now feel like some kind of wait-time punishment.

 

Imho they should implement it, but hold it back, and concentrate on other things, but keep it in the back pocket, once the userbase has grown back to some healthier level.

 

1 hour ago, TheStig_DSX said:

I think the developers would agree too as this is an old suggestion and they never approved it.

 

i do not agree, that it will neccessarily lead to one-sidedness. in fact it would give the tool for many small-to-medium corps to band together, and would indirectly create inner tensions anyway, and more competition, and more corporation identity. With enough population, alliances would trigger other alliances to form - without it however, one alliance might become the one everyone would want to join.

 

It does depend on what alliances can do, and what they can't.

 

Atm. your tag does not count. Even if one big corp rules the game, without any notable competition, it means nothing.

for me personally, those tags are identical to noname players.

 

I also think, they never really didn't approve it for any higher or deeper reasons, sorry.

 

--

 

So back to ORCAs question of relevance, I do think, a debate which always ends up in these FUD arguments like ridiculing steam charts, and making it clear that people live in denial, has relevance, as they do not even want to accept, that the player numbers shrink, so they can ignore all the constructive talk, that should be made, why or how alliances could or should work.

 

Overall of course, talking about how alliances could look like, should be independent of the current player situation, true. It is sad enough, one has to bring up steam charts, just to prove an ignored fact.

 

I do get, why you do not want it to be relevant to the suggestion, as this whole talk jeopardizes a good idea. And it is a good idea.

 

(at least you got my +1)

 

--

TLDR? then stop using a forum.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main and really ONLY point is: so people can arrange groups within those alliances more easily and effectively. Meaning simply a more effective way to group up for matches.

 

If the game is thinning out that means corps are thinning out and this is a good way to keep them from having to leave their corp that they worked so hard on. It is NOT an alliance as to sharing corp resources or anything else ONLY a shared chat tab for grouping.

 

Our corp has alliances and we group up all the time. Its not hard to pm people or even group up in discord or other means but it would be more practical to have just one more tab to pick 1 corp and all chat is shared there with that corp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, g4borg said:

yeah.

and you believe this is a valid counter argument? like... seriously?

Oh well look whos back, good old "I know you better than you do"

Are you trying to say that Steam completely represents the state of the game? The place where anyone can say whatever they want, and have people agree, the place where these CAREFULLY crafted reviews describe the game in the most accurate fashion, and where people like you can enforce this kind of behaviour? No, that is BS.

 

I for a fact, don't use steam, as I usually have issues with it, and if a game can be used with the standalone launcher then why not do that instead? Its like wasting extra space just so I keep getting this stupid pop-up everytime I start my computer, yeah, no thanks, I'd rather buy my games for cheaper from other sites too.

nig.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.