Make a Sub Alliance


#1

[poll public=true]

  • Yes, I like the sub system
  • No,
    [/poll]`create a sub-system for the alliance, alliance can not attack sub and sub could send troops to the colony, Example
    Alliance = TTK
    Sub allaince = sTTK
    TTK can help if sTTK attacked the example of sending the unit to the outpost / colony sTTK
    sTTK can doing same to help TTK

Sorry my bad grammar and english


#2

I think this is a cool suggestion but, it would probably need to be regulated.


#3

No thanks , sub farming is a nuisance imo. If subs can freely defend each other , they would have a massive advantage


#4

It basically happens anyway according to the current meta, this would just streamline the process and make for more tactical gameplay. Sounds good to me.


#5

While I understand the overall idea here, I think this particular way may be cause of a lot of potentially worse issues showing up. The biggest problem here being, what would stop 30 or 40 players from basically creating one massive alliance that no one can even hope of standing up against? The idea pretty much makes it so that we end up eliminating alliance size limitations.

I think the overall idea is to have a connected sub-alliance feel to the main alliance. I think it’d be best to make it so a subs would provide and be provided radar coverage with it’s main. Essentially, main and subs can see all the same things. But for this added bonus, I’d say, resource OPs should be shared among all alliances equally. So instead of everyone gaining +x amount of resources, each resource OP provides +x and then is divided by the total amount of players and distributed equally. This would mean that the more subs you have, the more your team suffers resource wise. Along with this, if the sub (or main) decide to break off, when they break it, obviously the benefits (radar coverage) would disappear immediately (and also tip off if a betrayal is coming).

If you allow the subs and main alliances to help in wars however, it’ll just create too big of powerhouses. Get enough players in your team, and what would stop you from stacking every unit in 1 OP and then just using the abundance of players to ion every nuke that goes for them?


#6

There is a responsible way to run subs, and then there are just farms that sit there and feed the top team.

I think a balance can be found. If you want to have allies that help you in war, thats great, but XP and op farms are pretty ridiculous.


#7

Sub share Radar With the main alliance! and it can defend each other and attack on same time!


#8

I think it would over power the already overpowered haha… Meaning a well prepared alliance can come into the game with 5 subs and completely wreck havoc… I am not apposed to the idea if there were regulations to prohibit such things bit as of now I vote a no go :slight_smile:


#9

Ohh, I had assumed he was meaning a limit to 1 sub per alliance, and the sub cannot have a sub of course.

Maybe if this is implemented also lower alliance sizes by 25% or something? I think the problem which subs are a symptom of is people wanting to play in larger communities, so giving them an easy 2 alliance structure could help curb more excessive 20 person alliances to a more manageable 14 person main and sub with clear benefits which discourage non-system subs.


#10

Yes, I agree @Cybran, the biggest issue with subs is that there is nothing set to also discourage them. I think the best way to curb subs is to give good benefits for having them, but equally make it so it has downsides as well. If we don’t have something to curb the use of subs, then everyone will simply do it to an extremely high extent and abuse it. If there’s no benefits however, then obviously a team won’t want a sub and it’ll instead just resort to the current status quo.


#11

Maybe make like an option where you can put your metal into and oil. A sort converter. Or a kill counter when you reach a X amount of kills you unlock something at your alliance. Like a sub or 1 extra player or what ever it might be.


#12

That’s a unique idea I haven’t heard of before! :grinning: I actually kinda like that!


#13

Yikes, seems overpowered. Maybe you can make the units fight with 50% power?
I would like to add to the idea. Have a known sub, and a secret sub. A secret sub would have less ability to help , but would be a surprise when changed to a known sub. Known subs would be able to help you more in fights, but will be marked as your sub. Once change to known, it cant be changed back


#14

Why not take win away from sub so their sole purpose would be to help… So the top 3 placings would be reserved to main alliances

** Courtesy of Auto**


#15

Too lazy to read …
But nuuu i h8 dem subs !!!:no_mouth:


#16

Subs is a main reason BG died
Due to TK empire taking over BG with like 5 or 6 teams,NO offence i even participated :smiley:
People left BG to have a chance

Giving power to subs is a bad idea
What if rank and rank 2 team sub each other
and rank 3 and 4 sub other
When in actual Rank 2 3 and 4 are all subs of Rank 1,like how they are now but you gave them more power :smiley:
So you got yourself into some deep shit


#17

Malice has the right idea here.


#18

Bring life to BD
Stab the F out of everyone :grin::laughing:


#19

You heard 'em folks! Stab Energy!


#20

I feel like an official sub system is bad for BD.

Sure, subs are purely there to help ensure victory most of the time… but sometimes the sub becomes better than the “main” and they feel they deserve to win. That’s pure BD in my opinion, it’s survival of the fittest. Having a straight system to keep subs purely subs will only deter ‘come from behind’ efforts (yes, they’re backstabs but it’s part of the game).