Ideas / Features for alliances

  1. Subsidiaries- According to Devblog #20 each person will be responsible for each airport however this is a problem for alliances with over 10 people as there are currently 10 airports in game. So subsidiaries will act as a different alliance but still under one main alliance so members are together and reap the same benefits and make contributions

  2. Rotational Operations - Another possible solution for alliance with 10+ ppl. This will act as a roster (like the ones they use for cabin crew + pilots irl) members will put their preferred airports and the game (and even maybe alliance executives) will create a roster based on player preference however just like a roster it is uncertain if the player will get it due to seniority, role in alliance, amount of contributions etc…
    After, members will play airports according to the roster E.g - Playing LHR for 2 weeks then switch to MCT for an extra 2 weeks. Moreover players will be able to swap airports with other members if permitted by executives + the executives will also have the ability to make changes to rosters due to diferent factors like member availability, demand, competition etc

This could also work with subsidiaries.

  1. Tax / Contribution System - When in an alliance, players will be able to give some of their ₩ (or maybe even SP) to the alliance bank account, by giving minimum 10% or more of aircraft / fleet revenue. This then can be used to help other members who are building up their airports or fleets and need help
    Executives will also decide how much is given based on member financial state.
    Members will have an option of whether if they want to give ₩ OR executive members can enforce the rule. Up to the alliance really

This also help with creating rosters as people who contribute more = more likely to get preferred airport

4 Likes

I think it’s too complicated to implement, bro. The Alliance is essentially an airline with multiple bases, each of which can only be managed by one player. But it might be feasible to replace one of the bases managed and operated by a player.

4 Likes

By that logic those who play multiple airports are alliance’s in themselves…

3 Likes

Indeed it is. Including myself, I also operate two North American airports at the same time. Maybe my understanding of the alliance is not accurate. Compared to the alliance’s operating model, I look forward to what fly boy said about each alliance having its own independent livery. The current painting is too simple.

True that. I wonder how it will work with the bigger alliances
I’ve asked the devs for more info but no response yet. Although, it would be nice to see the contribution system come into play.

Yea actually makes me think that the current ways of connections can keep going.

Talking about connections, intra-alliance connections could be possible

Between AWA and Tranquillity we already do that.

2 Likes

They should add a feature to partner with outer alliances to expand there reach and also to shut down and merge an alliance to another alliance

1 Like

Imo, I think what the devs meant was that each player gets a specific airport (the description never specifically said one person per airport)
“Alliances will connect players into groups where each member manages a specific airport.”
The devs probably knows that there are larger alliances out there.

Any thoughts on my interpretation of the description?

2 Likes

The only issue with that is that it suggests that the efforts at one airport is all that will count. So if I managed LHR for example, all the effort at developing my route network at NGO would be useless in that regard.

Until we know more, the alliance dev blog has given more questions on the matter, particularly how it’ll work.

Some theoretical thinking …

Two types of Alliances can exist. One Alliance being the current “Player Based (PBA)”, where members exchange planes as we do now. And a “Game Based (GBA)” one as being discussed here.

Limited GBA’s can be formed from larger PBA’s. From one PBA multiple GBA’s can also be formed. You can then “check in” and “check out” when you want to switch from playable airport, currently taken by another member, but free in other GBA.

The cohesion and cooperation between Player Alliance members will continue and can even be more strengthened with this gameplay.

3 Likes

So like rotational operations I’ve mentioned but without the whole roster thing

1 Like

But what do you guys think of a tax / contribution system?

I pay enough taxes in RL and can do without this kind of realism :grinning:.

Support of Alliance members as per your suggestion had its challenges. F i. deciding who gets what and under which conditions.

1 Like

:joy::sweat_smile:
True I guess

Yea but If the player has a small fleet or don’t have enough money than that would make the tax system completely useless unless they are rich.
If they do add the tax system than say all you want but I’m not joining it. :neutral_face:

1 Like

Your lucky as my country is in a cost of living crisis with taxes ridiculously high, for example I bought a holiday package which is happening this June for like €2500 and they charge an insane amount of €450 which was added to the cost. :money_mouth_face:

In fact, I think this system is quite reasonable. However, the internal mechanism needs to be balanced according to the player’s airport. After all, this kind of income can be used for alliance construction, maintenance and upgrades, etc., which is quite necessary.

1 Like

Well not useless no. I think all your progress to date still counts and stands for itself.

However future rewards earned with the In-game alliance could only be contributed by one of your airports.