Hi there,
Here I'm again looool.

An alliance allows to regroup different players in order to get help, protection, etc. But besides that, concretely in the game, there is not really any effect. Also, after a while, there may be many inactive people who leave the game for a variety of reasons. Finally, what differentiates a military alliance from a market alliance, in its real effects on gambling?

Starting from this reflection, I imagined a building that could be created only by the founder of the alliance, but which could be fed, in its resources, by all the members. This building is Alliance Headquarters.

Purpose of the suggestion
The purpose of Alliance HQ is to increase the cohesion of the alliance. Everyone participates according to his means to the life and prosperity of the alliance. This increases the cohesion of the group.

Management and Administration
A "Headquarters" tab is added to the Alliance overview category, with the following information:
HQ Level: xx
Current profit: xx
Type of Alliance: xx
a button give resources: Metal, Crystal, Deuterium

In the list of members, we could add a small icon according to the type of game, its participation in the construction (we would put its percentage) and its current profit (the profit that the player receives)

mercenary
Some alliances may specialize in mercenarism, but it is not always easy to know which ones. I propose, therefore, to add a small checkbox in the alliance headquarters: Mercenariat, to indicate that this alliance is willing to offer services of mercenaries. A small icon would be added to the TAG of the alliance to indicate that this alliance is a mercenary.

Determining the global type of alliance
Determining the overall type of the alliance would determine its effects on the game.

1. Determine the profile of each player
The type of player would be determined automatically by the game (it would avoid worries or abuses), according to its number of points of fleets and buildings. We could find (for example) for types of players (these are the three categories I have in mind, but you could possibly add the technocrats, for example, whose search points are higher than the points in the other categories
miners: the number of points of buildings is much greater than the number of points in fleet;
stiffness: the number of fleet points is much greater than the number of points in buildings;
aggressive minors: the points in fleets and in buildings are relatively similar or the fleet points represent between 5 and 15% (for example) of the total points;
the scientists: the points in technology are superior to the number of the points of buildings and of fleet;
Inactive players are not counted, while players in mv are.
The way to calculate the type of game or the number of categories can be discussed without any worry.
2. Determination of the global type of alliance
Then, we determine the global type of alliance (we can also discuss the different types of alliance):
military alliance: there are more raiders than minors;
mining or market alliance: there are more minors than raiders;
Mixed alliance: there are more or less the same number of minors as stiffnesses, or there are mainly aggressive minors (one could determine a margin of more or less 1 player for example);

Example: we have an X alliance with 13 players. The types of players are determined as follows:
Minor: 5
stiffness: 8
aggressive minor 0
Since the number of raider players is greater than the number of minor players, the alliance would be a military alliance.


Prerequisites and costs
Obligation to have an alliance since this is an Alliance HQ. Construction costs are quite high since everyone would be involved in building the HQ. It would be enough to check that there is indeed a TAG of alliance in the player.



Determination of the collective bonus
To determine the% of the bonus, one would start on a global basis of 1% per HQ level and per member. Thus an alliance with 9 members and a level 3 HQ would have a base bonus of 1 * 3 * 9 = 27%.

Determination of the individual bonus
Let's assume that our alliance of 9 members and Level 3 HQ sees its members participate as follows:
Player 1: 8%
Player 2: 5%
Player 3: 12%
Player 4: 7%
Player 5: 17%
Player 6: 9%
Player 7: 15%
Player 8: 11%
Player 9: 16%

We would have as individual bonus
Player 1: 8% 27% = 2.16%
Player 2: 5% 27% = 1.35%
Player 3: 12% 27% = 3.24%
Player 4: 7% 27% = 1.89%
Player 5: 17% of 27% = 4.59%
Player 6: 9% 27% = 2.43%
Player 7: 15% 27% = 4.05%
Player 8: 11% 27% = 2.97%
Player 9: 16% 27% = 4.32%

It goes without saying that if a member adds or disappears from the alliance, the% participation of each will be adjusted accordingly, and the bonuses of the player.

Effects of Alliance HQ
Depending on the type of alliance, the level of the HQ and the number of players (active), each member would receive benefits in one or the other category, depending on his or her individual bonus.

One could for example find, taking the individual bonuses of player 1:
Scientific alliance: 2.16% ¨ reduction in costs and time of technology research;
Military Alliance: 2.16% reduction on the cost of building fleets and defenses, and on research costs of weapons, shield and ship protection technologies (or 2.16% on deuterium costs of fleets);
Market Alliance: 2.16% reduction on mine development costs and 2.16% mining production bonus;
Mixed Alliance: 2.16% on mine development costs, fleets and research.

This is an overall idea, still raw, that requires adjustments, but, we are here to possibly discuss it

Thanks for reading me,
Good day to all,
Regards,