Continuing the discussion from Solutions to 'KoS' player behaviour issues in unturned: I was thinking of just putting this as a reply in this discussion but i wanted to see what people thought of the idea of an alliance and believed it deserved its own post. (And it long)
The idea of an alliance (or clan idk they both could be the name) is allowing 2 or more groups to ally officially. By officially I mean you wouldn’t be able to shoot each other and there names would appear blue above there heads like how group members appear white.
I tend to to keep my groups same as when I join, which I think many people tend to do thus which leads to a lot of KOS.
Most people see players outside of there group and just annihilate them because they don’t want to recruit them and have another person to take care of and have to worry about.
I have in the past allied with neighboring groups to my base or worked together with a group to defeat a common enemy. But after an hour or so looting and scavenging the world we ran into them in the woods, with none us sporting mythical’s and with different gear we started firing upon each other. Idk about everyone else but I have run into this issue so many times. Its just a huge clusterfuck of who is who.After losing your gear to be people trying to friendly it kind of forces a shoot on sight mentality.
What I am saying is it is difficult in the heat of the moment or when threatened to discern friend from foe. I think I speak for everyone when I say that the addition of groups having friendly fire off and seeing there names is a huge quality of life addition (to 3.0). I think having a system for ally groups would be a nice addition to the game.
It would open an opportunity to create a less hostile option to allying with randoms. Also Idk if anyone has tried to run with a group of like seven or more, its horrible. I think three or even four is a good max group size.
I still want to ally with people though and know we cant kill each other. That’s why the military has squads and platoons and so on, if everyone was mashed into one platoon with one leader there would be chaos. With smaller squads with appointed NCO’s to keep order, just like an alliance 3 groups could work together but be separate and independent at the same time. Also groups could focus on s\certain things to benefit everyone, one could focus on food and the other on materials opening trade scenarios.
I think this would be a good addition to 3.0 as well being that groups decide access to bases and doors. Alliance members wouldn’t have access to metal doors but would have friendly fire turned off. But I know U2 will have code locks so I guess that fixes the door problem. I don’t know how U2 will handle base and claim flag ownership in regards to groups.
We will always have groups and players that will KOS lets get that out of the way. With the ability to safely join forces or just keep another group friendly I believe more groups would opt to ally and there would be less KOS.
In summary: I believe with an established official way to make friends with a another group, teams would be more willing to choose peace as an option over war. It would be cool to see the coalitions that would form and the things they could accomplish. With an easy way to unite players could band together to take down KOS groups and toxic groups.
-Role players and noob players forming an alliance against the neck-beards and sweats 8 man group with a hind.
P.S As same as 3.0 players leaving a group, if a group left the alliance it would give a 30 second warning to avoid instant betrayal.