We have the technology for at least 6 concurrent alliances (A-F) (BA/Eureka thread)

[MontyChamberlain]

After on-and-off queuing, I was able to try out the most recent PvP mode that was added. I'm sure this is not that new because there is some group out there in the world who actually tries PvP content in this game before other new content, for whatever odd reason.

Anyway, if the developers of this game have already created functionality for 6 alliances in the UI, why are we unable to create alliances prior to queuing into Eureka, inside Eureka, or even just inside the Baldesion Arsenal? Aside from fates and NMs, the majority of difficult boss content in this game has allowed you to see the health bars of your party members and alliance members. Baldesion Arsenal stands out as the exception and for no good reason.

The difficulty of the Baldesion Arsenal obviously can't be understated. It seems to be slightly harder than normal 24-man content, but mistakes are amplified by deaths that cannot be reversed through traditional means, as well as a higher possibility of other players making group-fatal mistakes due to 56 concurrent players in the dungeon.

Alliance queuing/party-making could potentially solve many problems associated with the Baldesion Arsenal right now. In particular, it would allow party leaders to more easily shift around the composition of individual parties, assuming that job-changing within the BA remains unavailable in the foreseeable future.

So, Square Enix, why is it that in content that requires more than double the maximum amount of players in traditional raids that we are used to, alliances are not currently possible?

[Rockette]

Also that would be fun ^

[Rufalus]

It's not necessarily about what's technically possible, it's just that BA was deliberately designed as an open pug content, not premade content. They added stabilisers to grind for, to increase your chances of being one of people to get a portal. Doing raid content with randomly thrown together groups has a low chance of success, so they advertised it as very hard content and put a warning in-game when you unlock it. I don't think they expected people to go to the lengths of using external comm tools to premake entire 56-player alliances. I know, it's weird design.

Personally I'm not sure if BA should have been connected to Eureka at all, and it is quite compelling content if it was presented as a standalone large-scale raid with relatively high difficulty. They could do things like this in future but let you DF or premake groups for it. Can still expell you from duty on a wipe and put whatever restrictions they want on it. They could straight up put an Ovni-like large fate in one of the open world field zones which rewards you with an entry token, which you can use to queue up at an npc like you would queue for potd or hoh. Open world just got interesting and people interested in punishing large raids don't need to grind through a whole relic-like series to be able to access it.

[Rongway]

Six parties* though. An alliance is a collection of parties. Each one is not an alliance; each is a part of one alliance. This terminology is a holdover from XI.

[Reynhart]

Six parties* though. An alliance is a collection of parties. Each one is not an alliance; each is a part of one alliance. This terminology is a holdover from XI.

Well, the game calls them "Alliance A", "Alliance B", etc..instead of "Party A", "Party B", so, as weird as it seems, it's correct.

On the topic, even without BA, I don't understand why you can't simply build Alliances for Eureka, since you can already create alliances in the open world and queue for content as a full alliance.

[linay]

Well, the game calls them "Alliance A", "Alliance B", etc..instead of "Party A", "Party B", so, as weird as it seems, it's correct.

I think it's just to make it easier for you to know you're in an alliance. I like to think of them as being short for Alliance Party A, etc.

[Reynhart]

I think it's just to make it easier for you to know you're in an alliance. I like to think of them as being short for Alliance Party A, etc.

I'd say seeing 2 to 5 other "Parties" in your HUD should be enough to understand that you're part of an alliance, regardless of what they're called. In the end, the terminology is not really the core of the issue

[Rongway]

In the end, the terminology is not really the core of the issue

It's always a good idea to use the correct terminology when asking the devs for things.
Q:"Why can't we play together as six alliances?"
A:"What do you need 144 players for?"
It might sound absurd to you but worse misunderstandings have probably occurred over people actually using correct game terminology in their requests.

[Reynhart]

It's always a good idea to use the correct terminology when asking the devs for things.

Except, that, again, "Alliance" is the terminology used in the HUD to refer to individual parties in the alliance (as shown in the screenshot), as weird as it seems. And the request is properly described to not be confused about the word used.

Q:"Why can't we play together as six alliances?"
A:"What do you need 144 players for?"

Keeping perfect track on the whole FATE train in Eureka, of course !

[MontyChamberlain]

The game refers to individual parties as alliances. The parties as a whole form an alliance, but the individual parties within are alliances as well.

The terminology is sketchy, but I would prefer we move discussion away from the terminology and toward discussing the actual subject matter.