[Declined] an new mentoring program to save Planetarion!

[Tis]

I like to think of it as 'Mentor an Admin.'

It goes something like this. From my perspective, a large percentage of the problems with PA stem from the vast majority (there have been a few exceptions) of the Admins not having the slightest idea how to play the game. This results in them making silly mistakes, not being able to distinquish good ideas from stupid ones, and generally listening to whichever newbie shouts the loudest. If the Admins actually had some idea how to play the game, they might be able to distinquish a quality suggestion from a 'make my race better so I can pwn beta!' one.

This has been a problem from the beginning. Those who run PA have never, as far as I have seen, had any idea how the game is played, by those who know it best (the good players). To be fair, this isnt entirely the admins fault, since to reach that level you absolutely need to be involved with a significant alliance and their admirable desire for impartiality has prevented those running the game from ever having that chance.

I propose to change that. With all due respect to smaller alliances, I think most can agree that game has reached a point where no more than half a dozen alliances have a legitimate shot at winning. The details of which those are is, of course, somewhat open to debate. Now, being the lazy, generally not giving-a-crap type, I have no real idea how many people qualify as Admins, but for the sake of my arguement we will assume more than 2... lets say 5. My proposal is to, through some means (end of game rank would be the most convenient, though problematic) to pick the top 5 alliances and have one admin member play as a member of each of those alliances for the entire round.

Yes, I can already hear the screams of 'OMG ADMIN TOOLS ABUSE ABUSE ABUSE!!!' We will ignore that for now.

I would assume the easiest method for this would be to have each admin play two planets, one for their multihunting and tool using stuff, and one completely normal one. Yes I realize that would involved trusting them not to abuse their powers, but, meaning no disrespect, weve been trusting them not to fk up the game for the last 12 rounds and we all know how well thats generally worked. We may as well take the risk.

What I hope to happen from a system like this would be that those running the game finally get to see how the game is played. They would be forced to learn how to attack, how to defend, how to analyze fleets and look for weaknesses, all the things that make a top player what they are. They would also, I hope, find a new respect for the dedication involved in doing well in this game... to be completely honest I doubt most of the admins have the dedication to spend several hours a day launching/recalling/relaunching, defending/recalling/defending elsewhere. Maybe they would prove me wrong. I would hope so. It would, in my most humble of opinions, go a long way towards preventing some of the more stupid problems PA experiences.

So there it is. Thoughts? Suggestions? Personally I think the coolest part of the whole idea is the name....

Mentor an Admin.

I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

(edit: The suggestion was made, which I absolutely agree with, that Biffy, our aloof representiative of the money grubbing ow... er Jolt... should be included in any program like this.)

[Cochese]

Best suggestion ever.

[Doorsdown]

great idea Tis and or have a chosen few players from each alliance to make there ideas on how to make the races better in addition to Tis's idea

[Cochese]

Already got Xan stats made up \o/

[Doorsdown]

lol i'm sure pleanty of people have new ideas ready

[xontas]

thanks for that ;-)
nice to know you trust us !!

anyway, when you get admintools you HAVE to leave your aliance
just to even take away the apearence of admin abuse

also "admin mistakes" loking at the larger players are usualy stuff we do to give the new players a change
the bigger players just want new players to come in
stfu
and let themselfs be roided

if we would let that happen the game would be over ASAP as they would have no fun
so we have to make the changes equal
:-) i trust you understand that

greetz
Xontas

[Cochese]

A reasonable explanation.

Please explain the "equal" changes to the stats this round, thanks.

[Tis]

Originally Posted by xontas

thanks for that ;-)
nice to know you trust us !!

anyway, when you get admintools you HAVE to leave your aliance
just to even take away the apearence of admin abuse

also "admin mistakes" loking at the larger players are usualy stuff we do to give the new players a change
the bigger players just want new players to come in
stfu
and let themselfs be roided

if we would let that happen the game would be over ASAP as they would have no fun
so we have to make the changes equal
:-) i trust you understand that

greetz
Xontas

I said I know why the situation is as it is. The fact that you dont see anything wrong only furthers my point that those in charge are clueless. New 'features' and 'improvements' have driven away far more players than good players have.

Kindly re-read my post and think up something constructive when you arent quite so obviously drunk.

[Kal]

and here was me thinking I was a good player :/

[Kileman]

Of all the admins - what is the highest rank anyone has achieved (finished with).

Top 100?

[Kal]

#15 round 10, #60 round 10.5 i think, didn't put much effort in in 10.5 though tended to def to much as well

[mist]

an interesting idea

however, it would seem simpler for the admins to put stuff up on the boards for comment before implimenting them and then listaning to the comments. imo, a large part of the problem isn't lack of understanding, it's lack of consideration before implimenting something. for example flaws were pointed out in the exile thingy before it was implimented, yet it was implimented anyway

-mist

[Doorsdown]

Originally Posted by Kal

and here was me thinking I was a good player :/

you were and still are in a sence just as the game as moved on without u playing so you don't have the same ideas of the stats. i'm sure u could again but ur getting rusty while sitting on the PATeam. Its almost a whole new game from when u were in the top ranks.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Doorsdown

you were and still are in a sence just as the game as moved on without u playing so you don't have the same ideas of the stats. i'm sure u could again but ur getting rusty while sitting on the PATeam. Its almost a whole new game from when u were in the top ranks.

i'm well aware i don't know the stats, but then some would say i never did

[Doorsdown]

Originally Posted by Kal

i'm well aware i don't know the stats, but then some would say i never did

i know full well u knew and understud the stats, shame u don't any more

[jerome]

yeah so time to roll back to topic rather than kissing kal`s ass......

Ok,

The problem i see with the suggestion is that who would trust the big alliances.

A fair idea to select a member from each Alliance UNTIL one member closes a member from one alliance down. Even if the closure was done by an Ex-Member there would be cries of bias and such.

Ok so the people who hunt and admin may not be the best at the game. However they understand it better than you realise. Understanding isnt a requirement when hunting the evidence speaks for itself.

I dont see how a player is playing the game affects hunting. The multihunters has pre defined rules on how to hunt.
Closure is based on a breach of the T&C of the game. If a player is playing the game in a manner which breaches these then the account is dealt with accordingly.

Although the suggestion isn't a bad suggestion. The cries of bias are much more damaging than the cries of the admins dont understand how to play the game.

Closures aint based on the manner of playing the game they are based of breaking the rules.

As for suggestions maybe a suggestions board type thing could be made up of Alliance members but admin tools have to be kept to members of the PATeam who are unbiased.

[Tis]

Did you read my post? It had absolutely nothing to do with multihunting.

[Jester]

I don't think this was addressed at the multi-hunters so much as the people who design the game each round.

edit: what he said.

[Doorsdown]

Originally Posted by Tis

Did you read my post? It had absolutely nothing to do with multihunting.

nope

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

yeah so time to roll back to topic rather than kissing kal`s ass......

i would never but i won't deny his sucesses

[mist]

the multihunters and the people who design the game are pretty much one and the same

-mist

[Kal]

Originally Posted by mist

the multihunters and the people who design the game are pretty much one and the same

-mist

thats not really true tbh, we have a multihuting team - sure anyone with admin tools to a sufficent level can look at cases but they only do that if someone comes in asking and there is ono oone elsze around - and they woudl only then give somoene the gist of the reason they were closed or in the revserse situation close someone if it was really obvious, the rest of the time they would refer people to the relevant hunter.

[mist]

are hunters not allowed input on game design?

what percentage of pateam are hunters?

-mist

[Kal]

Phil^ and xontas are the only offical multihunters inside PaTeam. The MH team is a team like the support team etc. This does not mean they are the only ones who close people though as people can be closed for things like abuse as well.

Though I don;t particularly see what MH has to do with anything...

[mist]

it was implied that the mh joining alliances might lead to problems when they close people, hence i was wondering if this would mean that most of pateam couldn't actually partake of the plan

-mist

[Tis]

Ffs, no such thing was implied. As I advized the other guy previously, go learn to read. My suggestion had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with multi-hunting. Your stupidity is dragging this thread into meaninglessness.

Good grief.

[mist]

dragonlord raised the concen that those with admin access joining an alliance would lead to complaints of bias, particularly in the case of multihunters. this would seem to be a rather major stumbling block for your idea and therefore of particular relevance to the thread.

of course, only the stupid amongst us can sink to the level required to grasp this stunning obviousness

-mist

[Tis]

He wasnt talking about all people with admin power, he was talking very specifically about multihunters and closures. As was pointed out already, those are two different groups. I couldnt care less if the multihunters understand the game. Its the people who make stupid decisions involving the code that I would like to help. The examples of this are endless, going back to the very beggining of PA through more recent debacles (scanning/covopping for massive score a couple rounds ago... utterly crap race stats.... last round's disasterous handful of essentially private gals...). Many of these things would, I believe, be caught at earlier stages by people who more fully understood how the game is played by those who play it the hardest.

The entire point of having an admin in one of all the major, opposing alliances is that they would balance eachother out and keep an eye on eachother. Many of the complaints around Admin abuse (mostly unfounded) have centered on them, as a group, being biased towards one side or another in a war. With them spread out, this would be a hard charge to make. I dont think, considering the major consiquences for themselves, the alliance they are in, and the game itself, that any of them would risk abusing their powers.

And since the only stumbling block you can think of is one I myself mentioned (to which you add nothing), I see absolutely no reason for you posting.

[Kal]

i personally think it is best for us to be allianceless - by being in an allaince we could devlop bias over time, and also how would we decide which alliances got an admin

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Kal

i personally think it is best for us to be allianceless - by being in an allaince we could devlop bias over time, and also how would we decide which alliances got an admin

a) With or without alliances you have a bias.
b) It's not a question of what alliance 'gets' an admin. Don't expect automatically that every alliancre 'wants' one.

[Cochese]

You could also shuffle them around each round so they don't stay in the same place long enough to get overly involved.

Would also give them a rather good perspective, seeing things from multiple sides.

[Doorsdown]

well we could stick in the clause the only info they can turn in is about/from there own gal only problem is it would be up to them to abide/folllow it. As any hc/intel officer would take any/all info given to them

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Kal

#15 round 10

But then again, you napped the entire universe

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Nadar

But then again, you napped the entire universe

lies, i quite happily hit vision

[Doorsdown]

Originally Posted by Kal

lies, i quite happily hit vision

didn't we all

[Kal]

We are declining this on the grounds that we must stay as neutral as possible, the idea has its merits but is not practical.