|
30 May 2005, 11:56
|
#1
|
De aroma komt je tegemoet
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 85
|
[Declined] Punish alliance leavement
When a planet leave's their alliance during the round, the alliance should have the option to erase the leaving planet 25% of his fleet.
This way there wont be many schipjumpers.
And when the leaving player has a normal reason for his leaving he can talk to his HC and then they wont have to use the option.
I think this option will be used by small alliances where their top planets leave for bigger alliances.
I was thinking about mad alliance HC's can abuse that option to keep a planet in the alliance. But i dont think all alliance HC's are such pricks.
|
|
|
30 May 2005, 12:09
|
#2
|
Ex-Player
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 211
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
Um, personally I think 72 ticks is punishment enough already. Killing 25% of their fleet effectively means no-one will leave their allie unless they're totally sure they won't use this power.
How about a situation where a player totally outgrows an alliance, say a top100 player springs up in coven. They could keep him as long as they wanted because they would threaten to use this power if he chose to leave. Forcing all players to stay in the allie they started the round with isn't a good thing in my opinion. And HCs (some/most, depending how you look at it) will act just in their allies benefit anyway.
To be honest, I think this is going way too far.
__________________
Catolkaa, Klayie, Umphy, NightmareKiss, Upturned, WizardFly [WP] [FaNG] [ROCK] [NoS] [HR] [ND] [ToF] [MISTU]
|
|
|
30 May 2005, 13:48
|
#3
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,449
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
I agree with god113. You just keep people against their will, and end up with useless players. You spend more time sorting out hassle with them then running the alliance. I think that waiting 72 ticks (when you're not the only member of that alliance) is enough of a punishment
__________________
r8-10 RaH r10.5-12 MISTU
|
|
|
30 May 2005, 14:18
|
#4
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
On the alliance fund thread Here I have suggested a feature that tackles the issue you seem to be but from a slightly differnt angle.
Basically when you sign up to an alliance you do so for a full round. This however wouldnt lock you into the alliance for the whole round as their would be a buy out ability, the fee which would goto the alliance as compensation for the help and training they have given the player.
How to work out the amount that the game would charge a player to leave is something i'm not too sure on but its should most likley take into account:-
score compared to alliance average
The more above average score you are the more you pay, the further below average the cheaper it is. Perhaps done simerlar to how XP bravery points are given so you get multipler. Perhaps also with a upper and lower cap so there was a max and min amount youd have to pay
the position held in the alliance
A HC would pay more than BC, BC more than PO, PO more than member, member more than a recruit. To prevent an alliance getting wind of a defection and upping their level to get more perhaps impose a 72 hour window, so if an alliance makes someone BC and then they quit it would look at their position 72hours back rather than now. Would also limit the ability of a HC to demote themselves to leave on the cheap
Time In Alliance
Someone whos been in the alliance for 400 ticks would have used more resources than one thats been in there for 50 ticks and as such would pay more compenstation to account for this additional help
Probally a few more things that need taken into account but they seem to be the main 3
NOW its not all a loss for thse leaving, by paying rather then being kicked they would receive a bonus of a reduced wait period. Something likea 48 or 36 hour wait rather than the 72. This allows them to get into a new alliance quicker and reduces teh damage they might take
Now this system is one that would be mainly be used by people whom are leaving without another place lined up. For those beong poached there would be an additional buy out system, Alliance buy out. An alliance poaching a player could offer a transfer of the player, if the player agrees they would pay the buy out fee. This buy out fee however would be higher than the personal one, probally by using an additional multiplier derived from the difference in the current alliances score and the poacing alliances score. Again probally capped at a min and max figure
The transfer of the player would be almost instantly, a place would be reserved in the new alliance, the membership o the old allaince would be removed. However they wouldnt become part of the new alliance for 12 or 16 hours. This would just prevent immediate defence being bought as they wouldnt be able to help the new alliance out immediatly
Now you could also make it so that those who have been in the alliance for less than 48 could leave for nothing or atleast greatly reduced and just get the 72 hour penalty. Basically youd be giving them a period to try an alliance for free
You could also offer exceptions on really small alliances (ie those under something like 10 members) so if it becomes clear they arent going anyway the members can get out without any real penalty
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
Last edited by wakey; 30 May 2005 at 14:24.
|
|
|
30 May 2005, 14:38
|
#5
|
King of The Fat Boys
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,331
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
The original idea is dumb.
Wakey's idea is less dumb
__________________
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
|
|
|
30 May 2005, 15:42
|
#6
|
Bavarian Barbarian
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bayern! Wos sunst?
Posts: 235
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
just remove the option to go into vac mode when an ally has been left
then it is enough time to take the roids back to the ally
killing 25% the fleet would be tooooo bad
|
|
|
30 May 2005, 16:32
|
#7
|
The Original Terran
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Afghan atm
Posts: 1,633
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
lol this is a funny evil idea
I disagree with it by the fact if they wanna hurt the player who has just left then go roid him and if you wanna blow up some fleet then be a coward and cov op him.
__________________
introduction-Gramma
The following is a list of problems found in various places throughout the manual and game. We love you Noah!
Written by Kloopy Wed Mar 16 22:06:43 2005
Retired just for a bit....
Proud to have been 1up, SiN, Wolfpack, Bluetuba and the leader of ARK.
|
|
|
30 May 2005, 21:13
|
#8
|
Ex-Player
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 211
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appocomaster
I agree with god113.
|
Why thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
On the alliance fund thread Here I have suggested a feature that tackles the issue you seem to be but from a slightly differnt angle.
Basically when you sign up to an alliance you do so for a full round. This however wouldnt lock you into the alliance for the whole round as their would be a buy out ability, the fee which would goto the alliance as compensation for the help and training they have given the player.
How to work out the amount that the game would charge a player to leave is something i'm not too sure on but its should most likley take into account:-
score compared to alliance average
The more above average score you are the more you pay, the further below average the cheaper it is. Perhaps done simerlar to how XP bravery points are given so you get multipler. Perhaps also with a upper and lower cap so there was a max and min amount youd have to pay
|
How about when a player totally outgrows his alliance, why should they be stuck with the alliance for the rest of the round?* Like my example above of Coven player being top100, or say a ToF player getting into the top10. Then the alliance can't protect them, at all. So you shouldn't doom that players chances of having a good finish, afterall, they could be the best allie player in the world and def 3 times a day or whatever. And of course this situation happends, as it's the smaller allies that are more willing to give new players a chance (which infact sometimes turn out to be kick-ass, as i'm sure you will know :P).
I don't mean to say your suggestion isn't great, but I guess your views on this are kind of related to you being a HC of a small allie that accepts new players. It may be bad for your alliance loosing players, but it may not be bad for the players, or the game for that matter.
I think that 72 ticks are sufficient punishment (of course, as someone above said, this should be without the option for vacation mode.) Or if it is handled differently, it shouldn't be that much more of a punishment. Having your fleet axed, or having to pay large payments just doesn't seem fair in my eyes.
(*I totally see that what you are suggesting isn't dooming them to be in that alliance for the rest of the round, but depending on how big this payment is, it's making it more and more of a deterent. I am just of the opinion that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for changing alliances, and outgrowing them by a mile is one of them.)
__________________
Catolkaa, Klayie, Umphy, NightmareKiss, Upturned, WizardFly [WP] [FaNG] [ROCK] [NoS] [HR] [ND] [ToF] [MISTU]
|
|
|
30 May 2005, 21:28
|
#9
|
deserves a medal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
No vacationmode for 72 ticks... done..
wanna punish them? then do it.. not? then don't.. Can't? then he deserves to leave
btw shipjumpers are a wubly part of the game..
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
|
|
|
30 May 2005, 22:33
|
#10
|
Ex-Visionary
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Manchester, Eng
Posts: 325
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessio
No vacationmode for 72 ticks... done..
wanna punish them? then do it.. not? then don't.. Can't? then he deserves to leave
btw shipjumpers are a wubly part of the game..
|
agreed
__________________
r2 noob
r3 TSU, Leech
r4-10 RL stuff
r11 NoS (16:9:10)
r12 VsN (22:2:1)
r13 VsN BC (10:10:10) - R.I.P.
r14 xVx Head BC (2:8:3)
|
|
|
30 May 2005, 23:00
|
#11
|
[MDEL]
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Espoo
Posts: 19
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
As has been said already, punishing with outright fleetloss is way too harsh. Vacation mode abuse needs to be fixed though.
__________________
eXilition
|
|
|
30 May 2005, 23:49
|
#12
|
The Original Terran
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Afghan atm
Posts: 1,633
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
Quote:
Originally Posted by snra
As has been said already, punishing with outright fleetloss is way too harsh. Vacation mode abuse needs to be fixed though.
|
but its so handy
__________________
introduction-Gramma
The following is a list of problems found in various places throughout the manual and game. We love you Noah!
Written by Kloopy Wed Mar 16 22:06:43 2005
Retired just for a bit....
Proud to have been 1up, SiN, Wolfpack, Bluetuba and the leader of ARK.
|
|
|
31 May 2005, 00:39
|
#13
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
Quote:
Originally Posted by god113
How about when a player totally outgrows his alliance, why should they be stuck with the alliance for the rest of the round?* Like my example above of Coven player being top100, or say a ToF player getting into the top10. Then the alliance can't protect them, at all. So you shouldn't doom that players chances of having a good finish, afterall, they could be the best allie player in the world and def 3 times a day or whatever. And of course this situation happends, as it's the smaller allies that are more willing to give new players a chance (which infact sometimes turn out to be kick-ass, as i'm sure you will know :P).
I don't mean to say your suggestion isn't great, but I guess your views on this are kind of related to you being a HC of a small allie that accepts new players. It may be bad for your alliance loosing players, but it may not be bad for the players, or the game for that matter.
I think that 72 ticks are sufficient punishment (of course, as someone above said, this should be without the option for vacation mode.) Or if it is handled differently, it shouldn't be that much more of a punishment. Having your fleet axed, or having to pay large payments just doesn't seem fair in my eyes.
(*I totally see that what you are suggesting isn't dooming them to be in that alliance for the rest of the round, but depending on how big this payment is, it's making it more and more of a deterent. I am just of the opinion that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for changing alliances, and outgrowing them by a mile is one of them.)
|
While your viewing my idea very much as a punishment to the player I actually see mine as more of a process of repaying a debt any player has to their alliance. While a some players egos may lead them to believe the are the greatest thing since sliced bread and that their success is all down to them the alliance plays a part and when that player then upsticks it weakens the alliance they leave, makes it harder for them to train others while another alliance gets the benifit of all your hard work.
Now dont get me wrong, I understand that players outgrow alliances at times and need to move on. F-Crew this round have lost many players to alliances higher up the rankings and over our life we have lost probally more members due to this than the majority of those alliance above us have had combined AND one thing most of them will tell you is they have left on good terms, with our blessing and have had no repercussions for doing so. In fact this round of the many who have quit only three went on bad terms,
- 1 left after being offered a place by ToF which he accepted, something which upset us because he got the place because he had a paid account, a paid account we had just bought for him. Its one thing to lose a member youve invested time into but when actual money has been paid you expect him to see the round out)
- 2 left for ven. One was a HC who threw a bit of a temper tantrum when the alliance wouldnt drop everything to defend him. Before leaving he took a copy of the membership list and has been trying to blackmail us since (along with other actions) and the other quit after loosing alot of fleet on an alliance attack, an alliance attack he aranged in his role as BC and he also did the JPG scans. He has been pulling the same blackmail stunt
Anyway my point being is that I have nothing against players who just want to play at a better level than the alliance allows. However players leaving leave a gap and either the player or their new alliance paying some compensation towards the training they have been given which the alliance can then reinvest in the next batch would help lesser that blow and help keep the lower end of the game thrieving which is ultimatly good for everyone.
And I'm not looking for tens of milions to be paid, for the personal buy out but for a person around 3-3.5 mill normal member id probally like to see the average paid to come out around 3 ticks worth, so in my case that would be around 300k. In the grand scale of things for the person pretty small but would be able to help alot of smaller players well
AND dont forget my buyout system isnt just helping the alliance your leaving. By helping limit the blow you leaving makes on them your seeing a reduction in the wait times before joining another alliance.
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
31 May 2005, 09:02
|
#14
|
..comeback kid
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 41
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
AND dont forget my buyout system isnt just helping the alliance your leaving. By helping limit the blow you leaving makes on them your seeing a reduction in the wait times before joining another alliance.
|
I think this posibility *encourages* shipjumping for t10 etc players. They always stack resources, so they won't be hurt by this.
K, they loose potential score, but they get a better ally.
imho, the 72hr waiting period is rediculous and just removes an aspect of the game, but i understand why they have it.
Let's not add those resouces things, because then you would have people collecting a bit of res, and then suddenly going off to a better ally.
With the amount of ziks around, there are hardly any 'development costs'. In fact: if someone defended enough to stay a member, why would you ask a sudden bonus if he decides to leave? Does he have a debt? He was active enough to stay, how come a member needs to be more active to be able to leave?
Last edited by ANdrode; 31 May 2005 at 10:13.
|
|
|
31 May 2005, 09:10
|
#15
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
I have to say I support wakey almost entirly on the ideas of buyout and alliance funds.
|
|
|
31 May 2005, 14:13
|
#16
|
Ex-Player
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 211
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakey
While your viewing my idea very much as a punishment to the player I actually see mine as more of a process of repaying a debt any player has to their alliance. While a some players egos may lead them to believe the are the greatest thing since sliced bread and that their success is all down to them the alliance plays a part and when that player then upsticks it weakens the alliance they leave, makes it harder for them to train others while another alliance gets the benifit of all your hard work.
Now dont get me wrong, I understand that players outgrow alliances at times and need to move on. F-Crew this round have lost many players to alliances higher up the rankings and over our life we have lost probally more members due to this than the majority of those alliance above us have had combined AND one thing most of them will tell you is they have left on good terms, with our blessing and have had no repercussions for doing so. In fact this round of the many who have quit only three went on bad terms,
....
Anyway my point being is that I have nothing against players who just want to play at a better level than the alliance allows. However players leaving leave a gap and either the player or their new alliance paying some compensation towards the training they have been given which the alliance can then reinvest in the next batch would help lesser that blow and help keep the lower end of the game thrieving which is ultimatly good for everyone.
And I'm not looking for tens of milions to be paid, for the personal buy out but for a person around 3-3.5 mill normal member id probally like to see the average paid to come out around 3 ticks worth, so in my case that would be around 300k. In the grand scale of things for the person pretty small but would be able to help alot of smaller players well
AND dont forget my buyout system isnt just helping the alliance your leaving. By helping limit the blow you leaving makes on them your seeing a reduction in the wait times before joining another alliance.
|
The reason I like the current system is as someone above me in this thread said, your alliance can get whatever revenge it likes unless the player is too big. And so them leaving would be pretty legitimate.
It gives the alliance a chance for revenge IF the player was leaving on selfish reasons, and was like one of the players in your examples of unfriendly leavings. If they are leaving on friendly terms, you don't have to take advantage of them. If a 'buy out' system is used, you can't really differentiate between the selfish people and the ones who just need to move on, it seems a bit unfair that in reverse the selfish people will leave with little penalty (the payment) compared with how they should be battered to the ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ANdrode
In fact: if someone defended enough to stay a member, why would you ask a sudden bonus if he decides to leave? Does he have a debt? He was active enough to stay,
|
I actually agree with this. An alliance is going wrong if it's defending a member who doesn't pull his weight back in return, and keeping him just for his score.
Even though you're going to loose a big player, and so all those fleets were effectively wasted, he will have given a lot to you too. I would imagine a player who has a much bigger fleet than the rest of the allie would be a god in defence. Maybe they gave much more than they were given? I would make an example, but there isn't much point as i'm sure we can both think of a situation where the big planet doesn't get any incommings, and when he eventually does, nothing can be done. In that situation, why should that player owe the alliance ANYTHING in compensation? They could have given endless amounts of fleets in defence and gotten nothing in return.
Um, back to what ANdrode said really. If a player isn't pulling his weight enough, then don't give back to him. Playing just to keep score for the allie rankings is playing a very short term game in my opinion. The alliances themselves should be making sure they don't give to a planet too much while it doesn't give anything back. You don't need the game mechanics changed so that doesn't happen.
__________________
Catolkaa, Klayie, Umphy, NightmareKiss, Upturned, WizardFly [WP] [FaNG] [ROCK] [NoS] [HR] [ND] [ToF] [MISTU]
Last edited by god113; 31 May 2005 at 14:16.
Reason: Getting rid of contradiction in second paragraph.
|
|
|
10 Jun 2005, 13:14
|
#17
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: Punish alliance leavement
declining the orignal idea, wakey's idea will be considered further.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:40.
| |