[Declined] More Alliance features

[AxTera]

I Like to first start off with saying I am sorry if this idea I have am treading on anyone else idea, as I do not read pa forums very often.

I think its about time PA actually coded a feature that would help alliances and player alike. We all know how frustrating it is when we attack a person who are not our ally and then our ally send def vs. us. ITS ANNOYING and AGGRAVATING as hell and well since alliances cant really control there members and sometimes cant be arsed to control them I think its time pa helped control them. So I now propose this feature.

First thing is to make a code that prohibits any member from defending vs. another member in the same alliances. Like if I attack x:x:1 eta 8 and his gal mate x:x:2 (my ally) try to send def vs. him it gives a MSG you may defend vs. your allies. I feel this feature will help alliances small and big, as it will cause less conflict in alliance so less members quitting and going elsewhere (which sometimes happens). It will also increase the chance of attacking a hostile planet in a allied gal and getting roids and it will stop some alliances from hiding solo planets among our troops that we chose to let live because the gal is allied.

Please criticize this idea and give me your input.

Second idea is to add an in game way for allies to join up. We all know allies make blocks and always will. A perfect example is the LCH/VSN block for last 2 rounds. Well I feel if pa would add an in game feature where VSN could ask to ally LCH and LCH could then accept the ally it would help. Now what this would do is make it so NO VSN member could attack a LCH planet THUS helping the alliance even more with less conflicts with members and letting HC focus on the real task ahead KILLING #1. Also if then implement the 1st feature I listed it could also ban VSN from defending vs. LCH attacks. Also LCH def vs. VSN attacks (but I think that option should be left for the HC. To decide if they want that or not like a button that activates or deactivates it). Also to safeguard this feature when a nap is made between to sides each side must input a password. This password will be so that in the invent one side decides to brake the nap they must type this in click a box that say dissolve nap and then click a button that says I am Positive. But this will not imidtly take effect it will take effect 4 after the button is pressed. The other ally will thus have time to prepare for war and also it gives time for negotiations between the 2 allies and also time incase they chose to change there mind they can reenter password check a box and click the button do not dissolve nap. (Incase of rouge HC like some alliance have had).

Please criticize this idea and give me your input.

I feel both of these features can be helpful to big and small alliances alike and really show people what it means to be in an alliance. It will also make it easier on HC and officer alike thus focusing on the real deal fight the good fight. Small alliance can benefit the same way as normally a problem like this occurs and the HC or officers isn't on to fix it and the member just quits. Also it will help smaller alliances band toghter in-groups with out actually joining under one tag. It can also lead to alliance actually being able to make recruitment alliance so that small members will get all the benefits of the big alliances IE tools etc. And not really have to worry about big brother killing them on accident.

[Kal]

my xmas project is to design some things along theese lines so stay tuned for my retrn from the wilderness on about the 9th of january

[Linkie]

Why make blocking easier? The only good point I see is that it'll stop people getting escorts with defending fleets against zik, but I think there's better ways to solve that.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Linkie

Why make blocking easier? The only good point I see is that it'll stop people getting escorts with defending fleets against zik, but I think there's better ways to solve that.

my plans are along the lines of having advantages to "blocks" which actually help protect thoose who do not want to block but to also encourage fluid blocking. Some form of agreements between alliances and inevitable the trick is to control them and what they can do.

[mist]

if there's a greater advantage to not being blocked in game then people won't do it.

if there isn't then this would ruin the game.

-mist

[wakey]

I cant say I like either of these ideas.

I'll put my alliance leader cap on for the first question rather than the suggestions mod one. While I hate it when my alliance members defend an attack of another member when its the case that the attack is happening on galaxy that contains our members all I have to say is hard luck.

As I tell my members if they have a need to attack a galaxy containing f-crew members first clear it with the f-crew members if they agree they can attack and otherwise they cant. It also makes it easier for us as hc in these situations because it makes it clear whos in the wrong, if a member attacks without getting the ok from the galaxy they are in the wrong and if a member defends after saying it was ok they are and .


As for the second its basically what the others have said, the balance is going to be hard to get. Blocking does give advantages so somehow this would have to be countered by weakening them so that you arent at a disadvantage if you dont block. The problem is if you do this then you risk saying that "blocking is ok" and having everyone end up blocking outside the ingame system and just invalidating everything thats being tried

[demiGOD]

-1st idea - how about having a code where if you launch a defense fleet to a planet targeted by an ally, it will successfully launch, but at the same time, will automatically send a Pa mail to the HC's and all the officers that Ally xx:xx:xx launched a defense fleet to target xx:xx:xx - and the same warning will appear on your overview page - you still want that sense of freedom by alliance members to do what they want without being dictated by your alliance through a game default programmed within the game

-2nd idea - blocking will always be there so if u cant beat them, adapt to them - make NAP's and all inter-Alliance operations more official and binding till one or the other voids these aggreements and operations - i like it :xmas:

[barney]

idea 1 - awful are you trying to make individual players alliance pawns?, i agree possibly with a warning that you are defending against an ally, but if you wish to defend against your alliance for some reason. there should be no hard barrier to it, it should be something for alliance HC's to deal with

idea 2 - this however has promise, before r2-3 (i seam to remember alliances were unofficial, however i have a BAD memory ), it has impressed me how since i am back the alliances are official. this is simply expanding that idea which i feel to be a positive stap, simply to prevent mistakes, because ppl often dont check arbiters, even tho they should.

[Sardaukar]

I think they're both wicked ideas, if only to stop alliance mates sending flippin pulsars to def targets ziks are attacking.

Smaller alliances that can have a certain number of allies would be ace, as alliances seem to need to get smaller with the player base at the moment (we're not going to see another round 2 like BT sized alliance anymore!) alliances would be easier to take down, only thing is, keep making them smaller and were going to end up with alliances that might as well be priv gals without the bonus of gal status.

Fedaykin

[Troglodyte]

Originally Posted by Sardaukar

only thing is, keep making them smaller and were going to end up with alliances that might as well be priv gals without the bonus of gal status.

Fedaykin

Smaller alliances i think is always a better option. less of the big bully tactics

[Kal]

theese ideas both have merits, but are not perfect - so declined, however I do think there should be a devdiscussion on alliances at some point.