Planetarion Forums - Future Alliance System

Kal · 19 Dec 2005, 20:42

what if instead of being able to payf ro reduced allianceless times as per wakey's premium system - instead the alliance you leave is not allowed to attack you for the 72 ticks. The reson i suggets this si that i doubt alliances would be willing to buy planets they wanted out of their alliances if they thought the alliance would selll em and then kill em.

Proxi · 19 Dec 2005, 20:58

What?

If I have this right you want to make people safe when jumping ship? This is an awful idea, as the alliance these people were in has every right to reclaim the roids they helped the jumper defend. It also might screw up gal attacks, as said planet could easily send def as they have no incoming, and theres many more reasons i cant be arsed to type.

Hardcoded things that reduce peoples targets is bad, mmmkay?

Edit: If your saying that planets which are paid for by attacked by the alliance which sold them, its still bad for some of the reasons mentioned above, but I have interpreted the post wrongly and apologise.
As an aside, i dont like the initial idea anyway. Shall post why after i've made dinner.

(with the exception of the bash limit ofc.)

Kal · 19 Dec 2005, 21:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by veX

What?

If I have this right you want to make people safe when jumping ship? This is an awful idea, as the alliance these people were in has every right to reclaim the roids they helped the jumper defend. It also might screw up gal attacks, as said planet could easily send def as they have no incoming, and theres many more reasons i cant be arsed to type.

Hardcoded things that reduce peoples targets is bad, mmmkay?

Edit: If your saying that planets which are paid for by attacked by the alliance which sold them, its still bad for some of the reasons mentioned above, but I have interpreted the post wrongly and apologise.
As an aside, i dont like the initial idea anyway. Shall post why after i've made dinner.

(with the exception of the bash limit ofc.)

thats not what I meant - wakey's system makes it much harder to jump ships - to leave an alliance you need to pay - get someone else to pay (i.e. your new alliance) - or be kicked. I think that in the ideal world it should be the new alliance that has to pay, so they need an incentive - I don;t think that incentive should be a reduced allianceless time (so the planet they bought doens;t die) as that is to big an advantage - instead I think that the old alliance should not be allowed to attack them for thoose 72 ticks - after all they did just agree to let the planet go, so its a little harsh if they then roid the planet.

jian_yee · 19 Dec 2005, 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kal

Arbiter – members can check if they can attack targets

disagree with that one, leaves alliances too vulnerable to spies
What can be done imo, would be to designate access levels in the arby, which say which rank can actually check whether planets can be attacked,

just like the current alliance system whereby the HC can designate which "rank" can see what, in the future arbiter, the HC can determine which "rank" can actually have that kind of arby access..

At the current time, only alliance officers have arby acess. Also, we even have levels whereby some officers can only see certain data, and others can see more.

Kal · 19 Dec 2005, 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by jian_yee

disagree with that one, leaves alliances too vulnerable to spies
What can be done imo, would be to designate access levels in the arby, which say which rank can actually check whether planets can be attacked,

just like the current alliance system whereby the HC can designate which "rank" can see what, in the future arbiter, the HC can determine which "rank" can actually have that kind of arby access..

At the current time, only alliance officers have arby acess. Also, we even have levels whereby some officers can only see certain data, and others can see more.

you qouted the summary... thats just the purpose of the page, not its precise functionality. If you read the description you will see we plan to examine existing solutions and implement a comprehensive solution.

jian_yee · 19 Dec 2005, 22:41

that's the reason i am posting, just giving some suggestions on how the arbiter access could be

Kal · 19 Dec 2005, 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by jian_yee

that's the reason i am posting, just giving some suggestions on how the arbiter access could be

ok

mist · 19 Dec 2005, 22:46

presumably, if an alliance was just paid for a player the leaving will be on good terms anyway, so they won't particuarly want to roid them?

selenyum · 20 Dec 2005, 00:10

Iintel must be restrain to some members, o wouldn't like to have oficers and recruits knowing the same. but i doubt that any allaince will use it if that don't happen

Kal · 20 Dec 2005, 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by mist

presumably, if an alliance was just paid for a player the leaving will be on good terms anyway, so they won't particuarly want to roid them?

they could be really nasty and evil though - so I just see this as a little added protection with as far as I can see no down side. Also if the planet buys himself out it would be a bit sucky if his old alliance then roided him.