[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by Banned

Why shouldn't members be able to look at hostile planet intel? If they use it to avoid hitting hostile planets, you already have rules in place to deal with that.

you'd need to ask that to the multiple people who have founded alliances in the past 10 rounds that question

i dont really see many problems with open intel access, it was something i wanted in audentes had we played this round again. i guess it comes down to the intense paranoia thats prominent in alliances...especially regarding intel and member co-ords

Originally Posted by Banned

DCs are in a similar situation, they need to prioritize (not to the point of exclusion, but you know what I mean) hostile cover in a war. But if they can't see who's attacking, they can't do that efficiently.

indeed, this was another problem that i heard of in audentes. maybe the HC's there had their reasons for that, im assuming the HC's of current allies have their reasons for policies they implement

if theres a good reason for NOT giving intel or whatever i guess thats fair enough...i just hope allies KNOW why they do things rather than just 'thats the way ive seen it done before' (which wouldnt surprise me /o\)

Originally Posted by Banned

I also think other alliances can benefit from lowering recruitment standards if they could increase the accountability of the person recruiting the new player. Without the accountability, the alliance has no quality control. In Ascendancy this isn't formalized beyond a nick in a command output, but since everyone can see who sponsored a person to join, they have someone they can talk to that should be able to communicate to the new recruit.

this is quite a good point, however it shows a collective responsibility that wouldnt really work in other alliances imo. if anything it sort of highlights my point about the overall quality and leadership across ascendancy which allows it to function in the way it does with such great success.

id hope that all competitive alliances have a record of who is recruited, who has vouched etc and with the right characters in that alliance they could communicate effectively to new recruits.

i like both systems tbh. in theory both should work only in 2 different ways.

with the vouch system with a good internal affairs team and record of who has vouched there is some element of accountability within the playerbase but a large amount of responsibility falls upon particular players (those who volunteer to be officers) which should ensure quality as they can motivate and help those who are of 'lower quality'

with the asc system (fruity or however you call it now :P) its good as it spreads the responsibility which obviously is better as generally most people will perform better when not overworked or worrying about other people. im ashamed to admit there have been times ive been doing BC'ing and TA'ing in games and worrying so much about other people not launching ive forgotten to launch myself /o\

the asc system clearly works for you guys but its aided immensely by your current memberbase along with your appeal for potential joinees. i dont really expect others to replicate this recruitment model anytime soon. who knows...

Originally Posted by Banned

You don't have to adopt this, or even agree with me on this. EXilition definitely didn't play this way, and they were very successful. But surely alliances that claim to be playing for fun can stop treating their members like children?

dont the majority of alliances with strict rules and who treat their members like children play for 'the win'?

and you have to admit Banned, there are quite a lot of players in this game who ACT like children