Training Alliances

[zokka]

Training alliances

I’ve a question to f-crew, insurrection etc and all those training alliances. Do you just show brand new players the ropes, or do you do more advanced training like teaching people to become Hc’s, Bc, s and Dc’s.

If I where to start my own alliance, I would assemble a team of experienced officers. In that round they would each take an understudy/ protégé under their wing. When the rounded ended the students would each become full time officers at the alliance. The previous officers would be each given medals and sent on their way. The next round the new officers would repeat the process.

My wish is that these officers would go off to pastures new maybe even start their own alliances. I can’t suppose there would be any better feeling besides maybe winning than to see a former officer starting their own successful alliance.

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by zokka

Training alliances

I’ve a question to f-crew, insurrection etc and all those training alliances. Do you just show brand new players the ropes, or do you do more advanced training like teaching people to become Hc’s, Bc, s and Dc’s.

good lord I hope not... allthough it would certainly explain a few things in the last few rounds.

[furball]

I'm fairly sure that it depends how long they stay with the 'training' alliance. If they're still there after a couple of rounds, I'm sure that they'll be trained in officer duties if they express an interest in it. However, it's common for players to leave these alliances and join bigger alliances in a hope of making it into the top alliances - this has often been referred to as poaching.




(oh dear, I said the p word)

[wakey]

Originally Posted by zokka

Do you just show brand new players the ropes, or do you do more advanced training like teaching people to become Hc’s, Bc, s and Dc’s.

My wish is that these officers would go off to pastures new maybe even start their own alliances. I can’t suppose there would be any better feeling besides maybe winning than to see a former officer starting their own successful alliance.

It depends on the member really. Everyone is different and you need to be flexible to get the best out of them. Some players show instant ‘natural skill’ at the game and you can easily see them having a future in a higher up position others struggle more and while you might be able to make them into a good alliance player over time the chances of them being command quality seems slim. Also some people simply have no interest in the responsibility that being a BC/HC brings so aren’t even interested in being trained in that area, they just want to be good members.

So you have to take people on a case by case situation, if they impress, show skill and desire you give them the chance to learn how to BC. If not you focus on getting them ready as good, solid players.

Originally Posted by zokka

If I where to start my own alliance, I would assemble a team of experienced officers. In that round they would each take an understudy/ protégé under their wing. When the rounded ended the students would each become full time officers at the alliance. The previous officers would be each given medals and sent on their way. The next round the new officers would repeat the process.

With the ‘mentor’ system you described, it’s a system that to a degree gets forced on all training alliances initially and it doesn’t really help the alliance. You need a solid core of officers that you can rely on, you can replace a few with new players each round but if you have to replace too many it’s disruptive. Even if you have been well trained in your new role it’s a major difference stepping up to being a cornerstone of the alliance. If you have good experienced players you need to keep hold of as many of them to support the less experienced people.

Originally Posted by zokka

Training alliances
I’ve a question to f-crew,

At F-Crew we will move promising members into a ‘Junior BC’ role where they will learn the ropes when we feel that they are ready for it no matter the point of the round it is (and obviously if they are happy with that)

We are at a point where we have enough draw to keep a certain level of players around each round. We lose some officer’s each round either to RL or the draw from higher up, we also lose a certain level of our longer term members (2+ rounds) and our Freshmen members for the same reasons.

The lost officers are replaced by some Junior officers stepping up and by the Junior officers being supplemented with returning members who for whatever reason weren’t ready to be officer trained before but the situations changed and they are ready for the chance. We then continue to add to the team as the round progresses.

Originally Posted by zokka

My wish is that these officers would go off to pastures new maybe even start their own alliances. I can’t suppose there would be any better feeling besides maybe winning than to see a former officer starting their own successful alliance.

As for the whole ‘starting their own alliance’. I’m not sure even the best training readies you for that. You generally need more than a couple of rounds experience to be ready for that, either that or you need experience in a similar game or transferable real life skills. Its one of the problems we have lower down the ranking, people start an alliance with little experience or required skills and the alliance becomes a black holes. Also more important than anything in starting a new alliance without being a big name player is time. You need more time to invest in getting the alliance going than your average BC invests in the game.

Edited – Put the relevant questions before my replies as jerome complained that it was too essay like. Something you cant help when replying to what’s multiple questions but hopefully this helps

[Centronic]

Well. I was a dc/bc in F-Crew my first round after my return. I learned alot, well. enough I guess. Ever since that I have allways been some sort of bc/dc. But I never made it to officer level in fcrew, since I only stayed there for one round.

I had a great time there, you didnt have to know much about the game and, well. people were "laidback" there. So I enjoyed my time there before I moved to another alliance.

[Exha|e]

Well, in insurrection we use a mentoring system. And a member that wants to become an officer will be taken under a HC or an officers wings to learn, but it all breaks down on the member it self, if the member wants to be an officer, we train them to be that. If they rather wish to be a peon thats what we teach them.

As for sending them along is something we dont do, if they wish to move on they are free to do so. But in alliances like insurrection, its hard to get new officers, hence why we wish to keep the current ones. The reason for this is ofc that most ppl wants to play for a bigger alliance.

[Kargool]

TGV isnt a training alliance, but we do however give people shots at both dc'ing and bc'ing at times. We usually just invite them to try out as officers based on their activity and by how they have showed their understanding of the game. Some will after that be offered a spot as an officer, some wont. It all depends on how willing the individual is.

[lokken]

What they give new players is experience.

Once they've found their feet a bit and made some contacts, it seems that they move on to become a full blown foot soldier in another alliance.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

good lord I hope not... allthough it would certainly explain a few things in the last few rounds.

Maybe you could take some officers under your wing* to teach them "Politics 101"! Starting with the module "How to make a thread on AD with a ridiculous proposition that no alliance would ever accept"!




*he's a duck, and it's his wing... get it?!

[Mistwraith]

I'd call hr a command training alliance .. as a fair few of the officers in other alliances are former wolves :-)

Training alliances dont keep members for long periods of time in general - they have a turnover of members with officers staying fairly stable.

But saying that they do prefer that their *trainees* stay on till round end unless they have shown greater prowess and are being obviously held back .

[Barrow|Pony]

I find stuff like this to be overblown.

If you handle yourself well online and are active enough, you're qualified to take on some sort of responsibility, regardless of how many rounds you've played or of your alliance history.

When we recruit, it doesn't make any difference whether someone spent 4 rounds in F-crew or just signed up - what someone doesn't know about PA, we'll teach them.

[Mek]

Originally Posted by Mistwraith

I'd call hr a command training alliance .. as a fair few of the officers in other alliances are former wolves :-)

you taught me well misty

<3

[Exha|e]

me to

<3 Misty

[Tomkat]

you didn't train me well misty*




*or indeed, at all.

[Ziw]

Originally Posted by Mek

you taught me well misty

<3

w00f!

[Travler]

Originally Posted by zokka

My wish is that these officers would go off to pastures new maybe even start their own alliances. I can’t suppose there would be any better feeling besides maybe winning than to see a former officer starting their own successful alliance.

Not everyone is well suited to being a leader. And not everyone can be a follower. Could you imagine Synthetic_Sid as a peon? Not likely. There are role players that have no interest in starting their own alliances. Another problem is who is going to join a new alliance when there are several good alliances with open spots? Only if you know 20-60 people willing to join at once would you even try it.

It's still a nice thought but not practical.

[Mistwraith]

Originally Posted by Travler

Not everyone is well suited to being a leader. And not everyone can be a follower. Could you imagine Synthetic_Sid as a peon? Not likely. There are role players that have no interest in starting their own alliances. Another problem is who is going to join a new alliance when there are several good alliances with open spots? Only if you know 20-60 people willing to join at once would you even try it.

It's still a nice thought but not practical.

Natural progression can be held back if there is no space for it - so people move on - the ulitimate progression being to start your own allaince.
This happens with the good ones - the bad ones or the ones unsuited to the job they want to do fail.
The hard/bad/tough part is to tell those people they really are not suited.
Or allowing them to learn the hard way.

natural leaders rise quickly and stay at the top wherever they are, there are also those who dont do it naturally but work their socks off to learn.
also there are the power hungry egomaniacs - we've all met them :-)

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Travler

Not everyone is well suited to being a leader. And not everyone can be a follower. Could you imagine Synthetic_Sid as a peon?

He has been. He played under a false nick for one or two rounds in Eclipse and was a "peon".

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Travler

Not everyone is well suited to being a leader. And not everyone can be a follower. Could you imagine Synthetic_Sid as a peon? Not likely. There are role players that have no interest in starting their own alliances. Another problem is who is going to join a new alliance when there are several good alliances with open spots? Only if you know 20-60 people willing to join at once would you even try it.

It's still a nice thought but not practical.

There were rumours about a somewhat prominent 1up player being in SiN this round before they merged into TGV. I also have been told that I kicked the person in question

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

If you handle yourself well online and are active enough, you're qualified to take on some sort of responsibility, regardless of how many rounds you've played or of your alliance history.

When we recruit, it doesn't make any difference whether someone spent 4 rounds in F-crew or just signed up - what someone doesn't know about PA, we'll teach them.

I dissagree, however it does depend on your alliances aims. An alliances performance is equal to the sum of the actions (or inaction) of its members and command. If you want the best performance you need the best people. Handling yourself well and being active simply are not enough.

[Remy]

Originally Posted by wakey

.... Some players show instant ‘natural skill’ at the game and you can easily see them having a future in a higher up position others struggle more and while you might be able to make them into a good alliance player over time the chances of them being command quality seems slim. ....

.... So you have to take people on a case by case situation, if they impress, show skill and desire you give them the chance to learn how to BC. If not you focus on getting them ready as good, solid players ......

The main selection criterium should not be how good they play the game. Although ACs and DCs obviously need to knwo what they are doing, other officers dont actually have to be good players.

Leadership quality and strong personality is more important for the higher functions. Recruiters and Internal Affairs officers should also be sociable and easy going.

I know a few perfect examples of very skilled players, that would easily kill an alliance if given the position of officer.

Lastly, the whole concept of training alliances is quite overrated. New players only need to have a chance to get into major alliances, and training alliances are ok for that. The game itself is so simple and stupid that even my dog could learn it.

[Mek]

Originally Posted by Remy

The game itself is so simple and stupid that even my dog could learn it.

get your dog to play, mabey this is a novel idea for dealing with the dwindling player numbers in the game

[Rikard]

last time i did that i got closed*.



*this is not a true story

[Ziw]

Originally Posted by Mek

get your dog to play, mabey this is a novel idea for dealing with the dwindling player numbers in the game

Hamster makes the best bots!

[Barrow|Pony]

Originally Posted by Zo0f

I dissagree, however it does depend on your alliances aims. An alliances performance is equal to the sum of the actions (or inaction) of its members and command. If you want the best performance you need the best people. Handling yourself well and being active simply are not enough.

The best people are those who handle themselves well and are active. The finer points can easily be learned.

what happened to you blue :/