Display Alliance tag next to r/p name

[Veedeejem!]

Suggestion from other thread
Achilles' suggestion from another thread. I personally think it's a great suggestion and deserves it's own thread. (hope achilles doesn't mind me making it )
A more open approach to PA without all the cloak & dagger, misdirection, fake-nicks, ... would really be awesome I think.
A suggestion that JBG made in the smaller galaxies suggestion thread would go well with this idea too: people sign up for their alliance on the sign in page.

The signing up for an alliance on the sign in page wouldn't work - many players join an alliance after they've signed up a planet, and if I wanted, I could just 'sign up' for New Dawn, or Ascendancy. Then I'd just be kicked and I'd have to apply to my proper alliance anyway.

You also couldn't 'password' the alliance because if that got out, everyone would use it.

But I am in favour of displaying tag name next to an planet name, but only if your galaxy mates are the only ones who could see it. That would mean the alliance intel department was still required to accumulate the information to create a map of the universe. Otherwise you reduce the dependence on alliances for information and guidance, whereby alliances would become less important to the game. Or everyone would begin to play like Ascendancy (Which wouldn't be a bad thing, but would make the forums far less interesting for a start).

Putting an alliance tag next to a planet name would also remove the need for fake nicks on IRC, which are just ****ing annoying. Also would remove the need to set up 60 different defense channels (which are there to keep alliances anonymous) as if you know what alliance a player is, just message that alliance's bot/sole defchan.

[Veedeejem!]

Read JBG's original suggestion about the sign ups
Might want to read that entire thread too caus it's interesting

[Gate]

I don't like displaying alliances to anyone and everyone as I think it'll lead to a lot more inc on unallied/small ally players. At least earlier in the round.

It also doesn't even the playing field a huge amount as alliances can just keep planets out of tag.

However, displaying alliances to galmates seems pretty good to me.


I'd also like to see a little more alliance pride in galaxies. How about a displayed tag for galaxies... the alliance with the most score in a galaxy gets its tag displayed publically but only on the alliance name. It stops individuals being pinpointed as a particular alliance, but gets a bit more alliance pride going. There could be another column added to alliance score if need be; 'galaxies held'.

Originally Posted by Veedeejem!

Read JBG's original suggestion about the sign ups
Might want to read that entire thread too caus it's interesting

I've been reading all the suggestion threads, I think they're all interesting (Kudos to Gate for making new threads, even if they're not all his original ideas).

I agree with everything JBG said in that post (which I'd already read) but don't see it neccessary to join an alliance upon signup.

Hmm. Slight variation and this is prefect - if you APPLY to an alliance on tickstart, it would mean that you wouldn't automatically join, but it would also open up the option of "apply to random alliance", whereby when an HC creates a tag, they can select whether the tag is open to randoms or not. You'd still have to review each application so you'd still haff room for all your current players as you'd just 'accept' their applications first.

This would mean there were no allianceless players, which would mean there's not need to fiddle with the scanning system! Hurrah!

[GReaper]

This was one of those awful ideas which went into the game in the early rounds but got removed for obvious reasons.

Weaker players tend to avoid the big bad alliances if they can help it, going for the weaker alliances or players with no alliance at all. You don't want people to be scared of attacking a galaxy because of what alliances some of the planets are part of.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Gate

I don't like displaying alliances to anyone and everyone as I think it'll lead to a lot more inc on unallied/small ally players. At least earlier in the round.

It also doesn't even the playing field a huge amount as alliances can just keep planets out of tag.

By your own reckoning these planets would get additional incs if they did this. Given that there would be no tag displayed next to their planet....

Originally Posted by Gate

However, displaying alliances to galmates seems pretty good to me.

We rarely disagree on these things but I feel you couldn't be more wrong in this case. Kenny too, but then if I found myself agreeing with him on anything I'd be taking a very sharp and critical look at my thinking in any case.

This will simply lead to the exact same situation whereby new players have 0 access to intel and veteran players have unlimited. It's not like you can't currently identify the alliance of every single galmate the second they get defence anyway so it would be a completely moot change.

Now let us assume you are right and new players get targeted more heavily at the beginning. All this means is that they will be a little low on roids for a while making them a worse target the next time their galaxy gets incoming. If people want to play Planetarion especially badly and hit them anyway their score will suffer appropriately through a lack of xp and value. OH WAIT. This already happens. All the time. Or is it your experience that the weaker players in the galaxies you've been in have gotten less incs? I somehow doubt it.

Originally Posted by GReaper

Weaker players tend to avoid the big bad alliances if they can help it, going for the weaker alliances or players with no alliance at all. You don't want people to be scared of attacking a galaxy because of what alliances some of the planets are part of.

This is ****ing rubbish. Just taking last round as an example, I played in 3:5. Only the biggest alliances (ND/CT) ever attacked us. Because we were big and thus difficult targets, not because we were in mighty Ascendancy. Small players have to attack small planets because that is how their fleets match up, it has nothing whatsoever at all to do with their alliance.

Also, at the time these tags were removed the time player numbers were vast and tag limits didn't exist. Neither is true now and the game must be encouraged to regrow or at least not shrink further.

Players attack with their alliance. Give everybody an alliance, and they'll hit galaxies within their capabilities.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by GReaper

Weaker players tend to avoid the big bad alliances if they can help it, going for the weaker alliances or players with no alliance at all. You don't want people to be scared of attacking a galaxy because of what alliances some of the planets are part of.

This is kind of what I've said.

Having a single tag for the galaxy and/or allowing people to see it ingal wouldn't cause any such damage IMO though.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Achilles

By your own reckoning these planets would get additional incs if they did this. Given that there would be no tag displayed next to their planet....

We'd have to put it to the test. I expect they may, thus giving more incentive to tag up (a good thing IMO). Whether this effect is as strong as the 'attack subh/hidden agenda/f-crew' or not is important to consider.

This will simply lead to the exact same situation whereby new players have 0 access to intel and veteran players have unlimited. It's not like you can't currently identify the alliance of every single galmate the second they get defence anyway so it would be a completely moot change.

However, it significantly reduces the incentive to fake nick. A good thing IMO, but I'd just prefer it if alliances agreed not to fake nick; that just seems difficult to do & enforce though.

[Gate]

I had a quick IRC chat with Achilles and I didn't find myself agreeing with his original PoV.

I don't like the idea of displaying this information publically.

Intel is only genuinely useful to alliances, and alliances should be rewarded for effectively gathering intel IMO. I don't see a new player gaining a lot from knowing what alliance people are signed up to.

But it does mean that in raids, players may avoid targets from bigger alliances, thus shifting incs even more strongly against new players.


The biggest problem is fake nicking, which fragments the community and makes it inaccessible to newer players, whilst the top alliances pin their enemies down in terms of intel within a week or two anyway. Displaying planets' alliances ingame by r/p name but only to ingal planets (who've been around for, say, 48 ticks) would massively reduce the incentive to fake nick and improve the community aspect of the game IMO.

The alternative is a community led initiative where alliances refuse to provide relay channels and don't endorse fake nicking.

[[B5]Londo]

Originally Posted by Gate

We'd have to put it to the test. I expect they may, thus giving more incentive to tag up (a good thing IMO). Whether this effect is as strong as the 'attack subh/hidden agenda/f-crew' or not is important to consider.

Targeting the middle is better than targeting the bottom imo, If ppl in alliances like Subh find they R getting alot of incs the obvious solution is get on IRC and send some def to their m8s after a while that alliance will no longer have a reputation for being a soft target.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by [B5]Londo

Targeting the middle is better than targeting the bottom imo, If ppl in alliances like Subh find they R getting alot of incs the obvious solution is get on IRC and send some def to their m8s after a while that alliance will no longer have a reputation for being a soft target.

So you're saying that introducing alliance next to r/p name will somehow magically amplify the number of available DCs and the member quality of every smaller alliance in the game so that there are no longer easier targets?

Or are you saying that people in smaller alliances, or with no alliance, or who are new to the game, deserve to get bashed for easy roids?

I think I misinterpretted you; could you re-phrase?

[Makhil]

If only we could see the tag of our alliance mates (by default at peon level) that would be an improvement.

[[B5]Londo]

Originally Posted by Gate

So you're saying that introducing alliance next to r/p name will somehow magically amplify the number of available DCs and the member quality of every smaller alliance in the game so that there are no longer easier targets?

Or are you saying that people in smaller alliances, or with no alliance, or who are new to the game, deserve to get bashed for easy roids?

no ofc I wasnt saying that they deserve to be bashed, U might notice I was in a small ally myself. My point is that ppl in the smaller alliances already have the mechanism in place (their alliance) to make them less vulnerable should they choose to use it, the number of DCs wasnt a problem. As the most active Subh DC for the early morning 'rush hour' shifts (the last half of the round anyway) I would say that our problem was that I could count on only 2 ppl plus myself to be on at any point before 07:00 willing to defend, if everyone felt their alliance was not defending sufficiently they could have used 5 mins to come on and offer me their ships. The deal with an alliance is U help it they help U, if this deal is broken by everyone 3 fleet attacking and no defence being offered then yes they deserve to get bashed, and the alliance deserves to fail.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by [B5]Londo

The deal with an alliance is U help it they help U, if this deal is broken by everyone 3 fleet attacking and no defence being offered then yes they deserve to get bashed, and the alliance deserves to fail.

I disagree with this.

If alliances behaved like you expect them to, then all alliances would be of a similar quality. But this isn't true, it's only a game and not everyone can spare the time or want to interrupt their sleeping patterns or whatever. There is always going to be a natural quality gradient and I don't think that because an alliance doesn't have as many uber-geeks as the top ones it deserves to fail...

There will always, always be lower quality alliances and players without homes. This being the case, displaying alliance tags will lead in a shift of firepower towards these players and I think that's something we don't want.

[[B5]Londo]

I made particular complaint against 3 fleet attacks there, I did not say no-one was on, just no-one offered def. If U R not willing to be on at 6:45 instead of 7:00 then perhaps the building of an armada of fighters is a partial solution, nonetheless the point stands that if ppl are in an alliance they have a choice whether they want to improve their alliances reputation for defence or not, if not then they should not complain that the volume of incomings increases, this does not mean i expect all alliances to be of similar quality Im just pointing out that it is not an alliances name that makes a good alliance its the ppl and therefore it is not fixed that Subh/HA/F-crew must be victims in this system.

I fully accept that as I was the only Subh in the t100 for a long time, with open tags I would not have held my rank, but I tried my hardest to change that situation.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Makhil

If only we could see the tag of our alliance mates (by default at peon level) that would be an improvement.

I see no reason to force alliance HCs to share this information with their members. They have the choice to, if they want to, that's good enough for me.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by [B5]Londo

I fully accept that as I was the only Subh in the t100 for a long time, with open tags I would not have held my rank, but I tried my hardest to change that situation.

It's a great thing to try and improve your alliance, but can you clarify whether you're in favour of, or against this suggestion & why?


I am against it because there are lower quality alliances. Their members should not receive extra incoming because of this. It also reduces the rewards for having good intel, which I believe should be there. Meanwhile, its one benefit (discouraging fake nicking) can be achieved by displaying this information only to people in galaxy. This idea maybe more palatable.


EDIT: And what mz said above.

[[B5]Londo]

Tho I prefer the idea that the alliance with the highest score in gal should have their tag next to the gal name, possibly the first and second on the left and right therefore benefitting the smaller allies, I have a suggestion which might level the playingfeild in a completely open tag system.
It seems fairly obvious that the attacker should get more xp for hitting a member of a higher ranked alliance, so the choice of hitting 2 identical planets one ND one ASS the ND one gives more xp. I would not factor in your own alliance as this would give a penalty to the small members of a large alliance but his could also be done.

I admit that my earlier posts imply a very Darwinian universe, but with intel I think this happens anyway, I got hit more by random attacks than the rest of my gals larger players often better targets than me, particularly in daylight raids by other ppl higher in the t100 probably because I was Subh and ppl assumed that a Subh could be brought down without the cover of darkness (they obviously failed to consider that because Subh does not defend at night there is plenty of defence available at midday)

[Gate]

Originally Posted by [B5]Londo

Tho I prefer the idea that the alliance with the highest score in gal should have their tag next to the gal name, possibly the first and second on the left and right therefore benefitting the smaller allies, I have a suggestion which might level the playingfeild in a completely open tag system.
It seems fairly obvious that the attacker should get more xp for hitting a member of a higher ranked alliance, so the choice of hitting 2 identical planets one ND one ASS the ND one gives more xp. I would not factor in your own alliance as this would give a penalty to the small members of a large alliance but his could also be done.

It's one way this could be done, but I have a feeling that this would be too difficult to balance. If it's too small it's worthless. If it's too big, it benefits the bigger alliances who're able to roid each other. When they go to war with each other they'll be able to get massive XP and tear away from the smaller allies. And it leaves open the possibility of abuse by out of tag planets.

Plus it's not really KISS compatable. I still think that top alliance tag in a gal (possibly with your 2nd/3rd idea) would be quite cool. And I stick to the ingal suggestion as something that might actually improve the game in some way.

[booji]

Originally Posted by [B5]Londo

Tho I prefer the idea that the alliance with the highest score in gal should have their tag next to the gal name, possibly the first and second on the left and right therefore benefitting the smaller allies, I have a suggestion which might level the playingfeild in a completely open tag system.
It seems fairly obvious that the attacker should get more xp for hitting a member of a higher ranked alliance, so the choice of hitting 2 identical planets one ND one ASS the ND one gives more xp. I would not factor in your own alliance as this would give a penalty to the small members of a large alliance but his could also be done.

would having the biggest guys with tags not be done better with gal tags rather than individual tags? (I note at the moment you cant use [] in the gal name much to my disappointment) and it would still disadvantage any gals that are managing to do well without having many large alliances as people would think the whole gal is an easy target!
getting more xp for hitting good alliances is nice in its way and would help level the playing field, however it does disadvantage anyone in those alliances who for whatever reason get very little defense. It would also be extremely hard to work out a system for it.

There is also the question of why should the game mechanics disadvantage alliances that are successful, they have gotten themselves to their advantageous situation through teamwork and hard work why should they be punished for it?

The obvious response of alliances will be to tag up later and later to avoid the perils of being such lovely xp hits. And if their tag is shown beside members they will delay tagging so as to delay who their members are getting out as long as possible. Meaning little overall change.

ps as someone who spent the entire of last round trying to work out what alliance my fake-nickers were from I like the idea of alliances being only shown ingal - perhaps combined with a return of galtags

[Gate]

Originally Posted by booji

ps as someone who spent the entire of last round trying to work out what alliance my fake-nickers were from I like the idea of alliances being only shown ingal - perhaps combined with a return of galtags

I've started annoying alliances over an community agreement against fake nicking to try and solve this. That would remove the need for the suggestions here (except perhaps gal tagging if people think it would be fun).

[[B5]Londo]

if alliances are shown ingal they will immediately be known by anyone with intel as all alliance members immediately tell all to their Intel-officer so it would be equivalent to an open tag without the benefit of helping those who are not in alliances or have no intel access for whatever reason.
I dont wish to imply the xp boost must be so much U want to be in a small alliance but surely this helps with the issue of recruiting to the top if there is some advantage from being a lower down alliance member.

[booji]

I think gal tags would be best done automatially if as ppl in gal tagged up there should be a line under the gal name that shows what tags their are in the galaxy, does not give away who is in what alliance but most likely does tell the members of the gal what members have not been telling what alliances they are in etc (as hopefully they will already know what most of the alliances ingal are)

this would hopefully help with recruitment for alliances by showing their importance the the game, and giving non alliance members some idea what they are up against. while at the same time not providing disadvantages to the alliances.

[[B5]Londo]

This seems like a good idea which ticks most of the boxes over what this thread is trying to achieve, it implies no order of preference between alliances, gives little away over who is who but encourages without enforcing openness, if ppl dont want to have their tag below the gal name they dont tag up with all the defence problems that implies.
the slight problem is that the big alliance tags might be automatically assumed to belong to the bigger ppl ingal (even if not true) adding even more attacks on smaller gal members. However I suppose this calculation happens anyway.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by [B5]Londo

if alliances are shown ingal they will immediately be known by anyone with intel as all alliance members immediately tell all to their Intel-officer so it would be equivalent to an open tag without the benefit of helping those who are not in alliances or have no intel access for whatever reason.

What is intel useful for?

I've only ever used it to work out who was a threat and to hurt them, or to find planets breaking NAPs and get them to recall. Basically, it's useful for alliances only, unless I missed something.

The fact some players don't have intel isn't really an issue IMO; it does little to improve their round, why should they have it? Alliances should be rewarded for efficiently gathering intel too IMO.

[[B5]Londo]

So HC's/officers by virtue of intel access get the option of hitting the soft targets in the gal raids they set up, this is hardly fair (tho I suppose little change to what occurs atm)
but otherwise I accept Ur point, although there were several times in the round where I was attacked by ppl with whom I had a NAP, because I had no intel access I could not know that untill a HC acted, which is by no means certain to occur, indeed in a rather underhand way it gives those with the intel the option of helping or not the member caught in that situation. Nonetheless this is a rare abuse of intel so not worth worrying about.

essentially the difference between U and me Gate is I have little intel access so I look around the universe blind and hate it, U have some access so look around with one eye open and dont realise what its like to be blind even if the practical uses of being partially sighted are limited.

ps boojis suggestion paves a golden path for the return of the alliance galbanner something Im very much in favor of (for no reason other than aesthetics and nostalgia)

[Gate]

Originally Posted by [B5]Londo

So HC's/officers by virtue of intel access get the option of hitting the soft targets in the gal raids they set up, this is hardly fair (tho I suppose little change to what occurs atm)

Like you've said there; it happens already, we can either keep it as it is or allow everyone to see alliances and make it worse for the newer players, or players in smaller alliances as they get picked on by randomers. I wouldn't choose to make it worse!

essentially the difference between U and me Gate is I have little intel access so I look around the universe blind and hate it, U have some access so look around with one eye open and dont realise what its like to be blind even if the practical uses of being partially sighted are limited.

I spent the first half of this round completely blind as well, so I can empathise.

In all honesty, I have a romanticised idea of how cool it would be if you could see where people were, and how wars were going and so on. Unfortunately, I think the problems we've already discussed (more incs on smaller alliances etc) are too great to justify it.

ps boojis suggestion paves a golden path for the return of the alliance galbanner something Im very much in favor of (for no reason other than aesthetics and nostalgia)

That's where I completely agree with you. Kinda what I was getting at above. I'd like to see more banners, declarations of war, pretty galbanners (like Rock's anti-xVx ones this rd) and general banter. But attempting to force people to do it is a bad thing; limited stuff like displaying the top scoring ally in a gal could pave the way though.

Apologies if any of this is nonsensical, I'm painfully hungover.

[Makhil]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

I see no reason to force alliance HCs to share this information with their members. They have the choice to, if they want to, that's good enough for me.

They can only do it by giving a higher access level to their members (and it comes with other extra), that's the problem. At least they should be able to share that info but keeping the basic access level.
I personnaly see no reason for a HC to hold that kind of info. Either you're a member and they trust you or they better kick you.
It would help also prevent some members to defend against their ally mates (solo, retals, counters... that happens every round).

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Makhil

Either you're a member and they trust you or they better kick you.

You can't be sure of everyone before you recruit, otherwise you'd have very limited recruitment by the top alliances.

With the way most non-Ascendancy alliances play, members need to earn trust first.

[booji]

surely thats the point of some kind of probation period, not a reason to deny useful information too your full members

[Gate]

Originally Posted by booji

surely thats the point of some kind of probation period, not a reason to deny useful information too your full members

Well, that's an issue for alliances to take up with themselves as far as I'm concerned.

[Ave]

Originally Posted by Gate

I don't like displaying alliances to anyone and everyone as I think it'll lead to a lot more inc on unallied/small ally players. At least earlier in the round.

It also doesn't even the playing field a huge amount as alliances can just keep planets out of tag.

However, displaying alliances to galmates seems pretty good to me.


I'd also like to see a little more alliance pride in galaxies. How about a displayed tag for galaxies... the alliance with the most score in a galaxy gets its tag displayed publically but only on the alliance name. It stops individuals being pinpointed as a particular alliance, but gets a bit more alliance pride going. There could be another column added to alliance score if need be; 'galaxies held'.

No it will allow to hit only the right targets and no random civilians suffer aslong as they dont interfere... Expecting that people would actually give a fight. Also the unallied people would be easier to be recruited by newbie training alliances. Or we could create (stolen idea from tc) a league, from "retired/neutral" players, to get a boost from start and be placed among the newbies to protect them. Defend against bashing and other unsporty attacking.

Also the idea of adding some alliance pride to galaxies sounds good. Either the planet commander has 2 tag places to put up or the tag apears by calced score or something as suggested above.

[HeimdallR]

displaying alliance tag next to r/p name, would only benefit big allies so they can farm the smaller ones much easier.

[Ave]

Originally Posted by HeimdallR

displaying alliance tag next to r/p name, would only benefit big allies so they can farm the smaller ones much easier.

suppousedly the bigger alliances has better intel aswell, so I would rather classifie the aid to be for the smaller ones, so they could hit actual alliances and wage war.

[Jinstarro]

I dunno if it has been comented already, but I see one obvious flaw. Small planets can jump from ally to ally and gather intel. People would get unpaid players to exile from gal to gal to gather intel.

[booji]

Originally Posted by Jinstarro

I dunno if it has been comented already, but I see one obvious flaw. Small planets can jump from ally to ally and gather intel. People would get unpaid players to exile from gal to gal to gather intel.

this does not apply to all the suggestions in this thread tho. for example the gal tags suggestion does not necessarily allow ppl to exile from gal to gal to gather intel if the tags are not shown by each individual (I cant be bothered to go back through the thread to see which suggestions it applies too and which it does not, simply remember my own, sorry all!) in terms of jumping from ally to ally that will never be possible, it will just require the recruitment requirements for allies to just be stricter...
I dont think that giving access to all members of an alliance was really part of this thread, indeed I think the option already exists for the HC, atm Jenova is using the option whereby on the gal page it states: "Note: This galaxy contains allied planets and should not be attacked without direct orders from High Command." we have also had at least 1 day showing members which planets are in Jenova (not sure if it was a mistake ), this shows an R next to the planet... dont have a clue what the R stands for tho!

[Mzyxptlk]

R means Recruit.