Alliance HC
 

Is it possible or a good idea to have on a screen somewere for alliance HC to actually see outgoing fleets of there alliance members?
It could save a lot of problems with attacking the wrong ppl etc and help alliance HC in investigating accusations of attacking or defending the wrong players etc..
Just an idea but is it possible and is it a good idea?

Re: Alliance HC
 

Its really scaring me how many people ahve suggested this to me recently...

basically it depends on where people want the game to go.

do they want it to be all about the alliance, all about the galaxy, or all about some other community element

Re: Alliance HC
 

well its too alliance oriented as its is atm, ppl should really try to play on their own and not only listen to the hc and so sending to the wrong cord and eta is a part of the game :)

Re: Alliance HC
 

It's tricky.

I suggest that alliance HCs are permitted to monitor the fleet movements of a tenth of their members, certainly no more.
I've been opposed to this in the past, and I will probably be more opposed to it again in the future. It would be very useful in certain situations though - e.g. planet NAPs.

Re: Alliance HC
 

well let the hc do a naplist ingame that you cant launch at just as allietag then. controlled by the hc and so. cant be that hard to implement and removes unwanted napbreakings :)

Re: Alliance HC
 

Why have a NAP list? I really don't think it's a good idea.

1) restricts player autonomy even further

2) prevents alliance HCs from keeping politics secret

3) prevents members from defying their HC (not that I like it, but they should be able to do it)


There's more reasons if you need them.

Re: Alliance HC
 

seems to go a little far wrt centralizing power, imo.

isn't the fact that the alliance can designate scanners able to check up on their members enough?

that said, according to the eula there's no reason that an alliance couldn't create an IE bar that monitered all the pa pages their members go to, and therefore allowed them to log every action their member made - if they so desired.

Re: Alliance HC
 

hehe well i tried to say some constructive for once but i guess your right there is always 2 sides of the coin :)

Re: Alliance HC
 

Soon, what with supoprt planets being banned, NAP lists under control of HC and out going fleets being visible I'll not have to think to play this game. I may as well be a bot under the control of my alliance HC.

Re: Alliance HC
 

Yes please ;)

Thex, in all seriousness, there won't be NAP lists and certainly no more than a limited viewing of outgoing fleets. Stop getting so worried :p

Re: Alliance HC
 

I'm not worried - and one could suggest that I leave the alliance and/or game if I did not like it. I was just pointing out where such things could lead.

The game has to be about individual choice with as little red tape as possible.

Re: Alliance HC
 

im gonna be very blunt here folks

if you dont like being controlled by a hc, dont join a bloody alliance

its that simple fs :P

Re: Alliance HC
 

as a point - surely people would prefer being controlled by their alliance than their galaxy? as they choose one but not the other.

Re: Alliance HC
 

And basically someone in PA Team should be the person deciding it, also known as the game designer.

Re: Alliance HC
 

I have to say on one hand I would personally like to be able to see what members were doing, not only would it help on the spy front but from a training pov it would make it extreamly simple to see why some members werent progresssing how you would expect them to and in turn allow you to help them better. It would also be handy if people have a complaint about members actions as it wouldnt just come to down their word against the complainee's word like it sometimes does.

On the other hand though it is alot of information to hand out and while I know at F-Crew we wouldnt use it to prevent members defending anyone but the alliance there are probally alliances whom would and we already have enough problems with alliances dictating the involvement members can have in galaxies without making it easier to ensure their wishes happen

Re: Alliance HC
 

how about a system where the HC's have the ability to enter there napped alliances and/or planets in an ingame tool which locks out those planets for attacking by their members. tryin to launch @ such a planet would only result in the message "on order of your HC this planet is not to be attacked". this would stop wrongly attacking by members with all political concequences, but wont( as wakey commented on the nap-list) reveil the political aspects.

alternativly if this goes to far in restriction there could be a warning given "this planet is put under protection by your high command launching could lead to reprecusions. or give high command a thread line where they can make up their own warning". but a member can still launch

Re: Alliance HC
 

The problem with that, KJ, is that planets can find out the co-ords of allied alliances by searching the universe via the missions page (if you see what I mean). Spies are already able to do it for their own alliances.

I think it would see the end of NAPs where co-ords are not shared - yes, they do still exist. Also, alliances would no longer be able to properly keep NAPs secret from their members (which can often happen for a week or two).

Re: Alliance HC
 

Ehm.. I dont see why this is so extremly bad..

Re: Alliance HC
 

No, they should buck up and get organised.

And recruit the right people.

Re: Alliance HC
 

Yeah, by all means.. Make it harder for people to make alliances and make communites that makes people want to play Planetarion. Thats the way to go. I think making it abit easier for the hc's around makes it better for all parts..

Re: Alliance HC
 

It is the HC's responsibility to maintain member discipline, run diplomacy, to recruit the right people to obey orders, not PA teams in my view.

An unruly alliance will not be worth anything diplomatically while a disciplined one will be more trusted. And we should continue to preserve this divide. Because it is one to do with quality. If a member is up to no good, it's up to them to find out, not click on a page where the magic answers are there for them.

Re: Alliance HC
 

I think having it so that the HC could see their alliance's outgoing fleets will make it possible for the HC to make the necessary adjustments to correct their own unruly members. I dont think this is a big issue for the higher ranked alliances, but it might be a good option for those in top 20-10

Re: Alliance HC
 

Aye didnt think of that.. .. my brain has the habbit of shutting down after 5am in the morning :P
tho on the other handare the cons greater then the pro's.

i for 1 am for a more open politic 2wards members, they have a right to know what their hc's are up to.
and as for spies.. if theres a msg delivered to ingame alliance mail system when a launchblock/warning has been given. spies will be caught soon enough and thus wont abuse it.
it just wont be profiteble for them

Re: Alliance HC
 

So.. do you think like say a few rounds ago there where a lot of battle groups floating around attached to different alliances and such that to keep an eye on these newly found freinds from say breaking that certain nap with an alliance you are with is a good thing or bad?
I mean Would it be wrong to assume that the new found buddys arent defending ppl as much as they should or are they helping the rest of there BG in a different alliance elsewere? etc.. etc.. just a thought :)

Re: Alliance HC
 

For once I have to agree with Kargool here.

I know, it's shocking for me to do this, but here is my reason Lokken:

Why do we feel the need to punish alliances who simply don't have leaders with the necessary experience under their belt (or reputation) to get such good discipline? Let's be honest - there's only a few alliances in the game right now that have a really good discipline, with a few having "moderate" and then the rest having little. Those with the strongest have it mainly due to their HC reputation or bonds formed within the membership - some alliances simply wont ever be able to reach this stage - at least not for quite a few dedicated rounds.

There's already tools in existance that allow alliances to monitor their member actions. It's not 100%, but it basically means any alliance with a dedicated coder can knock one up. The game already supplies a very basic member list - something which before HC's had to set up on their own, and back then I bet you could have said the same thing.

Personally I think it's a good idea - it saves an alliance needing to get alot more coding work done and will only help other alliances get more discipline. After all, your point is mainly the HC need to work for it - why not make their lives easier without them needing to somehow find some brilliant coder?

It wouldnt unbalance anything for the current "disciplined" alliances as it'd still require alliance HC to actually USE the information. Remember we have seen evidence in the past of members flaunting their own alliance rules and HC STILL not doing anything - it wont help them people whatsoever.

Re: Alliance HC
 

Zhil - what do you think of my earlier suggestion that HC can select which members to monitor, but can't monitor all of them at once? As a compromise between the two extremes.

Re: Alliance HC
 

When you put it that way a general "tool" wherby all HC's got was some giant soup of information may help, as it would be up to them actively hunt down NAP breaches etc etc etc. If it is something that doesn't do any work for you bar show this mass of information, then it might be acceptable.

The questions are:

how much help should we give?
how detailed is this tool? e.g. should it show nicks on the same page?
what should/shouldn't it show?

Re: Alliance HC
 

Surely NAP breaches should be a problem for the alliance being attacked, not the attacking one? If it's an issue, the alliance being attacked can report the co-ordinates anyway.


Things like the member list are passive - the member is either in the alliance or he isn't. With limits, this is necessary. However, there's a big difference between that and actively tracking members' fleets, or any other action.

I just don't think it's really necessary. If your members' actions are having repercussions, you'll know their co-ordinates because the people with the problem will give them to you. Since you can match that to their nick with the member list, you're sorted.

Re: Alliance HC
 

In the past there have been rules put in place so that one person couldn't control a lot of accounts - being a multi.

With tools like this in place what's the difference? We'll have a core HC (perhaps 3/4 people) in the top of alliance deciding what all their planets do. Members would be reduced to individuals who simply get given co-ords, told if its an attack or defence and what time to land. Maybe I'm taking it to an extreme - but could you be sure that no alliance would be this strict on their members if the HC were able to see what they were doing? Put the tools in place and some alliance will do this.

Member list are good for integrating such features such as short ETA times and for scoring (passive as furball says), that's the features that are needed - leave human nature alone to make mistakes and for players to use their own minds.

Yes I could, and would, avoid alliances like this personally (so there is no need to flame me), but think about the big picture, what sort of accusations would start to fly at the end of a round between the top alliances. Is this a good thing for PA?

Re: Alliance HC
 

for me, this game is all about alliances and nothing else. I don't really care about galaxies or individual planets. Imo it should make the work of an HC easier if he could track all outgoing fleets.

the question however is ... why should it be made easier for the HC's? Isn't that upto each HC/Alliance to show some dedication in what your members do?

Re: Alliance HC
 

i think the dedication is not the problem with alliance HCs usually - a problem is that some alliances have access to very well worked out tools to track the activity of their members and what they are doing which makes it harder for new alliances to compete and keep up with the top alliances.

ingame tools could even this out if they are handy and easy to use ...

Re: Alliance HC
 

Well, I can fairly state that you don't need much tech to perform well. I think if all the top alliances, Angels most likely has less tech then others. Certainly compared to 1up, who have far more impressive tools.

It's something the HC's adapt to, they can do the same work, maybe less efficiënt but in the end the result counts.

Mind you I don't oppose these new tools, I'm just saying that for me personally, I have real need to it.

Re: Alliance HC
 

The problem comes down to a few players who just won't get with the program. Even with such a tool, these block heads are still NOT going to check their Arby, and they will still not take their heads out of their asses and get with the program, all this tool will do is help the HC KNOW who these jackoffs are so they can run interference instead of getting an sms from someone at 0600 because some other alliances HC is hollering (rightly so mind you, as they have a political agreement, they expect it to be followed)

This tool won't eliminate ppl from not paying attention to detail, it would (in theory) simply allow the HC to intervene sooner, and identify these clowns earlier so they can be kicked out on their sorry asses

As said above, if you DON'T want your fleets controlled by an alliances Military Command cadre, DON'T join an alliance. Everyone is perfectly welcome to play solo, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to join an alliance. You want the benefits, you need to work the program, if not, good luck, and stay off the radar

note: I also realise there are times when Arby information is less than perfect, so don't get the wrong idea. I see a use for such a tool, for those times when an innaccurate Arby isn't the problem. This will not cure the problem of people launching on targets they should not be launching on, it will simply allow Alliance Command to identify, and address it sooner

Our alliance has an excellent set of tools, however, it still doesn't allow us to know who our members have launched on as their is no way to track that. We don't find out until after the fact. This would be a good thing in that respect, as we can check launches vs our assigned targets for the evening

Re: Alliance HC
 

its surely interesting to monitor the fleet activities -. but i dont see a real need for it.
Ofc there are naps that could be broken, but however if you are HC or BC and set up an attack you see that there are friendlys in and dont set them up as a target. and you have enough reputation that your ally wont attack this targets then
the only thing where I would sometimes like to see it is when there is an attack to see if all launch in time or if someone managed to set the wrong landing tick (i know how this sounds to top alliances but I do accept newbies as well) or to see if they set defense missions (only those that are sent to defend an allly member and no other) right.

Re: Alliance HC
 

personally i think maybe alliances outside of the top 10 could have this or something, but alliances inside the top 10 surely can go without this? i can't stress enough a top planet should be active. It's exactly the same for a top alliance and a top HC. They should be active and on top of things. If they can't handle that get more HC's or different HC's. (if you are a REAL training alliance and don't just call yourself one, this could be usefull.)

personally i like to make my own decisions aswell and don't need hc's to track EVERYTHING i do. If they want that i'd just as happily be without an alliance. As everyone knows i fight for my alliance but i would hope HC's don't need everything done for them and they can actually take care of a few things themselves.

Re: Alliance HC
 

and cypher that works fine with players like you, your not going to go off and hit a target without atleast having some background about it. You know who you hit, and you also work with your alliance. Your a team player, unlike the "player" I've described above. They are in it for their planet, and use an alliance to run interference for them. they drain defense and they contribute very little.

I got no problem with a player who wants to play solo, that's certainly their choice. However, if THEY chose to play for an alliance...there is no I in team. They need to do the proper research before hitting a target. If their alliance doesn't provide valid targets for them, they ofcourse can chose to fly solo, in which case the very least they can do is check with someone in their command cadre and make sure the planet they want to hit isn't involved in some type of political arrangement.

Truth is, some people "need" to be supervised more than others. End of the day, we cooperate with people in this game. Cooperation is ofcourse a two way street, however, when joining an alliance, you do so with the frame of mind that you can trust those in positions of authority within that alliance (as a whole... the alliance's command team)
If you do not, then your probably not joining the right alliance. If that trust, at some level, is gained by personal experience, or by reputation, or by word of mouth, some level of trust should exist prior to you joining.

No alliance Command is going to knowingly put you in a bad position fleet wise, without it being of benefit to the military mission of that alliance. If they knowingly do so without regard for your success as a player, they shouldn't be in command of anything. Alliance Command should perform their duties with the frame of mind that if they do their job properly, their members will have success in the grand scheme. We make decisions based on the overall success of the alliance, and if the alliance has success, generally the player will have success.

I realize this is somewhat off topic but the idea applies to the topic so I'd ask for a bit of latitude here. Any tool that can be created to assist alliance command in properly performing their duties to the alliance is a good thing.

I've illustrated above the type of player the above suggested tool will help alliance HC's cope with. The political game in Planetarion is flammable as it is, we, as Commanders don't need players derailing that process, and in that respect, this type of tool would be of benefit, that's all I'm saying

for the record this is a rare thing in my alliance thankfully, when it did happen in 1up it was due to imperfect intel and I certainly meant these comments "in general" and not so much directed or pointed at one person or one group directly

Re: Alliance HC
 

would be a comprimise, if database size issues are an issue or something

Re: Alliance HC
 

It's not related to database issues. Instead, it allows HC to monitor suspect members but not just to monitor everyone - the HCs would need concerns over people to choose to monitor them.

Re: Alliance HC
 

If this happens, is it worthwhile to also show the incoming on the time planet (that has a time delay).

OR only have this for alliances with less than say 30 members...

If it does happen, it should probably be optional and planets should have to agree to be "seen" (though this can obviously lead to pressure from the alliance - let us see what you're doing or we'll kick you).

To be honest, some alliances already get their planets to paste their gal status into a db every tick they can to get quite a wide database of fleet movements. Potentially, it just changes it so that instead of getting the whole galaxy movement, you only get your planet movement but every tick. I don't see how it's too big an issue.

Re: Alliance HC
 

if a planet joins an alliance in game, he does so knowing that alliance command can see his/her fleet movement, screw options, if you don't want to be seen, don't join.This in theory will be a tool that alliance HC can utilise to help them in performing their political duties and police members who aren't following the game plan

Re: Alliance HC
 

It's fine enough as it is atm. Who needs outgoing fleets...

Re: Alliance HC
 

If targets have been assigned, it should be quite easy to spot out if everyone sent attack on the desired target via jumpgate probe, and jgp will probably be done anyway. In case of avoiding friendly fire you have to check each of the coordinates with all of the outgoing fleets. I can see this as a benefit only if this will be regularly checked each tick and noone is ever going to do that simply cause it requires too much effort. It will be pretty much impossible to prevent launching and friendly fire should still be reported by the friendly alliance. The only case where I can see this feature working is the scenario where fleets are grounded, or (as someone already said) when it is possible to monitor only selected planets.

Re: Alliance HC
 

The human interaction between players and HCs are very realistic right now. If we do this, PA will be strictly alliance-based and the community-like atmosphere if this game will slowly disappear.

Re: Alliance HC
 

I don't see why there needs to be a compromise to be honest.

The arguement against is simply because someone doesnt want their HC to see their fleet movements. So what? If the HC was superhuman he could see your fleet movements well enough already. I'm FOR reducing workload on HC's and my reason why is simply because new blood for HC's is waning. If helping out current generation HC's is done through this extra tool then it will only benefit those who come into the "job" later on (and noone can deny that being HC is like having a second job compared to your real life one)

As Appoc stated, some alliances require input into a database already - but that requires alot of time to process on an administration side. Surely to have something built for us to see information is beneficial to ALL. I only see the problem being that some "people" are worried that they won't be able to flaunt their alliance rules so easily - and I say diddums to that. It won't change the reactions of various alliances to those who break rules - it'll just make it easier for all alliances to see what their memberships are doing and whether they coincide with their overall alliance goal.

Re: Alliance HC
 

I'm sorry but this is rubbish. How does making the HC job easier reducing human interaction? I don't interact with members as it is to get information that I require - I just put up an announcement and give a deadline then state what the penalty/punishment will be if it's late (or not given/falseified). Nothing on an individual level at all - and the only time I ask a member directly about that information is to clarify on something or to find out why they haven't submitted it yet.

The game is already alliance-based - the community is within the seperate alliances. We're all then linked together by the game itself - that's it. How does being able to monitor where member #23 is attacking going to make me not talk to furball or Fish?

This isn't real life - if you want this game to survive you'll support the role of leadership to be made easier (I won't say less time-intrusive as being a HC requires alot of time anyway - but getting rid of 2 hours odd of administration work is purely good for everyone involved)

Re: Alliance HC
 

It's all about the bias of the game - galaxy or alliance.

I'm opposed to seeing incoming fleets, and thus opposed to seeing outgoing fleets as well. Alliances don't need this. It's useful, but galaxies should be important.

Re: Alliance HC
 

Like any coded helpfull tool the main quesiotn is: will this be beneficial for the game, NOT will this be beneficial to a single person or one alliance.

Coding a page where you can watch your members' fleet actions will reduce the need of techies. Big alliances know what thier members do, small and/or new alliances usually have much more trouble with this (due to lack of techies).

It will certainly benefit ALL alliances to have this information. So, for the game, this will result in a more alliance based game. PA Team have chosen with PaX system, to choose alliance focused gaming. So, it can only be good for the game AS IT IS.

Me personally, i think that having such a list wud make the life of HCs and possibly other officers a bit easier. It will take focus off tech a bit, and allow HC to be more of a general leader.

And let's be honest, if you dont like being watched, why join an alliance? You will be watched in alliance, whether or not their HC have tools ingame or coded from a techie.

Then their is the question, IF it was coded, WHAT kind of fleet movement should be listed? Incoming only? Incoming & Outgoing? Attack & defense?

This is very difficult. The most important thing would probably to decide to show incoming fleets on members. Some people have the bad luck of being in a inactive galaxy. If incoming fleets would be shown, then those players would not have to depend on incoming being reported so much, which will heighten their pleasure playing. There would still be a difference: active galaxies will crossdefend.

I personally do not have a well formed opinion yet, i'm just saying my first thoughts on this/