Alliance Command Suggestions

[Dubby_CompGamerGeek2]

The 2iC can replace the Alliance Leader with the member of their choice,

if the Alliance Leader has not logged into the game in the last 7 days,
(info known only to the ACO, 2iC, 3iC, and the game admins.)

(If the ACO is willing to leave for that length of time, they trust the 2iC to replace them.)



If both the ACO and the 2iC are not currently playing...

the 3iC may eventually become the ACO...

however... this should take at least 2 weeks,

because the 3iC should first become the 2iC, wait 7 days,

and if necessary, then become the ACO.


My other suggestion is that the ACO should generally get to choose what powers to give the 2iC...

and they both should have that discretion over the 3iC...

not written in stone by the game, as it is now.


Most people will agree that changing the description, (mission statement),
of the alliance is a lot less risky than setting war on a strong alliance.


At this point in time, I am strongly against any sort of ingame voting suggestions, as I will further document later in this thread.

[Sarevok]

Or the 2IC can initiate an alliance vote to vote who should be leader of the current leader and the 2IC

[Dubby_CompGamerGeek2]

I no longer endorse the idea of any system of ingame voting for the alliance leader, 2iC, or 3iC

my initial belief was that Sarevok was suggesting a contest between the active 2iC and the inactive ACO...

for example, to give the 2iC powers of house leadership, if applicable...

(and more quickly than my time-limit suggestion...)



but at this point, I'm against that...

too many people are against anything that says ingame voting,

and the coding would be lengthy and complicated... esp. if a minimum alliance membership time-limit was required...

and no doubt different alliances would want to customize that...





SO... if the ACO is inactive, the 2iC should made the ACO as soon as possible...

hence my time-limit suggestion in my original post.

[Buddha]

The alliance leader should not be replaced at any chance.

Because that means we can see hostile take overs if they are able to even if you count on the be gone.

Lets say the leader loose his internet that has happen to me.

I had no chance for 6 weeks to get online AT all.

Now with this update that means someone else could take my spot and disband the alliance.

[Sarevok]

The alliance leader should not be replaced at any chance.

Because that means we can see hostile take overs if they are able to even if you count on the be gone.

Lets say the leader loose his internet that has happen to me.

I had no chance for 6 weeks to get online AT all.

Now with this update that means someone else could take my spot and disband the alliance.

It also meant your alliance was without leadership for 6 weeks. What would have happened had war been declared. Your alliance wouldn't know if you accepted or not.

I don't really see the problem. Yes, you may get booted from CO of the alliance. But that doesn't stop you becoming CO again, especially once you explain to people that something like what happened to you has happened.

[Buddha]

The alliance leader should not be replaced at any chance.

Because that means we can see hostile take overs if they are able to even if you count on the be gone.

Lets say the leader loose his internet that has happen to me.

I had no chance for 6 weeks to get online AT all.

Now with this update that means someone else could take my spot and disband the alliance.

It also meant your alliance was without leadership for 6 weeks. What would have happened had war been declared. Your alliance wouldn't know if you accepted or not.

I don't really see the problem. Yes, you may get booted from CO of the alliance. But that doesn't stop you becoming CO again, especially once you explain to people that something like what happened to you has happened.

Well actually no.

My alliance is runned so if i aren't here that other leaders work.

My 2ic was function if not the command would function.

But i do not mind if 2ic could be changed in case he is inacitve.

What you say there is not good enough.

[RedneckRebel]

thats called power trip


replace 2ic if inactive but not aco because he is more important


honestly if my alliance leader disappeared for 6 weeks with no word then i would find a new alliance

[Sarevok]

Well actually no.
My alliance is runned so if i aren't here that other leaders work.

Except none of them can weapon repair or alliance PPT apart from the 2IC. So if the 2IC only play for 8 hours a day, that's 2/3rds of the day the alliance has no commander.

My 2ic was function if not the command would function.

If you were the commander, and you had that 6 week problem, then its only he 2IC. Which also means they can't PPT for a break, they must be watching out for the alliance all the time.

What you say there is not good enough.

And your example lacks substance. You say they were away for 6 weeks. What if the person just gave up on the whole thing cause they got fed-up and left. The alliance would only be able to ever function with 1 commander that can perform alliance functions.

I also fail to see your concern with what you call a "hostile takeover". If the CO and 2IC were foolish enough to recruit more then 1/2 their alliance whom felt negatively about them, then they should be replaced. And even if they are kicked out, just go to another alliance

[RedneckRebel]

Well he needs clones to feel better about himself

[Buddha]

thats called power trip


replace 2ic if inactive but not aco because he is more important


honestly if my alliance leader disappeared for 6 weeks with no word then i would find a new alliance

Well i wouldn't as not always are people leaving with no word on pupose never forget that.

Well actually no.
My alliance is runned so if i aren't here that other leaders work.

Except none of them can weapon repair or alliance PPT apart from the 2IC. So if the 2IC only play for 8 hours a day, that's 2/3rds of the day the alliance has no commander.

Maybe but thats still the point of 2ic or a 3ic which i support fully

My 2ic was function if not the command would function.

If you were the commander, and you had that 6 week problem, then its only he 2IC. Which also means they can't PPT for a break, they must be watching out for the alliance all the time.

Why you think i am after a 3ic as well which there has been asked about that would solve this

What you say there is not good enough.

And your example lacks substance. You say they were away for 6 weeks. What if the person just gave up on the whole thing cause they got fed-up and left. The alliance would only be able to ever function with 1 commander that can perform alliance functions.

I also fail to see your concern with what you call a "hostile takeover". If the CO and 2IC were foolish enough to recruit more then 1/2 their alliance whom felt negatively about them, then they should be replaced. And even if they are kicked out, just go to another alliance

LOL your really saying this bull aren't you jesus. Hostile take over can happen I know for a fact that people can be recruited to join a alliance then vote for new leader when getting the change. Heck look at houses alliances are payed to join and help taking over a house who says that won't happen in a alliance.

No the LEADER is not to be touched with voting but 2ic and 3ic i will say sure.

The reason for this is if you allow it then you will start seeing more hostile take overs and the fact is if a alliance is lost someone else could make it just to keep the name. NO to leaders yes to 2ic and 3ic and i aren't alone several already told you this

Well he needs clones to feel better about himself

Who needs clones to feel better about him self your comment makes no sense?

[RedneckRebel]

Dont hate yes people might lose internet at home but you cant tell me there is no internet in your city at all that would fall under complete blackout for 6 weeks everyone would know because it would be on the news but use your excuses for whatever your goals are point is if its a real alliance it can be ran without you your only 1 soul it takes more then 1 soul to form a alliance its a band of brothers/sisters working together for the common good not to boost your own ego

[Sarevok]

NO to leaders yes to 2ic and 3ic and i aren't alone several already told you this

Yourself and Redneck? So who are the several? Thought several implied at least 2

[RedneckRebel]

NO to leaders yes to 2ic and 3ic and i aren't alone several already told you this

Yourself and Redneck? So who are the several? Thought several implied at least 2

dont include me im not taking his back hes just whacked out crazy thinking that the ACO is untouchable

[Dubby_CompGamerGeek2]

My previous suggestion involved voting...

This one does not...

I now strongly prefer no voting... it was an undeveloped idea that I now see as bad for the game...

that's why I thought omitting it from this suggestion would be enough...



apparently, for some stupid reason, I later endorsed the idea of a

2iC initiated vote...

again... bad idea...

let's stick to not voting in this thread, and yes to voting in my old thread...

[Dubby_CompGamerGeek2]

The alliance leader should not be replaced at any chance.

Because that means we can see hostile take overs if they are able to even if you count on the be gone.

Lets say the leader loose his internet that has happen to me.

I had no chance for 6 weeks to get online AT all.

Now with this update that means someone else could take my spot and disband the alliance.

So I've reconsidered my thoughts on voting... and I'm now against it...

and I've editted my posts to reflect this.


However, I get the impression that you saying that you don't trust the 2iC to do what's best for the alliance?

because the 2iC can set war on TDD and Omega Allegiance at the same time, and I'm pretty sure that isn't much better than having the power to disband the alliance... indeed, it could be much worse.

also... there are usually legitimate options to use computers that belong to internet cafes, libraries, schools, etc. to get online... and go to gatewars.