StarGateWars Forums

too complex and too binding... people sometimes like change, and this would slow changes...

Zeratul wrote:too complex and too binding... people sometimes like change, and this would slow changes...

yea but better than nothing it is, and thought of it because everyone seems to point out the allegiance thing, so it is allegiance to some1, so not bad for a leader ...
I am really bored to be my own commander, EVEN if my UP is cool (**,*** total).
That would cost me 100s of billions to make my raw same as my total I know, but I miss having a commander, and in NO way I'll leave alliance leadership.
Afterall it is possible in chaos as far as I know, so why not here ?

we never said we didnt like the idea of having commander when leader of alliance, we just said we thought your way was a little too binding... and we really think it should be possible to have commander when leader of alliance, and the way it is possible on chaos is rather hard, as one has to pass the leadership to one member, get commander, then have him/her pass it back... but enough chaos now, lets get this focused on main as it should be...

Zeratul wrote:we never said we didnt like the idea of having commander when leader of alliance, we just said we thought your way was a little too binding... and we really think it should be possible to have commander when leader of alliance, and the way it is possible on chaos is rather hard, as one has to pass the leadership to one member, get commander, then have him/her pass it back... but enough chaos now, lets get this focused on main as it should be...

I know, but I gave chaos as an example, as alliance leaders in have as much allegiance to their alliance as in main.

In main, it seems having a commander when leader is a prob because of allegiance blahblah. So, that one commander only was best idea to make every1 happy, as it is sort of allegiance, as you trust one person off your alliance only, so you dont go run around and let away your alliance in that moral stuff.
I know it is difficult thing to make etc but most fitting to allegiance thing as far as I know, there can be better things than mine maybe to make everyone happy though

Well or maybe we can get possibilty to get a commander with G&R trading?
And this can be done once in each ascension level, so if u are still leader, and want other commander, you need to ascend again, then trade G&R to get new one, you use glory to get one, so you "deserve" it

It would also bring interesting stats in commander ranks, but as they are screwed up since a few weeks, it has no purposes in this sense yet..
It would be usefull for alliance leaders of training alliances for example to have a co in "elite" alliance, and leaders of "mini" (and not mini aswell lol) alliances being able to be under other player if there's a pact, treaty, friendship etc...see what I mean?

just let leaders have commanders please im forced to be second of the alliance even though im leader and have my second as leader which is more confusing to people than it sounds

this rule dosnt add anything to gameplay infact it takes away from it

i still dont see the point in it

if there is a point or a principal or logic behind it would someone mind telling me

Predator wrote:just let leaders have commanders please im forced to be second of the alliance and have my second as leader which is more confusing to people than it sounds

this rule dosnt add anything to gameplay infact it takes away from it

i still dont see the point in it

if there is a point or a principal or logic behind it would someone mind telling me

I am actually thinking since few days of making me second for same reason, isn't it "not cool" (cant find word to express this strange situation lol)..
If we choose to have commanders afterall we take risks, and we can care of ourselves, so this thing is pointless indeed!

it might just be that it is not practical to code it differently... that would seem to us like the only logical explaination...

well maybe but as a commander has no control over the officers alliance as weve already established, there shouldnt be anything stopping forum changing the code.

all you get when someone trys to make you leader but you have a CO is a message saying that you cant be leader with a commander so it sounds to me like all forum has to do is change it so you dont get that message and can be alliance leader with a commander.

but then i know nothing about computers so its probably harder then i say it is

I understand the fact when you are the leader to not can have a commander, BUT if you switch leadership to some1 and then take it back having already chose your commander, I dont see why it would not work in data system, or maybe it's harder than I think
Well if it's not that hard thing, when total votes passes 100 and yes winning by at least 60%, admin should change it, as it would be a backed suggestion by many votes

well im not sure i think you get a message saying you cant but i myself have never tried i heard about someone esle trying though so im not sure

Predator wrote:well im not sure i think you get a message saying you cant but i myself have never tried i heard about someone esle trying though so im not sure

I wasted 4 days of leadership as I tried two times, giving leadership to trusted one, getting commander, waiting the one who held leadership to come back, and see that he cant make me leader for that crap reason, so I asked my co to dismiss me, then got leadership back, but wanted to make myself my co, so did it again

No idea what the temporary leader got as message to say he cant give me leadership because of my commander..

oh well i guess that just leaves begging forum to change it

please change it its annoyng

i wouldnt want to stay with my co for money or anything, just because i owe him alot and dont think itd be right to leave

anyway please change it forum it dosnt add psoitivly to the game for anyone

Yes, indeed, I know for sure that having commander will not change my attitude toward my alliance, don't worry, admin
Having a commander can sometimes be useful for decision to prevent to do stupid actions that could possibly end in destruction of the alliance, so having a commander is not bad if you choose him/her well , what I will if it changes, I would not waste a priviledge obtained after long time

Leader should bi able to be their own commanders...