Page 1 of 1
Command Structure
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:31 pm
by Robe
Can we have a 3rd in Charge for Alliances?
Leaders get busy in RL (with work and school) and our team has to constantly keep passing the baton depending who is away with work or exams. This causes confusion as to who is the actual leader of the alliance.
If we could have Leader, Second and Third, it would really save a lot of stuffing around.
Re: Command Structure
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:26 pm
by Sarevok
Supported
Re: Command Structure
Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:32 am
by Buddha
Re: Command Structure
Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:35 am
by MEZZANINE
Easy^ actually suggested this about a year ago, seems even more relevent now since many alliances are swapping leader/2IC positions daily to have the most active people use the new alliance functions like 'repair all weapons' and 'alliance PPT'.
Re: Command Structure
Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:23 am
by Sarevok
MEZZANINE wrote:Easy^ actually suggested this about a year ago, seems even more relevent now since many alliances are swapping leader/2IC positions daily to have the most active people use the new alliance functions like 'repair all weapons' and 'alliance PPT'.
Indeed. And would allow dispersed alliances (spread world wide) to have a nice coverage of time zones and best protect their alliance.
Re: Command Structure
Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 8:29 am
by RepliMagni
I am against this.
And you've already posted my reason - it would give alliances too much protection. With yet another person online who can alliance ppt at a moments notice, or just sit there button bashing the repair button.....
Yes, make alliances more structured ingame, but only allow the leader and 2IC to implement the key alliance features....
Re: Command Structure
Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:39 am
by MEZZANINE
RepliMagni wrote:I am against this.
And you've already posted my reason - it would give alliances too much protection. With yet another person online who can alliance ppt at a moments notice, or just sit there button bashing the repair button.....
Yes, make alliances more structured ingame, but only allow the leader and 2IC to implement the key alliance features....
In that case the change of leader / 2IC should be restricted to say once per week as various alliances are already switching these posts daily to get coverage of the protective alliance functions.
I also think the 2IC should be shown on the attack page so you know who is controlling these functions.
Re: Command Structure
Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:24 am
by MaxSterling
MEZZANINE wrote:RepliMagni wrote:I am against this.
And you've already posted my reason - it would give alliances too much protection. With yet another person online who can alliance ppt at a moments notice, or just sit there button bashing the repair button.....
Yes, make alliances more structured ingame, but only allow the leader and 2IC to implement the key alliance features....
In that case the change of leader / 2IC should be restricted to say once per week as various alliances are already switching these posts daily to get coverage of the protective alliance functions.
I also think the 2IC should be shown on the attack page so you know who is controlling these functions.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=164489#p2072849
Re: Command Structure
Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:52 pm
by Robe
Sarevok wrote:MEZZANINE wrote:Easy^ actually suggested this about a year ago, seems even more relevent now since many alliances are swapping leader/2IC positions daily to have the most active people use the new alliance functions like 'repair all weapons' and 'alliance PPT'.
Indeed. And would allow dispersed alliances (spread world wide) to have a nice coverage of time zones and best protect their alliance.
I wondered if someone had already suggested this
The 3 leaders would all need to be able to use the alliance features whilst others were absent with work or exams, otherwise they wouldnt be able to lead ...
Re: Command Structure
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:06 pm
by Lore
This was part of the player fueled suggestions on the alliance bank system and empires system, the ones Jason completely ignored and impemented what we have now.
I would like to see a 3IC position myself, but I have to disagree with Mezz on making it public knowledge. May hide the true leadership of an alliance. I can remember when the true leaders were not even leader of the alliance because who ever was listed as the leader was always attacked. Its a way to hide them.
If you know every leader, you can work out their scheduale, and see if they are on or offline.
JMO
Re: Command Structure
Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:07 pm
by Sarevok
RepliMagni wrote:I am against this.
And you've already posted my reason - it would give alliances too much protection. With yet another person online who can alliance ppt at a moments notice, or just sit there button bashing the repair button.....
Yes, make alliances more structured ingame, but only allow the leader and 2IC to implement the key alliance features....
Firstly, you can only PPT 12 hours/week. And its probably not worth PPTing if someone is being massed when most of your alliance is already on PPT, as it could result in wastage.
Secondly, if the repair button is such an issue, sab them. Its 50% more effective then it was before. And whilst your massing, what stops your alliance command structure repairing YOUR weapons at the same time. Then its about killing more of their units, then destroying the weapons, then killing the units
Re: Command Structure
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:28 pm
by stuff of legends
I agree with sarevok's above post.
Its not going to effect it much than it already is.
And imo there should have been a 3ic position along time ago.
Re: Command Structure
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:33 pm
by jedi~tank
At one time I liked this idea, now I do not, it will kill game play.
Re: Command Structure
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:41 pm
by stuff of legends
how so?