Alliance member's staff viewable to alliance members

[Dark_Angel]

Prolly been suggested before, different slant on it though.

However - there's now somewhere an alliance member's staff could be shown (live, ofc).

The player information page, when you click their name on the members list.

This would basically save having to hack your own alliance, to ascertain what they have - would be very helpful in working out whether a player is covered, faster. Time = everything when arranging defence.

Make this available from the start, or an alliance development called "Interweb upgrade" - or something :P

[Alcibiades]

I would like to be able to see my ally members staff but i'm not sure if this would make organizing defence *too* easy; since so much of the game is communication if you can't communicate, defence will suffer.

It would have to be available from the start because that's when you don't have your own personal intel and really need it. If it was an alliance development it would simply be *another* unnecessary dev that allies wouldn't get because clicking on someone's name and clicking hack is the same as clicking on their name and seeing the staff really.

[Martin]

No...

If you want to do well at the start, you keep commucating your troops, and rush for Hacks. Jeez, stop being lazy.

(Although I like IoF's suggestion with the stealth)

[Dark_Angel]

No...

If you want to do well at the start, you keep commucating your troops, and rush for Hacks. Jeez, stop being lazy.

(Although I like IoF's suggestion with the stealth)

I don't see how this is any different to people wanting a "sell surplus" box?

I don't think gameplay is going to be ruined by people being able to see alliance members troops, including stealth units as IoF has mentioned, on their player page, rather than having to hack them.

Which is an unrealistic part of the game. An alliance shares information freely, why on earth should you need to hack your own alliance members?

[Alcibiades]

You know when someone resorts to the 'realism' argument that they're on desperately shaky ground.... ;)

I do like the idea of stealth showing up on allied members hacks. That would be useful. I'm still not persuaded about hacks being permanently available tho.

[Dark_Angel]

You know when someone resorts to the 'realism' argument that they're on desperately shaky ground.... ;)

I do like the idea of stealth showing up on allied members hacks. That would be useful. I'm still not persuaded about hacks being permanently available tho.

Lolz :P Ok, so giant robotic t-rexes arent real :P But on a practical level, I just don't get - and never have, why I have to hack my own alliance.

I'm 110% for stealth units showing in hacks for allied members. Pretty strongly believe in troop information being made available w/o hacks.

I think the "Lazy" reason for this not being implemented, is a bit lame - Especially when we've just agreed to implement a "sell surplus" box :S

[Alcibiades]

well, as it stands, you click on their name and then you click on Hax0r. You would want one click instead of two.... so i don't really see that being necessary.

Martin said it correctly: at the start it makes communication that much more important which rewards harder working/better allies. You have to hack your own alliance to make it slightly more challenging when organizing defence imo.

There is a big difference between a 'sell surplus' box which helps you streamline tab+a and having a system in place which allows you to coordinate defence with half as much communication and makes it twice as easy. I find that comparing the two is like apples and oranges....

just not a big fan of the idea, sorry ;P

[timtadams]

Im for the idea, especially considering the stealth which doesnt show in hacks. DA has a point about practicality and i think you should know what your alliance member has. Maybe incorporate this into the whole security level thing...

And yes communication may be important in some places, as in what troops you are sending, but not always heaps important unless a targetted alliance member is offline with stealth or you dont have hacks and they didnt post what they had before they logged of.

[rooney]

Im for the idea, especially considering the stealth which doesnt show in hacks. DA has a point about practicality and i think you should know what your alliance member has. Maybe incorporate this into the whole security level thing...

And yes communication may be important in some places, as in what troops you are sending, but not always heaps important unless a targetted alliance member is offline with stealth or you dont have hacks and they didnt post what they had before they logged of.

then they should have posted there staff before they log off. i dont know about you lot, but for me the routine goes like this, tell people on irc im leaving, update my staff post post my staff again in the logging off thread, then log off. oh and just in case im also contactable. this idea, while understandable, would takea large portion of fun out of the game for me. i love trying to organize defence when were outnumbered etc. mostly because of the challenge it poses. sorry, but no.

[f0xx]

What rooney said.

[No-Dachi]

Why don't you just make it a HQ development? That way the start will be the same as it always has, but when everyone has haxx it'll save them some seconds by going through the player page.

[BlackWolf]

Martin made valid point of having communication between alliance members... but wait a moment... doesnt that yet again mean those who are in more active alliances and in better communicating alliances are once again in upper hand against those who are not?

These are exactly that kind of small suggestions that will close the cap between activity and communication differences between top and bottom alliances without actually showing in anywhere as arguable things.

As such I give thumbs up for this suggestion.

[Hobbezak]

Martin made valid point of having communication between alliance members... but wait a moment... doesnt that yet again mean those who are in more active alliances and in better communicating alliances are once again in upper hand against those who are not?

These are exactly that kind of small suggestions that will close the cap between activity and communication differences between top and bottom alliances without actually showing in anywhere as arguable things.

As such I give thumbs up for this suggestion.

Then on what do you suggest the round should be decided? The little random in the battle reports?
The game will always be won by more active players, and quite rightly so. Why else would one want to put any time in it anyway?
Anyway, this doesn't even matter here, because you can communicate in lower ranked alliances too. Posting your troops on your politics is really no work, requires no special activity, no irc...
Don't like the suggestion, good communication should remain a vital element to performing well.

[BlackWolf]

Where have I said that activity doesnt or shouldnt win rounds?

How bout maybe I instead of trying to handicap top think that lower peoples communications should be made easier. Instead of handicapping top, they should just get less acres from attacking low. Instead of handicapping top should acre score be removed etc.

Dont try to find arguements where those doesnt exist. This kind of suggestions will not change the outcome of the round or that how much better can well communicating alliance do, but these kind of suggestions are ones closing the cap between more and less communicating alliances = less activity and organizing needed. As such this game is easier to join in to even for those who doesnt want to spend time learning IRC, rooms, commands etc. also this game is much easier for less active alliances to work together as decent alliance without need to have 10 people online to only know what people got to organize defence.

Good communication is and will stay as important part for alliance to do well. But it shall not mean that less active alliances should be restricted from access to tool to make communicating for them easier. It is pretty same if Matins or IoFs alliance has this option or not. As if they get attacked they can get everyone online anyways.

It may how ever make huge difference in the receiving end of the game to see what their players have. As such easen their game. My alliance has all the time posts in politics where people updates their units when ever they go offline. As such I dont need this tool, but I am sure some lower alliances with less communication could. If that means some attack of mine will get blocked then so it be.

[f0xx]

Martin made valid point of having communication between alliance members... but wait a moment... doesnt that yet again mean those who are in more active alliances and in better communicating alliances are once again in upper hand against those who are not?

These are exactly that kind of small suggestions that will close the cap between activity and communication differences between top and bottom alliances without actually showing in anywhere as arguable things.

As such I give thumbs up for this suggestion.

Yes, but with doing that you place even more stress on activity, because you are taking away SKILL and COMUNICATION in defence during the start. Mob notes already gave a big hit on that and now even extremely noobish alliances who have one experienced player in them can organise defence like they have played the game for tens of rounds together.

I would say that the mob notes ability should be a development as well. A damn expensive one too.


As such this game is easier to join in to even for those who doesnt want to spend time learning IRC, rooms, commands etc.

You don't need to learn IRC these days, you can use the built-in Mabbit (spelling).

[BlackWolf]

To defend dear f0xx you also must be online.
Its Mibbit btw, and still you must learn to use stuff like secret channels etc.

[f0xx]

To defend dear f0xx you also must be online.

And that is why I said it will bring even more stress into activity.

Don't you love it when we argue and you agree with me? :)

[BlackWolf]

How it brings more stress to being more active? You are there or not. Making covering and arranging defence easier for less active people doesnt mean they would be forced to be more active.

Actually I think it would encourage them to be more active as they find they actually can cover more incs, resulting as such to improvement of this game. Making more likely them to buy P units and get cash for Azzer.
Or you mean that you couldnt rape them so easily so you would need to be more active?

[f0xx]

How it brings more stress to being more active? You are there or not. Making covering and arranging defence easier for less active people doesnt mean they would be forced to be more active.

Actually I think it would encourage them to be more active as they find they actually can cover more incs, resulting as such to improvement of this game. Making more likely them to buy P units and get cash for Azzer.
Or you mean that you couldnt rape them so easily so you would need to be more active?

No I can rape them anyway, the point is that when you have two alliances of same activity but different communication, organisation and skill, then those (communication, organisation and skill) are the deciding factor to who will be rank 1.

Now with this suggestion you remove not one, but all three (communication, organisation and skill - especially when we are talking about defence in the start) and leave it all to activity. So what is the decidint factor then? Activity.

Not to mention that now that even the small alliances can organise defence well enough, why shouldn't they just require more activity and contactability from their members? Which will drive players away from alliances, especially smaller ones which will lead to less alliance which will automatically lead to loss of players, unlike what you are claiming (that it might bring more players).

[BlackWolf]

No I can rape them anyway, the point is that when you have two alliances of same activity but different communication, organisation and skill, then those (communication, organisation and skill) are the deciding factor to who will be rank 1.

Now with this suggestion you remove not one, but all three (communication, organisation and skill - especially when we are talking about defence in the start) and leave it all to activity. So what is the decidint factor then? Activity.

How you remove communication organization and skill from factor with this? Someone must still tell people who defends and whom, someone must make sure right units and players are sending to right place and skill plays still huge factor in operating on tight schedules and pushing thin amount of units to cover as much as possible. Only thing this changes is that organizer can see what everyone has, let it be some 1 online player of small alliance or organizer of bigger alliance who knows anyways.


Not to mention that now that even the small alliances can organise defence well enough, why shouldn't they just require more activity and contactability from their members? Which will drive players away from alliances, especially smaller ones which will lead to less alliance which will automatically lead to loss of players, unlike what you are claiming (that it might bring more players).
Who says requiring anything? I said that with this kind of idea player who plays only few hours in a day and manages to be online with only couple members at same time, could find more pleasant experiences from being able to cover some more incomings... Let it be them seeing someone has SGTs and them sending to help, not knowing it was covered anyways.

It will still give this new guy pleasant feeling, as such encouraging him to keep playing and involve to game more. Maybe even getting P unit when earlier he would have not.

It is all in all one smegging same to me if things like this are implemented or not. I try to find positive sides from all suggestions and try to think those out of someone elses view than my own. I couldnt give rats rear end if we see it implemented or not as I am tired to these kind of BS argues of people like you f0xx who only argues out of their own reasons. Seeing something would make their life harder and as such shouldnt be added. It is a sad way to see things.

I think mob tags was excellent idea and wish every alliance uses those in everything as thus giving every alliance same possibilities to organize defences as my alliance had already back on the round 6 when we started to use IRC to organize.

[f0xx]

How you remove communication organization and skill from factor with this? Someone must still tell people who defends and whom, someone must make sure right units and players are sending to right place and skill plays still huge factor in operating on tight schedules and pushing thin amount of units to cover as much as possible.

Yes BlackWolf, this someone will be that one player with skills. I did say earlier in my post that even noob alliances with 1 skilled player in them will be able to cope with incomings like they have been played together from 10 rounds.

I can clearly see the whole suggestion, yes, even from your point of view. What is wrong is that YOU cannot see it from mine.

Let's say that you usually need 12 hours to kill an ally. With this suggestion you will need twice, even three times more hours => activity level will rise. The game will stagnate. Bashing will increase since now EVERYONE will be able to cover small/medium incomings.

[BlackWolf]

Where you draw this stuff?
That one guy alone will be able to cover whole alliance only cause he can see what people have? Ohh come on I in middle ranked alliance couldnt cover everyone even I had 10+ people online and knew exactly what everyone has.

But I am not skilled right?

[f0xx]

Notice the words "small/medium incomings" BlackWolf.

Also there is a difference between medium incomings at day two and medium incomings in the middle/end of the round.

And you can cover certain incoming only if you have the units for it. You can't expect to stop 50 mln flak with 10 mln h/y even you are the most skilled player out there with the most skilled members out there who are all online.

+ I am not talking just about this change, but for the mob notes change as well. Defending is becoming way too easy.

[BlackWolf]

How it is too easy? The skill has always been in being at right time at right place with as little units as possible so you can cover those 5 other incs too.

It doesnt take skill to send all you got to def someone. With alliance tags its still not any easier to def someone. It is less work and bit faster but its still those actual persons that must send that def, be online and still the organizer must have skill to know what and how much is to be sent.

Let's say that you usually need 12 hours to kill an ally. With this suggestion you will need twice, even three times more hours => activity level will rise. The game will stagnate. Bashing will increase since now EVERYONE will be able to cover small/medium incomings. That already made it pretty clear why you are against this suggestion as you are against tags... you see as those are making it hard for you and your playing style and you clearly dont like idea of that. You have not been able to give one other reason to argue against this suggestion but that. Based on that you are on killing those allys not reseiving end I think its pretty clear case.

[f0xx]

How it is too easy? The skill has always been in being at right time at right place with as little units as possible so you can cover those 5 other incs too.


I didn't understand much of the first part of the sentence, but yes, the skill is exactly at covering incomings with as little troops as possible so you have units for those 5 other incs too. That is exactly the edge that this suggestion and the mob notes give. That is the SKILL in organising defence.

I will give an example:

Your alliance has 10 mln incomings spread on 10 people - 1 mln each. Each of your players has 1 mln basics. You have 5 people online, those under attack are offline. The defence coordinator doesn't know how much basics each member has.

As we know, for a defence to be successful and not overdefend you need 1.5 times more basics than the amount of of incomings. So to cover each of your members your online members need to send just 500k basics to each under attack.

An alliance without a skilled organiser with send 2 mln basics to each incoming and what is left to the third. Seen that they do not have enough for the third (from their point of view) they will just spread it equally to the two incomings (just to make sure they will be blocked) which will resulst in 2 successful defend and 8 land losses.

An alliance with skilled defence coordinator will send 1.5 mln defence to each incoming (because a skilled coordinator will always take the worst case i.e. that the members under attack have no basics) - 4.5 mln total of the available 5 mln - and seeng they cannot cover the forth they will again spread the rest 500k between the 3 covered incomings, again just to make sure they will be blocked, result will be 3 blocks - 7 land losses.

An alliance with skilled defence coordinator AND the ability to see troops of the offline members will know that the members under attack have 1 mln basics and will send just 500k basics to each member result will be NO land loss.

Do you see how from 7 land losses the alliance goes down to no land loss with the same troops. That is the difference.

[BlackWolf]

But exactly as I said doesnt change anything in your alliance or any other good alliance and as such doesnt affect you at all... ooh no WAIT!

It does as you are probably 1 of those attackers with your alliance... so buuhuu less acres for free for f0xx... lets not implement this.

[f0xx]

Oh I give up, you are just going in circles, there is no arguing with you.

[BlackWolf]

I am going? Funny how again you see only your side :D

[f0xx]

I see every side of the argument. You don't see it though.
If I can't kill an alliance in 12 hours, then I will kill it in 36. If I can't get through an alliance's defence with 10 people, then I will attack it with 20. And so will any top player/leader.

Yes it means that I must be more active, I am active anyway. As you said, it doesn't change a thing at the top. Those lower guys will have to become more active though and they surely won't like the increased bashing.

As I said, this suggestion will increase the need of activity as well as the bashing.

Now you will agian why does it increase the need of activity and we can start all over. You are a like a dog chasing its tail.

[BlackWolf]

If they die anyways but can prolong their dieing by day or two isnt that always worth of it?
They block you again and again and you come back and again they block you. Raising their spirit and morale.

Let them lose in the end they had hellish battle before. Isnt that what this game is about? not about that how fast you can rape people. rofl.