Forum: empire-en

Board: [590] Ideas, Suggestions & Feedback

Topic: [74620] Alliance Officers' rights and options

[1362123] TheChampFloyd [None] :: June 25, 2012, 4:32 a.m.

Yeah guys. Good idea!

[1362140] Vonflare [None] :: June 25, 2012, 7:42 a.m.

They should have an emergency leader rank. Only one person can fill the rank. This person gets to be leader if ever the leader is away for 1 day or more. but when the leader is there he acts like a general

this is a great idea. put in a poll.

[1372663] KingRaymond [None] :: Aug. 6, 2012, 7:04 p.m.

epictrollface wrote: »

Not exactly, he did clearly say that a regular alliance member could do all those things that could potentially mess up an alliance if those privileges were put into the wrong hands.

The point of what he was saying is that the alliance leader would have the power to choose what people he trusted, to what extent and what rights he would be willing to give them, instead of having preset "ranks" that have a limited range of rights. A good example of a rank structure would be the online game Grepolis. In this game, there is a list of members top to bottom. Left to right there is a list of rights.

The first is "Founder" and cannot be changed. The founder automatically is the ultimate admin and is in control of all rights and there can only be one. The Founder also appoints and kicks out Leaders. The second is Leader and also has all rights, but the Founder has greater control than the Leaders(ex. the Founder can kick out a Leader, but no one can kick out the Founder.) In traditional Grepolis alliances, the Leaders form a "Senate" with the Founder as "Emporer" or "Praetor".

The five or so other rights can be randomly awarded to whomever is not a Leader or Founder.
1. Forum modulator- Monitors and edits the alliance forums
2. Internal forums- Is privy to hidden forums of the alliance that leaders use to dicuss sensitive topics (ex. declaring war, secret pacts, etc.)
3. Recruiter- has the ability to contact and recruit members to alliance
4. Diplomats- Have the ability to make pacts, NAPs and declare war (usually someone who is rational and can be trusted)
5. Mass mail- Has the ability to send a message to everyone in the alliance(usually everyone has this ability unless someone is a spammer)


I am not saying that this structure should be copied, but a similar structure would be useful. If you want to see more detail about this alliance structure, go to http://wiki.en.grepolis.com/wiki/Alliances#Hierarchy

[1372676] KingRaymond [None] :: Aug. 6, 2012, 7:19 p.m.

Just because of the theme of Goodgame Empire, I would have the "Founder" as "King", then "Leaders" as "Knights of the Round Table" or something ("Knights of the Round Table" is a little cheesy, would probably go with "Nobles" or "Lords" instead). I'd also find some sort of medival style way to say "Recruiter" and "Diplomat".

[1372678] BobFighter834 (INT2) [None] :: Aug. 6, 2012, 7:21 p.m.

KingRaymond wrote: »

Just because of the theme of Goodgame Empire, I would have the "Founder" as "King", then "Leaders" as "Knights of the Round Table" or something ("Knights of the Round Table" is a little cheesy, would probably go with "Nobles" or Lords" instead). I'd also find some sort of medival style way to say "Recruiter" and "Diplomat".

I think "king" is already being used for the top glory rank. It might be hard to find other names that aren't the same as glory ranks, but if we could do it, I think it would be great. Currently, it does seem like there is not enough choice - what do you do if you want someone to send mass emails but don't want them to be able to recruit members to the alliance?

[1372682] KingRaymond [None] :: Aug. 6, 2012, 7:30 p.m.

BobFighter834 wrote: »

I think "king" is already being used for the top glory rank. It might be hard to find other names that aren't the same as glory ranks, but if we could do it, I think it would be great. Currently, it does seem like there is not enough choice - what do you do if you want someone to send mass emails but don't want them to be able to recruit members to the alliance?

Have a checklist with all of the rights, and next to the names of the members you want, check whatever rights the Founder or Leader wants to give them.

Names of ranks aren't too important, this is just a example model.

[1372734] Danger1602 [None] :: Aug. 6, 2012, 10:12 p.m.

I beleive everyone should have the right to mass email

[1372782] LukeWarrior [None] :: Aug. 7, 2012, 12:33 a.m.

epictrollface wrote: »

No, the lowest rank has no privileges for a reason, if the Alliance leader doesn't want anyone to mess with anything such as the announcement board, then how can he stop others from messing with it if there are no ranks which prevent players from doing so, also there aren't any duties that need to be specifically given to one person, as a leader or a general, administrating an alliance is fairly simple and can be done alone.

I agree totally, why would a regular member want to send out mass messages etc anyway? They have NO need to. A leader can do everything on their own, people these ranks are here for a good reason, to stop people joining and screwing up an alliance! GGE will never change the way it is because it is the best way.

[1372858] BobFighter834 (INT2) [None] :: Aug. 7, 2012, 8:33 a.m.

LukeWarrior wrote: »

I agree totally, why would a regular member want to send out mass messages etc anyway? They have NO need to.

I sent out mass emails when I was a normal member. They might not have been on the topics a leader should talk about, but our leader didn't send any in the first place.

[1372927] KingRaymond [None] :: Aug. 7, 2012, 1:55 p.m.

Again, the founder/leader would be able to choose which players have what rights. They would be able to choose if they wanted everyone to have Mass mail. And this would not screw up the rank set up, only make rights more defined and flexible for the alliance leader to set for other alliance members.

Also, I repeat, this is only an example. I realize that in this game the alliances are smaller and might require less people with each ability. I only wanted to give an example of how well an alliance might work when the leader has more control over the workings and privileges of each member.

[1374429] Jave [None] :: Aug. 11, 2012, 11 a.m.

New ranks need to be implemented, 3 is just not enough

[1534750] llluuukkkeee [None] :: April 13, 2013, 3:36 a.m.

Jason Grace, REALLY I read Percy Jackson series but, really I just read the mark of atheana.

[1535162] ThomasWJackson [None] :: April 13, 2013, 10:06 p.m.

I agree with Aldreni-Warrior. There should be a co-leader for when the leader is absent. I think there should be a head of the generals that reports to the leader/co-leader and can do the work leaders usually have to do. In recent weeks we tried this in my alliance, The Victorious. One of the generals took charge in arranging who should attack who. I think this was a successful experiment. Furthermore, in my opinion I think each general should be in charge if a specific field, eg. troop numbers, negotiator ext.