EA Forums - Banner

A ALL ALLIED ALLIANCE BUTTON

Prev1
Would it be Possible to have a message Button, Where a CIC can contact a Message to All the MEMBERS and CICs of ALL the Alliances that are allied to them

The Present system is so long winded when a simple button would control it all

Replies

  • dozinherb
    2 posts New member
    This would definitely help in communications I agree 100%
  • Or if that could not be done How about a All Allied Forum where all Members of Allied Alliance could chat to each other like this one But only for a Alliance and its allies
  • gamerdruid
    2720 posts Moderator
    Many of the top teams already chat to each other - by voice or text - using things like teamspeak.

    This works when they are all able to speak or understand one language. If it is a multiple language alliance family then it becomes more difficult. I'd prefer to see a CiC have the ability to create custom messaging groups - which could include all alliance family CiC's and SiC's or simply a small group that are digging together. That would be more useful as a CiC I believe.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    Many of the top teams already chat to each other - by voice or text - using things like teamspeak.

    And discord: https://discordapp.com/

    It would be interesting to add the ability for the commander-in-chief to create messaging groups for his players.
    Alpha group: xxx, yyy, zzz
    English group: aaa, bbb, ccc
    North sector defense group: ddd, eee, fff
    This selection of groups could be used by all the players of the alliance to communicate once defined by the leader of the alliance.
    http://prntscr.com/nqif5u
    This option would also require a window for the creation of the groups and the choice of the associated players.
    When a player leaves the alliance, he should disappear from this selection list.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • BambiByte
    93 posts Member
    edited May 20
    ...it would be also good to have an option to choose an existing group for chatting. Members of PVP groups could communicate without publishing confidential info, In battle situations it would be easier to focus on important messages. (without swapping windows between browser and third-party communication application.)
    Post edited by BambiByte on
  • EE_Elephterion
    1184 posts Envision Developer
    edited May 20
    Allied alliances are already listed in the quick insert dropdown menu, below the member ranks afaik.
    This gives you more control over who receives the message.

    I'll see what we can do about player groups. I guess they should also get special ingame sub-forums. Anything else for these player groups in terms of communication? I don't know whether dedicated chat cannels are possible at all.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • gamerdruid
    2720 posts Moderator
    sub-forums are already possible in some respect with cic controlling who can post
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    sub-forums are already possible in some respect with cic controlling who can post

    I imagine that once the groups of players of the alliance have been created, a subforum could be created and associate the access to that group. If you are in the group you can see the subforum, if you are not in the group you will not be able to see the subforum.
    Commanders in chief and officers should have equal access, right?
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • BambiByte
    93 posts Member
    edited May 20
    EE_Elephterion wrote:
    I don't know whether dedicated chat cannels are possible at all.
    If it is not possible to create dedicated chat channels by group, it might be solved by filtering the hidden state and create a common channel for them. Spec groups are often hidden for making things harder for possible spies. Of course, officers and CiC should access the channel as well.

    Privileg of players' hidden state needs some change, as I mentioned it in another topic:
    https://forums.ea.com/en/commandandconquer/discussion/244325/members-hidden-state
  • a sub Chat channel for ALL MEMBERS of Allied Alliances to use
    So allies can co ord attacks with each other ie:- 2 players from say my alliance and a allied alliance can communicate in a chat widow re the attack they are making on a common enemy
  • EE_Elephterion
    1184 posts Envision Developer
    a sub Chat channel for ALL MEMBERS of Allied Alliances to use
    So allies can co ord attacks with each other ie:- 2 players from say my alliance and a allied alliance can communicate in a chat widow re the attack they are making on a common enemy

    I'm afraid there is an end-to-end problem with that idea, as different alliance partners have different diplomacies, so there would be a lot of confusion in a grouped channel. Not sure if dedicated channels per alliance would be much better than the dedicated forums.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • BambiByte
    93 posts Member
    edited June 3
    Not sure if dedicated channels per alliance would be much better than the dedicated forums.

    Dedicated forums and third party applications are not suitable for playing without swapping windows (screen).
    In action, you need to keep the main screen available continously. In the preparation period, you can use Forum and anything else, but not in action.
    This all is not about chatting like in FB messenger. Operative usage does not allow this kind of communication. Text based games are proper for playing them on forums and by sending emails.
    International teams will not use Teamspeak, not to mention that coordinates can not be handled there.
    I think, a game should contain all the tools that makes it playable - even without 3rd party apps (and scripts).

  • nefrontheone
    272 posts Member
    edited June 3
    Actual chats:
    All: Show comments from all chats
    Private: Used for talk in private (you can talk privately with various players inside and outside your alliance)
    Alliance: Used for communicate with all your alliance
    Officers: Used for talk with officers and chiefs
    Global: Used for talk with all the world

    It would be interesting to have a "temporary" chat in which the commander in chief (or the officers) could send an invitation to each player of his alliance to participate in it. For example to coordinate the excavation towards the POI or a small war in a sector. When disconnecting the commander or by his request, this chat dissolves being free for other groups.

    As Elephterion said, it is impossible to manage a multialliances chat when each of the alliances can have different allies. And what you are writing could get into the hands of some alliance that does not interest you. These matters are usually treated by commanders in chiefs (or officers) through the mail.
    In the past we did not know who the commander-in-chief of an alliance was if that alliance did not indicate it in his own description. Currently the functionality has been added that the game itself shows us the commander in chief that has each alliance to be able to contact him, although it is possible that an alliance can have more than one commander in chief.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • nefrontheone
    272 posts Member
    edited June 3
    The use of tools such as TeamSpeak, Discord, Messenger, Hangouts, Skype or any other similar have been used for a long time. When it is necessary to indicate some coordinates, they are specified in the game's own chat (in the corresponding tab).

    The use of tools of this type is not obligatory but they help a lot and yes, when not all the players speak several languages it can create a little chaos but that is something that exceeds the working capacities of Envision or EA.

    Many of us use a tool called IM Translator to help us understand what is said in the chat itself, others use Google Translator or similar.

    When the worlds were located instead of international, the people of each world spoke the same language but it was NOT closed to other players with another language participating. This led to the creation of more global worlds (apart from the technical issues known to those responsible for EA).
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • BambiByte
    93 posts Member
    edited June 3
    I am not arguing with the facts you mentioned, but the main line of my thinking is about communicating in a better way within your own team first.
    A special (common) channel for hidden players (pvp group) and officers would be fine. Binding the possibility (privileg) of hiding a player's online status to CiC and Sic is the first step.
    This way, handling the participants of the hidden group and the special channel would be solved. Hidden state would make the special channel available - automatically.
    The fact that even a CiC can not see the players' real online status is abnormal. Even a hidden player should have a communication channel without "unhiding" his/her online state. Without a communication channel, hidden state does not make sense.
  • The hidden state is defined by each user and not even the commander in chief can change it (for me this is a fault but that is another matter).
    When you have the hidden state, not even the commanders in chief can see your status.
    All channels are active even if your status is hidden and you can use them and communicate through them.
    An automatic chat for those who have hidden status should support other automatic chat for members, veterans, inactive, etc.
    Note: In all the alliances in which I have been a part, the hidden state was forbidden. Only some of the officers had it established to control the activities of the alliance but not for long time.

    - I understand that your request, in this case, focuses on having private chats depending on the status of the players, that is, the veteran can speak with other veterans and only they can read and comment on their messages. (+ hidden, + inactive, + ...) That's right?
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • BambiByte
    93 posts Member
    edited June 4
    I would not need channels for all the categories. Any of veterans, members or officers could be hidden for a pvp action, so they do not need extra channels by role - except officers. Hiddens should remain hidden from others... That's all.
    Being hidden for a good reason is a real option, but it should be controlled by CiC or SiC. (if any of the players can set its own status to hidden, spying is possible by watching the - planned - dedicated channel)
    I think, the hidden status is not a choice of the player but his boss. Officers should be able to "detect" if any of the players are online - even hidden ones (color of "hidden" text or similar: Red-offline, yellow-away, and green-online. For simple members, the text should be the default black)
    There must be an option for communicating with hidden players to lead them (as an officer or CiC).
    Communication should not reveal the online status of a hidden player... This is why hidden players and officers need the special channel.

    A hidden player can use the usual channels, it is ok. He/she will use the common channel if the online status is evident - e.g. right after an attack. (it will not hurt any secret movements or preparation)

    Whisper is what the name says: Talking to a single player. This is not suitable for consultation with a smaller, mixed group.

    Officers' chat channel is fine for decision making without publishing the unnecessary parts for membership. However, execution of specially delicate operations are not supported by any kind of communication channel.
    Post edited by BambiByte on
  • nefrontheone
    272 posts Member
    edited June 4
    I am trying to delimit is what you are requesting to developers so that others can contribute our impressions about it.
    You ask for a chat channel only for players with hidden status but can be seen by commanders in chief / officers even if they are not as hidden. Where you specify a series of requirements that you would like in the operation of this chat. It is right?
    For my part, what I want to express is that the hidden state should almost disappear because it shows distrust towards the rest of the alliance. It is as if we distrusted all partners above any other type of reason.
    I also want to indicate that I do not see the reason why there should only be that special channel for hidden players, since you would be excluding the other states from our partners. Either it is done with all the roles or it is not done.
    I understand the interest of having a channel where only certain players can be included by the officers for war work, excavation or coordination, but temporarily. But I do not understand the dependence on the hidden state, which I do not like.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • The developers are always open to receive new ideas for the game but also have to make a small filter about the interest that these ideas arouse among the other players.
    Something that would be great for me could be something insignificant for the rest of the players. And that does not mean that my idea is bad.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • BambiByte
    93 posts Member
    edited June 4
    I am trying to delimit is what you are requesting to developers so that others can contribute our impressions about it.
    You ask for a chat channel only for players with hidden status but can be seen by commanders in chief / officers even if they are not as hidden. Where you specify a series of requirements that you would like in the operation of this chat. It is right?
    For my part, what I want to express is that the hidden state should almost disappear because it shows distrust towards the rest of the alliance. It is as if we distrusted all partners above any other type of reason.
    I also want to indicate that I do not see the reason why there should only be that special channel for hidden players, since you would be excluding the other states from our partners. Either it is done with all the roles or it is not done.
    I understand the interest of having a channel where only certain players can be included by the officers for war work, excavation or coordination, but temporarily. But I do not understand the dependence on the hidden state, which I do not like.

    Yes, bold text covers my idea.
    I also understand your opinion about trusting the rest of the team... but: - Hidden state and independent channel(s) are not just for hiding. On officers' chat, bosses can talk over problems, then they are able to communicate their clear view of point or decision - without confusing the membership with dissonant parts of ideas. Pvp (hidden) channel is an optimal choice for focusing to the task, without being disturbed by the usual twaddle.
    (in clerical circumstances, most of co-workers are in "boxes" but they can hear others' phone calling and can see their doings. Employee with more important functions will get stand alone office. I think it is normal, even in a game)
    When a world is just started, you can not say who is who in your team. Sending spies is a usual tactics - so wishing a dedicated channel is not a strange idea, just a way of avoiding a possible or existing problem.

    In real life, I trust every person but there is a healthy limit of my trust. If it is too easy to hurt your personal life and there is no consecvences - then you are "unprotected". I am in safe when I am at home or in a familiar place. In this game, there is no such an "unlimited" trust, and as a SiC, I have to protect the interest of the alliance. Online status of the key players is a sensitive information...
    In real life, I was a pro soldier. Each and every soldier has to know the necessary info for executing the task, not more... It is a war game, so...
    Post edited by BambiByte on
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!