EA Forums - Banner

A ALL ALLIED ALLIANCE BUTTON

2Next

Replies

  • BambiByte wrote: »
    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...

    Ha ha ha, focusing on your proposal, think what you are saying.

    1) Spies must have their hidden state ... so that they are easily recognized?
    2) If the spies are in an alliance and must secretly inform another alliance, you are not asking for a separate channel for the hidden players of an alliance if not ... all the alliances? Only the alliances that someone indicates? That each hidden player can open a channel with the hidden ones of other alliances that he wishes?
    3) What commanders in chief / officers can see the contents of the hidden channel? The one in the alliance where the spy is? Only the one of the alliance that is informed? Those of the two or more alliances?

    It's just my opinion but I think your proposal is getting more and more confusing.
    Perhaps what you need is a private channel for a spy to inform your main alliance about what the spied alliance does. It is right? In this case we already have the private channel.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    edited June 4
    I feel that you do not want to understand it.
    My idea is a simple channel for hidden or not hidden but special group to work on their task without disturbing them, and keeping sensitive info in as safe as possible.
    Of course, I may choose a spy for being a member of the spec group, but the chance is very low. Not to mention that I can find out soon who is the spy, if the group contains only 2-4 players not 50.
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    edited June 4
    Many teams are using 3rd party software to create private channel for pvp group. There is a need. It would be better to have one in the game. We could save hundreds of window switches.
    Handling coordinates can not be solved out of the game...
  • I'm not a developer.
    Wait a moment, forget about me and explain to the developers, in detail, what you think it would be good to have in the game.
    When they have all the information they can evaluate if it is interesting or not and our opinions will be reflected here, only opinions.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • gamerdruid
    2847 posts Moderator
    edited June 4
    I think that two differing needs are being discussed.

    I see the advantage of having the cic/sic being able to create a specific channel for a group within their alliance, maybe even a number of channels. Whether a player has a 'hidden' status or not doesn't affect the ability of the player, if actually online, to see his channel - just as in the officers chat you can see everything if you're online and nothing if you're not.

    The ability for the cic/sic to create specific channels and allocate players to those channels seems a reasonable aim to me, but.... a inter-alliance (between more than one alliance) channel would present many challenges I think.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    edited June 4
    I thought that it would need less description, since it is in practice for very long time.
    Ideally, a game does not need 3rd party apps and script packs to play it.

    Of course, problems can not be solved fully, because many things are based on compromise, but it worth thinking on built-in functions - mainly if they are basically not new but current and exist outside the game.
    Post edited by BambiByte on
  • gamerdruid
    2847 posts Moderator
    It has been said many times here that the functions of many of the scripts should be incorporated into the game by default. Of course, which ones would be hotly debated. As long as they can be disabled and the script version used (as with the sims) then I see inclusion of functions as a good thing.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    edited June 4
    Hi, @gamerdruid

    I thought that it worth handling the hidden status problem. It is not normal that a player can mask his online status but CiC can not change that. Meanwhile we use this option for a good reason - but in the present condition the officers are locked out from leader possibilities if they can not see them and not able to have a conversation with them in time.

    If the above problem is solved by binding the control of hidden status to CiC/SiC, we have a controlled group that can be filtered for a private channel as well.

    Inter-alliance channel is an interesting option for the future, but it is more important to solve the problems within one alliance first, I think.
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    edited June 4
    Inter-alliance channel may work if it is similar to the invitation system. CiC and Sic would get the invitation, then he/they decide if accept it and connect the incoming channel to the existing channel in their group. Accepting the "invitation" without connecting to another channel would be an opportunity for the invited commander to explore the content and cooperate with the allied team.
  • BambiByte
    101 posts Member
    edited June 4
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    It has been said many times here that the functions of many of the scripts should be incorporated into the game by default. Of course, which ones would be hotly debated. As long as they can be disabled and the script version used (as with the sims) then I see inclusion of functions as a good thing.

    Yes, sim is question of preference. I use the built-in version.
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!