No replies to this topic

[M4598]

Part 1 - Team attacks

 

Sometimes this happens. We make a deal, on words, with some other team. A treaty of some sort. Agreement to not attack each other.

 

And sometimes, of course, we make mistakes. Either we, leaders personally, or our advisors, at some point get distracted, and choose to attack our friends. Well, being a good neghbours to each other, we can possibly forgive that for a few times. But of course it's preferable to never have things such as this.

 

So this is a first problem, attacking people we don't want to attack, and being unable to change anything.

 

Part 2 - Kicking players

 

Of course it's a well known problem, that always was giving us some paranoia since certain times. What if someone will be good enough to infiltrate us, will be given an advisor title, and will suddenly kick all players he can, or waste our donutes to someone? Most of the decision is left to just not letting anyone into advisorship.

 

Still, for some reason nknown to it, a lot of players are in hurry for that title. If someone can enlighten me on subject why do they want it, feel free to explain, but still.

 

So, this is a second set of problems.

 

Part 3 - Possible decisions?

 

For the first problem, there are two possible decisions, seems to me. Adding a possible "allies" option. so we won't be able to attack someone, or giving to us ability to cancel attacks.

 

For second, maybe leaving final decision to leader? That can have of course side reaction, that if advisors feel like kicking someone, because of his behaviour in the chat, and forced to wait for leaders decision, that could be a bad thing. So, maybe players who pushed on the list for kicking out, should be locked out from the chat?

 

Of course, that led me to thinking, that maybe, according to the level of paranoia of every single leader, he/she should be able to tune what advisors can do.

 

Options can be limited to 3 things:

1. Challenging teams
2. Kicking players
3. Spending donuts

For each of this options, we can offer one of 3 things again:

1. Allowing advisors to do that on their own will.
2. leaving the final decision to leader.
3. Not allowing that to them at all.

Of course, it's just random suggestion i was thinking, having more holes in it that some of the cheeses i saw in my life, and believe me, they were full of holes, but that is just making it good for discussion. More possible things to offer.)))

 

My offers, at least, to make us able to cancel attacks we don't want. Maybe leaving that only to leaders, but i don't really insist on that.