Command & Conquer Tiberium Alliances Forum

Full Version: A solution for idleness in alliances.
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
The way I see an alliance is quite simple. Commanders ally with each other to form a group of people in order to gather POIs, Land and other resources, such as space near the Forgotten or Tunnel Exits and the protection of these valuable resources and members.

In return for the 'collective group effort', members are rewarded with bonus's - be it direct, such as the ability to attack outposts and bases, or indirect, such as the boost in production and force members gain from the alliance' POIs.

But what often happens is members who do not take part in gaining that land, gaining those POIs or doing anything to contribute to this collective effort still remain in the alliance because they're either powerful, or useful in times of emergency - or are the bulk of the alliance who have just become idle, and they therefore still receive the bonus the alliance provides

Dilemma: CIC's and SC's, and most Officers, want to get their members moving and securing POIs and such and they want to place incentives for members to do this. However, the incentive becomes weaker if the alliance has a team that already does this, or has many POIs already. The individual motive becomes reduced as more and more people join the alliance.

Further, CIC's and other leaders are unwilling to lay down sanctions, such as temporary banning, kicking them out of the alliance because of the risks that they may face - such as being attacked by them, or the issue of strength (these members may be idle, but at least they will help in times of crisis - most of them) or because it's the bulk of the alliance. Punishments such as demotions hardly work either because this absolves members of responsibility, making them work less for the same gain - and so this is a further strain on productivity.

My solution: This is quite simple really. My solution is to have POI Bonus's as a Member Right, as opposed to a universal alliance boost. In other words - CIC's and those who are able to edit permissions and manage the roster should be able to remove the bonus' sent to their commanders.

This brings a whole new incentive for Commanders, and a tool for CIC's and Officers to keep members productive. In return for members participation, they will have access to the materials produced by POIs. Those who lay idle may have them taken away.

This solves the issues of:

Productivity, as idle members will need to work in order to receive their POI boost

Discipline, as it provides a middle way between a verbal punishment, and a simple boot out of the alliance - of which creates new problems.

It's unlikely that these members will simply just refuse to participate, and end up leaving, as they will still benefit from the Tunnel Exits and Land that has been procured - the direct incentives of being in that alliance. But it's a massive improvement over verbal punishments, which vary from CIC to CIC.

It's also unlikely that CIC's will be less inclined to use this due to Bulk, or Strength, because this actually reduces strength, it reduces the risks of actually kicking them and it does not effect those who do contribute, unlike the bulk who do not.

It may not be completely perfect I agree. There will still be idlers who benefit from Land and other resources, or CICs who are unwilling to use the new feature. However it would be a great tool to be there for alliances who wish to refine their efforts, and ultimately work to achieve greater power and production.
no. and this is coming from someone who captures POIs. I agree that there could be an incentive, but nothing that deep. All you need is a small bonus when you actually capture a POI by attacking a Forgotten base near it.
There already is the bonus of getting the POI in the first place. Even if there were an individual incentive for the person actually capturing the POI, this will mean nothing to those who remain idle because they feel the POIs they have are adequate, AND they continue to get bonus' from the POIs being captured by active teams.

Perhaps there could be an individual incentive as well as this - which'd be great in combination. However POI bonus's should be considered a privilege to entering an alliance, not a right.
I'd go with an 'order' system where you define missions and assign them to players.

A player who receives an order from his CiC or SiC or even Officers (only one mission per player tho) could accept or decline missions. Not all kind of missions could be ordered by all ranks. Some missions could be ordered only by the CiC, the SiC could order some and the officiers would have a few of them.

So, if the player ordered accepts his missons, he can complete them in a set period of them defined by the CiC/SiC/Officier, and then claim his reward. a crate, randomly defined would be the best but could be set by the ordering CiC/SiC/officer with limitations. Like 5 tiberium crates per 24h max, 4 blue crystal crates per 24h max... and so on (those are only examples, not what i wish it to be lol). Also, a player completing his missions could also benefit from a gain in points to show his competence in the alliance. (A maximum of points per mission should be system defined.)
A daily login in could grant competence points also. (to stimulate activity within the alliance). That could also be decided by the CiC, as to how many days with a single login would grant the points. Set for the whole alliance tho, instead of mission based.

Otherwise, if he fails to complete the mission or decline it, it would be to the ordering CiC/SiC/Officer to decide if he penalize the player by the removal of competence points within the alliance. Of course, a player wouldn't receive the reward promised.

The CiC/SiC would have to define a progression table so that players have to achieve a certain accumulation of competence points to benefit from the POIs bonuses, calculated by the % granted by each level of the progression table.
(a max of 5 lvl could be more than enough. a CiC can always set it to a shorter table if wished)
It could be edited once a week, to prevent too much toying with the bonuses, and to follow the progression of the game.

Ex : CiC 'bob' decide that his progression table is like that within his alliance :

lvl 1: 10% with 7 competence points
lvl 2: 25% with 15 competence points
lvl 3: 55% with 35 competence points
lvl 4: 85% with 65 competence points
lvl 5: 100% bonus from the POIs controlled with 80 competence points.

So, his SiC 'dom' order 'tim' to do mission A. 'tim' accepts the mission and have 24h to complete it. 'tim' completes the mission within the time limit and receives a tiberium crate defined by his player rank. he also is rewarded with 7 competence point, decided by 'dom'. 'tim' is now granted with 10% or any bonuses the alliance has at that moment.

CiC 'bob' orders another mission to 'tim'. this time, 'tim' declines the mission, coz he doesn't feel like listening to 'bob' today. 'bob' isn't happy wit that and remove 4 points of competence 'tim' has. Now 'tim' has 3 competence points, which is insufficient to benefit from any POIs controlled at all. 'tim' asks for forgiveness and is granted another mission so he can demonstrate his goodwill. He completes it quickly, gaining back 4 points of competence he just lost, getting him back the the lvl 1 of the progression table.

end of story Tongue


This is a brainstormed idea, it surely can be improved a little Wink
That's a very good idea. And this idea is indeed compatible with the initial one I have outlined.

We could indeed set about several of these requests which would greatly enhance the experience of alliances as a whole.
The problem with the idea is that rouge CiC or SiC can keep everyone below them in order to increase their rankings. Also why would you want to treat someone in an alliance differently then another person. Either they are in and are treated the same or they are out and dont get anything. That type of thinking is not going to get you anywhere in an alliance punishing people within the alliance. When your a leader you learn what kinds of people you have and learn how to deal with them not punish them but keep them within the alliance. I think its to short sighted and I do not agree with the remedy to your issue. I think if you cannot get someone to do what you want them then they need to be removed or you find more innovative ways to reward them. Or just talk to them in TS or something. I do want to say you may be going somewhere with your suggestion and also it is well thought out. That is appreciated.
(22-08-2012 02:46 PM)Thomas_Biggs Wrote: [ -> ]My solution: This is quite simple really. My solution is to have POI Bonus's as a Member Right, as opposed to a universal alliance boost. In other words - CIC's and those who are able to edit permissions and manage the roster should be able to remove the bonus' sent to their commanders.

This brings a whole new incentive for Commanders, and a tool for CIC's and Officers to keep members productive. In return for members participation, they will have access to the materials produced by POIs. Those who lay idle may have them taken away.

I think a better way would to to link the bonus to the member's ranking in the alliance..
e.g. Trial users will only get a fraction of the alliance bonus... and it increases as you move up the rank.. A limit on the number of members per rank is probably needed too.

(24-08-2012 08:11 PM)WarmasterRaptor Wrote: [ -> ]I'd go with an 'order' system where you define missions and assign them to players.
There is a similar idea with the CIC/SIC mission system in aother thread.
Reference URL's