View previous topic :: View next topic |
Good suggestian? |
Yes |
|
66% |
[ 2 ] |
No |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
Yes, but it won't happen |
|
33% |
[ 1 ] |
No, but it will happen |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
Total Votes : 3 |
|
Author |
Message |
al12 Admiral
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 Posts: 844
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: 'commercial' newbie alliances |
|
|
I got this idea a few weeks ago. I don't know if it is needed but I still want to post this idea to see what everyone thinks of this. I also remember that there are players unhappy with the newbie alliances, maybe this way they can help to train players themselves.
In the newbie alliances the leaders both have a leader of whom his account has evo'd. So why can't other players do this that are in an alliance which has player capable of training newbies? A player that is experienced evo's out, makes an alliance with a similar name to his alliance. Any newbie can join and he trains him. Any new players that are learning well and get good enough to join the real alliance can do so.
So, what do the rest of you think? _________________
X: The "Warriors of the Fallen Star" era
4. SpaceTrooper of Upenix score 16239 relative 16226 |
|
Back to top » |
|
|
T2 Admiral
Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 1398 Location: Ontario
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have requested to some other players who i felt would be trustworthy to "manage" the starter alliance's. Someone who would not use the probes available to enhance their own status or capabilities to wage war in their regular account.
To date, there have been no takers willing to accept the position despite some positive responses.
Time has been my enemy in attempting to "manage" the IG along with computer malfunction and inability to restore the training account without MP.
I still feel this training venue is a worthwhile endeavor for new players to get their feet wet.
The fact that some unscrupulous person can now find themselves as the leader of the training alliance through default or chance leaves me somewhat concerned |
|
Back to top » |
|
|
ickaori Midshipman
Joined: 03 Oct 2007 Posts: 4
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i would love to see this happen.i am not yet good enough to do the lob you talk of as well as lately have not had the time to devote to being a tainer but i love the mentor idea. |
|
Back to top » |
|
|
al12 Admiral
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 Posts: 844
|
Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Any new oppinions on this? _________________
X: The "Warriors of the Fallen Star" era
4. SpaceTrooper of Upenix score 16239 relative 16226 |
|
Back to top » |
|
|
T2 Admiral
Joined: 26 Mar 2005 Posts: 1398 Location: Ontario
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yea...TF is run by a rogue right now i believe. My worst fears realized. A possible multi at the helm. IG could be the same. |
|
Back to top » |
|
|
ilofuyci 2nd Rear Admiral
Joined: 19 Mar 2007 Posts: 195 Location: Seattle, WA, USA
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Having someone who just played an evo put in charge of several newbs runs the risk of using them for his own purposes, to seek revenge, etc.
Not sure if that's the greatest idea, although there's the possibility that someone from an enemy alliance while they were playing also gains control of several newbs, so they can just fight each other.
But this plan would be fairly easy to abuse, and then yell at people when they "bash" your "noobs"
Game should just encourage alliances to recruit more actively.
Presense of TWN networks doesn't seem to be enough to get people to want to form large groups.
Any other incentives possible? |
|
Back to top » |
|
|
al12 Admiral
Joined: 17 Apr 2006 Posts: 844
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well if this isn't a good idea because you cannot see if the evo'd accounts are used unjusttifull then if needed and if possible to do I wouldn't mind to try helping in a newbie alliance. _________________
X: The "Warriors of the Fallen Star" era
4. SpaceTrooper of Upenix score 16239 relative 16226 |
|
Back to top » |
|
|
|