0 Members and 1 Guests are viewing this board.
- Scurvydog2
- Irregular
- 50 posts
- Reputation 4
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- i think shadowing should act like an ancient
Mar 17 2014 3:07 am
i would like to suggest formalizing non aggression pacts. i would like to suggest the following terms and conditions.
for shorter righting i will refer to the aggressive alliance as one, the defensive alliance as two and any sister alliances as three.
1.no player in one can attack a player in two or any of two's three.
a. alliances under the protection of two, two's three, or two's members are also protected.
2 an attack on two can be met with an attack of any size limited to the offending gould or all of one unless an apology by one is provided and accepted.
a. apologies should be sent to both the alliance leader and the attacked party.
3 an apology should take the following form.
a. a statement of repentance
b. an explanation of reasoning for the attack
c. whether attack was sanctioned.
d. some offer of compensation equal to or above lost networth (if possible).
4 declaration of sister alliances and protected alliance must me on the allegiance page posting on a players gould page will not be held as adequate for retaliation.
if you have any suggestions i will try to come up with a revised version everyone can live with.
fighting for the players right to choose how they play
- Jordanedmond
- Irregular
- 19 posts
- Reputation 2
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- I love 26horses Productions
Mar 17 2014 3:52 am
There would have to be a limited number of Sister Alliances, say each alliance can only have two sisters and two alliances under their protection.
- Kaguli
- Irregular
- 87 posts
- Reputation 43
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- Power in a refined form
Mar 17 2014 4:13 am
I would like to suggest formalizing non aggression pacts. I would like to suggest the following terms and conditions.
For shorter writing I will refer to the aggressive alliance as A, the defensive alliance as D and any sister alliances as S.
1. No player in A can attack a player in B or any of D's S.
---a. Alliances under the protection of D, D's S, or D's members are also protected.
2. An attack on D can be met with an attack of any size limited to the offending Goa'uld or all of A unless an apology by A is provided and accepted.
---a. Apologies should be sent to both the alliance leader and the attacked party.
3. An apology should take the following form.
---a. a statement of repentance
---b. an explanation of reasoning for the attack
---c. whether attack was sanctioned.
---d. some offer of compensation equal to or above lost networth (if possible).
4. Declaration of sister alliances and protected alliance must me on the alliance page. Posting on a players Goa'uld page will not be held as adequate for retaliation.
-----------------------------------------------
Your idea has merit, but dear lord, please take a stab at formatting next time.
- Scurvydog2
- Irregular
- 50 posts
- Reputation 4
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- i think shadowing should act like an ancient
Mar 17 2014 4:15 am
says the person that forgot the --- for d
fighting for the players right to choose how they play
- Kaguli
- Irregular
- 87 posts
- Reputation 43
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- Power in a refined form
Mar 17 2014 4:58 am
Really weird, three lines didn't show up in the editor.
- Forgottenwarrior
- Irregular
- 41 posts
- Reputation 29
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- I love 26horses Productions
Mar 17 2014 3:02 pm
I think this is getting to complicated. To me all sister alliances should be treated just as a part of the main alliance they came from. If an NAP is broken then some form of compensation and retaliation should be strived for. It would be a good idea for a 3rd party to help negotiate this. As far as alliances protecting other alliances, I thought that was when two alliances were officially Allied and agree to help each other in a fight. As far as alliances putting other alliances under their protection, I think the notion of that is just ridiculous. If alliance A is allied with alliance B but has alliance C under their protection then that should be negotiated with alliance B because alliance A doesn't have the right to make decisions for alliance B so if alliance B were to attack alliance C then I would think that their alliance with A would supersede and nothing would be done about it unless a previous arrangement had already been made. I personally will not honor any protections made by alliances I am allied with or have NAP's with if I was not a part of the negotiations that led to whatever form of treaty was chosen.
- Canov73
- Irregular
- 38 posts
- Reputation 19
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- I love 26horses Productions
Mar 17 2014 3:13 pm
Shadow might be able to help us by expanding the current alliance system with some tick box options for alliance leaders to indicate our bonds.
Something like this;
Only the leader of A can add B in his alliance manager, this send a confirmation to the leader of B, who accepts or rejects.
The same process can be used, cascaded down the line with the same limits to B & D.
If possible a list would auto populate on the Alliance's pages either on a new tab or list form so ALL can see the agreements we have formally made.
Leader of A can only add a small number of B's (say 2-5).
The reason for the limit is evident as detailed below.
2=A+2B+4D that's 7 Alliances
3=A+3B+9D that's 13 Alliances
4=A+4B+16D that's 21 Alliances
5=A+5B+25D that's 31 Alliances
The colour of those planets box could be colour coded (insert 3 new colours) to indicate the hierarchy of the "Pyramid of Power". This would only be visible to the members of that Pyramid.
Canov
Shaltek
- Canov73
- Irregular
- 38 posts
- Reputation 19
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- I love 26horses Productions
Mar 17 2014 3:16 pm
Forgottenwarrior you should read my post on Entangling Treaties, it gets complicated unless we know who's in league with each other.
Shaltek
- Canov73
- Irregular
- 38 posts
- Reputation 19
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- I love 26horses Productions
Mar 18 2014 4:30 am
After some thought on the matter, there is one simpler way to solve this;
Increase the number of allowed Alliance members to 50, that way each Alliance wont need sister alliances. Much easier on the coding too.
Shaltek
- Adadad
- Irregular
- 58 posts
- Reputation 25
-
Honourable
Dishonourable
- yarg
Mar 23 2014 2:05 pm
didnt know this was the suggestion forum :\
26horses Production