Options
Protect fleets from being usurped
Prime Lorca
✭✭✭✭✭
in Make It So!
There's another thread with a few ideas, but it has a different focus. I want to consolidate constructive advise for WRG here. Here's kind of my "opening bid" for protecting fleets from being usurped by outsiders.
Only if fleet admiral has been inactive for 30 days as current standard.
Admiralty may be passed to an officer who has been in the fleet for at least 60 days or any other captain who has been in the fleet for a minimum of 90 days, but only if no officer has been active in the past week.
Is this acceptable or do you have a better idea?
Only if fleet admiral has been inactive for 30 days as current standard.
Admiralty may be passed to an officer who has been in the fleet for at least 60 days or any other captain who has been in the fleet for a minimum of 90 days, but only if no officer has been active in the past week.
Is this acceptable or do you have a better idea?
Farewell 🖖
6
Comments
And if the Admiral plans to be inactive, pass off the fleet before you go on vacation to avoid the mess in the first place.
I liked this idea. I am afraid that it'll take to long to create a new rank and the criteria to achieve that rank. I think we would want something as an interim policy until yours can be implemented.
I think that's the best solution. I always pass the big seat over when I'll be out of pocket for a bit, as do most other admirals that I know.
Proud Former Officer of The Gluten Empire
Retired 12-14-20. So long, and thanks for all the cat pics!
I don’t think any amount of programming or “rules” can beat good old fashioned planning ahead.
If the admiral is active, theoretically, this is a non issue.
If an admiral plans on going awol and hands the reins off, this is a non issue.
The main issue here (for the one that caused all the hubbub, at least) was an “admiral” who was inactive IN GAME, but was still in constant communication with the officers outside the game. This situation opens up a scenario for someone to take advantage. And this type of situation is what needs to be protected via rules and/or programming. My solution, which has built in programmed wait periods, solves 99% of the loophole.
I think you're right, putting in a robust system, to deal with this, will take some time. However, the only reasonable interim policy, IMO, is for CS to no longer grant admiral change request; at least until TP has thoroughly addressed the issue.
For what it's worth, this is something I have mentioned in "make it so" before. This is also something I have brought up to DB(now TP) more than once, in surveys:
'Give officers and admirals actual power, within their fleets: Allow admirals the ability to disband squads and/or reassign squad leaders. Give admirals the ability to see what officers do within the fleet. For example, if an officer dismisses a fleetmember or changes "recommended" in the starbase, the admiral should be able to see who made what change and when. On that note, admirals should be able to grant their officers various levels of power (command). Maybe within a promotion system. An Ensign is granted access to officer chat, a Lieutenant can change what is recommended in the starbase, and Commanders have the power to remove players from the fleet. Something like that.'
The only thing I would add to this, would be the position of a Vice (or co-) admiral. Someone who has, basically, the exact same level of power as the admiral.
Check out our website to find out more:
https://wiki.tenforwardloungers.com/
I like that. If it cannot be easily implemented this or something similar should be the guideline for CS to reassign admirality manually if a change is requested.
In no case it may go to any random guy within the fleet just because he requests it.
Sounds familiar.
I like it.
Haha! Sorry... All the threads and my brain is going to mush. I normally quote or at least credit the original idea. I was just adding how your idea looked in my mind.
No worries. I'm sure I've accidentally done it myself before.
I m not for any automatisation to transfer Admiral rank, for different reasons.
Only thing CS needs to check when an Admiral is offline for 30+ days:
Request to transfer leadership must come from an officer that is in the fleet for at least 30 days as well.
Best solution:
Create new ranks, like Co-Admiral, who has same powers as the Admiral, except he can t kick the Admiral. And if the Admiral goes inactive 30+ days, leadership can only be transferred to the Co-Admiral(assuming he is active).
From a business standpoint, if they can reduce CS tickets, then the company stands to gain by automating. Would you mind elaborating upon your reasons for not automating?
For the record, I wouldn't mind a vice admiral position who would be the next in line. I am co-admiral, sharing responsibilities for my fleet, so that would fit us well.
Vice-admirals (and admirals) could have access to a few other options in fleet management that are currently unavailable, but when it comes to the topic of this thread, it would be enough to create their role, even just as a name and badge, and change the CS rules:
- If the admiral goes offline for more than X days (could be 30, could be 20) one of the vice-admirals can contact CS and ask to take their place. Ideally, CS could contact the other vice-admiral or an officer, if present, to make sure that this is a common decision.
- If there are no vice-admirals, the same goes for officers.
- If there are no active officers, every player can ask for leadership once the admiral has been offline for 30 days, same as it works now. In this case the risk of these things happening again would remain, but it's hard to imagine that a fleet with no active officers has a strong community, so it would probably be a very rare occurence.
I think that a rule based on the time spent in the fleet, like you mentioned, would also make sense, but there might be cases where it can't be applied.
With a vice-admiral role, the admiral and the fleet community themselves can choose who they trust to be the best option for this kind of scenario. It's not 100% safe, but I think it would be a relatively simple way to reduce the risks of fleet stealing.
And when it comes to admirals passing leadership before they go on longer vacations, I think that most fleets already do that (or should do that) but life is unpredictable and it can always happen that an admiral disappears from an otherwise active fleet with an active community.
(If this role was created, it would obviously be up to the admiral to promote people to vice-admiral or demote them).
Proud Former Officer of The Gluten Empire
Retired 12-14-20. So long, and thanks for all the cat pics!
Not ideal, but it also doesn't involve the dev team at all.
Protecting the Galaxy's Future from itself
Chief Science Officer
This is very succinct. Have a "flag officer" rank that can do most of the stuff the Admiral can. Only Fleet Admirals can promote to that rank and the implication is that they are next in command if the Admiral is away for any reason, either planned or unplanned.
Nauti
Level 99; VIP 14
Crew immortalized = 869
Common Crew: 27/27, Uncommon Crew: 54/54, Rare Crew: 89/89, Super Rare Crew: 370/375, Legendary Crew: 363/454
Pending collections = Klingon
My Captain Idol's
My DataCore page
My Spreadsheet
This is a civilized attempt to give input to WRG. This is not about the fleet who started the issue. It is suggestions for a solution to a problem. Which Shan approved.
Stop trying to stir trouble and troll this thread. In fact, just log off, @Cuttysark . You add nothing to the conversation. I hope you are more productive as a human being in the real world.
some just cant help but try to detract from a real concern that alot of us want some kind of assurance from the devs will get fixed in a meaningful way
Theres no need to require tech support for this switch. If the admiral trusts a player to give them the VA role, then goes inactive for 30 days, in my opinion the admiral is not living up to their duties so leadership should default to whoever they had chosen. If the person they chose to trust with the VA position then performs a hostile takeover, its on the admiral for choosing a bad person to trust or on the VA for being a liar.
TS is busy enough dealing with all sorts of other issues. I would prefer a mechanism that is more automatic and dependent upon the decisions made by fleet leadership.
If an admiral goes inactive for 30 days and there is no VA selected, there should not be a process for TS to assign fleet leadership via request. In my opinion, TS has no real knowledge of fleet activities other than requests such as those, so lets just not let them be part of that process. Basically, if the admiral goes inactive for 30 days, and there is no VA, its on the player to either wait it out, find a new fleet or to make one of their own.
- thank you for the suggestions made in this discussion
- do not comment in a discussion when you have nothing to contribute, I do not know why I need to keep repeating this
- it is not against any rule to join a fleet, and then request to be admiral of it.
That being said, we are looking at improving our process regarding requests to become the admiral of a fleet, as it needs refining. I am still in a discussion about this.
Thank you for the clarification and the update! Much appreciated!
Personally, I would like to see a temporary freeze on CS changing fleet admirals. Maybe for just this week or a couple days while solutions are discussed.
I think a temporary freeze on CS changing admirals is a good idea, but I think TP should put that freeze in effect indefinitely (until they add the VA position).
I also think there should be two VAs (just in case). So, if the Adm. and 1st VA are missing, that's 60 day, total, before the 2nd VA gets the position. If the 2nd VA is gone, for another 30 days (now it's 90 total), then any player can request the Adm. position. At Which point, CS should make them an Interim Admiral for another 30 days. During which time other players can contest the new leadership.
You just want that second Vice Admiral spot, don't you?
Seriously though, you make a solid case for this solution.