EA 1&2 Clans! (Or In This Case, Companies!)

[anon332]

[EDIT]: I figured the name would be better suited as Companies or Corporations, but however you want it!


Hi all! I know I have not been an active member of the Executive Assault 2 community for quite some time now, but in Spite of theDemolisher13 's post about the lack of Liveliness in the community, I decided to spend more time and effort on this forum from now on, especially with school activities ending, allowing more spare time in my schedule! Now depending on the results on this poll, I believe I have come up with an idea for the following system:

Clans! (or Companies)
Now originally, I had the idea of allowing anyone to create a clan, but with the amount of people both already on and  could potentially join this forum, I figured it would wreak havoc on this site. So I decided to come up with a system that allows anywhere between 5-8 clans, that all may have their own system of rules & regulations regarding joining, promotions, leaders, etc.

Although

The Clans Created should in turn follow some form of a main guideline, I leave the decision of main guidelines and rules to somebody of more importance on the forums (eg. Rob), although, my idea for some simple guideline system could go as follows:

Company Wars:
There would be no point to having clans in EA2 if there Isn't any battling between them! Each clan depending on Power and Reputation (these will be brought up later) will go face to face to increase overall Power and Reputation against other Clans, the Higher these values are, the higher ranked a clan may be. At the end of a time period (could be a week, could be a month, could change at any given time), the top Clan and it's members should be rewarded with some sort of forum badge, in game advantage, etc. This way it is always a changing competition for the top.
Power and Reputation:
Clans will receive power and reputation rankings on the forum for their In-Game strength. Power can be described as the system used to rate a Clan's overall prowess over other Clans. It can be determined by how a Clan may eliminate their enemies in battle. The Power System will be judged on in game statistics like, Iron/Minerals Extracted, Units Built/Destroyed/Eliminated. Buildings or Ships Built/Destroyed/Eliminated and whatnot. It can then be converted into individual Power points per player, these could get added to a total amount of Clan Power Points, which may help with the Overall Rating. Power Resets for Every Clan War/tournament and will build up the more battles that take place during the tourney. Reputation will be a score/Rating based off of a Win/Loss/Tie ratio of the clan and the individual ratios of the players. Unlike Power, this value does not get based on the actual gameplay of the game, but simply the W:L:T Ratio. This Reputation rating can help contribute to the Overall Clan Score. The Reputation can also be used to help match up Clans when it comes down to Clans vs. Clans, It could also be used to match up certain players with other players for the Clan Wars.
Overall Scoring
 At the end of each time period, Clans will be Rated on a Scale (preferably 0-10 but subject to change), this scale rating can help determine the placing of each Clan. The Clans will then be placed, and the winner of the Clan Wars wins the Wars/Tournament! Hopefully, with the aid of an admin or Rob, a reward system may be made on these forums and then the Champions of the War/Tourney can get rewarded.
Project
I myself have been a fan of Executive Assault for some time, and then finding out about the Second Edition of the game, well that was news that had made me ecstatic! Finding this page that had even allowed the idea sharing directly from the community to the Developer, this had made me think of so many crazy and interesting suggestions, with this being one of them. As I did very much enjoy the team aspect of things, I could see that it could be improved on, which is part of the reason why I had dedicated this post to this topic. I hope that others may back my opinions and ideas and get an entire system going. If you have read this far I thank you for taking your time to read this post
-V

Update: As the game becomes more and more developed, and with great feedback from other members on the forum created pertaining to the topic, I would like to post one of my responses (also found in the discussion) below to help get a better grasp of the idea and mechanics for the system, feel free to read it, but you do not need to if you don't want to. The response was as follows:
"Your feedback has put me into a deeper thought on the subject, and I think that I would like to agree with and counter some of your thoughts on the matter, in a civil discussion, of course. I agree with you on the fact that in a large amount of games with the clan system, we do see the issue of having one group that severely overpowers the other makes the game feel unfair and creates a different game environment for the players. As a player of many different styles of gameplay, I personally think that the player experience is quite obviously the most important part of the game, and to have a system change that style of gameplay unintentionally is not a good thing to see, which is why I agree with the bulk of your response that this system would be unfair in some way, shape, or form.

Now finished with putting some more thought and review into this idea of different groups, I would hope that the idea of the system is that it can enhance your gameplay when it comes to cooperation between your acquaintances and yourself, but I also can uphold your idea of the Executive Assault series being solely a single player experience, considering that I found myself playing the game against AI and formulating new challenges or goals for myself to achieve rather than participating in large group battles in executive assault against many or few. A reference I will make to another forum/site is one I actually found out while thinking about creating the topic of including the group system. This site was based on the Pokémon series of games, and if anyone has played these games, it is pretty apparent that a lot of it would be contained within the single player portion of the game. However, within the most recent games, there is the functionality to battle and trade with others from across the world online. This is where it will start to link to my idea.

(Skip to the next paragraph if you don't want to read this example) After creating an account on the forum for the sake of digging into this topic, I saw that there was a system on the forums with "Gym Leaders," a reference to the opponents you would face in-game, but that isn't the focus. This system worked with moderated Gym's within the site (8 or 9 I believe?). Players would apply to fight the "Gym Leaders," real people who were tested by moderators to see if their skill was worthy to become a leader. If the forum member beats the gym leader, they get a badge on their profile. And this is where we get back to our point of the group system.

I thought that I could mold this system and change it to the likes of the Executive Assault series and the members of the forum. To do this I came up with the idea of groups. I took the whole "Create Your Own Clan" idea and threw it out, as I didn't want a clash of clans situation where the clan ranks and levels are unfair. But I hoped to create a more equal idea, thus being the creation of only 5-8 groups. My goal for these groups upon elaboration was that there would be leaders within each group, though these leaders would be tested by moderators and other members in a series of battles, which would include analyzing each potential leader's skill in game overall and which strategies they primarily employ. After the series of battles were finished, a mediator (who would be somebody who does not choose participate in these group things) would evenly divide the candidates into their own separate groups, being leaders or co-leaders of a group, ensuring that the level of skill is equal.

Now we need to remember the goal is to make it equal, so there would have to be a system of checks and balances set into place to prevent inequality, but maintain competitive nature. Yet another goal is to make the system optional. Since it would be isolated to the forums, people who wish to participate are able to participate and vice versa. If someone wanted to keep it single player, they had the capability to do so, and with something set into place there could be a system set up to prevent players with group advantages to use these against players who do not wish to partake in the group system. It would be complex, but we must remember the initial goal of it is to be fair. As for the grouping, it would be nice to have different groups with different specialties, an example being one group may specialize in using very defensively heavy strategies, while another pushes offensive strategies, and this is where equality comes into play. With groups being based on strategies and not simply skill, there would be a (hopefully) good balance of skill amongst all groups, but again, this requires revision and moderation within the system set up. As for the reward system, I would hope that rewards do not affect the gameplay in any major way. I would think that the reward system works in a fashion of giving medals or achievements to member's profiles on the site, but also giving very minor advantages in the game, again I wish to have the system as fair as possible, but it is expected more often in the present that people get rewarded for their actions, and I would at least say that in the case of a group of people accomplishing something which requires dedication, they deserve something to show for it. I would like to elaborate these systems in the future and see how it plays out as the game gets closer and closer to completion, and in spite of all the elaboration you have motivated me to take care of, I will likely post the main points brought up in this onto the main thread. But if you have read this full response, I do thank you for your feedback and feel free to contribute at any point to the idea."
-V

[crownphoenix1]

Can we call them conglomerations instead?

[theDemolisher13]

First off thank you anon332 for referencing me.
Second Thanking you for the proper grammar as you made google translate's job all the easier.
Third I can really see this system helping the community out a bit if done correctly.
forth If I may add onto your idea for a reward for the top winning clan/corp it would be a fun idea to say for the winner they get Supply mining rate increase of 10% as well as a added 10% of resources in the match. I believe this would be a big enough reward to get players fighting for it while at the same time be small enough to not totally make that clan/corp OP with it. Just a rather small boost to help them get going.

[navy3001]

i will volunteer for the be leader of one of the clans!

[spooki444]

i know a friend that could lead one if hes up to it

[thexenomorphian]

I want to play Executive Assault 2 not Clash of Clans in space (no offence to your idea i think it's nice but there is way too many clan games)

[spoopidy]

Personally, I do not like playing in clans. They are coarse, rough, and get everywhere My attentions and contributions are irregular, scattered, and vary in depth (like my posts here). Also, I don’t always enjoy playing with others. This is probably due in part to my social habits, I have many “favoured acquaintances”, and very few “friends” Regardless, I think this has potential, if done right.

The trick, in my opinion, is to put all features within the player’s grasp, ideally, with different routes to reach that feature. In this way, you can encourage people to go down a certain path, but leave them with an alternative. This leads me to the problem I currently see here: incentive. Handing out performance boosts to a certain section of the population is bound to skew things. We have a competition, which would select for people with certain “clan battling skills”, for lack of a better term. Only the best clans, with the best players would be able to receive certain content that affects game play, or has significant features. If you aren’t the best suited, you would be a hindrance to your team. They may not even want you, and go so far as to actively discourage you from participating. You would likely never get to access that content, simply by playing the game the way you want. This, and likely other reasons, would create a rift in the playerbase. If the prize is a shiny badge, or bragging rights, then this problem can be entirely avoided. The prize may make some compete out of obligation, while those who want to be there will do it regardless.

If, however, you really want everyone participating, then there are ways. I’m not going to break it all down, but here is an example that I think is good. “Guns of Icarus: Alliance” has a faction system that is very inclusive, and allows everyone to contribute in a meaningful way, while also dishing out rewards that do affect game play. Put simply, there are 6 factions, all competing for territory on a big map. You can join any faction you want, and start playing. You can choose a certain contested territory where your efforts will be contributed. You get money and faction rankings for every game. Your sessions count towards your faction’s efforts towards winning the territory, and you can also spend that money on additional war material, which immediately adds effort. Finally, your levelling up lets you get new gear, and puts you higher up on the faction’s list of members. exceptional efforts are recognized in a recorded history of the game’s world, while high ranks make you visible to others as being “kinda important”. The highest levels list you as “leaders”, but everyone votes on objectives, so that only goes so far. The gear also changes between factions, so you get different cosmetics for each one. Essential things, like new ships, are also unlocked at different levels between factions, but you will unlock them in every faction, eventually.

This is just one way to do do it, but it deals with most issues quite well, I believe. It’s the best of both worlds, since you can play how you want, but your efforts are of use to your faction, and you can contribute to specific, smaller objectives, which feels more like a personal victory for you and your faction. There is also another problem: EA isn’t Guns of Icarus. GoI is entirely online, is centred around this faction system – it was built with this in mind. EA1 was more of a single player experience, at least in my case. I’m just not sure if EA2 would work well with factions, or if the feature would add to the experience. Trying to add it onto the game may seem like it is unfinished. You may have to change the core of the game to have them fit nicely, possibly detracting from that core. That being said, the factions could be “added on” to the core game play, but they would need a large enough group of people to keep them alive, or some very engaged players. This could be where the prizes would help, but, again, prizes may put pressure on the weaker, or newer players to perform in a way that they find uncomfortable.

I’m sure it could be done, I’m just not convinced of the benefits for EA2. It could go very well, or very, very, wrong. That’s why we are here, discussing it. I just hope this added to the conversation in a meaningful way. I also hope my love for other games, and my personal view on the subject, didn’t seem overbearing, or colour my view too much. I also apologize for the terrible meme at the beginning of my post.

[anon332]

My responses to your feedback on the idea/topic,

To everyone as a general response, thank you for your feedback and new ideas brought into the subject, I think that this is what makes forums like these great

To thexenomorphian, I can totally see where you come from since yes there are far too many games that incorporate systems like these into the games  , although, overlooking and revising my idea some more has given me the thought that it wouldn't be as major of a part to the game as it is in a lot of other clan-inclusive games, but rather an external addition to the community to keep them involved and lively. This branches off to my response to spoopidy

To spoopidy, (Prequel Memes are only the best quality of memes, thumbs up to you)
    Your response has put me into a deeper thought on the subject, and I think that I would like to agree with and counter some of your thoughts on the matter, in a civil discussion, of course. I agree with you on the fact that in a large amount of games with the clan system, we do see the issue of having one group that severely overpowers the other makes the game feel unfair and creates a different game environment for the players. As a player of many different styles of gameplay, I personally think that the player experience is quite obviously the most important part of the game, and to have a system change that style of gameplay unintentionally is not a good thing to see, which is why I agree with the bulk of your response that this system would be unfair in some way, shape, or form.
    Now finished with putting some more thought and review into this idea of different groups, I would hope that the idea of the system is that it can enhance your gameplay when it comes to cooperation between your acquaintances and yourself, but I also can uphold your idea of the Executive Assault series being solely a single player experience, considering that I found myself playing the game against AI and formulating new challenges or goals for myself to achieve rather than participating in large group battles in executive assault against many or few. A reference I will make to another forum/site is one I actually found out while thinking about creating the topic of including the group system. This site was based on the Pokémon series of games, and if anyone has played these games, it is pretty apparent that a lot of it would be contained within the single player portion of the game. However, within the most recent games, there is the functionality to battle and trade with others from across the world online. This is where it will start to link to my idea.
    (Skip to the next paragraph if you don't want to read this example) After creating an account on the forum for the sake of digging into this topic, I saw that there was a system on the forums with "Gym Leaders," a reference to the opponents you would face in-game, but that isn't the focus. This system worked with moderated Gym's within the site (8 or 9 I believe?). Players would apply to fight the "Gym Leaders," real people who were tested by moderators to see if their skill was worthy to become a leader. If the forum member beats the gym leader, they get a badge on their profile. And this is where we get back to our point of the group system.
     I thought that I could mold this system and change it to the likes of the Executive Assault series and the members of the forum. To do this I came up with the idea of groups. I took the whole "Create Your Own Clan" idea and threw it out, as I didn't want a clash of clans situation where the clan ranks and levels are unfair. But I hoped to create a more equal idea, thus being the creation of only 5-8 groups. My goal for these groups upon elaboration was that there would be leaders within each group, though these leaders would be tested by moderators and other members in a series of battles, which would include analyzing each potential leader's skill in game overall and which strategies they primarily employ. After the series of battles were finished, a mediator (who would be somebody who does not choose participate in these group things) would evenly divide the candidates into their own separate groups, being leaders or co-leaders of a group, ensuring that the level of skill is equal.
     Now we need to remember the goal is to make it equal, so there would have to be a system of checks and balances set into place to prevent inequality, but maintain competitive nature. Yet another goal is to make the system optional. Since it would be isolated to the forums, people who wish to participate are able to participate and vice versa. If someone wanted to keep it single player, they had the capability to do so, and with something set into place there could be a system set up to prevent players with group advantages to use these against players who do not wish to partake in the group system. It would be complex, but we must remember the initial goal of it is to be fair. As for the grouping, it would be nice to have different groups with different specialties, an example being one group may specialize in using very defensively heavy strategies, while another pushes offensive strategies, and this is where equality comes into play. With groups being based on strategies and not simply skill, there would be a (hopefully) good balance of skill amongst all groups, but again, this requires revision and moderation within the system set up. As for the reward system, I would hope that rewards do not affect the gameplay in any major way. I would think that the reward system works in a fashion of giving medals or achievements to member's profiles on the site, but also giving very minor advantages in the game, again I wish to have the system as fair as possible, but it is expected more often in the present that people get rewarded for their actions, and I would at least say that in the case of a group of people accomplishing something which requires dedication, they deserve something to show for it. I would like to elaborate these systems in the future and see how it plays out as the game gets closer and closer to completion, and in spite of all the elaboration you have motivated me to take care of, I will likely post the main points brought up in this onto the main thread. But if you have read this full response, I do thank you for your feedback and feel free to contribute at any point to the idea.

[anon332]

Jul 1, 2018 14:22:13 GMT crownphoenix1 said:

Can we call them conglomerations instead?

The official name for the system is undecided for now, but I will put it into consideration!