Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
   New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Alliance Leadership on abandonment
   FAQ FAQ   Forum Search    Register Register   Login Login

Alliance Leadership on abandonment
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
Author
   Topic Search Topic Search   Topic Options Topic Options
Carbonara View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Location: Perth,Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 27 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carbonara Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 13:15
+1 Angrim

Plus I believe it's in fact very different from "harvesting a pile of hides and skins."

Some of these player accounts have been around for years before their owners stopped playing, with people putting RL time (and sometimes money) into them, so I think allowing alliances more time to distribute these towns and assets is preferable to removing these accounts from the game quicker. Imagine the sentimental value in capturing a city which used to be owned by a close Illyriadan friend :)

and also.. if there were to be less time available to siege abandoned accounts, wouldn't it give an advantage to larger alliances over newer alliances who would perhaps have less map coverage and fewer military units?

also,
Thumbs Up rain cloud > rainbow

Perhaps the community would be more inclined to support any change if it involved increasing the speed of siege units. lol

..and I support King Korr's idea of introducing dragons into the game! :D
Back to Top
Plurk View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 30 Jul 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 2 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Plurk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 13:31
It will affect the game-play of many many players negatively because holding the accounts with cav-sieges won't work anymore. Also see other reasons in earlier posts.
The problem of an allianceleader not dissapearing is a problem wich doesn't happen a lot ánd can be simply solved by starting a new alliance.

So please do not make the change.
Back to Top
Seadog View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Location: Shardlands
Status: Offline
Points: 16 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seadog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 13:33
Last year the Blackrock Orcs went leaderless in this way. Perhaps we were not what you would call a "significant alliance" but it was still an inconvenience to the players involved. Our leader was the only player with access to edit certain alliance features and he left the game without passing control to anybody else. We had the choice of either waiting 90 days (or more, due to his use of prestige), or forming a new alliance, which is what we eventually did.

In this case, it wasn't an abandoned account, just an inactive one. Regaining control of the alliance was more important than capturing the towns.
Back to Top
Starry View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 612 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Starry Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 13:36
I have to agree with Angrim, there is no need for a change to the 90 day rule.   In the event the account is the the leader of an alliance and the leader is obviously inactive, I don't see why the Devs can't accommodate the request to change the leader.   

SC, while you are addressing a problem with inactive alliance leaders, which I doubt happens very often, the result of this change effects all alliances and their growth because it effects players well beyond alliance leadership.    Many alliance members have been diligent in placement of their cities in alliance groupings, to change the rules now will, in effect, prevent alliances from taking inactive members cities within that alliance hub.     If an inactive player has real sieges incoming to their cities beyond the 90 day mark, the siege should be allowed to continue and capture the city.    

Real life happens, there a number of factors outside the game that prevent players from logging into the game.   90 days is sufficient to establish inactivity, after 90 days their cities should be available to be seiged and captured.   

This rule change also effects young players who are trying to grow and continue in the game, take away the ability for new players to take built up and researched cities, you limit their growth and their participation in the game.

You and the other Devs increased the number of cities allowed in this game, taking inactive cities is the only reasonable way to acquire additional cities other than being involved in a war.   Not all players in this game want to participate in war to grow.   Yes, I realize, we have the option of using settlers to establish new cities, it is a lengthy and costly option most do not wish to use.

The system is not broken and actually works very well, please reconsider this change as it negatively effects all alliances and players  in this game.   

I am very much against this change and fail to see why this is being considered when their are more important game issues that require Dev attention.
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule

Back to Top
Benedetti View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 08 Feb 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 47 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benedetti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 13:38
+1 Angrim

If leadership transfer is a problem, then fix that problem. Don't start messing with an abandonment routine that "On the whole, this works" for this reason. It will take significant development resources that players will rather have spent in different ways to make changes that many players don't even want.
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 13:59
Originally posted by Seadog Seadog wrote:

Last year the Blackrock Orcs went leaderless in this way. Perhaps we were not what you would call a "significant alliance" but it was still an inconvenience to the players involved
poor choice of words on my part. what i had in mind by "significance" was of the alliance construct itself: some investment (a large number of players, sizeable gold/prestige reserves, a lengthy history, involved diplomatic situation, etc.) that made waiting 90d for the purge to occur a better option for the players than simply reinventing the alliance and allowing active players to move--because none of this is going to help any group of players that can't wait at least that long, and i rather think that most in this situation will want a solution much earlier than the purge.

in any case, you have my apologies for the inadvertent slight.


Edited by Angrim - 08 Feb 2016 at 14:02
Back to Top
Tensmoor View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2015
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 1579 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tensmoor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 14:41
+1 Angrim
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

...regarding GM Stormcrow's original, much narrower case, i wonder if this happens much. the times i can recall when a significant alliance went leaderless are all related to dev action. in those cases, it seems the devs could just as easily demote the account while they're suspending it. (perhaps this is more difficult than i imagine...?) if that's not desirable, then why not simply demote alliance leaders when the purge is first triggered (the time GM Stormcrow has proposed for affixing the rainbow)?

To be honest the leadership problem is the only real one that I can see and the solution by Angrim of demoting the account from leadership when the purge is first triggered is I think a suitable solution to that. I cannot see that it would be much more trouble than any of the other solutions.

Back to Top
Carbonara View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Location: Perth,Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 27 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carbonara Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 14:43
I have a solution that would both fix the problem AND introduce dragons into the game!!

so say an alliance leader has been inactive for a significant amount of time.. lets make it 45 days as an example..

so after 45 days of inactivity, the players in the next tier of the alliance hierarchy (could be 5 of them, could be 10, could be 1 only.. doesn't matter)..
Those players could send a dragon each to the Alliance Capital to challenge for leadership!!

The rest of the players in the alliance could then send their own dragons to reinforce the challenger dragon/s (based on who they want to support).

It could also be discussed in Alliance Chat by the remaining leaders (and the other members) who the new leader will be, and who everyone is expected to reinforce..
..so it doesn't necessarily have to be a vote system, people would still be able to reinforce a predetermined person.

Strongest Challenger Dragon wins, the peasants rejoice ..and the owner of the winning dragon becomes the new Alliance Leader, with one of their own cities becoming the new alliance capital! :D

you could set requirements to be able to have a dragon, maybe some new research in the magic tree AND the military tree (the magic tree needs something new I think, maybe the 4th school of magic could be dragons?)

Then you could even take it further and give the dragons skill points like commanders, so leaders could make it harder for other players to challenge for leadership, and other players could strengthen their dragons for when the time came to support a challenger. Maybe introduce dragon armor into the game, or give commanders dragon riding abilities.

I would limit it to one dragon per player, in a city of their choosing, and perhaps the dragon can only change cities no more than once every 5 days or something.

Maybe give it some other magical abilities, like fire-breathing to assist in sieges :)

you could of course keep it simple and just use dragons to challenge for leadership. haha
Back to Top
Seadog View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Location: Shardlands
Status: Offline
Points: 16 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seadog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 14:45
Originally posted by Benedetti Benedetti wrote:



If leadership transfer is a problem, then fix that problem.

That has to be the way forward. If an alliance only has one power user and they are inactive for a period of time, those rights need to be passed to somebody else, long before 90 days have passed.
Back to Top
Jejune View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1015 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jejune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 15:01
Originally posted by GM Stormcrow GM Stormcrow wrote:

When a player stops playing illy, there is an account abandonment procedure that will eventually remove this player's account from the game.  This usually can take up-to 90 days, depending on prestige use etc. 

Ok, so let's be honest: at issue here really isn't about Stormcrow's rare scenario, but players' and alliances' desire to hoard the cities of abandoned alliance mates. And let's be even more honest: we're not talking about settlements with populations of 63 that never bought prestige and will be fast-tracked for deletion; we're talking about big, beautiful, shimmering cities with full research and stocked with gold that people pumped prestige into. In these cases, these cities re going to take a full 90 days to be deleted.

Are folks saying that three months isn't long enough for some alliances to be able to reappropriate these cities to active alliance members? That some alliances have such a high proportion of abandoned city inventory that they actually cannot redistribute those cities quickly enough to their small active player base in the alliance to capture the city? To me, if that's the case, and you need to keep putting place-holder sieges in place to keep abandoned cities alive even after three months, there's a bigger problem there than simply limiting the lifecycle of abandoned cities to the "90-day rule." 90 days is a long time, and should be ample time to cannibalize cities of abandoned players.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.