Alliance Leadership on abandonment

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

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.   

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.

i wonder if a change is necessary. GM Stormcrow came to the forum with a concern about alliance leadership being stuck in a hopeless limbo. Jejune has effectively moved the conversation to how more reliably to purge older accounts. the reality of holding sieges is that they demand more from players (assuming they have to be reestablished every 14d and that there's no exploit being used) than simply getting someone to log into the account every 90d. so to Jejune's point, closing this loophole in the purge rules (which is really just using the game mechanics, no worse than terraforming) is only likely to have an effect on those players who are not prepared to persuade a departing player to return to reset the count...or worse, to convince them to yield up a password so someone else can.

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)?

all in all, these cities are assets on the board and a player is expressing an interest in them by repeatedly deploying a holding siege; if that interest wanes, the cities are immediately purged. the player has no ability to direct the assets of the account, as was the case with perpetual sitting. is this really a problem that needs dev action to resolve?

Does it have to be a rainbow?