Alliance Leadership on abandonment |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 7> |
| Author | |
JimJams 
Forum Warrior 
Joined: 20 Sep 2011 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 496 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Alliance Leadership on abandonmentPosted: 13 Feb 2016 at 14:43 |
|
90 days are NOTHING in this game
Assuming a small-medium alliance have about 30 players, you can get a lot more than 90 days to reallocate 10 or more cities. Players have to grow to get another city. So, let's say the truth, this is all over forcing people to buy prestige, so they can grow faster and take the cities. My call? Make the game working well and quicken its neverending nevercompleting nevercommiting development if you want more money from us. Or just continue with BS and deal with people abandoning or virtually abandoning this game, as it is happening in the last 2-3 years. Don't call me rude, I was kind. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Mr Damage
Postmaster 
Joined: 01 Jan 2011 Status: Offline Points: 598 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 21:35 |
|
Leave the incoming army scenario as is, if people want to bother extending an account's life that way then good for them. The alliance leader situation, remove from leadership after 90 days inactivity and promote next in line. Members not wanting to wait this long in player abandonment cases can always petition the devs for a shorter solution. Perhaps a player abandoning should automatically lose leadership role when doing so?
|
|
|
|
|
Silea
New Poster 
Joined: 09 Feb 2016 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 31 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 21:06 |
|
I might be new to Illyriad but in reading all these posts I thought I would give my two cents. It looks like we have to seperate issues. One account abandonment ane two leadership abandonment.
I tend to agree long account sitting is a problem but i also think that siezing a nice pretty city is nice. I think that at 90 days the marked abandoned city goes into degrade mode is the solution that makes the most sense. It would give incentive to hurry the siezure but also give time for guild to movenin equipment. For leadership abandonment at 90 days leadership is forfeit an auto email goes out oon the group next down on list and the choice is left up to vote. Maybe each capiol city gets a token and you send it.to the capitol of the leader you want. The person who gets the most tokens is new.leader. |
|
|
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General 
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 19:41 |
|
Well, dropping all alliance roles upon the abandonment flag getting set would make it obvious to everyone that the account is inactive. I would expect lots of thieves. Personally I would be okay with just automatically dropping the player from the alliance itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Fyzz
New Poster
Joined: 02 Aug 2012 Status: Offline Points: 18 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 18:40 |
|
The problem as described relate to the leader of an alliance exceeding 90 days but then towns 'held' in limbo by holding sieges causing a problem with alliance roles - why don't you just drop all alliance roles on the 'abandonment' flag and leave the rest as is.
|
|
|
|
|
Dungshoveleux
Postmaster
Joined: 09 Nov 2013 Status: Offline Points: 935 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 18:34 |
|
The more I think about it, alliance leaders with sole superuser rights who don't log in at least once per 30 days should be subject to superuser rights rolling down to the next level. If an alliance superuser can't be assed to log in at least once per month then they shouldn't be leader?
Edited by Dungshoveleux - 09 Feb 2016 at 21:39 |
|
|
|
|
TheBillPN
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Jun 2014 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 305 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 14:08 |
|
For the alliance leadership issue: Hand over Superuser controls to the next highest ranking member who logged in the most recently, delete the account after the allotted time regardless of incoming military units.
For Abandoned accounts, Delete the account after the allotted time regardless of incoming military units. For Suspended account (by the DEVS for breaking rules etc..), Delete after the allotted time regardless of incoming military units. For the unfortunate circumstances - e.g. car accident. health problems, small-scale invasion by another country, large-scale invasion by aliens - at the start of the game you are advised to look round the forums and at the game website, where it tells you about the deletion protocols. If you aren't willing to live with the fact that your account may one day be deleted due to unforeseen RL circumstances, either don't spend money on the account or don't play the game. I myself am coming up on my 2nd Illyversary, and if i get incapacitated for three months, I wouldn't have much of a problem. Firstly, my account isn't the most brilliant, and i haven't spent a lot on it. Secondly, I have left notes for people to read in various situations so my account would be taken care of by my family until such time as I recover or die. i have listed who my cities would be taken by and how long to wait for this to be dealt with. I'm sure there are ways to deal with any situation that comes up, so Don't Panic, and make sure you have your towel. |
|
|
|
|
Starry
Postmaster
Joined: 20 Mar 2010 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 612 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 13:54 |
+1 The game mechanics are in place to prevent this issue, multiple superusers are allowed in the game, which would prevent this issue. I'm going to suggest that an alliance leader, who does not avail this alliance of these options, either did so intentionally or did not understand the game mechanics of alliance management. KP's suggestion would resolve this issue without impacting other areas of the game.
|
|
|
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless? "Truth never dies." -HonoredMule |
|
|
|
|
STAR
Greenhorn 
Joined: 11 Jun 2010 Status: Offline Points: 99 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 08:59 |
|
After reading everyones post, I agree with the "what aint broke dont fix" motto
but I also think that game mechanics shouldn't be exploited/used in order to keep a hold over territory whether it is for personal gain or not. Game mechanics have been put in place for those who have "RL" situations or unexpected things come up by leaving someone to sit the account for a maximum of 90 days and they also have another 90 days before their account is listed as abandoned, so considering those numbers thats upto 6months, if you add on the game mechanics of fake seiges that can drag out that period even longer. Most alliances have multiple leadership in place and should be communicating with each other on circumstances that may effect their ability to play and therefore have something in place anyway. As for sole leadership alliances, there could be an option listed under "Petitions" for inactivity leading to an Abandoned status in place for the alliance if the leader has failed to log in during the 90 day period, this option should be available for all active members in the alliance to be able to lodge but only the three most active players would get a temp super-user (30days) So once the "petition" is lodge a "new leadership mail" with the three most active players as the choices for new leader/s would be sent to all active members to vote in the new leader/s of the alliance with the "majority" rules regardless if they vote or not or If no vote is lodge then all 3 will win by default Despite how long a person has played or put money into an account, the decision to leave was the owner of the account, there are options already in place if the owner needs time to do RL stuff, the account can be sat for upto 90 days, if more time is needed, Not sure if this is possible but the owner could appoint another sitter. Alliances also have a policy on being active The account can be inactive for another 90 days before being listed as abandoned, rather than delete the account or have the account exploited or manipulated using game mechanics, to strongly motivate alliances to capture their players cities, could maybe add on another 60days, after that time, if the players account has any remaining cities could mayb default back to unaffiliated player (regardless if the cities are under seige or not) The remaining cities can be available to anyone to capture for a 30day period before the account is deleted Just some suggestions, I know most alliances claim all their players cities but an Abandoned account is an Abandoned account |
|
|
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 09 Feb 2016 at 04:37 |
|
I have seen a lot of dead accounts being kept on artificial life support by a marker siege or holding blockade. It is not a question of helping new players. Those alliances are keeping all those locations locked up for their own personal use. If they had active new players with enough population to add another city, they would not need 90, 120, 180 days to capture. I think the broad population of all new players would benefit strongly from access to good locations currently held by zombie accounts. That benefit outweighs the current small benefit of allowing sizable alliances to use zombie accounts to fence in desirable locations for the exclusive use of their own members, on the off chance that a city will occasionally be needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 7> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
KillerPoodle wrote: