I agree that there needs to be a system in place and this also seems to be a common problem with most games - how to handle inactive alliances.
The original Guild Wars game did this well. In that game, if a guild leader did not sign into the game for more than 30 days, then they were auto-demoted to Officer status and the most senior officer in the guild (that had been active in the last 30 days) was auto-promoted to leader. If no officers qualify then the most senior member is promoted.
I’d like to see a similar system here, and in most games.
-
If the leader hasn’t played in 30 days then they should be demoted to Co-Leader and the most senior Co-Leader promoted. If no Co-Leaders qualify then move to Elders then finally to members.
-
If no one in the Alliance has played for more than 90 days, then the Alliance should be dissolved or at the very least taken out of Alliance search results.
I think most people’s main argument against auto-demoting a leader is “What if real life issues happen?” Yes, it happens. A leader has a car accident and is laid up for awhile, or goes on a month long honeymoon to Europe or moves to a new town. That’s why we have co-leaders and they need to be given the authority to manage an Alliance appropriately in a leader’s absence.
If the absence is planned then most competent leaders will step-down and appoint a new leader until they return. This is why it’s important to have people you trust in the co-leader positions.
However, let’s face it. Most people that haven’t signed in within 30 days have totally abandoned the game and they aren’t coming back. Those that have unforeseen real-life difficulties likely have more important issues on their mind than an alliance in a mobile game and would probably be glad to know things were taken care of in that game he enjoyed before X happened.