Yeah, that can seem steep.
What bothers me more is the cost of starting over on Titans.
Yeah, that can seem steep.
What bothers me more is the cost of starting over on Titans.
Do you mean auto kicked from the alliance or the rank. Auto kicked from the alliance seems harsh but auto demoted is fine.
Book of Heroes (smartphone F2P, MMO, still running after 5 years) does the following:
After 30 days inactive for the leader (Guild master), all co-leader (officers) get the option “Take over this guild?”. Using this option promotes that player to leader (Guild master) with all the powers of the leader. The old leader (Guild master) is auto demoted to co-leader, retaining most of their powers.
Programmers Note: uses the same programming code as promoting a co-leader, but instead of being triggered by the leader player, is triggered by any of the co-leaders. If the leader logs in before the alliance is taken over, the inactive clock resets to 0 days. So a leader that logs in every 30 days always keeps the alliance.
After 35 days inactive for the leader (Guild master), all co-leaders (officers) and all elders (veterans) get the option “Take over this guild?”
The last rank member (recruit in Book of Heroes), never gets the option to take over.
In Book of heroes, the last rank, recruits (members in empires) do not get the option to take over. This prevents a player entering an abandoned, five year old, maximum level 40 guild with bonuses to all hero stats, and taking it over. To take over any abandoned guild (alliance) requires the player was promoted at least once to veteran (elder) by a co-leader (officer), or higher, before the guild was abandoned.
A guild master (leader) can also “lock” his guild (alliance) by demoting all players to the last rank, recruit (members in empires), but leaving the guild open to recruits (members). Thus declaring his intention to keep the guild, but allowing players to join the guild (alliance) and get all those sweet, sweet hero stat bonuses (Titan progression in empires). These are jokingly referred to as zombie, farming and parking guilds. Not sure how devs from Book of Heroes feel about this not dead but not alive guilds (alliances).
This seems to strike a balance between unfairly taking away a guild (alliance) you have run for 5 years and leaving a guild abandoned because the Guild master and officers no longer log in. But it does leaves a guild (alliance) abandoned if no promoted guild members log in. And it allows “locked” guilds (alliances).
***member (no promotion required)
I’m wondering if there is a way to tell on the Devs side when an alliance is truly dead, all members asleep at the wheel for more than 30 (60, 90, 180) days, and remove that alliance? Surely there must be some like that out there?
In any event, I like your proposed suggestion for taking over a sleeping alliance.
This is less a programming problem, and more a public relations/ marketing problem.
If there is a way for new players to find active alliances (the guild’s cup rating helps) then keeping all dead alliances are good for the game since they show new players how much time and money has been invested in a game.
If you clear out 100% of the dead alliances, (inactive for 180 days or more), new players notice the total alliance count getting smaller and smaller as the game loses low level players and the game consolidates the remaining cash players in very few guilds. This is usually done through examining PvP and alliance leaderboards which are a mixed blessing for F2P Devs.
Consolidation of cash players into a tiny number of alliances is one of the reasons I rant so much about 3* hero teams in empires #AllAboutThe3*
The Devs most likely will follow the public library model of “weeding”. Weeding is were you need to remove X books to make room for new arrivals. A huge problem with library “weeding” is people will stop checking out Book 1 of a trilogy so it will fall onto the dead books to be weeded list, two years later the second book will come out, and the library will not have book 1! Many players will also take long breaks as a new game ramps up its content from initial release to a mature game leading to ups and downs in inactive players.
Note: Devs can also “weed” inactive players. Devs won’t delete your player account after 180 days, it would be a PR nightmare, but they do reserve the right to do so:
I’m not sure what problem cleaning out moribund alliances solves. The OP is concerned about the viability of living alliances that have a disappeared leader. There are good suggestions above; the main challenge is setting the timer.
Well, really the main challenge is that this issue probably doesn’t rise to the top of SG’s to-do list. A missing leader but 29 active members is doing just fine. If there are only three of you left, your titans have already decayed and you might as well go create your own alliance or find one where you can all join.
I joined my Alliance when it had three members, we grew quickly, I became co-leader in a few days. The leader made 5 other co leaders too. But now the leader is 50 days offline, and the other co leaders are 90+ days offline. The problem is that are all below level 10. Their team power is keeping our Alliance back.
Their absence is holding you back; you need active players in those slots.
Unfortunately, there is not currently a mechanism in place to kick absent leaders. One solution is to migrate the active players to a new alliance.
Personally, I would get everyone on Line or Discord apps to keep in touch with everyone during the transition.
Just a thought.
Agree with your ideas!
i agree with how a mutiny could come of a voting process.
Hmm? I didn’t understand your last post.
And yet, for a leader, I see it as not nearly long enough. I can understand it for kicking a regular member and demoting an Elder, but not demoting a leader. What if the leader did not choose a co-leader? If there is more than one co-leader, who does the system choose as the automatic new Leader?
The Leader created the alliance. If you do not like that he has disappeared for a little while, create your own and ask everyone else to join. If he goes away, for whatever reason, he should not return only to discover the place that he started is no longer his.
By what standard is 30 days “a little while”? A month is an eternity in online gaming.
It all depends on how active you are, of course. For the casual gamer, a month just happens to go by with no concerns while the intense gamer is upset that someone from the team was absent from attacking only once. (“We would have defeated it if John hadn’t been absent!”)
I admit, “a little while” was a bad choice of words.
I second this. It is a phone game. People vanish. If leaders go AFK there needs to be a way to demote them and take over so the group can thrive. Not being able to do this risks people getting stuck in dying groups and thus losing interest in the game. This should be a developer priority.
Have ‘initiate mutiny” button. Its put to a vote - 75% to kick the leader down to member
Person who initated the vote, gets leader
Leader doest have to be absent for this feature.
Is this topic even worked on? Shouldn’t be to difficult to set a 30/60/90 day limit until the leader gets demoted and another player promoted. Creating a new alliance just leaves a dead corpse blocking alliance search and falsify alliance statistics.
Given that it takes gems to make an alliance, and you can get gems by money, there may be a reluctance by SG to unilaterally remove a player’s purchased stuff, even if it’s a pain when that stuff is something like an alliance leadership.
Picture the bad publicity as people complain about their purchases being stolen because they went away for a while.
Note - I agree that it would be great to be able to do something about AWOL alliance leaders, but I don’t see what a good and fair solution would be, given that there’s actual money potentially involved in the mess.
Maybe have a ‘Secede’ option, where if the leader is absent too long, the remaining players can opt to create a new alliance, and take a proportion of the alliance score and titan level reached with them, while leaving the defunct alliance with an inactive leader behind.
I don’t see that auto-demoting someone from Leader to Co-leader as taking away something a person has bought. If the new leader then kicks the AWOL founder out, that’s not on SG.
Technically, at least as I understand the whole buying gems vs heroes and definitions of gambling issues elsewhere in the game, you’re entirely correct, in that money hasn’t changed hands to found an alliance. It also doesn’t apply except in the case of the leader being the founder.
In terms of PR though, it’s going to be a potential headache to take the leadership position away from the founder of an alliance if they later come back and kick up a stink about it. So I suspect SG is inclined to take no action as long as the situation doesn’t pass some threshold of being actually damaging as opposed to inconvenient and irritating.
There are alliances with hundred days inactive leaders.
Why not ,if a leader is inactive more then , let’s say 40 days, remove him from alliance and give that title to the most active player? That will help removing inactive players from alliances and create order. If they are inactive , alliance is paralized when all members are just members or elders.
Nobody likes to stumble over something “dead”.