They shouldnt be paired in wars anymore since all members are automatically opted out. 
3 Likes
Personally, I think a car accident or cancer are fine reasons to strip leadership. And those are exactly the reasons it should be stripped. An active persons becomes inactive for say 30 days, doesn’t matter why. Obviously we’re near an extreme here but I see no concern with this. Rather, I think it’s exactly the concern we are trying to deal with.
Well I might feel differently about it than you:
I have invested 18 months into my own alliance…am I then to be kicked out of my own alliance because I got sick? (If players wanted to leave, I would understand that, that’s logical. But it’s not cool to be summarily kicked out of something I built over a very long time because an auto-timer says so.)
My two cents. 
1 Like
You wouldn’t be kicked out. You’d be demoted to co-leader or member. Then the next most active co-leader would be ascended.
I’ve seen this in other games with a timer as low as 3 days. Usually, if a leader is going to be gone, they transfer leadership to a trusted ally then it gets transferred back. If they forget and are removed as leader, they still get it transferred back.
The suggestion by others was 30 days. I’ve seen 3 days. Nothing done is irreversible if a slip occurred.
If you’re reading kicked, that’s a difference. That said, if the timer is like 30 days, I would think it likely the new leader may kick you. If 3 days, probably not as people would suspect vacation or sickness or something.
But no, I don’t feel they should remain untouched forever just because they are leader. You pay to create an alliance in my mind, not to be leader. That said, they usually come together. This treats leadership like a privilege, not a right.
Ah… I had to go back to re-read the version 1.15 release notes. So logically, they shouldn’t even appear as a potential war group by their days of inactiveness. But how long does the game consider someone “inactive” to take him/her out of the War matchmaking equation regardless of whether they have decided to opt-in the wars individually?
That being said, most of those inactive players in my old alliance are probably still on older game versions older than 1.15 (some of them were probably last active almost 6 months ago), before war opt outs (by alliance) and individual war opt outs are implemented. In my current alliance, I’ve had some members that were inactive for almost a month and still got put into wars (that’s my observance until we had to kick them).
I guess there is no way for me to find out for sure or unless devs say something about it.
Two wars without activity is supposed to trigger the auto-opt-out.
2 Likes
I realize I am bristling at this suggestion. I think there is a happy medium between leaving poor alliances in limbo and booting their leadership, assuming we know what happened (which we don’t).
(I’ve been on a game that removed a Leader after a short absence and appointed the oldest other player…who had no interest in leadership and who then abandoned the alliance.)
Perhaps it would work for x percentage of alliances, and maybe it would help. But I won’t vote for it.
(Thanks for letting me cite you MrMeeseeks!)
1 Like
Back to the car thing. I look at it more like buying a house (alliance) and you have to pay your hoa dues ( be active take care of your alliance). If you don’t there is a chance in the future you could lose your house ( alliance).
Or property taxes if you didn’t like the first analogy.
It is kind of a ticklisch problem… I was looking through alliances randomly the other day and was seeing people that haven’t been active for over a year!.. a rather large alliance, as I recall, and there were 3 players that still came in - not overly active - but still there, while the rest, more than twenty, hadn’t touched the game in 200 days and up.
So - I think it would be okay to close an alliance after 6 months. I understand @Rook’s point of view, that a leader shouldn’t lose their alliance after 30 days - life happens, like it or not.
I worry about those players in an inactive alliance, not being able to move forward, not getting any assistance… possibly they don’t know they can move on… how to help them? An in-game message after the leader has been absent for 2 months? I was thinking maybe it would help if no titans spawned after a certain amount of time - people might look for a new alliance then… but an in-game message would likely be necessary just the same. At least give those players the information that there are plenty of other alliances they can join.
So what is stopping players leaving alliances with inactive leadership and forming their own new, fully active alliances?
1 Like
- That they probably don’t know they could as @Witch pointed out, as silly as that might sound.
- They are holding out hope that their alliance might one day be alive again
and - 50 gems they might be unwilling to part with.
4 Likes
I don’t know how difficult it would be to code, but I do think there is a multipart solution to this problem.
- If the leader has not logged in during a set amount of time, say 30 days, then do not include that alliance in search, war matching, or titans until they do.
- At the same time, send an inbasket message to all the players in the alliance telling them of this and offering instructions for leaving and finding or forming a new alliance.
- Post the same message as a pop up every time they log into the game.
That way the alliance leader is not stripped of what they created, and the players are given the chance to move on.
5 Likes
Some people are natural followers, not leaders. You sometimes have to give people a push. I do it with my kids and people at work, as I’m sure others do too. It’s developing a new generation. 
1 Like
I didn’t read this whole thread, but the starting idea seems incorrect:
Whatever the causes of bad war matches are, inactive alliances is not among them.
2 Likes
Well spotted Kahree, thank you!
And the comment about followers vs leaders is definitely true for some (or we would all be leaders or all followers!)
Lastly, I have run into players who do not know game basics because they do not hang out in game chat and were never taught this or that particular nuance.
I don’t think an alliance bereft of a leader should be also punished with lack of Titans etc, but a periodic message of “you are missing a leader…this is how most alliances are run…this is how you can fix your loss” would probably be very very helpful.
2 Likes
If I hadn’t gone to the forum, I wouldn’t have learned about “ghosting” tiles. For one thing and there’s more.
1 Like
So if its cheap, and its easy…what is the issue. Determine the name of the new alliance, get all the active players in the alliance to move over, share contact info in case there are issues. Promote them to co-leaders for their loyalty and have fun.
Its isn’t a big deal. I did it. No problem.
2 Likes
There’s no “issue”, I never said that.
The fact is that creating a new alliance bothered 29 (max) players.
Don’t say that it takes N days to have again N* titans because it’s a lie.
You can lie to yourself if you want but don’t lie to the entire forum please.
It may be true for such heavy teams like 7DD and the like, but not for “normal teams”. It takes longer, way longer (N-1 and N-2* titans, you have to kill 3 of them at least).
You did it yourself ? And ? Because you did it doesn’t mean there can’t be improve ment…
With such mindset, we’ll still be at stone age…
You prefer keep like it is instead of trying an improvement that may bother 0,0000001% of inactive leaders coming back and may satisfy 100% of players that encounter this situation.
OK, fine.
I don’t understand this behavior but fine…
Don’t be surprised to lose players regularly when nothings changes. Guess war happens to Neandertal men that did not evolve ?
Guess what happens to thieves.