More alliance leadership roles / ranks MASTER

Free beer Fridays? They’d be a big hit in our alliance. :beer::beer::beers::beers:

2 Likes

I like it, especially if SG/Zynga pick up the tab.

2 Likes

Can confirm that I do pantless everyday so this is not an effective alliance event.

3 Likes

I would like this but I’ve hit the limit so many times today I don’t think I’m getting any more.

2 Likes

There is one position that is absolutely needed: USERPER TO THE THRONE.

This is a position that is automatically designated to the longest tenured and active member of the alliance once the Designated leader becomes inactive for a certain period of time (Default 7 days, but it can be set by the leader.)

The Userper would then be able to supplant the inactive leader and take the helm of the Alliance.

2 Likes

I don’t love the idea - why doesn’t everyone in the alliance just quit and form a new one?

It’s worth recognising, though, that a lot of people really favour your suggestion, or something similar…

  1. It leaves a lot of ghost Alliances that new players may accidently join
  2. Many people are attached to the name of their alliance. Making a new the name have to be somehow changed. It is not that easy to even find a name not occupied (Getting back to 1.)
  3. If not having alliance chat outside game I imagine that members could be lost in the process of all moving
  4. If having build up for higher level titans it sucks to start over from 1*

I kind of like @Otto0000s idea of the leader being able to set the time. Then in a very relaxed alliance owned by the leader it could be set to weeks if the leader is going on a long holiday.
In my alliance the original leader spending the 50 gems left 2 years ago. If I was not logging in for 2-3 days something would be terrible wrong and then I would like it to be possible for a co-leader to take over the leadership in my abscence

These are all valid and important points. (Except the alliance name thing. The name thing is trivial.) I just feel like they are outweighed by the wrongness of effectively confiscated a thing created by a person - at a cost of 50 gems, it must be noted.

If leaders chose to opt into the system, deciding to assign a ‘usurper’ and giving them the power to take over if they themselves became inactive, then I think I would be okay with that. I’m firmly opposed to them not getting a say in the matter, however.

Why would you be opposed Brobb? The big problem is that the leaders suddenly go dark and some to never return. That is why I suggested the “Userper” designation to be an automated process to designate the longest standing Co-Leader or member to take over the reins of the alliance.

Actually i really like the idea of custom names for positions in an alliance. Usually i think these things are silly, but I’ve played a lot of other games and this can be a really fun way for personalization. These things can be really important to some people too.

Could be something for SG to make an option for alliances where everyone in an alliance “votes” with 10~50 gems, and if enough gems are raised then the alliance unlocks that option. This way alliances like mine where we don’t care don’t need to worry, but bigger alliances can do this and be a small revenue souce

I don’t think we need more ranks tbh, but I’m 110% behind custom titles, so this gets a vote from me.

Also agree about “usurper” position - far too many dead alliances around. I think 7 days is maybe a little short, I’d say maybe 2 weeks, but auto-promoting someone to fill leadership and be able to kick dead weight is a long-overdue option.

I still feel this way:

2 Likes

As usual, a great point. Two ways that I can see to solve the issue would be 1) The Designated Userper would be required to pay 50 gems to assume leadership and those gems would then be passed to the original leader who had been displaced. 2) TOS agreement when starting an alliance that they will forfeit leadership and gems spent if they become inactive for XXX period of time.

2 Likes

Those are both excellent ideas that would mitigate my concerns. If the system was changed to match your suggestions then I would be fine with it.

3 Likes

I tend to agree with you, but in the ToS it is fairly clear that SG/Zynga own everything in the game, everything you purchase with cash or gems belongs to them, and you are not to transfer them to anyone else. With that in mind, I don’t think there is anything legally preventing them from transferring an alliance from someone who paid gems for it to someone else.

With that in mind, I would have no problem with the alliance being transferred to the longest standing active member, and either the gems being refunded to the founding leader’s account or the new leader paying 50 gems to be given to the founding account.

1 Like

I’m sure you’re right that there’s no legal impediment to SG arbitrarily transferring alliance leadership, but I feel like it would be a bit unethical for them to do so - I’d be pretty peeved if I was on the receiving end of it.

I do recognise that the problem of inactive alliance leadership is a serious issue for many players and there seems to be a groundswell of support for transferring leadership away from the inactive. I could live with this if there was an explicit change to the TOS to make it clear that this was a possibility, and if deposed leaders were refunded their 50 gems by the usurpers.

2 Likes

in another game that i used(left for time) when the leader and coleader have been inactive for more than a week the longest active player becomes a temporary leader.
something similar could be done.

Alliance formed in which only coleaders and elders are present I have seen few. in this way the temporary leader can clean up the abandoned profiles. Obviously it cannot touch leaders, coleaders and elders.

it could be a first step.

the alternative (which I used) and take and go elsewhere.
there are an infinite number of active alliances with few elements

According to your activity you should be assigned a rank or title…

This should be automated and no way of amendment…

The leader and co-leader should still be able to promote, if they choose…

Not sure if this was suggested previously…

Id rather that SG implements an option to edit titles.
I think that nowadays titles are a bit outdated.
I dont care about ranks but id like to be able to edit titles. Like for example put titles like “shieldmaiden” “chieftain” and things like that

2 Likes

Like that…

Maybe provide the leaders with an option to allocate to the alliance members…

Thank you for your input. Like your ideas

2 Likes

Hey cool idea!! Leaders could make up their own titles for alliance ranks. With the international player base that would make a lot of sense and be fun! Maybe suggest this at the AMA thing they have when that thread comes out.