New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

by Kenzu Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:18 am

I suggest an update, which will allow active members to take leadership of an alliance of which the leader is inactive.

If the leader of an alliance doesn't log in for over 30 days, then all alliance members will be informed of this via recent events in your realm, that they can request to be a leader of the alliance. Then on the alliance page they can request to become the leader by pressing a button, which appears there. If they have logged into Aderan Wars at least 30 times (doesn't have to be consecutive), then they will be added to a list of people who want to become leader and become visible on the alliance page. After 2 days, the game will look at the list and chose the player who has the best rank. This player will be the new leader.

Alternative solution: People can apply to become the leader for next 2 days. And then for the next 2 days all members can vote for their favourite. The person who has the most votes will be chosen. If there is a tie, then the player with better rank will be chosen.

PS: Instead of rank it could be the population that will be looked at, or the number of days a player has played.

People can vote who will be the next leader.

by Jiro Wed Sep 07, 2011 5:08 pm

What about a simple solution: if the leader of an alliance does not log in for 30 days or goes on vacation, the first member who logs in gets to be the new leader. He/she can choose the new leader as they see fit.

by seaborgium Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:36 pm

Or the 2nd in command gets it..

by Nomad Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:33 am

Why is your Admin account making suggestions instead of your forum account?

But anyway, We have asked for this over and over, along with removing the 3 pages on 0 stat, inactive, dead alliances and never got a response from admin other then he thought it was a good idea and he would work on it eventually.

Something needs to be done tho.

by kingkongfan1 Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:53 am

wait, Kong is confused, the title of this thread is "New leader for inactive alliances"

then kenzu makes this statement...

I suggest an update, which will allow active members to take leadership of an alliance of which the leader is inactive.

so are we discussing inactive alliances, or are we discussing alliances with inactive leaders?

the title of the thread & the subject of the thread don't match, so I don't know how to respond without spamming the thread.

by Nomad Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:14 am

Kenzu wrote:I suggest an update, which will allow active members to take leadership of an alliance of which the leader is inactive.

That is the forum Admins suggestion to the game Admin. The players just expanded it to include other suggestions and brought up past experiances with the subject.

by Admin Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:09 pm

kingkongfan1 wrote:so are we discussing inactive alliances, or are we discussing alliances with inactive leaders?

the title may sound confusing, probably both and kenzu suggested one option with only leader being inactive

simplest i can see is leader loses privilege if doesn't login for a month then it gets passed onto the second in command/advisor if the 2ic/advisors logged in the last 2 weeks otherwise whoever has the biggest army/rank logged in the last week (so if several people logged in, the biggest army gets the leadership, 2ic goes to top rank. it doesn't mean that if the top army didn't login for 7 days then no one becomes leader), otherwise alliance disbands

so
leader 30 days or
2ic/advisors 14 days or
anyone with top army/rank 7 days or
disband

either way there's not going to be any elections or anything mainly cos that would be helluva complicated

by Nomad Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:30 pm

I would just be glad to see movement of any kind so Thanks for working on it.

by kingkongfan1 Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:50 am

i agree,,, thanks

by Kenzu Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:16 am

seaborgium wrote:Or the 2nd in command gets it..

Yes, that's even better.
The second in command gets it, however if no 2nd in command has been assigned, then the way I mentioned it.

I am against alliance disbandment, because a player who has an alliance might be for example a lone wolf alliance and maybe he has leaves the game for a month or even longer and when he comes back there is no reason why he shouldnt be allowed to continue gaining war experience and stats for his alliance. If the alliance disbands, then he will lose everything, I don't think that's necessary. We have had many cases of people leaving the game and then comming back after a couple months.

by Manleva Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:54 am

Kenzu wrote:
seaborgium wrote:Or the 2nd in command gets it..

Yes, that's even better.
The second in command gets it, however if no 2nd in command has been assigned, then the way I mentioned it.

I am against alliance disbandment, because a player who has an alliance might be for example a lone wolf alliance and maybe he has leaves the game for a month or even longer and when he comes back there is no reason why he shouldnt be allowed to continue gaining war experience and stats for his alliance. If the alliance disbands, then he will lose everything, I don't think that's necessary. We have had many cases of people leaving the game and then comming back after a couple months.

As your reasoning is directed at what would basically be a one person alliance then I would suggest that before disbanding happens a check is made to see if the player is in vacation mode. If they are then the alliance is left alone if not then it's disbanded.

Just because someone leaves and my or may not come back is no reason to keep an alliance active. As it is there are far to many alliances littered with totally inactive players who have never come back.

by kingkongfan1 Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:43 am

I agree fully with Manleva, & I would go so far as to suggest that any alliance formed should have a minimum of 3 members to become an alliance, as far as I am concerned 1 man does not make an alliance... JMO.

by Kenzu Fri Sep 16, 2011 1:55 pm

Manleva wrote:
Kenzu wrote:
seaborgium wrote:Or the 2nd in command gets it..

Yes, that's even better.
The second in command gets it, however if no 2nd in command has been assigned, then the way I mentioned it.

I am against alliance disbandment, because a player who has an alliance might be for example a lone wolf alliance and maybe he has leaves the game for a month or even longer and when he comes back there is no reason why he shouldnt be allowed to continue gaining war experience and stats for his alliance. If the alliance disbands, then he will lose everything, I don't think that's necessary. We have had many cases of people leaving the game and then comming back after a couple months.

As your reasoning is directed at what would basically be a one person alliance then I would suggest that before disbanding happens a check is made to see if the player is in vacation mode. If they are then the alliance is left alone if not then it's disbanded.

Just because someone leaves and my or may not come back is no reason to keep an alliance active. As it is there are far to many alliances littered with totally inactive players who have never come back.

The sole existance of inactive alliances is not an argument for their disbandment. They don't hurt anyone, there is no need to delete them. If we had millions of inactive alliances and they lead to server brake downs, now that would be a good argument against them. However this is not the case.

by seaborgium Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:38 pm

I know games that delete yer game account after a set term of inactivty.
Others drop alliances if under so many members.

Honestly the number of in active alliances look like cra for the game

by Manleva Fri Sep 16, 2011 8:54 pm

Kenzu wrote:The sole existance of inactive alliances is not an argument for their disbandment. They don't hurt anyone, there is no need to delete them. If we had millions of inactive alliances and they lead to server brake downs, now that would be a good argument against them. However this is not the case.

Currently there are 143 visible alliances and the vast majority of these are composed of inactive single players. While they don't impact game play they do have a negative impact. They show new players that there are a lot of players who have left after putting in very little effort which creates a negative impression.

They also hold alliance names that new players may want to use themselves. A lot of people become attached to their alliance / clan/ group names and as they move from game to game want to reuse them. If the name is already in use and active then they will look first to see if there may be other players in it that they know and if there are then they are likely to stay longer. If they find no one that they know then they will generally make inquiries anyway.

However if their favorite name is taken up by inactive players then they are more likely to move on elsewhere.

We also have to consider that this is only apparent with the visible alliances and we also need to consider that there are also hidden alliances as well.

I happen to agree with Admins suggestion that after a certain timeframe if there are no active players in an alliance then it is disbanded. I would add in some thing to make an allowance for Vacation mode but would also put a time limit on that.

I would also make a change with hidden alliances by making the alliance name visible in the Alliance rankings while hiding all other details. It should also be possible that a mechanism could be put in place whereby players could email one of these alliances and the message would be redirected to the leader.

by Manadomiel Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:03 pm

Manleva wrote:
Kenzu wrote:The sole existance of inactive alliances is not an argument for their disbandment. They don't hurt anyone, there is no need to delete them. If we had millions of inactive alliances and they lead to server brake downs, now that would be a good argument against them. However this is not the case.

Currently there are 143 visible alliances and the vast majority of these are composed of inactive single players. While they don't impact game play they do have a negative impact. They show new players that there are a lot of players who have left after putting in very little effort which creates a negative impression.

They also hold alliance names that new players may want to use themselves. A lot of people become attached to their alliance / clan/ group names and as they move from game to game want to reuse them. If the name is already in use and active then they will look first to see if there may be other players in it that they know and if there are then they are likely to stay longer. If they find no one that they know then they will generally make inquiries anyway.

However if their favorite name is taken up by inactive players then they are more likely to move on elsewhere.

We also have to consider that this is only apparent with the visible alliances and we also need to consider that there are also hidden alliances as well.

I happen to agree with Admins suggestion that after a certain timeframe if there are no active players in an alliance then it is disbanded. I would add in some thing to make an allowance for Vacation mode but would also put a time limit on that.

I would also make a change with hidden alliances by making the alliance name visible in the Alliance rankings while hiding all other details. It should also be possible that a mechanism could be put in place whereby players could email one of these alliances and the message would be redirected to the leader.

Seconded.
Given that I had a lot of fun wondering who were the members of Lords of Legend and how to get in touch with them, I second the part about the hidden alliances especially.

by kingkongfan1 Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:39 pm

Spoiler:

Thirded,,, Kong agree with all thats said above... well not really the part about LoL but the rest for sure... lmao.

by Manleva Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:57 am

Manadomiel wrote:Seconded.
Given that I had a lot of fun wondering who were the members of Lords of Legend and how to get in touch with them, I second the part about the hidden alliances especially.

LOL For anyone familiar with any of the players that came here from Lords of Legends then getting in touch was very easy as most used the same names here.
The Lords of Legends Alliance still exists , however it is one of those alliances totally composed of inactive players.

by Kenzu Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:40 am

seaborgium wrote:I know games that delete yer game account after a set term of inactivty.
Others drop alliances if under so many members.

Honestly the number of in active alliances look like cra for the game

I once played a game for about half a year, and then abandoned it for about 2 months because I was being busy with work. Then when I wanted to come back to the game it said something along the lines that my account got deleted and obviously I didnt want start again from scratch, so the game lost a player because of this.

And no we should not delete players who are not on vacation mode, because many will either not know that there is such possibility, or not bother activating it, believing they will never play it again, while half a year later they might come back and end up bringing more players.

Manleva wrote:
Kenzu wrote:The sole existance of inactive alliances is not an argument for their disbandment. They don't hurt anyone, there is no need to delete them. If we had millions of inactive alliances and they lead to server brake downs, now that would be a good argument against them. However this is not the case.

Currently there are 143 visible alliances and the vast majority of these are composed of inactive single players. While they don't impact game play they do have a negative impact. They show new players that there are a lot of players who have left after putting in very little effort which creates a negative impression.

They also hold alliance names that new players may want to use themselves. A lot of people become attached to their alliance / clan/ group names and as they move from game to game want to reuse them. If the name is already in use and active then they will look first to see if there may be other players in it that they know and if there are then they are likely to stay longer. If they find no one that they know then they will generally make inquiries anyway.

However if their favorite name is taken up by inactive players then they are more likely to move on elsewhere.

We also have to consider that this is only apparent with the visible alliances and we also need to consider that there are also hidden alliances as well.

I happen to agree with Admins suggestion that after a certain timeframe if there are no active players in an alliance then it is disbanded. I would add in some thing to make an allowance for Vacation mode but would also put a time limit on that.

I would also make a change with hidden alliances by making the alliance name visible in the Alliance rankings while hiding all other details. It should also be possible that a mechanism could be put in place whereby players could email one of these alliances and the message would be redirected to the leader.

The point of wanting to use a certain alliance name is a good one. Right now anyone who registers can set up an alliance immediately. Maybe making something which prevents players from founding an alliance on the first day could prevent most players from creating one, who don't play seriously. This could be done for example by adding a building which will allow you to create an alliance.

I like your suggestion with hidden alliances. Seing their names would be nice.

by Admin Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:30 pm

TBH I would want to see all alliances, esp the inactive ones, who have low member count, 1-2, to be gone. Cos that is simply weird.

I am partially split on the idea of disbanding alliances, albeit inactive, with more than a few people.

On one hand, it really puts a bad mark on the game if there's 4.5 pages of inactive alliances, 4 pages of that being alliances with 0 stats.

So the next step would be, disband anything under 3 members if the previous method will not get us any new leader, if you're active then you can be even alone and your alliance will stand.

Anything at or above 3, it stays, however if someone wants to make an alliance with the same name, it'll disband the inactive and create the new one.

I am very split on what to do with hidden alliances.
They are hidden so there's not really a point in them showing up, anywhere

by Nomad Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:40 pm

Admin wrote:
Anything at or above 3, it stays, however if someone wants to make an alliance with the same name, it'll disband the inactive and create the new one.

I am very split on what to do with hidden alliances.
They are hidden so there's not really a point in them showing up, anywhere

I just want to say something to these 2 statements.

1. If you do this, just keep in mind some smarty pants will break away from his alliance and go around making alliances with the same name as dead alliances just to get them out of the alliance rankings page. Personally I am not against it, just wanting to put it out there that the suggestion you are making has a glaring loophole/exploit that will be used.

2. I happen to agree that hidden alliances are just that, Hidden. The only alteration I can see that might possibly need to be made is when you attempt to create an alliance, if he select a name already in use by a hidden alliance you get a red letter message stating

Your operatives warn you that there has been many rumors an underground group already uses this name.

Or something similar.

by kingkongfan1 Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:11 pm

Admin wrote:TBH I would want to see all alliances, esp the inactive ones, who have low member count, 1-2, to be gone. Cos that is simply weird.

I agree with you 100% on this...

I am partially split on the idea of disbanding alliances, albeit inactive, with more than a few people.

I can see where your thinking is on this; but consider this, I have actively played AW for 574 days now, & using the alliance NPO(o) as an example that alliance has been inactive for the whole time that I have been playing... in the end if you choose to leave inactive alliances with more than a few members alone, I wont complain about it...

On one hand, it really puts a bad mark on the game if there's 4.5 pages of inactive alliances, 4 pages of that being alliances with 0 stats.

again I am in 100% agreement with you on this...

So the next step would be, disband anything under 3 members if the previous method will not get us any new leader, if you're active then you can be even alone and your alliance will stand.

I won't take issue with this, but I will say this, IMO 1 man does not an alliance make. the solution is simple 3 or more of the now existing 1 man alliances should join together as an alliance...

Anything at or above 3, it stays, however if someone wants to make an alliance with the same name, it'll disband the inactive and create the new one.

I think I already covered this above...

I am very split on what to do with hidden alliances.
They are hidden so there's not really a point in them showing up, anywhere

don't really know what to say here; I agree with you, but honestly I have yet to understand why anyone would want to be hidden...

by Admin Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:26 pm

Nomad wrote:
I just want to say something to these 2 statements.

1. If you do this, just keep in mind some smarty pants will break away from his alliance and go around making alliances with the same name as dead alliances just to get them out of the alliance rankings page. Personally I am not against it, just wanting to put it out there that the suggestion you are making has a glaring loophole/exploit that will be used.

2. I happen to agree that hidden alliances are just that, Hidden. The only alteration I can see that might possibly need to be made is when you attempt to create an alliance, if he select a name already in use by a hidden alliance you get a red letter message stating

Your operatives warn you that there has been many rumors an underground group already uses this name.

Or something similar.

TY for the suggestion on the same name of a hidden alliance. I'll put that one in

and 1) that was the first thing what I figured people would do, I still have no issue with it.
The alternative, an active player wanting to use an inactive name has more value to me than someone wasting their time doing this.

by Nomad Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:14 pm

Admin wrote:TBH I would want to see all alliances, esp the inactive ones, who have low member count, 1-2, to be gone. Cos that is simply weird.

I am partially split on the idea of disbanding alliances, albeit inactive, with more than a few people.

On one hand, it really puts a bad mark on the game if there's 4.5 pages of inactive alliances, 4 pages of that being alliances with 0 stats.

So the next step would be, disband anything under 3 members if the previous method will not get us any new leader, if you're active then you can be even alone and your alliance will stand.

Anything at or above 3, it stays, however if someone wants to make an alliance with the same name, it'll disband the inactive and create the new one.

I am very split on what to do with hidden alliances.
They are hidden so there's not really a point in them showing up, anywhere

I know there was once discussion on making the ability to start an alliance be tied to the Con Yards so new born accounts can't make an alliance. I hope this is revisited and reconsidered. Presently there are 200 alliances, of which only 10 have 3 members with at least 1 active member.

Spoiler:

The spoiler above contains the last 6 pages of the 7 page alliance list. The most powerful of them is a 1 man alliance with 250 MILLION in total power. I have seen already in the new wave of players that commanders and officers are creating 1 man alliances.

Spoiler:

I really think this issue needs to be revisited, and something needs to be done as soon as possible, if anything is to be done at all. I think this would go along way in assisting Kenzu in his quest of developing and expanding alliances beyond 1 man alliances. It would help to funnel active players to alliances, and make sure those alliances that are formed are self sustaining and not 1 man alliances.

by kingkongfan1 Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:45 pm

Nomad wrote:
Admin wrote:TBH I would want to see all alliances, esp the inactive ones, who have low member count, 1-2, to be gone. Cos that is simply weird.

I am partially split on the idea of disbanding alliances, albeit inactive, with more than a few people.

On one hand, it really puts a bad mark on the game if there's 4.5 pages of inactive alliances, 4 pages of that being alliances with 0 stats.

So the next step would be, disband anything under 3 members if the previous method will not get us any new leader, if you're active then you can be even alone and your alliance will stand.

Anything at or above 3, it stays, however if someone wants to make an alliance with the same name, it'll disband the inactive and create the new one.

I am very split on what to do with hidden alliances.
They are hidden so there's not really a point in them showing up, anywhere

I know there was once discussion on making the ability to start an alliance be tied to the Con Yards so new born accounts can't make an alliance. I hope this is revisited and reconsidered. Presently there are 200 alliances, of which only 10 have 3 members with at least 1 active member.
Spoiler:
The spoiler above contains the last 6 pages of the 7 page alliance list. The most powerful of them is a 1 man alliance with 250 MILLION in total power. I have seen already in the new wave of players that commanders and officers are creating 1 man alliances.

Spoiler:

I really think this issue needs to be revisited, and something needs to be done as soon as possible, if anything is to be done at all. I think this would go along way in assisting Kenzu in his quest of developing and expanding alliances beyond 1 man alliances. It would help to funnel active players to alliances, and make sure those alliances that are formed are self sustaining and not 1 man alliances.

I agree as well...

by Sponsored content

New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

Re: New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders