New leader for alliances with inactive alliance leaders

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

The whole problem is that when players register, many create an alliance without ever coming back to the game. Most of the alliances we have are made of players that played only a single day.

The next update is practically solving the whole problem as players cannot create their own alliance until they build a foreign ministry, which takes a couple days to reach, thus preventing practically all players from creating one, if they are not serious about it.

That's why I say that once the foreign ministries are required to create an alliance, the problem basically solves itself.
The remaining problem might be the alliances which already exist.

We could get rid of alliances, which have been created by players who played only one single day, and that would probably remove 75-90% of all alliances.

But we shouldn't remove alliances which currently don't have active players. Because sometimes players come back.

If you are upset about 0 power alliances, then you can also make an update which will prevent alliances with 0 power (vacated players) from appearing in the ranks. No need to delete these

Jiro wrote: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.

I don't think that's a good idea, because even the newest member of the alliance could be chosen and I believe someone who stayed with the alliance for a long time and hopefully has earned the trust of the leadership deserves to be a leader more than a random member. 2nd in command and advisors are more than likely to be not only trusted members of the alliance, but also more experienced and being more respected/supported as new leaders for the alliance.

Since we as players have no idea about this "next update" you speak of why do you talk as tho we do? Why not State the next update will do this, this, and this? You are confusing at best.

IF the next update does what you say it will do I am fine with that. I just brought this up as the problem still exists, and is growing worse. This topic has been around over 6 months with Nothing being done as of yet. That's why it was revisited. I hope this "update" happens soon.

I like the way you say the update will work, if that is infact how it will work. We can see the results of the update and how many alliances are left after it. Then decided about the rest of the 0 power alliances. I think your suggestion is a good one, and I would suggest that if it makes it easier just force inactive alliances into "hidden" alliances. That should save their spot, but remove them from sight.