Alliance Leadership

[Aeoshattr]

Following the discussions @ Willow's Shop on the 21st of November, we were instructed to continue the debate of a new system for alliance leadership on the forums.

 

1. So far, the idea that took up most of the conversation was Rophs' follower system. In other words:

• to be a member of the alliance you must follow its leader (or another member of the alliance which follows the leader, etc. I am not good with recursivity, someone please proof-read this for me).
• whomever has most followers (probably better phrased, the largest follower tree) from the alliance is its leader. I.E. - if you are not in the alliance but 50% of its members suddenly follow you, then you are slapped with a badge and become its leader. Similarly, once becoming a leader, the system should automatically force you to follow yourself.

 

I personally support this and I have an idea for it: apply alliance loyalty to it.

In other words, the more loyalty a follower has, the more their "vote" counts, similar to citizenship. I think this could enable currently military alliances to function with the proposed system.

However, I caveat majorly saying that I have just had this idea and there may be major implications that I haven't grasped yet. Please point them out constructively, as I am likely to genuinely not have considered severe implications.

 

EDIT: Alliance leadership, not land leadership. Cerebral flatulence.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Aeoshattr

[Rophs]

Would players be able to follow someone and "force" them into the ally and then go back to following their leader?

[Aeoshattr]

Well. So far, if you force someone into the alliance, they can only be forced in as leaders, not as members. The way I read what I wrote in my first post, at least. Members still get invited as usual but the system could assign them to follow the current leader forcibly once they are invited. They can then follow any other ally member and retain the badge, as long as someone along the follower tree is following the current leader. 

 

EDIT: ok, say you force a new leader in, the old leader gets kicked, because he follows himself, not another ally member or its current leader. Same happens to the forced leader, if the players decide to follow someone else before he gets to follow another ally member.

Does that make sense?

 

EDIT: Recursivity makes my brain hurt. 

Edited November 21, 2014 by Aeoshattr

[Kaya]

I suggest limiting the people you can follow to become alliance leader to those thst are already members.

Another issue would be cyclical following, in which cade I would suggest promoting the one with the highest loyalty.

[Pipstickz]

Why not just have certain permissions (invitations) only available if the leader allows it for that person? That way an alliance can invite new members without the paralyzing fear that they might be an alt or a plant.

[Kittie]

Agreed it should be based on who are already members. Someone who is not part of the alliance who may want to take over can do so in other ways. Such as saying someone within that alliance to gain leadership by influencing people to their side.

 

I do think it's only realistic that you if someone who does want to take control of the alliance should at least be able to send a spy that works for them, gives them information and so on, and allow this spy to make their way up even to a point of becoming leader. It could bring a lot of run and interesting RP I think into the game. The main reason for this isn't so much for the RP but because it is something that is able to be done and alts in general are not suppose to be working together I thought anyways.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Kittie

[BFH]

I'm away, busy and inactive, so idk if my concern is valid or not, neither have time to check for all the details.

 

What if the people that follow the leader get inactive? They are still marked by the system as followers of the leader? the leader would still be leader even when no active people are following him, just people that went inactive for some reason?

 

So my concern is from the side of having permanent leaders... Just a point for your consideration. 

 

Why not making a system that requires ingame stuff for X player to become leader. Ex (having x resources + x amount of followers + whatever you wish) That way there's some sort of competition added to this.

 

 

Again sorry, I can't fully develop my concerns and ideas as I'm lacking of time.

 

B

[Aeoshattr]

I was expecting a lot more debate considering how much people were talking about this in the meeting.

 

At any rate, I like Pip's idea (as a compromise idea, so to speak) as it solves a lot of the issues that the new follower system was attempting to address, without requiring too much modification (I.E only allow the leader to invite people, as opposed to anyone in the alliance, currently). Sure, it keeps the loyalty system which feels a bit artificial (to me), but it's a simple solution to implement (the way I see it) rather than overhaul the system completely with the follower system.

 

Thoughts?

[Aeoshattr]

Despite giving my two cents, I don't want to let this derail completely, as I am interested in reaching some sort of.... finality to it, one way or the other.

 

I think Pip suggested something along the lines of "keep the old system and allow only the leader to invite people in the alliance".

What do you all think? Yes or no (instead of the follower system)?

[Burns]

Removed almost half the thread. Discuss the points raised, or don't discuss at all. Chewie requested this thread to be made, and i'll remove whatever isn't adding to the points.
 
For reference, snipped out the bits where we argued about alliances at the meeting:
[log="parts of chat log"]
[21/11/14 21:53] *Burns*:Better system for ally leadership maybe?
[21/11/14 21:53] Aeoshattr: (I can just imagine someone having 20kg of cement dumped on them. "Here, take this")
[21/11/14 21:54] *Burns*:A more permanent base than loyalty score would be nice, imo.
[21/11/14 21:54] Dark Demon:I agree
[21/11/14 21:54] Rophs:Maybe using something similar to the followers system for ally leadership
[21/11/14 21:54] Aeoshattr:That would probably make take-overs more difficult
[21/11/14 21:55] Dark Demon:How difficult is a takeover in the current scenario, technically?It just takes one invite.
[21/11/14 21:55] No one:ok, understandable
[21/11/14 21:55] Rophs:You also need a loyalty bomb
[21/11/14 21:56] *Chewett*:There was a proposal that I suggested a while ago to the KC
[21/11/14 21:56] *Chewett*:never really got a reply back
[21/11/14 21:56] Rophs:And getting that one invite can often be difficult (eg if the ally has full slots)
[21/11/14 21:56] Dark Demon:Yes it can Rophs, I am not talking about how you get an invite
[21/11/14 21:56] Aeoshattr:Though I do find Rophs' follower system promising for this
[21/11/14 21:56] No one:KC ? Knator Commandor ?
[21/11/14 21:56] Azull:hang on..you suggested a proposal?
[21/11/14 21:56] *Burns*:Kings council
[21/11/14 21:56] Azull:please remind me
[21/11/14 21:56] *Chewett*:Yeah, it could have been quite a while ago
[21/11/14 21:57] No one:oh [:)]
[21/11/14 21:57] Dark Demon:I'm just speaking in technical terms. Just one invite is enough of the 'actions' that are required to take over.
[21/11/14 21:57] Azull:We have been discussing this on and off. But so far no really viable ideas.
[21/11/14 21:57] Azull:If I recall correctly
[21/11/14 21:57] *Chewett*:There was a proposal to change how the alliances were formed
[21/11/14 21:58] *Chewett*:It started on classifying the alliances
[21/11/14 21:58] *Chewett*:which was a public discussion
[21/11/14 21:58] *Chewett*:Then it followed with then changing the alliance system based onn each type of alliance
[21/11/14 21:59] *Chewett*:In the end there wasnt enough alliances or interest to warrent me working on it
[21/11/14 22:00] Azull:Yes we discussed those things, but I don't remember actual suggested changes.
[21/11/14 22:00] Rophs:You mentioned in the topic about changing principles something about the totemizer
[21/11/14 22:00] Azull:not by kc or you
[21/11/14 22:00] *Burns*:Oh, and not strictly game development, the mod doc thing still needs to be done.
[21/11/14 22:00] Azull:did I forget or miss something?
[21/11/14 22:00] *Chewett*:The plan was to have a hiearchy system in some role based alliances
[21/11/14 22:00] Dark Demon:Currently addressing issues that have no/little complaints instead of obvious bugs or things people generally complain about does not really make sense
[21/11/14 22:01] *Chewett*:Then go away.
[21/11/14 22:01] *Grido*:Bugs go to bug forum (or elsewhere as appropriate) and then get redmined, no real need totalk about them here
[21/11/14 22:01] *Burns*:Bugs seldomly need discussion. They get fixed when possible, but that's not a decision that needs taking.
[21/11/14 22:01] *Chewett*:You have already banned me from speaking to you, Dont complain when I dont care to be interested in your problems DD.
[21/11/14 22:01] :Serenity Snow raises eyebrow
[21/11/14 22:02] Rophs:How will the totemizer affect principles? [Forum link]
[21/11/14 22:02] Serenity Snow:....
[21/11/14 22:02] Dark Demon:I am not talking about my problems. And yes, I'm aware of bugs and how they are to be dealt with. Replace 'bugs' with 'issues' please.
[21/11/14 22:02] *Chewett*:Seriously DD, you really annoy me.
[21/11/14 22:02] Serenity Snow:let's be nice
[21/11/14 22:03] Dark Demon:Okay, but I will stay here and I have a right to talk. You all can ignore everything I'm saying, if you like.
[21/11/14 22:03] No one:@chew: can I beg for a chat ban please
[21/11/14 22:03] *Chewett*:So, To focus on the different alliance types.
[21/11/14 22:03] No one:just 1 use
[21/11/14 22:03] :[Spell] kero kero Dark Demon
[21/11/14 22:03] Dark Demon: quaaaaaaaaac
[21/11/14 22:03] Dark Demon: kwaaak
[21/11/14 22:03] *Chewett*:Say you had a "role based" alliance.
[21/11/14 22:04] *Chewett*:One person would be denoted as a leader
[21/11/14 22:04] *Chewett*:To "beat" him you then would need to get approval from others below
[21/11/14 22:04] *Chewett*:Having some form of hiarchy
[21/11/14 22:04] Aeoshattr:^
[21/11/14 22:04] *Burns*:Role allies have a history of being returned even after takeovers, i think the ones that need work are the big ones
[21/11/14 22:04] Eon:.
[21/11/14 22:04] Rophs:The followers system would be a nice way to do that
[21/11/14 22:05] No one:then it would make the alliance ... un-takable
[21/11/14 22:05] *Chewett*:Maybe by your takeover standards.
[21/11/14 22:05] Aeoshattr:Not necessarily. I think Rophs' idea can work
[21/11/14 22:05] Aeoshattr:You have to bribe and convince people to no longer follow the leader
[21/11/14 22:05] Rophs:It would beharder to take, you'd need to corrupt more than one person
[21/11/14 22:05] Rophs:You'd also need to corrupt more people to takeover a larger ally
[21/11/14 22:05] Serenity Snow:Even if it's based around followers, all someone who wants to take it over needs to do is make those within follow them more or less.
[21/11/14 22:05] *Burns*:the 4 main land allies, where you just go in, get the loyalty, and disband them
[21/11/14 22:06] Aeoshattr:But also, there would be no reason to return the role alliance to the former leader then
[21/11/14 22:06] *Sunfire*:infiltration and mass confusion, much harder
[21/11/14 22:06] Dark Demon: kwaaaaaaak
[21/11/14 22:06] Aeoshattr:If people no longer follow the leader... then he/she no longer is the leader
[21/11/14 22:06] Serenity Snow:It is like with an real group, even owners of big businesses can lose their business if one works hard enough at trying to take it over.
[21/11/14 22:06] Rophs:Much more fitting of a way to takeover an RP ally
[21/11/14 22:07] : Eon throws the dice and gets 7
[21/11/14 22:07] Aeoshattr:And you can counter the difficulty by limiting the number of people in a RP alliance
[21/11/14 22:07] Dark Demon: kwaaaaak
[21/11/14 22:07] Aeoshattr:Say... 5 people as opposed to 50 or w/e in a main land ally
[21/11/14 22:08] Rophs:It's 5 people for resource allys iirc
[21/11/14 22:08] Rophs:Fusioneers was 5
[21/11/14 22:08] No one:and ... will you still need to get into that alliance to take it over ?
[21/11/14 22:08] Aeoshattr:Hmm
[21/11/14 22:09] Dark Demon: oac
[21/11/14 22:09] Aeoshattr:I don't think it should require that, No One
[21/11/14 22:09] Aeoshattr:But I'm not sure how it could work otherwise
[21/11/14 22:09] Aeoshattr:Oh actually
[21/11/14 22:09] No one:or you need just to convince others to throw away their leader ?
[21/11/14 22:09] Rophs:You could get person on inside to do the takeover for you and then pass you the alliance
[21/11/14 22:09] Aeoshattr:Maybe if you aren't in the alliance when you get its members to follow you, it's disbanded
[21/11/14 22:09] Aeoshattr:If you are in, then you're the new leader
[21/11/14 22:09] *Burns*:If you get the guys in the ally to follow you without being in, why not?
[21/11/14 22:09] Dark Demon: ribbbit
[21/11/14 22:10] No one:that's bull
[21/11/14 22:10] No one:nobody wants to disband alliances
[21/11/14 22:10] No one:on the contrary, we need more alliances
[21/11/14 22:10] *Chewett*:I disagree
[21/11/14 22:10] No one:yes, we don't need badges
[21/11/14 22:10] *Burns*:We have more allies than players [:P]
[21/11/14 22:10] Rophs:There was an ally disbanded not too long ago
[21/11/14 22:10] Dark Demon: oaac
[21/11/14 22:10] Rophs:And another one that was more or less "closed off"
[21/11/14 22:11] No one:@R: not really
[21/11/14 22:11] Rophs:Fusioneers was disbanded and Kelle'tha Order was "closed off".
[21/11/14 22:11] No one:yes, Burns, we have that situation, but ... there are just badges without roles
[21/11/14 22:11] *Sunfire*:alliances should get a common goal again, not just something for combat
[21/11/14 22:12] Aeoshattr:Ok so how about this: whomever has the most people in an alliance follow them is granted leadership of the alliance. I.E if you are not in but most of its members follow you, you get slapped with a
[21/11/14 22:12] Aeoshattr:badge
[21/11/14 22:12] Aeoshattr:Then you decide what you want to do with the alliance.
[21/11/14 22:12] Aeoshattr:So then you wouldn't need to actually have the badge to take over
[21/11/14 22:12] Dark Demon:Why can't an alliance have members from different lands in it, as long as they follow the same purpose? (not military, ofc)
[21/11/14 22:13] Aeoshattr:And thus it could be done more sneakily
[21/11/14 22:13] *Burns*:Yeah, something like that.
[21/11/14 22:13] Serenity Snow:Personally I think that's how alliances should work, I realize this isn't other games but that tends to be how it works in other games. Alliance is ran by those elected more or less to run them.
[21/11/14 22:14] *Burns*:Allies should stay tied to a land imo.
[21/11/14 22:14] Rophs:@DD so we could have (example) an Alliance with the goal of going West with people form different lands? That sounds like something that would be better done with group tags
[21/11/14 22:14] No one:hmm, so how do you want to do that ? weekly voting ?
[21/11/14 22:14] Aeoshattr:@Serenity: Yeah, but not all alliances here are democratic
[21/11/14 22:14] *Sunfire*:this isnt like any other game [:D]
[21/11/14 22:14] Aeoshattr:No. Something like a mentor system
[21/11/14 22:14] Aeoshattr:Or adept
[21/11/14 22:14] Serenity Snow:but would you not join an alliance based on that knowledge that it's not?
[21/11/14 22:14] *Chewett*:Yes people do.
[21/11/14 22:14] Aeoshattr:As long as you are the "adept" (follower) of the leader, it's considered a positive vote
[21/11/14 22:14] Dark Demon:@Rophs, or maybe something like Crafters that could have people from different lands, or Archivists too...
[21/11/14 22:15] *Burns*:I think the same system that we have for adepts and protectors would suffice.
[21/11/14 22:15] Serenity Snow:Then they have chosen to 'follow' said leader.
[21/11/14 22:15] Aeoshattr:@all: would it perhaps be better to discuss this on the forum? stuff is moving a bit fast in the chat
[21/11/14 22:15] Dark Demon:You can be a Crafter or Archivist AND feel a bond with a mainland
[21/11/14 22:15] No one:@Aeo: then ... i would not ever be a leader or make Eon my leader ?
[21/11/14 22:15] No one:because I cannot be my own mentor nor I will change Dst for Eon
[21/11/14 22:15] No one: (sorry Eon)
[21/11/14 22:16] Aeoshattr:@NoOne not sure I got what you mean by that
[21/11/14 22:16] *Burns*:Not the same way that says 'adept of xx', just the same system
[21/11/14 22:16] *Sunfire*:i agree with no one, it would become a popularity contest to get hold of an alliance
[21/11/14 22:16] No one:being adept of one and agreeing with a leader ... I don't see the connection
[21/11/14 22:16] Aeoshattr:Similar system, not the same as adept
[21/11/14 22:16] Aeoshattr:Used it as an analogy.
[21/11/14 22:16] Eon:We'll kick out everyone who we don't think is 100 percent loyal, simple
[21/11/14 22:16] No one:+1 Eon
[21/11/14 22:17] Dark Demon:Isn't the leader SUPPOSED to be most popular and 'most loved' by the members, Sun?
[21/11/14 22:17] *Burns*:Which is what everyone else had to ages ago [:P]
[21/11/14 22:17] Aeoshattr:Not necessarily, DD.
[21/11/14 22:17] Serenity Snow:no
[21/11/14 22:17] Rophs:http://magicduel.com...s/followers.php
[21/11/14 22:17] Serenity Snow:they could be the one feared
[21/11/14 22:17] Aeoshattr:Also, @ both DD and Sun and others because I lost count
[21/11/14 22:17] *Sunfire*:most popular isnt the same as most fit to lead
[21/11/14 22:17] Aeoshattr:You are FOLLOWING the leader. It merely means you agree with their view
[21/11/14 22:17] No one:I disagree, a leader doesn't have to be most loved
[21/11/14 22:17] Aeoshattr:Not that you like them. Not that you love them. Not that you hate them, not that you're their friend
[21/11/14 22:17] Dark Demon:Then the popularity contest will be a massive fail.
[21/11/14 22:18] Aeoshattr:For instance, I could say I could vote (hypothetically) dst as leader for LR, because I like the way she handles certain issues
[21/11/14 22:18] Aeoshattr:vote = follow or w/e term you want to use
[21/11/14 22:18] Serenity Snow:Think of it this way, it might help some anyways. Sometimes people will follow say the bully in a group, not because they agree but they do not wish to be on their bad side. While some may follow the
[21/11/14 22:18] Aeoshattr:If I believe the leader is capable of leading the alliance in a direction I like, then I don't have to like the leader
[21/11/14 22:19] Serenity Snow:one with money, because they hope to gain something from it by showing their support, again nothing requires love or loyality.
[21/11/14 22:19] Aeoshattr:SURE, that makes room for takeover!
[21/11/14 22:19] Aeoshattr:Be more liked than the leader, and you get leadership!
[21/11/14 22:19] Serenity Snow:People can choose to follow anyone based on many things.
[21/11/14 22:19] Aeoshattr:Sneaky!
[21/11/14 22:19] Dark Demon:"Sometimes people will follow say the bully in a group, not because they agree but they do not wish to be on their bad side. " YES THIS.
[21/11/14 22:19] No one:no, role based alliances don't need to get popular
[21/11/14 22:19] Dark Demon:But again, wouldn't that mean that in an alliance they are not really... allied? lol
[21/11/14 22:20] No one:RBA are give to a person for a certain role period
[21/11/14 22:20] Aeoshattr:So I think this will "settle down" in each role based alliance, based on their role and view of the realm
[21/11/14 22:20] Serenity Snow:You are following and thus allied for a different reason or cause. Fear, Greed, Desire, Trust, Friendship, Same Ideas...
[21/11/14 22:20] Aeoshattr:For instance, I personally see Caretakers as a role alliance, rather than military
[21/11/14 22:20] Dark Demon:I think the discusison is going more towards land-based than alliance-based as far as the 'leadership' goes
[21/11/14 22:20] Aeoshattr:Surely their ideals and view of the world must be different from some other role alliance that I can't think of atm
[21/11/14 22:20] Dark Demon:Alliance leaders arent necessarily land leaders
[21/11/14 22:21] *Sunfire*:a leader isnt chosen, he climbs the ranks naturally
[21/11/14 22:21] Dark Demon:Honestly, if the follower system is implemented in this, it will become very similar to protectors
[21/11/14 22:21] Aeoshattr:Not always, Sun. There are many types of leaders. And I think this system allows for variety
[21/11/14 22:21] Serenity Snow:Right, and part of the climbing the ranks can be do to many different ways.
[21/11/14 22:21] Aeoshattr:^
[21/11/14 22:21] Dark Demon:constantly asking to 'please follow me' etc
[21/11/14 22:22] Aeoshattr:So? Any non- braindead person should ponder whether to follow someone or not, not just click "follow"
[21/11/14 22:22] Dark Demon:In the current system, you CAN prove yourself to become loyalty leader
[21/11/14 22:22] Aeoshattr:You can grind*
[21/11/14 22:22] *Burns*:Tsk, prove yourself.
[21/11/14 22:22] Serenity Snow:I've had characters join 'clans' we didn't call them alliances for friendship, not wanting to be 'without protection' and for trust. The without protection of course being based around fear.
[21/11/14 22:22] No one:then do it
[21/11/14 22:22] Dark Demon:yea, same thing, but it requires effort
[21/11/14 22:22] Dark Demon:which is good
[21/11/14 22:22] *Burns*:Give me a number and a day.
[21/11/14 22:23] No one:@ Aeo: yes, go grind
[21/11/14 22:23] *Burns*:Give Eon a number and half an hour.
[21/11/14 22:23] Aeoshattr:Only one type of effort that I personally don't see as 100% applicable to all alliances.
[21/11/14 22:23] Dark Demon:I agree with No one on this.
[21/11/14 22:23] Aeoshattr:not saying it's bad, it can work perfectly with military alliances
[21/11/14 22:23] Aeoshattr:But it doesn't say anything about you other than "I can grind"
[21/11/14 22:23] Aeoshattr:IMO
[21/11/14 22:23] *Burns*:You don't prove yourself to be an ally leader, you have a high briskness value and some good pals.
[21/11/14 22:24] No one:@burns: do you thing that GotR dismissal was not imposed?
[21/11/14 22:24] Aeoshattr:whereas the follower system could say "I am good with words" or "I can intimidate"
[21/11/14 22:24] Dark Demon:Aeo, I don't think someone would be happy with just a 'grinder' leading them
[21/11/14 22:24] Serenity Snow:Will there be a copy of this in the forums by chance?
[21/11/14 22:24] Dark Demon:ANY alliance members who are not happy with their leader will definitely make sure that he or she doesn't become leader
[21/11/14 22:24] *Burns*:Yeah, we've got spells that make a log of the last few hours.
[21/11/14 22:25] *Burns*:Well, not me, but we'll find somebody to do it and put it up then. [:)]
[21/11/14 22:25] Dark Demon:And no one would be stupid to just grind to become leader rather than being a natural leader from the start
[21/11/14 22:25] Aeoshattr:Why not? In the current system, you don't need to effectively be good at leading the alliance, you just need high brisk.
[21/11/14 22:25] *Burns*:DD, you miss the point.
[21/11/14 22:25] *Sunfire*:@DD, try to kick eon or any other grinder out of an ally if he doesnt want to be
[21/11/14 22:26] *Burns*:If somebody wants your ally, you won't stop them in the current system.
[21/11/14 22:26] Dark Demon:That wasn't my point either
[21/11/14 22:26] Dark Demon:You simply stop treating the grinder as a leader
[21/11/14 22:26] No one:@burns: but you can [:D]
[21/11/14 22:26] Aeoshattr:You simply stop believing the loyalty leader can kick you.
[21/11/14 22:26] Aeoshattr:Super effective.
[21/11/14 22:26] Aeoshattr: (sorry for snappiness, but that's kind of what you're saying)
[21/11/14 22:27] Eon:If that was the case all the alliances would be mine.
[21/11/14 22:27] *Chewett*:Agreed
[21/11/14 22:27] Aeoshattr:@Eon, not sure who that is addressed to. Could you please clarify?
[21/11/14 22:27] No one: [:D]
[21/11/14 22:27] Eon:burns
[21/11/14 22:28] Aeoshattr:Ty.
[21/11/14 22:28] *Chewett*:I suggest, if people wish to continue, they go and make a forum topic to further discuss this.
[21/11/14 22:28] Aeoshattr:Right. Another idea: the whole follower thing could scale with loyalty. I'm sure this can go very good or very bad
[21/11/14 22:28] No one:@Burns: you have no idea how many offers to take over have we been made
[21/11/14 22:28] *Sunfire*:the only thing that keeps the alliances up is the activeness of the loyalty leader, and the loyalty towards the alliance
[21/11/14 22:28] *Chewett*:Forum.
[21/11/14 22:28] *Chewett*:Forum.
[21/11/14 22:28] Aeoshattr:Ah, alright. Forums are probably better
[21/11/14 22:28] *Chewett*:Forum.
[21/11/14 22:29] No one:some are worth as they are, some need inside arrangement, others ..need complete workout
[21/11/14 22:29] No one:and this is our role
[21/11/14 22:29] No one:we are not mindless destroyers
[21/11/14 22:29] Aeoshattr:@Chewie: where do the judges come in this?
[21/11/14 22:29] *Burns*:LEt's pick up on that point after chewie's done.
[21/11/14 23:02] *Burns*:Speaking of hitting, let's pick up
[21/11/14 23:02] Rikstar:Also do alliance fights still work?
[21/11/14 23:02] Aeoshattr: (I am a bit slow right now, apologies. two practical classes, two seminars, all on different topics. my mind is mush)
[21/11/14 23:02] *Burns*:I don't think you aim to disband all allies, but you can, technically, with ease.
[21/11/14 23:03] No one:not that easy, but it can be done
[21/11/14 23:03] No one:but then ... there is no point to do that
[21/11/14 23:03] Rikstar:How do these fights work, I see those stats at the capitals.
[21/11/14 23:03] No one:we have no ... interest in that
[21/11/14 23:03] *Burns*:Speaking for myself, i seriously don't want to invite new people.
[21/11/14 23:04] No one:and I've seen that in many alliances
[21/11/14 23:04] Rikstar:KoB has 46 spaces availeble.
[21/11/14 23:04] No one:they prefer to have players ... ouside alliances instead on letting them in
[21/11/14 23:04] *Burns*:I can't know who they really work for, neither can i know if you currently deem Guerilla worthy of existing, thus, not taking chances.
[21/11/14 23:04] Rikstar:The whole community can be in KoB1
[21/11/14 23:04] Rikstar:*!
[21/11/14 23:05] No one:look, GotR was an unfortunate event
[21/11/14 23:05] *Burns*:this isn't a good position for an ally, and i'm fairly sure that many allies work like that, and did so for a very long time now.
[21/11/14 23:05] No one:it was meant just to be a change in management
[21/11/14 23:05] No one:but ... Kings can do nasty stuff, you know that
[21/11/14 23:06] No one:@Burns: would you accept me in you alliance ?
[21/11/14 23:06] *Burns*:Which is why i'll do whatever it takes to keep Grido as king in Golemus as long as i'm related to that land.
[21/11/14 23:07] No one:yes, but then ... that can work against you ... sometimes
[21/11/14 23:07] *Burns*:But i can control the election rather easily, while the loyalty thing just hits me over night whenever you like.
[21/11/14 23:08] Rikstar:So GG is kind of corrupt?
[21/11/14 23:09] No one:no Rik, it is called Birocracy [:P]
[21/11/14 23:09] *Burns*:Let's put it that way, if Grido turns on me, i've failed, and i can accept that.
[21/11/14 23:09] Rophs:No one do you mean "bureaucracy"...?
[21/11/14 23:10] Aeoshattr: (don't nitpick, Rophs [:P] )
[21/11/14 23:10] *Burns*:When Peace got Guerilla from yrth over night, and we all were suddenly out of OUR ally, that is something very unacceptable to me.
[21/11/14 23:10] No one: (@R: yea)
[21/11/14 23:10] :Rikstar chuckles
[21/11/14 23:10] No one:yes Burns, but you can get it back, you can negociate it
[21/11/14 23:10] Rikstar:Also ally leadership shouldn't be stated with loyality, though it is a bit more fun with ally take overs.
[21/11/14 23:11] No one:and ... this kind of things should not happen if alliances would not be closed
[21/11/14 23:12] *Burns*:Yet if allies are open, i can't know who takes it.
[21/11/14 23:12] Rophs:Why won't those stupid idiots let me in their crappy club for jerks?
[21/11/14 23:12] *Burns*:You are the best in the business, no doubt, but anybody else can grind a few loyalty points.
[21/11/14 23:12] Rikstar:What do you mean with open and closed?
[21/11/14 23:13] *Burns*:If you get GG, no biggie, it'll take some time, but i'm confident that it won't die.
[21/11/14 23:13] Rikstar:For me loyality is really hard to obtain, I remain at zero all the time. hehe
[21/11/14 23:13] *Burns*:If a necro gets it, though?
[21/11/14 23:14] *Burns*:Or a newcomer who wants to join the big boys and needs to set an example?
[21/11/14 23:14] No one:I know, each member has to earn its place
[21/11/14 23:15] *Burns*:Open, active recruitment of new people.
[21/11/14 23:15] : *Nimrodel* was dragged by Eon
[21/11/14 23:15] *Burns*:Closed, what i do right now. Me, Grido, Bunny and Miq, no recruitment.
[21/11/14 23:15] No one:I'd go for like : pasive recruitment
[21/11/14 23:15] Rikstar:KoB is between open and closed right now.
[21/11/14 23:15] Rikstar:Thus passive recruitment.
[21/11/14 23:16] Rophs:Rik I think Chew offered me an invite to Kob a long time ago...
[21/11/14 23:16] Rophs:I have a screenshot somewhere
[21/11/14 23:16] Rikstar:I know.
[21/11/14 23:16] Rophs:Can aaront222 join?
[21/11/14 23:16] Rophs:\
[21/11/14 23:16] Rikstar:No.
[21/11/14 23:16] Rophs:n
[21/11/14 23:17] Rikstar:Is aaront a MB citizen?
[21/11/14 23:17] No one:look, when the land loyalty was first implemented I said something
[21/11/14 23:17] Rikstar:I think not.
[21/11/14 23:17] Rophs:No
[21/11/14 23:17] No one: (excuse my language) there will be land loyalty wh*es
[21/11/14 23:18] No one:there is no way we can change human behavior
[21/11/14 23:18] *Burns*:Obviously, because it works.
[21/11/14 23:18] No one:it has some benefits
[21/11/14 23:18] *Chewett*:Ropha, Was that a "Chew said" statement?
[21/11/14 23:18] *Burns*:And no downsides.
[21/11/14 23:18] *Chewett*:Considering how unhappy I am currently with you, is that a wise idea?
[21/11/14 23:19] :Rophs facepalms
[21/11/14 23:19] Rikstar:Jail time?
[21/11/14 23:19] No one:oh, but it has some great downsizes
[21/11/14 23:19] No one:you lose trust
[21/11/14 23:19] No one:ppl will not trust you anymore
[21/11/14 23:19] *Burns*:Oh, yes, that matters a lot of course.
[21/11/14 23:19] Rikstar:Wasn't that already some weeks ago?
[21/11/14 23:20] *Burns*:Specially to the people who aren't much into this whole land- roleplay.
[21/11/14 23:20] Rophs:When Mur was adding clickies and teleporting people around and I was an mp3 a the time...
[21/11/14 23:20] Rikstar:I can't remember that incident.
[21/11/14 23:20] Rophs:I think we were in LotE and there were the MB elections that resulted in Chew being king, PO gave me a silver because I said something funny
[21/11/14 23:21] No one:then we have to find a solution for THIS problem
[21/11/14 23:21] Rikstar:Which problem?
[21/11/14 23:21] No one:the land loyalty
[21/11/14 23:21] Rikstar:Remove it!
[21/11/14 23:22] Rikstar:And let it be the same as how kingship is organized.
[21/11/14 23:22] Rophs:Remove ALL land loyalty when you switch citizenships
[21/11/14 23:22] No one:I'd like to be able to take a few players into "training", not into alliance but into land
[21/11/14 23:22] No one:and still be able to kick them out if I dislike them
[21/11/14 23:22] Rophs:So when Nim went from GG to LotE all of her GG loyalty should havebeen removed
[21/11/14 23:22] Rikstar:Ranks within alliances?
[21/11/14 23:22] Aeoshattr: (The PM sound will kill me one day.)
[21/11/14 23:23] Rophs: (BLINGRWAAAAH! Best sound!)
[21/11/14 23:23] Lintara: (lol)
[21/11/14 23:23] *Burns*: (turn down the volume? [:P] )
[21/11/14 23:23] Rophs: (afk)
[21/11/14 23:24] Aeoshattr: (It was on minimum audible level. It's more the suddenness rather than the volume)
[21/11/14 23:24] Rikstar:Also there should be some guidelines on how to handle problems within MD.
[21/11/14 23:24] Aeoshattr: (anyway, /endQQ)
[21/11/14 23:24] No one:look, when I joined SoS, I said : ok, we'll keep it for 30-100 days and move on
[21/11/14 23:24] No one:I celebrated my 1k last month
[21/11/14 23:25] *Burns*: (should've brought it up, that's a simple thing to focus on: Find a PM sound that doesn't give me a heart attack!)
[21/11/14 23:25] No one:I can never conceive leaving SoS for good
[21/11/14 23:25] Rikstar:I think that that holds for most of us in an alliance.
[21/11/14 23:25] No one: (burns, impossible, I find that sound even in some movies or at random on the street)
[21/11/14 23:26] Aeoshattr: (I thought it wasn't such an important issue, hah)
[21/11/14 23:26] *Burns*: (I've had times when i dreamt of the chat beep)
[21/11/14 23:26] No one:but you lost the idea, being in an alliance teaches you if you want to be in or not
[21/11/14 23:26] Aeoshattr: (I know that feeling, Burns. Happened to me too)
[21/11/14 23:28] No one:being into an allince gives you a chance to find yourself ... if you are among ppl you like or are your friends
[21/11/14 23:28] No one:I don't want SoS to be like a job
[21/11/14 23:28] No one:I don't want another boss, nor that I want to be one
[21/11/14 23:28] No one:I think we need to do this to more players
[21/11/14 23:29] :[Spell] lautirrorrim
[21/11/14 23:29] :No one welcomes dst
[21/11/14 23:29] *Burns*:Yes, we absolutely should. That's why i seriously want a more stable leadership position.
[21/11/14 23:30] Rikstar:But honestly that will never come.
[21/11/14 23:30] Rikstar:I'm sure it will stay the following 5 years at least.
[21/11/14 23:30] No one:as I said, we need to have some positions as proteje next to each alliance
[21/11/14 23:30] *Burns*:I really want to go up to some random newbie, chat with them, and be like 'hey, you sound nice, wanna join golemus?'
[21/11/14 23:30] No one:exactly
[21/11/14 23:31] Rikstar:You already can right?
[21/11/14 23:31] Rikstar:With your king he can grant citizenship.
[21/11/14 23:31] *Burns*:As it is, that will not happen. And i don't see any other ally going around like that, either.
[21/11/14 23:31] dst:if i see another King in MB I will barf
[21/11/14 23:31] Aeoshattr:Yes, but I think Burns' point is "how do I know said newb won't get GG thrown over"?
[21/11/14 23:31] No one:no, we don't have that
[21/11/14 23:31] No one:you maybe, East doesn't
[21/11/14 23:31] No one:UG doesn't
[21/11/14 23:31] Rikstar:May I see you barfing?
[21/11/14 23:32] No one:MDA, Lab ... don't have kings
[21/11/14 23:32] Rikstar:Also why are different kings in MB a problem. *chuckles*
[21/11/14 23:32] Rikstar:Is lab a land?
[21/11/14 23:32] Aeoshattr:It has citizenship...
[21/11/14 23:32] Aeoshattr:you could argue it is
[21/11/14 23:32] : Eon throws the dice and gets 7
[21/11/14 23:32] Rikstar:It has. O.o
[21/11/14 23:33] No one:so, that is my idea on how to "upgrade" the alliances
[21/11/14 23:34] No one:if we don't have that ... the non-main-lands ... don't exist
[21/11/14 23:34] No one:don't matter
[21/11/14 23:34] Rikstar:So DD can have his labyrinth.
[21/11/14 23:34] No one:I want to be able to grant citizenship and to tie that player to our alliance
[21/11/14 23:34] Rikstar:East will have more mass.
[21/11/14 23:34] Rikstar:And the underground more shadows.
[21/11/14 23:34] dst:MDA has kings
[21/11/14 23:34] dst:TWO!
[21/11/14 23:35] Rikstar:Who?
[21/11/14 23:35] :No one opens the options and sets Rikstar to ignored
[21/11/14 23:35] dst:Ug does just fine
[21/11/14 23:35] *Sunfire*:darkraptor and kyphis
[21/11/14 23:35] Aeoshattr:^
[21/11/14 23:36] Rikstar:Ah yes, I remember it a bit now.
[21/11/14 23:39] :dst passed dst Leash to No one
[21/11/14 23:40] No one:thank you
[21/11/14 23:40] No one: * mubles * darn bug
[21/11/14 23:43] *Burns*:well, time to sleep

[/log]

 

If there was any more past that point, i must've missed it.

[No one]

[spoiler]

Removed almost half the thread. Discuss the points raised, or don't discuss at all. Chewie requested this thread to be made, and i'll remove whatever isn't adding to the points.
 
For reference, snipped out the bits where we argued about alliances at the meeting:
...

 

If there was any more past that point, i must've missed it.

[spoiler]

This is becoming hilarious. There is nothing to comment on this subject.

 

Some ... noobs (I will not explain all that again) that think they know better because they have previous (out of MD) experience.

They have been proven unable to understand what an alliance means but they still want them changed.

 

The alliances are good as they are right now.

 

If you want a different method for leadership, sure, ask for one and ask to be coded JUST FOR YOU.

 

 

Sure, why not rename this game to RPDuel ? At least then I could quit .

Edited November 24, 2014 by No one

[lashtal]

While I'd see a follower system too complicated to properly work, I'd prefer Pipstickz's suggestion to the way they work now.

 

I also think those No one call "noobs" may have fresher ideas and insights than many of the fossils who just log in to get one more "active" day.

[No one]

Of course, Lashtal, that is understandable, only the leader should allow new comers.

So ... what happens with an alliance where the leader with high loyalty simply ... quits MD ? Will the alliance be blocked ? Do you also agree on disbanding such alliances ?

What happens if one new comer will grow in loyalty ? Will he not be kicked out ?

 

So, where is the dynamics the alliances ? Why the heck don't just call all alliances as rocks. They will change just as much.

 

If you want stability, buy a dog.

[phantasm]

"Sure, why not rename this game to RPDuel ? At least then I could quit ."

 

Funny enough I agree with No One on that particular point.  It does feel like the game is losing its magic, and gaining its duel.

 

Alliances have been a shaky subject for the past 2 years, mainly because most all of them are fairly inactive in quests/events.  The same can be said for the game as a whole though as far as inactivity goes, so we should not point solely at the alliance or the leader.  

 

Being an alliance leader for several years, trying to keep jack sticks from taking them over is no easy task.  You know how that is fixed?  By only having alliance members who truly care about the alliance and its leader.  After Assira was expelled for her role as betrayer in the CTs we have never since then had one incident.  That is because the members of CT are devoted to it, and me.  I could not be  happier with the members I have had in the past, and is one reason I am so picky about new members.  I believe alliances are for life.  They are a SERIOUS decision that requires alot of time (a reason I don't allow MP3 and young MP4 into alliance), and dedication to prove you belong.  Once you are in it should be a constant dedication to show you care about the alliance and the land it is in. 

 

Does this mind set cause alot of people to not be able to get into alliances?  Yes.  In my opinion people that don't have that mind set, don't belong in an alliance.  Of course this is harder to do the bigger the alliance is.  Mine is a small max compared to some, but does that mean the criteria should be any different?  I think a lot of people just want to have a badge, or just want to see how many alliances they can say they have been a "part" of.  Being in an alliance is a privilege, not a right.  I sure know the hell I had to go through when I wanted to be a Sentinel.  As a result I learned I was not right for that alliance and found myself in the CTs.  The time, and training itself created that epiphany.

 

As to No Ones last post.  Currently what do we do about alliance leaders with high loyalty that quits?  Besides the fact that it is BAD TASTE for someone to do so, it would then fall to the alliance members to WORK TWARDS A GOAL of getting the loyalty to overcome the leader.  It creates a mission for the alliance members to band together to create a new leader. 

 

As far as a newcomer gaining loyalty goes, at least in my alliance, you can only gain so much a percentage of the leaders loyalty.    Again that shows not only respect for the leader, but it allows for members to work together.  If other members want more loyalty, then they need to help the leader gain as they do.  HEAT JARS anyone?  A great use of the jars, for other members to help gain heat and pass it to their leader.  If the new alliance member disregards the rules and continues to gain loyalty without regards to the leaders, then they deserve to be kicked out for not helping the alliance.  I could go on but I'll cut it there for now.

[lashtal]

So ... what happens with an alliance where the leader with high loyalty simply ... quits MD ? Will the alliance be blocked ? Do you also agree on disbanding such alliances ?

 

Where's the problem? Until the second in command surpasses the former leader in loyalty, the alliance is stuck. 

If the alliance is dear to its leader, he/she will arrange things so that a new leader can be appointed (he can retire from the alliance and -eventually- ask for a new invitation if he wants to occupy a seat). 

Otherwise, the "second in command" will have to grind his way to the top. That can be hard, but not impossible.

 

I agree on disbanding inactive or useless alliances; but not alliances that might get temporarily stuck.

 

 

What happens if one new comer will grow in loyalty ? Will he not be kicked out ?

 

I don't know, I guess it depends on how this new comer is seen within the alliance.

This alone opens for more possibilities, none of which look "stable" or "static" to me.

 

 

If you want stability, buy a dog.

 

Just... LOL.

Edited November 25, 2014 by lashtal

[No one]

Where's the problem? Until the second in command surpasses the former leader in loyalty, the alliance is stuck.

This is true considering that the current system is still in place.

If the follower system is implemented and the leader leaves and half the alliance is filled with inactive players ... good luck surpassing the leader. (not that this case is so unknown to MD).

[Rophs]

Then have the list not display players who haven't logged in for more than 5 days. There's a reason players with lots of AD but no recent activity aren't on the Active Veterans list (ie Awiiya).

[log ]

If Awiiya is on the active veterans list then :D

[/log]

[Aeoshattr]

Of course, Lashtal, that is understandable, only the leader should allow new comers.

So ... what happens with an alliance where the leader with high loyalty simply ... quits MD ? Will the alliance be blocked ? Do you also agree on disbanding such alliances ?

What happens if one new comer will grow in loyalty ? Will he not be kicked out ?

 

So, where is the dynamics the alliances ? Why the heck don't just call all alliances as rocks. They will change just as much.

 

If you want stability, buy a dog.

Um. Do you seriously not think about people inside the alliance growing loyalty to overgrow the current leader and thus enable someone that is active to become a leader? If anyone, I was expecting you to think about that and to support it considering how up and over you're about hard work instead of favours/begging/whatnot.

 

 

This is true considering that the current system is still in place.

If the follower system is implemented and the leader leaves and half the alliance is filled with inactive players ... good luck surpassing the leader. (not that this case is so unknown to MD).

Have it like the MP6 system. If a player is inactive for idk, 10 days they are removed from the follower tree. So then only active players count.

 

This won't make alliances rock solid. I just get the feeling you're too lazy to get over this impediment and end up whining about it. 

Not as diplomatic as usual, but I ran out of niceness early in the morning.

[No one]

I am sorry, I have no idea what are you talking about (I will mark it below, maybe you can detail it a bit).

[spoiler]

Um. Do you seriously not think about people inside the alliance growing loyalty to overgrow the current leader and thus enable someone that is active to become a leader? If anyone, I was expecting you to think about that and to support it considering how up and over you're about hard work instead of favours/begging/whatnot.

 

 

Have it like the MP6 system. If a player is inactive for idk, 10 days they are removed from the follower tree. So then only active players count.

 

This won't make alliances rock solid. I just get the feeling you're too lazy to get over this impediment and end up whining about it. 

Not as diplomatic as usual, but I ran out of niceness early in the morning.

[spoiler]

Also, considering that I'm debating your ideas instead of mine and I am helping you to improve it, I don't consider myself lazy. Or should I say that you are lazy enough to take an idea as is without caring to analyze it ? Anyway, we are not measuring ... our laziness here.

 

That "10" ... is random or smth ?

 

And what the heck this means: "hard work instead of favours/begging/whatnot" ? Your proposal would make leaders with 1 loyalty, just because you are the leader and you say so.

THAT IS RP and LAZY and FAVOURS and BEGGING.

If you don't trust your "friends" then work for your right to be leader, work for your alliance.

 

--------------------------------------

As I stated before in the posts that Burns hid, I do prefer the current dynamic of the alliances.

 

If there is anything that needs tweaking is not the alliance in itself but the capabilities of the alliance. Considering that I'm from a "non main-land alliance", it is more difficult to attract players to our land as we don't have the capability to grant citizenship to players we would like to test for recruitment.

 

What your offer states is : ok, as long as half the ppl in your alliance are with you, then you are safe.

I read it like : as long as you keep the numbers low (close to number of close friends) and you don't upset them, then you are the leader.

Edited November 25, 2014 by No one

[Aeoshattr]

Before I say anything, I did like that reply. Genuinely.

Also, for clarification. There are currently two ideas circulating:

1. Use the follower system as described in the first post.

2. Change NOTHING other than who is able to invite (I.E leave alliances EXACTLY as they are and only allow the leader to invite people in).

 

Also, considering that I'm debating your ideas(1) instead of mine and I am helping you to improve it, I don't consider myself lazy. Or should I say that you are lazy enough to take an idea as is without caring to analyze it ? Anyway, we are not measuring ... our laziness here.

 

That "10" ... is random or smth ?

 

And what the heck this means: "hard work instead of favours/begging/whatnot" ? Your proposal would make leaders with 1 loyalty, just because you are the leader and you say so.

THAT IS RP and LAZY and FAVOURS and BEGGING.

If you don't trust your "friends" then work for your right to be leader, work for your alliance(2).

 

--------------------------------------

As I stated before in the posts that Burns hid, I do prefer the current dynamic of the alliances.

 

If there is anything that needs tweaking is not the alliance in itself but the capabilities of the alliance. Considering that I'm from a "non main-land alliance", it is more difficult to attract players to our land as we don't have the capability to grant citizenship to players we would like to test for recruitment.

 

What your offer states is : ok, as long as half the ppl in your alliance are with you, then you are safe.

I read it like : as long as you keep the numbers low (close to number of close friends) and you don't upset them, then you are the leader(3).

 

 

1. NOW you are debating my ideas. Until now, you've been trying to dismiss them and say I have no right to argue about this because I have not effectively led a MD alliance before. That is not debating. THIS is.

 

2. Which is exactly what I suggested afterwards. Pip came with the idea that alliances do not need to change much, but we could only allow leaders to invite people in and keep everything else unchanged. IF this is going to work, then IF you indeed do not trust the leader, want to invite someone in to change something, then YOU have to work yourself. Not just invite Eon to do the job for you (please don't take this personally, but you are the best example I can think of, Eon). How does upping your loyalty yourself, in order to change the alliance look more lazy than inviting someone from the outside to do the dirty work for you?

 

3. Yes! I did not read what I said that way, and it would have helped monumentally if you had just said that from the beginning! I agree with you there, I did not consider that.

However, the way I see it, (this is option 1 from the beginning of the post) the fewer people in the alliance, the fewer you have to "buy" in order to get in that alliance. I think that may counterbalance it, but I may be wrong.

[DARK DEMON]

Suggestion/solution after reading the above (good post No one :) ) :

 

1) Have a minimum loyalty required for anyone to become leader.

2) Every 'follower' would add X number of 'influence' on loyalty (maybe increase by 10% for each follower)

3) Alliances with every single person below required loyalty mark will mean that the alliance is technically leaderless and hence loses its bonuses

 

It's quite crazy and not much thought out I admit, so please forgive me, its the first thing that came to my mind after reading this. I just wanted to state it here in case someone may improvise.

Edited November 25, 2014 by DARK DEMON

[Ary Endleg]

I fail to see the reason why it needs to be changed.

[DARK DEMON]

I fail to see the reason why it needs to be changed.

 

It's called development, it doesn't 'need' to be changed.

 

The main reason for this that came out in the discussion revolved around takeovers.

[Ary Endleg]

What exactly is the problem with takeovers?

 

You can't guard yourself against change of heart. If alliance is rotten, it's only a matter of time.

 

I don't see why anything should be done about it. It only takes away Chew's precious time which could be used on many other things that actually need to be done.

 

Fact is that some people just ain't fit to lead an ally and failure is inevitable.

 

Do you think that people such as Azull, phantasm, even Eon, MRAlyon and darkraptor need such change? They know how to lead ally, how to pick people that are fit for their alliance, they know how to keep their members on the right track, they know how to workout things with members and ensure everybody has common goal.

 

All you need to do is follow the example of good leaders.

 

But... if you really want mechanical solution, hell I got one (or few), it's purrfect!

 

1. After invite is sent, receiver needs to confirm it. When confirmed by receiver, leader can see applicants loyalty points, leader also needs to confirm the accepted invite.
2. Accepting invite would lower the new member's loyalty to 0. (would sort of make sense lol)
3. In order to takeover leadership, after surpassing the loyalty number of current leader, there is a timer of 7 days for old leader to show up and accept the leadership of the person trying to take over or decline it. Upon declination that member gets loyalty dropped to zero. If time runs out, it's assumed the leader is inactive and that other person becomes legitimate leader, same thing if old leader agrees to this change in leadership.
4. Pip's idea

 

But really, I think all of that is pointless. Good leader won't have any problems regardless of system in place. You are just shielding the bad ones.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Ary Endleg

[Burns]

What exactly is the problem with takeovers?

 

You can't guard yourself against change of heart. If alliance is rotten, it's only a matter of time.

 

I don't see why anything should be done about it. It only takes away Chew's precious time which could be used on many other things that actually need to be done.

 

Fact is that some people just ain't fit to lead an ally and failure is inevitable.

 

Do you think that people such as Azull, phantasm, even Eon, MRAlyon and darkraptor need such change? They know how to lead ally, how to pick people that are fit for their alliance, they know how to keep their members on the right track, they know how to workout things with members and ensure everybody has common goal.

 

Which means i'll invite 1 person a year, at max. That's how long i would need to know them to be certain they are what i want in my alliance.

Which, in turn, completely defeats the purpose of having an alliance in the first place. You think i need a badge to know that Grido, Bunny and Miq are in my land?

 

The point of the ally is that it's a lot easier to remove you from the land again, if you don't fit. Unlike citizenship without alliance, the leader of an ally can always kick you out. But i can't invite anybody in the first place, because if that anybody happens to be a sleeper, or just somebody who values the quick coin more than his ally, i might as well invite all of my 'enemies' directly.