Alliance Leadership

[powle]

I have only one question: does a player gain alliance loyalty by fighting? (if I understand correctly that is how it works at the moment)

-if the answer is YES then the leadership of any alliance is allways passed to the best fighter (or to be precise the player that's doing the most grinding atm) which is not necessarly also the best leader (the person within alliance with most leadership skills). I would even go as far as to say it is highly unlikely to happen.
-if the answer is NO then no one is right and it doesn't need changing (feel free to ignore my post in this case)

[lashtal]

I have only one question: does a player gain alliance loyalty by fighting? (if I understand correctly that is how it works at the moment)

 

Yes, if said player is inside an alliance he gains loyalty (also) by fighting.

[Azthor]

As long as we judge the possibility of takeovers desirable, and that is the first topic that must be discussed, then it is a matter of arguing over the balance between the offensive and defensive dynamics in those interactions.

 

Arguing what makes a good leader, on the other hand, is something of a moot discussion, if it is to be had here. The first thing that comes to mind is interpersonal skills, but is dedication not a desirable trait in a leader, and are the best grinders not dedicated to have got there?

 

Takeovers induce wariness in most, paranoia in some. If you cannot rely sufficiently on your ability to judge prospective members in a timely fashion, and yet are too ashamed of the possibility of which you might misjudge a prospective member to take any risks, it is only natural that you be unable to actually foster growth in your Alliance.

 

It should go without saying that one can argue against the possibility of hostile takeovers in the first place, but, as long as the risk of hostile takeovers is deemed desirable, it is only fair a steep price must be paid for invulnerability.

 

While true safety must have a price, it is likely true that, otherwise, the takeover process currently grants the offender more possibility of action than it grants the defender.

 

One can be held accountable over whom they invite, but to be held accountable over whom the one they invite invites becomes increasingly akin to gambling.

 

Inviting new individuals into an alliance could be made into a restricted privilege, so that there is a filter within the Alliance between members with invitation-privilege and members devoid of it. There'd have to be a mechanically enforced minimum amount of members with invitation-privilege, so as to prevent the leader from hoarding the feature into invulnerability.

 

Alternatively, there could be a set minimum timer, such as that of 24h, before an Alliance member that has surpassed the loyalty score of the leader acquires the position. It would make takeovers more difficult against active leaders, but not many have such a flawless record of activity.

 

Mutually exclusive, lest takeovers become impossible in many cases, but individually feasible, is the loyalty reset upon recruitment Ary Endleg had mentioned.

 

On those and other accounts, note:

 

Any sufficiently well-guarded Alliance is sacrificing some form of benefit in guarding itself. If anything, it should be argued that the lack of a reason for Alliances to compete against each other as institutions, rather than as individual players, is what currently conceals those handicaps.

 

Finally, while giving Alliance leaders a bit more of control over invitation, though not to the point of monopoly, could be reasonable, it must be remembered that the more difficult takeovers become the harder it should be to revert their effects. If something was achieved at great effort, then, indeed, simply popping the Alliance back into existence would be distasteful.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Azthor

[Muratus del Mur]

without reading much of the previous posts, hat i have to say is that alliane takeovers will always remain a possibility, but what you might see in the future is a more automated (hard however) way to get an ally back. thats all.

[Ary Endleg]

The point of the ally is that it's a lot easier to remove you from the land again, if you don't fit.

 

What are you talking about? It's just a click away with king's tool.

[Sasha Lilias]

• 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. 

 

Firstly this idea is preposterous. You are saying that if enough people become the follower of another player, they will be forced in leadership? And if they do not wish to be anything to do with that alliance? Or any alliance at all? What if that person is also in another alliance? 

 

I can't even formulate my distaste for this idea.

 

Secondly:

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.

 

Isn't it funny how when in our prime the game ran far more simply and effectively with, might I add, far more players.

Let's not turn this into little snide comments though, no?

 

Which leads me to my final point:

 

The alliances are dead due to the amount of players. Not a specific cause based in the current system!Infact...it's the same system that has worked for years and years, until we lost active players. More players are becoming inactive and less are beginning. You can't harvest a crop that hasn't grown, can you? Alliances will begin to fill again when we start to gain more new players.  

 

In the mean time, however, I once again say that forcing people into an alliance will solve nothing.

 

Don't break something for the sake of fixing nothing.

 

~Sasha

 

Edit: Saw this and decided to reply.

 

 

 

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.

 

If that is your choice then that is your choice. That doesn't mean the system is broken. Other alliances will continue as they have always done.

Do you live in daily fear of being hit by a car? Or struck by lightening? Twice the DS were taken out my hand by DST, which is my fault for trusting certain people, but I learnt from those mistakes. That's not to say I would become so paranoid I'd only invite one person a year though..

Edited December 26, 2014 by Sasha Lilias

[Aeoshattr]

I was actually looking for this topic as I realised it died out without anything coming out of it.

I agree with Sasha to an extent, she raises a few valid points. My only objection is that the follower system (IMHO) would work with a larger number of players. What I'm saying is that I don't think a majority of the members of an alliance would spontaneously follow someone in order to force them in the alliance just for sh*ts and giggles. I'm relying on the assumption that people are aware of the consequences of their actions. However, for the sake of simplicity....How about this:

 

Keep alliances as they are, with one exception: Have a minimum "time loyalty"/player with the alliance in order to be its leader. In other words, leadership IS decided based on loyalty, however you must have... let's say a minimum of 24 hrs? 48 hrs? (arbitrary numbers used to give an example) in the alliance in order to actually be granted leadership.

[Sasha Lilias]

What I'm saying is that I don't think a majority of the members of an alliance would spontaneously follow someone in order to force them in the alliance just for sh*ts and giggles. I'm relying on the assumption that people are aware of the consequences of their actions. However, for the sake of simplicity....How about this:

 

I know what you mean Aeo but let's say...15 people "followed" *Mya Celestia* ,due to her past involvement with the Guardians, and only 4 followed Valyron. Who is to say that Mya would wish to be leader? Do you then expect her to go around to all her followers telling them she didn't want to lead them, thus disappointing them because they thought she "cared" for the alliance? That put's unnecessary pressure on an individual without even consulting them first.

 

I personally see three solutions (going in least favourite order):

 

1. If you wish for a diplomatic solution then create a way for members to vote for candidates ,that willingly step forward, at set times be it monthly, quarterly, etc. Then members may voice their opinions in who they wish for leader as well as giving others the chance to become a candidate and work for other's votes. In this case, abolish loyalty as the ruling factor in leadership.
2. Create an alliance in which you have a loyalty leader (I would suggest a non-voting, "concerned for the alliance's welfare" sort of person, that'll listen to the majority), who will enforce the "chosen" leader(s)'s decisions. This then negates the need for the "leader" to be loyalty leader also. (Examples of this in action are seen in the Guerrillas, MRs, Shattered Illusions, etc)
3. My personal favourite: Leave the alliances as they were! If a take over happens, then that is the alliances fault, not the system's.

Alliances have been coming and going for years and I honestly believe they are fine how they are, with regards to leadership roles. Once the A25 system has been completed and implemented growth in beginner numbers will rise and, hopefully, so will alliance numbers.

 

~Sasha

Edited December 26, 2014 by Sasha Lilias