Pipstickz Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) I would like to address some points in the recent announcement on takeovers. Quote An alliance takeover either by destroying the alliance or gaining access to it is a legitimate ingame action. These things happen from time to time and generally take a decent amount of effort in terms of actual work, or monetary cost. Therefore for all alliances but official ones (TK is the only one I can think of) if they are lost they wont be immediately returned. If they are to be immediately returned, the person or persons who managed the feat will be rewarded, to pay them back for the effort they put in. The immediate return would be decided on rarely by myself or Mur, but these actions would not be taken without considerable thought. As one of the realm's top takeover artists, I have never been given any "reward" for the efforts I put in other than the personal satisfaction. Just want to make that entirely clear first of all in case any had cause to wonder, or were reaching for pocketbooks . Quote Actions to reclaim an alliance vary, typically it requires some effort to show you are cohesive or important in the alliances purpose. Using illusions or a hanging invite to regain an alliance isnt allowed and if this is the method that the alliance is reclaimed we will remove you from the alliance again. The reason for this is that, at one point in time, both of these were used to reclaim an alliance and we deemed this unfair and abusive. We (Mur and I) talked to the group involved and agreed that they will stop using these methods, in exchange we wont formally code in the restrictions so we could work on other things. But that if it were to be continue to be abused with no sign of halting, we would waste our time coding it in. Since then no problems of this kind has occurred. The reasons is that, if an alliance is disbanded it makes no sense to have invites for the previous group. And in addition using an illusion to regrain an alliance is just a gross abuse of the mp7 system. I have nothing to say about illusions as a method to takeover at this time, that has nothing to do with me. However, hanging invite, meaning an invitation that was sent to someone but never accepted, that is not seen as a viable takeover method? That's ridiculous to me. If the leader of an alliance is too lazy to check the invitations and cancel one that looks funny, they deserve their alliance to be taken. Is there some reason this is not viable? Quote This formalises more general agreements with people in the past, and precedant. I will not be going back to try and "fix" abuses since or before the agreements were made. We understand that losing an alliance is a sad process, but it is one that happens from time to time. We dont want to see these "lost" alliances fade away so will be looking forward to seeing efforts to revive them. This includes recently lost alliances and ones lost much longer ago. Claim your alliances! This sounds to me like a call to Role Leaders, whose role in takeovers you failed to explain in this announcement. Does this mean Role Leaders are no longer acknowledged? Edited February 7, 2017 by Pipstickz Aethon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miq Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 Pip, the illusions and invites are about recovering an ally not about takeovers. Pipstickz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipstickz Posted February 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Pipstickz said: I would like to address some points in the recent announcement on takeovers. As one of the realm's top takeover artists, I have never been given any "reward" for the efforts I put in other than the personal satisfaction. Just want to make that entirely clear first of all in case any had cause to wonder, or were reaching for pocketbooks . Someone who takes over an alliance and fails to check invitations, deserves to have their takeover negated This sounds to me like a call to Role Leaders, whose role in takeovers you failed to explain in this announcement. Does this mean Role Leaders are no longer acknowledged? Fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Chewett Posted February 7, 2017 Root Admin Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 You would get a reward if the alliance was returned to the owners quickly to pay your effort back. You do not get something if it's not "reset" within a short time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rophs Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 If someone takes over an alliance and doesn't cancel all invites to the alliance and it is taken back then it should be considered a failed takeover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Chewett Posted February 7, 2017 Root Admin Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 It's good to see there is still some debate in md. i have a new idea about alliances and stopping a perticular problem with them, I will reveal it in a couple months as to not interrupt some plans Pipstickz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipstickz Posted February 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 49 minutes ago, Chewett said: You would get a reward if the alliance was returned to the owners quickly to pay your effort back. You do not get something if it's not "reset" within a short time. What constitutes a "short" time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeoshattr Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 Quote This formalises more general agreements with people in the past, and precedant. I will not be going back to try and "fix" abuses since or before the agreements were made. Just to clarify. Especially since it is contrasted with before, I understand that you will not "fix" anything since (in other words after) the agreements are made, so then they are technically null? Or is it just phrasing? I.E. it sounds like "I'm not going to fix anything before or after these agreements." Pointing it out mostly because it leaves a (gaping) window for interpretation which you may not have intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Chewett Posted February 8, 2017 Root Admin Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 8 hours ago, Pipstickz said: What constitutes a "short" time? Days and weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipstickz Posted February 8, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 Is the three member minimum still being enforced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Admin Chewett Posted February 8, 2017 Root Admin Report Share Posted February 8, 2017 19 hours ago, Aeoshattr said: Just to clarify. Especially since it is contrasted with before, I understand that you will not "fix" anything since (in other words after) the agreements are made, so then they are technically null? Or is it just phrasing? I.E. it sounds like "I'm not going to fix anything before or after these agreements." Pointing it out mostly because it leaves a (gaping) window for interpretation which you may not have intended. If someone has a complaint about something in the past, from before I wrote that announcement I'm not going to be spending a lot of time trying to resolve the past. Anything going forward I will review Aeoshattr 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.