Alliance Leader Successor

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

Dear users,

please note that we have a new forum now. You'll find it here.

The old forum is set to read-only mode now.

Your Ikariam Team

  • Alliance Leader Successor

    Do you like this suggestion? 17
    1.  
      Yes (13) 76%
    2.  
      No (4) 24%
    General Information: An option for the leader of an alliance to name a successor, in the event of their account going inactive this named successor would automatically become the new leader of the alliance.

    Suggestion Reason: we live in a world where sadly people die, become ill or lose internet access due to natural disasters or computer issues. This shouldn't be something which automatically leads to the dissolution of an alliance, as such this would be a logical step.

    0077605
    Heathen

    The post was edited 4 times, last by -Hera- ().

  • Suggestion APPROVED! Now open for discussion and voting.

    Please note: Game staff can change leadership if the leader is banned permanently AND if (s)he does NOT hold ALL the officer ranks (HS, Diplomat, General). Although, not all members may be happy with the new Leader who is chosen. Also, with some discretion, game staff 'can' also change leadership if (s)he is about to ghost. Again, if (s)he does not hold ALL officer ranks.
  • Since GO can already do it - can't see a need to implement it, because such cases are quite rare.
    Found a bug or think something doesn't work in the game? Don't be afraid and write a ticket or PM me! :)


    "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
    (c) Albert Einstein
  • Draxo wrote:

    Since GO can already do it - can't see a need to implement it, because such cases are quite rare.
    I agree. Someone can be inactive for a day or two because of RL, and then be able to log in and simply find the leadership transferred.

    There is also the issue of the needed diplomatic-points to take over leadership. Not all account hold the needed amount of embassies to take over leadership of huge alliances, and GOs are careful to check to make sure the new leader will be able to harbor the entire alliance.
  • This is simple, maybe too simple, but multiple choices have to be made to overcome it.
    In the event of the game changing alliance leadership automatically you should develop it more to reply to these questions:
    1. how is the new leader chosen? By vote?
    2. what if the 3 remaining officers want all to be leaders?
    3. if one player has 2 positions, as general and diplomat for example, he gets 2 votes for the final decision?
    4. if leader is chosen by the game in order of positions and that player does not want to be leader, what happens? How will the game choose again?
    5. What if the game chooses a leader that is almost inactive himself, that cannot be contacted and the account is ghosted in the next 2-3 days?

    This can go on forever, every time more questions arise depending on the situation, but there is one condition not taken into consideration and forgotten in your original suggestion: the new leader must have enough embassy levels to hold the entire alliance.

    Therefore, setting a new leader is not a simple task even if it looks simple, it takes time to choose and time to upgrade the embassies after the choice is made, Not to mention diplomacy points for alliance treaties or personal treaties.
  • Sunrise wrote:

    4. if leader is chosen by the game in order of positions and that player does not want to be leader, what happens? How will the game
    he can transform his rank to other player when his embassy point get high enough to collect all the member .



    Draxo wrote:

    Since GO can already do it - can't see a need to implement it, because such cases are quite rare.
    its rare yes but what is the rule about that issue .

    Mea1 wrote:

    I agree. Someone can be inactive for a day or two because of RL, and then be able to log in and simply find the leadership transferred.

    There is also the issue of the needed diplomatic-points to take over leadership. Not all account hold the needed amount of embassies to take over leadership of huge alliances, and GOs are careful to check to make sure the new leader will be able to harbor the entire alliance.
    i agree with MEA for the first line , but i wold like to ask u if he can not log for more that 7 day what happen .

    i thing this suggestion is good my vote is yes .

    as for the diplomatic-point the GOS should make a exception for the new voting leader that the alliance need , because in game u can find a player that have a high embassy but does not know how the alliance work and what he should do so the alliance stay safe and grow .


    Again my vote is yes


    NO one cared WHO i was ..... Until i put on the MASK
    Z eternal ally.
  • Why did people bring extreme scenarios?

    The suggestion is simple, would you like to have someone ALREADY named by the Leader as successor (no voting)?
    This guy must have the same DPs required as the Leader.
    THE SYNDICATE
    [SYN]
  • sharpe12 wrote:

    Excellent point, and hopefully any successor will have plenty of time to ensure DPs are high enough.
    Maybe the requirement to name someone successor is to have as much DPs as required.

    But then, what happens when he forgets to update his embassy, etc.?
    THE SYNDICATE
    [SYN]
  • The successor must have the same DP as the leader only to become the one when the leader inactive & leader account gone. What if the Leader never gone for years, only sometimes vacation mode due to real life stuff, this successor will waste his town spots for nothing. It's a no from me.

  • sharpe12 wrote:

    How about a transfer period, where the successor has to build up dp points, before the alliance can have any new members.
    that a good idea let say the successor have one week so he can upgrade his Embassy to control the alliance and them to accept new member .


    NO one cared WHO i was ..... Until i put on the MASK
    Z eternal ally.
  • I was thinking more like an unlimited period, where you can lose members but not gain them and all alliance garrison rights treaties are void. You know, something to actually encourage the successor to build up,
    Heathen
  • sharpe12 wrote:

    I was thinking more like an unlimited period, where you can lose members but not gain them and all alliance garrison rights treaties are void. You know, something to actually encourage the successor to build up,
    yep way not that a good idea to .


    NO one cared WHO i was ..... Until i put on the MASK
    Z eternal ally.
  • GO (Game Staff) will not interfere on how the leader will be chosen by the alliance members, when the original leader is inactive and about ghosting. We will help the leadership to transer the leader position to the player who is ready with diplomacy points to hold on the leader position, and this player can be chosen by members via voting or nominated by the leadership members or else.

    When the leader hold all the leadership positions, in this case, if there is one member proactive sending ticket and he is ready with diplomacy points, Leader position may be transferred to him. If later on, the alliance members are not happy with him, the option to quit from the alliance can be done easily. Feel free to make a new alliance.