StarGateWars Forums

As we know admin installed an update which originally was designed to auto-disband any alliance under 5 members that was over 60 days old. This was then slightly changed so that only if they were inactive.

I had a thought about how this could be improved upon.


I suggest that if a person that is in an active alliance becomes inactive for 60 days then that person would be auto kicked from said alliance.

These are my reasons behind this idea....

1) Would give true picture of the alliance, and not a false picture that many have now with so many inactive accounts

2) In war time it would help to ensure that most accounts in all alliances involved in war would be active

3) Could possibly help smaller/newer players because there are some alliances that don't like people farming or raiding their inactives because they farm and raid them themselves. If they were auto-kicked then no-one would know who is farming and raiding the inactive account and smaller/newer accounts wouldn't be so scared to touch the account because it's not sitting under any "tag"

To add to this idea it could extend a bit further to Officer/Commander relations.

If an Officer is inactive for more than 60 days they get auto-kicked from Commander. This would mean that the Commander can't just keep the inactive account and feed off the UP, whilst the inactive officers just gets farmed and raided.

Thoughts.

this can help against multis too

I love the idea. back in the day when I was running alliances, one of the hardest thing as leader was knowing who was active and who wasn't, who could be kicked and who couldn't. I remember mass messages going "you have 1 week to respond or you're booted"... it's a pain in the ass.

Yes, good and practical idea.
Perhaps this can be done in the format of a 'last login date' visible for alliance leaders/2ic? That way the leader knows before the system kicks. Kind of better as just suddenly losing someone who hasn't been on for a while.
That is my main issue with the autodisband too, it doesn't notify you at all, until after it is too late.

Potential issue is that the leader of an alliance gets kicked for inactivity, leaving the alliance 'existing' but without a leader (and without anyone to accept them back).

I know of some alliances that let inactives stay in their alliance so they can use them as an farm for themselves, but protect it from other players.

Temptress wrote:I know of some alliances that let inactives stay in their alliance so they can use them as an farm for themselves, but protect it from other players.

Yeah and that's one of the reasons why i'm suggesting this idea.

I agree with Temptress. It shouldn't be forced. If its toggleable thats fine. Some people take extended leaves, 2 or 3 months or longer, and help their friends out by becoming their officer and letting their alliance feed on them.

I say no, unless it toggleable.

Lore wrote:I agree with Temptress. It shouldn't be forced. If its toggleable thats fine. Some people take extended leaves, 2 or 3 months or longer, and help their friends out by becoming their officer and letting their alliance feed on them.

I say no, unless it toggleable.

But the alliance can feed on them whether they are in the alliance or not.

Maybe make the officer one toggleable, but there's no need for that with the alliance one.

clarkey wrote:

Lore wrote:I agree with Temptress. It shouldn't be forced. If its toggleable thats fine. Some people take extended leaves, 2 or 3 months or longer, and help their friends out by becoming their officer and letting their alliance feed on them.

I say no, unless it toggleable.

But the alliance can feed on them whether they are in the alliance or not.

Maybe make the officer one toggleable, but there's no need for that with the alliance one.

Yes there is.

If your in the alliance but no ones officer, you can be watched via the alliance loggs. Useful when raiding.

Point still is, this takes away from alliances, it removes their decision making abilities. If they want them gone then they can boot them. If you force this, then they may loose accounts which they want to keep for what ever reason. JMO

Lore wrote:

clarkey wrote:

Lore wrote:I agree with Temptress. It shouldn't be forced. If its toggleable thats fine. Some people take extended leaves, 2 or 3 months or longer, and help their friends out by becoming their officer and letting their alliance feed on them.

I say no, unless it toggleable.

But the alliance can feed on them whether they are in the alliance or not.

Maybe make the officer one toggleable, but there's no need for that with the alliance one.

Yes there is.

If your in the alliance but no ones officer, you can be watched via the alliance loggs. Useful when raiding.

Point still is, this takes away from alliances, it removes their decision making abilities. If they want them gone then they can boot them. If you force this, then they may loose accounts which they want to keep for what ever reason. JMO

But the only reason for an alliance to keep an inactive account is to see who farms/raids it. The reason wouldn't be to farm/raid it themselves cause that can be done outside of the alliance.

if someone leaves the game for a couple of months and doesn't go on vac mode then they can always rejoin the alliance later on when they return, besides 60 days would be 2 months anyway.

So the only reason someone would want to keep inactives in an alliance is to watch who raids/farms them. And if smaller/newer people do that then the alliance would teach them a lesson. With my suggestion then smaller/newer people would have a bit of an easier time farming and raiding inactive accounts that belonged to the big guns.

You must admit there's hardly any updates that really help the newer accounts out.

JMO.

clarkey wrote:You must admit there's hardly any updates that really help the newer accounts out.

JMO.

OK mate, you made your case, I made mine. We can agree to disagree on this one.

Clarkey wrote:But the only reason for an alliance to keep an inactive account is to see who farms/raids it. The reason wouldn't be to farm/raid it themselves cause that can be done outside of the alliance.

That is true - but, at the same time, keeping it within the alliance could be a tactic to attempt to dissuade others from farming/raiding it - therefore it is useful.

Or, as pointed out - somebody may take an extended break from the game - but leave their account off vacation so that their alliance mates can benefit from it. They are still part of the alliance, and so the alliance can see who else is farming/raiding the account, and warn them off if necessary. Just because the leader of the realm takes a break, it doesn't mean that the realm MUST do so to. And even if a leader of a realm quits, it doesn't mean that an alliance is still not allowed to 'protect' that realm.

Yes, keeping inactive accounts in an alliance may give a false impression of the size/power of said alliance - but ultimately if the alliance is doing it to bluff their opposition, they better hope that their bluff isn't called!

Having said that, during the days when the EPA numbers were at their peak, I wish I had had something that would indicate activity to me. So something in game to indicate activity, and a toggle-able autoboot facility (with adjustable time-span) would be ideal here.

I agree with Lore - as it stands it is removing a choice from alliances, so I say give alliances the option to do it, or not. Nothing is lost, and those who wish to have such a system have gained.

Wolf359 wrote:Having said that, during the days when the EPA numbers were at their peak, I wish I had had something that would indicate activity to me. So something in game to indicate activity, and a toggle-able autoboot facility (with adjustable time-span) would be ideal here.

I agree with Lore - as it stands it is removing a choice from alliances, so I say give alliances the option to do it, or not. Nothing is lost, and those who wish to have such a system have gained.

(last time I add my two cents, I swear!)

I actually think this is an even better option. this way the alliance leader still has the option to kick or keep them, then it becomes a tool for the leader/2ic, rather than forced on them.