Page 1 of 1
Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:23 am
by ~Sabaku no Gaara~
Well the inactive members of an alliance shouldn't contribute with naq to the alliance bank.
Right now, alliance leaders can exploit this.
If a member didn't logged in for 52h he should stop contributing to the alliance bank.
Let's take lonewolfs for example, the alliance leader + some members are active but almost half of them are inactive. Who benefits from inactives?
And there are a lot of other examples on the server, FS, TÅÅE, T I T A N S League,EPA etc.
This should be a fair game, right?
Re: Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:07 am
by Iƒrit
Complaining/Crying and criticizing are two different things, I think Sabaku pointed to what he believed to be a flaw in the mechanics that should be looked at, thus he was criticizing not crying or complaining. Can't really care myself, but its valid criticism.
Re: Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:20 am
by Brdavs
Doesnt help his case he cites alliance names that are mostly in position of direct competition for house top spots with his heh...
Just sreams "obvious agenda is obvious".
I dont see a particular problem here. Is the way it is now gamebreaking? I doubt it. Is it a good idea to star penalizing "casual players"? Again, I doubt it.
Fairness is extremely relative, especially with these houses. Little with them is fair as is. Any good reason why this of all things should get priority? Oh right TAF nabbed faith. Grave injustice indeed heh.
Re: Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:41 am
by Jorgensen
The suggestion is good
Re: Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:39 am
by noone
The suggestion is indeed good.
It actualy makes dead weight, dead weight.
Re: Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 12:11 pm
by DeathIncarnator
Well we`ve known each other for a while now ~Sabaku no Gaara~, in fact from before there were Houses.
I pm`d you ingame Feb 26, 04:47
"I keep seeing you in our logs....is this a taste of more to come ?"
Now I see you again in our logs and posting about inactives on here.
We arn`t about to change the way we honour our old soldiers, and recently we have had some old faces return to carry on the good fight....which is good
So contributions to power and Alliance Naq are inconsequential.
Oh and stay out of our logs.
Re: Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:20 pm
by Sarevok
Ok, first, I'm asking to stop the inter-alliance bickering. Yes, Sabaku shouldn't have dropped names, however there's an alliance discussion section if you want to continue that line of accusation.
If this is a point of great tension for the alliances named, I shale remove them for you. Or ask Sabaku to
Second, I agree with the idea. I would say a week (covers for MOST casual gamers if they say login on the weekend) before they stop contributing income. Otherwise people could just ask people to sign up, join their alliance, send them 100m UU to train to miners, then they stop playing. Allowing for an alliance with a single active member, to have even 10 inactives, totalling 1b unit count, to basically produce alliance income for the active player. They would also have a disproportionate vote in houses
Re: Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:42 pm
by Cole
I would say two weeks, then. Two weeks is sign of inactivity in another game I play.
I would suggest 1/2 or 1/3 at most, but not remove. Contribution half or third for inactive accounts.
Re: Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:46 pm
by Sarevok
Cole wrote:I would say two weeks, then. Two weeks is sign of inactivity in another game I play.
I would suggest 1/2 or 1/3 at most, but not remove. Contribution half or third for inactive accounts.
Could work i suppose. Still means there's a 500m/turn alliance income being generated
Re: Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:55 pm
by Robe
I think this is a bad suggestion because people go on vacations for up to 8 weeks at a time,
especially in between school years.
Where do you draw the line on activity?
How do you measure activity?
Who gets to decide who is active and who isn't?
People have real lives and personal commitments outside this game.
I see only downsides to this suggestion.
There is no benefit in making GW a Police State.
Why do we need to micro manage everything?
People should be free to play as they wish and manage their alliances as they wish, provided they stick within the rules.
Re: Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:15 pm
by Rudy Peña
Robe wrote:I think this is a bad suggestion because people go on vacations for up to 8 weeks at a time,
especially in between school years. Going into Vac mode and going inactice is 2 different things, you should know this.
Where do you draw the line on activity?Admins job
How do you measure activity?Admins job
Who gets to decide who is active and who isn't?Admins job
People have real lives and personal commitments outside this game.
I see only downsides to this suggestion.
There is no benefit in making GW a Police State.
Why do we need to micro manage everything?
People should be free to play as they wish and manage their alliances as they wish, provided they stick within the rules.
Re: Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 4:45 pm
by Robe
Rudy Pena wrote:Robe wrote:I think this is a bad suggestion because people go on vacations for up to 8 weeks at a time,
especially in between school years. Going into Vac mode and going inactice is 2 different things, you should know this. Indeed I do know this because I have very heavy RL commitments with my family and work. However, not everyone is like me. Not everyone wants to set vacation during busy times.
Where do you draw the line on activity?Admins jobExactly
How do you measure activity?Admins jobExactly
Who gets to decide who is active and who isn't?Admins jobExactly
People have real lives and personal commitments outside this game.
I see only downsides to this suggestion.
There is no benefit in making GW a Police State.
Why do we need to micro manage everything?
People should be free to play as they wish and manage their alliances as they wish, provided they stick within the rules.
If alliances are hording in actives, fool be them because that leaves them open to heavy farming,
which in turn leads to conflict and war.
However, there is no need to micro manage the game with suggestions to suit individual or personal conflicts.
Re: Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:58 pm
by Rudy Peña
Robe wrote:Rudy Pena wrote:Robe wrote:I think this is a bad suggestion because people go on vacations for up to 8 weeks at a time,
especially in between school years. Going into Vac mode and going inactice is 2 different things, you should know this. Indeed I do know this because I have very heavy RL commitments with my family and work. However, not everyone is like me. Not everyone wants to set vacation during busy times.
Where do you draw the line on activity?Admins jobExactly
How do you measure activity?Admins jobExactly
Who gets to decide who is active and who isn't?Admins jobExactly
People have real lives and personal commitments outside this game.
I see only downsides to this suggestion.
There is no benefit in making GW a Police State.
Why do we need to micro manage everything?
People should be free to play as they wish and manage their alliances as they wish, provided they stick within the rules.
If alliances are hording in actives, fool be them because that leaves them open to heavy farming,
which in turn leads to conflict and war.
However, there is no need to micro manage the game with suggestions to suit individual or personal conflicts.
But there is nothing wrong with stopping that 1% alliance tax after a while when there is no log in time.
Its giving the alliance naq for the bank, when active people can be giving more as they train more miners and lifters.
Think of it this way......Robe makes multies and builds 300k Raw UP and each account 100mil UU into miners. So Robe can get uu and naq from them.
Rudy makes an alliance and has 25 people, but with 10 inactive and still giving to the alliance bank.
Both Robe and Rudy's alliance is both making naq.
Where Robe can just increase her miners and UP to get more naq and uu. Just where as Rudy can kick the inactives to get more active people who can give more to the alliance bank by increasing there miners, which in turn will make that 1% go from say 1bil to 2bil.
Re: Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:18 pm
by xDaku
If this was any other game, say Call of Duty or WoW or whatever, you wouldn't be penalized for the amount of time you play. I don't see why GW needs to be any different. People are allowed to play within whatever timeframe they want to and limiting and setting rules to that isn't fair on those that want to play the game but don't have as much time as some other "active" members.
Re: Inactive members
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:51 pm
by stuff of legends
I dont see why it should be implemented?
How about their miners leave the realm and they stop producing income, with the miners slowly dying? that way the server doesnt benefit as much as the alliance. And its the persons fault for not vac'ing after a month or something.