Announcements
Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2
To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.
I think Leaders should be able to choose a successor pending they disappear for a extended period of time. Which the successor would take command, until the Leaders returns which leadership would then return to them. I created an SG and I left for a while due to personal reasons, when I returned I no longer had ownership of my SG that I built from the ground up. The person who took over wasn't even in the group a week before I left. I assume everyone took off after I left giving the newbie leadership. I think the person who created the SG should always be in charge. Successors are only in charge while the leader is gone for a given period of time. Once they return should have their baby back. If the successor doesn't like they should go make their own.
If the creator didn't want to lose their baby, they never should have left.
A SG is only "yours" if all the members are alts that belonging to you. As soon as you invite one other person, the ownership is shared. If you drop off for months, even a year and come back why should you automatically get leadership back? Just because you clicked your mouse a few times at the beginning and started the SG?
Hey, I get it that sometimes life happens and you are AFK for a lot longer than you would have liked. But getting back into the leadership position is something that should be handled socially by the current members of the SG, not mechanically by the game..
-----------------------------------------
I never set anything on fire accidentally!
The Titan Legacy - Defender of the Inner Flame
The SG system needs to have a line of Succession .. characters and accounts get deleted. Leaders quit.
IF there is a rule in place for login days however it should not just apply to the leader. It would have to apply to all SG members for membership.. and I also think it would need to be optional.
I say this with full assumption that there will be SG currency that benefit the players in the SG like Wildstar and other modern games that is based on participation.
You don't participate (log in) you miss out..
Question is.. do players want that? kind of "Auto-kick" function? The only reason NOT to leave the SG and form your own would be to keep these perks and bonuses.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
So you can be a Full Time or a Part Time SG/Legion member? Only have one Full Time SG... and stll be a part of many other SG's Part Time?
My absence as leader followed the tragic death of my computer. I was in mourning for a while and I couldn't get my crap together (meaning I didn't have the money). Now I had no problem with returning and socially getting my SG back...but when I got back I was kicked and my baby was stolen from me by some Sg newbie. All the Prestige and Time base building gone....stolen. I have a problem with that part. Leadership shouldn't trickle down to last man standing. Leadership should be choosen. If those players are gone for a long extended period of time then let the Sg go dark until the leaders return. Most people usually join different SG's at one time so they will just have to suck it up and move on.
Then again I guess the same could be said to the forgotten leaders too....oh well.
This is exactly what I mean.. do we WANT people forced out of their babies? If people want to leave and do their own thing why don't they.
Why take the things earned by the first group with you without express permission.
I do not agree with "Implied consent" in this case and do not believe Leaders should lose their status. IF something like this were to happen the game would have to expressly state it from the get go
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Dont go Public with your Company then. :(
Discourage SGs from inviting members? I don't think that's good for the game.
That being said.. i know my SG is really strict on who we let in and our "rules"
Crowd Control Enthusiast
How about this scenario: A player founds a SG and goes dark for whatever reason. leadership passes to another player and they run with it, building the group and base up greater than what it was before and by all accounts being a better leader than the founder. When the founder comes back on, do they deserve to just get all the power back? Is it even still [i]their[/i] SG anymore?
I'm all for having the ability to set up controls on who leadership passes to. I'd even be ok with a "leave of absence" option which would temporarily shift leadership and then revert when the leader returned. But if you just go dark for a long enough time for the leadership to pass, you shouldn't be surprised if you end up kicked from the group.
-----------------------------------------
I never set anything on fire accidentally!
The Titan Legacy - Defender of the Inner Flame
Technical Director
Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider
A plea about a related issue that may have some relevance here.
Give the founder a special status. This really bit in private global chat channels more than SGs, but several times a channel mod staged a coup, and because CoH didn't monitor what went on in those channels, the authorities refused to do anything about it. The one I remember was a case where the miscreant made everybody a mod, and because there was no message to say who did what, there was no way of telling who kicked everybody.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I once joined a SG that had the founder leave for nearly a year. The SG flagged so I asked if everyone wanted to keep going with an elected leader. Since it was my idea they gave it to me. I built the SG back up, ran events, recruited new players and continued building the base. The founder returned, very nicely asked to be reinstated (which he was) whereupon he kicked everyone. Yes, he started the SG but it was the rest of us who kept it going and contributed Prestige to it while he was gone.
This is why I firmly believe that we should not use the Prestige system or any other form of alternate currency for bases. You get the smallest footprint and some basic equipment for free upon creating a SG and everything else costs Inf (or whatever we're using). If a character quits or is kicked, he takes his cash with him when he goes. I think this might deter crooked founders from recruiting a bunch of players, taking their money and then kicking them. Items installed in the base (special decorations etc) unlocked by that character go with them as well for the same reason. Anything unlocked by multiple characters can stay as long as at least one character remains in the SG. Deleted character leave their contribution in the SG.
Yes, the Founder should have special powers but I also think that the players who contribute should have a say in the matter. Just because I START a SG and recruit a few players does NOT mean that I put in all or even most of the work a year later when the SG has 50 members and I'm too busy to play more than once a week. Yes, I founded the SG but the total contribution of the players far outstrips my personal contribution.
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
Comicsluvr you had an option to create your own group and also the option to not reinstate that leader. Why remove SG currency as incentive for groups who do not make the mistakes your group had made?
I don't mean to make it personal. My point is that governing that behavior is a player responsibility, not a dev responsibility.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
The situation you describe sounds exactly like an abuse of TRUST. You can't engineer game mechanics and systems to "enforce" TRUST. As you point out, the "mistake" was trusting the original leader to Not Be A Jerk when they came back. This wasn't something the game could do (or decide) for you.
If you want to know the value of a man's character, you don't impose suffering upon him ... instead you give him POWER ...
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Truth be told, my primary reason for using currency instead of Prestige is two-fold: One is simplicity and the other is a cash sink.
One of the drawbacks to CoH at the end was the number of different forms of currency and Merits. KISS is a good rule. I would rather have fewer such systems if at all possible.
One of the big issues from CoH was inflation of currency after the Market. Now CoT will begin with a Market so less likely to have trouble there but cash sinks will still be needed. So why not simply use whatever form of cash we're using in-game?
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
Pages