EA Forums - Banner

Automatic Subs for Leadership

KeJorn
16 posts Member
Would it fair, sensible, to allow automatic, though highly limited, subs of all alliance members given to top leadership (CiC/SiC)?

It should default to no powers other than moving a base and perhaps collection of packages, to include preventing an account from imploding due to inactivity.
No research, no funds, no selling, no upgrading, not even access to messages or chat from that account, etc.

It would be a preferred method for resolving issues instead of dropping a member and killing their base (bases), just to move them (away from a layout or hub, etc).

Make sense?

Replies

  • Have you considered the possibility of that player sending you the substitution?
    Or that they just don't want anyone to touch their account because they don't want to play anymore?
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • KeJorn
    16 posts Member
    Have you considered the possibility of that player sending you the substitution?
    Or that they just don't want anyone to touch their account because they don't want to play anymore?

    Of course, there are LOTS of possibilities.

    However did you really even bother to think that "possibility" through?
    "they just don't want anyone to touch their account because they don't want to play anymore?"

    If they are in an alliance, they have responsibilities that come with being part of the team (granted, after killing the fort, the responsibilities tend to become far more lax). The USUAL way, is simply kick them, as I stated above. However, if they "don't want to play anymore" then, the ball is still in their court to leave the alliance and sector away.

    The point is, in many cases, it is more about other RL issues that sometimes they cannot control, thus, instead of kicking them, having the option to at least move their bases as needed and keep their account alive, provides them time to get back online and make that call themselves.

    In the end, nobody is messing with their account, as the controls would be extremely limited (unless the player designates differently themselves.)

    Thus, as stated, the point is to have one more step before having to boot a player. It's far more about courtesy than being insensitive to a player that wants to quit.

    Again, if you don't want to play anymore (and thereby do not want someone messing with your account), leave the alliance. It's not rocket science.






  • If you are interested in continuing to play, you do not need anyone to replace you.
    If you don't trust what your alliance leader does, you won't leave your replacement.
    If you feel part of an alliance and do not want to leave it, you should not be forced to give your replacement to another.
    In short, if you have rights and obligations for your alliance, you, personally, must decide if you want replacement and who should control it.
    Also, that there is a limit of use of substitution already implicit in the game itself, it is not infinite in time.
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • KeJorn
    16 posts Member
    edited August 2
    "If you are interested in continuing to play, you do not need anyone to replace you."
    - Again, if they wish to continue playing IN AN ALLIANCE and benefiting from the status and POIs that alliance holds, they should follow the instructions of the alliance. Normally that would mean booting them for ANY noncompliance of this. You seem to agree...

    I believe these were your own words on another issue: "If I am the leader of a team, I like to know who works for the good of the team and who does not. For this, I need to know when each player has connected and if I see any as "hidden", I immediately think that they do not want to collaborate and I will expel them from my alliance."

    Like your request to allow leadership to override "hidden status of a player", I am suggesting a method to avoid kicking them initially, esp if it turns out to be an issue of RL preventing them from logging in. This allows leadership to be able to move their base out of the way without dropping them and killing it, etc. Thus, my suggestions are far more courteous and not qualified as a "replacement", with limited default sub access.

    "If you don't trust what your alliance leader does, you won't leave your replacement."
    - If you do not trust your alliance leaders, leave the alliance. Again, this is not a replacement (as explained several times)

    "If you feel part of an alliance and do not want to leave it..."
    - Then you should follow the rules of the Alliance. Again, the option I propose reduces the chance a person would get kicked from the alliance for not logging in often enough, etc.

    "there is a limit of use of substitution already implicit in the game itself, it is not infinite in time."
    - This is a video game. Features are added by the developers. This is the "Suggestions & Feedback" portion of the forum. Thus, this post is requesting changes. Hello??

  • Let's simplify:
    1) You have posted a suggestion in the appropriate thread
    2) I have expressed that I disagree with you
    3) In another thread, I requested that the CiC could withdraw the "hidden" status from the components of his alliance, and this request was denied for violating the personal rights of each player.
    - My intention was to be able to know the last connection of the player, not for the entire alliance but only for the officers.
    4) My answer is not, in any case, a personal attack against you
    Not a part of EA / Envision teams - My comments are only mine.
  • Let's say you both (and myself too) agree that some built-in alliance leadership organizational help would be an improvement to the game.
    1. The leadership wants to weed out inactives (and spies), so knowing who is/was online when is useful. I agree. But sometimes pvp squad wants to be hidden, for good reason. Maybe a solution would be to make approval on hidden status from leadership required. Leadership can always kick though, so i don't think this is a big problem.
    2. The leadership wants to be able to move bases around quickly. Having everybody send a substitute to one account works. BUT it requires that all members of leadership have access to that account where subs are sent (so logins have to be shared), it requires that nobody forgets to send sub after logging in, etc, etc. It would make the life of leadership a lot easier if the proposed function was added. Maybe it does not have to be mandatory, but if leadership requests subs, the first time a member enters an alliance (or let's say is promoted from trial), s/he might be asked to accept that the restricted sub would be always available to leadership going forward. And then multiple leaders would have access, and would not require lots of clicks all the time.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!