True King Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 (edited) Big improvement to the heir feature would be if they can only take the leadership position if the leader becomes purple inactive. Then it would better serve its intended purpose rather than people using it to coup alliances with active leaders. Also shouldn’t be as easy as convincing a noob with misplaced trust in them couping their leader to kill an alliance as well. Don’t really see reason for people to oppose the change who don’t feel it’s misuse provides a benefit. Also do think it was to easy for likely Sketchy to essentially kill an important ally with some type of persuasion on someone he could manipulate. Same tactic has been used to coup other alliances if someone puts someone who’s loyalty hasn’t been fully test in heir position & turns out they can be intimidated or bribed. So an inactivity requirement makes sense or it’s a pointless rank. As an alliance could have several leaders instead. Edited October 8, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum 1 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 How do you suppose we'll get quality micro drama if we don't see a coup every couple of days? 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True King Posted October 8, 2019 Author Share Posted October 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, Hassan said: How do you suppose we'll get quality micro drama if we don't see a coup every couple of days? Might as well let Officers promote themselves to higher ranks if it’s designed to provide lulz over functionality. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigbigadorlou Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 2 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said: Also shouldn’t be as easy as convincing a noob with misplaced trust in them couping their leader to kill an alliance as well. Don’t really see reason for people to oppose the change who don’t feel it’s misuse provides a benefit. Why put a noob in the heir position? If there are possibilities of coups, change permissions. Your idea also serves to prevent coups of awful leaders. Did you just get couped? Are you salty about it? Quote Hey Krampus, the signature edit is under account settings. Actually, here's the link. https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/settings/signature/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True King Posted October 8, 2019 Author Share Posted October 8, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said: Why put a noob in the heir position? If there are possibilities of coups, change permissions. Your idea also serves to prevent coups of awful leaders. Did you just get couped? Are you salty about it? Also somebody who isn't a noob might seem trustworthy; until somebody puts the trust to make them a heir. Then they can rob the bank, so current system rewards people for betraying other people's trust. Only real reason to let a heir coup an active leader, when in reality a heir is meant to be a backup for once a leader is gone. (So if they're inactive long enough, would make sense for a heir to take over if one is set) I just see no benefit to the current system, other than people who profit off people joining AAs to try getting heir & rob their banks. Edited October 8, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted October 8, 2019 Share Posted October 8, 2019 30 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said: Why put a noob in the heir position? If there are possibilities of coups, change permissions. Your idea also serves to prevent coups of awful leaders. Did you just get couped? Are you salty about it? His partner is assclownery got couped and he's upset about it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.