Removing Inactives from Alliances

[Alex]

Stemming from another thread, I want to open this open for a full discussion to get a lot of user input on it.

 

This suggestion is that after 7 days, when a nation becomes gray, it gets automatically removed from any alliance that it's in.

 

This would only come about along with a vacation mode which would allow you to freeze your nation for a period of time, I'm thinking a minimum of 30 days to 120 days or something. If you were in vacation mode you would not be able to be removed from your alliance, attacked, spied on, would not produce income, would not be taxed, etc.

 

Now, the arguments for removing a nation from its alliance after going inactive are:

 

1) Alliances use inactive nations to tax farm them. They don't do anything between the period that they go inactive and get deleted except pay taxes to the alliance bank and contribute to the alliance score. They're dead weight, and they incentivize alliances to allow a lot of nations into them because even if they go inactive they still profit from it, and this results in skewed alliance scores.

 

2) Tailing from argument 1, the artificial score is a problem. We don't see a true picture of an alliance based on its scored when it's filled with inactive nations. It's been suggested before that inactive nations don't count to score, but it makes more sense to removes them from the alliances entirely so they don't get taxed and don't count towards the alliance score.

 

3) Kicking inactive nations out of alliances will create more raiding opportunities for larger nations, and promote more activity in the nations that stick around. You'll be hard pressed to find a nation without an alliance with a score above maybe even 200, but if we start kicking inactives from alliances there will be a considerably larger number of these nations. The active players in those higher score ranges can have a little more fun fighting nations that aren't in alliances.

 

Those are my main arguments, tell me what you agree and disagree with, and let's hammer our the best solution for this combination of issues.

[Fox Fire]

I'm thinking a minimum of 30 days to 120 days or something.

Why does there have to be a minimum? What if I'm only going to be gone a week?

 

Also, I'm opposed to this idea because nations already get deleted for inactivity. A better solution is just to prevent gray nations from being taxed.

[Alex]

Why does there have to be a minimum? What if I'm only going to be gone a week?

 

Also, I'm opposed to this idea because nations already get deleted for inactivity. A better solution is just to prevent gray nations from being taxed.

 

There needs to be a minimum because otherwise vacation mode becomes "peace mode" which is something we do not want in the game. Vacation mode is protection for an extended period of absence, if you're gone for a week your nation will not be deleted in that amount of time.

 

 

Honestly I find this to be as pointless as the idea to stop counting inactives in the alliance score rankings. There's a point of inactivity at which it's been decided that it's no longer worth keeping the nations alive, and they're deleted. It's been set at 30 days. Until they get deleted, they're still nations, and still in whatever alliance has chosen to accept them. They exist, and they're an alliance member. They should still have taxes collected, they should still be counted in rankings, etc and so forth. 

 

If they haven't been inactive long enough to get deleted, there's no reason they should arbitrarily no longer be taxed, or booted out of their alliance, or whatever. Let alliances choose to handle their own members however they want. 

 

If the 30 day timer for deletion is too long, then reduce it. Don't create subtimers that serve no purpose other than to satisfy a group of players who don't like inactives, want to raid them, and don't want to see alliances who aren't as strict with inactives as they are profit off of the game tax system. 

 

If alliances want to use inactives as a tax farm, as I see it, it's a completely legitimate tactic. It's got it's own set of disadvantages it causes, and the response to it shouldn't be to legislate it out of the game because some players don't like it. As long as players haven't been inactive long enough to be deleted, they should be treated like the other nations in the game. 

 

The above is a quote from Tenages in another thread, and I think he makes some good points. I wanted to bring it here for the sake of argument and seeking the best solution. 

 

Now what I would argue against what Tenages has said is that we do need a "subtimer" that's less than the 30 days it takes to delete a nation, because deletion is final. The amount of time before a nation is deleted ought to be long enough to give a player ample time to come back before it's too late. However, there is a period before that 30 days where a nation can go inactive, and imo it would benefit the game more if inactive nations were removed from alliances so we can see more accurate alliance scores, less abuse of alliances hoarding inactives for taxes, and more raid targets in higher tiers.

[Phiney]

For what its worth, I wholeheartedly agree with you sheepy

[Clarke]

If you're going away for just over a week then you would be royally screwed by not being allowed to play for another 20 days or so if you enter Vacation Mode so I don't think nations should be removed after 7 days or anywhere close to 7 days. 

1) and 2), those are minimal at most.

3) I'd raid pretty much anyone with no alliance in my score range so I'd probably benefit the most. But given how the numbers supplied by the suggested vacation period discourage entering vacation mode then I don't nations should be kicked at all. 

[1972ford]

can we make it 14 days till an inactive nation gets booted from an alliance. 7 days seems a little too short. I like to think im an active player in these nation sim games but there are times i go more thsn a week without logging in. I think a week is fine for going grey then another week before getting booted from the alliance which will still give 16 days to raiders to have their way with the inactives.

[Clarke]

I don't think a nation should be kicked at all, you can remove them from taxes and alliance score with coding, but kicking them punishes them by forcing them to be kicked or enter vacation mode where they potentially lose out of a long period of not being able to even play the game properly. 

I've seen nations with no alliance get no attacks on them at all above 200 score so it's more so that the middle tier of nations are too lazy to attack people. 

[Masterbake]

In other games there are many players that log on less than weekly due to RL.  One group I would point out that would get screwed would be anyone in the military subject to active deployment.  They would get screwed by a one week timer.  In another game we had many members who were military stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  If someone leaves their nation unattended now they run a great risk of it being attacked anyway.  If this is changed people will simply look for grey nations to raid and chase them out of the game. By leaving them in alliances you bring politics into the game if you raid someone affiliated with an alliance.  I thought that was what this game was about.  

Edited January 7, 2015 by Masterbake

[Donald Sterling]

it shouldn't happen

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

If this is gonna happen, I don't want to be "kicked" because im away for a short while. This is a bad idea.

[stetonic]

Kicking a nation from an alliance for being inactive after 7 days is harsh.What if i have a real life emergency and dont get the chance to go into holiday  mode.

You could make it if your inactive for 30 days you get kicked from your alliance but you stay in the game and nations can attack you for another week. and during that time you will be locked from logging in.Then your nation gets deleted 

That way they can be farmed before they go.

[Alex]

If you're going away for just over a week then you would be royally screwed by not being allowed to play for another 20 days or so if you enter Vacation Mode so I don't think nations should be removed after 7 days or anywhere close to 7 days. 

1) and 2), those are minimal at most.

3) I'd raid pretty much anyone with no alliance in my score range so I'd probably benefit the most. But given how the numbers supplied by the suggested vacation period discourage entering vacation mode then I don't nations should be kicked at all. 

 

I think 1972ford's suggestion of 14 days solves for this pretty well.

 

can we make it 14 days till an inactive nation gets booted from an alliance. 7 days seems a little too short. I like to think im an active player in these nation sim games but there are times i go more thsn a week without logging in. I think a week is fine for going grey then another week before getting booted from the alliance which will still give 16 days to raiders to have their way with the inactives.

 

I actually agree with you, I think that 14 days is a better length of time and would be less punitive for nations that were gone for only a week or slightly longer.

 

In other games there are many players that log on less than weekly due to RL.  One group I would point out that would get screwed would be anyone in the military subject to active deployment.  They would get screwed by a one week timer.  In another game we had many members who were military stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.  If someone leaves their nation unattended now they run a great risk of it being attacked anyway.  If this is changed people will simply look for grey nations to raid and chase them out of the game. By leaving them in alliances you bring politics into the game if you raid someone affiliated with an alliance.  I thought that was what this game was about.  

 

This is why we would have a vacation mode, so that if you know you're going to be deployed for 90 days or w/e, you could freeze your nation for that period of time and resume activities when you returned.

[Kim Jong-Il]

Maybe there should be a sort of purgatory between alliance and no alliance for like a good 5 days so they wont get color bonuses, but the alliance wont get their taxes. However, if they get attacked, the alliance will still lose money from their bank, so they can have the choice of either defending for them and hope they log on, or kick them before  the 5 days are up. This way, the alliance cant take advantage of the nation, but the nation has a slightly longer change to get back and stay in their alliance.

[Fox Fire]

There needs to be a minimum because otherwise vacation mode becomes "peace mode" which is something we do not want in the game. Vacation mode is protection for an extended period of absence, if you're gone for a week your nation will not be deleted in that amount of time.

I highly disagree. If your stats are completely frozen, then it doesn't make an effective peace mode at all.

It should work like this: Once you go into vacation mode, you are automatically logged out and remain in vacation mode until you log back in. Thus, as long as you are in vacation mode, you cannot access the game at all without being forced out of vacation mode.

If you set a minimum like that, then some people might leave for a week or two and then be locked out for a whole month.

 

As for inactives, why can't we just prevent grays from being taxed?

[Clarke]

I think 1972ford's suggestion of 14 days solves for this pretty well.

 

I wouldn't say solve as it still leaves 16 full days, I personally don't experience it and probably never will.

But someone will suffer from it eventually, being forced to enter vacation mode to avoid being kicked and lose out on perhaps a week or more of playing the game.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Diabolos

[ELPINCHAZO]

I think 1972ford's suggestion of 14 days solves for this pretty well.

 

 

I actually agree with you, I think that 14 days is a better length of time and would be less punitive for nations that were gone for only a week or slightly longer.

 

 

This is why we would have a vacation mode, so that if you know you're going to be deployed for 90 days or w/e, you could freeze your nation for that period of time and resume activities when you returned.

MAKE IT SO!

[Brooklyn666]

I don't like this. Inactives already get deleted. We don't need a "halfway delete" before the real one. What if someone has an unexpected emergency and can't get online? Why should they be removed after only 7 days, or 14 days?

 

If the purpose of this is to prevent tax farming, then simply make taxes not apply to greys.

[Grillick]

I think this suggestion is absurd, but I don't have a position on whether it should be adopted.

 

I do think, however, that having a minimum time frame for peace mode is a terrible idea. If oeace mode freezes the nation completely in time, the only requirement should be that it cannot be implemented while you are at war, or if implemented while you are at war, it does not become effective until the war ends.

[Alex]

I highly disagree. If your stats are completely frozen, then it doesn't make an effective peace mode at all.

It should work like this: Once you go into vacation mode, you are automatically logged out and remain in vacation mode until you log back in. Thus, as long as you are in vacation mode, you cannot access the game at all without being forced out of vacation mode.

If you set a minimum like that, then some people might leave for a week or two and then be locked out for a whole month.

 

As for inactives, why can't we just prevent grays from being taxed?

 

That's actually a really good idea for how a vacation mode could work. And yes grays could just not be taxed, but they still add to alliance score when in reality they're not really of any value.

[fistofdoom]

That's actually a really good idea for how a vacation mode could work. And yes grays could just not be taxed, but they still add to alliance score when in reality they're not really of any value.

Then halve their value to score.

And don't auto-kick people. I think that's an awful idea.

Edited January 7, 2015 by fistofdoom

[TheNG]

That's actually a really good idea for how a vacation mode could work. And yes grays could just not be taxed, but they still add to alliance score when in reality they're not really of any value.

So what if they add to alliance score? Even if you're inactive, you're still a nation with score, and it should be counted until you delete. The fixation some have with "real score" is ridiculous, the numbers have no real value, its just ones and zeros in a game. Kicking out inactives just to "make the alliance numbers real" is pointless, all it would do is shake up the rankings a little, and at the end of the day, does it really matter? Sure, your place is a matter of pride, but if there is an alliance that has its score inflated from inactives, they'll delete soon anyway, just live with it for a while and then you can pass them. If you care so much about it, calculate all the real score yourself. Sheepy, if you are really going to implement this, don't do it for that reason.

[Seryozha Nikanor]

 

 

3) Kicking inactive nations out of alliances will create more raiding opportunities for larger nations, and promote more activity in the nations that stick around. You'll be hard pressed to find a nation without an alliance with a score above maybe even 200, but if we start kicking inactives from alliances there will be a considerably larger number of these nations. The active players in those higher score ranges can have a little more fun fighting nations that aren't in alliances.

 

Its their fault for being too lazy to post an application on the alliance forum or their fault for managing to get denied.

[Chey]

If you think the current deletion barrier isn't enough, change it to occur after a shorter time frame. We really don't need varying degrees of "inactive" in-game.

 

Yes, some alliances are bloated by inactive nations. Others are bloated by nations that won't fight for them come war-time, or by nations that aren't active on off-site boards, or by nations that are spying on them and actually loyal to other alliances altogether! It shouldn't be the game mechanics' role to ensure alliances are all reaching the same level of activity. Having those variances -- having that guesswork when planning wars and building coalitions is part of what makes this game fun.

[Chey]

Also, Sheepy, while raiding is fun for the nations doing it, it isn't fun for the nations being raided. Do we really want to keep changing the rules of the game in order to maximize raid possibilities? Nations, such as those in GPA or other neutral alliances, that don't keep up with politics and want to be able to passively build their nation, maybe even only logging in every few days, or every week at times, can contribute to this game also.

[Ashland]

No. Inactive players SHOULD subsidize active players.