King Wally Posted June 24, 2013 Report Share Posted June 24, 2013 (edited) Except that there's other admins existing for the event to take place (see: RoK/Adel/Joe/Bob) and tranfer leadership abilities/accesses; whereas the in-game scenario as Hereno mentions - only the mods have that in-game power to transfer ownership where leaders would refuse to relinquish -- else the new leader has to make a whole new AA to add everyone to .. Well it ads a new dynamic to the drama cycle, could be interesting to watch a AA leader loose their marbles and boot a bunch of people and have the rest splinter and form a new AA. Some could argue that it could force fresh change and new idea's rather then clinging onto an AA that perhaps was spiralling out of control anyway. Edited June 24, 2013 by King Wally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HM Solomon I Posted June 24, 2013 Report Share Posted June 24, 2013 From what I'm reading, no. Since there will be no AA reset, seniority shouldn't be reset. This is one of the main reasons that Admin changed method of implementation for the changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wobblies Posted June 25, 2013 Report Share Posted June 25, 2013 The LSF has always governed itself without any leaders, in one fell swoop Admin has decreed that we can no longer govern ourselves how we se fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted June 25, 2013 Report Share Posted June 25, 2013 The LSF has always governed itself without any leaders, in one fell swoop Admin has decreed that we can no longer govern ourselves how we se fit. .. Or you could continue governing yourself as-is and whomever does your forum masking does your AA masking .... Not that different in that particular case ... Or is this forum masker really your leader who isn't a leader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerridwyn Posted June 25, 2013 Report Share Posted June 25, 2013 I've been thinking. And I haven't read every post in this thread, but read about people discussing the 'no war' concept during change over. This is sort of a 'how I would do it, I think.' Pick a day to put it in and tell no one. 7 days before, in the middle of the day, make it impossible to declare war and announce that it will be going in in 7 days. Why 7 days? Obvious to most, because all wars would have expired in that time. After it goes in, leave the ability to declare war off for at least 14 days, if not 21. Would give everyone the chance to get organized. But when you put it in, let people know when the war ability would go back in. And I would not put generals in until at least 14 days after I turned war back on. Generals give those of you who fight a lot a decent advantage. I'm not going to say that is a bad thing. But having them available and in place the minute war goes back on and while some people are still getting settled could lead to maybe a bit more chaos than we need. I was one of those who thought this would be a cool feature. Until Admin made the announcement, I never sat back and considered the chaos it will bring to many alliances of all types and styles. Just my not so humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted June 25, 2013 Report Share Posted June 25, 2013 From what I'm reading, no. It's a pity you can't read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonshy Posted June 25, 2013 Report Share Posted June 25, 2013 I'm kinda sad that we will lose our long time peace mode ghost :( Well, we could keep one around as a pet :ehm: I support this change by the way. Long overdue IMO. As far as the issue of having to elect in-game leader(s) go, it just adds more potential fun to the game. Also, I'm glad that alliances won't be reset now. o/ Admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted June 25, 2013 Report Share Posted June 25, 2013 Well it ads a new dynamic to the drama cycle, could be interesting to watch a AA leader loose their marbles and boot a bunch of people and have the rest splinter and form a new AA. Some could argue that it could force fresh change and new idea's rather then clinging onto an AA that perhaps was spiralling out of control anyway. Yeah, until the mods kick the dude off the AA and put the "rightful leader" back in charge of the AA. No offense to the moderation team but I don't want you all deciding shit for us in regards to who is the proper leader of our alliances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keeology Posted June 25, 2013 Report Share Posted June 25, 2013 Yeah, until the mods kick the dude off the AA and put the "rightful leader" back in charge of the AA. No offense to the moderation team but I don't want you all deciding shit for us in regards to who is the proper leader of our alliances. i agree. i think it could add an element of drama to the game. or make a set way of removing the founder by the AA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis Quezada Posted June 25, 2013 Report Share Posted June 25, 2013 Great idea and it was always needed. Just set up a week of no conflict, by disabling the ability to declare wars during the alliance transition period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vespassianus Posted June 25, 2013 Report Share Posted June 25, 2013 Great idea and it was always needed. Just set up a week of no conflict, by disabling the ability to declare wars during the alliance transition period. There is a thing called peace mode for people who don't wish to fight in this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HM Solomon I Posted June 25, 2013 Report Share Posted June 25, 2013 There is no need for any such precautions because as Admin has stated, there will no longer be an AA reset to implement these changes. Thus, nobody's AA will be changing in the transition to the new system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayan Thomas Posted June 25, 2013 Report Share Posted June 25, 2013 There is no need for any such precautions because as Admin has stated, there will no longer be an AA reset to implement these changes. Thus, nobody's AA will be changing in the transition to the new system. When? I'd like to know please :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Wally Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 Yeah, until the mods kick the dude off the AA and put the "rightful leader" back in charge of the AA. No offense to the moderation team but I don't want you all deciding shit for us in regards to who is the proper leader of our alliances. I would assume CN admin would not interfere in that side once the initial "AA leaders" are set up. If an existing leader goes nuts and runs an AA into the ground and people want to coup him that's not admins issue, the members either leave or deal with the reality their leader is totally unstable and unpleasant. I don't know if my assumptions have been commented on by admin but unless theres a technical issue like say a leader gets their nation banned or mistakenly dies from 25 day inactivity and a fake grabs the spot then there is no reason for admin to step in even if an AA is falling apart at the seams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eejack Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 I would assume CN admin would not interfere in that side once the initial "AA leaders" are set up. Comically, I assume the mods will be brought in to mediate lots of alliance drama - it will be a constant barrage of bawwing about 'who stole what' and 'who is the true and rightful' this and that. We as a group create/find drama in everything...we will find it here as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 I support it so long as existing alliances will continue to exist as before and there is no dropping of everyone from all alliances. Most people would be gracious about it, enough people wouldn't that it would cause a major blow up both IC and OOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 Is there a timeline on when this will be added? I asked in the thread bros put together but got no response. We are having internal discussion about who we want to be the "leader" and without a timeline this is somewhat difficult to know how quickly it needs to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilyn Caster Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 I've been thinking. And I haven't read every post in this thread, but read about people discussing the 'no war' concept during change over. This is sort of a 'how I would do it, I think.' Pick a day to put it in and tell no one. 7 days before, in the middle of the day, make it impossible to declare war and announce that it will be going in in 7 days. Why 7 days? Obvious to most, because all wars would have expired in that time. After it goes in, leave the ability to declare war off for at least 14 days, if not 21. Would give everyone the chance to get organized. But when you put it in, let people know when the war ability would go back in. And I would not put generals in until at least 14 days after I turned war back on. Generals give those of you who fight a lot a decent advantage. I'm not going to say that is a bad thing. But having them available and in place the minute war goes back on and while some people are still getting settled could lead to maybe a bit more chaos than we need. I was one of those who thought this would be a cool feature. Until Admin made the announcement, I never sat back and considered the chaos it will bring to many alliances of all types and styles. Just my not so humble opinion. 3-4 weeks of no war is WAY too long. Also generals add unique advantages to raiders and other fighters, things that inactive players won't have access to. It also makes wars far more destructive. The alternative is cybernations peace mode edition, which is dumb as hell. If you don't want to fight, that's fine it's your choice, but don't push it on the rest of us. Chaos is a good thing in a game that can go literally months with nothing major happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 The transition is going to be a special brand of chaos that'll probably wind up in a global conflagration. “Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is. But they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 Sounds fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vespassianus Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 Why do people try to make admin making a no-war transition period? If you are afraid that you will be declared on you can always choose peace mode (yes i'm talking to you neutrals). If you don't wanna have fun it's ok, but don't prevent others from that. Possibly some people will make some wars, but probably nothing major. This game is the same for ages, people cry that it's the same, then a little change comes up (what will stir things up a bit, but nothing big) and everyone wants the same old shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eejack Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Why do people try to make admin making a no-war transition period? If you are afraid that you will be declared on you can always choose peace mode (yes i'm talking to you neutrals). If you don't wanna have fun it's ok, but don't prevent others from that. Possibly some people will make some wars, but probably nothing major. This game is the same for ages, people cry that it's the same, then a little change comes up (what will stir things up a bit, but nothing big) and everyone wants the same old shit. It is because not everyone checks in very often - sometimes I go 20 days before checking my nation - months without checking the OWF. This is not something that has been planned for months, more like a couple of days - and if ( like was originally explained ) you put everyone on none without telling them and without providing alliance protection folks will get raided. Those players who are active are not concerned about it, but they are concerned for their less active alliance mates. If you went away for a couple of days and came back to find yourself in None, raided and nuked, you would be less than pleased I wager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenhailee Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 It is because not everyone checks in very often - sometimes I go 20 days before checking my nation - months without checking the OWF. This is not something that has been planned for months, more like a couple of days - and if ( like was originally explained ) you put everyone on none without telling them and without providing alliance protection folks will get raided. Those players who are active are not concerned about it, but they are concerned for their less active alliance mates. If you went away for a couple of days and came back to find yourself in None, raided and nuked, you would be less than pleased I wager. However, it was decided almost immediately that members would not be put on none. When an issue was raised, Admin modified the plan almost immediately. Yes. In SE everyone being on none is different than the reset environment of TE. But it's been addressed. So let it go. If you still disagree with the addition on other grounds, then state them. But to continue to complain about the "None" situation isn't adding to the discussion. I like the change. The ghosts and virtual ghosts on our AA probably don't. I'm not going to concern myself with them. If you'd like, I can refer them to your AA when the change is made Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Why do people try to make admin making a no-war transition period? If you are afraid that you will be declared on you can always choose peace mode (yes i'm talking to you neutrals). People keep asking for that because they didn't read that alliances which had their leader identified (in bros's thread) won't be put on "none". Basically, it's people posting without reading the entire thread. I don't think that neutrals asked for no-war periods more than anyone else (quite the opposite ITT, in fact).This game is the same for ages, people cry that it's the same, then a little change comes up (what will stir things up a bit, but nothing big) and everyone wants the same old shit. Ah ah you're right on this. I agree it's silly. Embrace the change people! Why be afraid? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) I don't think that neutrals asked for no-war periods more than anyone else (quite the opposite ITT, in fact).If I recall your other post correctly, you basically said you dirty neuts were already further along preparation than half those still bitching about an already resolved possibility. Paraphrased, of course ;) Edited June 28, 2013 by Rayvon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts