Guild Leadership after inactivity

[Kaleidoscope 142]

Although this problem isn't widely spread out, some players here there do lose their guild to some scammer after being inactive, sometimes it's just not wanting to play, and sometimes it might be real life problems, or technical difficulties that keep you from logging in.

 

While I understand the way it is now, I still would like to suggest some changes to this system. I have 2 ways it could work so you wouldn't lose your guild right away:

1) extend the duration of the offline time limit with the increased level of the guild. This is because guilds above level 1-2 have some work put into them, and losing it is a pity. Extends for a few days, or a week.

 

or

 

2) A new rank. The time limit remains the same, however in case the leader remains inactive and a new leader is picked by the auto system, the old leader gets a "ex-leader" or "formal leader" rank. The player with this rank cannot be kicked out of the guild for a certain period of time (like 1-2weeks), and as soon as he logs back into the game,he gets his original "leader" rank back. Also the new leader during the time of inactivity has the full function of a leader, no penalties to not make it too strict.

 

I've had this happen to friends and have seen other players getting their guild taken too, and it would be cool if the system was changed to make it a bit more comfortable.

[benjaminbt 324]

Let it be. Although I do not own a guild, I can understand it sucks to lose something that a lot of effort was put into.

[TheCabbage 110]

Reasonable suggestions.

[Pecleb 62]

the first idea will leave the same problems i guess.

 

But i like the second one, but the utility would be real if the duration of the "old-leader/guild owner" position was very long. Like several months. It would be one less slot for the guild but that's not much, while this way the leader would have a really long time in case of real life issues leading him to leave the game, while the guild will still be functionning as usual.

 

 

>>>Also i suggest to implement a "succession line": if the old leader is off for more than 2 weeks the leadership isn't attributed to the first player who logs back, but to someone chosen by the leader. This way u can choose someone trusted to handle ur guild in case u got a problem, and not a random ppl...

 

The leadership would be passed immediately 2 weeks after the leader's last login, even if the "commander in second" or whatever u want to call it is off. If the commander in second is inactive too it will pass to the next in line, 2 weeks afters the commander in second last login (meaning if the commander in second is inactive for a longer time than the leader the leadership will pass immediately to the third in line).

 

Every leader should be able to set #1 and #2successors, i think it's enough. Then the leadership will be passed to the last heir to have logged in, and of course if he is inactive too to the last active explorer and ultimately to the last active newbie.

 

 

 

I think it would be nice for the leader, as well as for the rest of the guild, bcs the guild will still have a leader with all powers except to kick the "guild owner", and it will be someone capable to lead the guild, unlike many times nowadays.

 

And btw i disagree with the duration increasing with the guild lvl, since maybe the high lvl guild are more valuable, but it's also more painfull for the guildmates and sometimes even for the server if a strong guild is leaderless.

I think it would be more relevant to increase the time of the "guild owner" status duration for those guilds. For instance 3months for a lvl 1guild, +1 month per guild lvl (so 1 year for lvl 10 guild)

 

Hope u like my suggestion and thx for making this topic, since im currently in this case. Hopefuly i have an active friend i can give the leadership to when im off for long :)

[TheCabbage 110]

39 minutes ago, Pecleb said:

Every leader should be able to set #1 and #2successors, i think it's enough. Then the leadership will be passed to the last heir to have logged in, and of course if he is inactive too to the last active explorer and ultimately to the last active newbie.

Not to disagree (well, maybe a little), but 

[Higgings 1826]

1 hour ago, Pecleb said:

but it's also more painfull for the guildmates and sometimes even for the server if a strong guild is leaderless.

 

[Pecleb 62]

@TheCabbage Xd yes yes i know what "heir" does mean, but u know, atm it works like just a rank to give some abilities.

Idk if atm the leadership is passed to an heir or not, i might not have experienced all the cases but atm i haven't see any difference bewteen heir and explo/newbie for succession.

And anyway even if u need to be heir to get the leader status there should be an order between heirs, so the leader can choose the one who will get the guild if he is off.

It shouldn't be given to the first login in like it is now.

[TheCabbage 110]

Yeah, that is a problem.