Incentive for Leader/ Co-leader in alliance

[hawkeye2701]

To Domination Dev team,

Please give incentive to leader & co-leader of an alliance.

The Rule:
you can only change leader, co-leader, and council during War Plan
only 1 leader (as of now)
1 co-leader + additional 1 for each 10 member in War
1 council for each 5 member in War

Benefit:
leader
+9 troops limit from alliance donation
+1 coalition capacity
+1 attack & defense troop tactics capacity
co-leader
+3 troops limit from alliance donation
+1 coalition capacity
+1 attack & defense troop tactics capacity
council
+3 troops limit from alliance donation
+1 attack troop tactics capacity

Thank's for the game .

 

[Saruman the White]

I like the idea, but I think the numbers could be open to moderation in order to be sure that this is not going to hurt gameplay. This would be interesting in wars, too, as a weak opponent that would happen to be Co-Leader wouldn't be that weak after all. On the other hand there are two major problems here. Big folk Leaders would become invincible. The second is that they have to provide a solution to donations exploit/bug before enabling such a feature. In general these (or perhaps some other stuff) incentives don't seem a bad idea to me.

 

[yemen]

I think this would just create jealousy, and more silly small alliances than there are now. But they should add a private leaders only chat, and a way to DM individual players.

 

[Mugswumpy]

I like the idea of clan based individual benefits, but I would not tie them to clan positions (leader and council). I would have some temporary clan titles that could be applied to specific members by leaders/council. Example being a clan "true warrior" that gives additional 5% troop attack and "clan protector" that boosts defense. This could be applied on a per war basis during the planning day and like others have suggested would add an additional strategic layer around who gets what title.

 

[mkm1g15]

Seems OK, but yeah, needs a bit of moderation

 

[melheor]

I was going to ignore this thread at first, but everyone else keeps agreeing without thinking of the consequences. This is a HORRIBLE idea. It introduces even more of the same issues Stronghold and misbalanced nations have already introduced to the game. It's yet another change that diminishes the effect of player skill (how is a regular player to compete with the leader in wars?). It's yet another change that benefits one and only play style and hurts all others (any alliance where the leader isn't the strongest player is screwed). Moreover, you have effectively created a new unnecessary chore for the leader before each war, where he has to manually demote members who're not in the war and promote those who are or risk losing to an alliance that does.

Can you really claim to be more skilled if you beat an opponent in war when with +1 of everything and +9 troops? This change makes the friendly competition between members (and even friendly challenges) meaningless. It penalizes members who out-level the leader, making them more likely to be excluded from wars (since you'll be matched against opponents with better benefits). It assigns a different meaning to the idea of co-leader/council than already established (currently these titles are usually based on seniority in the alliance, with this change you're encouraging them to instead be based on player's power/level and become transient).

But if you really want +9 troops, just go exploit the town center bug, it doesn't look like that will ever get fixed.

 

[pckrn]

if there really needed to be incentives according to position, it should be more like extra war loot, and not extra strength.

extra war loot could be justified if 2-3 people are doing all the work filling the bases during prep day; they deserve the extra loot.

also important is the ability to change inactive leaders

 

[hawkeye2701]

First of all, thank you for the comment .

The core idea is making leader/ co-leader/ council matter. Currently AFAIK, there is no impact from it, other then starting war or kicking member.

Second one, to make War matter more, by tightening leader/ co-leader/ council with war planning. It make sense if these two related. Of course we need war planning automatically assign existing alliance position, and have easy interface to change it, so it won't become a chore to set up.

Third one, yes I want alliance position based on power level instead of seniority. Currently, I am a co-leader of an alliance, which the leader and most other co-leader already offline more then a year. But I don't have a good reason to create another alliance, because there is no incentive. My alliance already at level 10, with some 16.000 glory. It's a waste to create another one. But if there is a benefit in alliance position, I will create one ASAP .

With the rule I describe at the top in place, you can only have max 6 co-leader & 10 council, if all member active in war which is rarely happen. And by giving benefit in the form of alliance troop, coalition, and troop tactic, it won't create jealousy in the internal, because the benefit for attacking/ defending. If the benefit in the form of war loot, then it will create jealousy, which some people could want this kind of benefit.

In my humble opinion, alliance should be lead by the strongest or at least close to the strongest. If the leader can fairly choose co-leader & council, then the alliance will prosper, if not then better find other alliance.

Regards,
~S

 

[yemen]

If a leader is inactive for more than a month, the leadership should automatically transfer to the most recently active coleader. Nothing to do with power level, just clearing out the mess from people who don't play.